Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

[Greek Stud]

Ataturk's leadership was good for Turks no doubt. There is an illusion that Armenians and Greeks had high status in Ottoman Turkey.

The majority of Armenians and Greeks were classified as second class citizens. Prime example was the coloration of the fez hats, Turks wearing white (high class) and Christians forced to wear black (second class). I don't see the difference between these forms of public dress than the Jews having to wear the star of David during the Holocaust. It invited public prosecution. Many Turkish courts would scorn Christians who did not trade fez hats with Muslims. Their famous phrase is that we are brothers, why can't we trade hats and show peace. But we are not Muslim! We are not half Muslim, we choose Christianity and the courts that ordered Christians to do simple things like trade hats or you will have to proclaim to be Muslim is not freedom, it is humility. Turkish courts that told Christians they would have to pay tribune if they were Christian while Muslims did not was discrimination. When Ottoman generals snatched children across the Middle East and mostly in Africa (Lybia and Egypt) just because the family was Christian destroys families. There are still people alive today that tell these stories from Lybia to Syria to Greece to Armenia. This is not a case by case basis, it is widespread.

Honorkillings for Muslims and killing of Christians who did not convert. The eyewitness reports are endless and are also filed in the Library of Congress. It is a lie to name Christians as being privilaged in the Ottoman Empire. Only the few heads of the Phanar were allowed wealth and even then the Church went through Patriarches faster than months in the year. Unjust imprisonments, forced sex, forced labor, the accounts are from Anatolia to the population exchanges in Peloponesse and Central Asia. The riches of Armenia were much stronger even at times when Armenia was a satrap to Sassinid Persia. The Glory of Armenia was in the Byzantine Era, building of the 1000 churches in Ani. And most of all Armenian Emperors led the Byzantine Empire, so had Latins, Slavs, Illyrians, almost Bulgarians and Greeks. But even though these races led the Empire did not mean the land was more tame. But the quality of life, the common person's freedom, the free expression of religion, Women's rights and Empress Eudoxia, Empress Theodora, Empress Eirene, the sister Empresses, at least we allowed for women to rule our Empire. And Empress Eudoxia was one of the first 5 leaders of the Byzantine Empire.

Armenians did not enjoy the best of times in the Ottoman Empire, neither did any other Christian group as they were all persecuted for being Christian through the 400 years. Forced labor is not the best times, whether it was the Anatolian coast or Egypt, Israel, Lybia or Mesopotamia. That does not mean the Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire did not do this; my point is that we do not lie to the world and say it never happened. Nor has any of the readings about Byzantine times describe it as being the best of times. That would be a lie.

The Ottoman times were the betrayal to Christians that allowed for France and Britain to gain support to invade Anatolia. The Chios Massacre was the most disgraceful act of genocide any Empire has shown to its own people. Five sixths of the population slaughtered for extermination. And the ONLY reason why the Turks did not kill them all was because the grew tired of killing, not of emotion, but the same exhaustion you get while running. It was a sport to them, they laughed as they killed and the racism from Turks to the Chioti Greeks and Chioti Genoaese labelled them as an island of ******s during Ottoman times. The rich port trade the experienced was described by Turks as being an allowance for wealth and not their own natural skill and knowledge in seafaring. Even though Chios is the island where Christofer Colombus was born (the Genesian island at his time) where he schooled and learned navigation by sailing the Aegean islands before Ottoman times. The Ottomans like Ataturk did good things for themselves, it is completely false that they any Ottoman classified as second class experienced the best of his peoples times in the Ottoman Empire.

I have my family tree were I can even view the list of occupations my own relatives had back in the 1800s. They were considered well off, yet from all they've writen and I have read, only one word is repeated, I am their subservant I am their slave. Calliopi wrote I am allowed to work in the kitchen and learn many worldly receipies, but any time I am called on I serve another purpose. They take turns with me and leave their shoes in front of the door to my home, this told anyone who was to pass by not to come in. And their shoes showed they were with the military.

These stories because so much more important to tell the world the more Turkey and Turks themselves try to make an illusion of a peaceful Empire that was good to its people. It is the same picture we have of Ataturk, when Venezelos had the Protectorate of Smyrna, the recover courts for Turkish stolen property was established to protect Turkish property. When only years later Ataturk served Smyrna an order of Massacre, that made him no different than the Ottoman rulers who massacred an entire population of Ottoman Christians. This is not my disire to have people hate Turks, it is my desire to present the truth because it is just. Peace will come with truth and justice not lies and cover ups and pretty pictures of a fake history of the Christians of the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Verbose]

Adler17:

You're correct, but Turkey still was allied with Germany. The Anatolian invasion was for revenge. And still Turkey was the sole 100% supplier of chromite ore to Nazi Germany. Without it Nazi Germany would not have been able to make weapons. Why did the allies have to target Turkish trains in WW2 and blow up railroad tracks? Because they knew this aid fueled the aggression. Just as Turkey allowed for Soviet overflights and denied American overflights in the 6-day war for Israel. Just like when Turkey allowed for communist Cuba to base their troops in Turkey to help the Soviet Union attack Ethiopia. And just like today, how Turkey allowed Iran flight to Syria to arm Hezbollah against Israel. How does Turkey miss such flights when they have 40,000 troops at Iraq's border?

By that definition all neutral European nations in WWII were in fact German allies (with the possible exception of Portugal I suppose). You can of course shoot for a maximalist interpretation of politics, saying all the do not actively fight my enemy, aid him in some fashion. Few would consider that amounting to an "alliance" though.

6-day war overflights:
Well, why would Turkey risk pissing off a major superpower, one very close to home as well here?
And Israel's nr 1 supplier of weapons, military technology (including all things nuclear) until 1967 was still France, not yet the US. So denying the US something here wouldn't seem very useful/harmful, either way.

As forCuban troops in Turkey, it sounds interesting. I've no idea. But it also sounds decidedly funny considering Cuba was a staunch US ally. It was US missiles in Turkey aimed at the USSR that triggered the Cuban missile crisis as much as anything else.
But that Soviet Union attack on Ethiopia seems mostly imaginary — unless it's your (over)interpretation of its support for the dictatorship in place?

As for Turkey helping the Hezbollah out, I highly doubt it. Israel and Turkey are on good terms. It's a rare treat for the Israelis actually, considering the rest of the neighbourhood. Had the Turks done what you allege, the Israelis would be jumping all over it.

You're tarring very liberally with an effing huge brush here. It's all grist to some kind of "Nefarious-Turkey"-mill it seems?

 

[Verbose]

Ataturk's leadership was good for Turks no doubt. There is an illusion that Armenians and Greeks had high status in Ottoman Turkey.

See, here's the thing.

The Ottoman empire was around for quite some time. If you look at it in the 19th c., comparing it to western nations deep into modernisation, then it's not so hot.

Back track a couple of hundred years and its heaven compared to what would have been done to Armenians and Greeks in western Europe.

You send a nice Greek orthodox boy to 16th century Sweden and he will get drawn and quartered if he doesn't renounce his heretic ways. If he's lucky they would behead him first. The pieces would then be nailed to the church doors of the four most local parishes. There are still communities in Sweden petitioning the govt. to not put Charles XI on a bill for what he did to their ancestors in the 17th c.

It's an impressive list of horrors, you've got compiled there. It's also very one eyed, and the interpretations as to Ottoman attitudes and motivations are all conjectural with the worst bad faith imgainable.

Nice example of Greek anti-Turk "gruel"-propagande I'd say. Some Turks, of course, tend to come up with exactly the same thing directed at the Greek. Neither side has very much going for it, except wanting to keep an old conflict hot it it seems.

 

[Wilhelm Kaleva]

Which tradegies are you talking about? The armenians who enjoyed the best times of the ottoman empire, then backstabbed it when the empire was in decline in about WW1? Or the greeks who also enjoyed the high rank positions and trade in Istanbul, which was the capital of the empire? The greeks even didnt want independence for the mainlaind greece to protect their interests, nevertheless the outside powers pushed for it and there was a soft revolution in the end. Only true thing is that the kurdish minorities have been ignored economically for a couple of decades in southeastern part of Turkey, despite the recent improvements. There was a kind of civil war with kurdish guerillas, which was heavily supported by europeans as it is always the case throughout the history.

I think its sad that you have let yourself to be so brainwashed. Such a narrow nationalistic interpretation of history is truely the mark of a third world nation with very weak self-esteem. Examples are plenty in the Balkans and Eastern Europe.

I think if Mustafa Kemal Ataturk hadn't modernized the today's Turkey, it potentially would have been more backwards than Iran. He secularized the country, gave the right to the women to vote, first time in Europe.

Wrong.

From Wiki: The first European country to introduce women's suffrage was Finland, where women were granted the right both to vote (universal and equal suffrage) and to stand for election in 1906. The world's first female members of parliament were also in Finland, when in the 1907 parliamentary election 19 women were elected to Parliament of Finland.

Most of all, he managed to successfully lead an independence war, in which every corner of Turkey was invaded during the WW1. What is more, he kept the country out of WW2 in those hot times. I wish every country such a dictator.

Yeah and I wish every country would have dictator like Saddam. By almost rebuilding the Babylon he almost fulfilled a precondition for the second coming of the Christ.

I believe the democracy is not the best goverment type as promoted. If a dictator or a king is WISE and much more educated than the common folks, the country will be better off faster. Marcus Antonius and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk are good examples. The problem with that is you never know who is wise or not, so you have to be just lucky as it is in Turkey's case.

Right. Nothing wrong with your blatant elitism and obvious contempt to the common folk but please do not equal Mustafa Kemal with Mark Antony.

 

[disc]

I think its sad that you have let yourself to be so brainwashed. Such a narrow nationalistic interpretation of history is truely the mark of a third world nation with very weak self-esteem. Examples are plenty in the Balkans and Eastern Europe.



Wrong.

From Wiki: The first European country to introduce women's suffrage was Finland, where women were granted the right both to vote (universal and equal suffrage) and to stand for election in 1906. The world's first female members of parliament were also in Finland, when in the 1907 parliamentary election 19 women were elected to Parliament of Finland.


Yeah and I wish every country would have dictator like Saddam. By almost rebuilding the Babylon he almost fulfilled a precondition for the second coming of the Christ.


Right. Nothing wrong with your blatant elitism and obvious contempt to the common folk but please do not equal Mustafa Kemal with Mark Antony.

When was the best times of the empire? Isnt it around 1450-1700? In those times, the most beloved hobby in Europe was the witch hunt or the similar. The ottoman empire was more advanced in terms of the mentality, technology and wealth. And there was a concept of 'the books of god', which are the books of quran, bible and the old testament. So people, who believe in those books, were respected. Thats why greeks and armenians are still orthodox. In fact, once my serbian friend mentioned that the catholics were the most scared for their rather aggresive recruitment methods among the orthodoxs in those times, not the ottomon muslims. Additionally, the jews, who fled to the ottoman empire from spanish cruelty, complete the picture. Of course, the empire was not at all good. I assume there could be discrimination, interest conflicts and all kind of things. However, i think it was not a bad place to live in those times...

So in which superior country you live, i dont know, but just make sure you havent already been brainwashed. Brainwashing is such a relative term to use, as nobody eye-witnessed the real history, but learning from the books, teachers e.g. So it depends, what you read or whom you listened to. I assume everybody is somehow brainwashed in the pursuit of the history.On the other hand, i suggest type 'define:arrogance' in google and you may find somehing in common with yourself in relation to your comments about Balkans, which would be universal and not relative.

you are right with the women's vote. but i wanted to emphasize the early adoption of the women's right in a conservative country via Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, not to discuss who adopted first.

What is to do with Saddam here? I was talking about the benefits of a wise and educated dictator to a country.This is especially true if you urgently need fundamental changes in a conservative country. I also mentioned that this was dangerous as you couldnt be always lucky to have such. so according to you, Saddam is wise or so?

wasnt Marcus Antonius a king? Why shouldnt i compare with him? thats because you admire him and dont like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk? we ll need some more reason here

to the greek stud: i have also some experiences. i grew up in Istanbul. we used to have some armenian and greek neighbors in that time. i know how they were treated. we thought they were no different than the others in the neighboorhood. one thing i am sure of that the mentality of turkish people. they are not discrimintive and they tend to welcome foreigners with open heart. whereas, in the west, people are not discriminitive in laws or paper, but not heart. For example in US, you are discriminated if you dont have anglo-saxon looking basicly. So that culture of turkish people cant be formed overnight. It should be coming from the centuries of traditions, maybe originated from multi ethnicity of the ottoman empire. So this seems to me a more direct evidence than the greek and turkish politically modified history books. In that manner, i suspect the very extent of the discrimination in the ottoman times.

to the verbese: never underestimate the fun side of the greek and turkish bashing

 

[Greek Stud]

There are and were many personalities of Turkish culture in Modern Turkey and Ottoman Turkey. This holds the same with Greece and Byzantine Greece. For example, on this page alone, you can see that disc is very open minded. You don't have to agree with the Christian stance on the Ottoman Empire, but just the little annoyances that you find in the idealism of Turkification are what anger Modern Turkey's neighbors. It easy to say that Turkey is allies with Greece, Bulgaria, Syria, Israel, Iran and Iraq but there is so much wrong with that statement. It is so much clearer to switch which country you view this alliance with. For example, America has many allies, but much of the law and influence of American culture also makes the world annoyed with Americanism. It is easy to view anti-Turk rhetoric as being out of line, but there are legitimate reasons for many people to have this view. Just as there is a legitimate reason for many people in this world today to be anti-American.

Let me point out some common annoyances displayed in Verbose's comments.

By that definition all neutral European nations in WWII were in fact German allies (with the possible exception of Portugal I suppose). You can of course shoot for a maximalist interpretation of politics, saying all the do not actively fight my enemy, aid him in some fashion. Few would consider that amounting to an "alliance" though.

Verbose is completely correct to say that other nations betrayed the West for supplying Nazi Germany during WW2. But it ignores the fact that Turkey was allied with Germany and choose to supply them because they had the same ideals. A Turk cannot say this of their country because it is tantemount to treason! So many European countries are guilty of leaning towards admiring Hitler's agenda. Italy under Mussolini, Austria-Hungary and even Greece with the Royals being from Germany. Many people in Greece wanted to ally with Germany until Greece was invaded. We are guilty of this. And yes Turkey may have idealized Germany to avoid invasion for this very reason, but the fact of the matter is that public opinion never changed about Germany during this time.

You send a nice Greek orthodox boy to 16th century Sweden and he will get drawn and quartered if he doesn't renounce his heretic ways. If he's lucky they would behead him first. The pieces would then be nailed to the church doors of the four most local parishes. There are still communities in Sweden petitioning the govt. to not put Charles XI on a bill for what he did to their ancestors in the 17th c.

Verbose is correct about this too. What annoys me is that there is no trade off between two suppressing societies. The reason for Christians to scorn Ottoman suppression is not to ignore the advantages of being under Ottoman rule. The main reason is that we were suppressed, and we talk more about the more that Turks voice that Christians lived the best of times in Ottoman Turkey. That is not true. But no one should ignore what the Turks did for the Sephoric Jews and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Just don't rise it to a pedalstol of the best social atmosphere for Christians, that illusion is so annoying that we have no choice but to tell the worst of Ottoman times.

It's an impressive list of horrors, you've got compiled there. It's also very one eyed, and the interpretations as to Ottoman attitudes and motivations are all conjectural with the worst bad faith imgainable.

Verbose, instead of having any reach of compassion or admittance automatically becomes sarcastic about the horrors of Ottoman times. I could have easily wrote about the Byzantine Era and spoke of their horrors against the Paulinite Christians with the Massacres near Alexandria or the Nestorian Christians or the Monophysites or the Arians who were all prosecuted in the Byzantine Era. I bet you one Turkish Lira that if I spoke and taught about these atrocities that Verbose would gloat and confide in all of these historical written events from Greeks writing about the horrors of Greeks in the Byzantine Empire as being undoubtly true. Turkey would never demand dialogue to see if these events are accute, yet they are written by Greeks, just as the horrors of the Ottoman Empire are written by Christians of the former Byzantine Empire. It is hyprocracy. Hippocrates is from Greek Anatolia.

Nice example of Greek anti-Turk "gruel"-propagande I'd say. Some Turks, of course, tend to come up with exactly the same thing directed at the Greek. Neither side has very much going for it, except wanting to keep an old conflict hot it it seems.

Here is a prime example of immediate denial. Turks are infaliable, anything written against a Turk is propaganda. I never doubted what Greek historians wrote about the Protectorate of Smyrna. Greeks themselves wrote how Turks were shot in the fields of Anatolia for no reason. That is why courts were established to deal with all the crimes against Turks in the protectorate. Any stolen goods or property would be reported by Turks and returned by Greeks/Armenians. And Greeks wrote that many Turks did have property stolen while many others lied and reported property to be stolen that wasn't theirs. And they receive compensasion for lies. But this is blasphamy to the history and natural good nature of a Turk. They are not human to make mistakes, we must deny these allegations as propaganda.

As forCuban troops in Turkey, it sounds interesting. I've no idea. But it also sounds decidedly funny considering Cuba was a staunch US ally. It was US missiles in Turkey aimed at the USSR that triggered the Cuban missile crisis as much as anything else.
But that Soviet Union attack on Ethiopia seems mostly imaginary — unless it's your (over)interpretation of its support for the dictatorship in place?

For not knowing much about this situation, you sure have a strong oppinion. There is no doubt in any nation's mind that the Soviet Union was directly at fault for what happened in Ethiopia. The Cuban troops were funded by the Soviet Union. The Marxist were working for the Soviet Union. Hezbollah works for Iran, the Greek Junta worked for America, and the CIA and KGB had installed governments throughout the world during the Cold War.

As for Turkey helping the Hezbollah out, I highly doubt it. Israel and Turkey are on good terms. It's a rare treat for the Israelis actually, considering the rest of the neighbourhood. Had the Turks done what you allege, the Israelis would be jumping all over it.

I never said Turkey helped them out directly. Turning a blind eye, I believe happened. I don't believe Turkey cares to take any side in this conflict, I believe they wish to reap any rewards that might come out of it is more resemblant of the Turkish stance. Say foreign aid from America, America rebuilding all Turkey's ports, weapon deals with Israel, Turkey bombing more Christian cities in Iraq or cheaper oil prices from Iran. Whatever floats your boat.

You're tarring very liberally with an effing huge brush here. It's all grist to some kind of "Nefarious-Turkey"-mill it seems?

Apparently when you paint a turkey in a field of flowers we should gobble up every word you say? It is my intention to have Turkey be honest about both the good and the bad. Greece has taken these steps in all that it has done in WW2, the Greek Civil War, the Cyprus conflict and the invasion of Smyrna. If you actually read what Greeks wrote about these situations it tells of the Greeks that worked with and against the interests of Greece. That is why Venezelos is not portrayed the same way Ataturk is portrayed. Because we are truthful about the mistakes and the good things he had done. He is a national figure but not an ideologic supreme being. That's why Greeks discovered reason, because many of us can see it.

 

[jeriko one]

Apparently when you paint a turkey in a field of flowers we should gobble up every word you say? It is my intention to have Turkey be honest about both the good and the bad. Greece has taken these steps in all that it has done in WW2, the Greek Civil War, the Cyprus conflict and the invasion of Smyrna. If you actually read what Greeks wrote about these situations it tells of the Greeks that worked with and against the interests of Greece. That is why Venezelos is not portrayed the same way Ataturk is portrayed. Because we are truthful about the mistakes and the good things he had done. He is a national figure but not an ideologic supreme being. That's why Greeks discovered reason, because many of us can see it.

Yes you are right. Now the Turkish people are trying to correct the history that was taught by the government. That is what we call `official history`. Now people are trying to correct the one-sided look at history.

 

[ParkCungHee]

But then we do have to answer the question:

Are dictators, under certain circumstances, good for a nation?

Adler

Absolutely. A good dictatorship is always preferable to a bad democracy.

 

[Adler17]

In theory might be. But there are few dictators, or monarchs, who did not misused their power, who only wanted to serve the state. So how do you want to control these guys? And given the situation makes a dictator neccessary, what do you do after that? Not all are like Cincinattus. Hw do you want to stop a Stalin or Hitler? Such a dictatorship, of a man respecting the laws and only acting for the wealth of the state, is very rare. It doesn't work as well as the communism. The human being is simply not perfect. And power has to be controlled. Churchill is in so far right, as he said, democracy is a bad governmental type, but there are only worse others.
However great men (or women) leading can change much. But they must be controlled.

Adler

 

[ParkCungHee]

All valid points.
However, while many use Hitler as example of how a dictatorship can go very wrong, its an equally striking example of how a democracy can go very wrong. Few would say that Germany became better off as a result of the electoral process, that the ultimate result was better then a benign dictator such as Bismark.
My counter question to "How would you stop a Hitler or Stalin?" is "Who would stop a Hitler or Stalin?" Hitler was democratically elected and the majority of Russians supported Stalin. If the electorate is voting for a madman, democracy isn't worth it.

 

[Adler17]

Hitler was appointed, but NEVER democratically elected! In the end some valid points indeed. You CAN have the luck to get a dictator wise enough not to misuse the power. Also democracy is not without errors. And many great men in history even acted against democratic decisions. And history gave them right at the end. But they mostly accepted the democracy. Even Bismarck did in one way. His constitution of 1867/ 1871 was nearly identical to the one of 1848/ 49. Still you can say he was a kind of dictator, like also Churchill and Roosevelt.
However we still do have the danger of misuse. And even these men mentioned broke the human rights. Bismarck did so with his actions against the Social democrats, Churchill with the terror bombings against Germany and Roosevelt for preparing the nuclear strikes on Japan and the KZs of Japanese civilians in the US (Manzanar). Although each point we could discuss, the danger of misuse is more given here than in democracy. That does not mean in a democracy this can't happen, but this won't happen so often.
However I did not really answer, what to do, if democracy is failing. Is then a dictator neccessary? Perhaps. However the question was, are they good for nations. After this I can only say yes. BUT it is a too hot game with the fire to rely on such a dictator/ dictatrix. How do you want to control him? How do you want to get rid of him after the crise? The best example here is Hitler. But in the end a dictator is seen as a great man, if he is successful and does not break the human rights too much. That's why Napoleon is still celebrated, while Hitler is condamned. But if he died in 1940, shortly after the fall of France, he would now celebrated as a hero like Napoleon in France! He then had the sympathies of nearly all Germans when he was victorious in France. Even the Jews and communists were supporting him in this regard at least. If he died then, the actions against the Jews would not hit him, as they would be mostly declared as deeds of his guys without his knowledge (indeed the so called Reichskristallnacht was planned and executed by Goebbels, without the knowledge and against the will of Hitler).
So in the end history is judging. But does that mean, a dictatorship is favourable? No. Democracy is not a good thing. But there are no better ones.

Adler

 

[Verbose]

And even these men mentioned broke the human rights. [...] Churchill with the terror bombings against Germany

What Churchill did in Ireland would be a less contested(-able) example I think.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Hitler was appointed, but NEVER democratically elected!
Adler

Hitler never got a 51% majority, but the Nazis were still the largest and most popular party in Germany.

 

[Adler17]

True, but only in times of the crise. Before he had only about 2- 3% in the elections. Also he was loosing already in 1932/1933, as the situation was becoming better. Also even in the last (not longer very democratic) elections he was not able, although he nearly did everything, to get over 50% in the Reichstag. So indeed he was never elected, nor his party ever had majority. Indeed a majority never elected Hitler. (The problem was that there was on the left wing another non democratic party existing= negative majority).

Adler

 

[XtroTheArctic]

can a dictator create a democracy and leave it to the nation's control after saving the whole country from invading europeans ?

I think no

 

[jeriko one]

can a dictator create a democracy and leave it to the nation's control after saving the whole country from invading europeans ?

I think no

Actually, Ataturk created the foundations of democracy. The multi-party democracy was realized when Ismet Unonu was President.

 

[HandofDoom]

Only one post..

i'll write some foreign writers who wrote about Ataturk..

But now really only one post..

You guys can check link too..

Look who nominated Ataturk for Nobel Price

The Nomination Database for the Nobel Prize
in Peace, 1901-1955
Year: 1934
Number: 24-1

Nominee:
Name: Mustafa Pascha Kemal
Gender: M
Year, birth: 1881
Year, death: 1938
Profession/Category: Founder and president of the Republic of Turkey (1923-1938)
Country: TR (TURKEY)

Motivation:


Nominator:

Name: BK Veniselos
Gender: M
Profession/Category: Member of the Greek parliament
City: Athens
Country: GR (GREECE)

Evaluation: No

Comment: Kemal was on the short list, but no evaluation was written. It was supposed to be added later, but no evaluation on him was added.

In 1934 Mustafa Kemal was given the name Atatürk (Father of the Turks) by the Turkish national assembly.

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nomination.php?action=show&showid=2046


i'll write more about this soon..

Thank you

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

The problem with good dictatorships, is they tend to live as long as the life of the good dictator. The odds of the following dictator being good tend to be low.

 

[HandofDoom]

The problem with good dictatorships, is they tend to live as long as the life of the good dictator. The odds of the following dictator being good tend to be low.

Dictatorship?

Yeah..

i know very well who callin him as a dictator..

Interestin thing now old documents sayin about their connection with some foreign countries..they workin for who etc

i'm at work right now i'll send some writer names who spoke with him and who wrote about him..

i had chance for visitin ANITKABIR..

And u can be sure millions of ppl still visitin..

i'll translate United Kingdoms Secret Document about Ataturk too..

Document was sayin;

in Future..Some ppl will call him as a dictator..

But its not true..

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I wasn't necessarily referring to Ataturk, who may not have been much of a "dictator".

I was more responding to the idea of dictators being good for countries, in general.