Barbarian Turk here again!

Submitted by sims02 (United States), May 29, 2008 at 03:31

Chronology is something you should ponder upon, transcendental Turk! The idea to capture Constantinople was born in the stalement months of 1922 as the Greeks realized they needed a strong pledge in case Kemal would launch an offensive against Smyrna. The Constantinople was in the Allied hands though and the scheme proved impracticable for that reason. Otherwise Constantinople would have probably become again a prosperous Greek city just like Thessaloniki after liberation in 1912

And how does that invalidate my point? If Greece was actually behaving as an Allied nation, she wouldn't have threatened to invade Istanbul and irritate them. Of course for Greeks it was a land grab, not the enforcement of any treaty, which is the point. Clear? FYI, Istanbul is quite prosperous today, it was chosen as the European culture capital for 2010. You can visit Hagia Sophia, Roman aqueduct or the Leander's tower. Try visiting a mosque at Athens or Yerivan.

> It's far from the Turkish myth of Kemal's "genius"

When Ataturk started doing what he did, more than half of our country was either under occupation or to be occupied by five different nations, most of the victors of the war. Turkey had no allies, beaten down, worn out by more than a decade of war. The sultan himself was not only against him, he actually fought against Ataturk. Five years later, we had our country back, had peace treaty signed with every nation on our borders as well as other powers (and former adversaries). If that is not genius, I don't know what is.

> They are worth reading indeed but not the ones you hinted at but those two " The Armenian Atrocities: ......

I talk about Armenians at my other post, look at there. For the record I think we should take more responsibility and make amends but calling it genocide is not the right thing to do.

> In fact, this was a war of liberation on the Greek side and a 100% jihad on Kemal's side. There is no reconciliation with jihadists who intend wholesale masscares and genocides and booty like in Smyrna and in Pontus

I think this is getting pretty futile as you really have only a superficial understanding of Turkish politics back then and now. First, Ataturk was not a jihadist. He did everything he could to push religion away from public life later in his career. You won't find a serious historian who would claim him to be a jihadist. Secondly he was at charge during 1920-1926 but barely. Almost all of the political machinery that he used was loyal to Enver (who was a true Turanist, notice the distinction).

>Anyway, his attempt to exonerate the Turks is ridiculous given the mass and objective evidence of the genocides perpetrated by the Kemalists

Look, I value their losses as I do ours and I am sure we took innocent lives but I said it before, will say it again: C-O-N-T-E-X-T. Others were also slaughtering Turks en masse, we were about to be wiped from the face of the earth by people just like you. You cite Toynbee , I can cite the Bristol Papers. It doesn't matter for you though, since we don't count as humans, so we can be killed, when we fight back we are barbarians thus not humans and should be killed.

>He created a mock opposition but when its leaders misled by appearances started seriously criticizing his indolence and blunders and blaming him for the endemic economic crisis ( the Turks were peasants and soldiers while the merchants , artisans were the Greeks and Armenians. After the Young-Turkish and Kemalist genocides there were no Greek or Armenians and consequently no shoe-makers, tailors, bakers etc. etc. ) he grew furious, jailed them and staged a show trial in a Stalinist fashion

Those parties were closed down because they caused real , palpable unrest. There were actual uprisings and killings. Mock trial that you are talking about was response to an actual assassination attempt by the remnants of Ittihat ve Terakki , who are the real Turanists that you are talking about. As soon as the conditions were right we transitioned to a multi party democracy, again, which would be impossible if CHP was a fascist party as you claim.

There is one truth in your whole post though. Turks were peasants and soldiers (looked down upon by the Ottomans themselves), which make it much more difficult for a democratic system to work, without a merchant/artisan middle class. It is remarkable how far we came.

Oh BTW were Greeks, Armenians, Serbs and Bulgarians able to live with their minority muslim populations? What were they doing to the Turkish Cypriots? Or the Bosnians at Kosovo ? Or the Azeris at Karabag ? Was those our fault too?

What about the Srebrenica massacre? Was it the Kemalists fault too?

> The Soviets rescued him in 1922. He showed no gratitude though

What for? Soviets were trying to embarrass the British, which they did. We were trying to save ourselves, which we did. Quid pro quo.

> For every Greek massacred in Pontus ten Turks should be shot in Phrygia!

I am highlighting this as this is actually what Nazi's did in Balkans during the occupation. It is also quite illustrative as far as your morals and real ideological alignments are concerned. Not to mention that is inconceivable by any civilized notion of morality or ethics.

> A nation where every fourth inhabitant was a refugee and victim of Turanian sadism and barbarity could not in earnest sign any friendship treaty. What Venizelos did reflected his opportunism and was done for external international consumption

I need to point out that the refugee situation was no different in Turkey if you consider the Balkan wars. Nonetheless it holds no water as there is no relationship between a nation's sovereignty and its refugee population. Can Israel sign a treaty? How come, they were almost all refugees once? The same "victimized" Greek nation who was able to fight against Germans 10 years after that friendship treaty didn't even raise the issue in any platform until 1994.

>How could he seek any good relations with Iraq from which he claimed the Mossul area or Greece after having slaughtered 1 000 000 Greeks? No double talking , please!

Who is double-talking? Greeks themselves pursued and signed that friendship treaty with us. Their prime minister visited Turkey and spoke favorably of Ataturk if I am not mistaken. What is a "good relation" if not this?

>No one is able to live with you.

Apparently no one is able to live with the Greeks or Armenians either. And in case you missed, Kurds voted overwhelmingly against their separatist party in the last election. You dodged my question though. What will happen to us when Russia "resumes its historic" role?

>None of your neighbours is your friend. You are being hated by everyone - the Arabs, the Iranians, the Kurds, the Armenians, the Greeks, the Bulgarians! Everyone who knows you detests you! The same in Germany as I know from my own experience! You're a real growing cancer in the region and any place you settle down!

We have the best foreign relations of any country in the region bar none. We actually don't have a serious conflict with any of our neighbors except Greece, Armenia and Cyprus. Even our relationship with the Kurdish region of Iraq is improving. Turks in Germany came from the lowest strata of Turkish society but they are one of the better-integrated minority populations, compared to say north Africans in France. I am sure you know but they were invited to Germany, they didn't "jump the border".

>Who visiting the populous Hellenic villages and cities in Ionia and Pontus before 1914 could believe that in ten years they would all change into huge slaughterhouses and cemeteries and not a single Greek sentence would be heard any more there where the European civilization had commenced with Troy, Homer and the Ionian philosophers?

Yet another appeal to emotions rather than facts. The classical Greek civilization was gone long, long time before us. We didn't sack Constantinople in 1204. Other ethnic groups didn't collaborate with Ottomans against Byzantium for no reason. Compared to late Byzantium, Ottomans were more advanced in most aspects until the 18^th century.

>Tell me you're not a Turk, you detest Islam and Kemalism and their heinous crimes and I'll like you. I know what Turkishness and Islam stand for

You don't get it do you? If it weren't for Ataturk I wouldn't be here, as my family from Istanbul and Malatya would have been killed like the ones who didn't make it from the Balkans and Van. Killing went both ways. You are asking me to reject my existence, which is as absurd as it gets.

>I did meet you - you as a type, a kind of micro-Turkishness - brutish, megalomaniac, arrogant, self-glorifying, deceiful, mendacious, distorting the past, oblivious of its crimes, blaming the victims instead ...I have met plenty of such Turks as you - in Germany, on the net ... nasty rabble with hedious collective super-ego that has devoured all their memory and common sense. They are all barbarians to me!

Wow 15 curse words in a 69 word paragraph. Was that cathartic for you? And no you did not meet me. I am an individual, not a robot. There isn't a factory that produces prototypical Turks. We have different political views, agreements and stuff you know. Pretty interesting concept: Individuality.

According to you, I say that we made mistakes and killed innocent people yet I am a megalomaniac and self-glorifying. I say that I regret the losses of others but am oblivious. You talk about killing 10 innocent civilians for vengeance yet I am a barbarian. The problem is here is not me. It is your refusal to see us as individuals or human beings for that matter.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".