Baby Ataturk

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), May 6, 2009 at 08:17

berk akk wrote :

"They(secularists and islamists) should mutually exterminate each other. Sorry for being too honest with you"

> It is a surprise for me above words .I am shocked for your blood expectancy.<

"Shocked"? I wish you had been shocked by by 2,5-3 mln Christians exterminated by your superior Tukish race. Yet somehow your 'shock' is very selective. Good luck for Turkishness!

You Turks will be soon 100 000 000 and more. And how are you going to cope with this mad overpopulation if your imperialist and colonialist dreams in Europe and Turan don't come true as they can't ? Given natural Turkish aggressiveness and brutality reinforced by Islamic mania and solipsism how will you keep your atavistic killers' instincts under control when scarcity of resources pushes you to the brink and external war against Greece , Armenia or Bulgaria due to Russias nuclear capabilities is impossible?

>So then you announce a celebration day for extermantion.<

I'd call it rather - Nemesis Day. For all her macabre crimes Turkey deserves this day perhaps more than any other nation.

"It's all articificial and is due to the fact that Turkey's new 'invincible' prophet Ghazi Kemal fought there"

>He is not a prophet.<

He is a prophet in all but name. His mad personality cult resembles closely that of his Arabian colleague. His words are holy dogmas. Criticizing them is criminalized. Handling symbols , images, effigies of him in an inappropriate("offending" whatever it might mean) way is punished. There are special laws to extoll and deify this mass murderer. There is a vast hagiographic literature on him in Turkey and no critical works are available showing his real brutal, arrogant unprincipled and unscrupled character and misdeeds. Even publishing his own wife's memoirs was prohibited as it might lead to debunking the insane myths built around his personality , infallibility and demolish this servile and disgusting religious cult and veneration for him ...

If he is not a prophet, then why all of that divine comedy of Ataturk's Apotheosy is being played without end ?

"you can fool Turks who are most despicable conformists to believe whatever their red sultan want them to believe "

>If that was true then there was no ataturk in talk today .<

"In talk"...I've told you what sort of 'discussions' are possible in Turkey, haven't I ? Where you can't criticize the subject of the discussion no discussion is possible and can take place. And this is exactly all which is 'in talk' about Ataturk. A funny pantomine of eulogies where the actors are afraid to speak up not to be jailed for falsely pronouncing the hagiographic stanzas they were ordered to do.

"The most valuable things I learned come really not from Turks at all , but from Russians, Greeks, Armenians, Germans , even scantier French sources have told me more than the most melifluous Turkish sources"

>That proves A prejudice historical doctrine.<

Another favourite Turkish mot du jour - "prejudice"... Imagine a case against a murder and a notorious liar where almost all the evidence must be gleaned from other sources than the accused criminal who denies and perverts everything. And when the verdict is read this criminal retorts : "That proves a prejudice docrine! The verdict is invalid! It's one-sided."

"But tell me if you saw the monument to Liman von Sanders there, you know the "Turkish" commander in chief who promoted Mustafa Kemal to lead the 19th division ?"It's funny how the Turks boast of this victory and forget to whome they owe it.

>liman von sanders attendee of sultan was a military chief official paid montly making a strategical german job .

Liman von Sanders was the commander-in-chief of the 5th or Gallipoli army and a Turkish marshal. He was one of the best Geman military men of the time. And he was paid with the money Germany had lent 'the sick man on the Bosphorus' to avoid his bankrupcy as had happened on previous occasions. He wrote a memorable book "Five years in Turkey" where he has many details on Turkish misgovernment and jingoism that erupted sometimes even against Turkey's German friends.

The Turks had gained only two major victories in WWI and for both they were indebted to German commanders. Gallipoli is one. The other success was that of Kut Al-Amara in 1916 where the Prussian Field Marshall Baron von der Goltz forced the British under General Townshend to surrender. But gratitude and honesty are extremely scarce sentiments in Turkey.

> Atatürk and soldiers was defending his homeland.<

All more important posts in the Turkish General Staff , artillery , engineering and technical troops, armaments industry, navy and elswhere were taken by German officers and specialists. And this was true also about lesser jobs like commissioned officers, foremen and even factory workers as the Ottoman Empire with c. 90-95% illiteracy had no qualified workforce. The German accomplished the task of repairing and strenghtening the whole defense system on the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. They operated the heavy artillery, managed the engineering and logistics tasks like reinforcements of the fortifications, military communication system, laying mines in the sea , anti-submarine operations , aviation, ran all factories producing powder and explosives, navy arsenals , docks ete.etc. ( J. Pomiankowski : Der Zusammenbruch des Ottomanischen Reiches - Erinnerungen an die Türkei aus der Zeit des Weltkrieges, Amalthea, Wien 1928 , p.53 )

One more quote : "Dozens of the German naval gunners who were manning the batteries of Chanakkale on that memorable day told me later that they had quite made up their minds the fleet 85 would ultimately win, and that they them- selves could not have held out much longer* Such an outcome was expected hourly in Constantinople, and I was told by influential people that all the archives, stores of money, etc., had already been removed to Konia. (H. Stuermer , Two years in Constantinople, Lausanne 1917, p.85-86)

So soon you'll reveal to us that Liman von Sanders was 'actually' executing his subordinate Mustafa Kemal's (no Ataturk!!!) orders and not vice versa, won't you ? And that the modern technical war on the Dardanelles was not won thanks to these German experts and their performance but to the illiterate masses from Anatolia ?

"If you read my comment, you would know I was speaking of the desecration that took place between 1916-1918"

> Neither Atatürk nor TC is responsible for said desecration.<

Who else could do this unless those who were guarding the places expecting anoher attempt to take place any time after January 1916 ? The Turkish soldiers of jihad had ample time and opportunity and will to take revenge on the kafirs' graves as they were unable to do any harm to their living and victorious comrades ?

> May be we could ask sultans offspring living in various parts of europa today.<

Not a good idea. The sultan didn't care about such trifles. Let's ask those officers -including Kemal- who were in charge there ! His jihadists destroyed Christian cemeteries and burnt Christians alive, so maybe they had learnt part of their unholy profession elsewhere ... in Gallipoli perhaps ?

"Anachronisms again! There was no Atatürk at that time"

>We are talking about same person.<

No , we aren't ! Kemal was an opportunist who changed his identity according to the situation playing all possible roles to fool his opponents and make temporary friends wherever he needed them. In 1915 he was no ghazi yet , had no dreams of secularizing anything - least of all the un-securalizable Turks, he didn't play a role of a 'why-not' communist to please Lenin , Frunze and Aralov to get Russian gold and guns; he exterminated not a single Greek or Armenian village yet; he burnt no city of Smyrna; he carried out no massacres in Pontus lying to his horrified bolshevik advisors he couldn't do anything against the spontaneous acts of just revenge of his patriotic soldiers ...

In short Ataturk "Father of Turks" was not even "Dayiturk" - or "Uncle of Turks" in 1915. If you want to speak of Ataturk in 1915, then you might as well speak of baby Ataturk and his secularisation lullaby lisping 'Ne mutlu turkum diyene' as his first ever baby words...It's ahistorical and consciously misleading! "Ataturk" in 1915 is an anachronism due to your ignorance which I cannot but stress here.

---

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".