To Ianus: Nothing to choose between Ataturk and Hitler

Submitted by Plato (India), Mar 22, 2007 at 13:24

"It's hard to see exactly what agenda he was implementing except the agenda of self-glorification and gaining and retaining absolute power to carry out his most whimsical and extravagant ideas no one dared to question out of mortal fear upon which all his regime has been built."

"The point is that I don't see the lack of his Islamic zeal as a proof of his secularism. Again the reason is that his fight with Islam was not a matter of principle , but of accident."

I have never attached much significance to such superficial things, dear Plato. He changed not only the alphabet but also the language ! I have never heard of any other tyrant going so far as he did. Kemal Pasha decreed that the Turks spoke a wrong language. He was obsessed with creating Turkey for Turks cost what it might. But lo! Turkish is a bastard language. There were so few really Turkish words in it. All civilisatory words came from Arabic ,Greek , Persian. The nomads didn't even have their own word for "homeland". "Vatan" is an Arab word! [ By the way both Mustafa ("the Chosen one") and Kemal ("Perfection") are perfectly Arabic words.] So now our Chosen Perfection decreed the Turks should unlearn the language they spoke daily and re-learn a new mothertongue ! A special commission was established that travelled to the Crimean Tatars , to Central Asia to discover the true Turkish vocabulary to impose on the self-glorifying Turks whom our Chosen Perfection taught that they are have all reason to be proud of what they are as they are the most ancient nation on earth. They come directly from the Sumerians and the Hittites ! ...

As you yourself state he seems to have had an agenda for self-glorification and creating Turkey for Turks

A person with a Muslim agenda instead of taking the trouble to send off commissions to Central Asia would send them to the Hijaz to get closer to the Islam of the Prophet. We see that happening with the Pakistanis, Malaysians and Indonesian Muslims. They want to forget their pre-Islamic past and become wannabe Arabs. That is what is so disturbing about Islam, the imposition of as you say a 'monoculture' on all people on earth. The Ataturk, despot though he was, had no compunction in discarding the Arab-Islamic veneer imposed by Islam.

An internet search brought this up: http://ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hitler.html , http://nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm After reading them and from what you have revealed Hitler and Ataturk seem like two sides of the same coin.

1) ".....You will find it in Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."

In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work."

Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.

There was really no reason for Hitler to doubt his good standing as a Catholic. The Catholic press in Germany was eager to curry his favor, and the princes of the Catholic Church never asked for his excommunication. Religions encourage their followers to hold authority in unquestioning respect; this is what makes devout religionists such wonderful dupes for dictators.

.......Later the Pope was to publicly describe Hitler's opposition to Russia as a "highminded gallantry in defense of the foundations of Christian culture." Several German bishops openly supported Hitler's invasion of Russia, calling it a "European crusade." One bishop exhorted all Catholics to fight for "a victory that will allow Europe to breathe freely again and will promise all nations a new future."

2) Although Hitler did not practice religion in a churchly sense, he certainly believed in the Bible's God. Raised as Catholic he went to a monastery school and, interestingly, walked everyday past a stone arch which was carved the monastery's coat of arms which included a swastika. As a young boy, Hitler's most ardent goal was to become a priest. Much of his philosophy came from the Bible, and more influentially, from the Christian Social movement. (The German Christian Social movement, remarkably, resembles the Christian Right movement in America today.) Many have questioned Hitler's stand on Christianity. Although he fought against certain Catholic priests who opposed him for political reasons, his belief in God and country never left him. Many Christians throughout history have opposed Christian priests for various reasons; this does not necessarily make one against one's own Christian beliefs. Nor did the Vatican's Pope & bishops ever disown him; in fact they blessed him! As evidence to his claimed Christianity, he said:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

Hitler's anti-Semitism grew out of his Christian education. Christian Austria and Germany in his time took for granted the belief that Jews held an inferior status to Aryan Christians. Jewish hatred did not spring from Hitler, it came from the preaching of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers throughout Germany for hundreds of years. The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews and their Jewish religion. In his book, "On the Jews and their Lies," Luther set the standard for Jewish hatred in Protestant Germany up until World War II. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther.

No modern day Catholic will take credit for Hitler's handiwork.

Just as true muslims are not enthusiastic for the Ataturk:

Robert Spencer's The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, has this quotation from Hizb ut-Tahrir about Kemal Ataturk: "It was a day 79 years ago, and more specifically on the 3rd March 1924 that the kuffar were able to reap the fruits of their tireless efforts of plotting and planning, which they had expended for more than a hundred years. This (so-called Ataturk, the 'Father of the Turks'!) announced that the Grand National Assembly had agreed to destroy the Khilafah; and announced the establishment of a secular, irreligious, Turkish republic after washing his hands from responsibilityfor the remaining islamic lands which the kuffar occupied in the First World War....

...At that time the Islamic ummah was supposed to raise its sword in the face of this treacherous agent who changed Dar al-Islam into Dar al-Kuffar and realised for the kuffar a dream they had wished for a long time....."

Ianus we have gone a bit off track with Sisyphus, Indian philosophy, the internet and entropy. I will limit myself now to the original statement that brought all this up.

Our discussion of Mustafa Kemal came up because of this:

But your using the term Moslem Turks is of a piece with the use of Christian Nazis by Mulims to deflect accusations of atrocities committed by Muslims. You will be weakening your case about Muslim atrocities, which are practically numberless, if you let a secularist Ataturk's massacres take on the colour of a religious attack.

I quote from some of your posts:

---

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".