Parallel Roads

[Sako]

Lal, when you say "the Armenian demands", what demands do you talk about?

Let me tell you something, the Turkish Republic and the Armenian issue go hand in hand right now. Without dealing with this issue, the Turkish Republic will never be properly respected. So by facing justice, Turkey gains more then she losses. No one is going to burn your house down, no one is going to hurt you like the Turks did to us. We are simply going to deal with this issue with justice in mind which is the proper way. There is NO OTHER WAY. If there is, please tell me about it, I'm all ears. Stop thinking you have a choice between foundation and recognition/demands because you don't. They go hand in hand. If you don't understand why, tell me. Turkey and Armenia have lived side by side for centuries, no one is going to disappear and neither is this issue without hard work. Everyone wins though in the end.

[Steph]

IMHO, ataturk was nothing more than an opportunist who would stop at nothing to achieve his goals.
Stages of creating the myth:
Made a hero for his actions at Gallipoli, well this was a campaign that the ottomans were always going to win. From the outset, the Allies failed to involve a sufficient number of troops to have any hope of succeeding.
After the Armistice, he saw the way the wind was blowing and formed a rebel-government away from Istanbul, his "War of Independence" was fought against a poorly led, poorly advised and poorly equipped Greek force of a few thousand. The Western Allies gave no support to the Greeks, in fact the Italians worked against them.
He arrested British troops and held these hostage to secure the release of his old friends, guilty of Genocide, from British captivity in Malta. This release by the British was purely to release their own troops, it did not mean these people were innocent.
When the moments were right for him, he assassinated any who might have posed a threat to himself.
To continue with the pan-turanist policies of previous regimes, his armies marched against a defenceless Armenia and struck accords with weakened Bolshevik forces.
In short, he was aware of the Genocide, arrested a & condemned perpetrators of the Genocide, gained the release of perpetrators and rewarded many of them and their families. He continued the genocide and attempted to reach it's ultimate goal of the annihalation of Armenians & Armenian culture in his planned "Pan-Turanist Empire"
A man no better than a Stalin, a Lenin, A Hitler, a Mussolini.
A man of many faces, a perfect politician.

[ardakilic]

IMHO, ataturk was nothing more than an opportunist who would stop at nothing to achieve his goals.
Stages of creating the myth:
Made a hero for his actions at Gallipoli, well this was a campaign that the ottomans were always going to win. From the outset, the Allies failed to involve a sufficient number of troops to have any hope of succeeding.
After the Armistice, he saw the way the wind was blowing and formed a rebel-government away from Istanbul, his "War of Independence" was fought against a poorly led, poorly advised and poorly equipped Greek force of a few thousand. The Western Allies gave no support to the Greeks, in fact the Italians worked against them.
He arrested British troops and held these hostage to secure the release of his old friends, guilty of Genocide, from British captivity in Malta. This release by the British was purely to release their own troops, it did not mean these people were innocent.
When the moments were right for him, he assassinated any who might have posed a threat to himself.
To continue with the pan-turanist policies of previous regimes, his armies marched against a defenceless Armenia and struck accords with weakened Bolshevik forces.
In short, he was aware of the Genocide, arrested a & condemned perpetrators of the Genocide, gained the release of perpetrators and rewarded many of them and their families. He continued the genocide and attempted to reach it's ultimate goal of the annihalation of Armenians & Armenian culture in his planned "Pan-Turanist Empire"
A man no better than a Stalin, a Lenin, A Hitler, a Mussolini.
A man of many faces, a perfect politician.

I agree all except one point: Enver and Kemals was very similar and it is known that Kemal was very jealous about Enver. But the main difference between them is, Enver had lived in a dream world, but as you said, Kemal was very pragmatistic, opportunist and realistic. So, as far as we see from clues and evidences, Kemal didnot plan a Pan-Turanist Empire. Not because he was against colonial/empiral thoughts, but he had read the balances of powers well.

[lal]

IMHO, ataturk was nothing more than an opportunist who would stop at nothing to achieve his goals.
Stages of creating the myth:
Made a hero for his actions at Gallipoli, well this was a campaign that the ottomans were always going to win. From the outset, the Allies failed to involve a sufficient number of troops to have any hope of succeeding.
After the Armistice, he saw the way the wind was blowing and formed a rebel-government away from Istanbul, his "War of Independence" was fought against a poorly led, poorly advised and poorly equipped Greek force of a few thousand. The Western Allies gave no support to the Greeks, in fact the Italians worked against them.
He arrested British troops and held these hostage to secure the release of his old friends, guilty of Genocide, from British captivity in Malta. This release by the British was purely to release their own troops, it did not mean these people were innocent.
When the moments were right for him, he assassinated any who might have posed a threat to himself.
To continue with the pan-turanist policies of previous regimes, his armies marched against a defenceless Armenia and struck accords with weakened Bolshevik forces.
In short, he was aware of the Genocide, arrested a & condemned perpetrators of the Genocide, gained the release of perpetrators and rewarded many of them and their families. He continued the genocide and attempted to reach it's ultimate goal of the annihalation of Armenians & Armenian culture in his planned "Pan-Turanist Empire"
A man no better than a Stalin, a Lenin, A Hitler, a Mussolini.
A man of many faces, a perfect politician.

ı will not answer your words about ATATÜRK. But if facing our history means to think about atatürk like you and arda does,ı can say there is no hope for peace.

we ,who try to debate here are the most modest armenians and turks. if we consider the great majority in both people you make a guess about future.

armenians are right about their demands for justice, recognition of the genocide or something very close to that. this can happen in two ways.

1. turkey rewrites her history. and change her opinions about atatürk. ı see 0% chance for this in near future.

2. turkey only and only accepts the total elimination of armenians from anatolia, by not relating this to atatürk or not rejecting the total foundation of the republic.

well, this is more realistic. but even this much is extremely difficult which ı will not repeat the reasons again.

But what ı offer is a different solution. and more realistic. if people can start loving each other, than it may be easier to talk everything more openly. we may start working on this. and ı agree, we need at least open borders to start something like this.that may be a good start.

lal

[hitite]

IMHO, ataturk was nothing more than an opportunist who would stop at nothing to achieve his goals.
Stages of creating the myth:
1- Made a hero for his actions at Gallipoli, well this was a campaign that the ottomans were always going to win. From the outset, the Allies failed to involve a sufficient number of troops to have any hope of succeeding.
2- After the Armistice, he saw the way the wind was blowing and formed a rebel-government away from Istanbul, his "War of Independence" was fought against a poorly led, poorly advised and poorly equipped Greek force of a few thousand.
3- The Western Allies gave no support to the Greeks, in fact the Italians worked against them.
4- He arrested British troops and held these hostage to secure the release of his old friends, guilty of Genocide, from British captivity in Malta. This release by the British was purely to release their own troops, it did not mean these people were innocent.
5- When the moments were right for him, he assassinated any who might have posed a threat to himself.
6- To continue with the pan-turanist policies of previous regimes, his armies marched against a defenceless Armenia and struck accords with weakened Bolshevik forces.
7-In short, he was aware of the Genocide, arrested a & condemned perpetrators of the Genocide, gained the release of perpetrators and rewarded many of them and their families. He continued the genocide and attempted to reach it's ultimate goal of the annihalation of Armenians & Armenian culture in his planned "Pan-Turanist Empire"
A man no better than a Stalin, a Lenin, A Hitler, a Mussolini.
A man of many faces, a perfect politician.

Some quick notes. Here is MHO:

1- He was a hero of that battle yes. But he wasnt made into the all encompassing hero that some portray him nowadays. He continued to be a minor element in the CUP, a general that had won a battle. The real actors were still Talat, Enver and to some extent Cemal. The total number of troops that are said to have died there is 500,000 with almost an equal amount of casualties from both sides. Turkish casualties could have been less, some say.

2- He indeed had a knack of seeing which way the wind was blowing. I do not agree that Greek forces were poorly equipped. They were very well equipped, maybe poorly led but their main problem was that they moved too far into the Turkish heartland. They were logistically too far stretched.

3- The English did indeed screw them at the most crucial moment. The English are known to do this and they have done this to everybody and in my opinion they have also done this indirectly to the Armenians too.

4- Brilliant move by Ataturk. He needed those guys for his campaigne but most of them were later hung. This is some of the stuff I question about M.K. Those guys were not found innocent but they were not found guilty either. The whole Malta episode is still a question mark for me.

5- He did not necessarily assasinate them. Most were tried in the Istiklal Mahkemeleri. He systematically eradicated most if not all CUP elements in the newly formed Republic. By "elements" I mean those pashas/generals that still clinged to their CUP vows and still questioned his legitimacy. Some of the CUP that still wholeheartedly believed in its legitimacy but did not verbalise it so much were spared, like K.Karabekir who was also a war hero which added to his "amnesty". He was however made redundant.

6- If you are implying that Ataturk was pan-Turanist that would be Armenian brainwashing at its best. But I gather you are saying that he just "continued" those policies which to some degree could be correct if you look at his obsession with the misakı-milli which is pretty modest if you compare it to the real Turanist map that covers most of Europe and Asia.

7- I dont know if he was better than Lenin but I "feel" he was a lot better than the rest.

[ardakilic]

But if facing our history means to think about atatürk like you and arda does,ı can say there is no hope for peace.

1. turkey rewrites her history. and change her opinions about atatürk. ı see 0% chance for this in near future.

You assume "great majority of Turks love and admire Kemal" but this is not true. You again call me traitor or extremist but i present a very concrete and objective phenomena.

-Through all the history, Kemal's party CHP could not win a free and just election.

- Look at Turkish people's reactions when TCF (Progressive Republic Party) and SF (Liberal Party) founded.

Is this assumption what it is or what you like to see?

[ardakilic]

7- I dont know if he was better than Lenin but I "feel" he was a lot better than the rest.

Hitler tells Turkish committee (leading by Falih Rifki) that "My first teacher is Il-Duce and his teacher was Kemal".

[Steph]

Kemal didnot plan a Pan-Turanist Empire. Not because he was against colonial/empiral thoughts, but he had read the balances of powers well.

if he wasn't in the plan for the pan-turan world, I'm pretty sure he saw the advantages to his own objectives.
ataturk, a relatively small fish in a relatively small pond which was at the centre of world attention for the blink of an eye.

[ardakilic]

if he wasn't in the plan for the pan-turan world, I'm pretty sure he saw the advantages to his own objectives.
ataturk, a relatively small fish in a relatively small pond which was at the centre of world attention for the blink of an eye.

Exactly! He only didnt repeat Enver's fatal errors. He preferred not being adventurous instead of making great powers (namely Britain and partially France and USA) angry. Moreover, his real "enemies" are not beyond the borders.

[Sako]

ı will not answer your words about ATATÜRK. But if facing our history means to think about atatürk like you and arda does,ı can say there is no hope for peace.

You don't have to think like Steph and Arda but simply stop idolizing him. That is wrong. He wasn't a God. Even a great hero shouldn't be idolizied. Research him, learn about who he was, work it out yourself, and stop calling anyone that doesn't like Ataturk traitors. In the long run though, Ataturk has nothing to do with accepting the Genocide. He is a completely different story but I'm sure that after the AG issue is cleared up, a lot of lies will vanish and we will see who was right and who was wrong. Until then, don't be completely sure about anything or anyone, especially a founder who was the leader in the time of the Genocide. I'm not saying he was a demon, I'm just saying let's not get ahead of ourselves, can you do that for me or am I asking too much?

armenians are right about their demands for justice, recognition of the genocide or something very close to that. this can happen in two ways.

1. turkey rewrites her history. and change her opinions about atatürk. ı see 0% chance for this in near future.

We don't need this to happen to get a good result. This will naturally happen after the AG issue is cleared up.

2. turkey only and only accepts the total elimination of armenians from anatolia, by not relating this to atatürk or not rejecting the total foundation of the republic.

NO ONE asked you or anyone else to do that Lal. No one is really relating anything to Ataturk actually, or are we guys? I don't think that plays a serious role in accepting the AG.

But what ı offer is a different solution. and more realistic. if people can start loving each other, than it may be easier to talk everything more openly. we may start working on this. and ı agree, we need at least open borders to start something like this.that may be a good start.

And I told you a hundred times why this won't happen. This is more difficult then you think Lal. It seems you didn't understand exactly why after all I've written.