Kermal Ataturk Was A Bolshevik Sympathizer

[là bạn điên]

Uh, no. Gallipoli was merely the compounding of an earlier, even greater and more far reaching error Churchill had already made out of staggering shortsightedness, idiotic high-handedness, criminal carelessness, and brutal ignorance. Churchill turned a turkey that was fence sitting and somewhat more favorably inclined towards the allies than the central powers into an inveterate enemy, directly robbed the ally side of the ability to greatly strengthen the Russian army by 1915, and to help stabilize Russian economy whose near collapse would lead to Russia's exit from the war.

Churchill in his position as first Lord of the Admiralty (as such the Navy Minister ) is now responsible in your eyes for the foreign policy of the Asquith government . perhaps you are not aware but First lords of the Admiralty, or the navy Minister is Junior to what was then Minister of War(then Lord Kitchener )and is now minister of defence and none of whom are responsible for foreign policy. Britain rebuffed an offer of alliance with the Ottoman Empire because of the Entente cordiale with France and their traditional alliance with Russia. It was deliberate police of Sir Edward Grey from 1905 onwards and not Churchill's doing.

Churchill's blunder resulted in the war being longer and much more costly and draining to the British empire than it needed to be, Russia being effectively cut off from world market as well as large scale allied resupply, and contributed mightily to the circumstances of Bolshevik revolution. It created the situation whereby American power was called to resolve an European problem, rather than victor in the European struggle, Britain, being able to extend its influence through its victory. It resulted in the replacement of Ottoman Turkish authority in Middle East with capricious, inattentive, and short lived League of Nations mandates that passed with the area divided along unnatural lines drawn on the map without concern for allegiances. It resulted in the opportunity to insert an unnatural Israel into the midst of an Arab world.

Ah you are an anti israeli and see Churchill as single handedly responsible for its creation even though he was not responsible for foreign policy. The ottoman empire was already close to collapse and Zionists were already colonising Palestine. I also fail to see how Russia was 'cut off'. Since the Royal Navy had supreme power in the North and Norwegian seas the passage to the port of Archangel was assured.

Perhaps you can educate yourself instead of assuming those whose time might be better used than in educating you lack the ability to assert their position.

I appear to know the formation of the Asquith cabinet and their relative roles rather better than you do.

---

Erm...as far as I'm able to determine, both Ataturk and Churchill are dead, and there isn't enough of Bolshevism left in the world to matter.

So, ultimately, why give a fuck?

Boru

Why exactly did you enter this discussion if you have no interest in either of these topics?

[Snidely Whiplash]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kem...viet_Union

Kemal Ataturk was one of Lenin's contacts, a socialist & a communist-sympathizer. This may come as a shock to Islamo-fascist Turkish ultranationalists, but it is true.

OH NO! NOT A REAL LIVE BREATHING BOLSHEVIK SUB-HUMAN!!
PLEASE, SAY IT AIN'T TRUE, JOE!! hock:

[kılıç_mehmet]

He certainly wasn't sympathetic to the Soviets, yet he knew that with the recent change of power, he knew what needed to be done. Yet even when dealing with the Soviets, we have never abandoned our honor-we have not accepted anything that might have put us under debt later. We paid for the weapons we received from the union with thousands of bags of cereal that we needed to fuel the war effort, but without guns, a soldier with a full belly is not a soldier at all.
After the whole war, Bashbugh Atatürk ousted the communists from the cabinet. The Soviets knew that he was no communist, and he had been harboring Turkish nationalists that have had escaped from Russia, but they too were relatively alone in the world, so they were keen on establishing relations with whom they saw as those who fought against "imperialists".
Our leader was an enemy of Communism, and a Nationalist(which is pretty much the opposite of "communist"). No matter how you try to stain his name, he was a true Statesman who knew how to use his connections to his advantage.

He wasn't trying to implement communism in Turkey, but he was none the less a supporter of Lenin & Bolshevik sympathizer.

Supporter he was, as the existence of a communist, rootless Russian empire was preferrable to the existence of an Orthodox Russian Empire, which provided the main external support for the Orthodox Christians in what was left of the Ottoman empire. Not to mention that the Allies of WWI just lost a one of their allies with the coming of the Communist revolution.

He also was quite sure that the Bolsheviks would collapse some day eventually.
So calling him a supporter could be ruled out as true, but a sympathizer, he was not.

As to ataturk, a great leader needs to have something at least average to lead. One who manage to count pipsqueak would-be jingoistic racists like kılıç_mehmet and other similar low brow Anatolian yokels, yahoos and riffraffs amongst his admirers could never qualify.

It really matters little what you think of him or us. You're still the colony of another major power, while we're still the inheritors of the dozens of Empires we have founded throughout Eurasia. And Atatürk himself was a member of such a great people, and he showed it on both the battlefield and on the table.

Iit is a mark of a great leader that he achieved what he did despite Turkey being full of pipsqueak would-be jingoistic racists like kılıç_mehmet and other similar low brow Anatolian yokels, yahoos and riffraffs

Leading great peoples is simple. Modernising early 20th century Turkey was a different matter entirely.

We are a great people. We have held the Ottoman empire together for 600 years with our blood and sweat, whereas the Americans sat in their continent raping primitive indians to death, stealing their land and resources. The British weren't really any different. Even with all the years of cultural, economical and social dominance in Ireland, they lost it. They lost India against Ghandi, who didn't even use any weapons or violence.
So who is the greater people?
Us, who have endured attacks from three different directions (not to mention the internal strife) and sustained an empire for 600 years, or those who sat in idly in their Islands reaping the benefits of their colonies?

And Atatürk did not do this alone. He had the support of a great nation of warriors behind him. Surely, the state of early 20th century Turkey is nothing more than a testimony to our greatness. Even with its humble beginnings, it was still the sole inheritor of the Ottoman empire, and its people were those who have founded and expanded the empire, and even its corpse was enough to foil the plan of the Allies and defeat their proxies(the Greeks and the Armenians).
Atatürk himself said as such: "Do not think of me as someone extraordinary. If there is something extraordinary in my creation, it is because I was born a Turk."
He never gave the credit to himself, but always to his people. He was a servant to his people, not a master.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Why exactly did you enter this discussion if you have no interest in either of these topics?

Shits and giggles.

Boru