Kermal Ataturk Was A Bolshevik Sympathizer

[EgoRaptor]

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.

[Anomalocaris]

Yes. Shocking how the communists would manage to so irretrievably antagonize so many who had once been sympathetic to them, isn't it?

Communists were initially uncanny in their ability to hit all the right buttons with those who suffered under imperialism/capitalism as the then only choice. But the communists then went on to prove they can, and almost always would, do infinitely worse whenever given the slightest chance.

Just because someone seem the most sympathetic to all your sorrows doesn't mean he is not out to make you a whole lot sorrier still.

[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".

"Communism is a social issue. Social conditions, religion, and national traditions of our country confirm the opinion that Russian Communism is not applicable in Turkey."

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.

[EgoRaptor]

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".

"Communism is a social issue. Social conditions, religion, and national traditions of our country confirm the opinion that Russian Communism is not applicable in Turkey."

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.

[là bạn điên]

Kemal Ataturk was one of the great leaders of the 20th century surpassed only by Churchill.

[Anomalocaris]

Kemal Ataturk was one of the great leaders of the 20th century surpassed only by Churchill.

Churchill was a conceited blunderer whose bumbling during the first third of the First World War so firmly set Britain on a trajectory of terminal decline throughout the whole of 20th century that the combined efforts of all of British empire to win the Second World War did little to slow the trend.

The disastrous consequences of his blundering almost 100 years ago is still a major cause of the misery in the middle-east even today.

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.

[là bạn điên]

Churchill was a conceited blunderer whose bumbling during the first third of the First World War so firmly set Britain on a trajectory of terminal decline throughout the whole of 20th century that the combined efforts of all of British empire to win the Second World War did little to slow the trend.

The disastrous consequences of his blundering almost 100 years ago is still a major cause of the misery in the middle-east even today.

I would like to hear how exactly Churchills disaster at Gallipoli was responsible for its decline in power. There are many causes not least its loss in industrial preeminence to the USA and Germany. To a single failed campaign...not so much. Also please explain how the failed campaign in Gallipoli is a major cause of misery in the Middle East today . or perhaps you can just resort to telling me to 'educate myself' in lieu of not being able to assert your position

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.

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.

[Snidely Whiplash]

Churchill was a conceited blunderer whose bumbling during the first third of the First World War so firmly set Britain on a trajectory of terminal decline throughout the whole of 20th century that the combined efforts of all of British empire to win the Second World War did little to slow the trend.

The disastrous consequences of his blundering almost 100 years ago is still a major cause of the misery in the middle-east even today.

I would like to hear how exactly Churchills disaster at Gallipoli was responsible for its decline in power. There are many causes not least its loss in industrial preeminence to the USA and Germany. To a single failed campaign...not so much. Also please explain how the failed campaign in Gallipoli is a major cause of misery in the Middle East today . or perhaps you can just resort to telling me to 'educate myself' in lieu of not being able to assert your position

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.

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.

You love putting words in people's mouths and/or making Strawman argument's, doncha 'là bạn điên'!!

[Anomalocaris]

I would like to hear how exactly Churchills disaster at Gallipoli was responsible for its decline in power. There are many causes not least its loss in industrial preeminence to the USA and Germany. To a single failed campaign...not so much. Also please explain how the failed campaign in Gallipoli is a major cause of misery in the Middle East today .

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.

Traditionally ottoman turkey had favored the British side since the Crimea war in 1850s. Turkey has placed large orders of dreadnaughts and other arms from British firms, relied on British form for modernization, and relied on Britain to keep Russian power in Check. However Britain had become increasingly dismissive of the value of a Turkish alliance since the Entent with France, and had done nothing to counter the assiduous German attempts to win over turkey in the lead up to the war.

Nonetheless at the start of the war, ottoman turkey still had 2 battleships in British yards, finished and paid for by popular subscription fromTurkish school children, and already manned by Turkish crew. Turkish court was divided between those who favored allied side, and those the central side. But the side favoring the allies seem to have the upper hand. There was near consensus that Turkey did not have the luxury of sitting it out and staying neutral. Turkey must sooner or latter declare for one side to the other, and it seemed more likely turkey was going to declare for the allies.

For the allied side Britain and France had an surplus of munition manufacturing capacity relative to forces the central powers can deploy to the west, but a shortage of man power and agricultural production capacity. Russia had a deficit of munition manufacturing capacity, but a surplus of manpower and agricultural production. If the war was not decided by an early clash, then it was clear to everyone the best chance for the allies for a relatively short war was to gain access to Russia's black se ports in order to supply Russia using western allies' surplus munition capacity, while taking advantage of Russia's manpower. Russia's surplus agricultural capacity would then be exportable through Black Sea ports, keeping Russian economy afloat and able to afford repaying allied credit extended for the munition.

Having turkey, favorably disposed towards the allies, to actually come over to the ally side would therefore be a war winning strategy.

But war winning strategies do not survive encountered with Winston Churchill's pet ideas and his pet vision of himself as a transcendental great strategic thinker. Churchill is so adept at talking up his own pet ideas that has no relation to reality, that one British general, named Smith, took to chanting "My name is Smith" whenever Churchill is present. When asked why he was doing so, he relied "if I keep listening to Churchill, I would become convinced my name is Brown".

In this spirit and using this kind of pursuasiveness Churchill convinced the British cabinet that the value of the two Turkish battleships in British yards was greater than the value of turkey herself, and it was permissible to simply seize the two Turkish battleships in Britain without compensation even though turkey was neutral. Germany immediately seized and capitalized on the opportunity created by the huge public resentment Churchill's action created in turkey, and offered the German battlecruiser goeben, otherwise trapped in the Mediterranean, to turkey as compensation for Churchill's perfidy.

This act above all brought turkey into the war on German side, instead of allied side.

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.

perhaps you can just resort to telling me to 'educate myself' in lieu of not being able to assert your position

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.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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