What is the crowd's opinion of
Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination?
From 3.5 billion comments
By popularity online, this product is:
10 reviews of this product found across the web:
Not just that,Nazis (specially hitler) have some sympathy about turkey,Let me explain further; both nations(turks&germans) was an allie in WWI and both lost and capitulated ,But later on turks gain their independence under kemal's leadership and his vision .Those developments are followed by german people day by day on newspapers .Overall turkey was a role model for germany so they see turkey as a natural allie not an enemy but turkey cleverly protect its neutrality.For more information about nazi-turk relations ,I suggest read that book : https://www.amazon.com/Atat%C3%BCrk-Nazi-Imagination-Stefan-Ihrig/dp/0674368371
You mean to say that the Muslims in the region (not just Turks by the way) that took advantage of slavery were killed or expelled when independence was achieved after centuries of taking advantage of the native population?
Do you know why the slayings from 1453-1820 are not talked about and/or considered genocide? Because there were plenty. You see, those aren't even contested as genocide because they take into account the fact that those massacres were a means of conquest (by Turks) and not solely carried out for ethnic cleansing based on race -- though they were many times based on religion.
If you don't understand the difference between the reclaiming of native territory and the forced migration and mass slayings of native populations based on race (not just Greeks & Pontians, but also Armenians and Assyrians) then nothing I can say can help you.
There's a reason Hitler and the Nazis used Turkey's handling of the native populations as an example to follow, and praised Ataturk for his ruthlessness on the matter.
>Hans Trobst, wrote explicitly about Turkey’s “national purification” of
“bloodsuckers” and “parasites” like Armenians and Greeks; Trobst was
later invited to meet with Hitler after the leader read his writings on
Turkey. Ihrig notes that Hitler’s secretary wrote to Trobst in Hitler’s
name, declaring, “What you have witnessed in Turkey is what we will have
to do in the future as well in order to liberate ourselves.”
>
>-Ataturk in the Nazi Imagination
By the way even the article you linked has a disclaimer about it being biased since 2018, but I'm sure that can just be ignored.
>I would not necessarily claim that Attaturk was somehow behind the nazi ideology.
He was an influence on it though. There are books about it.
https://www.amazon.com/Atat%C3%BCrk-Nazi-Imagination-Stefan-Ihrig/dp/0674368371
>Yes you did
No. You said:
>There does not exist a proof, be it an archival paper, a public or private speech, an eyewitness memoir, etc., etc., that would demonstrate or even hint that Hitler intended to massacre or otherwise suppress the Armenian population
the last thing has nothing to do with what I said.
As for my sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Legion#Nazi_perspective
Βασικός εμπνευστής των Ναζί και των θηριωδιών τους
Herkes bu konu hakkında çok taşak geçti, ama doğruluk payı var.
Alman gazeteleri 29 Haziran 1919’da, Paris’te imzalanan ve toprak kaybedip devasa bir tazminat ödemek zorunda bırakan Versay Barış Anlaşması’nı manşetlerine taşımıştı.
Sadece iki gün sonraysa, Daily Beast’in deyimiyle, ‘Mustafa Kemal Paşa’yla bir aşk hikayesi‘ başladı. Türkiye, Atatürk ve Kurtuluş Savaşı’na dair haberler gazete manşetlerine yükseldi.
Ihrig bu konuda şu ifadeleri kullanıyor: ”Çaresiz ve perişan haldeki Almanya’nın gözünde, bu durum milliyetçi bir hayalin gerçek olması ya da daha ziyade bir tür aşırı ulusal bir pornografiydi.’‘
1933’teki “Hitler'in Masa Konuşmaları” kitabında Hitler, Atatürk için “karanlıkta parlayan yıldızım” ve başka bir konuşmasında "Bütün enerjimi Atatürk'ten alıyorum. O’nun hayatı bizim feyizli ışığımızdır." demesi, ve ona zırhlı araç hediye etmesi bazı ilginç şeyler ima ediyor. Hitler’in Josef Thorak tarafından yapılan Atatürk büstünü ‘en çok değer verdiği eşyalarından‘ biri olarak görmesi de çok şey açıklıyor.
Naziler döneminde Almanlar Türkiye’ye öyle saplantılı bir biçimde yaklaşıyordu ki, Propaganda Bakanlığı 1937’de Türkiye hakkındaki olumlu haberlerin miktarının ‘dayanılmaz‘ noktalara geldiğinden şikayet etti.
Nasyonal Sosyalist Parti idâresi tarafından düzenlenen ve Yahudiler'e âit ev, iş yeri ve sinagoglara yapılmış kanlı ve ölümcül saldırıların yapıldığı Kristal Gece’nin 9 – 10 Kasım 1938 arası gerçekleştirilmiş olması da tuhaf bir tesadüf.
https://www.diken.com.tr/hitler-ataturk-hayraniydi-denilen-kitapta-ne-anlatiliyor/
İngilizce kitap: https://www.amazon.com/Atatürk-Nazi-Imagination-Stefan-Ihrig/dp/0674368371
Türkçe kitap: https://www.amazon.com.tr/Naziler-ve-Atatürk-Stefan-Ihrig/dp/6051711228
That would be nice to put, but... history is a "bitch"
Nazi and Turkish ties in many aspects are covered in this book.
It was not that "play both sides" thing
I suggest you have a look at this book https://www.amazon.com/Atat%C3%BCrk-Nazi-Imagination-Stefan-Ihrig/dp/0674368371
> Irrational people do not require rational justifications. Hitler was going to commit genocide, with Kemal or not.
Does not change the fact that that many of hitlers were attempts to immitate the actions of kemal regarding ethnic cleansing and genocide.
> Odd, I've read the German original of Mein Kampf and can't remember such a thing.
Funny,i have read it too and i can remember him mentioning ataturk in a very positive light, and not just in mein kampf. This book goes quite in depth if you are interested,
Amazon.com: Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination
> It's not nationalistic mumble - it is a fact that Greece crossed the Milne Line on its' own accord, and lost the subsequent war. The fact that you refuse to accept it, and instead blame your own problems on others, changes nothing.
This is literally all in your head, its actually fascinating to watch someone react like this. I didnt evenmention the greco turkish war, i much less "refuse to accept this" lol dude from where are you getting this ? How does greece blame others for her problems?(easy on the nationalism) Where the hell did you draw tis conclusion from what i said?
The minute i said that kemal might not be a saint you had a knee jerk reaction.
> It is also a fact that Greek troops were brutal in their occupation.
Again,i am sure they were but how is this relevent with kemal not being saint? How is this not whataboutism?
> And if anyone who wants an ethnically united nation-state is evil, then so was Venizelos. Or Bismarck. Or Masaryk. Or Napoleon
Cool, give me examples of a genocide they commited or took part in
> . All ethnic nation-states required a lot of bloodshed and violence to be formed, which is not unique to Turkey and Ataturk. Which is why nationalism is ultimately lethal and should be abandoned.
Sure, but violence and genocide are 2 different things. The conversation on wether nationalism should exist is a big one and kinda irrelevent here.
> And the truth? The fact that Ataturk committed "crimes against humanity" does not take away from the fact that he turned a theocratic empire into a modern European-style nation-state
It does
>(which as I explained, inherently requires oppression of minorities.
Oppression and ethnic cleansing are 2 different things.
> People are complicated, and cannot be judged by one action only, or only their good/bad sides.
Sure, but moral relativism aside taking part in a genocide is moraly wrong regardless of historical circumstances. I dont think we even disagree bro. I never said that turning "a theocratic empire into a modern European-style nation-state" wasnt good. I just said that he shoudlnt be idolised to own erdo or treated as some sort of saint of peace and democracy or as an ideal leader for turkey.
Popular alternatives to Atatürk in the Nazi Imagina...
The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change
