Mustafa Kemal Atartuk, creator of the republic of Turkey died in 1938 but I wondered what could had happened if he didn't died and stayed alive a couple of additionnals years thru WWII and the early 1950's?
WI Mustafa Kemal Atartuk didn't died in 1938?
- Thread starter Stéphane Dumas
- Start date
Leo Caesius
Banned
Probably nothing good would come out of it. By this point, Mustafa Kemal had become a boozed-out lush, whose handlers kept him increasingly confined to Dolmabahce Palace, where he eventually died. I've heard tales of Atatürk breaking free and appearing in some Istanbul taverna (much to the astonishment of the clientele) buy everyone in the house a round of drinks, drink himself silly, and start dancing on the tables. Within a short time, his handlers would show up and gently coax him back to the palace.
Well then, a POD could be that he gives up drinking at some point. Since he ultimately died of cirrohsis (sp?) that could extended his life-span somewhat.
If still in power by 1939 and not just a figurehead he joins tha axis powers during WWII in the hopes of reviving the ottoman empire and with promises from hitler for occupying the balkans and parts of the caucasus. Turkish troops are mainly used for occupation duties in the balkans and ethnic cleansing in large scale takes place. Turkey itself becomes a sbringboard for german attacks in the caucasus and middle east. The allies win in the end but it takes a few more years, lets say 1948. Fate of turkey after that could be any one of:
a) Maintain the same borders but is more democratised and the military is weakened.
b) Loses most if not all of its european provinces (potential conflict between east and west later on)
c) Split into smaller states and loses a lot of eastern provinces to USSR, Iran and Iraq
a) Maintain the same borders but is more democratised and the military is weakened.
b) Loses most if not all of its european provinces (potential conflict between east and west later on)
c) Split into smaller states and loses a lot of eastern provinces to USSR, Iran and Iraq
Ataturk was a Turkish nationalist, first and foremost. I don't think he'd support including non-Turks within the Empire. Imposing Turkish culture on the Kurds was difficult enough in OTL; think about how hard it would be to try the same thing with Arabs.
Now, I think that he might try to incorporate areas of the Balkans with large Turkish populations into Turkey, but that would put him on a collision course with Bulgaria and Greece, one of which would PO the Axis and one of which would PO the Allies. Now, perhaps Hitler forces Bulgaria to turn over Turk-heavy parts of their territory (like how he made Romania give Moldova to the USSR) to get Turkey onboard?
Now, I think that he might try to incorporate areas of the Balkans with large Turkish populations into Turkey, but that would put him on a collision course with Bulgaria and Greece, one of which would PO the Axis and one of which would PO the Allies. Now, perhaps Hitler forces Bulgaria to turn over Turk-heavy parts of their territory (like how he made Romania give Moldova to the USSR) to get Turkey onboard?
I think one of the striking features of republican turkey is how ataturk stressed the need for the creation of lasting institutions instead of a cult of personality based around his person. Um, has to be a better way to say that...he was fine with the near-worship of himself (hey, who isn't?) but he also wanted to make certain the regime would endure past his death. If he lives longer, perhaps he decides "to hell with it" and tries to make himself into a typical strongman. If he goes down this road in a deteriorating mental and physical state, he could easily un-do a good deal of what turkey was able to accomplish in the 20's and 30's. An aging, aliling ataturk, perhaps becoming unstable or senile as he gets older, could turn turkey into just another petty middle eastern dictatorship.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Ataturk VERY, VERY strictly forced upon Turkey a total, absolute, and final rejection of irridentism - he would NEVER, EVER have tried to reconquer ex-Ottoman territory for any reason whatsoever - he wouldn't even try militarily for ex-Ottoman territory that had a Turkish majority like Hatay or wanted to be part of Turkey like Mosul (he recovered Hatay through diplomacy).
He was also strictly neutralist, and having greater prestige than his successor, would have had an easier time keeping Turkey out of the War.
There would be no point to taking any Balkan territory, as all the Turks and Muslims had long been massacred or driven out, and in the 1930s Turkey was so sparsely populated that there were empty farms and houses everywhere, so there was no pressure to expand.
Even if somehow Turkey were forced to join the Axis, they would never consent to garrison the Balkans, which would be a stupid idea on the part of the Germans anyway.
I can't help but suspect that you have gotten your impressions of Mustafa Kemal from some sort of radical Greek Nationalist site, as it bears no resemblence to the actual man or his policies.
He was also strictly neutralist, and having greater prestige than his successor, would have had an easier time keeping Turkey out of the War.
There would be no point to taking any Balkan territory, as all the Turks and Muslims had long been massacred or driven out, and in the 1930s Turkey was so sparsely populated that there were empty farms and houses everywhere, so there was no pressure to expand.
Even if somehow Turkey were forced to join the Axis, they would never consent to garrison the Balkans, which would be a stupid idea on the part of the Germans anyway.
I can't help but suspect that you have gotten your impressions of Mustafa Kemal from some sort of radical Greek Nationalist site, as it bears no resemblence to the actual man or his policies.
Lysander said:
Following WW1 both Turkey and Iran started programs of Modernization and de Islam-ifacation of the Government.
One of the reasons it failed in Iran was the continuing on of the original leaders, and their deteriorating into Strongmen.
I Agree that Turkey was lucky that Atartuk lived long enuff to see his Reforms enacted, but not too long as to cause them to collapse.
One of the reasons it failed in Iran was the continuing on of the original leaders, and their deteriorating into Strongmen.
I Agree that Turkey was lucky that Atartuk lived long enuff to see his Reforms enacted, but not too long as to cause them to collapse.
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
No Greek nationalist site i'm afraid, just the fact that he made sure most minorities in turkey were wiped out which is why as you put it that turkey was sparsely populated, i will admit to being biased about the man (with a dose of grudging respect) and turkey as a whole since that is true, but i do believe my facts are basically sound.
My idea on the turks garissoning the balkans was based on the idea of the germans needing to use their troops elsewhere.
Turkey itself is still making noices regarding turkish/moslem minorities in other balkan countries so i would expect the same to be true and more proounced in the late 30's and early 40's.
No coutry ever said no to more territory, especially if it considered it it's own.
I would like to keep the conversation on the subjects you have put down but i think it would degenerate this thread. i would be happy to continue it somewhere else, always in as civilised a manner as possible
Leo Caesius
Banned
I think that AHP was suggesting that Turkey was depopulated in the 30s due largely to Lausanne, not by Ataturk's design. If Greece hadn't invaded Turkey, not only would she still possess Smyrna and hinterlands, but those households and farms would probably still be in the hands of Greek families.Lysander said:
I would certainly not blame Ataturk for the treatment of the Armenians under the Ottomans. He had nothing to do with it.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Ataturk did absolutely nothing to minorities in Turkey. Can you provide a single scrap of evidence? It is quite the opposite. The Treaty of Lausanne mandated a population exchange between Greece and Turkey, and that was largely imposed by the Powers, and a mutually agreed upon arrangement between Greece and Turkey is hardly "wiping out" minorities. If you are aware of Turkey even in the slightest you will know that minorities form a very large percentage of the population, as much as a third.
The Greeks, on the other hand, invaded and occupied half of Turkey, and burned everything on their way out, after having massacred a good portion of the population. The population of Turkey declined by 24% from 1912-1922, three times the loss rate of Russia through WWI and the Revolution, and two thirds of that number were Muslims. That's 3 million dead Muslims, of which about a sixth were troops. (The Greeks were not the worst offenders with regard to massacre, but were extremely organized in their total destruction of everything of economic value as they retreated.)
These topic are wholly germane to the thread because you postulated Ataturk being willing to annex non-Turkish territory and massacre their populations, which would have been anathema to him. During the Nationalist struggle, he did not even allow the Arabs to participate, as he did not want any Arab territory in the Turkish State - so yes, he WOULD have said "no" to any territory, as he did NOT think any of the former Empire was his. He even renounced claims to Mosul after the League of Nations Council decided it would be part of Iraq.
What noises is Turkey making about Moslems in Balkan countries? If you mean the ethnic cleansing of Turks in Bulgaria in the 1980s that resulted in 300,000 refugees flooding across the Turkish border, then yes, they made noises, and that nobody else did is a burden of shame for the rest of the world.
The recent revisionism seen in huge mass on the internet making Ataturk out to be a genocidal maniac is really bizarre, unfortunate, a disengenuous distortion, and symtomatic of modern polical agendas that cause a very large body of people sitting at their computers and fax machines ready to unleash a torrent of anti-Turkish propaganda out of fear that somewhere, somehow, someone might say something positive about Turkey.
The Greeks, on the other hand, invaded and occupied half of Turkey, and burned everything on their way out, after having massacred a good portion of the population. The population of Turkey declined by 24% from 1912-1922, three times the loss rate of Russia through WWI and the Revolution, and two thirds of that number were Muslims. That's 3 million dead Muslims, of which about a sixth were troops. (The Greeks were not the worst offenders with regard to massacre, but were extremely organized in their total destruction of everything of economic value as they retreated.)
These topic are wholly germane to the thread because you postulated Ataturk being willing to annex non-Turkish territory and massacre their populations, which would have been anathema to him. During the Nationalist struggle, he did not even allow the Arabs to participate, as he did not want any Arab territory in the Turkish State - so yes, he WOULD have said "no" to any territory, as he did NOT think any of the former Empire was his. He even renounced claims to Mosul after the League of Nations Council decided it would be part of Iraq.
What noises is Turkey making about Moslems in Balkan countries? If you mean the ethnic cleansing of Turks in Bulgaria in the 1980s that resulted in 300,000 refugees flooding across the Turkish border, then yes, they made noises, and that nobody else did is a burden of shame for the rest of the world.
The recent revisionism seen in huge mass on the internet making Ataturk out to be a genocidal maniac is really bizarre, unfortunate, a disengenuous distortion, and symtomatic of modern polical agendas that cause a very large body of people sitting at their computers and fax machines ready to unleash a torrent of anti-Turkish propaganda out of fear that somewhere, somehow, someone might say something positive about Turkey.
Lysander said:
DuQuense said:
The main difference between Iran and Turkey is that in the latter Kemal's reforms were enforced under the legitimacy of the victory in the war gainst the Greeks (if it had gone the other way around - and it would have taken a significant intervention of the Powers - Turkey would have been reduced to a rump Anatolian state).
Reza Shah did not enjoyed the same legitimacy (after all, he was an ex-sergeant in the Russian Cossacks who substantially got lucky): this is difference number one.
Difference number 2 stems out of this: Kemal did not need to demonstrate anything - he had already enjoyed his greatest hour, and everything else would have been just icing on the cake. Additionally, he was a very cautious man (and general. I like to compare him with Zhukov).
Reza Shah was filo-german, and believed that the Axis would win the war. Bad choice.
Kemal would have never jumped in, at least not until the board was clear (but again, OTL Turkey did not enter the war, not even nominally).
There is no truth to the rumors that there were ethnic cleansing in Turkey between the wars (the exchange of population with Greece was agreed by both).
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
Umm...you forgot the Turks of Bulgaria who were persecuted (late 1980s) by the Communist regime in some last-ditch attempt to remain popular, and the Muslims of Western Greece (the ones left behind in exchange for the Greeks being allowed to stay in Constantinople). I imagine there'd be more Muslims in the 1930s than today.
I would add that the best non-irredentist example would be Salonika (which, btw, was the birth place of Kemal Ataturk, and was never ever claimed by Turkey)
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Matt Quinn said:
Prior to 1878 there was a Muslim plurality (and in many areas, a majority) in Bulgaria - by the 30s there was a minority (10%), and most of those were Bulgarian Muslims, not Turks, so reconquering the area would be pointless and impossible to hold. The people displaced and oppressed in the 1980s were for the most part Bulgarian-speaking, not Turkish. There is a tendency in the Balkans to label Muslims Turks, as the distinction was never drawn in European minds - which is one reason people persist in calling the Ottoman Empire "Turkey".
Attaturk's dream of an ethnically consistent turkey could only be achieved through ethnic cleansing which is exactly the policy he chose to execute.
Regarding Smyrni and the Greek holdings i would like to remind you that attaturk never accepted the territorial arrangements after the end of WWI and followed a guerilla warfare throughout the period before the greek invasion. During the negotiations that ended up in the Lausanne treaty attaturk demanded a lot more than he got, including more territory. Plus the massacre and forced expulsion of the greek minority in Trapezounta in the early 30's would provide evidence for that as well as the forced expulsion of a very large part of the Greek comunity of Constantinople in 1955. If one would like to go further still the Kurdish people would have a lot to say about forced relocation, human rights violationa and ethnic cleansing
As for turkish claims and taking new territories the examples of Alexandreatta and Cyprus should be enough as well as the persistent claims in the Aegean sea. I would say you are about as guilty of lack of objectivity as you accuse me.
As for people having agentas against turkey maybe it should start acting less as an agressor who issues war warnings every time something does not go its way.
And all these under the umbrella of "Kemalism" so forgive me if i don't think i've misaunderstood him. Unless of course he was misunderstood by his successors?
Having said all that i still think this whole conversation does not belong here, the chat forum would propably be better
Regarding Smyrni and the Greek holdings i would like to remind you that attaturk never accepted the territorial arrangements after the end of WWI and followed a guerilla warfare throughout the period before the greek invasion. During the negotiations that ended up in the Lausanne treaty attaturk demanded a lot more than he got, including more territory. Plus the massacre and forced expulsion of the greek minority in Trapezounta in the early 30's would provide evidence for that as well as the forced expulsion of a very large part of the Greek comunity of Constantinople in 1955. If one would like to go further still the Kurdish people would have a lot to say about forced relocation, human rights violationa and ethnic cleansing
As for turkish claims and taking new territories the examples of Alexandreatta and Cyprus should be enough as well as the persistent claims in the Aegean sea. I would say you are about as guilty of lack of objectivity as you accuse me.
As for people having agentas against turkey maybe it should start acting less as an agressor who issues war warnings every time something does not go its way.
And all these under the umbrella of "Kemalism" so forgive me if i don't think i've misaunderstood him. Unless of course he was misunderstood by his successors?
Having said all that i still think this whole conversation does not belong here, the chat forum would propably be better
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Lysander, provide one shred of evidence that Ataturk had anyone massacred of shut up. He had absolutely NO dream of an ethnically consistent Turkey, and if he had chosen to massacre other ethnicities, he would have had to start by massacring himself since he wasn't ethnically Turkish. The idea of a Turkish ethnicity is imaginary in any case, ask any Turk where his grandparents are from and I guarantee all of them will have at least one from the Balkans. There was no Greek minority in Trebizond in the 30s - what the heck are you talking about? Lausanne mandated a population exchange which occurred in the 20s - by the 30s there were only Greeks in Istanbul, and they're still there.
Your immense ignorance in shocking. Alexandretta was subejcted to a pleibicite, and the population voted to join Turkey, since the majority of the population was Turkish-speaking. I suppose you have a problem with that? And Cyprus was invaded because the military dictatorship of Greece staged a coup in Cyprus and announced its union with Greece, contrary to the treaty signed by Turkey, Greece, and Britain, and Turkey wouldn't accept this as it would inevitably result in the ethnic cleansing of the Turkish population. Balkan countries can't help themselves from massacring all ethnic minorities in their territory.
Name the last time the Turks acted agressively. Name it. You are blowing all this out of your ass. I feel sorry for people like you that are ruled by hate and hostility, to the point that you can just make up silly facts. I wonder if you actually are deluded enough to believe the crap you write.
I have nothing further to say about this subject since you are obviously just a lunantic-fringe nationalist propagandist troll.
Your immense ignorance in shocking. Alexandretta was subejcted to a pleibicite, and the population voted to join Turkey, since the majority of the population was Turkish-speaking. I suppose you have a problem with that? And Cyprus was invaded because the military dictatorship of Greece staged a coup in Cyprus and announced its union with Greece, contrary to the treaty signed by Turkey, Greece, and Britain, and Turkey wouldn't accept this as it would inevitably result in the ethnic cleansing of the Turkish population. Balkan countries can't help themselves from massacring all ethnic minorities in their territory.
Name the last time the Turks acted agressively. Name it. You are blowing all this out of your ass. I feel sorry for people like you that are ruled by hate and hostility, to the point that you can just make up silly facts. I wonder if you actually are deluded enough to believe the crap you write.
I have nothing further to say about this subject since you are obviously just a lunantic-fringe nationalist propagandist troll.
Lysander said:
Bill Cameron
Banned
Abdul,
Highjacking the thread for a moment: Could you recommend a good introductory book on Ataturk? And one on modern (let's say since 1900) Turkey?
Thanks in advance.
Bill
Highjacking the thread for a moment: Could you recommend a good introductory book on Ataturk? And one on modern (let's say since 1900) Turkey?
Thanks in advance.
Bill
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Bill Cameron said:
PLEASE hijack the thread.
The best work on Ataturk I've seen yet is Andrew Mango's biography. For an overview history, I would recommend Stanford Shaw - History of OE and Turkey Vol II. For a really excellent examination of the Ottoman perspective and self-image in the Hamidian period (1876-1909), Selim Deringil's "The Well-Protected Domains : Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire, 1876-1909" - very readable and quite entertaining. There is an excellent chapter on the silly things Western Historians say about Ottoman history.
For a study of the role of Islam in the late OE and the Ottoman perception of religion, Kemal Karpat "The Politicization of Islam: Reconstructing Identity, State, Faith, and Community in the Late Ottoman State".
Relevant to the sidetrack discussion in this thread is Justin McCarthy "The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire" - this is easy reading and is full of graphics, but is based on his other works, which you would have to read for checkable references. It's a demographic study that details the horrendous population loss that Anatolia suffered, amounting to over 3 million Muslims dead, and the terrible physical destruction wrought by the Greeks as they retreated after their invasion was totally crushed by the Turkish army - they literally burned everything of economic value, including over 150,000 structures and all the orchards, which are not easily replaced.
Avoid at all costs anything by Kinross, who is an excellent writer but a terrible historian.
Bill Cameron
Banned
Abdul,
Thanks for the list! Don't worry, I'll avoid Kinross at all costs.
My local library is linked with the state uni here so I should have a good chance of finding the books you suggested.
Thanks again.
Bill
Thanks for the list! Don't worry, I'll avoid Kinross at all costs.
My local library is linked with the state uni here so I should have a good chance of finding the books you suggested.
Thanks again.
Bill