And it's almost always the case. Peter the Great was concerned with Russia's military backwardness, lack of a navy in particular, while being in conflict with the Swedish Empire. The Japanese were forced to "modernize" by the American military ships. Turkey modernized after the dissolution of the Ottoman empire, i.e. after the tremendous losses to the European powers. Smaller modern states today are also pressured to participate in globalization in various ways. Also colonialism.
You are ignoring the fact that the ottoman empire had been invaded by european powers for hundreds of years and ultimately destroyed by european powers. And that european powers were threatening to destroy Turkey completely unless the turks "bent the knee".
You are painting a rather biased picture of what the "leader of Turkey" did. It was under duress - real threat of national disintegration and even genocide. It wasn't that Ataturk wanted to take Turkey in a particular direction, it was that external forces gave him no choice. It was either submit his european masters or cease to exist.
Neither Ataturk nor Turkey was in a position to take their country wherever they wanted. They were essentially a vanquished nation and pretty much had no choice but to do as the europeans powers ( and later on america ) told them to.
> Other countries are not museums needing protection from change.
Sure, but they aren't mimics either that exist to mindlessly copy or be forced to copy the world's biggest bullies.
In an ideal world, countries can copy from others what they choose, but that's sadly not how the world works. The most brutal force their "values" on the weaker.
...
> Neither Ataturk nor Turkey was in a position to take their country wherever they wanted. They were essentially a vanquished nation and pretty much had no choice but to do as the europeans powers ( and later on america ) told them to.
This is not an accurate reading of history.
Turkey had, in fact, been destroyed at the end of the First World War. Not only had the Ottoman Empire been dismantled, the territory of modern Turkey had been partitioned and split amongst the victors, much like Hungary had lost land in addition to the Austro-Hungarian Empire being dismantled (for which Hungarian nationalists still harbour resentment to this day). Large parts of Western Anatolia were ceded to Greece as part of the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, and Constantinople was put under Allied military administration at the end of the war.
This was the cause of the Turkish War of Independence, which began shortly after the end of the First World War. Winning this war was what made Atatürk's name, in a rather literal way - it is the very reason why he's considered the father of the nation. So rather than being the Western puppet you portray him as, Atatürk was quite aggressive in defending the sovereignty of the new nation in a way that very early on led to military conflict with Western powers, conflicts which he won. If he had been concerned about submitting to his 'European masters', events like the Greek genocide which carried on after the founding of the Republic of Turkey would never have occurred.
Is there such a thing as an "accurate reading of history"? I posit it's impossible.
> Turkey had, in fact, been destroyed at the end of the First World War.
No. The ottoman empire essentially was.
> So rather than being the Western puppet you portray him as, Atatürk was quite aggressive in defending the sovereignty of the new nation in a way that very early on led to military conflict with Western powers, conflicts which he won.
Ah yes, the turks "beat" the british empire, french "empire", the US, etc combined. Does that make any sense to you?
Ataturk did what "the West" wanted. He ended the ottoman caliphate and created the modern turkish republic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_the_Caliphate
The West offered the turks two choices. Create a turkish republic and thereby ending the ottoman empire. Or enduring the destruction of the Ottoman Empire AND the turkish nation. The turkish elites "chose" the former rather than facing complete annihilation. And turkey has been a vassal of the West ever since. Not that they had any choice in the matter, no more than japan or germany had a choice in the matter.
There is an "accurate reading of history" and deciphering what is really happening. Europe had been wanting the ottoman empire destroyed for hundreds of years. Ataturk gave them what they wanted.
To think that ataturk or the turks decided the matter rather than the US, Britain, France, etc combined is rather naive. Do you really think the turks wanted to go from being the leaders of one of the greatest and wealthiest empires to a middling nation begging for acceptance at europe's doorstep? I don't think so. But the power dynamics being what they were, it is what happened.
There are certainly worse ones.
> No. The ottoman empire essentially was.
The point of that turn of phrase was that the Turkey was born already with a significant amount of its territory ceded and under occupation. This territory was not given up back to the Turks willingly.
> Ah yes, the turks "beat" the british empire, french "empire", the US, etc combined. Does that make any sense to you?
Yes? That was what the Turkish war of independence was about. US involvement in this war was fairly limited at any rate. And as a matter of fact, the British, French, and Greeks fought on the side of the Ottomans in the war - almost as if the Ottomans were the Western 'vassals' here. You think the West really wanted to give up a compliant government which had already proven itself to bend to their demands for another which had proven itself strong enough to retake the land which had been ceded to the West?
> Europe had been wanting the ottoman empire destroyed for hundreds of years.
Europe had been wanting the empire's land for centuries, something the post-war Ottoman government was all too willing to cede.
> Do you really think the turks wanted to go from being the leaders of one of the greatest and wealthiest empires to a middling nation begging for acceptance at europe's doorstep?
This is extremely anachronistic. The Ottoman Empire had not been great or wealthy for the better part of a century, having been known as the Sick Man of Europe for the better part of a century prior to its collapse.
In light of the Ottomans' capitulation to Allied demands, of course the Turks had little desire to continue the monarchy. Why would they? It had not only lost the war, considerable amounts of territory, and the city of Constantinople, but the imperial government itself stood in the way of trying to retake any lost territory. Popular support was therefore on Atatürk's side, not the monarchy's; if it hadn't been, his revolution would have been impossible.
Agreed.
> Yes? That was what the Turkish war of independence was about.
The turkish war of independence was merely a face saving way of the west letting ataturk end the ottoman empire. It's fairly obvious if you look at it in the context of what the west wanted.
> And as a matter of fact, the British, French, and Greeks fought on the side of the Ottomans in the war - almost as if the Ottomans were the Western 'vassals' here.
Or we didn't want it to fall in the hands of the russians, etc.
> You think the West really wanted to give up a compliant government which had already proven itself to bend to their demands for another which had proven itself strong enough to retake the land which had been ceded to the West?
Yes because the goal was the end of the ottoman empire, which the ottoman government steadfastly refused to do so.
> The Ottoman Empire had not been great or wealthy for the better part of a century, having been known as the Sick Man of Europe for the better part of a century prior to its collapse.
It was great and wealthy enough to fend off any single european empire. It just wasn't able to fight everyone ( the british, french, US, russians, etc ) and deal with the european funded separatist movements in greece, balkans, arabia, palestine, etc. For a sick man of "europe", the ottomans did well to survive a collective assault by the greatest powers in the world at the time. But wasn't that the problem? This sick man refused to die so the west had to find someone who'd put this sick man out of his misery. But who would be able to do such a thing? A "war hero" perhaps?
> Popular support was therefore on Atatürk's side, not the monarchy's; if it hadn't been, his revolution would have been impossible.
No revolution has ever been won with popular support. All revolutions are revolutions of the elites. Ataturk and his elite backers ( which most likely included the west ) won over the pro-ottoman elites. Simple as that. And history is written to spin it as a "popular" victory. This applies to the american, french, russian, chinese, etc revolutions. None of them had popular support. Most of the people were either ambivalent or opposed to these revolutions.
As I stated, the goal of the west was the end of the ottoman empire. The ottoman government refused while ataturk acquiesced. Ataturk's reforms feel like they were written by the west rather than a turk. At the end of the day, europe wanted the sick man dead and Ataturk killed the sick man. The only question is whether ataturk collaborated with the west to kill the sick man or not. If you aren't blinded by nationalism or "history", it's fairly obvious ataturk was a "hired gun".
it's also quite a bad idea if it is forced upon your nation by an autocrat who tries to 'modernize' or secularize his own population without really considering if that's what they want.
Modernizers like Atatürk had nothing to do with genuine change, they were trying to impose copied values from countries they perceived to be superior onto their own populations. Same thing happened in India, or for a while in China. Today you can see pretty much every single one of these civilizations reasserting their own identity and ways of life, which are thousands of years old, not decades.
Countries should change, but they should change according to their own unique values and history, not because foreign educated or inspired elites try to impose 'Western' ideals on them out of a sense of inferiority. That world is over and it's coming crashing down quick.
Relevant reading: https://www.noemamag.com/the-attack-of-the-civilization-stat...
Is post-WW2 West Germany a product of spontaneous pro-democratic change, or was Western-style democracy imposed on it by the occupying powers and Adenauer, the first Chancellor? After all, the country was still full of resentful Nazis and hopeful Communists (who built a strictly totalitarian German state just next door) in the early 50s.
Same question, but more pronounced, for post-WW2 Japan.