Comment by dotcommand | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dotcommand | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> This is not an accurate reading of history.

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.

> Is there such a thing as an "accurate reading of history"?

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.

> There are certainly worse ones.

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".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com