Atatürk didnt do anything

[Ozan]

Enver pasha exiled armenians and he did a good thing we are proud of our history

[BurkayHaN]

Long live Enver, Talat, Cemal, and our mighty Leader Atatürk; we take pride in our glorious ancestors!

[GaiusMarius]

Enver Cemal and Talat are all heroes.

[CengizHan]

VATAN NAMUS İTTİHAD

[GaiusMarius]

VATAN NAMUS İTTİHAD!

[Gilmer]

And Kara Mustafa!!!

[Medicles]

We all know you killed the armenians. Massive genocide. We all know it.

[smartspick]

bro- it was a violent time- people did things they regretted. Just recognize it and give justly owed restitution

[Ozan]

Originally posted by smartspick:

bro- it was a violent time- people did things they regretted. Just recognize it and give justly owed restitution

Atatürk literally didnt order or commit any m445ssacre towards greeks or armenians though? Its just one google research away. If you want to own something and recognise. Recognise how armenians and balkans masacred entire turkish and muslim population of the balkan and east areas.

[KroganCharr]

Originally posted by Ozan:

Originally posted by smartspick:

bro- it was a violent time- people did things they regretted. Just recognize it and give justly owed restitution

Atatürk literally didnt order or commit any m445ssacre towards greeks or armenians though? Its just one google research away. If you want to own something and recognise. Recognise how armenians and balkans masacred entire turkish and muslim population of the balkan and east areas.

I tried that just now, and the results come back mixed. While there is consensus that there is no evidence he personally participated in the WW1 genocides, he is credibly accused of being involved in later genocides, such as the 1922 burning of Smyrna. What is a confirmed fact is that Atatürk gave later legal sanction and implied approval of those genocides by seizing the homes and property left behind by the people who were murdered or displaced.

[GaiusMarius]

Originally posted by KroganCharr:

Originally posted by Ozan:

Atatürk literally didnt order or commit any m445ssacre towards greeks or armenians though? Its just one google research away. If you want to own something and recognise. Recognise how armenians and balkans masacred entire turkish and muslim population of the balkan and east areas.

I tried that just now, and the results come back mixed. While there is consensus that there is no evidence he personally participated in the WW1 genocides, he is credibly accused of being involved in later genocides, such as the 1922 burning of Smyrna. What is a confirmed fact is that Atatürk gave later legal sanction and implied approval of those genocides by seizing the homes and property left behind by the people who were murdered or displaced.

Why would we burn our own city?

Greeks raped and pillaged and burned through half of Anatolia for 3 years and we get accused of this ♥♥♥♥? WTF?

[KroganCharr]

Originally posted by GaiusMarius:

Originally posted by KroganCharr:

I tried that just now, and the results come back mixed. While there is consensus that there is no evidence he personally participated in the WW1 genocides, he is credibly accused of being involved in later genocides, such as the 1922 burning of Smyrna. What is a confirmed fact is that Atatürk gave later legal sanction and implied approval of those genocides by seizing the homes and property left behind by the people who were murdered or displaced.

Why would we burn our own city?

Greeks raped and pillaged and burned through half of Anatolia for 3 years and we get accused of this ♥♥♥♥? WTF?

Because the Turkish governments, both Ottomans and Republicans, were terrified that they might lose territory when there are substantial non Turkish populations, just like you lost Egypt, Syria, Arabia, most of the Balkans, and other territories for that exact reason. That was the motivation behind the ethnic cleansings under both governments.

Greeks, Armenians, and other peoples had been living in Anatolia since prehistory. There were no Turks whatsoever anywhere in what is today called Türkiye until the middle ages, and the eradication of Anatolia's substantial non Turkish populations didn't complete until the 20th century. Istanbul was known as Konstantiniyye until 1922, but Turks were so scared that someone might contest ownership that to this day you react aggressively to anyone calling it Constantinople even as an exonym - by the way, the name Istanbul is derived from Greek too, so it doesn't even matter. All the postering of the current Turkish government, including the invasion of Syria because you are terrified of Kurds gaining autonomy even outside your borders, to the conversion of the Hagia Sophia from a museum that symbolizes peace and mutual forgiveness back to a mosque, all the way to Erdogan dressing up his soldiers in Ottoman costumes and entertaining ideas of military expansion, are signs of a profound insecurity that is frankly embarrassing. Yes, you live on stolen land, get over it, you are not the only one.

[Takichi]

Nothing Wrong?

Attaturk, His Party and his Succesor sanctioned or made use of Ethnic Cleansing
- They Installed a ONE PARTY Democraty (which btw is basicly the same as a Tyrannie)
-Supressed Freedom of Press
- Supression of Non-Turkish Cultures, Brutal Suppression of Rebels and Seperatists,
- They not only supressed and deported but also murded Hundreds of Political Opponens
and so on and on and on.

[echoes222]

another turkish genocide denier ;)

[Prince Myshkin]

Originally posted by KroganCharr:

Originally posted by GaiusMarius:

Why would we burn our own city?

Greeks raped and pillaged and burned through half of Anatolia for 3 years and we get accused of this ♥♥♥♥? WTF?

Because the Turkish governments, both Ottomans and Republicans, were terrified that they might lose territory when there are substantial non Turkish populations, just like you lost Egypt, Syria, Arabia, most of the Balkans, and other territories for that exact reason. That was the motivation behind the ethnic cleansings under both governments.

Greeks, Armenians, and other peoples had been living in Anatolia since prehistory. There were no Turks whatsoever anywhere in what is today called Türkiye until the middle ages, and the eradication of Anatolia's substantial non Turkish populations didn't complete until the 20th century. Istanbul was known as Konstantiniyye until 1922, but Turks were so scared that someone might contest ownership that to this day you react aggressively to anyone calling it Constantinople even as an exonym - by the way, the name Istanbul is derived from Greek too, so it doesn't even matter. All the postering of the current Turkish government, including the invasion of Syria because you are terrified of Kurds gaining autonomy even outside your borders, to the conversion of the Hagia Sophia from a museum that symbolizes peace and mutual forgiveness back to a mosque, all the way to Erdogan dressing up his soldiers in Ottoman costumes and entertaining ideas of military expansion, are signs of a profound insecurity that is frankly embarrassing. Yes, you live on stolen land, get over it, you are not the only one.

It is undeniable that the foundation of the modern Turkish Republic was accompanied by authoritarian governance, centralization, and severe human rights violations. The suppression of political opposition, the silencing of the free press, and the brutal crackdown on minorities and regional uprisings, are well documented. However, to truly understand this era, it must be viewed through the lens of its immediate existential context. Atatürk’s regime was not acting in a vacuum; it was reacting to the imminent destruction and colonization of Anatolia by Western powers under the Treaty of Sèvres. Facing the collapse of a multi-ethnic empire, his primary objective was the survival of a sovereign nation. In a highly volatile transition period, radical centralism was seen as the only tool to prevent total internal collapse and foreign subjugation.Furthermore, when evaluating the harshness of this regime, one must look at the global landscape of the 1920s and 1930s. The very European powers that sought to carve up Turkey were simultaneously running brutal colonial empires, suppressing independence movements with extreme violence from India and Indochina to the Middle East. Globally, democracy was in retreat, eclipsed by the rise of genuinely totalitarian terrors like Stalinism and Fascism. Unlike those expansionist and inherently destructive ideologies, the authoritarian phase of early Turkey was an inward-looking, radical modernization project. While deeply flawed and costly in terms of human rights, it ultimately laid the institutional, secular, and legal foundations that allowed the country to transition into a multi-party system!

[Prince Myshkin]

Reducing Turkey’s return to its Ottoman roots to mere 'insecurity' completely misses reality. For nearly a century, the Turkish Republic forced a strict, Eurocentric secularism that suppressed the country's own 600 year imperial and Islamic history. What you see today, including the symbolic reversion of the Hagia Sophia, is not insecurity, but a calculated domestic emancipation of the religious conservative majority and a strategic foreign policy known as Neo-Ottomanism.After decades of being rejected and sidelined by the West and the EU, Turkey is confidently embracing its past to position itself as an independent, regional superpower in the Middle East and the Balkans. It’s a projection of power and soft power, not weakness. Furthermore, your 'stolen land' argument is a massive double standard; by that logic, the United States, Canada, Australia, and most of Europe are living on 'stolen land.' History is defined by the movement of peoples, and Anatolia has been the Turkish homeland for a millennium.