Atatürk would be ashamed of today's Turkey

Atatürk would never understand, why the people of Turkey turned to Erdogan and the likes. What he wanted, was a secular state, with an orientation to the West. A society fueled by the light of science, people who pursue intelligence and wealth generated by it.

How can all these people state, they appreciate and respect him, if they vote the other way ?

He'd be ashamed of all the major parties in Turkey. They are all, more or less, crap. instead of distributing a good education and a peaceful life, to the people, they go either corrupt, or mismanage the country.

The secular elitists in Turkey are too far away, from the problems of the people and the conservative islamic people are too ignorant, to openly admit their mistakes. The nationalists have a superiority complex and a rascism problem and pro-kurdish people fail to distance themselves from the PKK.

If you read through my last passage and you know the major political parties in Turkey, you'll know what I mean.

Atatürk would be displeased, with how Turkey turned out to be. He would hate, how Turkey after almost 100 years, didn't find its place among the nations of Europe. How it isolated itself from all his allies. How it didn't use its location between Europe and Asia, to be a major political player in the world.

Maybe I'll add some more later.

Neither of these two leaders had come together in real life. Except being progressive, both leaders had almost completely opposite views. An alliance between the Soviet Union and Turkey had never develop into a distinctive entity. Have to extract the leaders cult out of the question for a little while: Took form a partnership or a hookup between Turkey and the Soviet Union, which was obviously temporary, well known by both leaders -thanks to common enemies. In a pragmatic manner, Mustafa Kemal sent a letter to Lenin, asking for support. In hesitation of Bolshevik stiffness and Bolshevik radicalism, the language Mustafa Kemal used in this letter made him sound like a die-hard supporter of Bolshevism. On behalf of Lenin, without being too much concerned with Turks to be either succesful or unsuccesful in their struggle against their enemies (for Soviets were well aware of Turkish resistance was lacking the socialist essence, hence, in both scenarios of a victory and a defeat, imperialism would be benefactors in short to mid terms), Lenin supported Turkish side in their independence war with arms and ammunition due to the very interests of the Soviet Union.

Actually, opinions of Soviet administration and Lenin on Turkey and Kemalists back then, indicated how the Soviet-Turkish relations would evolve and on which stages these relations would go through.

“Mustafa Kemal was not a socialist. But it can be perceived that he is a good organizer, with great understanding, progressive, with good thoughts and an intelligent leader. He is carrying out a war of independence against those plunderers. I am believing that he will break the pride of the imperialists and that he will beat the Sultan together with his friends.”

V.I Lenin, 1921

The Soviet Union supported Turkish movement for some reasons:

Deepening and extending the war

Deepening and extending the ongoing war in Turkey might divert and lessen the attention of imperialism towards the Soviet regime. On the other hand, Bolshevism by its nature, would not take a bright view of strong and capable governments around them, while, paradoxically, a strong proletariat of a dense industry is required for socialism to get spreaded.

Intercepting the rising islamism

A letter sent to Lenin in 1920 by Georgy Chicherin, People’s Comissar for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union:

“According to western radios, Kemalists are in a difficult situation due to insufficient military equipments. Defeat of Kemalists will mean the rise of Islamist fanaticsm which is being supported by Antanta. Furthermore, an islamist campaign upon Soviet lands will be possible to get organized.”

There were 10 to 15 million of Muslim population in Soviet lands after the civil war, mostly dwelt in the north of Caucasus, west of the Don, east of the Volga and scattered wide in Siberia and Urals; which formed a significant proportion in total population of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, Caucasia (such as others), where muslim population was highest, was relatively distant from center and its mountaneous geography made this region difficult to be kept in control. The caliphate in Asia Minor was completely obsolete since at least 200 years, though muslim masses that had an emotional center could well form an element of threat to the Soviet Union. In this context, its been thought that abolishing the caliphate would minimize islamist movements (-this wasn’t so true in my opinion. A question to be answered in another topic.)

At any rate, Lenin’s encouraging words upon Mustafa Kemal such as “I believe, with his friends, he will overwhelm the Sultan” is the result of a natural symphaty towards him, due to the common point of Turkish and Russian movements, resistance against the monarchs phenomenon.

Well, for what reason(-s) did Soviet administration help industrialization of the new born Turkish Republic?

Industry -or a Revolutionary Trojan Horse

If we take the revolutions of the 20th century as examples we shall, of course, have to admit that the Portuguese and the Turkish revolutions are both bourgeois revolutions. Neither of them, however, is a "people's" revolution, since in neither does the mass of the people, their vast majority, come out actively, independently, with their own economic and political demands to any noticeable degree. By contrast, although the Russian bourgeois revolution of 1905­-1907 displayed no such “brilliant” successes as at time fell to the Portuguese and Turkish revolutions, it was undoubtedly a "real people's" revolution, since the mass of the people, their majority, the very lowest social groups, crushed by oppression and exploitation, rose independently and stamped on the entire course of the revolution the imprint of their own demands, their attempt to build in their own way a new society in place of the old society that was being destroyed.

V.I. Lenin,

The State and Revolution,

p.24 – p.25 https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/lenin/state-and-revolution.pdf

Lenin compared Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1907 with Turkish and Portuguese revolutions. What happened in Turkey and Portugual was anything but people’s revolutions. As the public structure were consisting of peasants and petty bourgeois back then, it was too difficult to organize a socialist revolution in 1920’s Turkey. For this reason, industrialization of Turkey was essential. With the industrialization of Turkey, a proletariat would take form; the new born proletariat, before being lumpenised by the bourgeois regime, would get organized by local marxists supported by the politburo and the Soviet administration officially; Turkey would become suitable for a proletariat revolution or, say a Soviet invasion. Therefore, as being not a precursor but being a supporting element, The Soviet Union helped Turkish industrialization after Kemalist Revolution.

Turkstroi -Turk Construction. A private company that helped building up textile factories in Turkey, founded by The USSR Ministry of Construction of Heavy Industry.

Conclusion

Lenin and Mustafa Kemal; or better say USSR and Turkey, were two states that historical circumstances brought together for a very small period and drawn apart again -permamently this time- for these two states had completely different methods, as Turkish regime eventually became a semi-puppet of anti-Soviet pact, hostile against every values of the Soviet Union for the rest of history; by its nature.

The views of Lenin and Mustafa Kemal had almost nothing similar. Mustafa Kemal launched himself as a “bolshevik symphatiser” but Lenin did never believe Mustafa Kemal’s role play, as expected from Lenin. As stated in the State and Revolution, when the internal and foreign problems of Mustafa Kemal’s Revolution had resolved, as the natural conclusion of being a bourgeois state, he or his administration would come to an agreement with imperialists and show off a hostile stance towards the Soviet Union; which indeed occurred.

Started off good...

These two dudes were both hardcore communists who wanted to overthrow the capitalist system and create a workers' paradise.

They were inspired by Karl Marx, who wrote this book called The Communist Manifesto that basically said that the history of humanity is a history of class struggle, and that the workers (or the proletariat) should rise up against the bosses (or the bourgeoisie) and take over the means of production.

Sounds pretty rad, right?

The problem is Marx didn't really give a clear blueprint on how to actually do that.

He just said that it would happen eventually, and that communism would be the final stage of human development.

So different people had different ideas on how to make it happen faster. And that's where Lenin and Stalin come in.

Lenin was the leader of the Bolsheviks, a faction of the Russian Social Democratic Party that wanted to stage a violent revolution in Russia and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat.

He was a smart and charismatic guy who could rally people behind his cause.

He also had a knack for writing catchy slogans like "Peace, Land, and Bread" and "All Power to the Soviets".

Lenin believed that Russia was ready for socialism, even though it was mostly a peasant country with a weak industrial base.

Stalin was one of Lenin's followers, who rose up the ranks of the party by being loyal, ruthless, and cunning.

He was in charge of organizing the party's activities in different regions, especially in Georgia, his homeland.

He also had a talent for manipulating people and creating alliances with other party members.

Stalin believed that socialism could be built in one country, even if it meant isolating it from the rest of the world.

…………

On one hand, they respected each other as comrades and revolutionaries. They worked together to overthrow the tsarist regime in 1917, and to fight against the White Army in the civil war that followed.

They also shared some common goals, like spreading communism to other countries and creating a new Soviet culture.

On the other hand, they also had some serious disagreements and conflicts.

Lenin disagreed with Stalin's tactics in Georgia, where he tried to impose his authority over the local population by using violence and repression.

Lenin also thought that Stalin was too rude and power-hungry, and that he should be removed from his position as General Secretary of the party.

Stalin meanwhile, resented Lenin's criticism and tried to undermine his authority by forming alliances with other party leaders like Zinoviev and Kamenev.

Things got even worse after Lenin suffered a series of strokes in 1922-1923, which left him partially paralyzed and unable to speak.

He tried to warn the party about Stalin's ambitions and dangers in his Testament, a series of notes that he dictated to his secretary.

But Stalin managed to suppress these notes and prevent them from being read at the party congresses.

He also used his position as General Secretary to control the party apparatus and appoint his loyalists to key positions.

After Lenin's death in 1924, Stalin emerged as the undisputed leader of the Soviet Union.

• He consolidated his power by eliminating his rivals, especially Trotsky, who he exiled and later assassinated.
• He also launched a series of economic and social policies that transformed the Soviet Union into an industrialized and militarized state, but at a huge cost of human lives and suffering.
• He collectivized agriculture, which led to famine and millions of deaths; he industrialized heavy industry, which exploited workers and caused environmental damage
• Purged the party, army, and intelligentsia of anyone who opposed him or seemed suspicious, which resulted in mass arrests, executions, and deportations.
• Initiated a cult of personality, which glorified him as a genius and a father of the nation.
• Signed a pact with Hitler, which betrayed his communist allies.
• He led the Soviet Union to victory in World War II, but also caused enormous casualties and devastation.
• He started a Cold War with the West, which threatened global peace and security.

Throughout his life, Lenin did not care about his ethnic origins. For the Bolsheviks, the ethnic origins of people were not relevant. The Bolsheviks rather tried to present Lenin as someone who came from a ‘serf/slave’ family.

According to them, the class he belonged to was important, not his ethnicity. Lenin was born in Kazan/Simbirsk [Ulyanovsk] on April 10, 1870. It was a city where the Russians and Tatars lived together.

Lenin’s great grandfather, Vasiliy Ulyanov was a serf who gained his freedom long before the land reform in 1861. His son Nikolay Vasilyeviç Ulyanov was a tailor, and his wife was a Kalmyk Turk. Their son was named İlya Nikolayeviç Ulyanov, Lenin’s father.

Like his father, Lenin inherited his Asiatic features from his Mogul-origined grandmother, who lived and got married in Astrakhan, populated by Kalmyks who denounced Buddhism/Islam, and stayed in Russia following the end of their independence by Catherine II.

( — Prof. Hélène Carrère d’Encausse — )

The father of Lenin’s mother, from Kalmyk side, was Lukyan Smirnov. His son Aleksey Lukyanoviç Smirnov was an independent landlord. In 1808, he wedded his 23-year-old daughter Anna with a man, who was 30 years older than her, and also Lenin’s grandfather. Anna Alekseyevna gave birth to five children. İlya Nikolayeviç, Lenin’s father, was the last and the youngest one of them.

( — Akım Arutyunov — )

According to another claim by Albina Lubimova, member of the Writers Union of Chuvash Republic, Lenin’s ancestors were Chuvash Turks.

While Lenin’s father was the director of the People’s Vocational High School in Ulyanovsk, the great Chuvash scientist and pedagog Ivan Yakovlev was a close friend of his. With the support of Lenin’s father, the Chuvash school was taken under the state-mandate in 1871, and renamed as the Chuvash Teacher's Training School in 1877. Later, it was transformed into a center of the Chuvash culture.

Based on these information, which was even mentioned by the official historiography, it is possible to claim that Lenin’s father İlya Nikolayeviç felt himself as a Chuvash [due to his mother] and served to Chuvash people and culture in his lifetime.

Lenin’s father was not just a friend of Ivan Yakovlev, he was also a teacher of mathematics. Together with Yakovlev, he opened more than 100 schools in the villages of Chuvashia.

Prof. Gennadiy Tafayev, head of the history department of Chuvash Pedagogics University also claimed that Yakovlev was Lenin’s godfather. When Lenin found out that Ivan Yakovlev was going to get executed after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, he sent a telegram and ordered “Yakovlev to remain untouched”.

In 16th and 17th centuries, the forced Christianization of folks took place in Russia. Two sects emerged in 1666–67, Vyatsk and Nijegorodsk. The branches of Tatars such as Meri, Chuvash and Mordov accepted the Nijegorodsk sect. Cities that were populated by Chuvash people such as Alatir, Kurmis and Yadrin, excluding Nizhny Novgorod, were included into Nijegorodsk sect as well.

Russian Tsars appointed landlords to each settlement to convert Chuvash people to Christianity. These landlords were also Russian missionaries. Russians also called the Muslims who converted to Christianity as ‘Kiraşin’.

Lenin’s grandfather, Nikolay Vasilyeviç Ulyanov, was from the Androsovo Sergaçsk village of Nijegorodsk province. He left his village and began to call himself a Russian.

Once again, Prof. Tafayev, who conducted almost 200 works on the origins of Chuvash people, stated that the surname ‘Ulyanov’ might had originated from the name ‘Ulyanan’ during the period of Christianization. According to these claims, not only Lenin’s grandmother, but his grandfather was also a ‘Kiraşin’.

Because there were three types of ‘Kiraşin’. The ones who were complete Christians, the ones who seemed Christians but were Muslims on the inside, and the ones who were Muslims but forced to listen to the lectures of Christian reverends for 30 minutes a week.

Well, that may be an exaggeration, but yes, in short, Lenin sent help, and it is known.

It was not like “rifles and gold” kind of aid in particular though. Two countries made an alliance. Turks were benefiting from peace and trust on the Eastern front, while Bolsheviks were hoping for more of an ideological alliance. That didn’t go far, but at least paved the way for the social state, and leftist politics in early Turkish Republic.

After its foundation in 1917, USSR started to give great support to all fights against the Western colonialist, imperialist and capitalist attempts in the world.

Accordingly, both in the Turkish War of Independence, and the establishment of the modern republic, Bolsheviks were of great support. On 3rd March 1918, Ottoman government signed a treaty with the Bolsheviks and Central Powers of World War I. Russians played an important role in establishing peace and determining the final borders on the Eastern fronts of Turkiye.

As a result, between the 1st and 2nd World Wars, Turks developed very good relations with the Soviets, which then dissolved by the American influence after 1945.

Georgy Chicherin was probably the first politician who recognized the Turkish Government with a letter in early 1920, and Russia was the sole reason of Armenia being the first country officially recognizing the Turkish Government, by the treaty at the end of the same year.

This is the Taksim Republic Monument, on the main square of Istanbul, and in a way, the center of the whole country.

If you look more closely, there are two Russians among the people behind Atatürk.

The one between Kemal Atatürk and Ismet Inönü, is said to be Mikhail Frunze, the founder of the Red Army, and known for his contributions to the October Revolution.

General Frunze, arrived in Ankara on 13th of December, 1921, as an ambassador commissioned by Lenin.

Atatürk and Frunze

Frunze established a close relationship with Mustafa Kemal. A meeting was held in his honor, and he gave a speech with great impact. He also made a speech in the National Assembly. He toured the Sakarya front. He returned to his country on January 5, 1922, leaving good feelings behind.

The one behind Marshal Fevzi Çakmak, is Kliment Voroshilov. He was one of the original five Marshals of the Soviet Union, the highest military rank of the Soviet Union.

Voroshilov visited Kazım Özalp, and offered serious amounts of material help in return for Turks globally declaring anti-capitalist stance. But Özalp refused.

Voroshilov also participated in the 10th year celebrations of Turkish Republic in 1933.

Yes! He died too early.

The Soviets contributed about 35% to the Turkish War of Independence, based on numbers before the Great Offensive. The real big wins came from smuggling arms and ammo from occupied areas, especially Istanbul, through purchases and local manufacturing under the Harbiye and Takâlif-i Milliye Orders.

But Turkey's support for the Soviets was way more significant. Ataturk's main point in negotiations with the Soviets was that “If the Turks can’t beat the imperialists, the Soviets won’t be able to fend off threats from the South and the Black Sea either. After Turkey, it’ll be the Soviets’ turn!” This strong argument from a really sharp soldier is something that anyone with a decent mindset can’t deny.

Ataturk was really deep person because of having passed away in early age without leaving any kids behind. This led many different views about him. I would say he is loved by people except very liberals, Islamists and Kurdish nationalists (or some nationalists from small minorities) which would make 25% of the population.

Conservatives believe that he is not represented well by Kemalists, Kemalists believe they follow the true way and MHP followers believe Alparslan Türkeş founded MHP because CHP was corrupt back then.

Kurdish nationalists(or others) see him as a fascist leader who mistreated minorities, liberals considered him as a dictator with no human rights and islamist consider him as a Crypto jew who was the slave of the West or just disagree with him because he didn’t practice shariah laws.

As a result he is loved by the majority but it is loved and understood in many different ways. He is hated by some people as well for different reasons.

But no matter what, he is our national hero and I’m proud of this.

The Great Leader Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was commemorated on the 70th anniversary of his death with the "10th of November Atatürk Commemoration Ceremony" organized by the Atatürk Culture, Language and History Supreme Institute in 2008.

In his speech at the ceremony, Prof. Dr. Sadık Tural, the President of the Atatürk Culture, Language and History Supreme Institute, revealed a released document taken from Russia's Archives of the Soviet Communist Party and Soviet State regarding an incident between Atatürk and Stalin.

Stating that the incident took place in 1936 when Atatürk went to a reception given by the Russian Embassy in Ankara, Tural said that it was known that Atatürk went to the reception at 1:30 a.m. with his personal friends and the musicians he brought with him to play zeybek (a form of Turkish folk dance).

Stating that the events that followed were taken from the secret archive of the Soviet Union and had Stalin's own signature and writings, Tural recounted the incident as follows:

"According to this, Atatürk asks a question to the Russian Embassy. "Why didn't your leader congratulate me on our Republic Day?" Karahan, the Ambassador of that time, said that their President Kalinin had congratulated them. Ataturk's reply is provocative: "Is your President also your leader?" The answer is, "No". Atatürk asks: "Who is your leader?" The answer is: "Stalin". Atatürk; "Then, he will congratulate me. I am both the President and the leader of my country. Let Stalin send me a congratulatory message, not Kalinin'.

Ambassador Karahan asks Atatürk to call Stalin directly and says that he does not want to interfere in this matter. Ataturk replied: "Why should I take the first step?" and then comes his historic words:

"I can only do this on equal terms. If I feel that there is a common ground of understanding, I might do it. Otherwise I cannot say yes. I know you have a big army, powerful and mechanized, and I am not afraid of it, I am not afraid of you. I have 18 million people behind me. My command is enough. My people will follow me wherever I want. I can cause a lot of destruction, of course I will never do that, because my word is sacred like my friendship.'"

Stating that this dialogue between Atatürk and the Ambassador was stamped "top secret" and presented to Stalin with the note "to be read by Stalin and Molotov", Tural said that after reading Atatürk's words, Stalin said, "Our friend, Atatürk's words should be read with interest and attention."

Tural said, "I'd like to emphasize that Stalin, who made the world's heart skip a beat at the time, was always careful about Atatürk, and that this is where he got his reasoning that he never openly said anything against Turkey until Atatürk's death."

Edit:

At the time when Stalin took over in the Soviet Union, he transformed Russia into a huge, global economic and military machine. The Russian dictatorship of Stalin, feared by the whole world, had common borders with Turkey and openly hinted at its intention to annex the Turkish provinces of Kars, Ardahan and Van and to take control of the Bosphorus Strait. As Turkey had just been founded and had suffered enormous economic and human losses in the First World War and the War of Independence, it seemed unlikely that it would be able to resist a great power like Russia. Under these circumstances, it should not be too difficult to understand that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's fearless and daring threats against Stalin were not simple displays of insolence, but rather finely calculated political messages of resolution and determination. Being ignorant of the political and geostrategic conflicts of the time in this geography and Turkish-Russian political relations, Atatürk's message to Stalin in 1936 may have sounded like a plain story to some readers! (By the way, both had never met!)

Let me tell you a story; or remind it for those who already know.

In Turkey of mid to late 1990s Ataturk was a fatigued character. A whole political system had been built on (and a whole lot of misdoings had been hidden behind) his legacy since his death and it was so used up that it had turned into a boring name to hear.

Late 90s and early 2000s passed by further rasping his legacy while everyone in the world was eagerly hailing the “finally arriving liberal democracy” in Turkey thanks to their great new leader ‘rising like a new star’.

At that point many people warned against what wrong was actually going on underneath this noisy parade of liberal democracy preachers. A classic case of Cassandra syndrome occurred at that time and no one really gave any attention.

Then, after a while, people started seeing that what was sold them as liberal democracy package did not quite look like what they saw in real examples of liberal democracy in West. Phrases of the new political cult like ‘the new Turkey’ or ‘advanced democracy’ started becoming mockery material. Then people saw by naked eye what they actually had in their hand in the name of liberal democracy during the ‘Gezi Park protests’ in mid 2013

When people who actually and honestly believed in liberal secular democracy finally began to realise around early 2010s what they had lost by their own hands in favor of deceptive arguments and superficial false narratives, then Ataturk returned.

Now, once again he stands what he stood for in 1920s, supported and attacked by the same profiles as nearly a century ago in the country he founded.

The surprising thing for the outsider is that despite all the elaborate social engineering Turkish people have been pushed thru in order to shut off his legacy during the last two decades, half of the population in the country still stand up for his views. That’s how a legacy lives on.

As for the question whether Ataturk’s legacy can survive, some figures simply don’t die. They just fade and shine in historical periods depending on how much of their legacy is needed and this is beyond daily politics or individuals’ petty weaknesses.

Stalin and Lenin’s relationship was complex and evolved over time. Initially, Stalin was a dedicated follower of Lenin’s revolutionary ideology and played a key role in the early days of the Bolshevik party. However, their relationship was not without its tensions and disagreements.

Lenin recognized Stalin’s organizational skills and appointed him to important positions within the party, such as General Secretary, which gave him significant power and influence. Stalin was instrumental in consolidating Bolshevik control during the Russian Civil War and implementing Lenin’s policies, such as War Communism and the Red Terror.

Despite their collaboration, there were underlying differences between Stalin and Lenin. Lenin grew increasingly wary of Stalin’s authoritarian tendencies and his ruthless methods of dealing with political opponents. In his final years, Lenin expressed concerns about Stalin’s rising influence within the party and even wrote a testament in which he recommended Stalin’s removal from his position as General Secretary.

After Lenin’s death in 1924, Stalin rapidly consolidated power and emerged as the leader of the Soviet Union. He portrayed himself as Lenin’s loyal disciple and sought to cultivate a cult of personality around Lenin to legitimize his rule. Stalin promoted the idea of “Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism” as the official state ideology, emphasizing his continuity with Lenin’s legacy.

However, Stalin’s interpretation of Lenin’s teachings was selective, and he implemented policies that diverged from Lenin’s original vision. Stalin’s collectivization of agriculture, industrialization drive, and purges of perceived enemies within the party deviated from Lenin’s more moderate approach to socialist transformation.

In retrospect, it is clear that Stalin manipulated Lenin’s legacy to serve his own interests and consolidate his authoritarian rule. While Stalin portrayed himself as a faithful inheritor of Lenin’s revolutionary mantle, his actions and policies marked a departure from Lenin’s initial ideals of democratic centralism and proletarian internationalism.

Overall, the relationship between Stalin and Lenin was characterized by a mix of cooperation, competition, and ultimately betrayal. Stalin’s rise to power represented a departure from the more pluralistic and inclusive vision of socialism advocated by Lenin, underscoring the complexities of revolutionary leadership and the dangers of unchecked authority.

This selling out story is usually one that is fabricated by those who are the descendants of those who were establishing insurgencies with British money during the aftermath of WWI to fight the forces of the National Assembly. They fabricated this stuff in addition to a number of other things, such as Atatürk being a Jew, being a homosexual, a pedophile, a bastard (whose father was unknown, so they claim) and more, in addition to being a British spy. I ask these people, how on earth did such a person ever, ever make it into the Ottoman army as an officer, was given command of numbers of men and came close to being considered a suitable addition as a groom to the Ottoman dynasty through marriage? Why on earth did he even fight the British at Gallipoli at all?
These are the ravings of madmen, but there is a vile method in their madness. For Atatürk is a Symbol, a Symbol of their loss. They would sell this country out in a heartbeat if it meant that they could live in their small niche of an unjust theocracy, all the while talking of the greatness of the Ottoman Empire. The truth is, the Ottoman Empire was not led by proll-minded, unenlightened bunch of base religious materialists. It was led by people who were enlightened, pragmatic, educated, true Kings of men.

Well, Turks have a saying : address the bear as uncle until you cross the bridge.

Meaning is similar to :hold a candle to the devil.

Yes, Turks used any politic and agreement necessary to win the war. Just like angalo-soviet agreement against Nazi Germany in 1941.

But there is an unknown history behind it. Lenin was not come up with the idea. It's more like the other Turkics in soviets who influenced the cause of helping Turkey. One of the main aid comes from destroyed bukhara empire. in Bukhara Republic, osman kocaoglu was instrumental in supporting the Turkish War of Independence (1919-1922) financially, using the funds of an historical treasure of the Bukhara. With agreement of the cabinet

This aid was delivered by the Soviet government, but not fully. only small funding and rest was given as military equipments.

It’s also known that many rifles and military equipments were too poor condition to use.

Lenin do know if any foreign invasion is successful. That would cause soviet a great problem, especially to soviet ideology and Bosporus straights and other things.

So war and politics works differently, essentially in the desperate times..

No he did not save the nation. He created the Turkish nation in modern terms and rules. Without Atatürk, the Turkish nation would not have existed as how we know at present.

Let’s see what happened after the Mondros ceasefire and what offered The Entente states with the Sevres Peace Treaty.

Approximately % 25 of the present existing area of Turkey would under control of Ottoman Empire -her name would be Empire but so called Empire-. And this state would not have an army as we know at present. The capital would be still Istanbul but Ottoman Empire would not control it. Because all the Marmara Sea coastals and two strait, Bosphorus and Dardanelles, would be under control of an international authority. The Aegean part of present Turkey would be a part of Greece, East Thrace would be a part of Greece. Mediterenaean Coastal plus Konya would be part of Italy. Most of East Anatolia would be a part of Great Armenia. Rest of East Anatolia and Southeast Anatolia would be Kurdish state. As you know Ottoman state was not a Turkish state even she known as Turkish Empire by European she was a multiethnic state. So this situation would be continued with a dogmatic teological pressure to the citizens. The citizens would have not a fulfilled citizen. Secularism would be out of order. It would be same as Saudi Arabia. Turkishness would be not a source of proud. If someone thought that himself/herself as a Turkish he/she will shame on his/her Turkishness. Being Ottoman and/or muslim would be the source of proud. The alphabet would be still Arab alphabet not latinized. The literacy rate would be very low. etc. many things.

Many people would self-declared theirselves as in another ethnicity but not Turkish because of the need of human to be a part of a bigger thing. And many people would convert also their religion from Muslim to Christian to survive.

But the most important thing in all what he did the citizens would be still helots nothing more, he convert the helots to citizens.

There are several reasons.

One of them, the Ottoman Empire came to end like everything in this world. Everything, even mountains, seas, etc., but everything borns, develop, and then dies. This is also valid for every country. In the future, there will be no USA, UK or the Turkish Republic. We will (in fact, they, next generations) see new governments, countries. So the USA is a child and we don’t know how much this country will live. If they can reach the same age as the Ottoman Empire, this can be a great success… ;)

I don’t have any shame about the Ottoman Empire. They were great. Really great. And one of the long lasting countries. I think only the Roman Empire and the Chinese Dynasty lived longer. There are many speculations about them but mostly nonsense. Anyway, this is not our subject. Like everything the Ottoman Empire has come to end and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk saw that. Like every great person, he was different from the rest, from “us” (Again how great is not our subject now)… So he knew there will be formed a new government after the Ottoman Empire. Ok, let us dream something: He didn’t live. There is nobody named Mustafa Kemal. Even at that point, the Ottoman Empire came to end. Maybe not at 1923 but maybe 1925 maybe 1919, there would be an official end for them. Sooner or later. Today or tomorrow or yesterday. The timing is not important.

He saw that as a great person. And the need for a new government. He made the best possible choice. He was aware that “Kingdoms” came to end and maybe they can live sometimes as “symbolic forms” but there was no future for them. So he has chosen the Republic form for the new government.

And yes his choice (like the most of his choices) was the best choice.

Yes, it is true that Atatürk is the founder of Türkiye, but it is not true that Türkiye was named after him. Republic of Türkiye, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, was founded October 29, 1923 by Mustafa Kemal Pasha, and its name Türkiye means land of Turks. However, Mustafa Kemal Pasha’s surname, Atatürk, means father of Turks. So Türkiye did not get its name from Atatürk, Atatürk got his surname from the Turkish nation.

Lenin's father was a Chuvash. Lenin's mother was an Jewish.

Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin):

Lenin's parents and sibling:

No they never met, even if they did they wouldn’t have liked each other, both had different role models and both had different worldviews, Ataturk was much inspired by Mahmud II, who is often called the Peter the Great of Turkey.

Ataturk never intended to embrace communism, in his own words; “Communism is a social matter. The current situation of our country, its social conditions, and the strength of its religious and national traditions confirm the opinion that Communism, as practiced in Russia, could not be put into practice in our country.”

Hilarious question which is clearly asked by one who has probably never visited Turkey because one cannot have a presence in that country without seeing the face of Atatürk several times a day in various forms from busts, statues to portraits.

But put this ubiquity aside… I'll give the purest example that proves Atatürks legacy so powerful that in Turkey Ghandi and Mother Theresa's legacy pales in comparison… this example is Erdogan.. yes, Turkeys autocratic, religious conservative Mr.Islam who won't dare antagonize the power of Atatürk but has in every way not so subtlety tried comically, i must say.. present himself as Atatürk competitor… He half heartedly faces the radical religious ignorance that periodically tries to deface Ataturk materially or his vision… In Recep (Reggie) Tayyip Erdogans little brain he thinks he's competing with the greatest Kemal ever known… but poor little Reggie who had to sleep with the Turkish “Anti-Christ" in Fetullah Gulen to come to power in a dirty partnership couldn't forsee being cornered personally by this FETO rat murderer who was seeking to kill him…chasing him like mouse in 2015 coup. Atatürk had 100X more enemies across 10 different countries all of which were the world's greatest powers and Atatürk never found himself in such a pathetic situation… but more emphatically when Reggie boy was running for his life across Turkey setting off major mass public gatherings in Turkeys biggest cities after barely escaping FETO his old partner-in-crime’s grasp, Erdogan in every one of these mass public city campaigns raised the greatness of Atatürk as the impenetrable fortress as the immortal protectorate of the Turkish nation, people and lineage! Yes, Erdogan portrayed himself as Atatürk liitle bitch..Erdogan hailed Atatürk’s greatness over and over to save himself as the last means of galvanizing the most powerful core elements of the Turkish nation to serve as a means to preserve his personal and political existence.. he turned to kissing Atatürk feet as he should before the Turkish people as evidence of his inferiority to Atatürk before every Turk to witness to save himself!!

To this day Erdogans foreign policy is the implementation of pure Kemalisim from Misaki Milli, to the Turan vision from Libya’s Trablus Garp to Xshinjian Uygur East Turkmenistan on the western Chinese frontier…This is how deep and powerful Atatürks legacy reigns is today as it will only grow more powerful with every passing year for the Turkish peoples from central Europe to Central Asia! No leader on the planet has done his for his people what Atatürk has… only prophets ordained by God have been more powerful!

The below is the graph of litearcy in countries through out the years. It’s in Turkish but you would make out some of the countries like (Almanya=Germany Rusya=Russia etc)

The red line in the right corner is Turkey. Forgotten, late to the party, no hope for modernization thats the scene after the liberation war.

That changing point in the graph is called Atatürk. His idea of “Letter revolution” which kicked out the arabic alphabet ,introduced latin ones with a modernized Turkish. He made it possible and obligatory for every child to get education.

It’s a god damm fine point.

There was Ottoman empire before Turkey.If you want to get answer of this question, you have to know what was happining last days of Ottoman Empire. Ottoman empire had conquered 88 contires in 3 continent on the world. And it had colossal 622- years history . it was moderated with monarchy. This Empire had had the biggest puclic treasure. As we can see. That was unique. However all are things which was good had been living many troubles with a few nations whom were aganist to Ottoman. Monarchy was not working anymore. Ottoman fought in 5 front line in first World War led by Atatürk. Monarchy was changed by Atatürk. Because he was thinking New Turkey. Turkish , Kurdish ,Laz Manav, Çerkez,Kafkas etc (Those are living in Turkey Who are diffirent nation) fought in first World War. Kemal Atatürk thought they deserved to Repuclic. He gave suffrage to them . Women’s rights was revived during him president time. The Latin Alphabet was brought by him .And many new things .

Indeed he did what are difficult.But there was big obstacle for the that changing. It’s monarchy. He had to do it for sovereignty of people. That’s the only way New Turkey could create with Republic. He showed to Turkısh power all of them. And they learnt to win battle with be brave.

So. Imagine a person whom the government tries to cancel almost for 20 years, but there are still pictures of him everywhere.

Imagine a man who led his people, couraged them to fight against the strongest countries of the time, including England and France. He and his soldiers won. This was almost impossible, not only because of the power of the Allied Forces, but also there was a big unequality with the supplies. Inadequacy of the Turkish army was very obvious. Most of them didn't even had the rifles to fight the enemy forces. It was all hopeless. But Atatürk still believed they could, and so here we all are, living as Turkish citizens.

Not only this, Ottoman Empire was on fall, and Atatürk founded The Republic of Turkey. Fighting against the allied forces, they also fought with other rebel minorities and supressed the riots of the sheria supporters. Of course not enough, he tried everything to make Turkey a modern country, to bring the Turkish culture back, to improve the economy and made loads of other revolutions. Like alphabet (from Arabic to Latin), surnames (Turks interestingly didn't have surnames until they had their republic. They were usually called “oğlu" meaning the “son of". For example, Ahmet Oğlu Mehmet / Mehmet, the son of Ahmet), election rights for women (before a lot of european countries).

So i hope you understand why Atatürk is really important for the Turkish history.

Namaskar Anuj sir. Of course not. Erdogan has cheated the EU by re-employing ORUC REIS research vessel together with the Turkish fleet to search for oil in Greek territories, breaking his promise to German Chancellor Dr. Angela Merkel that he will stop provoking Greece and will start peace talks with Greece. At the same time he has violated serious UN resolutions regarding Varosia re-opening in Cyprus (the ghost town) after 46 years of Turkish occupation, in essense illegally confiscating the owner properties in Varosia. On top of that he has send ISIS terrorists and arms in Libya breaking the UN arms embargo, he has targeted French ships that were on a mission to safeguard the UN embargo, he has invaded Syria and slaughtered the Kurdish nation, he has provided armed support to Azerbaijan to against Armenia in Navorno Karabach, he provides arms and training in F16s to Pakistani pilots, and most of all he openly supplies with guns and money separatist criminal groups in the Indian Administered Jammu & Kashmir. This last point is the greatest mistake of Erdogan is deadly. Underestimating India and of what India is capable to do with it’s enormous military machine, will certainly put him into very big troubles.

No Azerbaijan existed in South Caucasus during WWI and “Azerbaijan” term was never applied to the territory of South Caucasus before XX century.

Turkish army occupied the Armenian territories, committed genocidal ethnic cleansing and established a Turkic puppet regime of Azerbaijan in 1918. The name “Azerbaijan” for new puppet regime was stolen from the name of adjacent Iranian province.

Diplomatic nota submitted on 28.08.1918 by the Iranian ambassador in Istanbul protesting against the use of “Azerbaijan” name for a newly-established state in South Caucasus.

It states that “as a result of the Russo-Ottoman peace treaty, a state named “Azerbaijan” is being established in the Caucasus. Considering that there is a same-name province in Iran, with a centre in Tabriz, and the fact that there was never any statehood with such name during the whole history, the Iranian state is embassed and requires revision of your decision”.

There's all kinds of issues raised by this question beyond the fact that, no, there is no evidence of any promise made to anybody by Lenin regarding the Russo-Chinese border. I'm particularly interested in Lenin's notion of the right of nations to self-determination mentioned by another poster (Victor Unready).

A different poster (Tim Holmes) has already referred to the 1900 article 'The War in China', and this serves as a good example of Lenin's attitude to the problem. In the article, he acknowledged that Outer Manchuria was taken from Qing-dynasty China by military force and he denounced the barbaric expulsion/massacre of Asian people (Manchus, Hans and Daurs) from the 64 villages north of the Amur by the Russian military during its suppression of the Boxer Rebellion. He cited these facts to denounce Russia's intervention in China as anything but a civilizing mission. He saw this mission as part of a battle for new resources and new markets paid for by the Russian taxpayer, from which only Russian capitalists would benefit. He urged ordinary Russians to oppose this intervention. He supported the right of Asians of all nationalities to run their own affairs. He does not agree with Ruslan's (the poster) assertion that Manchuria was not occupied by Russia. It was occupied, quite violently.

Despite Lenin's protest, the Russian operation was successful in its own terms and so Russia remained in control of outer Manchuria. In 1904 Russia tried to expand into inner Manchuria (today Dongbei, PRC) but were beaten in a war with the Japanese. Having established a base in Inner Manchuria, the Japanese held it up until 1911 and after 1917 attacked Soviet-controlled Outer Manchuria, joining the Russian Civil War on the side of the Whites. The USA supported the Japanese attack, which involved the occupation of Vladivostok.

During this Civil War, Mongolia, which had declared independence in the anti-Qing revolution of 1911 became another base for the Whites. Mongolia was thus drawn into the Civil War, but the Whites lost and the country went Communist in 1921. This was the result of a war led by the Mongolian People's Party against both the White-Russian Occupiers and against the Chinese warlord government (Anhui Clique) who wanted to end Mongolian independence.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks thus supported Mongolian independence from China and found themselves in conflict with the Beijing warlords and their 'one China' (sic) policy. The Bolsheviks did not accept (and had never accepted) that the borders of China should be those claimed by the Qing dynasty at a certain time in the past. The Han Chinese are not the only ethnic group in Asia! The Bolsheviks therefore viewed the national independence movements which emerged during the 1911 Chinese revolution as legitimate. They hoped for a democratic and socialist confederation of Asian states (i.e. a Communist Mongolian, Tibetan, Uighur and Chinese state joined together in a second USSR).

This is why Mongolia was never absorbed into the USSR created at the end of 1922, despite the fact that it went Communist.

The relevance of all this to Manchuria should be clear. This was a place fought over by two Imperialist powers (Japan and USA) and Russian Soviet power. The Chinese warlords also had a claim on the territory.

In Lenin's view, who governed Manchuria was to be decided by the people who lived there, if possible. The possibility of creating a separate Manchu Republic was doubtless considered at one point, provided local forces (as was the case in Mongolia) emerged to press this case). Given the national movements in Mongolia and Tibet since 1911, there could be no question of recognizing Qing territorial claims to Manchuria. The Qing themselves had already passed into history and a new states were in the process of being established. This is why there was no 'promise' that the angry man with the map imagines there to have been. Even if such a promise had been made in 1900 (when one of Lenin's few public statement on China was written) the events of 1911 would surely have rendered this promise obsolete.

The current Chinese-Russian border was established in 1922 when the Americans finally persuaded the Japanese to withdraw from outer Manchuria. Of course the Japanese remained in Inner Manchuria, and declared it a separate state in 1931 ('Manchukuo'). This colony served as the basis for the invasion of Han China in 1937. Presumably the angry man with the map is reproaching Lenin for not leaving Outer Manchuria to the Japanese, because the Chinese warlords were in no position to take control of it.

The Soviet Union supported the Chinese Communists during the 1937-45 war and urged a common front with the Nationalist KMT in opposition to the Japanese. This concession to Chinese nationalism by the Communists had doleful consequences later on. The Chinese Communists themselves, followers of Stalin far more than Lenin, sought to re-establish late Qing-era borders as much as possible just like the warlords before them. This was a complete violation of Marxist principle (the right of nations to self-determination) and part of the Stalinist counter-revolution in the world communist movement.

As a result, Tibet was occupied ('peacefully liberated') in 1959 and feudalism overthrown, Stalin-style not Lenin-style. It was forcibly reincorporated into China after nearly half a century of de facto independence, a type of independence Lenin had clearly supported (see the case of Mongolia).

The counter-revolutionary, pro-Qing aspects in Mao's thinking were further revealed in a series of border wars with neighboring state during the 1950s and 60s. In 1969, the PRC started a war with the USSR over a scrap of land in the Amur River. Later they fought with 'Socialist' Vietnam over the same Qing-inspired principle. Where is the Socialist internationalism in this kind of activity?

Of course, it was not just the Chinese feudalists and warlords and Communists who supported a One China policy, it was also true of the KMT who even today, from Tapei, insist that Mongolia is part of China and, seemingly, Outer Manchuria too. The chances are that the angry man with the map was one of their supporters as the CPC has (since about 1991) settled its quarrel with Russia over Outer Manchuria whereas the KMT has not. These claims are of course comical, as there is no chance that the Tapei government will take control of any part of the mainland, any more than the mainland will take control of Taiwan.

Turkey had been super secularist until 1950s. Now the government of Turkey is Islamist, Jihadist.

They even react to the sentences that start with “Tanri…” and convert it to “Allah…”. I guess it is too much “Arabism” for some Turks. I do think what Ataturk would feel about the current situation of Turkey. At the time, Ataturk favored science, but now we observe the reverse. Specially opening of “Imamhatip okullari” , which is religion based schools, and lead to Mystism or low education. Even “Milli Egitim Bakani” (National Education Ministry of Turkey) stated : “The Evolution should be discarded from educational system”. It is not joke, it is for real!

Ataturk would not be happy about what have been happening in Turkey. And he would give a try to fix illness, but it seems that 40% of Turkey are satisfied with that situation (You may come to same conclusion if you watch videos from streets).

There are books about his life and views, I will be very brief now.

Mustafa Kemal Pasha was an army officer of the Ottoman Empire. When he started his job, Ottoman Empire was in political, militaristic, and economic turmoil. He was in the modernist cliques of the Ottoman state and looking for an exit for the nation. He thought that the Turkish nation is the main element of the Empire and it has to have more voice in the administration of the state.

He went to Bulgaria as a military attaché. He saw the rapid modernization of Bulgaria. He went to Austria for health reasons and Germany with Ottoman Prince. He witnessed the effectiveness of western institutions and systems. His state idea was shaped in all these travels.

His star shined in the Great War. He commanded successful operations on Gallipoli, Caucasian, and Syrian Fronts. His name was in the newspapers. However, Ottoman Empire lost the war as the other Allied nations did. Entente powers wanted to divide Ottoman Lands and create new colonial territories.

Mustafa Kemal Pasha refused this terrible end. He arranged an inspection role in the northern part of what is left of the country. He started a political movement for independence. He listened to every local clique, every officer, and every religious leader and organized Congresses for discussion about how to save the nation. He didn't dictate, he offered his ideas to the committees and let the committees decide for the final resolution. Entente powers saw the danger and asked Sultan to take him back to Istanbul. Mustafa Kemal Pasha did not listen to Sultan's orders, took off his military uniform, and continued as a civilian. Sultan signed Mustafa Kemal's death warrant but couldn't force it, because local administration officers saw the change and opportunity to save the nation.

Mustafa Kemal Pasha and his team gathered in Ankara. Delegates from all around the country arrived in Ankara and opened a new parliament with supreme authority. It was a de facto Republic. Sultan and Istanbul's government sent assassins and organized rebellions against Ankara Parliament and Mustafa Kemal. This turned the nation against the Sultan.

Mustafa Kemal became the head of Parliament. It was the first time he legally led the nation. PMs elected him. Again he didn't dictate anything, he was a good listener and good speaker, so he offered his ideas in the best way. Parliament resolutions were the main pillars of the Turkish independence movement. The parliament established a new army and sent delegates to other countries. Parliament's army successfully repelled the Armenian army in the east and conducted operations against rebellious regions.

Greek army pushed their way to Ankara to destroy the parliament and capture Mustafa Kemal. Mustafa Kemal is offered to be the head commander of the armies by the parliament. He accepted it and Parliament's army defended their positions very well and the Greek army had to retreat. Mustafa Kemal planned a surprise attack on Greek forces in August 1922, it was a crushing operation for the Greeks and they had to retreat from Turkish territories. Mustafa Kemal Pasha was declared the hero of the nation. He proved his capacity in the political and military areas.

The Turkish parliament abolished the monarchy and sent a committee for a peace agreement. The Treaty of Lausanne was signed in July 1923 between Türkiye and Entente powers. It is considered to be the birth certificate of the Turkish nation.

Mustafa Kemal Pasha wanted to build a modern republic. He offered parliament to adopt democracy as a political system. The hero of the nation could be a military dictator and even the new Sultan, a new dynasty. He wanted the nation to keep power, not some elites. The parliament adopted democracy, Republic of Turkiye was declared officially on 29 October 1923, just a few months after the Lausanne Treaty. The Parliament elected him as the first president of the Republic of Turkiye.

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk did not stop there. He sought ways to modernize the country. Leaded many committees for reforms and many of the reforms evolved the nation from the weak man of Europe to a respected modern state.

Because he was a populist.

Populists often make promises they either cannot fulfil, or are not intending to fulfil. In case of Lenin, he partially fulfilled only one: Peace with Germany.

Peace: In 1918, he signed a peace treaty with the Germans, ending Russian participation in WWI, violating the Entente treaty and outraging Russia’s Entente allies. However, instead of continuing WWI, Russia got a civil war, much more bloody and all over the country, not only on the front line.

Land: he took it from the land owners, except the very poor ones, but instead of giving it away to peasants in equal shares, he declared it the state property. The former large estates owned by the nobility were converted to ‘Sovkhoz’ - mutual ownership enterprize, effectively, a government controlled farm. As a result, there was unrest and peasant rebellions all over the country.

His successor, Stalin, took the rest of the land away and enslaved the peasants in Kolhozes. But that was done 15 years later.

Bread: it all went wrong immediately, after the revolutionary mob has finished robbing the shops and warehouses. There was no bread: it had to be bought from the peasants and distributed. So the Bolsheviks created the so-called ‘food squads’ that went to rob the countryside and kill those unwilling to give all bread or grain they had. The peasants fought back, killing the robbers and burning crops when they realized a battle is lost. In the end, some millions died of hunger alone in the beginning of 1920s.

Atatürk created Turkey from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire (singlehandedly, despite what others may say).

Until his example, there was no other instance of a Muslim nation resisting and overcoming colonial powers.

So, Turkey is Atatürk. And the lazy and corrupt Ottoman mindset is everything Atatürk is not.