"Turkey's President Believes Adolph Hitler's Germany Is..." Topic

… An Ideal Example Of An Efficient Presidential System.

"Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, who is pushing for executive powers, cites Hitler's Germany as an example of an effective presidential system, in comments broadcast by Turkish media on Friday.

Erdogan wants to change the Turkish constitution to turn the ceremonial role of president into that of a chief executive, a Turkish version of the system in the United States, France or Russia.

Asked on his return from a visit to Saudi Arabia late on Thursday whether an executive presidential system was possible while maintaining the unitary structure of the state, he said: "There are already examples in the world. You can see it when you look at Hitler's Germany.

"There are later examples in various other countries," he told reporters, according to a recording broadcast by the Dogan news agency…"
Full article here
link

The Turkish government is now saying that his comments were taken out of context … I do not think so.

Amicalement
Armand

Armand for President of Turkey in 2016!!!

God help Turkey if he thinks the Third Reich was "efficient". It was the epitome of cronyism, and pitting departments and powerful people against each other.
Unless that is what Erdogan really wants.

More like he hates the Jewish people like Hitler did.

Yeah … it does not sound too far out there. When you consider Turkey is a moslem country. That is consistently getting more and more "islamic" … Than it formerly being more secular. Or so it appears …

Can be… that there are still some "influence" from germans advicers since WW1?

Amicalement
Armand

It would not surprise me. Hitler sent a lot of agents to the Middle East to try and get them to rebel against Britain.

From what I read, he did. Including the German Spec Ops unit, the Brandenburgers …

Given that Hitler based his genocide of the Jews and others off of the Turkish genocide of the Armenians there does seem to be a connection.

that's , already, a neat reason for carrying him in fromt of the Hague Court…but, unfortunatly, he will escape scot free also this time

Although German influence on Turkey has been substantial since the early 20th century, let's give the Turks fair credit.

The Turks never passed explicitly anti-Semitic laws, as so many European national republics did. The Turks were friendly to the early Zionists and permitted the first Aliyah.

The Turks didn't participate in the Holocaust. No Turkish Jews were ever deported to extermination camps. They provided some haven for Jewish refugees, although their national policy was never to rescue Jews or to countenance mass immigration. Unlike several of the European national republics, the Turks refused to join Hitler's genocidal war against the Soviet Union.

In general, conditions of Jewish life were relatively secure under the Turks, in contrast to the Arabs, who were recognized as fierce persecutors of the Jews from the beginning.

In my opinion, this is because the Turks were usually lax in their Islam and fond of indulging in vices, and they found that Jews made absolutely the best boot-leggers, bar-tenders, pimps and s.

I think that secular, Kamalist Turkey's good relationship with Israel was partly based on this old patronage relationship (again, the Turks allowed the Zionist project to begin), and partly on satisfaction at seeing the upstart Jews pay back the Arabs for the Arab Revolt of 1916.

There is to this day a significant Jewish minority in Turkey, unlike in most of the Middle East, who are legally full citizens, although they are now facing increased incidents of Islamist terror and persecution (beatings in the street, vandalism, the usual).

Unfortunately, in recent years Erdogan and the AKP have revived Turkey's Muslim identity and moved the country far from Kamalist secularism. Very lately, now that he has solidified AKP power, Erdogan, like Nasser and Saddam Hussein before him, has begun to position himself as the champion of the Arabs, by forwarding the Palestinian Arab cause. Renewed affection for Hitler is inevitable if Turkey joins the Arabs in attacking Israel.

intersting posting and infos zippyfusenet…about your comment on connection with 1916 Arab Revolt..there si something that had since i read it puzzled me..in the Great War Australian Official History volumes on Palestine and Sinai..quite a few mentions could be read about precious inteligence give to advancing Imperial troops on the dispositions of Ottoman unit by menbers of Jews villages..i was firstly amazed to learn about the existence of those villages.. i suppose an old version of the Kibbutz..and, while such news make me smile (i have great simpathy for Jews history and, why not, sionism attitude..my prefered wargame unit in East Africa are my converted 20mm Orde Wingate guerillas also if they have to battle VS my beloved Italians :-) i still did'nt understand such a support to British Armies as , in the eve of Sykes–Picot agreement still unrevealed and certainly totaly unknown to them, why Jews would support an invading force which was openly supported and arming arab tribesmen and was chasing the Ottoman authority which, from your words and from what i imagine, was granting protection of their isolated comunity VS arabs..

The Zionist Yishuv was first planted under the late Ottomans, starting in the 1880s. Turkish authorities generally supported Zionist settlement against local Arab opposition, insisting that Jews should have their full rights as citizens under the new Turkish constitution, rather than being restricted by the old rules of the dhimma. The insistance on Jewish legal equality outraged Arab feelings. Native Jews accepted the dhimma as inevitable, Zionists did not.

By 1914, the Zionist Yishuv amounted to some tens of thousands of people in a string of modern farming villages.

link

The Zionists in Palestine accepted Turkish citizenship and owed loyalty to the Ottoman Sultan. Both Zionist and native Jews in Palestine and other provinces paid taxes and served in the Turkish armed forces during WWI.

Jewish soldiers were something new, under the new Turkish constitution, which contradicted traditional shariah on many points. The Young Turks, who were behind the constitution, the partnership with Zionism, the German alliance, and other modernization efforts were determined to mobilize all of their empire's resources in a modern state, for modern war.

The Turks were utterly defeated in WWI, their empire shattered and looted, but Kemal Attaturk, founder and savior of the Turkish Republic, was a Young Turk, and their modernizing ideology formed the Turkish republic, with constitutional equality for Turkish citizens of all confessions. I do not gloss over the Young Turks' cruelty to the Armenians, the Greeks and other minorities. They believed then and today that it was a necessary cruelty, to ensure Turkish national survival, and I think the Turkish army will be equally cruel today, to Cypriots, Kurds, or anyone, in that cause.

Great Britain during WWI turned the world Zionist movement from a generally pro-Central Powers position to a pro-Allied one. The early Zionists were mostly German and Austrian nationals, opposed Czarist Russian anti-semitism, and partnered with the Young Turks. In 1916, the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, a German national, traveled to the UK and negotiated the Balfour Declaration, stating that HM's Government favored the establishment of a 'Jewish national home' in Palestine. Lord Balfour intended to turn the Zionists, and he did.

The Allies hoped that a mass rising of Zionist Jews would occur in Eastern Europe. That never happened. Zionism was always a minority position among the Ashkenazim, the vast majority of Polish Jews were either traditional or socialist. But the Yishuv in Palestine turned and gave active assistance to the British army. Who were obviously going to win anyway.

Arab militias were not at this stage a serious threat to the Zionist settlements, which were armed for self-defense, not to say better organized and trained. Also, at this stage the Zionists were negotiating with the Sherif Hussein for a post-war settlement.

It was only in 1920, after the details of Sykes-Picot had become clear, that the serious trouble started. Once the al-Husseini had absorbed the disappointment that they would not become Kings over all the Arabs, that the UK would keep Palestine and the Zionists would not become subjects of the al-Husseini, then the Sherif's agents began mobilizing Arab militias for open attacks on the Jews. Open war began in 1920 with the Nebi Musa riot/pogrom in Jerusalem. Which was led by no other than the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini (different al-Husseini), Yassir Arafat's uncle.

thanks zippyfusenet very interesting posting..and extemely complicated situation since the beginning

Excuse me, I erred above in naming the Sherif Hussein's dynasty the 'al-Huseini'. I think they are rather the al-Hashemi. They were ousted from the Holy Cities by the al-Saud. Their last reigning descendant is King Abdullah of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Given that Hitler based his genocide of the Jews and others off of the Turkish genocide of the Armenians there does seem to be a connection.

And so many forget that. That plus forget the Armenians were Christians … And the Turks don't take any responsibility it. Or even it occurred and seem to completely deny it. Much like the Iranian theocracy denies the Holocaust.

Once again, the bottom line is fundamentalist islam has a predilection in the past and some currently. To want to commit genocide on local Christians as well as Jews … When they are not busy slaughtering their own over religious, ethnic, tribal, etc. differences … of course …

I don't know if Hitler was necessarily inspired by the Armenian genocide. There had been plenty of other genocides to look to, including Imperial Germany's own brutalization of tribes in southwestern Africa, and many much more systematic and organized genocides (the Roman erasure of Carthage from existence, for example).

Turkey, of course, didn't limit their wrath to the Armenians. I believe they also killed around a half-million Greeks after the end of the war.

"I don't know if Hitler was necessarily inspired by the Armenian genocide."

The Armenian Genocide timeframe fits into Hitler's early adult life and followed similar progressions. Could very well be coincidental but who knows?

Turkey, of course, didn't limit their wrath to the Armenians. I believe they also killed around a half-million Greeks after the end of the war.

And the Greeks are Christians too …

Hitler was certainly aware of the Armenian genocide, and cited it to suggest that genocide of the Poles would be forgotten when Germany won their war:

link

Without minimizing the massacres of Christian Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians or others…there were massacres and ethnic cleansing by both sides throughout the Balkan and Caucasian wars, up through the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-22. Turkish civilians also were brutalized and murdered by enemies, and the Turks had every reason to fear genocide and national extinction themselves if they were defeated.

It would be better if we could avoid repeating those horrors. As bad as the Syrian civil war has been, it has not yet reached the level of genocide. Mostly.

In any case, whatever crimes were committed 100 years ago, we have today to deal with present geo-political realities. We need partners in the Near and Middle East, and we can only partner with those who are willing to work with us.

Agreed … Seems there is no shortage of this sort of thing in that region and those that border it. And yes we have to deal with current geopolitical situations. Which there are many …

We need partners in the Near and Middle East, and we can only partners with those who are willing to work with us.

And that seems to be the rub …

We need partners in the Near and Middle East, and we can only partner with those who are willing to work with us.

Which is why we should just rename Israel to something like "FOB Judea" and call it good.

They are our only real ally in the region, it appears …