WILL ATATURK'S WORDS BE SUPRESSED?

[khodja]

So the Turkish governemnt has succeeded in getting a Turkish pesa, son of Sir Laurence Olivier married to a Turkish woman, to produce a movie about Ataturk obstensibly according to them to counteract the movie "Ararat." It waill star one of the top 20 Hollywood stars. This is apples and oranges. Ararat will discuss the decay of the Ottoman Empire that led to the annihilation of the Armenaisn and decimation of the Anatolian Greek and Assyrians. Ataturk will deal with a man who attempted to secularize and Westernize Turkey. You can bet that Ataturk's 1926 comments attesting to the actions of the Young Turks in planning the Armenian Genocide, will not be included in this movie. We should be prepared to wash every movie review with a bona-fide copy of the newspaper article of Ataturk's words.

[Boghos]

Once again mighty Turkey doesn't seem to have the right strategy (if there is one excpet for settling this once and for all). The more attention the better.

[HaYaStAnRuLeS]

"Ararat"... hopefully, that's the only thing we'll hear @ da oscars next year ;-P but obviously, n e 1 remotely familiar with the things that make hollywood tick will tell me that i'm dreaming in technicolor... well, i dont expect "Ararat" 2 rack the n e golden statuettes, but i'm sure it's gonna b a contender. why??? becuz it's based on a very delicate, yet substancially interesting subject: the neverending quest 4 a nation like ours 2 share their grief with the world... it's this unfortunate message that will be the reason we r nominated 4, yet dont deserve an oscar... this is all showbizz... there r no rules or limits except those that r set by the producers & implimented by the director. it takes vision 2 make a film, not motivation... i personally would like 2 believe that movies tend 2 sumwhat portray reality, but n e 1 that knows the industry will swear otherwise... but, swinging back 2 "Ataturk", the shallowness of turkish cinema is once again proven with an utter lack of moral understanding & social inclination by the turkish producers. these ppl r actually thinkin bout makin a movie about their greatest leader, yet they dont intent 2 include his most sensible line of thought!!!! dont get me wrong: Ataturk wuz a great leader, a prominent politician & an understandingly compassionate human being... the fact that he publicly admitted his country's wrongdoings shows that he understands the long term implication of continued tension with armenians!!! but the fact that the producers of "Ataturk" will not include this line in their movie really shows the lake of fortitude in the turkish ppl... they astonishingly fail 2 even comprehend the holiest motivations of their greatest politician... that man had a vision, a vision of a perfect & peaceful turkey that involved recognising past mistakes & building solid relations with it's neighbors in the future... NOW WHEN R TURKISH POLITICIANS ACTUALLY GONNA GET HIS MESSAGE!!! it's truely frustrating when sum assh*les wish 2 glorify their country's heroic figure, yet they perversly choose 2 "overlook" his greatest deeds... it's sad... very sad...

 

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: HaYaStAnRuLeS ]

[Boghos]

I didn´t know there were Armenian Boyz´n´hood

in Montreal now. Certainly not when I lived there.

 

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Boghos ]

[Azat]

Da message by HaYaStAnRuLeS prooves that I m 2 old 2 understand da way that n e of our young people talk.

 

It took me 15 minutes to read it.

[MosJan]

images/smiles/converted/smile.gif

[khodja]

Azat,

 

I also wonder whether you and most-middle aged Armenians understand how our young people view the world, or how even middle-aged assimilated Armenians view the world. Cher would feel more comfortable with our young people than sitting with and conversing with our community leaders at the head table of an Armenian affair in a Beverly Hills hotel.

[Harut]

at least you got through it. i couldn't passed beyond the second line.

did i become old too?

[hyecory]

lets declare 'hollywwod war'

 

what are you guys worried about man? you guys sound more worried over 'ataturk' then turks over 'ararat'.

 

wow the turks are making a movie about ataturk, ooooooh, an the directors not even a turk.

 

all the director is gonna try to show is that the turks arnt the same barberic demon possesed murders they were 80 years ago. (which we all know they are)

 

the great ataturk came an thought them what the armenian/greeks/assyrians tried to teach but couldent get it into that hard head of theirs.

 

come to california, an you guys will see that their are alot of armenian youngsters who are learning to become future film directors, an i tell ya, with in the next ten years were gonna have more armenian film makers in the US, then we did for the past century.

just like atom, 90 percent of the kids here were dreaming about being the first director to make a major film about the armenian genocide.

 

but after 'ararat' now these youngsters are dreaming about directing the second major film about the armenian genocides. an after that there is going to be a third, an a fourth, an a fifth, an so on...

just one ararat is not gonna cut it.

 

so relaxe homeboys, there is a time for everything

[khodja]

I am probably older than most here, but I got through the whole statement. "Age" and perception are a state of mind. As Norman W. Walker stated in his 110's, "I am not old, I am ageless." It was only when he married a 70 year old woman, who changed his attitude, that he succumbed at 120 years of age.

[Boghos]

I think you are under a misconception. Egoyan's publicc goes much beyond an Armenian audience. It will be widely watched. Not like Schindler's List. But much beyond the Armenian communities.

[aurguplu]

i think both turks and armenians are paying way too much attention to this "war-of-the-movies" business.

 

turks have not produced much in the way of great or even watchable movies, and what little they did produce would appeal more to the subtler european viewer than to the hollywood-fed american viewer. i do not know of any armenian film or film director whose movie i have seen, either (this doesn't of course mean there isn't one).

 

let's face it: turks and armenians have an almost century-old blood feud, but pick up any regular north american and/or european, and more likely than not they will not be able to 1) show either turkey or armenia on the map, 2) know what our conflict is about, and 3) care much.

 

i have little doubt that "ararat" will be watched mostly by the armenians, then the turks, and the rest of the world will pay scant attention to it. the same will go for "ataturk", if it turns out to be a propaganda movie (which it will if supported by the state). i wouldn't put much store to either.

 

meanwhile, may i repeat that the one good thing all this is doing is preparing the turkish public for an eventual recognition of the genocide. the problem with the attitude of the common folk has usually been the negation of the possibility that a genocide might have occurred in turkey, not whether or not the genocide has occurred. turks tended, and still tend, to deny that there might have been criminals among them that might have done such a thing in their name (the "our-nation-would-never-do-such-a-thing" mentality). this is the mentality that has to go since it blinds the eyes of the people to potential criminals.

 

regards,

[THOTH]

HaYaStAnRuLeS -

 

I don't disagree with your points concerning Ataturk - and I have always admired him as a military genius and as a leader (but no friend [just an admirer] of Armenians) - however I think you fail to understand a fundemental message/goal that Ataturk strived for - Anatolia for the Turks including the concept of supression of any other ethnic/cultural identity and presence in Anatolia. It is due to this campaign that Armenians were never repatriated after WWI - and in fact through his General Karabakir - Ataturk pursued war against the Armenians in the Eastern Provinces - commited additional slaughter and atrocities against innocents - and crushed any hope of an independent Armenia in the East (and even any recognition of Armenian cultural presence there or in Anatolian history).

 

Ataturk is also responsible for the destruction of Smyrna (and its Greek and Armenain population) and the subsequant expulsion of most of the remaining Greeks from Anatolia. These and other acts were calculated with the purpose of removing non-Turkish influence/presence in Anatolia. His legacy/concept of Turkish State/nationalism is also the reason that the Kurds have been set upon so and have had their cultural rights restricted and outlawed and it is a chief reason why the genocide is not recognized to this day (Turkish jingoism). His concepts were mearly a refinement of the Young Turk ideals (being more realistic concerning possiblity for empire and if anything being less inclusive of minority elements).

 

While Ataturk was certainly a great man for his various accomplishments (during World War I, in the founding of the Turkish Republic againt great odds, and due to his success in forcing Turkey to adopt Western ways) - we - particlarly, as Armenians - must not forget the darker aspects of the man and his legacy.

[Guest Fadi]

Ali, I strongly desagree with your comments concerning Karabakir. Karabekir was a criminal a murderer one of the bloodish person of the "war of independence" He planned to destroy Armenia, it is wrong when you say, he defended against Armenian invading Army, he just did more then this.

 

He joined his forces with Sick Halil that was planning to kill the Armenians to the last individual(admited in his own memoires). More then this the letters writen from Enver and Talaat from Germany to Karabekir to continue this foolish plans.

 

An exemple here.

 

“My dearest Karabekir, I have given this explanation so that your conscience is in no way burdened with any torment in the course of the military operation you are to embark upon in order to preserve the integrity of the country.”

 

Cemal Kutay, Karabekir Ermenistan’i Nasil Yok Etti ?, Istanbul, 1956, p.27

 

 

The letter to him from his pall Halil.

 

“ The soldiers are intent on liquidating the Armenians of Karabagh… .The people and soldiers here are eagerly awaiting the crossing of the borders by Ottoman armies so as to achieve this goal in a short period of time.(source: Karabekir, Istiklâl Harbimiz/n.2/, p. 608)

 

 

Karabekir on April 28, 1920, order to the 3rd division of his Army Corps, before Attacking the Russian Armenians in Russian border.

 

“The aim of all Turks is to unite with the Turkic brothers. History is affording us today the last opportunity. In order for the Islamic world not to be forever fragmented it is necessary that the campaign against Karabagh be not allowed to abate. As a matter of fact drive the point home in Azeri circles that the campaign should be pursued with greater terror and severity.”( source: Karabekir, Istiklâl Harbimiz/n.2/, p. 631)

 

 

These is the orders that he gave to do to Armenia.

 

“ezmek”, “bitirecegiz”, “çignememize”, “mahv”, “can vereceksiniz” and “imha” I requote, “IMHA” (source: Karabekir, Istiklâl Harbimiz/n.2/, p.67, 287, 373, 713, 749, 783, 805)

 

And also forget to point out another quote, his order to Ankara government on May 30, 1920, and to his forces before Ataking Armenia.

 

 

“Wipe out for eternity”( source: Karabekir, Istiklâl Harbimiz/n.2/, p. 722)

 

 

What happened to Alexendripol Ali ? Etc... When from Russian statistics more then 80 % of the population left were less then 12 years old... he attack the suruvers of the Armenian nation with his plan to wipe it out for eternity...

 

 

Karabekir is a bloodish murderer seen as a Hero, I jump up of my chair everytime I hear someone giving him credit for anything...

 

Sorry

 

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: Domino ]

[aurguplu]

thoth,

 

on ataturk:

 

in turkish we have a saying "you cannot found a state without shedding blood and chopping of heads". i know that this will do nothing to improve the barbaric image of the turks, but a cold, impartial look at history shows just how true it is, not confined to turkish, but all other states (armenian included).

 

now about the darker aspects of the man: there is another saying, this time by historians, that "the hero of one is the monster of the other", and ataturk is of course no exception. but as far as the formation of the republic goes, in the aftermath of ww1, the west really did try to put an end to turkish presence in anatolia, in fact, anywhere outside central asia. what were we expected to do? sit down and wait for everyone to kill us off or send us "bag and baggage" back to central asia (in the words of gladstone)? we fought for survival, and in fights, there are winners annd losers. we won. are we to apologise because we won?

 

now as for karabekir, he had not taken part in the genocide per se (1915), he couldn't have, as he was stationed elsewhere. he entered the scene later, in 1919 if my memory doesn't fail me, and at that time he was fighting an invading armenian army in anatolia, and not civilians (i do not rule out that civilians also died, but that was not the main aim). karabekir is also known to have made statements highly critical of the "purges" of the armenians by the CUP, so you cannot really call the man an incorrigible enemy of the armenians, nor did he set that much store to the pan-islamic or pan-turanian fantasies of enver (few ever had).

 

in examining the independence war, one should not forget that ataturk, karabekir and others had to gather what forces had survived the great war, and it is true that many who had "something to hide" had joined the struggle for independence. hence the presence of the special organisation members in their ranks.

 

as for the burning of smyrna, an enormous amount of debate has been going on both in turkey and abroad since the event itself. the fire had broken out in the armenian quarter and had spread to the greek, jewish and turkish quarters from there. i do not know of further details, but as far as i can recall, the fire had started after the city was won back, and sheer common sense dictates that you do not set a city ablaze that you have just conquered. you instead move in and live in it. on the other hand, the one who has lost the city and is on its way out has a far greater incentive to set it afire, for he would not want to leave an intact city to the invader.

 

regards,

[THOTH]

Ali -

 

I understand what it is you are saying regarding Ataturk. Believe me - i have taken much grief from various Greeks and Armenians for calling him a great man and stating that I wish the Armenians had have or could have such a leader.

 

Regarding Smyrna however - I think the evidence is clear. I leave you with some quotes that I gathered (primarily from one book "Smyrna 1922 - The Destruction of a City" by Marjorie Housapian-Dobkin - a book that has one critical acclaim for its historical accuracy and unbiased approach (I recommend it for everyone interested in the story of Smyrna)

 

 

In his book - “Maresal Fevzi Cakmak” – Turkish author Suleyman Kulce credits the burning of Smyrna to General Norredin and his Turkish regular troops who took possession of Smyrna on 9 September 1922 (Smyrna fire began on 13 September 1922 – well after the withdrawal of all Greek forces). Nourredin “..was responsible for the massacres and the fire.” The general exhibited a “myopic outlook”.

 

Another Turkish author – Falih Rifki Atay wrote: “Why were we burning Izmir? Were we afraid that we would not be delivering ourselves from the (sway) of the minorities in case the mansions, hotels, and cafes were left to remain? Driven by the same fear we put to the torch all the inhabitable quarters and neighborhoods of the Anatolian cities and towns during the World War I Armenian deportations.” Atay expressed his “revulsion” over the actions of the Turks over these actions. He specifically cites the bigotry and “penchant for arrogance and cruelty” of General Noureddin who he blames for the fire, adding that Kemal (Ataturk) was evidently unable or unwilling to prevent his actions.

 

American Consul George Horton (who was on the scene and was in fact a long time resident of Smyrna) stated (in a report to the US Secretary of State dated 26 September 1922) that: “..the (excessive) conduct of the victorious army..instead of protecting the helpless people which it had in its power, deliberately set about massacring and outraging it.”

 

Nino Russo (a ship’s engineer in an Italian battleship anchored in Smyrna harbor during the fire) states: “There were so many bodies in the water you couldn’t count. Everybody, …all the bigshots, the Capitan, all those people going back and forth to shore, they knew and they reported that the Turks were burning Smyrna. All the crew, we all knew it was the Turks."”

 

US military intelligence report from 1922 regarding the conduct of the nationalist army in Smyrna: “”..discipline was excellent and maintained by fear of superior officers, by brutality and example. …moral…maintained by the desire for loot. Armenian and Greek shops were the first to be looted.”

 

Lietenant Merril (US Marine in Smyrna during this time): “Looting soon turned to armed robbery.”

 

Italian Consul Count Senni (in Smyrna during this time) reported that Kemal was meeting with his aids to decide on the disposition of the Armenians. By the next morning the Armenian quarter was surrounded by a cordon of Turkish soldiers. By afternoon a proclamation appeared: Anyone caught concealing an Armenian in his home would be brought before court martial. In the Turkish quarter there were signs that the populace was being roused to action.

 

British Sergeant Major Fripp (also in Smyrna): “All the looting was most orderly”

 

Marjori Dobkin (In her book titled “Smyrna 1922 – The Destruction of a city” writes: “News that Turks were killing Armenians in the back streets poured into the consulates all afternoon. In the streets of the Armenian quarter Turkish forces proceeded systematically at their task of flushing out the population. Women and girls were raped, knifed, or pursued into the streets, where they fell prey to other gangs. Men were either murdered in their homes or lashed together at the wrists and led away to be killed at the edge of the city.”

 

Major Davis of the Red Cross (from Smyrna - in a cable to Admiral Bristol): “Refugees must leave the country or be taken away. Safety of life not assured. Believe this is final decision of the Nationalist Government as solution of the race problem.”

 

Asa Jennings (assistant to the YMCA director at Smyrna): “People were injured and killed…the Turks shot at anything that moved.”

 

French officer in Smyrna noted on 13 September 1922: “The Armenian quarter is a charnel house. In three days this rich quarter is entirely ravaged. The streets are heaped with mattresses, broken furniture, glass, torn paintings. Some young women and girls…have been taken away and put into a house that is guarded by Turkish sentries. There are no men in this quarter; all are dead, or hiding, or they have been taken away.”

 

Consul Horton: “There seemed to be a definite plan to clean out the Armenians and to deal with the Greeks at their leisure.”

 

Reverend Abraham Hartunian (survivor of Smyrna and other massacres) in his diary: “Today (Monday, 11 September) I saw with my own eyes the Turks taking bombs, gunpowder, kerosene and everything necessary to start fires, in wagonfulls here and there through the streets.”

 

Marjorie Dobkin” Just after midnight on Tuesday the wind shifted its direction away from the Moslem quarter and a gusty breeze began blowing toward the harbor. A rash of fires broke out within an hour.”

 

Miss Mills (from the Smyrna collegiate institute): “I could plainly see the Turks carrying tins of petroleum into the houses, from which, in each instance, fire burst forth immediately afterward. There was not an Armenian in sight, the only persons visible being the Turkish soldiers of the regular army.”

 

Sergeant Tchorbadjis (Smyrna fireman): “…saw a Turkish soldier, well armed, setting fire to the interior…In all the house I went into I saw dead bodies…At another house there was a girl hanging from a lemon tree in the yard. There were plenty of armed soldiers going about. One of them went in where there was an Armenian family hiding and massacred the lot. When he came out his scimitar was dripping with blood. He cleaned it on his boots and leggings.”

 

Fireman Emmanuel Katsaros: Upon noticing several Turkish soldiers pouring petroleum into a house and attempting to stop them was met with the reply: “You have your orders (to stop the fires) and we have ours. This is Armenian property. Our orders are to set fire to it.”

 

Chicago reporter John Clayton (who had previously reported favorably towards the Turks, reports from Smyrna during the fire): “Except for the squalid Turkish quarter, Smyrna has ceased to exist. The problem of the minorities is here solved for all time. No doubt remains as to the origin of the fire…The torch was applied by Turkish regular soldiers.”

 

George Horton: “The Turks had plundered, slaughtered, and now burned the city because they had been systematically led to believe that they would not be interfered with.”

[HaYaStAnRuLeS]

my friend, although part of what u say is true, we must not forget the big picture... after all, he wuz a turk b4 n e thing else & he alwayz strived 4 a strong & unified turkish nation... which individual wouldn't seak the fortune of his nation in trade of the missfortune of his neighbors... even the greatest leader, as much as he may seam inhuman, cannot escape human nature!!! of course he pursued some of the worx started by his predecessors, but his goals & visions were different... in fact, most transcripts of his time show, when properly analysed, that Ataturk was not an enemy of Armenians 7 did not seak 2 annihalate our whole ppl!!! after all, armenians where scatered across most of anatolia during his time, & he wuz forced 2 confront us in order 2 realize his dream... if the geopolitical situation were different, it is quite obvious that he would in fact b inclined 2 offer a reasonable settlment 4 their feud with the armenians... he wuz a man who knew that having enemys, although weak, wuz worse then having stronger allies... now let's not get into a war of facts & figures, & let's not even attempt 2 analyse the political inspirations of Ataturk...my point wuz, just as my friend hyecory pointed out, that:



and believe me... he will fail miserably...

[MJ]

With all due respect, I am very much puzzled, Ali. Which Armenian Army was invading Anatolia in 1919? Where does such an insinuation like this come from?

Additionally, the Armenian Genocide has continued on the watch of Karabekir up to the year 1923 (primarily in Cilicia), when Armenians, finally, have been wiped out of the Ottoman Empire. Additionally, the POWs of the Russian Army of Armenian ethnicity have been slaughtered under Karabekir's watch in the post 1918 era, while the Turkish and Russian POWs have been exchanged.

The only difference between Talaat and Karabekir has been that Karabekir has been smarter. I understand the efforts of the Turkish side to present the founder of the modern Turkish state as a person holding high ground, but it is a futile effort. Karabekir has been no different to the CUP. He has just taken a duplicitous posture to separate himself from the CUP in the eyes of the Europeans, but in essence he has been absolutely the same murderer and monster as the rest of the bunch.

[THOTH]

HaYaStAnRuLeS -

 

Yes - and Stalin made the Soviet Union great too....

 

Nothing you have said contradicts my points.

 

MJ & Fahdi - Good work on Karabakir...

[Guest Fadi]

Don't give the credit to me Thoth, I just requoted Dadrian findings.

 

BTW, if someone can ask to Dadrian if I can post 3 Holocaust and Genocide study reviews non on the web, writen by him... I think particulary the one conserning the Turkish sources conserning the genocide... since the Physician implication essay has decieved me a little.

[koko]

Sorry to incline,
I have a question concerning Egoyan's "Ararat". has the movie already had premier in the US? If not, do you know when the film was planned to be released?

And Yes, Egoyans movies are much appreciated around Europe, Not only in US/Canada, and not only by the armenians as aurguplu was pointing out.

Peace,

[wh00t]

The movie is supposed to premier at Cannes Film Festival in mid-May of this year.

[aurguplu]

ok everybody

 

1. re the burning of smyrna: as i had stated, i do not claim to know enough about the burning of smyrna to carry out a well-informed discussion about it. i'll have to go and check my sources, but at this point in time this will be a bit difficult as 1) i hva not updated the concerning parts of my library for years, and 2) my existing references may be turk-biased. i do not want to parrot unwittingly some propaganda stuff.

 

2. re karabekir: i'll check the references Domino gives in his "istiklal harbimiz". i happen to own the original edition, which was collected at one time for the apparently unsavoury comments he had made on some of the latter heroes of the republic (later in life he also fell apart with ataturk on the preservation of the empire versus the establishment of a republic and particularly on the alphabet issue). but (i don't have the text in front of me) what i had read of it so far tells me that 1) he was stationed elsewhere in 1915, and 2) he fought an invading army in 1919-21. again, i have to get back to the book and quote the relevant chapters.

 

i am neither an admirer nor a condemner of karabekir, and would not actually be surprised if i found that he also engaged in the liquidation of the armenian population (the militia is another matter).

 

let me do my homework, and then we can have an interesting discussion.

 

regards,