Turkish 1980 coup d’eta

we had 3 coup d'etats iirc, first one whas in the 60's when the premier of Turkey adnan menderes whas hanged, the second whas in the 80's because of left-right wars the third whas in 90's but it whasnt a regular coup d'etat, they only forced the ruler-party to resign (necmettin erbakan). After every coup d'etat (except the last one) our economy did go 50 years back, totally down.

I think Beylerbeyi and other older Turkish users have a lot more to say about.

I don't think it was a right-winger coup.

The army treated communists and socialists in the same way it treated nationalists and other right-wingers.

The army is simply apolitical. The current apolitical youth is a result of the '80 coup.

But Kenan Evren, the general who led the coup, willingly or unwillingly destroyed the leftist tradition in Turkey.

No leftist party has managed to win an election and form a government since the '80 coup.

1980 was surely a right-wing coup. Interestingly, the military supported Islamists (because America loved them) in Turkey back then. They made religion classes (basically Sunni Islam classes) compulsory in schools.

As to be expected, it was instigated by the Americans and allegedly the newly installed quasi fascist military government shortly thereafter received shipment of 10,000 brand new electrical torture devices.

Yes, America through NATO and Turkish 'Gladio', was involved.

Was the previous government left leaning?

It wasn't left-leaning, but it wasn't governing much either. There was a left-wing mass movement which was not organised in legal parties, but NGOs, unions and such groups. But there were massive demos or strike actions with hundreds of thousands on the streets.

Terrorism was rampant. When the left started to rise, Turkish version of the Gladio and their dogs/pawns, the MHP fascists started killing left wing leaders. The left responded by arming and bringing the battle home. By 1980 people were being killed on the streets everyday. Police and Gladio were supporting the fascists, but they couldn't stop the leftist movement. When the US saw that the situation was deteriorating, that Turkey was 'destabilised', we had the military coup.

Generals have taken over, imprisoned, murdered and tortured many people. The left never recovered.

To what extent?

In the 1980's the US was advocating laissez-faire capitalism. But Turkey was not integrated to the world economy at the time, even though the government was not leftist. Turkey was still economically mostly isolated. After the coup, Ozal was elected and he integrated Turkish economy to the world economy, i.e. opened it up for Western exploitation.

All in all, what happened was quite similar to Pinochet's Chile. But Turkish coup was not that violent (tens of people were killed rather than thousands), and it was a preliminary strike.

How well was the economy doing?

It wasn't doing particularly well.

What were its policies towards minorities?

Turkey was oppressive against the minorities back then, but the Kurdish situation wasn't as bad, since the Kurds hadn't started fighting. Kurds and Alevis were targeted by the Fascists in pogroms, and they sided with the leftist groups.

In the early 70s South Korea and Turkey had the same size of economy, but now, South Korea is way ahead and one of the  most developed nations in the world.  Opinions on this?

In the 50s Turkey was far ahead of South Korea, SK's main export was wigs made from human hair... The reason for SK's and Japan's development is simple, US wanted a power base in Eastern Asia. Which means strong pro American allies. Without an industrialised Japan, Korean war would have been lost. Japanese industrialisation took off in that period.

So they were supported by the US. US let them develop their economy. They protected their industries until they could compete with the world, and ignored Western patent laws. They copied Western products and produced them cheaper. US gave them access to its markets. So they developed quickly, with massive state intervention in economy and egaliterian policies. Japan is also one of the world's most egalitarian states. GINI index in the 20s. Compare this to Turkey or South America, where America hindered development, and let the local capitalist elite run rampart.

Btw, there were 3 coups in Turkey, in 1960, 1971 and 1980. In 1996 there was a veiled coup threat, which caused the Islamist government to quit.

Edited by Beylerbeyi

Turkey was under embargo after 1974; however the Iranian Islamic revolution brought the US support back.

Its Us sponsorship is pretty well documented.

can i ask if those instigaters where the same as those (semi state) mujahadeen units killing people in the 80's?

great thread BTW

Originally posted by Zagros Its Us sponsorship is pretty well documented.

I'd like to see the documentation if you have the links. 

Despite the contrary opinion by the forumers so far, I tend to diminuish the role of the US in the 1980 coup.  Not that it wasn't ok'd or that it didn't suit the interest of the US.  I am open to look into the stuff if you send me sources.

 

 

interesting, I never saw the 1980 coup as a 'US sponsored coup'.  The Turkish military had shown its �ndependence from US influence in 1974 and pretty much followed its own agenda....

A satellite is not a puppet.

a relatively middle-of-the road policy whose only guiding line was the  non-negotiability of the Kemalist principles (secularism, 'indivisibility' of the State).

No. Anti-Communism was Turkey's number one policy during the Cold War. This was the aim of both local bourgeoisie, and the US. Turkey stopped following Kemalism after WW II and became an American satellite. There can be no Kemalism without full independence. Turkey was not an American puppet, or a banana republic, but definitely an American satellite. So it is today.

Anti-communist struggle in Turkey united the conservatives, islamists, nationalists and fascists. It was spearheaded by US-NATO-Gladio people like Catli, and conducted mostly by MHP dogs. When the dogs and the police were not enough, US gave the green light to the generals. 

The crescendo of political violence in the late 1970's --principally left-right but also religious (Alevi) ethnic (kurdish) -- threatened to destabilize the state and call into question those sacred principles.

As Kotumeyil wrote before 1980, Alevis and Kurds were within the leftist movement. Fascists attacked the Alevis because of religion, but it was because they are Fascists animals, not because there was a religious conflict. 

The Kurds were treated extremely badly by the military, even before PKK came around. Their leaders were killed and many were horribly tortured in the Diyarbakir military prison. It is said that the spirit of PKK was born in that prison, that's one of the reasons why PKK is so violent. Later PKK militants found the director of that prison in a bus in Istanbul and shot the bastard. That was probably the best PKK action of all times.

I don't think that Kenan Evren was neccesarily a rightist but I think it is true that the left suffered more and becasue of the Cold War scenarios was seen as posing a greater threat.

I think you need to check the dictionary for the word 'rightist'. Who introduced 'national' history, 'national' geography, 'religious education' classes in schools? And even universities? Who founded YOK? Who came up with an authoritarian constitution? Who disbanded labour unions, NGOs and political parties? He was Pinochet-light, a fascist dog with an IQ comparable to Reagan and Bush.

Just because they imprisoned some fascists, doesn't necessarily mean that they are not right wing. As Alparslan Turkes (ex-Nazi, US trained founder of the MHP) said 'we are in prison, but our ideals are in the government'.

Also, I don't think the military coup planned to open up the economy a la Turgut Ozal and carry Turkey into the Globalizing wolrd.  Being a clever politician, Ozal managed to slide into the opening provided by the innatentive generals and convince the country that was the way to go. Of course it helped that the organized left never managed to recover from the coup and block the process.

I don't think this is a coincidence. Anti-left wing coups in the American sphere of influence quite often end up with opening up of the local markets. Especially true for the 70s and afterwards. Ozal was smart, yes, and not the first choice of the Generals, but Turkey would have been globalised with or without Ozal.

Thanks for the info Bey, I had heard before that the government was complicit with the extremist Sunnis in massacring alevi shiites, but was not sure of its veracity.

You are welcome. The government was on the side of fascists. But it didn't want them to massacre Alevi civilians. That was just fascists dogs acting out of control.

can i ask if those instigaters where the same as those (semi state) mujahadeen units killing people in the 80's?

I am not sure who you are talking about. There were no 'units' called 'mujahadeen' in Turkey. Fascists who killed leftists, Alevis and Kurds were paramilitary arm of the MHP (nationalist action party), also called 'ulkucu' or 'Gray wolf'. Although they had support from the sections of the police, military and the government, they were not within the state.

lOOK, for the most part I agree with you.  At the same time I think that the right-left lens is not all that it is made out to be.  At least in the context of Turkey.  The coup in 1960 and the velvet coup later in 1997 were not anti-communist (of course in 1997 there were other issues in world politics).  Of course the Alevi and Kurdish provided the backbone of the Left as that was the only way they could adequately fit into the Turkish State, but anti Kurdish repression, anti Alevi sentiment existed before and after the Cold War.

I don't think it is neccesary for me to check the dictionary for the meaning of rightist beylerbeyi, thanks.   I didn't mean to imply that Kenan Evren was a good guy or even neutral politically, I only meant that his purpose went beyond the elimination of the Left.  His purpose was to safeguard the State as he perceived it to be (which is why he initiated the 'national' craze)..  Like everybody who knows anything about Turkey, he knew that the weakness of the Turkish national identity was such that any kind of disorder...from the right or the left, from the east or the west, threatened it.

lastly, I don't think Kenan Evren had any intention of opening up the economy as was done by Ozal.  Ozal may not even of known the disastrous (at least from my pov) consequences. 

 

Mostly, though, I agree with you

 

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi can i ask if those instigaters where the same as those (semi state) mujahadeen units killing people in the 80's? I am not sure who you are talking about. There were no 'units' called 'mujahadeen' in Turkey. Fascists who killed leftists, Alevis and Kurds were paramilitary arm of the MHP (nationalist action party), also called 'ulkucu' or 'Gray wolf'. Although they had support from the sections of the police, military and the government, they were not within the state.

I read alot and over many yaers and it all gets blurred.

Okey found the name the "Turkish hezbollah" this was a kurdish group, but like those wolves were allegedly used by more exterme parts of the turkish est. against the PKK (esp during ceasefires) or anyone else who was agianst the state.

I wanted to know if they were the same sunni extremists kotumeyil mentioned.

found this on them

and this

Edited by Leonidas