Check the following link for more information (Turkish):

http://www.candundar.com.tr/index.php?Did=1632 - http://www.candundar.com.tr/index.php?Did=1632

 

I will try to find some sources in English or more Turkish ones later.

 

Has anybody else heard about Abdurrahim?

 

No Hurriyet did not claim something like this. Hurriyet has made a news about Sabiha Gokcen just after she died and wrote about claims of some Armenians.

 

It is very strange that they are claiming something like this after she died. In fact her family is known. They are from Bursa and they are Turks.

 

 

We Turks all Ataturk's sons and daugters.

 

Ataturk is yellow haired and coloured eyed,may be Kipchak Turk huh?Turks are not a one geography race like chinese.

 

dont you think this is a little much? I dont think other turks than turkey turks, care much for Ataturk.

 

 

İf we intrudced him correctly to them,they will.This is our mistake

 

I disagree, what Ataturk did is complately related with Turkey, not Turkic world.

 

Ataturk effected kurds more than central asian turks. So why do you think, central asia turks will accept Ataturk as their leader.

 

Turkiye Kurds(today) mostly dont like him =(

 

Maybe Turkey should stop to trying asimilate them, then they will like Ataturk more.

 

 

 

Be ralistic?

Ottoman Empire set tatars(ethnicly kipchak) to belkan.And they yellow haired,coloured eyed.

Here is proof:(Sorry,only Turks can read)

http://www.tarihcilerinyeri.com/viewtopic.php?p=12682#12682 - http://www.tarihcilerinyeri.com/viewtopic.php?p=12682#12682

 

About C.A. Turks: I have a Kazak friend. When he just come to TRNC he kicked Ataturks photo from wall and he said ''We dont need new Stalins''. Becouse they dont know/care him.

 

No biological sons...And no adopted sons either..All of them were females.

 

Actually i had a membership for that. But they kicked me out

 

And Kapikulu i couldnt understand what do you want to mean?

 

Atatürk was ethnicly Turk,ı am saying again.We are not a one geography race.

 

I am talking about this!İn CA Turk countries,they know him communist or anti-islam.And don't like him.

 

We must introduce him,Turks are one.The saver of Anatolian Turks also saver of the alll Turks...I think.

 

Today's tatars are Turkic but in Crim,there are some tatars accepted Tatarism,they accept they are Turkic but they are making tribe nationalism!=)

 

 

Ataturk may be have Tatar blood.

 

 

And he has a word abou communism:

 

 

 

 

Well with that kind of thinking i can understand the actions of Erkut's friend.

 

To stay on topic i remember several years back on Turkish TV there was a man who wanted to change his surname to 'Atatürk'. He was rejected on the claim that only Mustafa Kemal has the right that title. Although the man argued that he was infact the son of Mustafa Kemal

 

I cant remember whether it was Abdurrahim or some other person. Does anyone else remember this case?

 

When soviet risk happened,the president was İnonu ı think.

 

 

This is Ataturk word,you can see it univeristy in Erzurum.On the gates.

 

When soviets understanded Ataturk isn't a communist,stooped helping us in our fight,they supported Enver against Ataturk

No not as a communist as a dictator(thats what he thoght becouse, Ataturk pictures were allover the country[like stalin]that was his first time he saw Ataturk)

 

 

''Communism is the biggest enemy of the Turk World, it must be crushed where it seen.''

Thats not his word to. OK he is not a commi but he wasnt that anti-communist.

 

Dont trust the man who isnt your blood.

 

 

 

These are his words man.Some people don't want to believe,ı know why...

 

 

We must stop talking about his ideals and return to his children

 

 

Obviously Turk Nomad is confused with Turkish history. And It's probably meaningful that a Turkist thinks that Enver was against Ataturk.

 

But we have already established that not all Turks and Kurds in Turkey like Mustafa Kemal, so how an earth do you expect the wider Turkish community to embrace him as "Father of the Turks"

 

Actually you know it wrongly...They knew Ataturk wasn't a communist, but mastermind of Ataturk helped Turkey to get the aid from the Soviets...I strongly suggest reading Can Dundar's "Golgedekiler" for more details.

 

It is true that they used Enver as a tool for a while, but although being reluctant in some periods, they gave critical aid to Turkey

Originally posted by Feanor He made it clear that the new Turkish republic would follow the capitalistic way in Izmir Economy Congress.

 

Not exactly capitalistic...He stressed that there shall be private entreprenurship and always supported the development of private sector, while holding a belief in a certain level of state presence.

 

http://tarihforum.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=13061#13061 - http://tarihforum.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=13061#13061

 

Can anyone translate it into english?

 

The system where state isn't present is anarchy...But in capitalism applied today in the free market arch-capitalist "heaven"s, state intervention is taken to the minimum,state only has the duty of supervision, nor the state owns any companies...It is all privatized...

 

So, in this manner, Atatürk defended the midpoint between centralist state and free market.

Communism is the biggest enemy of the Turkish world , it should be crushed whereever it 's seen .

 

That is his words .

He was not an Anti-Communist , but HE WAS NOT A COMMUNIST too ; accept that the spiritual structure of Marxism and materialism conflicted with Turkish moral duties

 

 

Infact that is the reason that in every ideas in Turkey we have nationalist.

 

Nationalist religious muslims, nationalist leftist, nationalist rightist, nationalist capitalist, nationalist facist, ext..

 

I think that We went to far.

 

Or maybe European blood, rather than Central Asian? . 

Probably yes.

 

 

A two fisted drinker in times of peace. He actually put the lion's milk down (clear mind needed first and foremost) when deep thought was needed (battle plans, writing speeches to the Grand National Assembly, etc.).

 

In a book by Psychiatrist Arnold Ludwig, King of the Mountain: The Nature of Political Leadership, 'ol Father Turk received the highest score on the political greatness scale. The research compared 1,941 leaders of the 20th century.

  http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/index_print.asp?ProgramID=1693 - http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/index_print.asp?ProgramID=1693

http://www.ataturksociety.org/asa/voa/voa_spring07web.pdf - http://www.ataturksociety.org/asa/voa/voa_spring07web.pdf

(page 23)

 

The scores are based on male dominance factors. The Alpha males were then classified into 6 catagories such as democratic, visionarie, and authoritarian, among others. 7 clusters of traits seperated the rulers.

1) desire for social dominance and leadership, 2) contrariness (rebellion against authority), 3) charisma, 4) initiation of large scale change, 5) self-confidence, 6) courage and risktaking, and 7) a psychological unease, wary, energetic.  

 

Interview excerpt:

 

LAMB: But for 18 years, you read 1,200 -- during that time, 1,200 biographies.

LUDWIG: Yes.

LAMB: And you came up with the "Political Greatness Scale."

LUDWIG: Yes.

LAMB: Which is in the book. And I may be wrong about this, but I found, in looking through it, that the number one -- looking at all the numbers, the number one leader you found in the 20th century, from your political greatness scale, was Ataturk.

LUDWIG: Yes.

LAMB: Am I right about that?

LUDWIG: Yes.

LAMB: And after him, Mao. Right after him, FDR. They're very close.

LUDWIG: Yes.

LAMB: I mean, on your point scale, Ataturk had 31, Mao 30, FDR 30, Stalin 29, Lenin 28, Ho Chi Minh 27, De Gaulle 27, Deng -- Deng Xioping 27, Tito 25, Suharto 25. I can go on.

LUDWIG: Yes.

LAMB: But why Ataturk?

LUDWIG: Well, let -- first let me put those numbers in context. Those numbers are not engraved in stone. I would say that probably -- that if you wanted to group people, you'd take maybe a 5 to 7-point swing and include them kind of all together. It just so happened that Ataturk did come out first. Why Ataturk? The political greatness scale -- I guess I need to say word about that, if I may, first.

LAMB: Your invention.

LUDWIG: Yes. Yes. I didn't want to invent it. When I first started the study, I was looking for some type of measure to evaluate political greatness. As I mentioned before, I was puzzled about this phenomenon, and I looked to others. I looked to political scientists. I looked -- searched the literature. I could not find any actual scale that measured political greatness cross-culturally. Of course, people rated the American presidents, this kind of thing, but nothing cross-cultural.

So then the question came to me, how do you go about evaluating political -- what is political greatness? And then I had a kind of "Eureka" experience. Well, why not look at those people who are acknowledged by almost everyone as being great political leaders? Who are the famous names in history over time that come to mind when somebody says "Mention a great political leader"? People who come to mind are people like Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Alexander the Great, Bismarck...

LAMB: These are -- the immortals.

LUDWIG: The immortals, the political immortals. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, people along those lines. And I came up with 26 of those people. OK, these -- I think almost everybody would say these are the political immortals. And then I asked the question, "What do these immortals have in common?" Are there any common denominators? And lo and behold, I found a number of common denominators. Almost every single one of them had these characteristics.

And I then used these characteristics, 11 of them, in developing the political greatness scale and tested the scale in terms of its reliability, in terms of its validity. It was interesting that the scale correlated extremely highly -- extremely highly -- with the amount of words allotted to these individuals in the Encyclopedia Britannica or the Encyclopedia Americana. So it had a validity to it.

So this is the political greatness scale, 11 items on it.

LAMB: What are some of the items?

LUDWIG: One item -- unfortunately, several of them have to do with conquests, unfortunately. But this is how people evaluate political greatness. Military victories, more territory, social engineering, changing the very nature of the society, economic prosperity, moral -- being a moral exemplar, in a way -- people like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, for example.

LAMB: So it doesn't have anything to do with whether you feel warm and fuzzy about somebody.

LUDWIG: No. It has to do with accomplishments, political achievement.

LAMB: Is there any comparison with what you've done with political greatness scale to the "Time" magazine "Person of the Year," where people get outraged when they see Hitler on the -- on the cover, and they think that they're naming him a great person?

LUDWIG: Yes. I think that's an excellent kind of comparison. By "greatness" I mean nothing about how you feel toward the -- you know, do you admire this person? I mean, some of these people are despicable. They're horrible people. However, their achievements, political achievements, are monumental.

LAMB: Let me just show -- we'll put this on the screen, and I'll read down the American presidents, so people can see how you fit on the scale. If 31 was the top at Ataturk, and FDR was the top of all American presidents. You then have Truman at 23 points, Theodore Roosevelt 23, Ronald Reagan 22, William McKinley 20, Dwight Eisenhower 18, LBJ 18, George Bush the first 15, John F. Kennedy 15, Bill Clinton 15, Jimmy Carter 14, Calvin Coolidge 14, William Howard Taft 12, Gerald Ford 11, Herbert Hoover 10 and Warren Harding 9. Those are presidents in the 20th century...

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=79957 - http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=79957