German Press Makes Shocking Comparison Between Erdogan and Hitler

April 19, 2017 By administrator

An article in the German newspaper Die Welt comparing Erdogan-supporting Turks in Germany with Hitler’s supporters in the Sudetenland has drawn a mixed reaction from readers.

The German newspaper Die Welt has published a controversial article comparing the high level of support for Turkish President Erdogan’s constitutional referendum among Turks in Germany, with the support of Sudeten Germans for Hitler in the 1930s.

“Almost two-thirds of Turkish voters in Germany voted for Erdogan’s plan, even though it threatens to further curtail democracy in their homeland. In some respects, events resemble an election in 1935,” historian Sven Felix Kellerhoff wrote.

“Two-thirds of voters voted for a foreign dictator, who has eliminated the opposition in his own country and brought the media into line. They did that even though they live in a functioning state of law and are under no pressure from the government there.”

“This is not about the outcome of the referendum on a new constitution for Turkey, which according to official figures, 63 percent of Turkish voters in Germany voted for. Rather, it is about parliamentary elections in the Czechoslovak Republic on 19 May 1935 when 68 per cent of Sudeten Germans, i.e. the culturally Germanized inhabitants of the Czech regions bordering with Germany and Austria, voted for Conrad Henlein’s Sudeten German Party (SDP).”

There were three million Germans living in the Sudetenland, the northern and western parts of Czechoslovakia, after the collapse of the Habsburg Empire at the end of the First World War.

In the interwar period, several political parties emerged which claimed to represent Germans who were disillusioned at their loss of political and economic influence in the new state of Czechoslovakia.

The most successful of them was the Sudeten German Party, which was formed in 1933 and received massive support from the German Nazi party. Its leader Conrad Henlein went on to demand the union of the Sudetenland with Germany in 1938.

According to Kellerhoff, Sudeten Germans had little to complain about, but still supported Hitler’s puppet party in their droves thanks to a successful propaganda campaign.

“The Sudeten Germans were a minority in an ethnically fragmented country. Nevertheless, Czechoslovakia was undoubtedly a democratic state with a political opposition, functioning media and independent courts.”

“On the other side of the border, in Germany in 1935 there was already nothing like that. After the Reichstag fire on February 27, 1933, which the Nazis had nothing to do with but exploited perfectly, the seemingly stable supports of the Weimar Republic were swept away: radio and newspapers were forced under the command of Joseph Goebbels, in record time the courts were brought into line with the government, the opposition was expelled or imprisoned.”

“All this was known to the electorate of Sudeten Germans – and in 1935 two-thirds of them still voted for the SDP. The Sudeten German Social Democrats reached just 17 percent, the Christian Conservatives less than ten percent,” Kellerhoff wrote.

The comparison between Sudeten Germans’ support for Hitler’s Germany and the support for Erdogan’s government shown by Turks living in Germany resulted in some criticism from readers of Die Welt, who said the comparison was unfair.

“Mr. Kellerhoff, this comparison is really inappropriate,” wrote one, while another accused the author of “comparing apples and oranges.”

However, some commentators said they thought it was a fitting comparison.

“Current developments in Turkey are justifiably troubling for us and also remind us of the destructive processes of our terrible past, which should never be repeated anywhere,” Facebook user Ralf Weber wrote.

For his part, Facebook user Thomas Bonk said that “people don’t learn.”

“We should make it easy for Turkey. The best thing to do is to close the door, forget and wait a while. When we look at the country again in a few years, we will see something that looks like our country in 1936. Imprisoned political opponents, people who don’t dare open their mouths and a country in ruins,” Bonk wrote.

Hitler, Ataturk and the Turkish-German Relations by Edward Kanterian

July 10, 2016 By administrator

hitler ataturk The following interview with Stefan Ihrig, author of Justifying Genocide: Germany and the Armenians from Bismarck to Hitler [Justify Genocide: Germany and the Armenians of Bismark Hitler], whose publication was held in December 2015, was conducted by Edward Kanterian, Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Kent. Ihrig is a member of the Teachers College at Van Leer Jerusalem Institute.

Edward Kanterian- Mr. Ihrig, we know that Mussolini was truly a model for Hitler. But much less known, Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the modern Turkish Republic, was another major source of inspiration for Hitler. You recently published a book that explores this topic. Why Hitler is it interested in Ataturk?

Stefan Ihrig- all goes back to the early 1920s; Germany was still reeling from the lost war and the fear of a punitive treaty imposed by the Agreement. In an atmosphere of nationalist depression, events began to move into Anatolia that inspired passion and dreams to German nationalists. Led by Mustafa Kemal, the Turks resisted “their” particular Versailles Treaty, the Treaty of Sevres. They faced the Agreement and the Greek army up to challenge their own government in Constantinople. What happened in Anatolia was like a dream come true for many in the nationalist Germany, and especially for the Nazis, who thought that Germany should copy what were the Kemalists. Hitler was much inspired by Ataturk and the idea of a ‘government of Ankara’ for its project to create a government against Munich, he would impose his coup of 1923. In retrospect Beerhall in 1933, he recalled Ataturk and the Kemalists as the ‘shining star’ in the dark 1920s the Nazis and Hitler, in a political sense, grew up with Turkey and Ataturk. It was a fascination that will never disappear and that turned into a kind of cult during the Third Reich.

EK: The main attraction was the fact that Ataturk had withstood the Entente?

If yes. Resist the Agreement and revise a peace treaty of Paris fascinated the Nazis. But that was not all. There was also the fact that Turkey was stripped of most of its minorities, first the Armenians during the First World War, and secondly, most Greeks by the population exchange the Treaty of Lausanne . And in the end, to the Nazis, what happened in Turkey in the 1920s and 1930s was a successful restructuring of the country to the nationalist and racial lines. For them it was an example of what a purely national state could succeed with a strong leader.

EK – Turkey who “got rid” of the Armenians was of course Turkey Turkish Young, whose regime ended in 1918 and in which Ataturk played only a minor role, she was going up the Nazi fascination young Turks? Can we think they were impressed by the design centric Turkish Turkish state Turkish Youth and Kemal, an opposite conception to the idea of multi-ethnic society which had hitherto existed in the Ottoman Empire? Is there a direct link between population policies and exclusion of Ataturk and those of the Nazis?

SI- The Young Turks did not matter much to the Nazis. But ‘ethnic cleansing’ and the Armenian Genocide before the War of Independence had been for the Nazis, a major precondition for the success of Ataturk in this war. And the expulsion of the Greeks was the vision of the Nazis, a second prerequisite for further success Turkey reconstruction on a national basis. Wholesale and somehow it was for the Nazis a whole provisions’. For them, it was important that ethnic minorities – those that they and other German nationalists saw as “the Jews” – are eliminated. In the vision of the New Turkey for the Nazis, this would not have been possible if Turkey had not stripped of minorities. In this way, the Nazis and other German nationalists were able to make Nova Turkey Ataturk, the idea of a racial ethnic full-scale reconstruction of a test that allowed them to measure the power of a new national state purged of minorities, a test that not only reaffirmed their own belief in the power of the states after ethnic cleansing, but taught different methods on how to do so.

EK: To what extent the ideology of Kemalist state she was an inspiration for the Nazis? Presumably they ignored the fact that Ataturk was the creation of a republic in which a parliament representing the people, was the main source of power?

The SI-Nazi vision of the New Turkey Ataturk was very selective. Almost everything found himself in conflict with the ideals and objectives Nazis was either mitigated or ignored. The emancipation of women was one of these points; it was mentioned, but it was considered unnecessary to linger. The rather peaceful foreign policy of Ataturk was deliberately misinterpreted. Regarding method of government, under Ataturk, the Nazis saw him as a strong leader supported by a single party, which for them was the only viable alternative to what they perceived as a decadent Western democracy.

EK: What was the position of the Nazis has vis-à-vis the “Armenian Question” in Turkey?

SI- In the discussion of the Turkish war of independence, the Armenians did not take a large square. Again, the Nazis had their own vision of the power and the time of Ataturk. Which exceeded in importance for them everything was Turkey after 1923, they were only to mono-ethnic paradise image. They simply refused to see them still remaining minorities such as the Kurds, and conflicts still existed within the Turkish state. What gave the Armenians, by cons, this importance in the Nazi speech on the New Turkey Ataturk was the specifically German tradition of seeing in them “the Jews of the East”.

EK: Can you give some examples of the manifestations of this vision of Armenians as the Jews of the East in the German discourse? Is that a fact emerged after World War II or were there before?

SI- This German tradition appeared in the late 19th century. At about the same time that appeared modern anti-Semitic racism, the perception of Armenians as racially similar or equivalent to the Jews of Central Europe, as they were described in the antisemitic discourse developed. In this perception, the Armenians were typically described as merchants exploiters enjoying the nice and hardworking Turkish population. This perception portrayed through the parasite, cheater, and non-productive Armenians. Armenians are in all kinds of crafts and trades – many of them, for example, are fermiers- was simply ignored in these speeches. In racial and racist literature increasingly large between the late 19th century until the 1930s, the Armenians were described as a parent or sister race of the Jews, often of them were said to be ” worse than the Jews. “ This creates a particular base course for the German perception of the 1915-1916 events, especially when we know the way things take history in Germany.

EK: That brings us to your last book you just finished, Justifying Genocide, to be published by Harvard University Press later this year. How did you decide to write this book?

SI- During my research on the Nazis and Turkey, I discovered that a great debate took place on the Armenian Genocide. This debate began in the early 1920s and it is totally forgotten today. But it was still one of the biggest debates on the genocide of the twentieth century. It was truly a debate on the “genocide” even before Raphael Lemkin coined the word has, because he was on the intent and scope of the “annihilation of a nation.” I tried to reconstruct this debate and why it lasted so long. Consider a discussion of four and a half years, including the first discussions after the war what had happened, the lively reception given to the Foreign Office documents published on the Armenian Genocide already in 1919, a heated exchange between those condemning what had happened, the “murder of a nation,” and the other denying it. In addition, there were murders, that of Talaat the first in 1921 and then those two prime Young Turks in 1922, all of which took place in Berlin and resumed extensively in the press of the time. Jai held to establish which came from the bottom of critical analysis employed in these discussions, and that is how I explored the German relations Ottoman Armenians since the late 1870. It appears, from the already time of Bismark, that Armenians suffered a foreign policy very cynical Germany [the real politik, already! ndt]. They were regularly sacrificed to allow Germany to obtain political advantages and a more favorable position in the Ottoman Empire. This continual sacrifice of another Christian people led a German discourse that justified the massacres already in the 1890s, and reached the tops with the propaganda of the Great War and the sickening justifications of the early 1920s.

EK: The rhetorical question Hitler “Who after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians”, asked in August 1939 in a speech on the war of annihilation that he would commit to the east, is well known. She suggested that Hitler was at least inspired by the Armenian Genocide. In your new book, you cling to demonstrate that the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide were linked far more than previously thought. Is it correct ?

SI- The ongoing debate on recognition and denial held the Armenian Genocide hostage for almost a century and has also led to reduced often to a footer mark in the history of accounts and analysis European and world of that time. But it was immensely important at this time, also, and perhaps particularly in Germany. Not only Germany was tied there as close as state and ally of the Ottoman, but it was the case of many people, diplomats, officers and soldiers. The fact that the Ottoman Empire had to this point concerned the German public and the German political sphere already before 1915 Germany joined the Armenian Genocide more. And finally the great debate on the genocide in Germany in the early 1920s brings this topic to a single decade of the rise to power of Hitler. The Armenian Genocide was chronologically and geographically closer to Germany and the Third Reich as is usually assumed; my book is an example in many aspects.

EK Few German historians worked on the Armenian Genocide. What could be the reasons?

SI- continuously is attributed to the subject of the difficulties and potential dangers. If you are a historian working on the Turkish and Ottoman history, you do not want to offend the people you need to reach your sources. Another reason is that many sources of German military archives were lost during World War II. Then there was the suspicion that many of the discussions on the Armenian Genocide and its links with Germany might be used to relativize the Holocaust. And finally, the official Turkish denial campaign has created a lasting impression or rather created confusion by suggesting that the subject is too difficult and unapproachable. However, in recent years many have worked on the German side, proposing new studies on particular aspects and also providing new evidence. I am sure that we will reach a critical mass in this area and that soon a broader reassessment of the Armenian Genocide will be made in history, German, European and world.

Edward Kanterian

October 30, 2015

Interview with Stefan Ihrig To Armenian Weekly

Translation Gilbert Béguian

Sunday, July 10, 2016,
Stéphane © armenews.com

Israel W. Charny: Would Israel sell a used drone to a Hitler?

April 30, 2016 By administrator

Executive director and co-founder of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem and editor of the Encyclopaedia of Genocide, Israel W. Charny published an article in The Times of Israel concerning Israel selling arms to Azerbaijan.

“I am ashamed. The Armenians were the victims of a major genocide 100 years ago that has even been called the “Armenian Shoah” by some Israeli scholars, including from Bar Ilan University. A great deal of their national and cultural ethos continues to focus passionately on the memory of that genocide (does that sound familiar to us Jews?). For many years now, we Israelis – whether led by Labor or Likud – have insulted and hurt the Armenian people by failing to recognize their genocide officially and formally. Would we ourselves tolerate another government – say the US or England – refusing to recognize the Holocaust because of their realpolitik interest with the perpetrator government?” he writes.

Charny also writes that Israel is reported to have sold billions of dollars worth of arms, including to ‘governments that are killing or threatening to attack victim peoples’.

“In general, how willing are we Israelis to strengthen our economy by lucrative arms sales? Of course, “everyone” in the world is doing it, but do we have to also? Have we given up the vision of Israel as a moral leader of peoples on this planet? Is this idea tiresome, naïve, and childlike in a madly destructive and self-destroying world?

An alternative principle could be that we build arms first and foremost for the defense of Israel, and that we supply arms only to underdog peoples who are facing mass destruction and to allies like the US that are essentially committed to shared democratic values and to peace. Of course we will still make some mistakes, but at least our conscience will be more clear that we have not delivered arms to the ‘Nazis.’
To my Armenian colleagues and friends, I can only say that as a Jew and as an Israeli, I am mortified – and angry,” writes the scientist.

Erdoğan Exiting Hitler’s Closet?

February 6, 2016 By administrator

Garen-Y.13-1 BY GAREN YEGPARIAN

At first it was just a reference to governance in Hitler’s Germany as a positive example of the centralized presidential power Erdoğan seeks to establish in Turkey. It was reported in the New York Times and elsewhere.

It was easy to disregard as just another one of his outrageous, outlandish, and outsized remarks, especially in the context of his ever more authoritarian style of rule.

His underlings claimed the media had misrepresented the comments Erdoğan made… sound familiar in this time of American presidential primary elections?

But then a few other pieces starting coming falling into place, please bear with me as the puzzle comes together.

Russia has asserted that Turkey is planning to invade Syria. Lending credence to this is the fact that Turkey denied Russia the right to a flight over its territory that is guaranteed by treaty, which suggests Turkey is trying to hide something. Turkey has built up transportation infrastructure starting at the Syrian border which suggests preparation for mobilization of men and munitions.

Aside from its early (and likely ongoing) support from IS/Daesh types, one of the stories Ankara likes to tell about “why” it’s involved in Syria is that Turkmens, ethnic brethren, living in Syria are in danger. Now, the claim has morphed into a more immediate “threat” because of Russian-supported Syrian forces gradually retaking control over areas populated by Turkmens, near Turkey’s border. This progress, when completed, coupled with Kurdish control over the eastern half of the Syria-Turkey frontier, would mean Ankara could no longer maintain the flow of Saudi supported Moslem radicals into Syria, nor could it continue to supply them.

This Turkmen argument carries significant weight in Turkey. Members of the MHP, the most extreme nationalist parliamentary party in Turkey. MHP has seen some of its members killed in fighting, in Syria, with funerals attended by Turkish notables. MHP has its militant youth organization. Other such youth groups exist. All of this reeks of Pan-Turkism. And, since these movements could pose a threat to Erdoğan and his AKP, many are convinced that a group called “Ottoman hearths” is a creation of the AKP.

The nomenclature is very worrisome. The notion of “hearth” – “ocağ” – which appears in the names of these youth groups harks back to the “Turk ocaği” set up by Zia Gökalp (one of the Pan-Turkist ideologues) a century ago that provided the ideological breeding ground for the murderous elements of the Committee for Union and Progress (Talaat’s party).

Couple all this with the well-known drive by Erdoğan to recreate the Ottoman order in some form, and the picture starts to get clear. It even starts to reek of “Hitler Youth” structures in pre-WWII Germany. Is it possible that this brand of youth control was developed by the Pan Turkists, borrowed by the Nazis, and is now being borrowed back by Turks?

All this fits in with Erdoğan’s whipping up of chauvinist fervor against the Kurds, too.

Given his established penchant for political brinkmanship and willingness to use any means to maintain, expand, and deepen his power, it could be that Erdoğan is simply using any and all political tools, cynically, to achieve his ends. But, when Pan-Turkism, or any other such racist ideology is reengaged and reenergized, no one is safe. Armenians (and ever increasingly Kurds) know this.

It’s incumbent on us to start getting the word out on this to media and legislative circles. We have to convey the gravity of the situation and that it is not just Erdoğan playing with Islamic or nationalist fire, as usual. This can potentially spiral out of control in the deadliest ways, and destabilize not only Turkey, nor even just its immediate neighbors, but countries and regions all the way to China.

Get on the phone and computer and get to work getting the word out.

The One Day A Time magazine displayed the image of Erdogan in Hitler’s traits

January 2, 2016 By administrator

arton120534-367x480 “The destination Erdogan”. In reality it is a retouched picture diverted from its context that is currently circulating on social networks given the recent statements of Turkish President on the value of a presidential system like that of Hitler’s Germany. One of the real Times, below, date of November 2011.

Turkey True Colors: The Reason Why Erdogan Admires Hitler’s Government

January 2, 2016 By administrator

1032605780 Turkish President Erdogan seeks to expand his powers, which may deal a serious blow to democracy in the country.

Erdogan’s admiration of Nazi Germany’s form of government reveals the Turkish president’s true colors, according to John Tures, a political science professor at LaGrange College in the US state of Georgia.

“There are such examples in the world and there have been such examples in the past. When you look at Hitler’s Germany, you will see it,” Erdogan said during a press conference when asked whether the presidential system was able to maintain the unitary structure of the state.

The Turkish president had said earlier that the authorities may hold a referendum in order to amend the country’s constitution and switch to a presidential form of government.

“If it was a statement made by a democratic figure, it would be treated as a gaffe or bad joke in poor taste. But for the authoritarian Erdogan, it’s a rare instance of his honesty, showing how the strongman really feels,” Tures wrote for the Huffington Post.

He also dismissed the claims made by the Erdogan government that the president’s remarks were misconstrued.

“Of course, in Erdogan’s Hitleresque state, it would be a crime to suggest that Erdogan admired Hitler. Ironically, you could even be marched off to prison, for suggesting that Erdogan is authoritarian,” Tures quipped.

Despite the ruling AKP party’s victory in the November elections, Erdogan is still unable to muster enough votes to obtain the power he craves. Therefore, he seeks to obtain these powers via a referendum which would grant him and his family the ability to govern Turkey indefinitely “in a most undemocratic manner.”

“Should the United States break diplomatic relations with Erdogan’s regime, help Turkey’s civil society, review possible cuts to US military aid to Turkey’s government, or consider “smart sanctions” against Erdogan and his family? Erdogan’s admission of admiration for Hitler demonstrates that doing nothing will not help the problem, any more than it did in the 1930s,” Tures concludes.

Source: sputniknews.com

Erdoğan admiration to Hitler and Atatürk in the Nazi imagination.

January 1, 2016 By administrator

illustration / gagrulenet

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as Today’s Zaman reported, “has said the implementation of a presidential system while remaining a unitary state is possible, showing Hitler’s Germany as an example.” He underlined that “when you look at Hitler’s Germany, you can see [that it is possible]. You can see examples in other countries as well.”

Gregory H. Stanton, the president of Genocide Watch, identified eight stages of the Holocaust. compare and contrast these to the Turkish context for similarities and dissimilarities.

1. Classification: “Distinguish people into ‘us and them’.”

2. Symbolization: “When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups.”

3. Dehumanization: “One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases.”

4. Organization: “Genocide is always organized, usually by the state, often using militias to provide deniability of state responsibility.”

5. Polarization: “Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda.”

6. Preparation: “Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity. Death lists are drawn up. … Their property is expropriated.”

7. Extermination begins, and quickly becomes the mass killing legally called ‘genocide’.”

8. Denial: “The perpetrators of genocide … deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes.”

Some of these have been already perpetrated by the AKP regime against Kurd. We can never know how far they intend to go. Yet, Erdoğan’s mention of Hitler should alarm democrats.

Read More: Turkey Atatürk in the Nazi imagination http://wp.me/p2E179-6rE

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE REVELATION- Hitler deified “the Turkish methods” Atatürk related to the Armenian Genocide by the US site “The Daily Beast”

November 26, 2014 By administrator

By William O’Conno

Fatal Attraction

The 20th-Century Dictator Most Idolized by Hitler (Atatürk)

Historians may credit Mussolini with inspiring Hitler’s rise to power, but the despot called a different contemporary his ‘shining star.’

Adolf Hitler’s obsessions, for he was a man prone to unhealthy fixations, were dangerous for the world—whether with himself, with art school, with his dreams of grandeur, with Eva Braun, with his hatred of Jews—or, more obscurely, with Turkey.

To say that the roots of the Third Reich’s rise have been thoroughly examined would be an understatement. Yet one element of Hitler’s power grab has largely been neglected—the importance of Turkey and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (or as Hitler called him, his “shining star”) on the Führer’s thinking.

In his exhaustively researched new book, Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination, Stefan Ihrig charts the outsized role that Atatürk and the New Turkey played in the minds of Germany’s Weimar-era far right—an influence that extended through the Nazi years. The Turkish Revolution was the most hotly-debated foreign issue in the early 1920’s, and not only did the Nazis model themselves after the Turkish National Movement, but Nazi leaders from Hitler and Goebbels were personally entranced by everything Atatürk did.

In the aftermath of World War I, Germans—conservatives in particular—became consumed with the idea that they had been unfairly treated at the Paris Peace Conference (‘raped’ is a word they often used), and stabbed in the back by supine bureaucrats and minorities in Berlin. Yet even as the Germans wallowed in bitter self-pity, another defeated superpower underwent a dramatic turnaround.

When the last vestiges of the Ottoman Empire were dismantled by the Allies in the Treaty of Sèvres, modern-day Turkey was also chopped up, with large portions going to Greece and Armenia, as well as major powers like Britain, Italy, and France. However, beginning in 1919, Turkish nationalists—led by Atatürk in Ankara—transformed from beleaguered underdogs into a determined force that beat back the Greeks, French, and Armenians on multiple fronts. Over a tough few years, they defeated the seemingly invincible forces arrayed against them—and, more importantly, they were able to negotiate a new treaty, the Treaty of Lausanne, in 1923, which established modern Turkey.

“In the eyes of a desperate and desolate Germany,” writes Ihrig, “this was a nationalist dream come true, or rather something like hyper-national pornography.”

Nazi texts proclaimed that the annihilation or expulsion of the Armenians was a “compelling necessity.”

On June 29, 1919, German newspapers announced the previous day’s signing of the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I and forced Germany to pay reparations and concede territory. Just two days later, the papers began what can only be described as a love affair with Mustafa Kemal Pasha (later Atatürk). Coverage of Turkey and its swashbuckling leader would fill Germany’s daily and weekly newspapers.

Over the next four and a half years, the conservative paper Kreuzzeitung would run a total of 2,200 articles, items, and reports on Turkey. The Nazi-affiliated Heimatland gave one-eighth of its space each week, from September 1 to October 15, 1923, to features on Atatürk. Papers throughout the country would refer to Turkey as Germany’s “role model.” Nationalist opinion-makers would laud what they saw as Turkey’s strong negotiating tactics—essentially ‘give us all that we want or we will continue to fight’—and decried German acquiescence to Allied terms. Some, like the influential pastor and politician Max Maurenbrecher, even began to argue that if Germans had fought for their freedom and borders like the Turks, they would not be suffering the onerous conditions of Versailles. Turkey’s revolution was a “revisionist-nationalist dream come true, even a fetishized version of it, because it had been achieved by the sword, in the field, with major battles, and many epic twists,” writes Ihrig.

In fact, Ihrig says, Turkey was to become a sort of Fürstenspiegel for conservative Germans. A Fürstenspiegel, or “mirror for princes,” is a genre of literature that uses a distant story (either geographically or historically) to advocate for certain actions in the present. German conservatives writing about Turkey would praise its active militant role in forging its national destiny, and laud the ways in which Atatürk had come from Ankara, not Constantinople, to lead a unified völkisch movement. That Atatürk was from Ankara was important, because Hitler and his allies saw their movement as having strength due its roots in Munich, not Berlin. Later, Atatürk’s life story would be used to promote the importance of a Führer.

The popular understanding of Hitler’s rise to power often points to the influence of Mussolini and his march on Rome. In fact, argues Ihrig, “the assumed role-model function of Mussolini, mainly deduced from the later significance of Fascist Italy, has led many authors to overestimate Italy” and as a result “few historians mention Atatürk as part of the general pre-putsch atmosphere.” In fact, as Ihrig points out, Mussolini called himself “the Mustafa Kemal of a Milanese Ankara” as he began his own power-grab.

Ihrig argues that the two main Nazi papers, the Heimatland and Völkischer Beobachter, were promoters of the “Turkish methods” as early as 1921. The Nazis argued that brute force had been necessary for Turkey’s independence, and, insidiously, they highlighted Atatürk’s crackdown on ethnic minorities and all of those who dissented. One Nazi ideologue, Hans Trobst, wrote explicitly about Turkey’s “national purification” of “bloodsuckers” and “parasites” like Armenians and Greeks; Trobst was later invited to meet with Hitler after the leader read his writings on Turkey. Ihrig notes that Hitler’s secretary wrote to Trobst in Hitler’s name, declaring, “What you have witnessed in Turkey is what we will have to do in the future as well in order to liberate ourselves.”

This praising of Turkish aggression was laying the groundwork for Hitler’s Beerhall Putsch, in which he attempted, and failed, to seize power in Munich in 1923. It was only after it failed, Ihrig contends, that Hitler saw it as necessary to go a more “legitimate” political route like Mussolini. In his final speech at his trial, Hitler would also point to Atatürk (and then Mussolini) as examples of why his attempt at seizing power was not treasonous—it was, he said, for “the gaining of liberty for his nation.”

A decade on, in 1933, Hitler would tell the Turkish daily Milliyet that Atatürk was, in his words, “the greatest man of the century,” and confess to the paper that in the “dark 1920s” “the successful struggle for liberation that [Atatürk] led in order to create Turkey had given him the confidence that the National Socialist movement would be successful as well.” Hitler called the Turkish movement his “shining star.” In 1938, on his birthday, Hitler would tell journalists and politicians that “Atatürk was the first to show that it is possible to mobilize and regenerate the resources that a country has lost. In this respect Atatürk was a teacher. Mussolini was his first and I his second student.”

The German infatuation with Atatürk and Turkey waned after the Beerhall Putsch. Years later, after the Nazis had gained power and launched their wars, Turkey resurfaced again—Nazi propagandists pointed to Atatürk when they argued for the necessity of a Führer who was loyally followed by his people without question, when they pushed the need for just one political party and the obligation of national sacrifice, and when they argued for the necessity of cracking down on internal dissent in order to present a unified front against outside enemies.

The German obsession was with Turkey was so rampant under the Nazis, in fact, that the German Ministry for Propaganda actually complained in 1937 that positive coverage of Turkey was becoming “unbearable.”

Even as Hitler’s obsession with Turkey was strategic, it was also deeply personal. While Ihrig does a thorough job of detailing Germany’s historic ties to the Ottoman Empire—and even potentially its involvement in the Armenian Genocide—it’s the Nazi leaders’ personal attachment to Turkey and Atatürk that is especially fascinating.

Hitler, for instance, considered a bust of Atatürk by Josef Thorak to be “one of his cherished possessions” according to the Führer’s official photographer Heinrich Hoffmann.

He also gave unique prominence to Turkey in issues of state. In 1934, just a day before Hitler’s birthday, flags were lowered at the headquarters of the SA (brownshirts) for the death of Turkish ambassador Kemalettin Sami Pasha—and according to Ihrig, Hitler himself ordered what was essentially a state funeral procession for the fallen diplomat.

When Atatürk died on November 10, his death dominated newspaper coverage in Germany, despite the fact that it happened just a day after the infamous Kristallnacht.

Joseph Goebbels was also a big fan of the Turkish leader. In 1937, Goebbels wrote in his diary: “A nice flight. While traveling I finished reading the book on Atatürk. A proud hero’s life. Totally admirable. I am happy!” Then on October 21, 1938, the same day Hitler ordered the breakup of Czechoslovakia, Goebbels wrote that Atatürk’s death “would be an irreplaceable loss.” The Turkish leader’s health had been declining, but days later, Goebbels would write in almost intimate language, “Atatürk’s sickness is very serious. But his bear’s nature helps him to fight off an early end at this point.”

The most obvious connection to make between the Nazis and Atatürk’s rule is, of course, the tragedies of the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide, which took place before Atatürk came to power. While Ihrig deftly dodges a debate over what exactly happened with Armenians in Turkey, he argues that as far as the Nazis were concerned, what actually happened did not matter. They believed that Armenians were the “Jews of the Orient” and that their deaths and suppression played a key part in the emergence of modern Turkey. In speeches, Hitler would consistently refer to Armenians as being on the same level as Jews, and in one article he declared the “wretched Armenian” to be “swine, corrupt, sordid, without conscience, like beggars, submissive, even doglike.” Nazi texts proclaimed that the annihilation or expulsion of the Armenians was a “compelling necessity.” The Nazis saw in Turkey what they wanted to see, regardless of how Atatürk and his fellow Turks saw themselves.

Ihrig’s book provides enough of a new angle on the Nazis to do the seemingly impossible these days—break through the abundance of books on the topic. It is full of fascinating issues not covered in this review, most notably the ideological twists and turns that the Nazis went through in order to label the Turks as Aryan. Readers who pick up the book should not be deterred by the somewhat pedantic and dry opening chapter—the rest of the book is well worth the read.

Today, Turkey in the German imagination has mostly to do with immigration, assimilation, and EU membership. Ihrig has managed to show how the relationship between these two centers of civilization is far deeper, and far more fraught, than at first glance.

Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/24/the-20th-century-dictator-most-idolized-by-hitler.html

Germany remembers the plot to kill Hitler

July 20, 2014 By administrator

July 20 marks the 70th anniversary of Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg’s attempt to assassinate German Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler. His son and a former guard still have vivid memories of that day.

Berlin, July 20, 1944: Colonel Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg headed to Adolf Hitler’s Wolf’s Lair field headquarters. It was still early, just before 8 a.m., on the day Stauffenberg planned to kill Adolf Hitler with a bomb. It was too good an opportunity to miss: Stauffenberg was supposed to brief Hitler as part of his military duties.

Kurt Salterberg, now 91, was a guard at the Wolf’s Lair, near what was then Rastenburg in East Prussia and today is the Polish town of Ketrzyn, some 600 kilometers (370 miles) east of Berlin. Back then, 21-year-old Salterberg was part of the team protecting the inner area.

At around 11 a.m. Stauffenberg and two co-conspirators, Major General Helmuth Stieff and First Lieutenant Werner von Haeften, entered the command headquarters of the Nazi regime. It was where the most powerful military figures would meet and where Hitler would hand out orders to his officers.

Even today, Salterberg is still able to recall the smallest details. “Everything was blocked off. I had to check every single person who wanted to meet Hitler,” he said.

Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel brought along a group – Salterberg let them pass through since Keitel had an identification card. “That’s why I didn’t have to check his companions.”

‘Nothing out of the ordinary’

Stauffenberg was also among the people Keitel brought in. “I noticed him right away because of his war injury – he was wearing an eye patch,” Salterberg said. “Stauffenberg was carrying a briefcase, but there was nothing out of the ordinary.”

11:30 a.m.: Stauffenberg retreated to one of Keitel’s barracks to go through possible questions Hitler might have in the meeting. Stauffenberg had two packages of explosive agents on him, said Johannes Tuchel, head of the German Resistance Memorial Center in Berlin.

“Stauffenberg excused himself under the pretext that he had to freshen up and left the room. He then went next door to arm the package of the explosives with the help of Haeften.” Crucially, they only planted one of the packages of explosives in the briefcase.

Is Palestinian & Israeli Conflict yet another Turkish false-Flag Operation?

July 20, 2014 By administrator

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan accused Israel on Saturday of having “surpassed Hitler in barbarism” through its attacks on Gaza,

Erdoğan continued to ratchet up his rhetoric against Israel over its offensive, threatening to further harm already badly frayed relations between the two countries, once regional allies.

Hours earlier Israel advised its citizens against traveling to Turkey, citing “the public mood” after attacks on Israeli diplomatic missions during protests in İstanbul and Ankara against the Gaza offensive on Friday.

Palestinian officials say more than 330 people have been killed by Israeli strikes launched in response to rockets fired into Israeli territory by militants loyal to Hamas.

“(Israelis) have no conscience, no honor, no pride. Those who condemn Hitler day and night have surpassed Hitler in barbarism,” Erdoğan told supporters at a political rally in the Black Sea city of Ordu. He accused the United States of defending Israel’s “disproportionate” tactics, and bemoaned the failure of the Muslim world to take a stronger stance.