Erdogan calls Dutch as well as Germans 'Nazis'

191 posts in this topic

I find it a bit problematic to discuss Armenian property cases in a thread about Erdoğan because (yes, we guessed it right) it is again the Erdoğan period that started the return of very valuable Armenian property to owners and foundations and in the cases that foundations sold private property, compensated for this at a price claimed by individuals. That's why in 2011, he also got very positive comments from the representative of Minority Community Foundations as well as a "This was a bairam gift for us, too. Thank God for Edoğan. I have been receiving congratulatory calls since the morning," from the chairman of Surp Pırgiç Armenian Hospital as was told on Turkish media. 

 

Again, some liberal Armenians voted for Erdoğan at least once in their lives on the basis that Erdoğan knows the "othering", many built the theoretical aspects of Erdoğan's ideology as there was a priority of dismantling the nationalist ideology of the previous years. There have been clashes - as usual- and there will be but even today we have examples of a liberal Armenian AKP MP (don't know if he is still there) who has also said he thinks 1915 fulfills the circumstances of genocide. There was a time when the EU was quite fond of Erdoğan despite strong voices here as well. 

 

Why am I telling this? Because so far, most arguments I have read about Turkey's attitudes have been brought from a perspective that involves this ethnicity and that ethnicity only. Erdoğan did this to Kurds. But Kurds voted for Erdoğan. In the previous referendum crisis, there was big presidential support actually. Erdoğan did this to Armenians. But Armenians said Thank God for Erdoğan. But it was Kurds that did it in practice in the east. But it was this, but it was that.  Erdoğan killed freedom of speech. But yes, laicists imprisoned Erdoğan for reading a poem. Didn't even CHP intersect with Erdoğan? Actually, isn't it CHP's prior head that brought Erdoğan to the parliament as a president with a 34 % vote that gave him 2/3 of the parliament - he thought Erdoğan "would not last for more than a couple of months"? The guy shouted at everyone "Yes, I am making him a PM" or something.  And now he has become a "dictator". When exactly? 

 

I think this is happening because we are looking at Turkey here sometimes from a very nation-based or ethnicity based divisive perspective based purely on ethnicity that on its own does not suffice to explain everything here. Historically, for every group, there is another group that was oppressed by this other group. Without reading the state ideology together with others that intersect at a pragmatic basis, and how this limits everyone's attempts including those of politicians, it is hard to get out of this and find a purely oppressed category here. 

 

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2008, people in Turkey started an apology campaign on the Internet. It went up to 5000 signatures very quickly, then went to 30.000 I think. It was criticized quite harshly by the army (imagine signing something on the internet and then hearing from the army), politicians criticized it. Ultra-nationalists (who are not Erdoğanists) here started swearing, trolling. The left criticized it, the right criticized it. Everyone started asking everyone in some circles. Some started an "I'm not apologizing campaign." There was terrible pressure on (enter swearword, insult etc etc.)  

 

The President at the time (Islam background) was neutral. One very strongly CHP laicist MP woman - but an extraordinary case in CHP too, commented that the President was keeping silent because his own mother was Armenian (can there be worse perpetration than evaluating someone's attitudes based on their background unless they are bringing it up?) Then the other one had to take a side too I think. So, he announced his mother's ethnic background and started a court case. We can have our opinions about this country as people living here, but when some shout "dictatorship" here, others kind of have the schadenfreude look on their eyes. This is dangerous, we cannot make politics with schadenfreude but it is here. 

 

Then per usual, eyes turn to the US, "will he say "genocide" or will he say "the great catastrophe."

 

All this is very different from Erdoğan's inclinations. Calling him a dictator here is not a crime. There are court affirmations that this is political critique as it is about ruling. It is openly discussed. Erdoğan replies, too. But how and when this discussion is condcuted also says something. 

 

Why exactly is HDP openly saying some dictator talk from Europe is actually a rightist fortification at this particular time? It's the same party that German MPS were not allowed to visit after a visit where they said Erdoğan is a dictator? 

 

Nobody having one bit of connection with human rights, anti-nationalist movements etc etc - people termed Erdoğan victims- have sympathy for Wilders here. People can criticize both. Mainstream opponents criticized the Nazi word but also other things. This is also different from state level. 

 

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, SA618 said:

If the German Government tried to pass a resolution regarding the colonial crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Belgians, French, Spanish, British or Dutch, there would be diplomatic crises of epic proportions.

 

Turkey is an important ally and should be treated as such.

 

 

Nice attempt at diverting attention. So the Turks had their precious, inflated sense of national dignity hurt and that justifies what they are doing? Such a resolution wouldn't have been necessary if Turksh denial of the Armenian genocide hadn't been state policy for decades. While other countries weren't exactly forthcoming with apologies, they didn't prosecute those who pointed out dark spots in their history either.

As a supposed ally Turkey causes more problems than it solves. As a side note, this Friedman person sounds like a complete cretin. Whatever makes him think that the UK is a stronger military power than France in the first place?

 

Anyway, if Germans, Dutch, Austrians etc. had the same inflated sense of national honour as many Turks, then any Turkish politician showing up here right now would be given a welcome by huge crowds of angry and violent protesters.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No attempt at diversion, but simply pointing out that Germany holds Turkey to a different standard than it holds France or Belgium.

 

I am not European, and this idea of weaponizing history, whether it involves the Armenian genocide, the Stalin engineered famine in the Ukraine or Erika Steinbach and her ilk, is not constructive.   

 

Friedman the cretin, while not always correct is a well respected analyst with close ties to the intelligence community.   While i don't always agree with his ideas, they are thought provoking because his horizon is very long term and he tends to focus on demographics and geography as well as the usual.    For example, he points out that European Russia is essentially land locked and Turkey can close Russian access to the Mediterranean Sea.    Petersburg might be a port, but in a hostile situation, the Gulf of Finland could be easily blocked.    Turkey plays a vital role as there are clearly factions in the US which would like to drive a stake through Russia's heart. 

 

Out of Germany's so called allies, who does it find acceptable?    The world is not necessarily governed by nice, friendly people and Germany has very few natural resources outside of water and land.    Germans would need to either be very naive or willfully ignorant about their own position in the world and their government's foreign policy to conduct themselves which such vomit inducing self-righteousness.   

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SA618 said:

No attempt at diversion, but simply pointing out that Germany holds Turkey to a different standard than it holds France or Belgium.

 

I am not European, and this idea of weaponizing history, whether it involves the Armenian genocide, the Stalin engineered famine in the Ukraine or Erika Steinbach and her ilk, is not constructive.   

 

Friedman the cretin, while not always correct is a well respected analyst with close ties to the intelligence community.   While i don't always agree with his ideas, they are thought provoking because his horizon is very long term and he tends to focus on demographics and geography as well as the usual.    For example, he points out that European Russia is essentially land locked and Turkey can close Russian access to the Mediterranean Sea.    Petersburg might be a port, but in a hostile situation, the Gulf of Finland could be easily blocked.    Turkey plays a vital role as there are clearly factions in the US which would like to drive a stake through Russia's heart. 

 

Out of Germany's so called allies, who does it find acceptable?    The world is not necessarily governed by nice, friendly people and Germany has very few natural resources outside of water and land.    Germans would need to either be very naive or willfully ignorant about their own position in the world and their government's foreign policy to conduct themselves which such vomit inducing self-righteousness.   

 

 

You are right in that Germany holds Turkey to a different standard because it is of a different standard. Both European countries have a system of government that holds the President to account and has checks and balances that cannot easily be removed. Turkey's present regime is dismantling these checks and balances. We have seen it with the removal from prosecution for opposittion MP's and the closing down of critical media outlets.

 

Weaponizing History? True history is based on legal documents, eye witness testimonies and what is called unwitting testimony which is when something is written down that is not realised as important by the writer, an example would be something like "the people with their Red Flags waving". The unwitting being the Red flags because it could be seen as a symbol of a particular party group thereby signifying that a particular group was involved in a historical event. It is harder now to hide the truth because of social media, History is apolitical, it is purely the reporting of facts as presented, like religion, it becomes political when people interpret those facts differently to suit there own agenda. The white House comes to mind with its alternative truths.

 

Turkey plays a very vital role as it is seen as where "East meets West", where Europe ends and Persia starts. It is strategic in many ways but with many modern ways of travelling, ICBM's and the use of Aircraft Carriers as recently demonstrated by Russia, it is not as important as it once was.

 

As for Germans being self righteous, I think you don't understand the German psychi. The present German thinking and actions are based on guilt, they feel they must constantly attone for their recent past. When they see a repeat of their own history in another part of the World it makes them nervous. Let's not forget millions of Germans died (yes, so did millions of Russians, the vast majority at the hands of Stalin) and they were occupied for 50 years afterwards. Germany is a very wealthy country, it is a well respected country in the international community and it does have a lot of resources.

 

So back to the original point. Turkey is run by a Dictatator who is crushing all forms of dissent within his own country. He is blatantley ignoring his own constitution by actively campaigning outside Turkey and he will attack any foreign country to whip up the crowd for his own gain.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday, Geert Wilders (PVV) lost the 1:1 debate with acting prime-minister Mark Rutte (VVD- liberals), who said running a country isn't the same as sitting on the couch and sending tweets. Ouch.The latest polls show that Wilders lost several seats and is now "only" the fourth biggest party. The VVD clearly gained from the Turkey escalation. Tomorrow is election day. All votes will be counted manually this time in order to prevent (Russian) hackers to manipulate results. That means no final result tomorrow evening like in the past.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canadian elections are hand-counted paper ballots, and the winners are all usually known very soon after the polls close. I can't imagine it would be so hard for the Dutch.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, French bean said:

 

Weaponizing History? True history is based on legal documents, eye witness testimonies and what is called unwitting testimony which is when something is written down that is not realised as important by the writer, an example would be something like "the people with their Red Flags waving". The unwitting being the Red flags because it could be seen as a symbol of a particular party group thereby signifying that a particular group was involved in a historical event. It is harder now to hide the truth because of social media, History is apolitical, it is purely the reporting of facts as presented, like religion, it becomes political when people interpret those facts differently to suit there own agenda. The white House comes to mind with its alternative truths.

 

Turkey plays a very vital role as it is seen as where "East meets West", where Europe ends and Persia starts. It is strategic in many ways but with many modern ways of travelling, ICBM's and the use of Aircraft Carriers as recently demonstrated by Russia, it is not as important as it once was.

 

As for Germans being self righteous, I think you don't understand the German psychi. The present German thinking and actions are based on guilt, they feel they must constantly attone for their recent past. When they see a repeat of their own history in another part of the World it makes them nervous.

...

 

Germany is a very wealthy country, it is a well respected country in the international community and it does have a lot of resources.

 

 

History as it is featured in most news reports as well as mass media in general is rarely objective or fact driven and amounts to little more than propaganda in many cases.   Politicized history (the non-politicized type may exist, but is rarely found)   is more dangerous than religion because people are more likely to believe some sort of self glorifying national or tribal narrative rather than religious dogma.   

 

Germany sells weapons to Saudi Arabia and has no problems doing business with dictatorships but the press is not critical enough to keep Germans from finger wagging.   Germans use their history for leverage just like every other country.     Germans are just as susceptible to a seductive narrative as any other nationality. 

 

Germany has few raw materials.   Please enlighten me if you see evidence to the contrary.   The commodities business is nasty and Germans have no choice but to engage whether the citizens choose to know about those engagements or not. 

 

Who do Germans find acceptable?  

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, SA618 said:

 

History as it is featured in most news reports as well as mass media in general is rarely objective or fact driven and amounts to little more than propaganda in many cases.   Politicized history (the non-politicized type may exist, but is rarely found)   is more dangerous than religion because people are more likely to believe some sort of self glorifying national or tribal narrative rather than religious dogma.   

 

Germany sells weapons to Saudi Arabia and has no problems doing business with dictatorships but the press is not critical enough to keep Germans from finger wagging.   Germans use their history for leverage just like every other country.     Germans are just as susceptible to a seductive narrative as any other nationality. 

 

Germany has few raw materials.   Please enlighten me if you see evidence to the contrary.   The commodities business is nasty and Germans have no choice but to engage whether the citizens choose to know about those engagements or not. 

 

Who do Germans find acceptable?  

 

 

That's the trouble with History, the powers in charge often write the history and control what is published, the old saying history is written by the Victor comes to mind. Unlike a Science, a historian can start with a conclusion and then pick the facts to support that conclusion, it is a subjective discipline and that is why so many sources are required to give credibility to the reporting of events. As for non politicized history, it is found but is often written many years after the event. A classic is the treatment of General Hague after WW1. The British soldiers were portrayed as Lions led by Donkeys with Hague as a Butcher, it was only many years later, when it emerged that Hague did not want to fight the Battle of the Somme and was politically forced to and that he cared for his troops, did history start to reveal the true complicated facts of that time.

 

As for Germanaw materials, here is an excerpt I have found.

 

" Germany is essentially a raw materials producer, even after the decision to cease subsidised mining of hard coal at the end of 2018. A considerable portion of the approximately 1,100 tonnes of energy, metal and mineral raw materials consumed during a German citizen’s lifetime is produced in Germany. We are one of the world’s largest producers of lignite, kaolin, rock and potash salts, and we can even meet our own demand for sand, gravel, clay, limestone and gypsum. Germany is an international leader and highly respected in the area of mining technology and know-how. "

 

The article is http://www.k-plus-s.com/en/wissen/rohstoffe/rohstoffgewinnung.html

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany's industrial sector is an important part of the overall economy.   Energy, copper, iron ore, and other metals are not sourced domestically and those are very important. 

 

Here is an example which is reported on the back page, but invisible to most Germans.

 

H.C. Starck is one of the few companies capable of completing the complex process of making tiny, reliable and heat-resistant capacitors out of tantalum. But 10 years ago the United Nations accused the company of using tantalum from war-torn regions of Congo and H.C. Starck's reputation suffered significantly.

 

http://www.dw.com/en/coltan-mines-to-be-fingerprinted-german-scientists-say/a-5907446

 

Germany deals with plenty of unsavory entities, but there is little political will for self criticism here (outside of NS era deeds).  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to the Erdogan-effect Mark Rutte's VVD (right liberals) will remain the biggest party and Wilders remains in the opposition. The biggest party delivers the prime-minster and many floating voters didn't want Wilders' PVV  to become the biggest party. Thank you Mr. Erdogan.

 

PS- The PVDD, Party for Animal Rights, will get 5 seats in the parliament (150 seats). Woof.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The leader of PVDD is really hot but I'm sure that has nothing to do with the votes. 

 

In the UK  recently a rather hunky police officer was voted as man of the year on Facebook. 

 

Most people, outside of TT off course, vote on issues and not how the candidate looks...?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for interest: How are Turkish media reporting on the Netherland election results? Could someone with command of Turkish enlighten me, please?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, klubbnika said:

That would be zeino but it can easily become TMI. :)

 

:) 

 

No, not TMI this time. How can it be TMI, Klubbnika, it is all very clear and direct. 

 

Turkey put a brake on racism in the Netherlands. (Government)

 

Others said the crisis worked for Rutte (and the right) but voters ultimately chose between nationalism/anti-immigrants versus liberalism.  

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Turks discharged from a party (I think) had their party and won 3 seats. We didn't understand what they were saying, they were speaking Dutch. I didn't listen for more than two seconds so missed the translation. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jeba said:

Just for interest: How are Turkish media reporting on the Netherland election results? Could someone with command of Turkish enlighten me, please?

 

Jeba, Turkey is more focused on the crises than the elections, but if you are particularly curious about anything, I can try to look at various press. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now