Lion of the Blogosphere

Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s “gaffe”

This is being called a “gaffe”

Asked on his return from a state visit to Saudi Arabia whether an executive presidency was possible in Turkey while maintaining the unitary structure of the state, Erdogan said: ‘There are already examples in the world. You can see it when you look at Hitler’s Germany.

‘There are later examples in various other countries,’ he told reporters.

How does he even know that much about Hitler’s Germany that it was something he come up with as a positive example of executive power?

The answer is that Muslims have an admiration for Hitler because he also hated the Jews. And like Hitler’s Germany, Turkey also has a history of genocide. Unlike the modern government of Germany, Turkey has never owned up to or apologized for its genocide.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 2, 2016 at 11:57 am

Posted in International

83 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Turkey should be kicked out of NATO and NEVER allowed in the EU.


    January 2, 2016 at 12:09 pm

    • I think it was because they didn’t get into the EU they started going hardcore-Muslim. They were toning it down to get into the EU, but when they didn’t get in (largely for the reasons you allude to), they figured, ‘Well, we’ll never get into the West, so let’s be bigshots in the Muslim world’.

      Can’t say I blame them.


      January 2, 2016 at 6:30 pm

      • The US for some reason loves to help muslims in Europe at the expense of the natives, but as a policy hint, it would be utter lunacy to add 80 million muslims to the 400 million of the EU. I’m glad somebody (France, I think) finally saw reason and spiked it. Do I have to go into the historical reasons? No, I think current events are sufficient.


        January 3, 2016 at 4:38 am

  2. “Unlike the modern government of Germany, Turkey has never owned up to or apologized for its genocide.”

    The media and political establishment doesn’t care about the Christian minority in Middle Eastern countries.


    January 2, 2016 at 12:11 pm

    • “The media and political establishment doesn’t care about the Christian minority in Middle Eastern countries”

      Or indeed the Christian majorities. Look at the way the Greek Cypriots were betrayed by the Western powers when Tukey invaded and occupied Northern Cyprus. The Turks seem to have got away with an awful lot in their short history as a Nation.

      Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a left-wing person even comment on the occupation of Northern Cyprus, yet they’re all over Israel on account of the Palestinians.

      prolier than thou

      January 2, 2016 at 2:53 pm

  3. Both Hitler and Himmler admired Islam. Hitler once said that he wished the historical religion of Germany had been Islam rather than Christianity. Himmler actively recruited Bosnian Muslims to serve in the SS.

    Black Death

    January 2, 2016 at 12:26 pm

  4. A lot of muslims have a particular hatred of Jews, Israel, etc. So naturally they’d admire Hitler. But there’s more to it. Islam is basically a religious version of nazism. Its the form of government they want for themselves as well as representing their aspirations for power and conquest. It’s also an example of what a lot of them want to do to people who aren’t muslim. People need to understand that not everyone around the world thinks the same or shares the same values.


    January 2, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    • However, the Jews had more equities/options under early Islam, than Medieval Christianity, who persecuted them. The Muslims left the Jews alone: Convert or remain a second class citizen.


      January 2, 2016 at 1:53 pm

      • Yup. Islam was better than Christianity for the Jews in the Middle Ages, as PC types love to remind us.

        It’s almost completely the opposite nowadays, of course.


        January 2, 2016 at 6:31 pm

      • Yes, and now Anti-Semites have become Judeophiles and allied themselves with everyone in the fight against “Islam”.


        January 3, 2016 at 3:37 pm

      • What Isis is doing is nothing new. It’s not even unique to Isis. Muslims do the same thing to non-muslims throughout North Africa and the middle east. Rape, slavery and genocide is commanded by their “religion”


        January 2, 2016 at 6:50 pm

      • There were exceptions. The Almohads persecuted the Jews in their Spanish territories to the extent that many fled to neighboring Christian-ruled states, and the Yemeni Shi’ite rulers persecuted the Yemeni Jews both in the medieval period and again in the 17th century.


        January 2, 2016 at 8:38 pm

      • The Almohads persecuted the Jews, because of the encroaching Christians from the North, who later defeated them in a battle in Las Navas de Tolosa (located in Southern Spain), ushering the end of Muslim rule in Spain. They were fanatical, thus paranoid of Jews living in their domains would stir trouble by becoming 5th columns to the Northern Christians.


        January 3, 2016 at 3:02 pm

      • There were exceptions.

        I doubt any interpretation of Muslim history where Jews were consistently treated well. I suspect Muslims frequently harmed their Jewish subjects, but records of these attacks has been forgotten because Muslims are not generally in the business of detailed record keeping and because the killing/raping/enslaving of religious minorities was so common place that whatever Muslim historians existed felt no need to keep track of it.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 3, 2016 at 4:30 pm

      • The question to be asked is that, what makes you think the Spanish and Anglo Empires of conquest were just and humane, when comparing to the treatment of Jews under Muslim rule? Better yet, I cannot find any Ashkenazi Jew on the same magnitude of Maimonides and Saadia Gaon of the same time. This only could mean that Jews in Europe during the Middle Ages were very repressed by their Christian rulers, from engaging in any intellectual activity.


        January 4, 2016 at 12:24 pm

      • Facts: (1) Muslims and Christians both oppressed the Jews. (2) Before the state of Israel, Muslims only hated Jews the way they hated all infidels and didn’t have an extra hatred for them the way they do today. (3) Politically correct liberal types want to make Christians seem bad and Muslims seem good, so they cherry-pick history to make Muslims seem more civilized and Christians seem more like barbarians.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 4, 2016 at 12:37 pm

  5. Did Hitler make the trains run on time?


    January 2, 2016 at 1:34 pm

    • Even better, he built the Autobahn.


      January 2, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    • German trains always ran on time. They’re German. I suspect in about ten more years, the trains will no longer run on time, if they even run at all.


      January 2, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    • It was Mussolini who made the trains run on time, which, considering we’re talking about Italy, meant Mussolini practically walked on water.

      Mark Caplan

      January 3, 2016 at 12:25 am

  6. It’s tough for me to judge the truth value of the defense being made by the Turks. I could see it either way. If, hypothetically, a Turkish leader made an awkward reference to Hitler that was meant to be negative but could conceivably be interpreted as positive, do you doubt that the media would run with it as a “praise of Hitler”?

    For example, when Pope Benedict quoted some anti-Islamic remarks from a Byzantine Emperor as part of a longer, much more subtle lecture, he was more or less attacked as if he had personally made and wholly endorsed those same remarks.

    On the other hand, Hitler is undoubtedly viewed positively in much of the Muslim world. For the Turks, a strong Germany was also a counterweight to the USSR and the British Empire. It would not be surprising if remarks intended for a domestic, Hitler-sympathizing audience accidentally made it out to the wider world.


    January 2, 2016 at 1:38 pm

  7. “It’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion,” Hitler complained to his pet architect Albert Speer. “Why did it have to be Christianity, with its meekness and flabbiness?” Islam was a Männerreligion—a “religion of men”—and hygienic too. The “soldiers of Islam” received a warrior’s heaven, “a real earthly paradise” with “houris” and “wine flowing.” This, Hitler argued, was much more suited to the “Germanic temperament” than the “Jewish filth and priestly twaddle” of Christianity.

    Hitler was all over the board from the quotes I’ve seen. He expressed equal passion as a Christian warrior who was doing his duty in alignment with Christ’s teachings in fighting the evil of the Jews and international capitalism/communism. Other quotes having him expressing naked Roman/pagan barbarianism sentiment. His bottom line was: kill the Jews and the Nordic race on top; religion was just a means to that end.


    January 2, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    • From what I’ve been able to gather, Hitler was a bit nuts.


      January 3, 2016 at 11:12 pm

  8. “A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.” – Michael Kinsley, former Crossfire co-host, founding editor of Slate, and one of the few liberals I respect.


    January 2, 2016 at 2:37 pm

  9. The Turk-German connections predate WW I, and were based on a mutual hostility toward Britain and Russia.

    bob sykes

    January 2, 2016 at 3:08 pm

  10. Even if you hate Jews, Hitler seems like a pretty lame role model. I seem to recall that, among the most memorable accomplishments of the Hitler administration, are convincing the RAF and USAAF to bomb Germany into rubble, and handing over half of Germany’s territory to Bolsheviks. Not a record worth emulating.


    January 2, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    • Exactly.

      Peter Akuleyev

      January 3, 2016 at 3:31 am

    • “among the most memorable accomplishments of the Hitler administration…”

      And half the German women and a sizable fraction of the men and cattle were raped by rampaging Bolshies.

      Mark Caplan

      January 3, 2016 at 8:19 am

      • After the Germans had done the same thing to them on the way in, don’t forget.

        War is a bad idea unless you win.


        January 3, 2016 at 4:25 pm

      • “after the Germans had done the same thing [raped the enemy’s women] on the way in.”

        This raises an interesting and no doubt controversial point. The German army was far more disciplined than Stalin’s soldiers. Also, in line with Nazi racial theories, German soldiers were forbidden from having sexual relations with non-Aryans. So I’m willing to give the Hun the benefit of the doubt on this matter, but maybe somebody with more knowledge of the subject can enlighten us.

        Mark Caplan

        January 3, 2016 at 10:28 pm

  11. One reason for possible Turkish admiration of Nazi Germany is that the two countries were not enemies in WWII. Turkey and Nazi Germany signed a non-aggression pact in 1941, and this was never violated. Both countries later joined NATO.

    Nazi Germany and the USSR signed a non-aggression pact in 1939 (Molotov-Ribbentrop), though this was violated by the Germans in 1941. Historians believe the USSR also planned to violate this agreement, and that the Nazi move was essentially pre-emptive. For obvious reasons, this cannot be proven.

    The Shepherd

    January 2, 2016 at 3:37 pm

  12. It’s a fair statement to make and as far as I can see he is not endorsing any of Hitler’s war crimes in saying it. Hitler’s rise to power and the resulting economic turnaround of Germany in less than 10 years was perhaps the most impressive feat the world had seen at that time. Just ask anyone living in the 1930’s including the publishers of Time Magazine. To acknowledge some of his accomplishments is not necessarily anti-Semitic. Its just being honest.


    January 2, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    • It’s a gaffe because it implies that he wants to be more like Hitler.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 2, 2016 at 5:45 pm

    • Eh, let’s be honest, Hitler accomplished a lot until he decided to go to war with the entire world. The thing is, he’s pretty much considered the same thing in the modern West Satan was in the medieval, so saying nice things about Hitler is pretty much telling the West to go f*** themselves. Which, I suspect, was part of the point.

      I think a lot of leaders secretly admire Hitler–if you like power, he had a lot of it, did a lot with it, and everyone was afraid of him.


      January 2, 2016 at 6:35 pm

      • Hitler accomplished two things before he went to war – he added Austria and the Bohemian crownlands to the German Reich. Other than that he was a disaster even prior to 1939. Germany’s economic “growth” was a fraud, financed by massive debt. Simultaneously he kept the Reichsmark too high, hobbling German exporters. A rarely discussed fact is that the material quality of life of the average German was pretty crappy in 1938 relative to France or the UK, largely due to National Socialist economic policies. When German soldiers got to France in 1940 they were amazed how well everyone was living.

        Peter Akuleyev

        January 3, 2016 at 3:40 am

      • From what I’ve heard, Hitler’s works are still sold briskly in ME bookstores, so it might be an unremarkable part of the culture by now and Erdogan just momentarily forgot he was talking to those infidels who view Hitler as haram.


        January 3, 2016 at 4:47 am

      • He did not decide to go to war with the entire world. England decided that. Hitler made it clear that his primary objective was to invade Russia and prevent the spread of communism while creating a larger Germany to the east for leibensraum or “living space”. He made several attempts to maintain peace with the British because he did not want a war with the West. Hitler considered them to be of the same racial stock as the Germans and wanted an alliance. After England balked and declared war on Germany he then went into France to protect his Western flank.

        America and England did not unite against Germany to help the Jews. Nobody even knew what was going on with concentration camps and to what extent at the time. They went to war for the same reason nations always do…for money. Hitler’s rise and his refusal to play by the rules of the monetary system created a direct threat to the supremacy of the Anglo-American economic alliance. England has always made it a point to crush any continental European country that threatened their dominance.


        January 3, 2016 at 10:41 am

      • Britain and France declared war on Germany because of Germany’s aggression against Poland.

        America didn’t go to war until after Pearl Harbor.

        Correct, it wasn’t about the Jews. That’s why the Jews want their own state, Israel. They know they can’t count on gentiles to look out for them.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 3, 2016 at 10:54 am

  13. Erdoğan is back-pedalling. He has no interest in checks and balances, whatsoever. He sometimes says or does things that go down poorly outside of Turkey, because he is fairly insular person and doesn’t have much sense of how the outside world works. But within Turkey he operates very effectlvely, as he understands the dreams, fears, and resentments of his countrymen. He’s one of them, and they fear, love, and respect him for it.

    ice hole

    January 2, 2016 at 3:59 pm

  14. Turkey is actually two countries, Good Turkey and Bad Turkey. Good Turkey is the part of the country with historic Greek influence: Istanbul, the European section, most of the Mediterranean and Black Sea coastal areas, and to some extent Ankara. Good Turkey is generally prosperous and European-oriented and at least moderately secular. The rest of the country is Bad Turkey, poorer and more Middle Eastern in outlook and, naturally enough, more fundamentalist.
    It should go without saying that Erdogan represents Bad Turkey.



    January 2, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    • This sounds pretty accurate.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 2, 2016 at 5:46 pm

    • The problem is that Good Turkey wants to move Bad Turkey into Europe.


      January 3, 2016 at 1:59 am

    • Turkey is actually two countries, Good Turkey and Bad Turkey. Good Turkey is the part of the country with historic Greek influence: Istanbul, the European section, most of the Mediterranean and Black Sea coastal areas, and to some extent Ankara. Good Turkey is generally prosperous and European-oriented and at least moderately secular. The rest of the country is Bad Turkey, poorer and more Middle Eastern in outlook and, naturally enough, more fundamentalist.
      It should go without saying that Erdogan represents Bad Turkey.

      Sounds like something “liberals” say about the US – Good USA/Bad USA.

      Good USA is the east and west coast and some isolated liberal college towns like Madison, WI, Austin, TX and Portland etc.

      Bad USA is the Heartland, mountain states and the south. Religious, backward, rural prole.

      Trump represents Bad USA.


      January 3, 2016 at 4:30 am

      • The difference is that the “Good” Turks don’t want to destroy their own country and fill it with impoverished invaders. The “Good” Turks are more analogous to the western liberals of the 60s than the nihilist traitors that we have today.

        Otis the Sweaty

        January 3, 2016 at 11:47 am

  15. This sort of viewpoint seems to exist in Europe as well:

    “‘Hitler wasn’t all bad’, 42% of Austrians say”
    “Also, 54 per cent – most of them young and well-educated – were of the opinion that if there was no legislation prohibiting the neo-Nazi parties, they would succeed in elections.”

    These sorts of polls may be understating things, due to political correctness as well as anti-Nazi legislation.

    Also this:

    “More than half of Polish youth visit anti-Semitic websites that glorify Hitler and the Nazi era, according to a new poll that has renewed debate about laws governing hate speech and stoked the concerns of Poland’s dwindling Jewish population.”


    January 2, 2016 at 4:26 pm

    • It also exists in Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu recently said that Hitler’s intentions with respect to the Jews weren’t all that bad at first, but everything eventually degenerated due to Muslim meddling:

      “And this attack and other attacks on the Jewish community in 1920, 1921, 1929, were instigated by a call of the Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was later sought for war crimes in the Nuremberg trials because he had a central role in fomenting the final solution. He flew to Berlin. Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, “If you expel them, they’ll all come here.” “So what should I do with them?” he asked. He said, “Burn them.”” (source:

      Count Dracula

      January 2, 2016 at 6:41 pm

    • This is quite logical and what I was expecting. Imagine if Hitler was told in 1939 that in 60 years Germany would be ruled by a woman, take orders from a negro, pay reparations to the Jews, have gay parades, import millions of hostile muslims and provide them with government benefits.This situation is not normal and can easily lead to a backlash. If I were a German, I would be mad and would do anything to stop the destruction of my nation. Hitler, obviously, is a swine and I’m not suggesting a return to his ideology, but something needs to be done.


      January 2, 2016 at 7:51 pm

  16. Oh, and since we’re talking about AH, I’ll leave this here:


    January 2, 2016 at 6:36 pm

  17. I dunno, Erdogan knowing something about the governing structure of Germany during the Third Reich doesn’t sound too suspicious to me.

    What is shameful is how Turkey with its history of genocide just gets away with it. One of the reasons is that Israel shilled for Turkey, until it became fundamentalist, and the ADL, which takes its marching orders from the Israelis, protected Turkey in Washington.

    The ADL covered itself in shame.

    The ADL and Turkey can share the same part of hell.


    January 2, 2016 at 6:56 pm

    • Israel needed a Muslim friend and Turkey used to be that friend. You can’t blame them for looking out for their own interests.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 3, 2016 at 1:24 am

      • I don’t question the Israelis (or rather, the government) taking a pragmatic line. What I question is the ADL, that fraud organization that “fights bigotry everywhere.” What I question is the Israelis, with the ADL and AIPAC, mounting a K-street gang bang against the Armenian lobby. What I question is Abraham Foxman dismissing the Armenian holocaust as “things happen in war.” Google it, Lion, he said that, before he was forced to change his tune. That’s what deniers of the Shoah say.

        It’s a shame, and your a putz for weaseling and defending the ADL on it.


        January 3, 2016 at 9:33 am

      • @ Samson –

        The Canadian government is no longer anti-Jewish (though it was until after World War II, and there was a fascist movement led by Adrien Arcand in Montreal), but there is a low level of residual Jew-hatred among the Canadian population. For instance, Canadian former schoolteacher Malcolm Ross wrote anti-Semitic books and taught Holocaust denial in his classes, and Canada harbored Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel (who marred a Quebecoise) for decades. In the last few years, much of the recorded anti-Jewish vandalism and attacks has been perpetrated by Muslim immigrants and their progeny.


        January 3, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    • Turkey committed genocide against the Armenians who have been enemies of the Jews for thousands of years. It really makes me angry when Jews criticize Muslims for persecuting/slaughtering Armenians/middle eastern Christians.

      Otis the Sweaty

      January 3, 2016 at 8:03 am

      • It’s true that everyone hates the Jews. That’s why Jews are rightfully worried (not paranoid which is an irrational fear).

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 3, 2016 at 8:58 am

      • When were Armenians enemies of the Jews? They were never friends, but enemies?

        Turkey welcomed Jews feeling Spain Ilin 1492 and treated us well until the First World War, when Zionists sided with England, which is fair and understandable. Armenians fought in an uprising against Turkey and lost. These two nations just can not get alone then or now. They have to live separately for their own good. After independence, Armenia expelled all Azeris from its territory. So there are two sides to this story. I haven’t found that there is much difference in how these nations conduct their struggle. It could have been a Turkish genocide, had the Armenians won.

        Why should Israel support a tiny Armenia, which did nothing for Israel, in its demands against Turkey and Azerbaijan, which had beneficial relations with Israel? Let the UN investigate and try to come to consensus and bring these nations together. This isn’t a conflict Israel needs to be involved in.


        January 3, 2016 at 9:24 am

      • The Armenians have been enemies of the Jews for thousands of years? Where’d you get that from?


        January 3, 2016 at 9:30 am

      • “It’s true that everyone hates the Jews.”
        That’s false, and you are a sad case for thinking it, Lion.


        January 3, 2016 at 9:31 am

      • Anti Jewish sentiment in the middle east was a 100 percent Christian thing until Zionism. Right now we are in a war with Muslims but it is over territory, nothing else. Our problem with Armenians and other middle eastern christians is more fundamental.

        I support ISIS against the Arab Christians, I support the Muslim Brotherhood against the Copts and I support Turkey against the Armenians. All Jews should do likewise.

        The idea of supporting people because it is the “right” thing to do is a Christian concept and has no place in Jewish thought. In Judaism you support people killing your enemies. Period. I’m sick of Jews adopting Christian morality.

        Otis the Sweaty

        January 3, 2016 at 11:20 am

      • @ gothamette –

        What Lion wrote was hyperbole. Not even in Nazi Germany did every member of the population hate Jews. But would it not be accurate to say that significant fractions (greater than 1/10) of the populations of all European, Middle Eastern, North African countries and of the populations of Muslim countries in South and Southeast hate Jews? The U.S., Canada Mexico, and many Central and South American countries probably meet that threshold also. That’s a lot of people who hate Jews.


        January 3, 2016 at 1:36 pm

      • It’s ironic that people who ate Jews are insisting that people don’t really hate Jews.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 3, 2016 at 1:41 pm

      • But would it not be accurate to say that significant fractions (greater than 1/10) of the populations of all European, Middle Eastern, North African countries and of the populations of Muslim countries in South and Southeast hate Jews? The U.S., Canada Mexico, and many Central and South American countries probably meet that threshold also

        Good God Almighty, some of you folks are paranoid. I live in Canada, and I don’t even know any Jews. Not any. And I think about them even less. There is not any sizeable fraction of Canadians who even think about Jews enough to hate them.

        Good grief, man, get hold of yourself.


        January 3, 2016 at 2:08 pm

      • I’ve met many Canadian Jews and I don’t even live in Canada. You aren’t looking hard enough.

        That said, Canada is one of the world’s most Jew-friendly countries, more so even than the United States. If Jews who immigrate to America were smarter, they’d be immigrating to Canada instead of the United States.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 3, 2016 at 2:14 pm

      • Samson: what about Canada’s massive Muslim community?

        I am personally going to go with the “con” side in this debate. No way most of the world hates Jews. 99.9+% percent of non Arab/Islamic people spend next to no time thinking about Jews one way or the other.

        Otis the Sweaty

        January 3, 2016 at 2:40 pm

      • No so much Montreal in terms of Canada. Quebecois are quite Anti-Semitic. Jews, similar to East Asians, are found in Anglo-Prole domains in large numbers, because that’s where the money is, and believe or not, non-Anglo White nations don’t really like Jews or some of them dislike East Asians (in Southern Euro countries).


        January 3, 2016 at 4:03 pm

      • Lion, I met a few Jewish guys in Montreal who wanted to leave the city and head down to NYC, because NYC is definitely a more pro-Jewish. Again, the Anglo-Prole-Sphere is the least racist place on earth, but it sucks for poorer White people who dislike multicult.


        January 3, 2016 at 4:07 pm

      • @ Otis –

        It’s wishful thinking that the dispute between Jews and Muslims is only over territory at this point. Over the last 70 years, the Arab world has built up a web of conspiracy theories and anti-Jewish ideology. If the Arab Muslims were ever to conquer Israel, they would almost certainly take vicious revenge against the Jews there in the form of mass murder, rape and pillage. If ISIS were the conquerors, any survivors would have the choice of conversion or the sword.


        January 3, 2016 at 4:20 pm

      • This is correct. Even though, 100 years ago, Muslims may not have had any special animosity for Jews, since the formation of the state of Israel, it has become part of the Islamic ideology to hate Jews. This was an intentional strategy on the part of certain Islamic religious leaders to ensure the eventual destruction of Israel.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 3, 2016 at 6:46 pm

      • I suppose the doctrinal differences between Judaism and Christianity are more severe than those between Judaism and Islam, but that usually doesn’t matter to most people.


        January 3, 2016 at 4:29 pm

      • They way orthodox Judaism is practiced it is more like Islam, but the philosophical beliefs of Jews are similar to Christians.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 3, 2016 at 6:48 pm

      • Anti Jewish sentiment in the middle east was a 100 percent Christian thing until Zionism.

        Muslims must have killed Jews all the time for 1400 years, but not bothered to record it. In 1930, over 80% of world Jewry was from Europe. If Jews were historically treated better by Muslims than Europeans, why weren’t there more Mizrahi Jews than European Jews?

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 3, 2016 at 4:34 pm

      • Turkey committed genocide against the Armenians who have been enemies of the Jews for thousands of years.

        Armenians have rarely if ever been enemies of Jews.

        As for the Armenian genocide, it was caught up in Cold War era power politics. Beginning with Eisenhower, America fought Soviet Russia for the strategic allegiance of oil rich Middle Eastern nations. It was Eisenhower Doctrine* that dragged us into Muslim politics, not the ‘Israel lobby’ which does exist but is not doing anything especially sinister or out of line with the rest of American foreign policy interests.

        The Turks were consistently one of our most reliable NATO allies, and we didn’t want to risk a recognition of the genocide that might provoke them to ally with Russia.

        After the Cold War, Clinton spent the 1990s trying to diplomatically resolve the diplomatically unresolvable conflict between Israel and Palestine. In order to get Israel’s consent to cede land to the Palestinians and not give ammunition the Israeli right which wanted to scuttle a deal, Clinton avoided anything that might upset Israel and America’s alliance with Turkey.

        After 911 we declined to recognize the genocide because we needed the Turkish military’s basing rights and intelligence services to help fight Al Qaeda and Iraq.

        We’re still hesitant because it might be used by Erdogan, who appears to be helping ISIS, to justify a closer association with Muslim jihadists.


        The term Eisenhower Doctrine refers to a speech by President Dwight David Eisenhower on 5 January 1957, within a “Special Message to the Congress on the Situation in the Middle East.” Under the Eisenhower Doctrine, a Middle Eastern country could request American economic assistance or aid from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by armed aggression from another state.[1] Eisenhower singled out the Soviet threat in his doctrine by authorizing the commitment of U.S. forces “to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by international communism.”[2]

        In the global political context, the Doctrine was made in response to the possibility of a generalized war, threatened as a result of the latent threat of the Soviet Union becoming involved in Egypt after the Suez Crisis. Coupled with the power vacuum left by the decline of British and French power in the region after the U.S. protested against the conduct of their allies during the Suez War, Eisenhower felt that a strong position needed to better the situation was further complicated by the positions taken by Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was rapidly building a power base and using it to play the Soviets and Americans against each other, taking a position of “positive neutrality” and accepting aid from the Soviets.

        On the regional level, the intent was that the Doctrine would help to provide the independent Arab regimes with an alternative to Nasser’s political control, strengthening them while isolating Communist influence through isolation of Nasser. The Doctrine largely failed on that front, with Nasser’s power quickly rising by 1959 to the point where he could shape the leadership outcomes in neighboring Arab countries, including Iraq and Saudi Arabia; in the meantime, Nasser’s relationship with the Soviet leaders deteriorated, allowing the U.S. to switch to a policy of accommodation.

        The Eisenhower Administration also saw the Middle East as being influential for future foreign policy not only regarding the United States, but also its allies. The region contains a large percentage of the world’s oil supply, and it was perceived that if it were to fall to communism, the United States and its allies would suffer immense economic consequences. Eisenhower’s protests against longtime allies — the United Kingdom and France — during the Suez Canal Crisis meant that the U.S. was the lone Western power in the Middle East and placed U.S. oil security in jeopardy as the USSR filled the power vacuum. The Eisenhower Doctrine was a backflip against the previous policy, however — the U.S. now had the burden of military action in the Middle East to itself.

        The military action provisions of the Doctrine were applied in the Lebanon Crisis the following year, when the United States intervened in response to a request by that country’s then President Camille Chamoun.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        January 3, 2016 at 4:46 pm

      • @Lion:
        ‘They way orthodox Judaism is practiced it is more like Islam, but the philosophical beliefs of Jews are similar to Christians.’

        No, Islam took the legal practice and monotheism from Judaism, Christianity – the spirit. We preceeded them. They are similar to us, not us to them. You keep twisting this relationship. When are you going for to stop?


        January 4, 2016 at 12:50 am

      • Christian go to church once a week, and the rest of the time they get to do whatever they want.

        Both orthodox jews and Muslims have long and tedious religious services and severe restrictions on the fun they can have. For example, both religious forbid eating pork.

        Christians, no matter how religious, can wear normal clothing, but religious Jews and Muslims wear strange clothing that marks themselves as being strict adherents to their religion. Although Orthodox women do not cover their faces, they DO cover their hair with a wig, which is pretty weird, along with many other requirement for proper dress.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 4, 2016 at 9:39 am

  18. I haven’t read it, but a new book argues that Ataturk was a role model for the Nazis in rebuilding the strength of a nation:

    Herb Dregs

    January 2, 2016 at 7:51 pm

    • Hitler referred to the Armenian massacres in order to suggest that Germany would not be held to account for its own atrocities: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

      ice hole

      January 3, 2016 at 1:46 am

      • It would have been true had he won.


        January 3, 2016 at 12:52 pm

  19. The demonization of Hitler is probably why he is so appealing to wanna be nationalists. The reality is that Hitler is one of the greatest losers to ever live. He was a boorish, poorly educated provincial at the right place and right time, an economic illiterate, had no real strategic vision, and was socially stunted. He accomplished none of his long term goals and left his enemies stronger than they had been when he came to power. His main accomplishments were 1) the State of Israel 2) accelerating the replacement of German with English as the international language of science 3) the destruction of centuries worth of German architecture and art, 4) the destruction of historic German communities in Bohemia, Silesia, East Prussia, Slovakia and Transylvania,5) turning the USSR from a famine ridden economic disaster into a world power That story doesn’t make for compelling History Channel programming though.

    Peter Akuleyev

    January 3, 2016 at 3:54 am

    • @Peter, you’re right, the alt-right is populated by socially inept losers who don’t think very clearly.

      That’s what makes me suspicious of the whole Trump phenomenon. They are so wild about Trump. Anything that the alt-right goes ga ga over can’t be real. I’m not convinced even when I read about the overflow crowds at the arenas. It’s like a stump revival. But it will all evaporate at the polls.


      January 3, 2016 at 9:36 am

    • Francisco Franco would be a better role model for WN groups. He killed many Spanish liberals and afro-phile Spaniards like writer, Garcia Lorca, who was a student at Columbia University, eons ago.


      January 4, 2016 at 1:24 pm

  20. @Lion – read Bernard Lewis, a conservative Jewish scholar on Middle Eastern studies. He argues that anti-Antisemitism is a Christian and European phenomenon. Middle Easterners learned antisemitism from the Europeans in the 20TH century.

    Muslims who don’t have access to halal food eat kosher. They are forbidden to eat meat prepared by a Christian but not a Jew. Traditional Islam has always regarded Judaism as a legitimate monotheistic religion.

    The Arabs hate Jews because of Israel. But Turks, Persians, Kurds, and other Middle Eastern groups are not particularly antisemitic. There are about 50K Jews living in Istanbul who could easily move to Israel but don’t want to.


    January 3, 2016 at 1:57 pm

    • Many Meriproles who think anyone who isn’t Islamophobic is PC. And forget about the Sunni vs Shia divide, because most of them don’t even know that Iran is not an Arab country.

      And Iran before the 17th century, was the most Sunni of all nations, and every Sunni would go to Iran to become more “Sunni”, because most of the impressive religious scholars in Sunnism were Persians, not Arabs. What irony!


      January 4, 2016 at 1:12 pm

  21. Stalin is cracking up.


    January 3, 2016 at 5:59 pm

  22. This was such a bizarre thing to say. There are lots of countries to cite in defense of the idea of a “strong presidency.” How about America! How about France! Citing friggin Nazi Germany is so absurd it simply has to be a dog whistle or a suggestion that Erdogan does indeed harbor Nazi sympathies.

    It would be like asking Bernie Sanders, “Senator, won’t a single-payer healthcare system ruin America?” and he responds by saying “nonsense, it’s a model that’s worked in countries all over the world. Stalinist Russia, for instance.”


    January 4, 2016 at 12:27 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: