Turkey has moved closer to Russia while its relationships with the United States and the European Union have suffered.
A Turkish realignment toward Russia is not likely to materialize given their vastly different strategic priorities and visions.
For practical reasons, Turkey will take additional steps over the coming months to rekindle its alliance with the United States and its partnership with the European Union.
Turkey’s relationship with Russia is historically fraught with suspicion and friction. Since the end of the Cold War, however, the two countries have established an important economic relationship, and they have set a bold, perhaps unreachable target of $100 billion in bilateral trade. Even so, this economic aspiration is counterbalanced by differing prerogatives in the strategic and geopolitical realm. Turkey, representing NATO’s eastern flank, has partnered for decades with the United States and the European Union to contain Russian influence in Eastern and Central Europe, as well as the Caucasus. Recent developments in the Syrian civil war have resulted in a strange congruence of interests and seeming cooperation between Ankara and Moscow, but it would be a stretch to argue that this cooperation will deepen into an enduring strategic relationship.
Frayed Relations With the U.S.
Since 2012, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been at odds with the United States, under Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump, for actively supporting Kurdish rebels in Syria to defeat the Islamic State. Turkey considers the Kurdish rebels in Syria an offshoot of the insurgent Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which the Turkish government, as well as the United States, NATO and the European Union, lists as a terrorist organization. In turn, Russia has, with the help of Iran, established a process not only of defeating the Islamic State in Syria but also of defeating all rebel groups fighting the pro-Russian government of Syrian President Bashar al Assad. The situation in Syria has left policy analysts wondering whether Turkey is actively distancing itself from its American and European partners to adopt a closer strategic relationship with Russia.
To be sure, there are many issues that have resulted in a deep schism between Turkey and the United States. U.S. backing of Kurdish rebels can be seen as merely the tip of the iceberg. In return, Turkey has concluded the purchase (if not the actual deployment) of a Russian S-400 missile system to bolster its air defenses in clear preference to the U.S.-made Patriot missile system. U.S. authorities have threatened their Turkish counterparts that if they deploy the Russian missiles the United States will not transfer more than 100 F-35 fighters to Turkey, mainly because the Russian crews who would operate the S-400 batteries would be in a prime position to gain information regarding the F-35’s strengths and weaknesses. Further, Erdogan’s government has arbitrarily detained U.S. citizens as bargaining chips to compel Washington to accede to Turkish policy demands, specifically regarding Syria. In return, the United States, in addition to sanctioning Turkish Cabinet ministers, has threatened further punitive measures against Turkey — measures that could seriously damage its already debt-ridden and fragile economy.
Instead of mending fences with the United States and requesting emergency financial assistance from the U.S.-dominated International Monetary Fund and/or World Bank, could it be that Erdogan is more interested in turning to new “allies” such as Russia and China to achieve his regional and wider foreign policy agenda? The purchasing of sovereign debt by China is just one avenue by which Beijing is advancing its global ambition of unseating the United States as the sole economic and military hegemon, and it would be quite attractive to Erdogan’s government precisely because monetary loans from China are likely to carry fewer conditions than those obtained from the IMF and World Bank. Other than a historical security apparatus rooted in the Cold War, and limited trade relations, there is not much that binds Turkey and the United States together.
Other than a historical security apparatus rooted in the Cold War, and limited trade relations, there is not much that binds Turkey and the United States together.
On the other hand, Russia and Turkey have a significant economic partnership that not only spans a number of critical sectors but also makes Turkey increasingly dependent on Russia. Turkey derives 55 percent of its natural gas needs (natural gas produces 60 percent of its electricity) from Russia, for example. Both countries have also signed an agreement to build at least one Russian nuclear power plant in Turkey. Because of Turkey’s potential as a transit hub for Russian natural gas to Europe — one that bypasses Ukraine — Moscow and Ankara are building the TurkStream pipeline, which could begin carrying Russian natural gas through Turkey to the European Union via Bulgaria as early as late 2019. The Russian domestic market is a vital destination for Turkish exports, including but not limited to cars, agricultural produce and textiles.
Further, the influx of 4 million to 5 million Russian tourists to Turkey in 2017 represents 12 percent of the country’s total number of tourists and a significant source of revenue. To crown these vital areas of economic synergy, one must bear in mind that Turkey and Russia’s bilateral relationship does not depend on shared values such as human rights and democratic governance, a factor that has further embittered Turkey’s relationship with the United States and the European Union.
Signs of Improvement
Despite the economic ties, Turkey’s supposed realignment toward Russia and China — a clear preference that would put it in the Eurasia camp and possibly out of NATO — is not likely to materialize. Turkey and Russia have vastly different strategic priorities and visions. In the immediate future, Turkey is ambivalent about a Russian- and Iranian-backed military assault on the last rebel-held town of Idlib in Syria. Erdogan has so far succeeded in preventing the operation from taking place. This may not last for much longer. Russia has a clear interest in ending the Syrian civil war and seeing al Assad’s government fully in control of the country once again. This concern presents a number of problems for Turkey. The battle for Idlib would result in new waves of refugees destined for Turkey, which already hosts more than 3.5 million Syrians and isn’t in a position to cope with more. In addition, it is highly likely that the extremist elements making up the remnants of the Syrian resistance that Turkey has actively supported (Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, and other Islamic State or former al Qaeda elements) would flee to Turkey and pose an internal security threat.
In the long term, Turkey has little to gain with a re-empowered al Assad government, which is likely to present a resentful posture against Erdogan, precisely because he tried to topple al Assad’s government and replace it with a Sunni alternative. Strategically speaking, Turkey also remains largely isolated in the region, and in the event it does not patch up its relationship with its partners, it is likely to face increased security and economic challenges, which its NATO, U.S. and EU anchors so far have largely shielded Ankara from. Consider that Turkey has no real alternative to renewing and maintaining its military capacity independent of U.S.-made products — namely the F-35 fighter. It is for such reasons that Erdogan has recently initiated several overtures to begin rebuilding relationships with allies he has seriously strained. The freeing of U.S. cleric Andrew Brunson in mid-October was a clear attempt to de-escalate tensions with the United States and prevent further sanctions being levied against Turkey. More recently, the apparent murder of The Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul has resulted in Erdogan attempting to marginalize Saudi Arabia in the eyes of the United States and the European Union and to raise Turkey’s profile as a more credible partner, by divulging precise intelligence in Khashoggi’s death.
Turkey remains more distant toward its once stalwart alliance with the United States and partnership with the European Union than at any other point in recent history. However, in the coming months we are likely to witness more overt measures to rekindle and reaffirm these embittered ties, if only for pragmatic reasons.
The fallout from the Khashoggi affair underlines a larger battle between Turkey and Saudi Arabia for influence throughout the Sunni world that will continue in the religious, political and economic spheres.
Turkey may be trying to use its muted response to coax Saudi Arabia into stopping its cooperation with Iraqi and Syrian Kurds, or possibly into to reducing Saudi economic pressure on Qatar, Turkey’s major regional ally.
Their slowly growing defense and economic ties will mitigate the chances of a complete rupture between Ankara and Riyadh.
For weeks, allegations of criminality and a cover-up have consumed the Turkish media after Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed at Riyadh’s consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2. Three weeks later, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told parliament that Saudi authorities had planned the dissident’s slaying. Erdogan has a penchant for bombast, but the speech was understated, and the president even issued a cordial appeal to Saudi King Salman to cooperate in exposing the truth in the Khashoggi affair. Conspicuously, Erdogan elected not to mention the elephant in the room: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is widely believed to have played a role in the killing.
The Big Picture
Among the major states of the Middle East, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are rivals competing for dominance in the Sunni Muslim world. The fallout over the violent death of a Saudi journalist in Turkey has given Ankara some leverage against Riyadh, which it will use carefully.
The speech and the steady leak of information from Turkish authorities strengthen the view that Erdogan is trying to carefully pressure Saudi Arabia, whose worldview and regional policies are at odds with Turkey’s. Erdogan isn’t going so far as to risk destroying relations with Saudi Arabia — especially given the prospect that the crown prince could emerge from the scandal — but if international pressure against the crown prince rises, Erdogan is well-positioned to join in the campaign. For the moment, Turkey is seeking to alter the balances within the Saudi royal family by emphasizing that the king is a credible partner while explicitly questioning who instigated the killing, all without mentioning the crown prince by name.
The antagonism between the crown prince and the president is mutual. In comments earlier this year to the Egyptian press, the crown prince called Turkey, Iran and political Islam an “axis of evil.” Basically, the two leaders are revisiting a familiar history of Saudi-Turkish rivalry, which goes back decades. Economic priorities might prevent each side from damaging an otherwise productive relationship, but that doesn’t mean each won’t try to capitalize on the other’s moments of weakness and public relations stumbles — particularly in the way Turkey appears to building leverage against Saudi Arabia in the Khashoggi killing.
Who Leads the Sunni World?
At its core, the conflict is driven by their differing political visions for the Sunni world, as well as the struggle between the visions to get the upper hand. For Saudi Arabia, which is the custodian of Islam’s two holiest cities, Turkey’s challenge is seen as an attack on the legitimacy of the Saud family as rulers. For Turkey, whose sultans once held the same cities as the caliphs of the Sunni world, it is an opportunity to secure soft power in the Muslim world for decades to come.
At its core, the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Turkey is driven by their differing political visions for the Sunni world.
The question of leadership in the Sunni world has been in flux since the nascent Turkish Republic abolished the caliphate in 1924. In the republican Turkish view, it is authentic expressions of Islamic thought, as espoused by morally upright Muslim citizens, that ought to guide and rule the Sunni world. The Saudis, in contrast, believe that traditional and clear hierarchies, with authority vested in Riyadh-appointed members of the ulama (Muslim clerics), should guide the Sunni world. In essence, Turkey posits that the legitimacy for leadership comes from the grassroots authenticity of everyday Muslims, while Saudi Arabia claims that it is based on the hierarchy of tradition.
This worldview explains Riyadh’s abhorrence of movements like the Muslim Brotherhood, which holds views similar to Turkey and which has received political protection from Ankara. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, for example, has operated out of Turkey since Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi seized power from Mohammed Morsi, a member of the group, in 2013. Turkey’s worldview appeals to Muslims anywhere who believe that it is not tradition or social deference that must determine leadership, but commitment to the Islamic faith.
This is a direct political threat to the Saudi royal family’s legitimacy; the more Saudis are exposed to such thinking, the more they may question the tribal-cum-wasta (“influence”) social contract that underpins much of the monarchy’s authority. While the Saudis also claim to be pursuing true and authentic representations of Islam, their insistence on royal privilege and prerogative opens them to criticism that their religious scruples are not as consistent as they say. This creates a soft power contest between the two, and Riyadh hopes to keep this Turkish-derived influence as far away from Saudi subjects as possible.
Rival Camps
Because Turkey and Saudi Arabia view themselves as the Muslim world’s pre-eminent Sunni powers, they are broadly aligned on many foreign policy issues. For instance, both countries want to contain the spread of Iranian hegemony in the region, perceiving Persian power as a threat to their own ability to lead the Middle East and the Muslim world. This makes the two powers natural allies to the United States’ growing efforts to contain Iran’s influence. Washington’s increasing reliance on the two to help contain Iran rests on existing U.S. dependence on the pair to bolster regional counterterrorism efforts. Both Saudi Arabia and Turkey have, after all, committed to fighting the Islamic State alongside the United States.
But despite their broad alignment on Iran, Ankara and Riyadh have very different relationships with Tehran. While Saudi Arabia avoids as much contact with Iran as possible, Turkey shares a border and an economic and strategic relationship with the country. This might expose Turkey to certain risks (for instance, the risk of suffering harsher U.S. sanctions on Iran in the coming months and years if Turkish companies continue to trade with Iranian entities), but it also provides Ankara a certain freedom to maneuver that Riyadh does not enjoy, such as in the Syria conflict. Moreover, Turkey and Iran’s shared border and large Kurdish populations also give the pair common cause to contain Kurdish separatism.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia further have an interest in supporting the same political causes across the Sunni world, albeit from different angles. The two countries support Palestinian statehood but have pursued contrasting approaches to economic and political aid for the community. Turkey is closer to Hamas, a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot that rules Gaza, while Saudi Arabia primarily backs Fatah, the Palestinian faction that controls the West Bank and which is hostile toward Hamas. Turkey is also publicly healing its rift with Israel, which will broaden its ability to extend support to the Palestinians, at a time when Saudi Arabia has kept its ties with Israel as quiet as possible while expressing public support for the Palestinian cause.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia have also staunchly opposed Syrian President Bashar al Assad throughout most of the Syrian civil war, but they have supported different rebel groups in the conflict. In this, Saudi Arabia’s recent support for the Syrian Kurds has particularly irked Turkey, which view such rebel groups as terrorists.
Competition and Conflict
The Iranian-Saudi rivalry has attracted much attention, but the Turkish-Saudi rivalry — nuanced though it is — is also producing real policy effects, drawing regional Sunni countries into either the Ankara or Riyadh camp. Because Turkey’s political model threatens governments such as Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, the two states have aligned themselves with Saudi Arabia’s regional endeavors. But other Sunni governments, such as Qatar, have grown closer to Turkey because Doha supports Islamist politics as a means of forming deeper connections to global Muslim communities. A few, such as Jordan and Lebanon, try to benefit from both.
Further afield in Africa, the two powers have sought to build the political, religious, economic and security influence that could bolster political legitimacy on the continent. In the Horn of Africa and across North Africa, both countries are opportunistic, taking advantage of political openings, as in Somalia, where Turkey supports political forces opposed to rivals backed by Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. In Tunisia, Turkey has tried to support the Islamist Ennahda party to help it counter more secularist parties, prompting Saudi Arabia’s (somewhat unsuccessful) efforts to back the latter. Saudi Arabia has also sought to weaken Turkey’s ability to make Africa an export market by undercutting Turkish efforts with donations or investments. By strengthening African economies, Saudi Arabia can help give them the strength to push for a harder bargain with Turkey or to seek imports from elsewhere.
As rivals, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have found ways to needle each other at points of weakness. Because preventing the development of an autonomous Kurdish polity is Turkey’s primary security objective, Ankara is increasingly nervous about Saudi and Gulf efforts to connect with Kurds in Iraq and Syria. Saudi Arabia also deeply opposes Turkey’s support for Qatar, which helped provide a political and security lifeline at the beginning of the June 2017 blockade. Riyadh especially wants to prevent Ankara from bolstering its military presence in Qatar. What’s more, the two have also supported different communities within the crowded and complex political spectrum in Lebanon, in some ways inflaming Beirut’s political problems.
Neither Turkey nor Saudi Arabia has a significant interest in stirring political waters that could upend valuable economic ties.
Economic Ties
Despite the rivalry, Saudi Arabia and Turkey’s burgeoning economic ties might mitigate the possibility of a serious rift — particularly in the realm of defense. Turkish-Saudi defense collaboration began in September 2013, when the two countries ratified a cooperation agreement. Late in 2017, Aselsan Corp., one of Turkey’s most important defense companies, formed a joint venture with Saudi Arabia’s Taqnia called Saudi Defense Electronics Co. (SADEC), which focuses primarily on electronics, including jammers, radars, electronic warfare suites and infrared receivers. As part of the joint venture, Aselsan and Taqnia have commenced construction on a factory in Saudi Arabia.
Turkey has not yet made any major arms sales to Saudi Arabia, although Ankara has been negotiating the sale of unmanned aerial vehicles to Saudi Arabia and has entertained hopes of selling its Altay tank, as well as other weapons and equipment. Because bilateral defense ties remain in their infancy, a serious rift between Turkey and Saudi Arabia would not upend any current arms deals, but it would certainly hinder Ankara’s ambitions of expanding into the lucrative Saudi market, meaning neither side would benefit from a profound rupture in relations.
In terms of trade, the relationship is not massive (the two conducted just $4.7 billion in largely balanced trade last year), yet both governments have pledged to increase trade and investment in sectors that matter to both. Accordingly, neither country has a significant interest in stirring political waters that could upend valuable economic ties. Turkish construction firms, which represent a strategic sector for Ankara, have won contracts to build Saudi Arabian housing projects — the number of which is set to grow substantially under Riyadh’s Vision 2030. Saudi tourists, whose numbers have also been increasing yearly, have also buoyed the Turkish economy by spending big when visiting Turkey. Saudi citizens have also been at the forefront of a campaign to gobble up Turkish real estate, highlighting just how important the kingdom’s customers are to the economic sector for Ankara. (Naturally, some of Riyadh’s influence over Ankara through the real estate market is mitigated by the $1 billion in investments that Qatar, an even bigger foe of Saudi Arabia, has made in Turkey’s housing market in the past three years.)
Keeping Calm, for Now
For now, Riyadh is playing it safe with Ankara as it tries to defuse the Khashoggi crisis. So what, ultimately, does Turkey want as it dangles the journalist’s case over Saudi Arabia? Economically, Turkey could be quietly soliciting Saudi financial support in exchange for an end to the media pressure on the crown prince or it might even be soliciting some diplomatic relief for Doha, which remains under the Gulf Cooperation Council’s blockade. Politically and security-wise, Turkey is also seeking a channel to contain Saudi support for the Kurds.
Ultimately, however, much of the Saudi-Turkish rivalry fits into the political and soft power spheres, in which personalities like Mohammed bin Salman and Erdogan compete for prestige and Ankara and Riyadh attempt to win the hearts and minds of the Sunni world. For now, Turkey appears to see the benefit in not rocking the boat with Saudi Arabia— but that’s no guarantee that it won’t change its mind.
NEW YORK, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 11th, 1938…
ATATÜRK DIES AT 58; TURKS WILL ELECT A SUCCESSOR TODAY…
National Assembly Expected to Name General Inönü, Former Premier, as President…
NATION GOES IN MOURNING…
Peaceful Transition to New Era Seen… Unity is Stressed Under Ideal of Founder…
The Bad News in The New York Times…
ISTANBUL, Türkiye, November 10 th – Kemal Atatürk, President and creator of modern Türkiye, died today at Dolma Baghche Palace at the age of 58. He had survived thirteen wounds received in battle and a number of assassination attempts, but succumbed to cirrhosis of the liver.It is expected that General Ismet Inönü, former Premier and President Atatürk’s comrade-in-arms, will be chosen tomorrow morning by the Republican People’s party to succeed the dictator-soldier, hero of the reborn nation. The bulletin announcing the death of Atatürk and signed by eight doctors read :
“The President’s general condition, the gravity of which was announced in a bulletin published last night, grew steadily worse. On November 10th, 1938, at 9:05 A.M., our great chief, in a deep coma, breathed his last.”
Three minutes after his death Salih Bozük, former aide and one of the President’s closest friends, unsuccessfully attempted suicide by shooting. He was seriously wounded. Premier Stays at Bedside.
Throughout the night Ali Fethi Okyar, Ambassador to London Atatürk’s sister and his adopted daughter Sabihi Gueukschehn Honoum, the latter a famous air-woman, remained near the bedside. The first indication of the President’s death came at 11:30 A.M. when it was noticed that the flags on government buildings were at half-staff. Soon the flags of ships in the harbor were at half-mast, and gradually all shops and houses exhibited similar signs of mourning.
Later, however, the authorities requested the withdrawal of flags except those on government buildings. Although the flags at half staff the appearance of so much color gave the impression that Istanbul was on fete. All places of public entertainment were closed and no intoxicants will be sold in Türkiye until further notice.
The government’s communiqué issued this morning states:
“By Atatürk’s death Türkiye has lost her great creator, a nation its great Chief and humanity a great son. We offer our people deepest condolences in their great loss. Our only consolation in our affliction is our attachment to his great work and our service to our dear country. We declare that before all things his immortal work is the Turkish Republic.”
“Your government is at its post at this grave time through which we are passing. The great Turkish nation will, without doubt, work as one body with the government to preserve order.”
“In accordance with the Constitution Abdullah Haik Renda, president of the Kamutay [National Assembly] has assumed the interim Presidency of the republic and the Kamutay will proceed forthwith with the election of a new President of the republic. The government, the glorious Turkish Army with all its might and the whole people, which form an unshakable entity, will gather around whoever is elected to fulfill the highest office in Türkiye and to maintain her greatness.”
“Atatürk, whom we mourn today and always, had the confidence of the Turkish people. The continuation of his work he bequeathed to the Turkish nation. The Turkish people, which is eternal, will make it live eternally. Turkish youth will always defend the Turkish Republic, its precious legacy, and will march alone the path Atatürk traced. Kemal Atatürk will live always.”
Beside General Inönü, Marshal Fevzi Çakmak, Chief of Staff, and Mr. Okyar also are in the running for the Presidency. The Marshal, as Chief of Staff, holds a position of great authority in the new Türkiye and he is universally respected as the father of the army. However, he is essentially a soldier and he is known to be reluctant to play a political role. It is said that before President Atatürk became seriously ill he asked the Marshal whether he would stand for the Presidency if Atatürk resigned. The suggestion was declined.
Mr. Okyar, once Prime Minister of Türkiye and lately Ambassador to London and an experienced diplomat, has been Atatürk’s most intimate friend. Since the suppression in 1930 of the short-lived Liberal party, of which he was a leader, he never joined the Republican People’s party and it seems unlikely that the Kamutay, composed almost entirely of adherents of the party the principals of which were lately embodied in the Constitution, would elect a non-party man President.
Moreover, neither Marshal Çakmak nor Mr. Okyar is a member of the Kamutay, from which a president is elected.
Inönü Is Likely Choice…
It’s seems, therefore, that the choice will fall on General Inönü. For many years he was a close collaborator and lieutenant of President Atatürk and until twelve months ago he had been Prime Minister continuously for twelve years. No man in Türkiye possesses his experience, and that is perhaps more important than his popularity, which for long has been second only to Atatürk’s. Much has been said about their estrangement last year when General Inönü resigned the Premiership, but in light of subsequent events it now seems clear that it was the result chiefly of temporary mutual irritation. President Atatürk was a sick man and General Inönü was suffering from the strain of the long, arduous years in office.
Ever since it was agreed between them that in the interest of the country the partnership should be dissolved, the general deliberately kept in the background, but the Turkish people, with the possible exception of a few private enemies, continued to regard him as the natural successor to his former chief.
Even if none of three is elected to the Presidency and the Kamutay decides to choose another who has not played a prominent part in the life of the republic, the loyal cooperation that is now manifesting itself between Marshal Çakmak, Mr. Okyar and General Inönü, toward Celal Bayar, the present Prime Minister, should be sufficient to guarantee a peaceful transition to the new era.
Change in Policy Unlikely – ISTANBUL, November 10th (AP)…
There were unconfirmed reports today that Kemal Atatürk had left a political testament to guide his successor in his own rigid doctrine of westernization and nationalism. No one expected Türkiye’s new leadership to turn in the immediate future from the domestic and foreign balance that Atatürk achieved for his nation, strategically situated between the East and the West. Before Atatürk became gravely ill in mid-October he was borrowing money for Türkiye with little discrimination from both Britain and Germany, although his early struggle for power was tinged with bitter hatred for the influence of both. The British and German Foreign Offices were known to have keen interest in his successor and the future course of Türkiye.
KEMAL ATATÜRK…
Atatürk, a Military Hero, Formed surging Nation…
He was called simply Mustafa when he was born in Salonika in 1880, the son of a Turkish custom’s officer. His mathematic’s teacher at military preparatory school added Kemal, meaning “rightness”, to his name. When he fought his way to leadership of the Turks, the title of Pasha was added. Most of his historic record was made as Mustafa Kemal Pasha. In 1934, when he had so modernized Türkiye that titles were abolished and he was able to decree that all Turks must thereafter have family names, he chose for himself the family name of Atatürk, which is translated as “Chief Turk” or “Father of All Turks.” Thenceforth he was known as Kemal Atatürk.
His death comes as a blow to a nation of 14,000,000 people, although he reformed their social customs, their religion and their economics with dictatorial zeal and speed. Out of the remains of the defeated and dismembered Ottoman Empire, he formed in 1923 a republic, which he armed and industrialized and made into a powerful nation. He repossessed the Dardanelles in 1936, conciliated the Greeks and steered a course between East and West in a manner that made Soviet Russia, Britain and Germany in turn glad to cultivate Türkiye’s friendship and lend her millions of further development.
Women Admitted to Parliament…
In twelve years of reform women in Türkiye were transported from the harem and the veil to membership in Parliament, to which seventeen women were admitted in 1935. President Atatürk even gave women the right to serve in the army, but said they would never be sent to the front because they were too precious to the nation. In another phase of reform, he stripped Mohammedan priests of their privileges and made Sunday instead of Friday the day of rest to conform with western usage. He devoted himself to the development of an army and navy with which to assure the Turkish position in dealing with the Western powers. By this year he had a modernized army of almost 500,000 men and was spending $70,000,000 of Türkiye’s annual budget of $210,000,000 to expand the national defense . He announced a five-year plan intended to bring Türkiye’s air force up to 1,000 of the latest military planes. He ordered twenty-five submarines and planned to equip Türkiye to manufacture arms and war materials within her own boundaries.
Türkiye’s control of the Dardanelles had already made her one of the most important powers in the Mediterranean, and she was prepared to defend her position instead of being a pawn of stronger European nations as in the past.
Straits Pact Repudiated…
She had gained this position finally when Atatürk decided that Türkiye’s new national stature justified the repudiation of the last remaining restriction on her sovereignty, the Straits convention of 1923, which forbade her to fortify the Dardanelles. The President declared his belief and assembled his troops. The powers interested in the Straits convention said it was a “grave move”, but a hurriedly summoned conference in 1936 at Montreux, Switzerland, gave Türkiye the Straits once more.
Atatürk was instrumental in the formation of the Balkan Entente, with Türkiye, Greece, Romania and Yugoslavia, and thereafter in 1937 he formed the Moslem, or Middle-East bloc, with Türkiye, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.
Early in 1937 Atatürk grew impatient with long-drawn-out negotiations with France over the Syrian mandate, which France was about to relinquish by recognizing Syria as a republic. The Turks wanted Alexandretta, containing Antioch and an important corner of the Eastern Mediterranian shore leading to the Mosul oil fields.
The Turks had their way. Alexandretta was made an autonomous State last July, under Franco-Turkish administration and defense forces, with the understanding that the French would eventually withdraw, leaving it to the Turks.
Policy Based on Expediency…
The course of Türkiye’s international relations was steered by Atatürk on an apparent chart of expediency, based on the position that Türkiye occupies as a strong power astride the Dardanelles, separating Russia from the Mediterranian, facing Germany on the historic route to Baghdad and balancing Italy’s growth along Britain’s “life-line” to the East.
Russia was the first to help Türkiye to power. In the post-war settlement the Soviet opposed in vain the partition of Türkiye. And when Kemal, not yet Atatürk, later undertook to drive out the Allies Russia supplied arms, materials and funds that contributed greatly to the final crushing of the Greeks in 1922. The Soviet thereafter enjoyed a position of preferred friendship in Türkiye, but this cooled about ten years later when it became evident that the Turkish dictator was willing to have other friends also. Britain and France were eager to oblige the Turks. Last July, when Russia held aloof, Britain lent Türkiye $80,000,000, mostly for arms. Germany, meanwhile, was courting Türkiye. So was Italy, Atatürk could not readily forget, however, that the downfall of the Ottoman empire had resulted from siding with Germany in the World War and that Türkiye had been among the Entente powers that Italy had deserted to side with the Allies. Germany came bearing gifts, however. She offered a commercial treaty. And she offered a huge credits under which she would undertake to construct docks for Türkiye along the Bosporus, deliver a fleet of coastwise steamers and build a variety of factories. Atatürk announced a five-year plan of industrialization. Moreover, as the Czechoslovak crisis developed he suffered disillusionment in his belief that Britain was the strongest power in the world. Türkiye concluded a commercial treaty with Germany, accepted a loan of 150,000,000 marks and proceeded to become Germany’s greatest foreign market. She is currently buying goods and services from Germany at a yearly rate of about $130,000,000, while selling to Germany at a yearly rate of $80,000,000. It became evident to the world that Atatürk had brought Türkiye to the receiving end of several competing international axes and to the profit position in the adjoining nationality blocs.
Scorned Doctors’ Advice…
During a quarter of a century of war, intrigue and the dictation of sweeping reforms, however, Atatürk had habitually disregarded all doctors’ orders to take better care of his powerful physique. Although he was stern and strict in his official life, he was known to be convivial and carefree in his social life. He frequently danced and drank all night, or played poker (with great success) all night, smoking incessantly the while. Then he slept twenty-four hours without interruption.
A French liver specialist ordered a complete rest for him early this year, but he disdained it. His people heard of this and raised such a clamor that Türkiye bought him a luxurious yacht from Richard M. Cadwaladen an American. It had gold-plated bathroom fitting and gold door knobs. On it he caught a chill last summer while entertaining King Carol of Rumania. He never completely recovered.
Almost to the day of death Atatürk struggled to disestablish the ancient methods of Turkish thought. When the medical profession of Türkiye, which he had reorganized on modern scientific lines, wished to express appreciation of what he had done for public health, the best medical thought decided to present a solid gold bath-tub, eight feet long, five feet wide and four feet deep.
The best Turkish doctors thought it was the only thing fitted for the Ghazi-the Conqueror. Atatürk ordered it melted down and the proceeds expended on bettering the public health.
Had a Food Taster…
Yet Atatürk could not escape being a traditional Turk in one respect; he had an official food taster. He was served by Mohammed Mouhi, who was paid $15,000 a year for about twenty minutes’ work a day. Mohamme d’s duty was to taste well of all food and drink intended for Atatürk. Thereafter the meal was kept in a hot table for an hour. If Mohammed did not die by that time the dictator ate and drank.
Atatürk presided over a republic about as large as California and New Mexico combined. Although he rose to power because of his military ability, a career for which his early education destined him, his post-war activities were those of a progressive and energetic administrator. Emil Ludwig, the German biographer once called him “A man compared with whom Napoleon was half a dreamer.” An outstanding fact about the dictator’s extraordinary career was his consistency and his patience, his courage and his silence. It was he who won the peace of Lausanne, the first time for 200 years that old Asia achieved a victory over Europe. He was a revolutionary officer who in his Salonika days had began to oppose the committee of Young Turks; a man for whom no measure of reform was adequate, who found the policy of Talat and Enver superficial, and the alliance with Germany fatal; the man who made no capital out of the military reputation he earned at Gallipoli, who twice withdraw from public life, who with threats warned the last Sultan to turn over a new leaf, and who after the war, contrived to defeat him and the people in power in Constantinople, and who was warned, recalled, deposed and sentenced to death by the then Turkish Government.
Having in his command 20,000 war-worn soldiers, he entered upon the conflict with the great powers of Europe, and then, for four whole years, surrounded by foes without and within, waited until he had overthrown the Sultan, abolished the Caliphate, set free the essential part of Türkiye from the ruins of the old empire, saved it and reestablished it as a republic. By these achievements he proved himself a great military leader and statesman. The President’s moustache and fez, prominent features in his portraits at the time when he rose to power, were given up after he had established himself. His medium sized, slight figure was clad in elegant civil dress. His hair was bright and blond. His furrowed countenance indicated what he had gone through. He lived, as the first citizen of his country, in a villa situated among the hills outside the new capital that he had founded. He had built it in that Turkish style that dates from the period when French tastes prevailed. Almost unguarded its doors were left open in true Oriental fashion.
Dates in His Career…
The historical dates of the Ghazi’s career after the World War are : On May 16th, 1919, the Greeks landed at Smyrna. On June 21st the future dictator called the assembly of a congress of patriots. The Sultan dismissed him from the army service on July 8th. Two weeks later the Ghazi presided at the Congress of Erzerum, which resolved that “with one accord the entire East will resist the occupation and the interference of the foreigner.” On September 4th he was elected chairman of a second congress at Sivas, which resolved “to fight for Turkish integrity.” In October national elections were forced by him, and these resulted in the defeat of the Sultan’s government. British troops, in March, 1920, took possession of Constantinople, now Istanbul, and in April he was outlawed and condemned to death by the Sultan.
Shortly afterward the Turkish National Assembly met, elected the Ghazi President and adopted the national pact, the Magna Charta of New Türkiye. In May the Sultan sent a “Caliph’s army” toward Angora to destroy the nationalist forces. This army was driven back into Constantinople by the Ghazi.
When the Greeks began their invasion of Asiatic Türkiye in June, 1920, he organized an army of defense. On August 10th the Treaty of Sevres partitioned the Ottoman Empire and divided it among the European powers. The Ghazi stopped the Greek army at Sakaria on September 13th, 1921. At the battle of Dumla Puvar, on August 26th 1922, he issued an order to his troops, “Soldiers, your goal is the Mediterranian! On to it !”. A few days later he drove the Greek army into the sea. He advanced upon Constantinople and the Dardanelles, and on October 11th, 1922, authorized the signing of the armistice treaty with the Allies at Mudovia, which, in effect, was an other diplomatic victory for Türkiye.
On November 1st, 1922, the Ghazi abolished the Sultanate, and on November 17th the Sultan fled from Türkiye on a British warship. Three days later the peace conference opened at Lausanne. Ably represented and supported by his brilliant colleague Ismet Pasha, the Ghazi won his great diplomatic victory and on October 29th, 1923, was elected first President of the Turkish Republic.
Atatürk was born when Abdul Hamid II was Sultan. He was an only son and he was intended by his mother for the mosque school, but he became fascinated by the uniforms of the army officers and was sent to the military preparatory school at Salonika.
Plotted Against Sultan…
After attending the military preparatory school at Salonika, the officers’ school at Monastir and the War Academy at Constantinople, Kemal, then a head strong youth of 22, entered the army in 1902 with the rank of lieutenant. Through forbidden literature he became acquainted with Western ideas of government, which soon led to his hatred of Abdül Hamid, whom he bitterly opposed. In a small apartment in the Stamboul section of Constantinople he founded the secret Society of Liberty. As a result he was arrested and after three months’ confinement in a cell at the ministry of police, was exiled, being sent to Damascus to join a cavalry regiment. There he founded local branches of his society, but, being too isolated, fled to Alexandria and finally reached Salonika by way of Piraeus in Greece.
When his secret activities were again discovered, he flew to Akaba and stayed for a while in Syria. He obtained a transfer to the Third Army’s staff at Salonika, merged the Society of Liberty into the Society of Progress and entrenched his forces in Salonika, Monastir and Uskup. The revolution of the Young Turks in 1908 failed, but the Sultan lost his absolute regime in the counter-revolution of 1909. A quarrel between Kemal and Enver Pasha, whose rule succeeded that of Abdül Hamid, followed, and Kemal withdrew from politics in bitter disillusionment.
During the following years he led the life of the average Turkish army officer. He was exiled by Enver to Tripoli, returned to Salonika, was transferred to Albania, and again sent to Salonika. Hated by Enver, he was military attaché at Sofia, Bulgaria, when Türkiye joined Germany in 1914 in a last desperate gamble for the life of the empire. Kemal, convinced from the first that the empire was in no condition to enter the war, received command of the Nineteenth Division and was dispatched to the Dardanelles. He soon commanded all the Turco-German forces on the peninsula, and his success in throwing back the British before Anaforta was the most brilliant achievement of his military career.
This victory made him a great hero in Germany, but it was not until its story was told in the Committee Year Book for 1917 that Enver permitted it to leak out in Constantinople. Two years later the Turkish papers began printing the story of Anaforta, and Enver caused the entire issues to be confiscated. By that time it had become politically dangerous to mention Kemal’s name in the capital.
Alarmed at Kemal’s popularity, Liman von Sanders, the German generalissimo, transferred him to the Russian front after the British had evacuated the Dardanelles. He was appointed major general, in command of the Sixteenth Army, but he came into conflict with Falkenhayn, threw up his command in protest, and returned to Aleppo, where he dispatched to Enver a remarkable statement, outlining the entire political situation at a moment when a German victory was expected. Pointing out Falkenhayn’s position, he warned: “We shall lose our own country and Falkenhayn will sacrifice every ounce of gold and every soldier he can squeeze out of us.”
Exiled to Germany…
Enver’ reply to this warning was to give Falkenhayn command of the Palestine front and to exile Kemal to Germany. For the next year he was on the German and Austro-Hungarian front. Then Enver recalled him and gave him the Yildirim command (Fourth, Seventh and Eighth Armies) on the Palestine front. But it was too late. Kemal reached his post just as Allenby’s great break-through brought the empire crashing down to its end.
It was figuratively the end of the world for Kemal. He returned to Constantinople, which had fallen into disorder. The members of his revolutionary committee had fled, and Damad Ferid Pasha was to succeed Talat and Enver. Türkiye was virtually surrounded by her enemies, the Allies forming an iron ring around the remnants of the old empire. Under the terms of the Mudros armistice, the Turkish Navy was interned at Constantinople and the army disarmed. With the Allies in occupation of the capital, Kemal knew that further attempts were useless. He fled to Asia Minor. When he ignored Ferid’s demand to return, the latter dismissed him from the army.
In the following struggle between Kemal and Ferid, Kemal was the final victor. The Anglo-Hellenic rapprochement sent whole provinces in Asia Minor scurrying to Kemal, with the result that this part was lost to Ferid. With the Greek occupation of Smyrna in 1919, which led Kemal to tear up Mudros armistice, the star of the Ghazi began to rise, and,after his strategic victories, reached its climax with his diplomatic victory at Lausanne and his election as first President of the Turkish Republic.
Kemal Atatürk, the “most terrible of all the terrible Turks,” as he was termed by Earl Balfour, who described him as a brigand, was always a man who insisted on having his own ideas accepted. The new Türkiye got rid of her Sultans in 1922 but she did not then dare abolish the Caliphate. The abolition of the Caliphate was the first step of importance in the life of the new republic. The next was the reform of the laws. This was achieved in the space of only a few weeks. The Swiss Civil Code was almost literally translated, and the best points of the Italian Penal Code were accepted. Thus the Ghazi, by imposing his will upon the nation, had altered within three months the entire judiciary. He ordered the first census ever to be held on Turkish territory. Although this was not a reform in itself, it led to reforms of vast importance which gave the country and the world a definite idea of Türkiye’s importance in Near Eastern affairs. The President also made the Turkish language obligatory as the official language, and ordered that it be written in Roman instead of Arabic characters. Capitulations (foreign privileges) were abolished. The Gregorian calendar was substituted for the Islamic, and the feast of the Ramazan was fixed by astronomical observation. In every direction Islamic precedence and prohibitions were broken and violated.
Changed the Old Order…
In its special aspects the revolution attempted to model the customs of the State upon Western fashions. The old order was changed. The traditional fez was abandoned and the Turkish women gave up their veils. Harems, survival of Byzantium, were forbidden, monogamy became the law and men and women received equal rights in the matter of divorce. In 1923 Angora, in the heart of Anatolia, became officially the capital, as a result of a decree by the President. He spent money freely to build it and developed a modern city. He started with Angora as an unkempt little Anatolian village with narrow streets and mud-brick houses, where the only big event was a weekly market for the peasants. According to a German architectural plan by Herman Jansen, the new capital was laid out in detached sections over an immense site. From a central citadel, broad paved avenues radiated, imperiously breaking the natural lines of a hilly plain.
These avenues were lined with handsome edifices in broad arches and tiles-schools, lyceums, hospitals, dwellings, factories, laboratories. Automobile traffic moves swiftly in Angora, where camel caravans used to plod within the memory of many of the inhabitants. The streets are lighted by electricity. A telephone exchange and a powerful wireless station were in operation in Angora by 1925.
A typical act in the Ghazi’s endeavor to reform the country was the changing of the name of Constantinople to the old Turkish title Istanbul. This removed a historic reminder of the days when Occidentals ruled on the Bosporus. It served also to bolster Turkish nationalistic feeling.
After the Ottoman dynasty, which for six centuries had been in power in the empire, had became mere history, Article II of the constitution of the Turkish Republic declared that “The religion of the Turkish State is Islam.” This article had to be removed as the final step in Atatürk’s endeavor to separate the church from the State. In 1928 the National Assembly struck out the article and provided that government servants should no longer swear by Allah in taking the oath of office, but should simply swear on their honor. Finally, an official translation of the Koran was made.
The President married in January in 1923, Latife Hanim, daughter of a wealthy Turkish merchant of Smyrna. It was reported that his bride brought him a dowry of 1,000,000 Turkish Lira. The Ghazi divorced his wife in 1925 by the simple old procedure of saying in the presence of witnesses, “I divorce you.”
TURKISH LANGUAGE AND THE NATIVE AMERICANS The Name TURK In Ancient History by Dr. Polat Kaya
Traces of the Altaic Words “ATA”, “APA”, “ANA” and Their Derivatives in the Languages of Some of the Native Peoples of Americas
By: Polat Kaya
Abstract In early 1980s, out of curiosity, I was wondering about a possible existence of an affinity between Altaic Languages and the native languages spoken in the Americas. So I made a research, (although not as a linguist), with the hope of finding some living words presently used in Turkish and also in the languages of the Native Peoples of Americas. After all thousands of years ago, the ancestors of both the Turks and those of some of the Native Peoples of the American continents shared the same geographic area in Central Asia and Siberia. I wrote a paper about my findings through my research entitled “Probable Existence of a Linguistic and Cultural Kinship Between the Altaic Peoples and the Native Peoples of Americas.” The following is a rearrangement of the original paper.
1. Introduction In my search I used the following facts and/or assumptions:
1a) Turks and their ancestors are Central Asiatic (particularly Altaic) people. The ancestors of Turks have lived in this part of the world (i.e., Central Asia and most parts of Siberia) not only throughout the known history, but most likely for thousands of years before that in the distant past. From Central Asia they have migrated to other parts of the world. At present, many ethnic Turkish people live in Siberia all the way up to the Kara Sea north of Ural Mountains, to East Siberian Sea and to the Bering Straight in the east as well as in Central Asia.
1b) The ancestors of most of the Native Peoples of North, Central and South Americas are known to have migrated from Asia through the Bering Sea many thousands (10000 or more) of years ago.
1c) In view of these facts, it is very likely that in the distant past, the ancestors of some of the Native Peoples of Americas and the ancestors of Turks and other Altaic peoples lived in the same or adjacent geographic regions of Central Asia and/or Siberia. If so, it is again very likely that all these peoples could have been members of the same people or closely related people who spoke the same language or closely related languages. Due to their possible relationship with each other in the distant past, one is inclined to think of probable existence of some cultural and linguistic relationship between these peoples, in spite of the fact that while some members stayed in their homelands in Asia, the others left Asia and went to North America.
1d) All languages are dynamic and subject to change in time. Similarly, a proto-Altaic language spoken by the members of an Altaic community who became separated from each other, in time by thousands of years and in space by thousands of kilometres, would definitely develop independently of each other in a way that when examined at present, they would appear alien to each other. In present times, it would be difficult for people who speak such languages to communicate with each other with the present form of their languages.
1e) However, in spite of this independent development of the languages of the Native Peoples of Americas and the Altaic Peoples, there may still exist in both groups of languages some living words that may be used to express the same meaning in the same way as before. There should still be some living words as “linguistic artefacts” which are reminiscence of the language that these ancient people spoke while they were all living in Asia.
1f) In any language, the first two words that a child learns in his/her mother tongue are probably the ones that correspond to the words “father” and “mother”. These two words are repeated in each person’s life time, particularly early in age, so frequently that they become permanently embedded in everyone’s memory. These two words are the most likely ones to be passed on from generation to generation during the life times of languages that may live thousands of years. Although, peoples of the same ethnic origin may become separated from each other and live in different parts of the world for long duration of time, yet their present languages may still retain these two words either in their original form or in a form which is similar to or a derivative of the original form. In spite of the evolutionary forces that act upon a language and cause changes in its structure and in the pronunciation of its words, one can still recognise these two words in languages which are related to each other.
1g) Turks being Altaic people of Central Asia are the lucky and proud inheritors of the Altaic words “ata”, “apa” and “ana” through their Turkic languages.[1] [2] [3] In this set of Altaic words, the first two have been used for “father”, “ancestor” and “old man” and the last one for “mother” throughout the history by different Altaic groups of peoples. Where ever the ancestors of Turks have migrated from their original homelands in Central Asia, they have carried with them these words as “linguistic artefacts” of their Altaic language to their new destinations. In their new homelands, they have passed these words to generation to generation up to the present time. The preservation of these words would particularly be highly likely if the speakers of the language were a dominant group with respect to their new neighbours. In this case, they would not only retain particular features of their language but it is quite likely that they would influence the languages of their new neighbours. On the other hand, if they were not as strong as their new neighbours in the new homelands, it is also likely that their language would be influenced by the languages of their neighbours. In any case, there would be some degree of cross pollination between the languages of people interacting closely with each other. With these suppositions, I feel that it would be very appropriate to use the Altaic words “ata”, “apa” and “ana” and their derivatives as reference linguistic artefacts to trace the footsteps of the ancestors of Turks and other Altaic peoples.
1h) In addition to these basic words which do not easily change in time, one could also use as reference the names for some things that influence the lives of people to the degree that people tend to regard them highly and/or worship them in their every day life. People could take with them the names of such things as the Sun, the Moon, stars, gods, mountains, rivers, living things, etc. , wherever they go. Therefore, the names for such objects could also be used as reference linguistic artefacts to trace people.
1i) In Turkish, the two words that have been used interchangeably for “father”, i.e., the words “ata” and “apa” could go through some transformation in time. Particularly, the phonemes “t” in “ata” and “p” in “apa” would tend to change into consonants “d” as in “ada” and “b” in “aba” respectively. This is noted to be so in various dialects of Turkish.
1j) The Altaic word corresponding to the word “mother” is “ana”. A probable derivative of this word may be the word “ama” for “mother” which seems to be related to the Turkic word “meme” meaning mother’s breast. For any child, “meme” is nothing but the “mama” or “ama” and hence “ana”. In dialects of a proto-Altaic language, the word for “mother” could have been “ana” or “ama”. By having “n” in “ana” change into “m”, the word “ama” would result; similarly, by having the “m” in “ama” change into “n” would make the transformed word “ana”. We will probably never know the exact nature of the relationship that may have taken place in history between the words “ana” and “ama”. However, it seems that, throughout the historic development of the Altaic languages and thus of Turkish, “ana” is the word which is used most dominantly to mean “mother”.
1k) Derivative words based on “ata”, “apa” and “ana” are used to express various kinship’s, particularly, for “father’s father”, “father’s mother”, mother’s father” and “mother’s mother”. Table 1 below lists some of the possible derivative words based on these words. Turkish as an Altaic language, has used some of these derivative words not only in its archaic form but also in its present spoken dialects.
1l) In phonetic languages such as Turkish in Altaic languages, the consonants in a given word make up the skeleton of each word while vowels in the word provide its proper sounding. However as the language develops in time, the vowels in a word may change into other vowels such as “a” into “e”, “o”, “u” while consonants of the words, in general, would tend to maintain their identity in the word through time.
1m) One should also note that each one of the derivative words from these Altaic words would readily go through transformations as people use and repeat them from generation to generation. For example, in the word “ataata” for “father’s father”, one of the vowels “a” in the middle of the the word would tend to be dropped off and the new form of the word would be “atata”. In time, the word could go through further transformations and may take the possible derivative forms of “taata”, “tata”, “tate”, “tatI”, ‘tete”, “tat” and in the case of “adaada”, it could transform into “adada”, “dada”, “dede”, “dadI” “dad”, etc.. In time, some of these derived words will be used to mean not only the “father’s father” but also to mean “ancestors”, “father”, “old man” and “man”. There are living examples of such usage in Turkish and in other Altaic languages. In my research, I have found evidence that the Altaic words “ata”, “apa” and “ana” and their derivatives are used in considerable number of languages spoken by the Native Peoples of North, Central and South Americas. My findings are listed in Table 2 where I have listed the languages which use these words and the names of the Native Peoples of Americas who speak these languages with appropriate references.
Table 1.
Basic Form
Derivatives from basic words in likely transformations
Father, ancestor:
ata
ada, ta, da
apa
aba, pa, ba
Mother:
ana
na
Father’s father:
ataata
atata, tata, tatI, tat, tete, tet
adaada
adada, dada, dadI, dede, dad
apaapa
apapa, papa, papo, pap
abaaba
ababa, baba, babi, babo, bab
Mother’s father:
anaata
anata, nata, nat
anaada
anada, nada, nad
anaapa
anapa, napa, nap
anaaba
anaba, naba, nab
Father’s mother:
ataana
atana, tana, tan
adaana
adana, dana, dan
apaana
apapa, napa, nap
anaaba
abana, bana, ban
Mother’s mother:
anaana
anana, nana, nane, nanI, nano, nene, neni, nine, nan, nen
Table 2.
Item
Language
“father”
“mother”
Notes. No.
Location
1
Turkish
ata, apa, baba
ana, anne
[1] [2] [3]
Turkey, many regions of Asia
2
Eskimo
atataq
ananaq
[4]
Canada, Greenland
3
Aleut
adaq
anaq
[5]
Aleutian Islands, Alaska
4
Wahtoktata
antcha
ehong
[6]
W. of Missouri river, USA
5
Konza
etahceh
enah (*t1)
[6]
N. of Missouri river, USA
6
Omaha
dada
ehong
[6]
Central Plains, USA
7
Sioux
atcucu
huco
[6]
Dakota, USA
8
Minnetare
tanta
eka
[6]
USA
9
Pawne
ateash
aterah (*t1)
[6]
Kansas, USA
10
Cherokee
atotuh
atsIng
[6]
Oklahoma, USA
11
Cherokee
udoda
uji
[7]
South Appalachians, USA
12
Winnebago
chache
nahne (*t1)
[6]
Wisconsin, USA
13
Puan / Nippegon
chache
nahne
[6]
USA
14
Naudowesses of Carver
ahta (*t1)
enah (*t1)
[6]
USA
15
Hennepin
ahta
enah
[6]
USA
16
Cree
o:hta: (*t1)
ka:wIy
[8]
Canada
17
Fox Cree
osa
ane:he (*t1)
[8]
Canada
18
Plains Cree “Y” dialect
nohtawe (my father)
ni kawe (my mother)
[9]
Canada
19
Menomini
o:hna (*t1)
kIah?
[8]
Great Lakes, Canada; Wisconsin, USA
20
Micmac
tatat
gIju
[8], [10]
Maritime Prov., Canada
21
Algonquin
papam, tatag
mam, ma:ma:, mamay
[8]
Ontario, Canada
22
Kenora Indians
ta:ta:
—
[8]
Canada
23
Kekchi
yuwa
na
[11], [12]
Guatemala
24
Quiche
tat
nan?
[11], [12]
Guatemala
25
Ixil
pap
nan
[11], [12]
Guatemala
26
Aguacetec
ta
na
[11]
Guatemala
27
Wappo
oayao
naoa
[13]
California, USA
28
Miwok
oappI
ounu
[12]
California, USA
29
Callam & Lumni
IaIIn
tan
[15]
Washington territory, USA
30
Chinook
tlkamama
tlkanaa
[16]
Oregon, Wash. USA
31
Hidatsa
ate, tatIs
hIdu, hu
[17]
North Dakota, USA
32
Cahuilla
na, taata
ye
[18]
California, USA
33
Otchipwe
papa, baba, dede, n’otta
?
[19], [20]
Southern Ontario, Canada
34
Mutsun
appa
anna?
[21]
Alta Calif., USA
35
Yucateco
yum
naa, na
[22]
Mexico and Guatemala
36
Papago / Pima
apapa
je’e
[23]
Southwestern USA
37
Navaho
ta
ma
[24]
Arizona, USA
38
Biloxi
adI
unnI
[25]
Gulf Coast, USA
39
Tsimshian
ap, ab
nay
[26]
USA; B. Colombia, Canada
40
Aguaruna (Jivaro)
apa
duku
[27], [28]
Peru, S. America
41
Iquito
—
nanI
[27]
Peru, S. America
42
Candoshi
—
ataatam
[27]
Peru, S. America
43
Nahuatl (Aztec language)
tahtlI (*t1)
nantlI
[29], [30]
Mexico
44
Quechua (Inca language)
tayta
nanagash
[31]
Peru, S. America (*t2)
45
Cayapa
apa
mama
[27]
Ecuador, S. America
46
Colorado
apa
mama
[27]
Ecuador, S. America
47
Auca
naenae
mama
[27]
Ecuador, S. America
(*t1) In these words where the consonant “h” appears and follows a vovel such as “a” or “o” or “u” seems to be a relic of transcribing these words under the influence of English. Without the “h”, the affinity of these words to the respective Turkish words are very much obvious.
(*t2) Tarma Quechua is the native language of the province of Tarma which is north of the capital city Lima of Peru. This language is a variety of the Inca language QUECHUA. In Tarma Quechua of Peru, “nana = a woman’s sister” and “nanachIkaq = sister”; “taytancI = grandfather”; “taytacha = young gentleman”; and “tayta inti = father sun”. Affinity between these words and the Turkish “ata” and “ana” should be noted.
2. Additional Examples of Words Indicating to a Common Past
In addition to the Altaic words “ata”, “apa” and “ana” listed in Table 2, some other living words also point to the existence of a common linguistic kinship between the Altaic languages and the languages of some of the Native peoples of Americas.
2a) In Aztec language (the Nahuatl), in addition to the Nahuatl words “tahtlI” and “nantlI” corresponding to the Altaic words “ata” and “ana” respectively, we observe the word “tepetl” or “tepec” meaning “hill” which is the same both in the meaning and word structure as the Turkish word “tepe”. There seems to be many mountains and/or hills in Central and South America which are named with a name suffixed or prefixed with the word “tepec”. For example, in Mexico we have: “Chapultepec”, Agaltepec, Citlaltepec, Coatepec, Ecatepec, Jamiltepec, Oaxtepec, Ometepec, Quiotepec, Tehuantepec, Tututepec, Tepecoacuilco, Tepetitan and Tepexpan. In El Salvadore: Cojutepeque, Lago de Coatepeque, Igualtepeque. In Guatamala: Jilotepeque, Ixtepeque and in Brasil Sierra Tepequem. Similarly, in Turkic geography where Turkic and other Altaic people live, we have many hills and/or mountains named in the same manner such as Aktepe, Kultepe, Kartaltepe, Goktepe, etc..
2b) In archaic Turkish, the word “kın” and in modern Turkish the words “gün” or “güneş” are the words for both the “sun” and “day”. The Mayan people also call both the “sun” and “day” with the word “kin”.[34] In Mayan calender, a year was divided into 18 months and each month into 20 kins. It seems that these two words of totally different languages have also some historical common background. Additionally, it is noted that Turkish speaking Altaic peoples associated the word for “sun” and the word for “day” very closely with each other by expressing both concepts with the same word. Similar expressions seem to exist In Mayan languages.[34] In archaic Turkish, the name for the constellation “Ursa Major” is “Yitiken”. In this word, the first part “yiti” means “seven” and the last part “ken” is a changed form of the word “kun”, i.e., the “sun”. Thus, in the language of Altaic people, the word “yitiken” would mean “seven suns” where the concept of “sun” and a “star” was probably considered to be the same.
2c) In Inca language Quechua, the “sun god” and hence the “sun” was called “Inti”. In the word “Inti”, the prefix “in” stands for “my” and “ti” stands for “father”; hence, the word has the meaning of “my father”. Since the Incas were “sun” and “ancestor” worshippers like most of the Altaic peoples including Turks, finding an image of the Altaic word “ata” in the Inca word “inti” is pleasantly surprising. It should be noted that the Inca word “tayta” and the Turkish word “ata” have the same meaning, i.e., “father” and similar linguistic form (see item 44 in Table 2).
2d) Inti the Sun God was the ranking deity in the Inca pantheon like the Tengri among the Altaic people. It was represented by Incas with a human face on a ray-splayed disk. He was considered to be the Incas’ divine ancestor.[34]
2e) In Inca language Quechua, Incas used to call one of their low order Creator-God as “Ataguju”.[34] It should be noted that the initial part of this word is suprisingly the Altaic word “ata”. In this case it probably stands for “sacred ancestors”.
2f) In Inca society, unmarried princes of royal blood were called “Augui”. On marrying, they became “Inca” or “Atauchi”.[35] It is only reasonable to call an adult man “atauchi” after being married, because, it is most likely that he will become an “ata”, i.e., “father”. So, again we see the images of the Altaic word “ata” in another Quechua word meaning “father”.
2g) It seems that during the long development process of the languages of Native Peoples of Americas, some of these words may have changed positions. In other words in some cases, the words used to express male kinship in one language may be used for female kinship or visa versa. For example, the native Candoshi people of Peru use the word “ataatam” for “my mother”.[27] In this case it definitely there has been a reversal in the usage of the word from the original meaning of “father’s father” as it is in the present day Turkish, to the meaning of “my mother” in Candoshi.
2h) In Aleut Language, in order to make the nominative dual of the noun, the suffix “kik” is added to the apocopated nominative of singular of nouns.[5] For example, In the Aleut language, “adaq” is father and “ada” is its apocopated form. Thus for “two fathers”, the composite word “adakik” is used. In Turkish, “two fathers” would be expressed by the expression “iki ata” or “ikki ata” where the word “iki” or “ikki” represents the number two, i.e., the “dual” state. In these examples, not only the word for “father is the same but also the word representing the “duality” is the same in both languages. Hence, it appears that the Altaic word “iki” or “ikki” and the Aleutian suffix word “kik” have a common background.
3. Structural Similarities of Altaic Languages and Some of the Native Languages of Americas
3a) Structurally, the Altaic languages such as Turkish and some of the native languages of Americas resemble to each other very closely as agglutinating languages. For example, J. R. Andrews describes the Aztec language Nahuatl by saying that “sentence word” is the basic structure of the Nahuatl language.[29] By “sentence word” is meant a word that contains within itself all the nuclear constituents necessary for a complete sentence. Turkish, similar to Nahuatl, is one such language. Additionally, they follow the vowel harmony rule, although it seems to be more so in Turkish than the native languages in Americas. Both the Nahuatle and Turkish are such languages. Such similar infrastructure of languages that develop by peoples who are separated from each other in time and space can not be attributed to total random processes that shape independent languages. I feel that such languages having similar sentence formation must have had a common history some time in the distant past.
3b) In Altaic languages the gender for the third person singular and plural is not indicated. For example, in Turkish, only one word, i.e., “O” as the personal pronoun for third person singular corresponds “he/she/it” in English. The referred gender of the subject is understood from the context of the sentence. It is known that considerable number of the languages in the Americas, the genderless word “O”, or “U” or “NO” is used to indicate “he/she/it”. For example, the Cree language in Canada use “O”, the Quiche and Achi languages in Guatemala use “U”. The Micmacs of Eastern Canada use “O-” as prefix for “his/her/its” such as “Oochul” for “his father”, and “Ookwijul” for “his mother”.[34] The Turkish word “O” and the “O” used in this examples of the some native languages of Americas seems to be related to each other, again indicating the presence of a common background in the distant past.
3c) The general title given to Mayan priests was “ahkin” or “akin” meaning “he of the sun”.[34] In this word, the first part “ah” or “a” is reminiscent of the Altaic personal pronoun “O” for the third person singular and the second part “kin” is the same as the Altaic word “k�n” for sun. Again one is surprised to find so complete a resemblance between these words that such a resemblance cannot be attributed to random linguistic development. Such close resemblance must be indications of a linguistic and cultural kinship between these languages coming from a common historical background in the distant past.
3d) J. R. Andrews describes the formation of one kind of adverbial adjunct of manner in Nahuatl as follows: “One type of derived adverbial of manner is formed from a preterit theme of a verb combined with the suffix ‘-ca’. Such words are translationally equivalent to English adverbs ending in ‘-ly’”.[29, p. 30] This formation of adverbs by use of the suffix “-ca” in Nahuatl has exact correspondence in Turkish. In Turkish, the suffix “-ca” or “-ce” is used, following the vowel harmony rule of Turkish, in the same way to form adverbs of the same kind.
Few examples are as follows: In Nahuatl (N): chicahua -> chicahuaca, Turkish (T): saglam -> saglamca, English (E): strong -> strongly; N: chipahua -> chipahuaca, T: temiz -> temizce, E: clean -> cleanly; N: ihciuh -> ihciuhca, T: �abuk -> �abukca, E: quick -> quickly; N: ichta -> ichtaca, T: gizli -> gizlice, E: secret -> secretly; N: cualan -> cualanca, T: kIzgIn -> kIzgInca, E: angry -> angrily.
In Turkish, the personal pronoun for third person singular is not represented with a suffix or prefix in verb conjugations, as is the case in “gelir, geliyor, or geldi, gelmi$”, etc. A similar grammatical rule as this one is also used in a similar way in the languages of some of the Native Peoples of Americas. The Nahuatl, i.e., the Aztec language, the Aleutian, the Eskimo and Cree languages may be sited as examples.
4. Some Examples for Probable Cultural Kinship
4a) Altaic military and Inca administrative systems were based on decimal system. In Inca administrative system, the administration was based on household units of 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000 10000 and 40000.[35] Each unit had an official assigned to be in charge of the unit. The official in charge of one of four-quarters of the Inca empire was called “Apu-Cuna” or “Hatun Apu-Cuna”. At the top of the administrative pyramid was the emperor called “Sapa Inca”. In this organisation, the following aspects may be noted:
The first is that the system was decimal system like the Turkish military system which has always been based on units of 10, 50, 100, 1000 and 10000 soldiers and/or horse-mounted cavalry. The names of the officials were “onbashi, ellibashi, yuzbashi, binbashi and tumenbegi” respectively. It seems that decimal system of numbering was known to both of these communities which had no contact with each other in the known history.
Secondly, the decimal system was applied to organise the community and/or the military in manageable groups. Could this be the result of a random process of social development or was there an historically known knowledge common to both people? It is quite likely that the decimal system of numbering and its application to social organisations of peoples may have been known to the ancestors of the Altaic peoples as early as 10000 or more years ago. It is up to the scholars of different fields of science to work and discover the truth related to this striking correspondence in the culture of two well separated groups of peoples.
Thirdly, we also observe the presence of the Altaic word “apa” in the names of the Inca supreme administrators. Is this also the result of a random process? Additionally, the Inca (Quechua) word “Hatun” means “great, big” and is added as adjective to the names of Inca leaders to describe their greatness. Similarly in Turkish, the words “Hatun” and “Katun” are used as the title given to the wife of “Great Hakan”, i.e., the empress (or the first lady, i.e., whatever may be one’s preference) of the Turkish people. In present day Turkish, the word “kadin” is a changed form of “katun” or “hatun”. In fact in present day Turkish culture, it is not unusual to hear among elderly married couples, man calling his wife as “hatun”. It is also interesting to note that one of the highest ridges of the contemporary Altai mountains in Central Asia is known by the Turkic name “Katun”,[36] towering more than 4000 meters. Probably we will never know whether the name of this lofty mountain had any thing to do with word “Hatun” or “Katun” of Turkish language or the word “Katun” of Inca language.
4b) Altaic words “Otuken”, Mongolian word “Utigin” and Chorti word “Uteq’uin”. The archaic Turkish word “OtUken” is frequently mentioned as the name of a “divine or sacred place” in Turkish epic writings of “Kul Tigin”, “Bilge Kagan” and “Tonyukuk” and also in Kutatgu Bilig.[37] In the Altaic language of Mongolian, the word “Utigin” is also the name given to a “god of certain place”. On the other hand, in the Mayan language of Chorti in Guatemala, the word “Uteq’uin” means “heaven”. The last part of this word, i.e., “q’uin” means “sun” in Chorti. Similarly, the “-ken” in the Turkish word “Otuken” and “-gin” in the Mongolian word “Utigin” may be taken as versions of “kun” or “gun” meaning “sun”. It should be remembered that Altaic regions in Asia were the places where Shamanism were practised very widely. In Altaic shamanism “Sun” and “sky” worshipping is quite dominant. Turkish “Gok Tengri” is the “god sky”. In view of these observations, Turkish “Otuken”, Mongolian word “Utigin” and Chorti word “Uteq’uin” seem to have something in common. That is they are all related to “sun” and a sacred place such as “heaven” and a “place where god “dwells. Turkish and Mongolian are related to each other because they are both Altaic languages and their speakers have interacted with each other throughout the history. The respective words could have been borrowed from one another. But there was no way that these Altaic words could have influenced the formation of the word “Uteq’uin” in Chorti or vice versa unless all these words have historically something in common with each other.
5. Conclusion
Ancient Central Asiatic peoples, among them the ancestors of Turks, are known to have migrated from their homelands in steps of Central Asia and Siberia to east, west, north and south. It is also known that the Native peoples of Americas have migrated from Asia to their new homelands in the Americas thousands of years ago. However, in the known history, the ancestors of Turks and the ancestors of Native Peoples of Americas are not known to have made contact with each other. Yet in spite of this fact, it is surprising to see that Turkish, as a member of the Altaic languages, should have common living words with some of the native languages of Americas. The presence of these words in these languages can not be attributed to random and independent development of these languages in two widely separated continents. I believe their presence is a definite indication of the existence of linguistic and cultural kinship between the ancestors of Turks and the other Altaic peoples and the ancestors of some of the Native Peoples of Americas that they had while they were living in the steps of Central Asia and Siberia before they were separated some 10 000 or more years ago. It may be that some readers may find this conclusion as hasty. But I am confident that further studies by scholars will establish the validity of my view.
This study is a small first attempt, in its own way, that uses the Altaic words “ata”, “apa” and “ana” to trace the ancestors of Altaic peoples among the Native peoples of the Americas. After this study, I have become a believer that these Altaic words are not only very effective tracers of the movements of ancient Altaic peoples, but also are among the oldest living words in human languages. Their wide spread use in native languages of Americas as well as in Altaic languages in Asia is a testimony to this observation.
Notes 1. A. Vahid Moran, Turkce-Ingilizce Sozluk (A Turkish-English Dictionary) (Istanbul: Turkish Ministry of Public Instruction, 1945).
2. Sir Gerard Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972).
3. Gunnar Jarring, An Eastern Turki-English Dialect Dictionary (n.p., 1964).
4. Arthur Thibert, O.M.I., English-Eskimo, Eskimo-English Dictionary (Ottawa: Canadian Research Centre for Anthropology, Saint Paul University, 1972).
5. Richard Henry Geoghegan, The Aleut Language, ed. Fredericka I. Martin (United States Department of Interior, 1944).
6. Edwin James, Account of an Expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains, vol.2, (1823).
7. Durbing Feeling, Cherokee-English Dictionary.
8. George F. Aubin, A Proto-Algonquian Dictionary (Ottawa: National Museum of Canada, 1975).
9. Ann Anderson, Plains Cree Dictionary in the Y dialect (Edminton, 1971).
10. Albert D. DeBlois and Alphonse Metallie, English-Micmac Lexicon (Ottawa: National Museum of Man Mercuri Series, 1983).
11. Marvin K. Mayers, Languages of Guatemala (The Hague: Mouton, 1966).
12. Edna Nunez de Rodas, Directora de Insttuto de Antropologia e Historia de Guatemala, private communication in 13 August 1985.
13. Jesse O. Sawyer, English-Wappo Dictionary (Carleton University Library No.: P25.C25, vo. 43).
14. Catherine A. Callaghan, Lake Miwok Dictionary (Carleton University Library No.: P25.C25, vo. 39).
15. George Gibbs, Alphabetical Vocabularies of the Challan and Lumni Languages, Shea’s Library of American Linguistics, vol. XI, (New York: AMS Press, 1863; Cramoisy Press, 1863).
16. George Gibbs, Alphabetical Vocabulary of Chinook Language (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Ross & Haines, n.d.).
17. Washington Matthews, Grammar and Dictionary of the Language of the Hidatsa (New York: Cramoisy Press, 1873).
18. H. Jakop Seiler and Kojiro Hioki, Cahuilla Dictionary (Morongo Indian Reservation, Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press, 1979).
19. R. R. Bishop Baraga, A Dictionary of Otchipwe Language (1878; reprint, Minneapolis, Minnesota: Ross & Haines, 1966).
20. G. L. Piggott and A. Grafstein, An Ojibwa Lexicon, (Ottawa: National Museum of Man Mercuri Series, 1983).
21. Rev. F. Felipe Arroyo De La Cuesta, A Vocabulary or Phrase Book of the Mutsun Language of Alta California, Shea’s Library of American Linguistics, vol.VIII, (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Ross & Haines, n.d.).
22. Mauricio Swadesh, Ma. Cristina Alvarez, and Juan R. Bastarrachea, Diccionario De Elementos Del Maya Yucateco Colonial (Mexico, 1970).
23. Dean Saxton, Lucille Saxton and Susie Enos, English-Papago/ Pima Dictionary (Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 1983).
24. Berard Haile, A Stem Vocabulary of the Navaho Language (Arizona: St. Michaels Press, 1951).
25. J. O. Dorsey and J. R. Swanton, Dictionary of the Bloxi and Ufo Languages (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1912).
26. John Asher Dunn, A Practical Dictionary of the Coast Tsimshian Language (Carleton University Library No.: PM831 Z5D8).
27. Benjamine F. Olson, (ed.), Studies in Peruvian Indian Languages: I (Oklahoma: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma, n.d.).
28. Mildred L. Larsen, Emic Classes Which Manifest the Obligatory Tagmemes in Major Independent Clause Types of Aguaruna (Jivaro) (first article in note 27).
29. J. Richard Andrews, Introduction to Classical Nahuatl, The Aztec Language (Austin: University of Texas Press, n.d.).
30. Arthur J. O. Anderson, Rules of Aztec Language Classical Nahuatl Grammar (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1973).
31. J. F. H. Adelaar, Tarma Quechua Grammar, Texts, Dictionary (The Peter De Ridder Press, 1977).
32. John Gilmary Shea, French-Onandaga Dictionary From a Manuscript of the Seventeenth Century (New York: Cramoisy Press, n.d.).
33. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1974, vol. 9, p. 260.
34. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1974, vol. 13, p. 719-722.
35. Philip Ainsworth Means, Ancient Civilizations of the Andes (New York: Gordian Press, 1964).
36. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1974, vol. 1, p. 640.
37. Abdulkadir Inan, “Yusuf Has Hacib ve Eseri Kutatgu Bilig Uzerine Notlar”, Turk Kulturu, sayi 98, Aralik 1970, p. 114-115.
[This paper is revised from Polat Kaya, “Search For a Probable Linguistic and Cultural Kinship Between the Turkish People of Asia and the Native Peoples of Americas”, Belleten, Cilt: L, Sayi 198, Aralik 1986, Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, Ankara. Also catalogued in Canadiana, Canada’s National Bibliography with the same title as above under Comparative Linguistics, 497, P. Kaya, C87-7257-9 MRDS Pt. 1]
Source: ireland.iol.ie/~afifi/Articles/turkic.htm
==========================================
the Name TURK In Ancient History by Dr. Polat Kaya
July 16, 2012 By admin
Dr. Polat Kaya
In the past and even presently, some people have been claimimg that the name TURK came onto the stage of history only recently. This is intentional disinformation designed to deceive and misdirect people! Contrary to all the denials, the ancient world was dominated by the Turanian Tur / Turk / Oguz peoples, their language and their civilization. But that Turanian world, which lasted for thousands of years, underwent an organized upheaval orchestrated by those who were against the Turanian supremacy. In that upheaval, world history was totally altered by creating new languages from the words and phrases of the one language that was spoken world-wide. That language was the monosyllabic and agglutinative language of Turkish which we find out from the decipherment of the words of some of the Indo-European and Semitic languages. The ancient world was then described with those newly ‘fabricated’ languages along with mythology and tall tales. Anything Turanian was denied, altered, alienated, obliterated and also looted by the organizers of the upheaval. Thus ancient history from the western point of view is a totally distorted, biased, Aryanized, Semitized and Romanized presentation. This upside down presentation of world history needs to be cleaned up and rewritten! Up to now, the world was not aware of this distorted situation.
After having said this, I want to come back to the name TURK. After new languages were fabricated by restructuring the names, words and phrases of an existing Turanian language that the ancient world spoke – the names of the ancient Turanian peoples, their language and their civilization were expressed with newly formatted names in the fabricated new languages. Now the world is viewing a distorted picture of the ancient past where nothing is in its original and authentic form. In this upheaval, names such as TURK, TUR, OGUZ, SAKA (and many more Turanian names) were altered into an unrecognizeable state or were totally erased from ancient history!
1) Let me start with the English word TURKISH. The Turkish form of this is TÜRKÇE (TÜRKCHE). TÜRKÇE is the Turkish word for the English word TURKISH. The Turkish word TÜRKÇE (TÜRKCHE) consists of two parts, that is, “TURK” + “CHE”. The first part TURK is the ethnic identity of the Turk people. The last part CHE (ÇE) is a suffix, which, when used with the name TURK, identifies the Turkish language (i.e., the language of the Turkish people). The English term TURKISH is also made up with two parts. They are “TURK” + “ISH”. Anyone who can read and think can see that the English suffix “ISH” is nothing but the altered and camouflaged form of the Turkish suffix “CHE” (ÇE). Of course, this act of altering the Turkish suffix CHE into English suffix ISH is deliberate alienation that disfigures the word TÜRKÇE and the suffix CHE (ÇE) into an alienated Aryan form which is difficult to recognize as Turkish. In spite of this, we must note that the name TURK is embedded in the English word TURKISH!
***
2) Now let me go to the Greek word for TURK. The Greek word for the proper name of TURK is given as TOURKOS which is made up with “TURK” + “OOS”, that is, “TURK” + “OGUZ”. Both of these names are not only Turkish but they are also the ethnic names of the Turkish people – who are TURK people and OGUZ people at the same time. Historians and linguists should know these facts! But the fabricated Greek name TOURKOS has disfigured both the name TURK and the name OGUZ by combining them and restructuring them! These alterations are intentional.
***
3) I now come to the Latin term THRACES, or alternatively, THRACUM – both of which describe the inhabitants of the so-called land “THRACE”. [Cassell’s Compact Latin-English English-Latin dictionary, 1962, p. 252].
I will examine this encrypted Latin word THRACUM. When the letters of the term THRACUM are rearranged as “TURCHAM”, we see that the Latin name THRACUM is really an altered form of the Turkish word TURKUM – meaning “I am Turk”. Finding this Turkish word TURKUM (describing the so-called Thracians) embedded in the Latin word THRACUM is not coincidence. Rather, it is due to the fact that somebody in the past intentionally fabricated this Latin word THRACUM from Turkish – and thus, not only disfigured the name TURK but also obliterated it! Under these circumstances, one cannot recognise the name TURK. Although TURK is embedded in Latin THRACUM, it is intentionally camouflaged to make it invisible.
***
4) Another form of the Latin name THRACES (or THRACUM) is given as THRAX (singular). THRAX is nothing but the altered form of THRACES and THRACUM. It is also the camouflaged form of the name TURK! The letter X is a bogus symbol which replaces CES and CUM in this case. ***
5) Another variation is the Latin word THRACIUS meaning “thracian”. When the word THRACIUS is rearranged as “TURCHIS-A”, we see again that it is an altered form of the Turkish expression TÜRKÜZ meaning “we are Turks”. This unquestionably shows that the ancient THRACIANS were Turks. ***
6) The Roman Emperor Titus Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus held three consulships of republican Rome and was also three times Roman Dictator.
One wonders who was this so-called Roman Dictator who took the name TORQUATUS. When we rearrange the name TORQUATUS letter-by-letter as “TURQ-OUS-TA”, we find that it is the altered form of the Turkish name TURK OGUZTU (TURK OGUZDU) meaning “he was TURK OGUZ”. So a three time Roman Emperor used the names TURK and OGUZ as his chosen kingly title and surname. Again this is not coincidence. It is intentional alteration of the Turkish identity and language! We must remember here that the Greek name TOURKOS was also made up from Turkish TURK + OUS meaning “Turk Oguz”.
***
7) The Arabs called Turks by the name “ETRAK”. One wonders why the proper national name TURK was changed into ETRAK? Why did it even need to be changed? Here we have a nation who calls itself by the name TURK, yet someone else comes along and says “I am not going to call you TURK. I am going to call you ETRAK”. Similarly, a Roman comes along and says “even though you are a TURK, I will call you THRAX”. There is no logic in this – but there is bias. We should note that both the Arab term ETRAK and the Roman term THRAX not only mean TURK – but they also both contain the name TURK in them.
***
8) I will now examine the Latin words TROICUS and TROIANUS – both meaning “the Trojan”, [Cassell’s Compact Latin-English English-Latin dictionary, 1962, p. 258]. When the letters of the term TROICUS are rearranged as “TURCOIS”, we see that the Latin name TROICUS is really an altered form of the Turkish word TÜRKÜZ – meaning “we are Turks”. So the name TURK is still present in ancient history, but someone has buried it out of sight!
***
9) Similarly, when the letters of the Roman term TROIANUS are rearranged as “TURANSI-O”, we see that the Latin name TROIANUS is really an altered form of the Turkish word TURANCI O – meaning “he is Turanian”.
Thus, we find that these two Romanized words identify the so-called TROJAN as TURK and TURANIAN. How is it that the so-called historians and linguists cannot see these? Is it because they are conditioned to not see the Turkishness of the ancient world? ***
10) I will also examine the Latin term TUSCI, or TUSCORUM, meaning “Etruscans” or “Tuscans”, [Cassell’s Compact Latin-English English-Latin dictionary, 1962, p. 259].
When the letters of the term TUSCORUM are rearranged as “OUS-TURCM”, we see that the Latin name TUSCORUM is really an altered form of the Turkish word “OGUZ TÜRKÜM” meaning “I am Oguz Turk”. This again not only identifies the names OGUZ and TURK in the middle of Europe, but also identifies the so-called ETRUSCAN peoples as being ethnic Turks who lived in central Italy at least during the first millennium B.C.
***
11) When the name ETRUSCAN is rearranged as “AN-TURCES”, we find that ETRUSCAN is an altered form of the Turkish expression “AN TÜRKİZ” (GÖK TÜRKİZ) meaning “we are Sky Turks”. Thus, whichever way we examine the Etruscans, we find that they were Turks – contrary to denials. And the Etruscans and their ancestors lived in Europe at least during the first millennium B. C. ***
12) In my PELASGIAN paper, I discussed the name Scamander (Skamandrius / Skamandrios) of the House of Troy and Dardania. I showed that the name SCAMANDER had the meanings of: a) “SAKAMAN’DIR” meaning “he is SAKAMAN”, “he is Saka Turks”. b) “MEN SAKA’DiR” meaning “I am SAKA”, “I am Saka Turks” and “I am Sea People”, that is, I am the Lord of the Seas! c) “DENiZCi EREM” meaning “I am sea-going man”.
Furthermore, I showed that the name SCAMANDRIUS, in another meaning, had embedded in it the Turkish expression “AS-DURKMANIS” (AS TURKMANİZ / BİR TÜRKMENİZ) meaning “we are one/peerless Turkman”, “we are one Turk people”. Here again we find the name TURK buried deep down in the name SCAMANDRIUS. This also shows that the name Turk was older than the name SAKA.These Aryanized ancient names show that some people had a strong bias against the name TURK! So they suppressed the name Turk. ***
13) In my paper regarding the PELASGIANS, I also discussed the name TEUCER, that is, the son of Scamander, the first king of the house of Troy and Dardania – (i.e., the House of Turoy and Tatar), . In that study, I showed that the deified name TEUCER, son of Scamander, was another altered form of the name TURK. Even the name of the king ERICHTHONIUS of the House of Troy and Dardania (Tatar Öyü), who is said to be the richest man on earth, embeds the Turkish expression “EYI TURK HANIZ” meaning “we are the good Turk Lords”.
***
14) The Chinese called the Turks by the name “TU-CHUEH” that is to say “Gök Türks” or TUKU meaning “Turks”, [“A History of China” by Wolfram Eberhard – (of the University of California), 1969, p. 149-151]. We are told that in Chinese, somehow the letter R can not be pronounced by the Chinese people and therefore it is not voiced. Therefore, R is a silent letter and not used. So we see that even in Chinese, there has been a suppression of the name TURK. When the missing letter R is reinserted back in to the name TU-CHUEH”, it becomes TURCHUEH (TURKUEH) meaning “SkyTurk”. Similarly, when the letter R is reinserted into the name TU-KU, we get the name TURKU. Thus, the name TURK and SKYTURK were in the history of China as well! The so-called Yang-Shao culture found in China, that is the neolithic potteries with sun paintings and spirals are very much the ancient Turanian culture in China.
***
15) Let me also point out two more words: The English word GOLDEN means “made of gold” or “gold like”. This is curious because when the word GOLDEN is examined as “G + OLDEN”, we find that the last part of the name “OLDEN” is actually the altered form of the Turkish word “ALTUN” meaning “gold”. So this so-called word GOLDEN is another fabricated word taken from Turkish and camouflaged as an English word! Note that if the supposedly root word GOLD is examined, the Turkish source word ALTUN is not in it any more. This is because the camouflage is so well done. ***
16) Finally there is the English word WOODEN meaning “made of wood”. Curiously, even this word WOODEN is also fabricated from the Turkish word “ODUN” meaning “wood”. Again note that if the supposedly root word WOOD is examined, the Turkish source word ODUN is not visible – because WOOD is not the root of WOODEN. Rather, Turkish ODUN is the root of English word WOODEN! ***
To conclude, it can be said that in the ancient world, some groups were very parasitic towards the Turanian peoples and their civilization. These secretive groups would first infiltrate the Turanian ruling system by befriending them. Then, at the oppurtune time, they would strike from within and take over the Turanian house and claim everything there as their own. At the same time, they would suppress the remaining Turanian peoples, change their Turk identity, their names and religion and then claim them as people not known. For example, this was done to the Turko-Sumerians by the Akkadians some 3500 years ago. Now the world says “we don’t know who the Sumerians were”. The same thing happened to the so-called Egyptians, and the Caananites, and the Anatolians, and the Pelasgians and the Etruscans, etc.. Those Turanians who resisted these alterations and suppressions lost their lives – and thus came to be the so-called Latin term “tyrannicida”, that is, “tyrannicide” which actually means “killing the Turanians”.
Spreading new religions againts the most ancient Sky-God, Sun-God and Moon-God religion of the ancient Turanians was carried out with intense hatred and forceful violence by the invaders. When it was resisted the result was the extermination of the resisting people. They were putdown by derogatory terms such as “Paganus” meaning one who is neither a Christian, a Jew, or a Moslem; one who is a heathen, a rural villager, [Britanica Wold Language Dictionary, 1963, p. 906]. With all of this anti-Turan propaganda being spread around by the religious missionaries, of course the name TURK was altered and suppressed. Even as late as the 1980s, Turks of Bulgaria were being forced to change their names into Christian names.
Similar propaganda games are still being perpetrated against the Turks by “scholarly” sounding publications that are full of sophistry. For instance, there are papers identifying ethnic Turks as Kurds (Kürt) – as if they were ethnically Aryan people who speak an Indo-European or Aryan language – yet this Kurdish language is known to have been artificially constructed by the missionaries.
These “research” papers conveniently find all kinds of references to the name KÜRT (KURD) but no references to the name TÜRK. And then, the name TÜRK is labelled as “problematic” – because they cannot find examples of it in ancient sources. Yet they cannot remember that the name TURK either has been altered or removed from the ancient writings.
So I say, let no one claim that the name TURK is historically problematic. It is the Indo-European and Semitic languages that are problematic since they are not authentic – because they were systematically fabricated from ancient Turkish! Evidently, these later languages were made to divide, confuse and obliterate the ancient Turanian world (see GENESIS 11) while looting everything Turanian! It is they that have a whole lot of explaining to do!
Highlights Turkey and Israel’s strategic alliance in the Middle East, fostered by their shared aim to limit Iran and prevent Arab states from aligning against them, will preserve their relationship through most external shocks. Intensifying U.S. efforts to find regional allies it can rely on to contain Iran helps keep the two countries together. Turkey’s defense of Palestinian statehood will always be a caustic wedge between the two: While it provides Turkey with important credibility in the Muslim world, it conflicts with Israel’s defense strategy.
Israel and Turkey appear to be testing the waters in preparation for resuming diplomatic relations. Officials from the two countries are thought to have met in the United Arab Emirates last month to discuss improving their diplomatic ties, which have been on pause since May. Other signs also point to a rapprochement: Turkey recently sent an economic attache to Israel, and Israel recently opened an internal job listing for an ambassador to Turkey. The two countries — sometime allies, sometime enemies — are again being pushed toward reconciliation as they move to counter Iran, cope with U.S. demands and defend their positions in the Middle East.
The Big Picture
Among the countries that the United States depends upon in the Middle East, Turkey and Israel stand out as cornerstones. Though they vacillate between friendship and hostility with one another, their ties rest atop a foundation of mutually beneficial trade, which survives even the most contentious times. Since hitting a low in 2010, their relations have been slowly on the mend. In their regional balancing act, Turkey and Israel always find that strategically they have more in common than not, but they will never see the need to entirely bury the hatchet.
See Israel’s Survival StrategySee Turkey’s Resurgence The Search for Common Ground
Many strategic factors bind Turkey and Israel. They are two of the key non-Arab powers in the region and critical to its balance of power, which includes Persian Iran and Arab powers such as Saudi Arabia. They also have two of the strongest militaries in the Middle East. Turkey maintains the most powerful navy, and Israel the strongest air force. Each sees the other as too powerful to have as an enemy.
Ultimately, for Israel to protect itself in an unfriendly neighborhood, it must maintain at least a working relationship with Turkey. The alternative means contending with a big regional power while living next door to hostile Arab nations. Also, Turkey is the larger, more influential and more strategically crucial power due in large part to its location between the Mediterranean and Black seas and its status as a counterbalance to Russia, Iran and other regional heavyweights. This same strategic value came into play during the Cold War when the United States joined with Turkey and Israel to offset Soviet penetration of the Arab world.
Over the past two decades, Israel has had to adjust to Turkey’s way of building regional relationships; that method included picking fights with Israel — particularly over the treatment of the Palestinians — to gain traction with the Arab public. And for Turkey, Israel’s relationship with certain Kurdish factions — some of which it has heavily armed in the past — hits close to home and hampers its goal of weakening a potential Kurdish state. Keeping Israel close could help prevent it from arming the Kurds again.
Despite their differences, some of their regional goals overlap, especially when it comes to containing Iran’s influence. This objective plays out most clearly in the Syrian conflict, where Turkey and Israel want to direct Damascus away from Tehran and toward Ankara. While Israel is concerned primarily about the stability of the corners of Syria that affect its border, the Iranian presense there unsettles it. Much like Russia, Turkey can influence the Iranian presence but not control it. Israel also knows that Turkey, more than any other power active in Syria, is critical to ensuring that rebel groups there remain distinct from extremists.
In Lebanon, both have sought to curb Hezbollah’s influence, though they have used different means. Israel fights Hezbollah from time to time, keeping its military expansion in check. Turkey has chosen to take a nuanced and more gradual approach by supporting political and security forces opposed to Iran, counteracting Hezbollah and other proxies of Tehran.
The Economic Ties That Bind
Improved trade is perhaps the most deeply shared goal, because even in times of diplomatic rupture, import-export commerce has continued apace. Israel imports about $3 billion worth of raw materials and manufactured goods, such as cement, steel and tomatoes, from Turkey, whose current economic fragility highlights the importance of their trade relationship. For Israel, the imports help ensure that its manufacturing companies have a steady supply of materials.
Israeli arms sales to Turkey have also played a significant role in their relationship. While Turkey’s weapons industry has matured considerably over the past decade, the arms trade remains a promising area of cooperation. The energy sector, as well, could eventually become another area for collaboration. The two have been competing for natural gas exploration in the Eastern Mediterranean even as they had discussed over the past couple of years the possibility of building a pipeline between them. But the deal between Noble Energy and Israel’s Delek Drilling and the Egyptian East Gas Co. signed in late September to deliver natural gas from the Tamar and Leviathan fields in Israel to Egypt, compounded with the difficulty of building a pipeline across contested Cypriot territory, puts to rest any Israel-Turkey pipeline dreams in the near term.
The Most Recent Split
The May 2018 breakdown in ties between Israel and Turkey was just one of many periodic ruptures in their carefully balanced relationship. In December 2017, the United States decided to move its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, aggravating the most contentious issue between Turkey and Israel: the Palestinian conflict. In May, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused Israel of genocide and expelled Israeli Ambassador Eitan Naeh after dozens of Palestinians were killed in unrest in Gaza driven in part by the embassy move. Caustic rhetoric from Turkey about Israel’s actions against Palestinians has been a familiar refrain under Erdogan. Turkey is seeking to be a champion of the Palestinian cause because it raises Ankara’s stature and leadership influence in the Muslim world. In his role as a patriarch of political Islam, the president is building his strongman image at home and solidifying his domestic legitimacy.
Israel is focused primarily on its security, and denying Palestinian statehood is a means of ensuring that security as well as stability. Turkey will continue to be a bit unpredictable on how far it is willing to go to ensure Palestinian rights. And Israel can withstand all manner of tough rhetoric from the Turkish government; it is used to it. But any new, outright meddling by the Turkish government in the restive Palestinian territories will be seriously troublesome. Israel is already concerned about the Turkish funding of civic and Islamic associations in east Jerusalem. That support is meant to bolster Turkey’s soft power there in its competition with the Arab states of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
The Role of the United States
That the U.S. embassy decision could spur the most recent Turkish-Israeli split underlines the influence the United States has on their contentious relationship. The United States had previously played a key part in bringing them together. In 2013, President Barack Obama pressured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to apologize for the deaths of Turkish activists killed when Israel intercepted the “Gaza Freedom Flotilla” in 2010 and agree to compensate their families.
Now, the United States needs the cooperation of both and a working relationship with both, as during the Cold War, to counterbalance Iran and reduce its own burden in the region. And the pressure this time, heightened by its economic problems, is on Turkey. Despite the low tide in U.S.-Turkish relations, the United States will continue to encourage Turkey to work with Israel. At the same time, the United States and Israel are in an unusually close period in their relations, which could embolden Israel in its regional and domestic policies, knowing that America has its back. Israel has exploited this greater U.S. pressure on Turkey when dealing with Ankara and has included its own pressure on the United States to not sell the advanced F-35 jet to Ankara.
Finally, Turkey must consider the quiet Israel-Saudi Arabia rapprochement. Their cooperation, encouraged by Washington and driven by the mutual desire to contain and combat Iran, could undercut Ankara’s goal to increase its influence across northern Syria and northern Iraq. This situation naturally leaves Turkey wanting to work more closely with Israel, so it can mitigate any Saudi moves that might threaten Turkish security imperatives, such as the possibility of arming certain Kurdish groups that fight against Iran. And an improved Turkish relationship with Israel could also help alleviate some of the U.S. pressure as well.
The Road Ahead
Though most signs point to an eventual reconciliation, Turkish actions could hinder progress. Turkey is still looking for ways beyond rhetoric to reinsert itself into the Palestinian issue. Ankara’s proposal for a Gaza seaport, which would facilitate Turkish aid reaching the area, could make some headway. And Ankara will forge ahead with building up ties in east Jerusalem, hoping that Israel would prefer to have it involved there in lieu of other powers, namely Iran. But Turkey likely would only provide funding with Israel’s approval. Otherwise, the resumption of further diplomatic ties could be restricted.
But for now, the ties between Turkey and Israel will remain pragmatic, limited and businesslike, subject to the influence of events in the region. Rapprochement could open economic opportunities for Israeli companies looking to invest in and with an economically weak Turkey. The two countries can be expected to continue discussions on the future of Syria and on ways to isolate Iranian influence there. Those two issues — trade and Iran — remain at the center of their on-again, off-again relationship.
Some time ago, Iran’s Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged the Muslim World to boycott anything and everything that originates with the Jewish people.
In response, Meyer M. Treinkman, a pharmacist, out of the kindness of his heart, offered to assist them in their boycott as follows:
“Any Muslim who has Syphilis must not be cured by Salvarsan discovered by a Jew, Dr. Ehrlich. He should not even try to find out whether he has Syphilis, because the Wasserman Test is the discovery of a Jew. If a Muslim suspects that he has Gonorrhea, he must not seek diagnosis, because he will be using the method of a Jew named Neissner.
“A Muslim who has heart disease must not use Digitalis, a discovery by a Jew, Ludwig Traube.
Should he suffer with a toothache, he must not use Novocaine, a discovery of the Jews, Widal and Weil.
If a Muslim has Diabetes, he must not use Insulin, the result of research by Minkowsky, a Jew. If one has a headache, he must shun Pyramidon and Antypyrin, due to the Jews, Spiro and Ellege.
Muslims with convulsions must put up with them because it was a Jew, Oscar Leibreich, who proposed the use of Chloral Hydrate.
Arabs must do likewise with their psychic ailments because Freud, father of psychoanalysis, was a Jew.
Should a Muslim child get Diphtheria, he must refrain from the “Schick” reaction which was invented by the Jew, Bella Schick.
“Muslims should be ready to die in great numbers and must not permit treatment of ear and brain damage, work of Jewish Nobel Prize winner, Robert Baram.
They should continue to die or remain crippled by Infantile Paralysis because the discoverer of the anti-polio vaccine is a Jew, Jonas Salk.
“Muslims must refuse to use Streptomycin and continue to die of Tuberculosis because a Jew, Zalman Waxman, invented the wonder drug against this killing disease.
Muslim doctors must discard all discoveries and improvements by dermatologist Judas Sehn Benedict, or the lung specialist, Frawnkel, and of many other world renowned Jewish scientists and medical experts.
“In short, good and loyal Muslims properly and fittingly should remain afflicted with Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Heart Disease, Headaches, Typhus, Diabetes, Mental Disorders, Polio Convulsions and Tuberculosis and be proud to obey the Islamic boycott..”
Oh, and by the way, don’t call for a doctor on your cell phone because the cell phone was invented in Israel by Jewish engineer Martin “Marty” Cooper .
Meanwhile I ask, what medical contributions to the world have the Muslims made?”
The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world’s population.
They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
Literature:
1988 – Najib Mahfooz
Peace:
1978 – Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1990 – Elias James Corey
1994 – Yaser Arafat:
1999 – Ahmed Zewai
Economics:
(zero)
Physics:
(zero)
Medicine:
1960 – Peter Brian Medawar
1998 – Ferid Mourad
TOTAL: 7 SEVEN
The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN MILLION or about 0.02% of the world’s population.
They have received the following Nobel Prizes:
Literature:
1910 – Paul Heyse
1927 – Henri Bergson
1958 – Boris Pasternak
1966 – Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 – Nelly Sachs
1976 – Saul Bellow
1978 – Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 – Elias Canetti
1987 – Joseph Brodsky
1991 – Nadine Gordimer World
Peace:
1911 – Alfred Fried
1911 – Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 – Rene Cassin
1973 – Henry Kissinger
1978 – Menachem Begin
1986 – Elie Wiesel
1994 – Shimon Peres
1994 – Yitzhak Rabin
Physics:
1905 – Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 – Henri Moissan
1907 – Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 – Gabriel Lippmann
1910 – Otto Wallach
1915 – Richard Willstaetter
1918 – Fritz Haber
1921 – Albert Einstein
1922 – Niels Bohr
1925 – James Franck
1925 – Gustav Hertz
1943 – Gustav Stern
1943 – George Charles de Hevesy
1944 – Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 – Felix Bloch
1954 – Max Born
1958 – Igor Tamm
1959 – Emilio Segre
1960 – Donald A. Glaser
1961 – Robert Hofstadter
1961 – Melvin Calvin
1962 – Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 – Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 – Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 – Julian Schwinger
1969 – Murray Gell-Mann
1971 – Dennis Gabor
1972 – William Howard Stein
1973 – Brian David Josephson
1975 – Benjamin Mottleson
1976 – Burton Richter
1977 – Ilya Prigogine
1978 – Arno Allan Penzias
1978 – Peter L Kapitza
1979 – Stephen Weinberg
1979 – Sheldon Glashow
1979 – Herbert Charles Brown
1980 – Paul Berg
1980 – Walter Gilbert
1981 – Roald Hoffmann
1982 – Aaron Klug
1985 – Albert A. Hauptman
1985 – Jerome Karle
1986 – Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 – Robert Huber
1988 – Leon Lederman
1988 – Melvin Schwartz
1988 – Jack Steinberger
1989 – Sidney Altman
1990 – Jerome Friedman
1992 – Rudolph Marcus
1995 – Martin Perl
2000 – Alan J. Heeger
Economics:
1970 – Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 – Simon Kuznets
1972 – Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 – Leonid Kantorovich
1976 – Milton Friedman
1978 – Herbert A. Simon
1980 – Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 – Franco Modigliani
1987 – Robert M. Solow
1990 – Harry Markowitz
1990 – Merton Miller
1992 – Gary Becker
1993 – Robert Fogel
Medicine:
1908 – Elie Metchnikoff
1908 – Paul Erlich
1914 – Robert Barany
1922 – Otto Meyerhof
1930 – Karl Landsteiner
1931 – Otto Warburg
1936 – Otto Loewi
1944 – Joseph Erlanger
1944 – Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 – Ernst Boris Chain
1946 – Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 – Tadeus Reichstein
1952 – Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 – Hans Krebs
1953 – Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 – Joshua Lederberg
1959 – Arthur Kornberg
1964 – Konrad Bloch
1965 – Francois Jacob
1965 – Andre Lwoff
1967 – George Wald
1968 – Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 – Salvador Luria
1970 – Julius Axelrod
1970 – Sir Bernard Katz
1972 – Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 – Howard Martin Temin
1976 – Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 – Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 – Daniel Nathans
1980 – Baruj Benacerraf
1984 – Cesar Milstein
1985 – Michael Stuart Brown
1985 – Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 – Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 – Gertrude Elion
1989 – Harold Varmus
1991 – Erwin Neher
1991 – Bert Sakmann
1993 – Richard J. Roberts
1993 – Phillip Sharp
1994 – Alfred Gilman
1995 – Edward B. Lewis
1996- Lu RoseIacovino
TOTAL: 129!
The Jews are NOT promoting brainwashing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non-Muslims.
The Jews don’t hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants.
There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church..
There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people. The Jews don’t traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.
Perhaps the world’s Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.
Muslims must ask ‘what can they do for humankind’ before they demand that humankind respects them.
Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel ‘s part, the following two sentences really say it all:
‘If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.”
Benjamin Netanyahu: General Eisenhower warned us. It is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.
He did this because he said in words to this effect: ‘Get it all on record now – get the films – get the witnesses – because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened’
Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it ‘offends’ the Muslim population which claims it never occurred.
It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.
It is now more than 65 years after the Second World War in Europe ended.
Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be ‘a myth,’ it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.
This e-mail is intended to reach 400 million people. Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.
How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center ‘NEVER HAPPENED’ because it offends some Muslim in the United States?