Turkey Attempted Coup: EU Says Measures 'Unacceptable'

[Purveyor]

Source: BBC

The European Union says Turkey's measures against the education system, the judiciary and the media following the failed coup are "unacceptable".

In a statement, High Representative Federica Mogherini and Commissioner Johannes Hahn said they were "concerned" by Turkey's decision to declare a state of emergency.

The move gives Turkey's leaders "far reaching powers to govern by decree".
Thousands of people have been sacked or arrested following the failed coup.

The two top EU officials urged President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to respect the rule of law, rights and freedoms.

Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36861154

[forest444]

1. It was a Reichstag fire.

An incident coreographed by Erdonazi himself to justify the state of siege that followed (particularly the thousands of disappearances taking place as we speak).

Zero points for originality.

[Feeling the Bern]

3. In my history class I used to teach at the IGCSE and A-Level for CIE, I called this the four by four

Four conditions must exist for a despot to take over:

1: Fear
2: Poverty
3: Hopelessness
4: Anger

If those four exist, all a potential despot has to do is four things in order to gain more or complete power:

1: Blame the existing order for the problems
2: Pin the guilt on a scapegoat
3: Present yourself as the only solution
4: Manufacture a crisis.

You're watching how easy it is done in Turkey now. . .and it works every time.

[forest444]

4. Perfect. I wonder how long it took Rove to teach Dubya that concept.

Whatever else could be said for him, turd blossom certainly has a lot of patience.

[happyslug]

10. Poverty is NOT one of the conditions, it is the FEAR of entering poverty.

The fear is that the decline in Income or other living standard is what leads people to feel they is nothing they can do (the Hopelessness) which produces the Anger. Thus it is not poverty itself but the FEAR OF POVERTY produced by the decline in income that leads to people looking for someone to reverse that decline.

[Feeling the Bern]

15. Thank yo ufor that. If you think that, get your certification and teach IGCSE history your way

Until then, armchair teacher. . .

[happyslug]

16. The conditions in Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s was NOT one of widespread poverty.

In fact, Sicily and Naples, the two poorest area of Italy even today, had the least support for the Fascists of Mussolini. Mussolini support was from Northern Italy, Industrial Italy. Mussolini's birth place, is on the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy, and is considered part of the "Red Belt" of Northern Italy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilia-Romagna

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

Mussolini, started out as a Socialist (and the last time I read about his family, other then his children and grandchildren, they were still Socialists or Communists) but converted to the right over WWI (the Socialists opposed going to War, Mussolini supported going to War in WWI).

People tend to forget (mostly because Historians like to ignore it) that from about 1916 onward, WWI became more and more unpopular do to not only the draft of young men, but the restrictions on goods. In the Central Power of Germany and Austria this was terrible, do to the inability to import fertilizers from overseas, Central Power food production decline severely. The main reason for expansion of Nitrate production in Germany was NOT only for Munitions but for Food Production. Russia had no problem maintaining its Food Production, but distributing that food became more and more a problem from 1916 onward as Germany and Austria advanced into Russia, disrupting river transportation of that food. This caused severe problems in Russia. These problems lead to revolutions in Russia, Germany and Austria where all three Empires collapsed.

Now, while the problems of Russia, Germany and Austria (and Hungary) have been given some reports as to why the Allies won WWII, the reports of massive Strikes in Britain and France (and outright refusal to obey orders by the French Troops when ordered to attack) is ignored for much of it was covered up at the time period and classified for decades afterward. By the end of 1917, the French Army was no longer capable of offensive operations (Thus the transfer of American African American Troops to French Control was desired by the French for they needed troops willing to attack and the French Infantry of 1917 and 1918 was NOT able to lead such attacks).

More on the French Mutinies of 1917:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Army_Mutinies

The British Army was in better shape, but it was smaller but the situation in Britain itself was in decline. The number of strikes increased starting in 1916.

Italy was hard hit:

The first years of the war saw demonstrations in the countryside against conscription and the lack of food. These movements often joined up with strikes in towns and were encouraged by soldiers’ letters home from the front. Again the prominent role of women in these movements is notable. Women were only 21.9 percent of the workforce by 1918 but were 64.2 percent of strikers in 1917 and 45.6 percent of strikers in 1918.68 In May 1917 Milan had exploded in protest against food shortages but the strikes were ignored by the PSI and CGL, who were too busy putting together a post-war reform programme.69

On 5 August in Turin a crowd of 40,000 had greeted Menshevik and Social Revolutionary speakers from Russia with cries of “Viva Lenin!” However, it was to be the bread supply that sparked the mass strike in the city. Women were already queuing for bread for long periods of time as well as working 12-hour shifts in the factories. When, on 21 August, 80 bakeries put up signs saying “Out of Bread”, women and children marched to the city hall, angry that the bakers still had flour for expensive sweet rolls for the rich.70 The women’s protest led to 2,000 railway workers striking, saying they would not work without food. The next day the strike wave was joined by the metal workers, Fiat, the Projectile Arsenal and vehicle manufacturer Diatto-Frejus. On the evening of 22 August barricades went up in working class areas and handmade bombs were thrown at the police and army sent in to quell the protests......

The PSI and CGL called on the workers to give up “further useless violence”. On 24 August crowds marched to the centre of Turin to be met by machine guns and tanks deployed by the authorities. In the course of the next four days 1,500 workers were arrested and 50 shot dead. Turin was isolated and then crushed by the military while the leaders of the PSI and CGL stood aside. Lenin called the events part of the “development of world revolution”.72 Once again a major city had seen a mass strike of insurrectionary proportions in which the economic became political. However, Turin was a city isolated without a revolutionary organisation vital to break the hostility of the unions, the PSI and the centralised power of the state.

http://isj.org.uk/the-mass-strike-in-the-first-world-war/

In many ways the Western Allies agreed to the Armistice in November 1918 more to release German Troops to suppress Communist Revolts in Germany, but to release Ally troops to use at home against the Social unrest caused by WWI.

By 1922 the situation was BAD in Western Europe and the US. In the US you had the West Virginia Coal War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_coal_wars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

In the US, you had the 1919 Steel Strike (where the strikers went on strike to end the 8 days a week they had the work, yes 8 days, Six 12 hour days and one 24 hour day each week).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_strike_of_1919

In Italy the situation had NOT improved and with the US Shipping back to Italy anyone the US thought was a Communists, even immigration was out. Thus the economic situation looked bad, with a general decline in income and with it an increase in poverty. That is why the Italians embraced Fascism. Once Communism was defeated by 1921, Fascism was the only thing offering any stoppage of the decline in income since the middle of WWI. With Communism still a fear of the rich, Fascism came into power, both to protect the Rich from the Poor AND to protect the Working Class from further decline in income and a stoppage of the drive into poverty (notice it is the PROMISE to stop that movement not actual stoppage of any increase in poverty).

In Germany, the Nazis did NOT see any increase in their support during the great increase in inflation in the mid 1920s. While a lot of people loss their savings, most working class people were able to maintain their general lifestyle. The Nazis only started to get a lot of support as the Great Depression hit starting in 1927 (Stalin sold a lot of Wheat in 1926 to pay for his first Five Year Plan, that selling of wheat reduced the price of wheat world wide leading to the Great Depression hitting the farm communities of the US and Europe starting in 1927). As the Great Depression hit Germany hard starting in 1930, the Nazis saw a huge increase in people supporting them. At the same time you saw a similar growth in support for the Communists (and you did have rallies where Nazis and Communists spoke at the same time against the German Government). The ruling elite saw this massive increase in support for both the Nazis and the Communists and came to the conclusion one or the other was going to take over Germany and they preferred the Nazis.

The support for the Communists and Nazis in the Germany of the early 1930s was to to the decline in income and living standards that the German People have had to endure since about 1927 (AFTER THE END OF THE HYPERINFLATION OF THE 1920s). This fear of a drive in poverty is what was driving people to support the Nazis and the Communists. As with Mussolini in the early 1920s, the financial elite preferred the Nazis to the Communists and put the Nazis in Charge along with understanding that the Nazis would suppress the Communists. Notice it was the PEOPLE'S Fear of becoming improvised that lead to their support for the two radical groups and then the fear of the Communists fro the Financial Elite to support the Nazis.

The poor areas of Europe, for example Poland, would embrace some aspects of Fascism, but as a whole keep democratic institutions. The reason was simple, poverty was widespread in Poland by the 1930s so the Great Depression did not drive to many people into poverty thus no fear of poverty for most Poles were already in poverty.

You see a similar situation in Hungary, again a lot of poverty and the ruler of Hungary between WWI and WWII was a dictator but was NOT a fascist. The same with Portugal, a dictatorship but not fascist. In both places the Ruling Group did address the needs of the lower classes, something Hitler and Mussolini refused to do (While both also supported Franco in Spain, Franco was again more a Military dictator then a fascist). And in all three countries (Hungary, Portugal and Spain) you did have fears of Communist revolts but the solution to such fear was NOT Fascism but a traditional military Dictatorship. Such Dictatorship rarely has a dogma and thus willing to address the issue of the poor, even at the cost of the rich. This is unlike Fascism which wants to go through the motions to help the poor, but primary concerned about maintaining the rich.

Now, they is no solid line between Fascism and traditional military dictatorship (For example Poland between the wars adopted aspects of Fascism while staying democratic) what each does to the working class and peasants is the difference. A traditional military dictatorship will try to undermine any support the Communists have, and that generally means giving in on some aspects of what the Communists want. Fascism, often goes through the motions of giving workers rights (for example Hitler made May day a National Labor Holiday in Germany) while doing all it can to suppress those wants (for example the same day Hitler declared May Day a Holiday, he outlawed Labor Unions).

Fascism also has a short life expectancy. For example Hitler decided it was better to risk war then address economic problems in 1938, when it became clear that German Income had dropped by 1/3 since 1930 and Hitler could no longer say "My plan will work" (Thus Hitler risk war over the Sudetenland in 1938 rather then address the decline not only in Human Rights, but income for the working class since 1932).

Mussolini, is actually one of the longest ruling Fascists, but that is because he addressed the problems of the 1920s and then when the Great Depression hit, blame it not himself for how it was harming Italy and then went to war with Ethiopia in 1936, for the same reason Hitler went to war in 1939, people will support their leaders in war, especially if they are successful and Mussolini was till 1941, and the failure of the Italian Invasion of Egypt that ended up with the British taking over most of Eastern Libya from the Italians, as was Hitler till 1943 and Stalingrad and Kursk).

Traditional military dictatorships rarely go to war (and when they do it is in desperation, such as the Military Dictatorship of Argentina taking the Falklands in the early 1980s, the desperation was how bad the Argentina economy had become by then not anything to do with the Falklands itself). Thus Franco stayed out of WWII and the various dictators of Eastern Europe only went to war with Russia under pressure from Hitler (Hitler in 1944 even help restore such a Dictator in Hungary when he was thrown out of power).

More on Hitler replacement of the Government of Hungary in 1944:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary_in_World_War_II#Soviet_invasion_of_Hungary

The main reason for this reluctance to go to war is that traditional military dictatorships just want to maintain order NOT social class and if the need to maintain order means redistribution of land or wealth they will do it (Nationalist China did this on Taiwan in the 1950s when it was a traditional military dictatorship and in some ways South Korea did the same in the 1950s and 1960s, South Vietnam said it would do it, but never did in the amount needed till the Communist took over in 1974).

Just a comment that Fascism relies on fear, but the fear is economic decline that forces people into poverty. Poverty itself does NOT produce Fascism (Mexico is a classic example, for decades it was a semi-dictatorship, but during that time period it used its oil wealth to improve the country so that most Mexicans did not fear a decline into poverty, those in poverty did not like being in poverty but as long as they were NOT facing any decline in income they were content. The problem since the 1990s is that with NAFTA, the price of Corn in Mexico has driven a huge segment of the population into deeper poverty and you have started to see a drive for Fascism. Notice it is NOT poverty that is driving this movement, for it that was the case it would have hit in the 1950s, but the fear of poverty do to the drop in the price of corn. This drop in price of corn has lead to unrest in Rural Mexico and it is slowly moving into Urban Mexico and with that movement an increase is support for Communism and Fascism.

In Mexico the issue is who will win? Generally it has been Fascism but only when the ruling elite see what the problem is and embrace Fascism. The first choice is a traditional military dictatorship but often the ruling elite fears such a dictatorship for it means the possibility of losing control. The ruling elite prefers Fascism for then they stay in control, but as I pointed out above, Fascism can only last a few years before its internal conflicts rip it apart. You can NOT say you represent the working class, while cutting the working class throat. Thus fascist states have short life spans, Traditional military dictatorship last longer for the simple reason they can handle the conflict for they want ORDER more than anything else and if ORDER means addressing the needs of the working class, they will do it even if the ruling elite hates those reforms.

Thus the tendency is Fascism then traditional military dictatorship, then a return to elected government generally with a Socialist or Communist in charge of the Government. Someone has to solve the problem of the Working Class, and that will be either a traditional military dictatorship (as in Korea and Taiwan) or by a Socialist (as in Spain, Chile and it took a while, Argentina).

Fascism is the last attempt to keep up the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and as such not sustainable. The fear of poverty brings on Fascism but Fascism can not solve that problem thus gives way to other form of government in 10 to 20 years.

[Odin2005]

18. Drumpf is at step 3.

[uawchild]

2. "The two top EU officials urged President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to respect the rule of law.."

Last edited Thu Jul 21, 2016, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Or what?

There will simply be no repercussions for Erdogan. Certainly not from the EU.

[PaulaFarrell]

5. Turkey wants to join the EU

I would says this knocks that on the head

[geek tragedy]

7. that was a dead letter long ago, Turkey is culturally a Middle Eastern country, not

a European one.

[NWCorona]

8. Yup! That was a non starter

[PaulaFarrell]

11. don't think so

It wasn't coming soon but it was definitely on the table. The Eu is about economics and international cooperation, not cultural identity. And at least until recently I would have said turkey was closer to Europe than the ME.

[geek tragedy]

12. the proclivity there is Islamism and authoritarianism.

that's not compatible with the EU.

[PaulaFarrell]

13. until recently it was secular

Only about 20% of the people are Islamist, 50% secularists. Unfortunately the islamists are taking over. Its strange, until the 70s Portugal had a dictator but noone ever says ' they have an authoritarian proclivity'.

[geek tragedy]

14. the military had to enforce secularism by banning Islamist parties

Erdogan is a hardcore Islamist.

[6chars]

6. Erdogan hints state of emergency could be extended

http://www.euronews.com/2016/07/22/turkey-s-president-hints-state-of-emergency-could-be-extended

“As you know France declared an initial state of emergency for three months then prolonged it for another three months. Then they prolonged it for another three months. So there is no obstacle in terms of prolonging it,” said Erdogan.

“Initially of course it is three months but after three months we can ask for a second three month period and extend it.”

---

I'm going to bet that he indeed does extend it.

[JennyHot]

9. i also think its unacceptable

such nonsense

[Odin2005]

17. I heard on the BBC World Service last night that there are reports of torture.