5 ms·

This to me again pushes the question when it's OK to overthrow a democratically elected government. All western governments and even the Turkish opposition came

This to me again pushes the question when it's OK to overthrow a democratically elected government. All western governments and even the Turkish opposition came out against the coup because it was "undemocratic". However, I believe there is definitely a line somewhere that a democratically elected government cannot cross without losing legitimacy and making a coup the right thing to do regardless of the remaining popular support. Had Erdogan crossed that line? If so, what was that line? If he didn't cross it what would be that line. I'm sure we all can agree that there is such s line since we probably all can agree that Hitler crossed it although I'm not sure in his case where exactly that line was either. Maybe when he dismantled the parliament? Maybe earlier?

Grishnakh 10y ago
Hitler was democratically elected. If you oppose any coup that's undemocratic, then you necessarily have to oppose the attempted coups against Hitler. Hitler had great support among his people, even after he dismantled Parliament. After all, he was a strong leader for his country, and his people liked that, just like the Turkish people love Erdogan for the same. As for as crossing a line, because he was democratically elected, there's two lines to cross: 1) when he makes death camps and starts gassing large numbers of his own people (probably minorities like the Kurds, or various secularists), and 2) when he invades some other country. In WWII, other nations only finally did something after Germany invaded too many countries (they gave him a pass on Poland, saying "we'll have peace in our time!" by appeasing him). They didn't care about the death camps, until after they defeated Germany and then decided to punish them for those. Just like they didn't care about the genocide in Rwanda. I imagine the situation with Turkey will be much the same.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  > they gave him a pass on Poland Um, the invasion of Poland was what caused England to declare war, and ask France to do the same.
  - CPLX 10y ago
    Presumably he's thinking of Czechoslovakia?
    - aries1980 10y ago
      …and the CCCP?
  - krzyk 10y ago
    And that was it, just declaration, no armies attacked Germany when he was invading Poland.
    - cloudjacker 10y ago
      Is that accurate? My understanding was that the invasion of poland coincided with readiness to respond to a countermeasure by England. And that England called it war pretty much immediately and started mobilizing right then. Seeing all the treaties that don't get enforced, I'm led to believe that England didn't have to attack.
      - dkns 10y ago
        Yes, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War
      - bluejekyll 10y ago
        The invasion of Poland was over in weeks, it took England a while to mobilize troops, and what they did to reinforce France were inadequately positioned to then repel the invasion of France. Remember that England and France thought it would be crazy for another war after WWI that Germany really wouldn't invade Poland. And likewise, Germany/Hitler were surprised that England and France really did draw a line at Poland.
- learc83 10y ago
  >They didn't care about the death camps, until after they defeated Germany and then decided to punish them for those. The allies didn't know about the death camps until 1942. They were already at war with Germany in 1942, and they issued a public condemnation of Hitler's attempt to exterminate the Jewish race at the end of that year. >Hitler was democratically elected. He wasn't elected, he was appointed Chancellor then used violence and intimidation to rise to power. Only about 1/3 of the population supported the Nazis in the elections before 1933. Later after the Reichstag fire, the government enacted emergency measures limiting left wing opposition parties and arrested many communist leaders. You can't call anything that happened after that a free and open election.
  - avar 10y ago
    The death camps also targeted e.g homosexuals, which the allies were fine with. The allies didn't have any moral objection to the death camps, only against them being used for certain classes of people (e.g. jews).
    - cafard 10y ago
      What evidence do you have for the "[no] moral objection" statement?
    - learc83 10y ago
      The allies weren't "fine with it". Homosexuals made up a small percentage of the total people in death camps, and the vast majority of the allies weren't even aware of them until the liberation. Homosexual survivors were treated horribly because homosexuality was still a crime in Germany and most of the Allied countries after WWII. But the western allies weren't "fine" with systematically exterminating homosexuals or any other group--as evidenced by the fact that they ended the practice.
      - avar 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175#Historical_overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175#Historical_overv... The allies discovered a bunch of gays locked up in concentration camps under a 1935 Nazi-enacted law, didn't repel that article similarly to e.g. laws against Jews when WWII ended and supported their re-imprisonment, nor did they make their times in the concentration camps count against their "crimes". Granted saying they were "fine with it" might be a bit of an exaggeration. But I don't think it's unreasonable in the face of historical evidence to think that the concentration camps would have been treated vastly differently by the allies if the only prisoners were homosexuals, given how the allies treated those prisoners upon their release. Which I think goes to show that the allied forces didn't have an intrinsic objection to what went on in the concentration camps, they just minded the target audience the Nazis picked.
- hx87 10y ago
  To be fair though, Turkey doesn't have any countries around it that it can invade without getting stomped by either Russia or the rest of NATO. IMO, a coup can be justified if those that carry it out a) will be better governors than those they overthrew and b) they have popular legitimacy. By that standard, a Reichswehr coup in 1933 would have been justified, but the half-assed Turkish coup that has just happened wouldn't.
  - greedo 10y ago
    What do you call Syria and Iraq?
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > What do you call Syria and Iraq? A client state of Russia and a client state of the United States, respectively, which is why neither is a country Turkey can invade without repercussions from Russia or "the rest of NATO" (or, at least, the US, which is pretty much the bulk of the military power of NATO.) And while Iraq's status as a US client state may seem somewhat questionable, Iraqi Kurdistan is more tightly aligned with the US than the central government is, and may well vote soon on independence and is the part -- for both geographic and political reasons -- that one is talking about when one talks about Turkey invading Iraq.
- serge2k 10y ago
  > they gave him a pass on Poland They declared war 2 days after Germany attacked Poland. "Peace in our time" was a year earlier.
- aphextron 10y ago
  >I imagine the situation with Turkey will be much the same. Highly doubtful. Turkey is a NATO member who's entire defense strategy hinges on that alliance. We don't live in the 20th century anymore. Countries are far too interdependent for a war of territorial aggression to be effective.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Countries are far too interdependent for a war of territorial aggression to be effective. The parts (de facto, at least) of Russia that were, not too long ago, part (de jure as well as de facto) of the Ukraine suggest otherwise. As might the parts of what is internationally recognized as Iraq and Syria that are now dominated by Daesh.
    - hx87 10y ago
      For certain definitions of effective. Sure, Crimea was certainly a victory (but only because they had very high on-the-ground public support), and denying vital industrial regions to Ukraine could be construed as a victory, but OTOH having a lawless, war-torn region ruled by right wing wannabe Stalinists on its borders isn't exactly a win for Russia.
bluejekyll 10y ago
Hitler crossed that line when he used the brown shirts to suppress the vote and intimidate any voices that were counter to theirs. That was years before they dissolved parliament. I would say this reaction to the failed coup is probably too extreme, and is being used (similar to crystal nacht after a terrorist attack) to dismantle criticts of the govt.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  The reaction isn't new this was happening to turkey for years now, post coup it just accelerated and now it's in swoops instead of a trickle. Erdogan replaced a lot of the officers, judges and key figures in the educational and judicial system over the years, cracked down on the press which lead to closure of many independent news sources and really been acting like a dictator including attempts at altering the constitution Of the country completely.
learc83 10y ago
Everyone came out against this coup because they either thought it was orchestrated by the other islamist faction, or thought it would fail. If a secular military coup looked likely to be successful, the west would be ecstatic.
- utopcell 10y ago
  elaborate
- jessriedel 10y ago
  Who thought this was orchestrated by another other islamist faction in the military? I never heard during any of the coverage that anyone thought the folks behind the coup weren't secular.
  - learc83 10y ago
    Erdogan immediately started referencing a "parallel government" which many commentators took to mean the islamist faction led by Fethullah Gulen. When I was reading coverage during the first few hours of the coup Fethullah Gulen was mentioned repeatedly as the possible orchestrator.
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      Hmm, I never heard this until a couple days into the coup, well after it was clear it was unsuccessful. Would be interesting to know what the US intelligence experts actually thought.
- simonh 10y ago
  > If a secular military coup looked likely to be successful, the west would be ecstatic. What the West wants is a secular, pluralistic, economically and socially secure and stable Turkey under the rule of law. A military government might tick one or two of those boxes in the short term, but the rest (and all of them long term) can only be achieved via democracy.

Grishnakh 10y ago

Hitler was democratically elected. If you oppose any coup that's undemocratic, then you necessarily have to oppose the attempted coups against Hitler. Hitler had great support among his people, even after he dismantled Parliament. After all, he was a strong leader for his country, and his people liked that, just like the Turkish people love Erdogan for the same. As for as crossing a line, because he was democratically elected, there's two lines to cross: 1) when he makes death camps and starts gassing large numbers of his own people (probably minorities like the Kurds, or various secularists), and 2) when he invades some other country. In WWII, other nations only finally did something after Germany invaded too many countries (they gave him a pass on Poland, saying "we'll have peace in our time!" by appeasing him). They didn't care about the death camps, until after they defeated Germany and then decided to punish them for those. Just like they didn't care about the genocide in Rwanda. I imagine the situation with Turkey will be much the same.

bluejekyll 10y ago
> they gave him a pass on Poland Um, the invasion of Poland was what caused England to declare war, and ask France to do the same.
- CPLX 10y ago
  Presumably he's thinking of Czechoslovakia?
  - aries1980 10y ago
    …and the CCCP?
- krzyk 10y ago
  And that was it, just declaration, no armies attacked Germany when he was invading Poland.
  - cloudjacker 10y ago
    Is that accurate? My understanding was that the invasion of poland coincided with readiness to respond to a countermeasure by England. And that England called it war pretty much immediately and started mobilizing right then. Seeing all the treaties that don't get enforced, I'm led to believe that England didn't have to attack.
    - dkns 10y ago
      Yes, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War
    - bluejekyll 10y ago
      The invasion of Poland was over in weeks, it took England a while to mobilize troops, and what they did to reinforce France were inadequately positioned to then repel the invasion of France. Remember that England and France thought it would be crazy for another war after WWI that Germany really wouldn't invade Poland. And likewise, Germany/Hitler were surprised that England and France really did draw a line at Poland.
learc83 10y ago
>They didn't care about the death camps, until after they defeated Germany and then decided to punish them for those. The allies didn't know about the death camps until 1942. They were already at war with Germany in 1942, and they issued a public condemnation of Hitler's attempt to exterminate the Jewish race at the end of that year. >Hitler was democratically elected. He wasn't elected, he was appointed Chancellor then used violence and intimidation to rise to power. Only about 1/3 of the population supported the Nazis in the elections before 1933. Later after the Reichstag fire, the government enacted emergency measures limiting left wing opposition parties and arrested many communist leaders. You can't call anything that happened after that a free and open election.
- avar 10y ago
  The death camps also targeted e.g homosexuals, which the allies were fine with. The allies didn't have any moral objection to the death camps, only against them being used for certain classes of people (e.g. jews).
  - cafard 10y ago
    What evidence do you have for the "[no] moral objection" statement?
  - learc83 10y ago
    The allies weren't "fine with it". Homosexuals made up a small percentage of the total people in death camps, and the vast majority of the allies weren't even aware of them until the liberation. Homosexual survivors were treated horribly because homosexuality was still a crime in Germany and most of the Allied countries after WWII. But the western allies weren't "fine" with systematically exterminating homosexuals or any other group--as evidenced by the fact that they ended the practice.
    - avar 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175#Historical_overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175#Historical_overv... The allies discovered a bunch of gays locked up in concentration camps under a 1935 Nazi-enacted law, didn't repel that article similarly to e.g. laws against Jews when WWII ended and supported their re-imprisonment, nor did they make their times in the concentration camps count against their "crimes". Granted saying they were "fine with it" might be a bit of an exaggeration. But I don't think it's unreasonable in the face of historical evidence to think that the concentration camps would have been treated vastly differently by the allies if the only prisoners were homosexuals, given how the allies treated those prisoners upon their release. Which I think goes to show that the allied forces didn't have an intrinsic objection to what went on in the concentration camps, they just minded the target audience the Nazis picked.
hx87 10y ago
To be fair though, Turkey doesn't have any countries around it that it can invade without getting stomped by either Russia or the rest of NATO. IMO, a coup can be justified if those that carry it out a) will be better governors than those they overthrew and b) they have popular legitimacy. By that standard, a Reichswehr coup in 1933 would have been justified, but the half-assed Turkish coup that has just happened wouldn't.
- greedo 10y ago
  What do you call Syria and Iraq?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > What do you call Syria and Iraq? A client state of Russia and a client state of the United States, respectively, which is why neither is a country Turkey can invade without repercussions from Russia or "the rest of NATO" (or, at least, the US, which is pretty much the bulk of the military power of NATO.) And while Iraq's status as a US client state may seem somewhat questionable, Iraqi Kurdistan is more tightly aligned with the US than the central government is, and may well vote soon on independence and is the part -- for both geographic and political reasons -- that one is talking about when one talks about Turkey invading Iraq.
serge2k 10y ago
> they gave him a pass on Poland They declared war 2 days after Germany attacked Poland. "Peace in our time" was a year earlier.
aphextron 10y ago
>I imagine the situation with Turkey will be much the same. Highly doubtful. Turkey is a NATO member who's entire defense strategy hinges on that alliance. We don't live in the 20th century anymore. Countries are far too interdependent for a war of territorial aggression to be effective.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Countries are far too interdependent for a war of territorial aggression to be effective. The parts (de facto, at least) of Russia that were, not too long ago, part (de jure as well as de facto) of the Ukraine suggest otherwise. As might the parts of what is internationally recognized as Iraq and Syria that are now dominated by Daesh.
  - hx87 10y ago
    For certain definitions of effective. Sure, Crimea was certainly a victory (but only because they had very high on-the-ground public support), and denying vital industrial regions to Ukraine could be construed as a victory, but OTOH having a lawless, war-torn region ruled by right wing wannabe Stalinists on its borders isn't exactly a win for Russia.

bluejekyll 10y ago

Hitler crossed that line when he used the brown shirts to suppress the vote and intimidate any voices that were counter to theirs. That was years before they dissolved parliament. I would say this reaction to the failed coup is probably too extreme, and is being used (similar to crystal nacht after a terrorist attack) to dismantle criticts of the govt.

dogma1138 10y ago
The reaction isn't new this was happening to turkey for years now, post coup it just accelerated and now it's in swoops instead of a trickle. Erdogan replaced a lot of the officers, judges and key figures in the educational and judicial system over the years, cracked down on the press which lead to closure of many independent news sources and really been acting like a dictator including attempts at altering the constitution Of the country completely.

learc83 10y ago

Everyone came out against this coup because they either thought it was orchestrated by the other islamist faction, or thought it would fail. If a secular military coup looked likely to be successful, the west would be ecstatic.

utopcell 10y ago
elaborate
jessriedel 10y ago
Who thought this was orchestrated by another other islamist faction in the military? I never heard during any of the coverage that anyone thought the folks behind the coup weren't secular.
- learc83 10y ago
  Erdogan immediately started referencing a "parallel government" which many commentators took to mean the islamist faction led by Fethullah Gulen. When I was reading coverage during the first few hours of the coup Fethullah Gulen was mentioned repeatedly as the possible orchestrator.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    Hmm, I never heard this until a couple days into the coup, well after it was clear it was unsuccessful. Would be interesting to know what the US intelligence experts actually thought.
simonh 10y ago
> If a secular military coup looked likely to be successful, the west would be ecstatic. What the West wants is a secular, pluralistic, economically and socially secure and stable Turkey under the rule of law. A military government might tick one or two of those boxes in the short term, but the rest (and all of them long term) can only be achieved via democracy.