Why Istanbul Isn't the Capital of Turkey

[Yankee-stani]

 

[vi-va]

I think Ankara is protected by terrain, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is a army general. Also the east part is not stable after World War I. Choose the center of Turkey as capital for better control.

 

[Yankee-stani]

I think Ankara is better protected by terrain, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is a army general. Also the east part is not stable. Choose the center of Turkey as capital for better control.

Pakistan's did the same as well when they moved the capital from Karachi to Islamabad in the Mid 1960s anything close to body of water is easy for enemy invasion and take over

 

[vi-va]

Pakistan's did the same as well when they moved the capital from Karachi to Islamabad in the Mid 1960s anything close to body of water is easy for enemy invasion and take over

Myanmar did the same. From Rangoon to Naypyidaw when Bush Junior threaned Myanmar.

 

[kuge]

of course not...as it was the capital of eastern roman empire & very soon russia will take it back..

 

[nang2]

Because Turkey isn't Ottoman Empire.

 

[SABRE]

of course not...as it was the capital of eastern roman empire & very soon russia will take it back..

Yes, No!

AFAIK, Istanbul never came under the Russians, so I don't know how the term "take it back" applies here. It started out as the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire (Historically: Byzantine) and ended up with the Turks. For a very short duration, it was occupied by Timur in medieval times and by the Greeks and Western allies after WWI but taken back by the Ottomans/Turks both times. Additionally, any Russian aggression against mainland Turkey would rekindle the repressed political and military support of NATO to Turkey. The US might let Turkey go cowboy with its nuclear weapons deployed there as well. Needless to say, we are looking at WWIII scenario if that happens. Putin is much clever than that.

 

[SD 10]

of course not...as it was the capital of eastern roman empire & very soon russia will take it back..

well Russia can try...........................

 

[Neptune]

Cut the political/military crap.

Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, Part One: Founding Principles

"ARTICLE 1- The State of Turkey is a Republic.

ARTICLE 2- The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state governed by rule of law, within the notions of public peace, national solidarity and justice, respecting human rights, loyal to the nationalism of Atatürk, and based on the fundamental tenets set forth in the preamble.

ARTICLE 3- The State of Turkey, with its territory and nation, is an indivisible entity. Its language is Turkish.
Its flag, the form of which is prescribed by the relevant law, is composed of a white crescent and star on a red background.
Its national anthem is the “Independence March”.
Its capital is Ankara."

End of discussion, period. I am sick of this movement that arises every now and then asking to make Istanbul capital, amend the first three articles and so on.

 

[anatolia]

same question why new york is not capital of USA? it is not good putting all burden on one city..very good decision..

 

[kuge]

Yes, No!

AFAIK, Istanbul never came under the Russians, so I don't know how the term "take it back" applies here. It started out as the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire (Historically: Byzantine) and ended up with the Turks. For a very short duration, I believe it was occupied by the Greeks and Western allies after WWI but quickly taken back by the Turks. Additionally, any Russian aggression against mainland Turkey would rekindle the repressed political and military support of NATO to Turkey. The US might let Turkey go cowboy with its nuclear weapons deployed there as well. Needless to say, we are looking at WWIII scenario if that happens. Putin is much clever than that.

constantinople was known as the 2nd rome but moved on to moscow as the 3rd rome after ottomon took over. russia would not forget that with respect to sophia cathedral.

 

[8888888888888]

Greece will probably join Russia on this.

 

[PakFactor]

Pakistan's did the same as well when they moved the capital from Karachi to Islamabad in the Mid 1960s anything close to body of water is easy for enemy invasion and take over

I believe Faisalabad would have been a much better option as Islamabad and Indian border isn’t much cushion.

 

[War Historian]

Sorry of the topic.
Sir moving the capital from Karachi was a good move, but Islamabad was not ideal place which is less then hundred mile from LOC. I wish they must look at Central city of DG khan. Which has shared boundaries with all 4 provinces. And in the center of the country they would be able to see all provinces easily. And strategically deep inside. And this move can revolutionised the all surrounding areas like south punjab, interior sindh, Baluchistan and FATA area. Thanks.

Pakistan's did the same as well when they moved the capital from Karachi to Islamabad in the Mid 1960s anything close to body of water is easy for enemy invasion and take over

 

[Zhukov]

Simple enough to understand.
Mustafa Kamal Ataturk lead the War of Independence from Ankara. Ottoman Sultan turned against him and wanted the watered down Colonial powered influenced version of Ottoman Empire just to save his Family Dynasty. Grand Mufti of Istanbul even issued a fatwa of Kuffar against Mustafa kamal for not obeying Sultan and surrendering.
For all the ottoman Fans Abusing Mustafa Kamal, just look at the map, This is the Ottoman turkey that Sultan accepted and wanted.

And this is the Turkey that Mustafa Kamal Snatched from the Allies rejecting the Ottoman surrender

Ankara was the center of Turkish nationalist powers. Of course Turks rellied behind Mustafa kamal. When he won the ideological and military conflict, He buried everything tracing back to ottoman empire. He changed the Script of Turkish language, Culture, Dress code, Armed Forces, Naming Conventions. Everything from ground up was rebuilt. So he moved the Capital as well from the historic Ottoman Capital of Istanbul to Heart of Turkish nationalist resistance Ankara.