Ataturk, Nasser and Mosaddeq were the leaders of three diverse regimes in the Middle east in the twentieth centuries. All three shared a lot of similarities while at the same time espousing many different views. Ataturk and Mosaddeq were both modern reformers and stridently anti-communist. All three were nationalists. All three nationalized industries within their respective countries. Nasser is knowing for his nationalization of the Suez Canal while Mosaddeq is remembered for nationalizing the oil industry. Ataturk created a national rail system and nationalized the tobacco industry. All three tried to minimalize foreign interference in their respective countries, in most cases by getting rid of British or French influence. All three leaders
…show more content…
Ataturk has been called the cement of the Turkish nation by Sener Eruygur, a former Turkish Gendarmerie Forces Commander. He left in his wake a Turkey that remained secular for the entirety of the twentieth century. The ending of Caliphate which had ruled for hundreds of years is also part Ataiturk’s legacy. Nasser’s legacy is more ambiguous. He helped rid Egypt of the last vestiges of British rule. He facilitated Egypt’s rise to become a leader in the Arab world. He is the man who stood up to western imperialism. Arab nationionalsm is his greatest legacy. But his promise was never really fulfilled. He died in 1970 and, with the advent of Anwar Sadat, many of his plans never came to fruition. And many remember his harsh uncompromising rule and the many people who died in his prisons. He was an uncontested ruler who forced his policies on people. Mosaddeq’s short reign ended in a coupe, however his defeat motivated Iranians, angered them and was a big part of the motivation for the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Modern Americans now often view his downfall as a step backwards for Iran. The USA greatly underestimated his power and influence leading to many of the events of the late 20th century. The three men continue to be seen as the main players in the story of the modern Middle
Ataturk has been called the cement of the Turkish nation by Sener Eruygur, a former Turkish Gendarmerie Forces Commander. He left in his wake a Turkey that remained secular for the entirety of the twentieth century. The ending of Caliphate which had ruled for hundreds of years is also part Ataiturk’s legacy. Nasser’s legacy is more ambiguous. He helped rid Egypt of the last vestiges of British rule. He facilitated Egypt’s rise to become a leader in the Arab world. He is the man who stood up to western imperialism. Arab nationionalsm is his greatest legacy. But his promise was never really fulfilled. He died in 1970 and, with the advent of Anwar Sadat, many of his plans never came to fruition. And many remember his harsh uncompromising rule and the many people who died in his prisons. He was an uncontested ruler who forced his policies on people. Mosaddeq’s short reign ended in a coupe, however his defeat motivated Iranians, angered them and was a big part of the motivation for the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Modern Americans now often view his downfall as a step backwards for Iran. The USA greatly underestimated his power and influence leading to many of the events of the late 20th century. The three men continue to be seen as the main players in the story of the modern Middle