Uniform Borrower Assistance Form: Fill & Download for Free

When I went to university in the 1960’s there generally weren’t such things as student loans. At the time I was setting up to go to uni, they were just starting to use the Free Application for Federal Student Assistance. When I handed the FAFSA form to my dad in 1964 or 1965, he took one look at it and the financial detail it required and pronounced that he would not wipe his ass with it. 55 years later I still agree with him.Mid/late 60’s the federal government got into the business of guaranteeing student loans. Back then most people could work out something to go to uni without borrowing.People who were getting professional degrees discovered that they could borrow guaranteed money, get their MD, DDS, or JD diploma, and immediately file for bankruptcy.In the 1970’s Congress plugged that leak hard by making student loans, the only kind of loan that stupid kids without any real planning skills or common sense could get, non dischargeable in bankruptcy. In short you were slave to the lender with no recourse.This took us down the road of making university the new high school, and students the new slaves.

Two leaders around same age in military uniforms… (20–25)This is an update from 2021, January.Now looking back at this article(text more so) is almost an Kemalist propaganda, ofcourse ı still like our protagonist but now, as a more mature man ı would suggest that anyone who is interested in him should definitly NOT see this text as a major or accurate reference.—————————————————————————————————-I will try as much as ı can to be fair and not write something that is lie or exra-exaggerated. To be honest ı do not know about Churchill as Atatürk. Sure, i made some research and reading, but not as much as Atatürk, so pardon me.(but more than any other simple folk ı dare say) But ı am no history professor, and this article is not gonna be published in some high level historical magazine next to Bernard Lewis or Fernand Braudel etc…What ı am gonna write can sound like propaganda(lot of people said to me that in comments etc), but ı do not get it why they say that. I am not lying or makings these thing up in my mind. I am simply writing (maybe my way of interpreta-tion) the facts and how it went down. I do not think it does not make that much of a great difference. Because as long as ı stick to the facts, how far can ı go and make a fictional history? İn this article ı will compare two great leaders interms of tactical, efficiency, forward-thinking, charisma, social life, political attitude, power, courage, sacrifice, will, career, intellectual, talent, backgorund etc.So here we go!Ataturk, the revered father of modern Turkey, was the most intelligent benevolent dictator and a legendary military leader, who, despite enormous difficulties, accomplished unbelievable tasks in an incredibly short period of time (15 years)He was the only undefeated Ottoman commander in WW1, who devastated the Allies in Gallipoli,(And what a luck,it was Churchill’s idea and he lost) freed Istanbul from the invading British forces, cleaned Anatolia from the invading Greeks and won the Turkish War of Liberation. He, the first leader to attack and defeat Islamic theocracy, was a dictator, who planted the seeds of democracy, who freed the women, transformed a rotten empire into an independent republic, gave back to his nation its sovereignty, introduced his nation to science and reason and fine arts.He was a military Genius, Bold Revolutioner, A Great Statesmen, Champion of The East, Men of Science and much more. He was THE most progressive and visioner leader that world ever saw.He almost lost his left eye in Trablusgarp(Tripoli) while fighting against Italians.(1912)He was with his soldiers in trenches at Gallipoli, where a little shrapnel destroyed a watch which was in his chest pocket and shredded it into pieces.(1915)He managed to defeat Russians in Caucasus and Eastern Anatolia Front and recapture 2 Ottoman citys named Muş and Bitlis, which was Ottoman Army’s only proper victory in that Front(1916) until Russian Empire fall apart from inside thanks to Bolshevik Revolution and as a result they pull back their Army in that Region. (1918)Then fought in Arabian deserts and managed to stop the British forces near Aleppo, Syria. While bloody Germans pick up their things and went back to Germany and Enver Pasha send him there, although he knew there were no bloody ‘Army’ left in that Front that can be called or described as an ‘Ottoman Force.’(1918)An than he went back to İstanbul and after that started the ‘War of İndependence’ which took place between 1919–1923.Which he devilishly separate the the Allies and and deal with them one by one. He, with utmost perfection applied ‘split and destroy’ policy during National Struggle years.Following years, he spend his all energy and everything he got to make The New Turkey as an peaceful, secular, democratic, scientific, independent, sovereign, wealthy, industrialist nation…(You can see his left eye on this picture and in others, is little bit squint. Thanks to his injury which he took in Libya.)Now, let’s look at Churchill.Churchill saved England and has played considerable role when it comes to ‘Liberating Europe’. Lot of people gonna say “Noo! He defeated Axis forces and Nazis all by himself and save the World!.” But i think, this statement is bit too much. But we all know it was Russians and Americans, Brits did not participate as much as any of these armys, and it terms of naval force, not so much as American’s. British military loses in WW1 were even higher than WW2.But also he help Yankees to engage in a war and prepared an alliance and managed to keep the Nazis out of his mainland thanks to his insidious intelligence and British Naval and Air Forces. He also smartly maneuver his way through victory, and support-assist Charles de Gaulle’s vision of liberating France and some other political agendas…He was not a revulotioner, visioner or reformer, did not face civil war or revolts, (in his country)neither shortage of provisions(not as musch as Turk or Russian states let’s say) nor encounter political clash like Mustapha Kemal Atatürk. (Kemal had to fight agains his own Sultan and Ottoman goverment at the same time.) Sir Winston did not transformed a rotten Empire into secular Republic, he did not face great obstacles, he had the power of greatest imperialist military-naval and industrial force on earth and after some point mighty USA industry and army-navy in his aid.His father was a Lord. Also until World War 2 he was not a succesful officer or potician either. He has lost the Gallipoli, and once captured in Anglo-Boer war. Of course that does not necessarily reduce his skills. He was a racist and dedicated imperialist and somewhat responsible for at least few? innocent İndian, Afgan and African deaths. In the West, Churchill is a freedom fighter, the man who grimly withstood Nazism and helped save western democracy. It's a civilizational legacy that has been polished and placed on a mantle for decades. But there's another side to Churchill's politics and career that should not be forgotten amid the endless parade of eulogies. To many outside the West, he remains a grotesque racist and a stubborn imperialist, forever on the wrong side of history. "I hate Indians," he once trumpeted. "They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."He referred to Palestinians as "barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung." When quashing insurgents in Sudan in the earlier days of his imperial career, Churchill boasted of killing three "savages." Contemplating restive populations in northwest Asia, he infamously lamented the "squeamishness" of his colleagues, who were not in "favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes." He ordered the bombing of Dresden, set the troops onto the miners of South Wales, and opposed Gandhi's non violent campaign for independence.He also was a very(in terms of literature) intellectual man and write dozens of books and win the Nobel price. But i think that was something more of a potitical issue, not trully literary. Just like today. (Exept science awards, rest of the Nobel award are little bit out of equitability)-Atatürk was also nominated for Nobel peace prize in 1938 by his former enemy(Greek priminister) but ı do not think it is really important.And ı wanna make one impartant point too, when Kemal achieved all of his major goals and accomplishments he was between 30–45 and obviously, and he did not have as much as experience in politics or about how to make a revolution in general.Churchill was about 65 years old allready when he was priminister. And only after that he was ragarded as a historical figure. I am not saying he did not achieve anything until he was 65 years old ofcourse, what ı am saying is, he had a lot of time and experience(and fails to think it over) in his life and did not encounter with any truly challenging incidents until that point. And if it was not for WW2, he was propaply gonna be some casual politician and a retired naval officer. (Well, same goes for Kemal actually, if it was not for WW1 he was not gonna be famous.)Kemal was young, much poor, propaply less educated(i mean he was not well raised or rich or had library in his mansion or lived in well sophisticated environment such as England with the best universitys the world) and inexperienced and much more alone (his general did not support his reforms or entirely agreed on his campaigns and even make things hard for him at his every attempt and he had to fight agains his own goverment, had to convince his long suffering nation for one last war and upcoming reforms) in his triumph.Churchill never actually fight or charge into a trench with his revolver or take a hit. Kemal was much more brave as a soldier. (Of course Churchill was Naval officer but still…)Kemal find and create a 2 new military strategy and successfully performed them during Sakarya war and later on in Great Offense. They are his own gift to the ‘Art of War’.During Sakarya he performed a military tactic that sets forth and is the basis of modern defense strategies. Refusing to defend in a line on the name of the regional defensive warfare. This stategy is the essence of the asymmetrical war. By his statement: "There is no line defence, there is only zone defense. this zone is the whole homeland. Unless every single piece of the homeland is flooded with its citizen's blood, it cannot be abandoned to the enemy. Therefore, either small or big, every unit can be driven from its position. However, either small or big, every unit starts fighting again with the enemy at the first location it could stop. Any unit should not withdraw even if the friendly units are doing so. They have to insist and resist at their position until their end." This was improved and applied in a bigger scale with more mobilized unis by Marshall Zhukov in battles of Kursk and Stalingrand. Mustafa Kemal was a cadet in one of the best military academies of the world. Even though this type of warfare was not taught to him.(Nor to any other other european continental military officers.) Later on he eliminated the very logic of the front war by virtue of his military genius. İn a front battle, a broken line is a disaster and and according to this military doctrine when that happens, whole front should retreat in proportion to it's length until the gab is seized before the enemy circles your units. The troops of Kemâl however did not do so. During Sakarya war which took 22 day and night, (it was the longest military pitched battle in history) every time when the line was broken, a fragment(units) of the very broken line was ordered to retreated slightly, gather their strength and then counterattack as quick as possible, as a results the Greeks broke the Turkish lines dozens of times but never managed to force them to retreat properly. Greek commanders waited for days for their dispatch riders to bring the news of withdrawing Turkish armys, but they never get that. Because in their mind, which was filled with current military doctrine(just like rest of the world and including Tukısh commanders) they thought that Turks 'must' retreat back to Ankara which means almost another 100 km to the east... But Turks never retreated except for about 100-500 meters and constatly keep coming back. Greeks captured almost all the hills, roads and villages but never managed to force the Turkısh army to disperse. This tactic is was a slap in the Prussian Army and Clausewitz doctrines that were dominating in Europe until that time, because it's success, it cause reinterpretation of current front battle tactics.His unnamed ‘Blitzkrieg’ tactic in Great Offense: Battles of the World War I were locked on trenches. The concept of war needed some improvements for tactics and technologies. The Germans accomplished this with Blitzkrieg. But approximately twenty years ago from the German, the Turks had already passed the trenches at the Great Offensive during the National Struggle. This was the evolution of Turkish strategic attack thought and had been shown in the operation plans of Sarıkamış and the Great Offensive. The Sarıkamış operation plan was successful without victory whereas the Great Offensive was victorious. By assessing the strategic end with success of the assault in West Anatolia and its similarities with the Blitzkrieg, it can be said that the Great Offensive had created the basis of the Blitzkrieg. The difference between the Blitzkrieg and the Great Offensive is that tanks, aircrafts and paratroopers which were gained in battlefields by technologic developments, can be used vast fields and compose more then one centre of gravity. In the essence of both is that a movable military unit, which can circuit behind the enemy lines, destroy the enemy initially by creating the second virtual front in the enemy lines between the front and back line and then by cutting the supply and run way of main forces of enemy. The Blitzkrieg tactic is to prevent the enemy from setting up a regular defense by swift, sudden and maneuvering attacks. Atatürk carefully studied the strategy which he saw it from British forces (but they never managed to make a tangible doctrine out of it) that was applied againts the Ottoman forces in Syria and improve and used this in the Great Offensive which constitutes the most important part of the War of Independence. The Blitzkrieg attack of Ataturk in Great Offense was transformed by him. But his Blitzkrief had few differences due tohis current logistic and technology dissimilaritys. Such as:a)Blitzkrieg tactics and sudden maneuvering attacks are carried out by firearms such as tanks and vehicles with machine guns. But Atatürk sudden and maneuver attacks with cavalry forces. For this reason, the Great Offence was the last pitched battle won by the cavalry.b)The main goal in Blitzkrieg tactics is to destroy the enemy with a quick attack without letting them build a defence. But when Atatürk used the Blitzkrieg against the Greek Army in Great Offense, his main aim was NOT(he did not have enough men) to swallow the Greek Army, instead forcing them to retreat all the way back to İzmir and then slowly and piece by piece eat them alive while they are trying to escape. For this reason, Atatürk leave enemy's northern flank open in order to let the Greek Army escape from that direction instead of encircle them entirely. And indeed he was successful. In the 330 square kilometers area, Atatürk managed to disperse 200,000 of Greek soldiers and melted them slowly...About 20 years later Germans improved this tactic and you know what hapenned until it has become unsustainable after some point. Just like Kemal’s foresight, it required continuous breakthrough, when the element of surpise was lost and generate too much length for replenishment and also with the absence of (also in this case absence of weapon or any military industry because he had no factory for producing gun or aminition, istead few thousand well skilled workers who managed to make all the war provisions as a result of their handiwork) practicable geography this doctrine was becoming inefficient.İnterms of Turkish military history he had 3 more achievements. Turkish army always had few weaknesses such as waging war at night, fighting in snowy(in winter) geography, and retreating.(last one usually causes confision and absolute dissolution for Ottoman army.)He was the only Ottoman commander that managed to conduct a proper military retreat (without complete dissolution) to Sakarya river(about 100 km) after wars of Kütahya-Eskişehir were lost to the Greeks.He defeated the Russians in winter which was something unaccomplished by the Turkısh army over almost 250 years of constant war with the Russians. Enver Pasha tried to that in Sarıkamış 1 years before Mustapha Kemal, but it turned up to be a disaster. Enver was even warned by his teacher that it was an impossible idea to obtain since the war on snow(in winter) was Russian Army’s speciality.He stopped the everlasting western retreat: The second Vienna defeat is regarded as the beginning of the decline of the Ottoman Empire against the West in the European geography. Beginning with the defeat of Vienna in 1683, the defensive period was over and after 238 years of constant retreat(eastern Europe) began. Later on, it has come to an end with victorious battle that lasted 22 days and night on the Sakarya front, in the Minor Asia in September 1921, with this battle the very first time Turks were able re-attacking and managed to gain some of thier land back again.As long as ı know and read and research W.Chuchill has no tactical or strategic innovation in ‘Art of War’.Two leader around the same age.(40–45)Atatürk born as a simple poor Ottoman peasant and climb his bloody way up to the being a almost God. He had nothing and he came from nothing. Her mother wanted to make him an imam and achieve a religious education or work in the fields just like any common peasant boy. İnstead he, with his own mind choose the army and secretly enter an exam for the military and passed it.Later on participate minor succesfull roles in Syria, Trablusgarp, 2.Balkan War and major roles in Gallipoli, Eastern Anatolian and Southern Campaigns of the Great War. Achieved first proper victory agains İmperialist and led the War of İndependence. He was always successful and famous soldier starting from day one.Therewithal, perform a victorious revulotion. Which he, very first time in Muslim history, managed to build a Secular state. Create an compulsory, secular and free education, gave equal rights to womens etc.He was not a racist, of course as a Turkısh nationalist i do not think he was fond of Arabs or Ermanians or other İmperialists either. Nor he was an imperialist, ı mean he was an Ottoman officer, which was an Empire, which makes him İmperialist ultimately, but bare with me. I meant he did not partake in mass murder or conduct duties agains basic military dignity. For example he was fighting in Gallipoli during Armenian deportation in 1915 and he also was not responsible for mass relocation of Greeks after the war besause it was an official request from the very same Greek goverment that he just beated. And above all he was, in his mind and heart was not a imperialist. Even as an young officer, he suggest the dissociation of Ottoman lands from other non-Turkısh lands such as Arabia, southern parts of Mesopotamia which does not even contain little bit Turkısh minority. (Exept government officials) And some other parts of Balkanian territories that does not include ostensible Turkısh populace. But ı do not think he does not mean to discard every city or land that has less Turkısh population that other non-Turkısh ones. Because in that case Selanik, İzmir and even İstanbul should change hands. (Becasuse in those citys Turkısh-muslim populace is just about half or much less than others or barely significant) But i think he means in general. Because he thinks that non-Turkısh müslim people are almost totally burden, disloyal to Chaliph and Sultan and he also thinks that eventually they will want and gain their freedoom just like their western Ottoman subjecst. He also has same ideas on non-müslim folks too, since they are trying to gain their freedom for the last century and revolting-fighting constatly agains Ottoman rule. And deep down he had NO sympathy for the Monarchs or the Caliphate. Specially after gaining power he never try to encourage any military operation or seek to obtain any pre-Ottoman region agains any of it’s neighbors. But he was not some affective and docile statesmen either.(For example, annexation of Hatay)I am not saying Churhill was a small or unimportant guy, ı am just saying he was much more well raised, he had more opportunities. Whole İmperial Force of Brtain was with him, his nation was with him to the end. And he had enormous allys.At the other hand, Sultan and Goverment of İstanbul at some point put a death penalty on Kemal’s head and send little troops called Kuvayi İnzibatiye(Caliphate Army), at some point he resigned from the Army which he served for almost 20 years as a undefeated soldier. He had nothing exept his reputation, he had little men around him. He was broke and even had to buy a suit with some borrowed money. (Since he never wear any civil clothes as an Ottoman soldier and just had one or two uniforms) At some point even his people were against him and think he was a Kafir(irreligious) and rebel. Piece by piece he gather up the all militia groups and remaining forces of Ottoman Army and try to build a regular Army. (And get some economic support from İndians and USSR) He managed to organize a separate assembly in godforsaken Bozkır(Steps) in Middle Anatolia, which is a little town called Ankara. Then he managed to repel the bloody enemies that surrounded his country, after that the Sultan and the Caliph.Once he was able to reconquer the territory an even more important task needed to be taken care of: transform the country from its perception of being a Muslim part of the Empire into a modern, secular, democratic, nation State.For that he abolished the Caliphate, changed the alphabet from arabic to latin, gave equal rights to all citizens and voting rights to women (prior to France and many other countries), established a Civil code, an university, prom, opera, fine arts schools, dozens of factorys, few Turkish Banks, and most importantly he was intent to make Turkey an independent country culturally, militarily, economically, financially, juridically.But also, on can say Atatürk was a better leader all told but his decisions weren't as important as Churchill's in determining the course of world history.Possibly the most notable thing about him is that despite numerous attempts to replicate his achievements by various leaders throughout the Islamic world, not one was able to do what he did despite not one having to face as much adversity as he did. There have been very few leaders in the world of Atatürk’s calibre.İ some cases further and in some incidents he was less succesfull, in some way he was equal to Napolyon, Great Petro, Fatih Sultan Mehmet, Emir Timur, Abraham Lincoln, Ceaser, Great Alexander, Washington…I mean he did not create an new vast Empire like Chengiz or Timur or Napolyon or Great Alexanders. Or partake in new conquest and expand like he Ceasear or Petro. Yes, in general he did not affect europe or world history like other great people. But he was very important for Turks, Balkans, subdued folks and nations of Asia and Middle-east and specially for Müslim world.Also…Cenghiz’s, Timur’s States were short lived and had no sustainability and just like they rise, they fall and bring more of a chaos and disorder.Alexanders was also Macedonian, and tried to mixed east and westerns cultures and create an binary world for his Empire. But he was short lived and this concept was not understood by his generals or his people. And above all those two cultures were opposite of each other and this did not go well in some aspects. Atatürk however, like Alexander, tried to achieve cultural transformation but unlike Alexander he realize mixing two seperate and counter cultures together was an absurd, at some point will be useless to acquire. Seeing and experiencing mixed and chaotic rule of Ottomans, also trying to adopt the western way of life, industry, art form but at the same time being stubborn about keeping almost all kinds of eastern values and causing two headed administration in about every aspect of Ottoman rule. Such as economy, jurisdiction, clothing, education etc. So he decicated to erase the eastern culture and as musch as he can as a result of seeing two constatly fighting concept will never form a unified way of anything what so ever. (You can not be jihadist, bigoted, tyrann and also be democrat, liberal, secular at the some time.) Maybe on the way of gaining power to enforce these things,(ı am talking about western values)but not as a result. (Like Great Petro)Great Petro westernized the army, administarion, encourage fine arts, take away ther power of Orthodoks Church. Change the calender, change the clothing etc, and eventually cleared the way for upcoming rising of Russian state. Atatürk was like him in many ways too… Petro was succesfull and his state was sustainable and solid, thus the Russia was liberated from it’s Asian origins.(İn some cases at least.)Napolyon become a Emperor and throw every idea that France revolution stood for and become revolutioner dictator and start launching endless campaigns for his exaggerated ideas and finally after a quick rise, a much more quick demise pursuited him. He has gone too far and lose his Empire to General Ktuzov and Marshall Winter. Of course he was a military genius and perform lot of reforms and encourage industry, science and fine arts and create and launch the very way of French culture and literacy and make French language a universal one and above all Lingua franca. Napolyon didn’t spread the streams of nationalism and liberty conscioulsy but his timing was very important, After Napolyon neither returning to monarchy nor spreading of republics was possible. There was a European harmony for a while but later chaos began again. And he died alone in St Helena.Ceaser expanded the Roman Empire and make lot of reforms in terms of administration and economy, jurisdiction, he was also a very intellectual man, but at the and he was also become a life-long dictator and put an end to Roman Republic just to satisfy his ambitions. As you all know he was back stabbed and die without seeing the fruit of his rise. Some of his reforms were immediately reversed. He was also impressed by Alexander and tried to follow his steps but gone too far and even realize the very opposition under his nose.(or take it seriously) He was a son of very nobel family that was even said linked with Greek gods. The Julian family believed to be descended from Aeneas, the prince of Troy, and believed that his mother was Venus. He was well raised and did not really face poverty, he did not face any enemy equal to his well organized Roman legiones and fight agains kingdoms and barbaric tribes. He was a commander of a rising state, not the falling one…Fatih was also interesting, he encoureage fine arts and science and like Timur, Alexander, Napolyon where ever he conquered he gathered up scholars, writers, scientists and send them to İstanbul and show them deep respect. He perform reforms in many areas, amy, administration, art etc. He wanted to conquere Rome and unity and revive the Roman Empire but alas… After his death, his son did not even understood his reforms and reversed some of them. And shortly after Ottoman expand was languished and until today he remains to be greatest Sultan of the Ottoman dynasty and one of the greatest Türks ever. But he was also son of a Sultan and had a very good education and he was left with a well armed and organized state with no life threatening neighboors. He was a commander of a rising state, not the falling one…I am not gonna even talk about Hitler,Mussolini,Lenin, Stalin or Cheguevera…Now, back to our actuall comparison…There you go, two good looking gentlemen…(And also seeeing and looking and listening dozen of footage, photograph, records, ı can say that Kemal was more charismatic, handsome, well dressed and impressive, thus comes his flirting skills with women. But except in a personal level that does not really something of a game changing aspect.)Britain was not even properly invaded for fuck sake! Turkey was invaded from North-East by Armenians, West from Greeks, South from France,and it’s Capital by Allied Forces. And many harbour and middle Anatolian cities were also invaded by Allies.(Like Antalya,Samsun,Konya,Bursa,Hatay)İn his military life he fought against Brits, Frenchs, Russians, İtaliens, chase the damn committees in Makedonia, deal with the Armenian and Arabian rebels and traitors and much more…And above all he did all of the thing i wrote at the beginning of my article.The most impressive part is how solid Ataturk’s state was. In the last century, almost every state changed it’s form completely falling to some sort of revolution or war, especially amongst states that were newly formed in the wake of the World Wars, yet Ataturk’s Turkish state remains with us today.Atatürk was just in my view THE MOST efficient man among them.No fucking delusions, no extrem ideas(except making a secular, modern nation out of medieval-islamic state and confronting against Empires of Britain, France, Russia and few more nations.), no imaginary campaigns, no romanticism, he was rock solid. Never fought more than he has to, never gone too far and start becoming just a common Tyrant, no ideologicial obsession (he had general point of destination and a clear frame but no dogma), never ask or fight for thing he can not achieve in his life time. He did not gain some lands or invade anywhere just lo lose it like Napolion. He did not tried to create a mixed culture like Alexander. Did not die in a fight, or on some deserted island or stabbed or let his country into some chaos like Hitler, Mussolini. He did not go down the road of Communism or Fascism or chase the phantom ideal of Turan. He was nationalist but no rasist. He create a social goverment and get some support from USSR in early years of Republic, but he was never a socialist. He was fond of democracy and parliamentarism(due to his education and world view) but not a soft hearted naive liberal either. Propaply an atheist, but never interfere with his people’s way of worshiping as long as they do not interfere with his reforms and remain individual or supressed religion and started destroying holly places like Communists. He was a great soldier,(both strategic and tactical) but never seek war unless it is inevitable. Basically never do or want something that he could not achieve and see though the end of it.İn a job that had to be done, no one did as well as Atatürk!İf Churchill was in his shoes with the same historical and compelling circumstances and same amount of small(or shortage of) resources and beggarly opportunities that Kemal was surrounded or encountered back in 1910s and 1920s, WC would propaply lose. But what if MKA was in his shoes later in 1940? Well it is up to you…And even with all that being said, look at the things he had accomplished. Anyone studying his life can see clearly how extraordinary he was. He was a man of firm principles and incorruptible moral fibre with godlike will power in an era of stubborn İmperialists, bullies and national-chauvinist brutes and shameless warmongers.The Turks almost worship him, the question should not be why do Turks worship Ataturk, but how is this remarkable man not more well known throughout the world.Personally i like them both, but we are living in English speaking, Anglo-Sakson world, and history basicly is much more written by western point of view, so they can easily create or polish an image and sell it trough out the world by movies, films and documentarys. (because visual arts is something of a western mind.) I think Churchill is overrated because he is a figure of current hegemonic Western world. (British, Anglo-Sakson, Western, European, Modern, Civil, Industrial, English speaking culture-nation.) And Atatürk is underrated becasue he is a figure (comes from even thou he was going to change that eventually) of an old, collapsed, dispersed and excluded era and culture.(Medieval, Religious, Türkish, Müslim, Authoritarian, Agricultural etc.)I am not some liberal soft-hearted who tries to find an absurd comparison or ground argument like ‘White Supremacy’ or ‘Male-dominated society’ but still i think what ı say is considerable.“More than anything, he is a founder, the greatest nation-builder of modern times.” Andrew Mango“Centuries are rarely raise as a genius. Look at our unfortunate situation that the 20th century's genius has been granted to Turks and fate has made him our antagonist.” David Llyod George“Mustapha Kemal Atatürk was undoubtedly one of the greatest statesmen who grew up before the World War in the 20th century, a courageous and great revolutionary who had not been granted any other nation.” David Ben Gurion,Prime Minister of Israel, 1963“He is a great man, not only for Turkey, but a great leader for all eastern nations.” Emanullah Khan, King of Afghanistan"I have already made private and official speeches with up to 15 rulers and presidents. I do not remember being crushed like this until this very night. Gazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha has an incredible willpower." British General Sir Charles Townshand“My sadness is that there is no longer a possibility for the violent desire to meet this man. When i was discussing with Litvinov, the Foreign Minister of Soviet Russia, I asked him, in his opinion, who was the most precious and most remarkable state man in all of Europe. He told me that the President of Turkey Mustafa Kemal was Europe's most valuable statesman .” Franklin Roosevelt“Atatürk is: An outstanding person who devoted himself for the development of international understanding cooperation and peace a revolutionist who realized extraordinary reforms the first Leader who fought against imperialism and colonialism. A unique Statesman respectful to human rights pioneer of worldwide peace who never discriminated people according to their color religion or race through out his life founder of Turkish Republic.” UNESCO’s definition of him. (United Nations Educational Scientific and Culture Organizations)Last but not least:In 2002, when Arnold Ludwig, a professor of psychiatry, released his book, King of the Mountain (an 18 year long study), examining the nature of political leadership, he compared and ranked all known national leaders of the 20th century. And guest was the winner? İt is the only book that managed to create tangible-scientific score table when it comes to ranking leaders.(At least ı ever encounter) So read that…Now some quotations:“It is, thank heaven, difficult if not impossible for the modern European to fully appreciate the force which fanaticism exercises among an ignorant, warlike and Oriental population. Several generations have elapsed since the nations of the West have drawn the sword in religious controversy, and the evil memories of the gloomy past have soon faded in the strong, clear light of Rationalism and human sympathy. Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men's passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness. In a moment the fruits of patient toil, the prospects of material prosperity, the fear of death itself, are flung aside. The more emotional Pathans are powerless to resist. All rational considerations are forgotten. Seizing their weapons, they become Ghazis—as dangerous and as sensible as mad dogs: fit only to be treated as such. While the more generous spirits among the tribesmen become convulsed in an ecstasy of religious bloodthirstiness, poorer and more material souls derive additional impulses from the influence of others, the hopes of plunder and the joy of fighting. Thus whole nations are roused to arms. Thus the Turks repel their enemies, the Arabs of the Soudan break the British squares, and the rising on the Indian frontier spreads far and wide. In each case civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed.” WCThe Story of the Malakand Field Force: An Episode of Frontier War (1898), Chapter III.“I pass with relief from the tossing sea of Cause and Theory to the firm ground of Result and Fact.” WCThe Story of the Malakand Field Force: An Episode of Frontier War (1898), Chapter III.————————————Winston Churchill———————————————-“I do not leave any verses, dogmas, nor any moulded standard principles as moral heritage. My moral heritage is science and reason. What I have done and intended to do for the Turkish nation lies in that. Anyone willing to appropriate my ideas for themselves after me will be my moral inheritors provided they would approve the guidance of science and reason on this axis.” MKAAs quoted in Kemalist Devrim ve İdeolojisi (1980) by İsmet Giritli, İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, p. 13“For nearly five hundred years, these rules and theories of an Arab Shaikh and the interpretations of generations of lazy and good-for-nothing priests have decided the civil and criminal law of Turkey. They have decided the form of the Constitution, the details of the lives of each Turk, his food, his hours of rising and sleeping the shape of his clothes, the routine of the midwife who produced his children, what he learned in his schools, his customs, his thoughts-even his most intimate habits. Islam – this theology of an immoral Arab – is a dead thing. Possibly it might have suited tribes in the desert. It is no good for modern, progressive state. God’s revelation! There is no God! These are only the chains by which the priests and bad rulers bound the people down. A ruler who needs religion is a weakling. No weaklings should rule.” MKAAs quoted in Grey Wolf: Mustafa Kemal – An intimate study of a dictator (1932) by Harold Courtenay Armstrong, pp. 199-200“Science is the most real guide for civilisation, for life, for success in the world. To search for a guide other than science is absurdity, ignorance and heresy.” MKAAs quoted in Atatürkçülük, Volume I, General Staff of the Republic of Turkey, Millî Eğitim Basımevi, 1984, p. 283———————————-Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.——————————————

Uh, this question. The struggle is real and will definitely keep your stress level up and steal your sleep.I’ve been known to be thorough, so before we dive into the “solutions”, let’s look at the “problems”. All of this information is the product of a year and a half of research (7 months while being a student, the rest while I was still in my country), so many closed doors that I’m surprised my nose is not broken, 21 meetings with so many members of my faculty that I lost count and hundreds of emails that lead to nowhere:Your country of origin: This was my first obstacle to getting my education. If you come from a country with a significantly smaller economy than the US (probably 95% of countries in the world), you will be unable to request loans in your own nation that could cover the sum of money that the US (Ivy leagues in particular) charge for tuition. Just to put things into perspective. The costs of my tuition for a year at Yale are 10 times higher than the costs of my yearly tuition for undergrad in Chile. To be able to finance my education that way, I would have had to request for a mortgage (that of course they denied. I didn’t have a cosigner, I had a job that paid 4 dollars an hour, was going to stop working soon, and I was leaving the country. I was the definition of a financial liability). The few scholarships that my country gave weren’t an option for me either since my 3-year program made me ineligible for all of them (You could only apply for masters that lasted a maximum of 2 years from beginning to end).Costs of paperwork: Applying to a university in the US requires a pile of paperwork and standardized tests that cost a lot (a looot) of money, especially since I was coming from a country with a different native language. Two months worth of salaries working as a midwife to be exact. So I had to kiss most of my savings goodbye just to be considered (I risk I decided to take. I’m fully aware that I brought this to myself. No one forced me)Limited support from your University: If you’re an undergrad at Yale, you have access to many more funds than if you’re a grad student. I’m a grad student at one of the professional schools, and all professional schools are self-sustained, meaning that they don’t have full access to donations made to Yale University. The school does receive some donations since it’s small, but never as much as Yale University. Just to put this into perspective: The last Annual Report of Giving to Yale 2017–2018 listed 592.5 million dollars received between July, 2017 and June 2018, just in gifts and pledge payments, and 1.3 billion dollars in endowments.Lack of awareness of the reality of students in your situation: I’m also studying at a school that is not very familiar with low-income students, especially international ones. Faculty and staff are unprepared to deal with you (I once had to explain to a member of my school why getting a car was financially impossible for me. She answered by telling me that 2K couldn’t be that big of a deal and that my financial problems couldn’t be that bad if I still had good grades). They will also make you buy things without giving much thought to how that could be incompatible with your finances (like buying books and programs that cost 120 dollars, that you cannot just borrow because they come with quizzes that are a part of your final grade, or demanding you get a car, or increasing your costs of tuition without really thinking that someone wouldn’t be able to afford it or ask for more loans to pay for it).Limited support from your family: My immediate family is in no way considered poor in Chile (where they still live. I came to the US by myself). My extended family is poor, my parents are working class making a great salary for Chilean standards, but not for US standards (we wouldn't even be working class in the US). He already helps our families in Chile, and he does his best to help me in any way he can, but any support that comes from him (when I’m choking and absolutely need to accept it. My family always needs it more) is very limited. In fact, once my costs of tuition increased, the only option we had for months was to sell our family home (Something I was never going to let them do, and something they fought me relentlessly to be able to do. Luckily, it never came to that). Mostly, I keep them in the dark about most of it unless I have found a way to solve my problems. The guilt they feel, and their desire to support me means that they wouldn’t think twice before cutting their own expenses to give me some money, and as I said, their needs come first. I got into this problem all by myself.Lack of access to other forms of financial assistance: An an international student on an F1 visa, I don’t have access to federal loans and other scholarships since those are only open to nationals and/or residents. You can’t really work much either. My program discourages their students to work during the first year since the hours are not flexible and we had classes and clinical rotations 6 days a week. But even if you do, you can only be employed by the University, and can only work a maximum of 18 hours per week (restrictions that come attached to your visa status). You also don’t have the resume to apply to several types of jobs. Research positions (that were somehow more flexible) asked for published work in english (That I didn’t have since my thesis was written in Spanish), or an example of academic writing that I didn’t have either (It was also written in Spanish).Limited access to anything that requires a Social Security number, or a credit score: If you had no idea what credit score was, welcome to the club. I still don’t really know what that means. I was told I needed to start building one soon, and that I could do that with a credit card, but as an international student, you can’t apply to credit cards. Anything from a regular phone plan, to leasing a car or renting an apartment will also ask for a credit score and an SS number. So your options are drastically reduced.Now that you understand where I’m coming from, let’s go to the solutions:Special loans: Yale has a special loan for international students that require no cosigner and no credit score. They come with a hefty interest rate and a limitation to the maximum amount of money you can request. In my case, my loans covered the full cost of my tuition for the first year and about 65% of my tuition for the second and third year. That’s the only reason why I was able to study here.Scholarships: I have two scholarships that cover a part of my living expenses. These scholarships didn’t come easy. I was offered very little financial assistance once I was accepted. I had to send several emails a day to several people at Yale for about two weeks after getting my acceptance letter to finally get them. That’s the money that keeps a roof over my head, food on my table at least once a day, and the bills paid.Affordable housing: International students don’t have an option to rent from anyone. A credit score is a requirement I didn’t have, and New Haven, in particular, takes full advantage of the fact that they have a steady number of rotating people coming in and out in desperate need of housing, increasing their costs almost to NYC prices (Something I took into consideration before applying to a school. Believe it or not, New Haven had the lowest living expenses of all my options). That’s when off-campus housing came in. My university (like many others) has an association with many real state companies that will rent to students and scholars. The rates are not generally as convenient, but I was lucky to find a very small apartment that was “relatively” affordable. I will have to move soon since my building was sold and the new company will charge 230 USD more once my lease ends. But once you have rented at least once before, renting from other companies becomes a little (a tiny bit) easier.Affordable (or free) food and groceries: Cutting costs wherever you can is a creative process that helps a little. A lot of universities (unlike Yale) provide some form of “food scholarships” if you ask for them. In my case, I was given some free meals after asking for financial support for 7 months and for leftovers from the office that manages all diners at Yale (they denied my request). But you can find free food. I go to as many events as I can that offer meals for free (I’ve eaten so much pizza, cocktail sandwiches, and cookies this year. I also carry a Ziploc bag with me and take as many leftovers as they allow me to take. I once made it home with a whole catering tray and ate for 6 days). My classmates have also helped. They have given me a little of everything, from over-the-counter meds they didn’t use, to rolls of toilet paper, to perishable food that they wouldn’t be able to eat before leaving for spring break. One classmate has also taken me out to dinner once or twice.Donations, coupons and fast sales: I moved to a city with a different climate. I was used to rain and some chilly days, but never to freezing temperatures and snow. So I had to be smart. Buying a warm jacket for snow took two months of research (but I found one for 39 dollars. It’s original price was 220 USD), buying snowboots took 3 months of research (60 dollars for two pairs of LL Beam duck boots). I also walk a lot to buy groceries because I know exactly what stores have sales on things I buy regularly like coffee and shampoo. I carry two travel mugs with me at all times so I don’t have to buy a cup of coffee on the go. Two coats currently hanging in my wardrobe were donated second-hand by people. My microwave and toaster oven was a lucky find a week ago that someone threw away. I also ask to accompany classmates to bigger grocery stores where I know things are cheaper.Limiting/cutting expenses: I spent 2 months eating one meal a day to save money to cover costs I could not have been able to afford otherwise. I found ways to use the utilities included in my rent (for example, cooking gas is covered, electricity isn’t, so I rarely use a microwave now that I have one. I have spent months living without one, and only use pots and a stovetop espresso maker to heat food, milk and make coffee) I’m transparent whenever a classmate asks me to go out because those costs are luxuries I cannot afford (a few times people just ask me to come and invite me). I don’t buy anything I don’t absolutely need, and I have only indulged in restaurant food once or twice a month and only whenever they lower their prices (I’m certain I know almost all restaurants that put some type of special pricing, like lunch specials, and always get two, or ever three meals out of a single dish)Meetings, meetings and more meetings: Yale prides on their support to diversity and inclusion. Unfortunately, they do not put their money where their mouth is when it comes to grad students. I have had 21 meetings with members of my faculty to talk about my situation and look for help, mostly because everyone was sorry for me, but no one had a solution. So I was sent to one person that sent me to another, and another, and so on. I wonder if they were waiting for me to give up, but whenever need calls, giving up is not really an option. You do what you have to, and that’s exactly what I did. Nothing came out of it (yet), but making faculty aware of my situation helped to make them somehow aware (and gave me some questionable reputation I’m hoping won’t be used against me). Today, the most pressing financial issues are relatively solved (due to point 8), but I have not stopped. My 22nd meeting is just around the corner, since I stopped advocating for myself a long time ago, and began advocating for students in my position, just to see how far I could go. Giving meaning to this struggle is the one thing I have left to make this worth it, and if anything I do can somehow prevent another student from going through something similar, then all this will be worth it, even if it’s too late for me.Crowdfunding and building community: This was my life-saver. The first crowdfunding campaign I ever organized happened before I came here, when I was trying to show proof of finance to get my visa (a requirement. You need to match the sum of money given in your award letter once you’re accepted to get an F1 visa to the US). I got 10% of my goal (Thanks to so many Quorans, including Jonathan Brill, Tatiana Estévez, Stephanie V, Andrew Weill, Eivind and David S. Rose who gave made the biggest donations, matching the exact amount I was unable to cover in my award letter, and the money to pay for my visa application. Quorans who donated to my campaign were basically the reason I made it to the US). My second campaign was not organized by me. It was organized by Kim Scheinberg (I now call my fairy godmother) after reading one of my last answers about the Varsity bribe scandal (Camila S. Espinoza's answer to How do students at Ivy League schools feel about the Varsity Blues bribe scandal?). Many Quorans offered to donate to a campaign if I organized one in the comments. I didn’t make one, so she solved that problem for me, and helped me get 15,201 USD in donations (Also from Quorans) that covered all the extra costs of my tuition. Even GoFundMe, the company, donated 500 dollars to that campaign. Since I still have an 36K gap to cover for the next two years (18K per year), GoFundMe themselves and some Quorans have suggested I keep the campaign going and increase the goal (I’m open to opinions about it, since it feels like a massive abuse of people’s incredible generosity). They have become my very magical community of supporters after having no support, and I post regular updates on there to keep them informed of my whereabouts.This answer is long enough, so I’ll end it here. I hope it was informative. If you read through it without falling asleep, you have my eternal gratitude.