This is getting downvoted because it sounds like hyperbole, but the comparison is quite apt.

The Reichstag fire was blamed on the communists by the nazi party to brand them as traitors much like the coup is being blamed on the Gulen movement (which had a fall out with the AKP, Erdogan's ruling party). All signs point to the coup not being related to the Gulen movement at all and a lot of Erdogan's actions post-coup have been publicly justified with allegations about the Gulen movement that are obviously blatant lies.

Whether the coup itself was staged by Erdogan like the Reichstag fire was staged by the nazis is debatable. I personally think it was inevitable given the history of Turkey but it was carried out so incompetently and with little to no support from the military leadership that it's at least possible that it was intentionally made to happen the way it did (e.g. using agents provocateur to trigger the coup at a time when it was doomed to fail).

I don't think the actual soldiers who carried out the coup were knowingly working for Erdogan, them simply being "useful idiots" is far more likely. Either way, if you ask "cui bono?" all answers point to Erdogan and the AKP.

I'm very interested in the potential role of surveillance technology in a scenario like this. Based on the Snowden leaks, I am left with the impression that the concept of a staged event could be modernized to be largely hands off. The government could monitor potential actors and always be one step ahead. They could even reach potential coup collaborators before the planners and threaten/buy them, creating large holes in the effort. By being able to closely monitor as many people as need be, you could safely let a coup attempt play out while maintaining the upper hand the entire time.

It sounds like the perfect project for a intelligence team located in the president's basement tech bunker.

See http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/03/turkey-big...

Reichstag is a good example, by the way: while it was not staged by the Nazis, as has been alleged multiple times (the arsonist was a madman), they were quick to seize the opportunity.

And it is not a unique event, perhaps just the most widely known. To my mind (having grown up in the Soviet Union), immediate historical references are the murder of Kirov, the murder of Uritsky, both followed by powerful persecution of the "unwanted elements" of the society. (I am sure everyone will recall something similar, either from the history of their nation, or from a textbook or a classical reference).

Huh. It seemed hell of a (failed) coup to me. Just because outcome favored the government (Duh! This is a failed coup, what do you expect?) it does not mean they convinced soldiers to kill tens of people. Too much confirmation bias?

Interesting read on this subject:

https://goo.gl/BgC1qO