7 ms·
Sliding? More like rushing full throttle. Ataturk would be disgusted.
by gefh 10y ago
Sliding? More like rushing full throttle. Ataturk would be disgusted.
- upquark 10y agoWhat makes reddit and now HN think Ataturk was some sort of beacon of democracy? > In January 1920, Mustafa Kemal advanced his troops into Marash where the Battle of Marash ensued against the French Armenian Legion. The battle resulted in a Turkish victory alongside the massacres of 5,000–12,000 Armenians spelling the end of the remaining Armenian population in the region. He finished off the Cilician Armenians from Anatolia, whoever was left under French protection and had escaped the Genocide.
- jrez22 10y agoIt was war not genocide
- muse900 10y agoIt was a pure genocide!
- jrez22 10y agoalso THE ARMENIAN ALLEGATİONS AND FACTS
- dalys 10y agoWhich funnily enough returns this as the first result https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide_denial
- jrez22 10y ago"Say hi to Anatolia" go read it, always two sides to a story.
- hutzlibu 10y agoAh yes, like the holocaust was just war ... It seems there are sometimes slightly cruel things you just have to do, if there is a war going on ... was that your point? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
- usrusr 10y agoThe important word should be "was". If you try to remove it from the past, by arguing semantics or by any other means, you make it stick into the present. A past genocide would be much easier to live with than a permanently unsettled question of genocide or war event or war atrocity or paranoid fantasy of everybody else conspiring to sully a history they actually don't even care that much about as if they had nothing better to do. The thing is, history is full of ugly things and arguing them creates a much stronger link between the uglyness and the one arguing than ancestry could ever do.
- lightbyte 10y ago>What makes reddit and now HN think Ataturk was some sort of beacon of democracy? I haven't seen anyone say that. People are specifically saying he would be disgusted with how non secular Turkey has become since secularizing Turkey was one of his biggest things.
- xenihn 10y agoEvery culture that we have any sort of knowledge of is or was an amalgamation of other cultures that were absorbed.
- aanm1988 10y agoWhat is the point you are trying to make, wrt genocide?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- return0 10y agodemocracy and genocide are not incompatible
- Vorch 10y agoRead more on what lead to banishment of Armenians. If you attack unprotected Turkish villages with the help of foreign powers and betray your neighbours, you face the consequences, this is war. Also there was no such thing as hating Armenians til aforementioned betrayal. At the time there were even couple of high ranking statesman like Gabriel Noradunkyan from Armenians.
- shepardrtc 10y agoBanishment? You mean genocide, right?
- Vorch 10y agoTurkey lost thousands of innocent and defenseless men from Armenian attacks which makes the situation a bilateral clash. So no, I mean banishment.
- upquark 10y ago> bilateral clash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising
- enraged_camel 10y agoIt started out as exile. The Ottomans basically rounded up large numbers of Armenian civilians and forcefully marched them from Eastern Anatolia to today's Syria, in the hopes that separating them from their Turkish neighbors (with whom they were fighting violently) would put an end to what was seen as a civil distraction during war. Countless Armenians perished along the way as a result of gross incompetence and negligence on the part of the soldiers in charge. If genocide is defined as "systematic and deliberate extermination of a group of people" then it wasn't genocide, because the intention was not to exterminate, but to relocate. Turkey absolutely needs to own up to what happened and pay reparations (even though it is a different country than the Ottoman Empire under which the events occurred), but in my opinion calling it genocide is inaccurate.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- bogomipz 10y ago>"What makes reddit and now HN think Ataturk was some sort of beacon of democracy?" Because he abolished the Ottoman Sultanate that had ruled for nearly 500 years and established a secular democracy. He also gave women rights. I don't think this is a fact in any way specific to HN or Reddit but rather to history itself.
- mertd 10y agoAtatürk was not a beacon of democracy, he never pretended to be. As a military man, he did resort to heavy handed methods at times. The republic he left behind as his legacy is however one when you consider the circumstances. He created a secular, Muslim majority country that was aligned with the Western ideals and was even ahead of Europe in some aspects (women's suffrage). This is truly impressive considering no country in the region has been close to that level in the last century.
- dang 10y agoPlease don't post unsubstantive-indignant comments to HN regardless of how right you are. Such comments are reliably destructive of the quality of conversation we're hoping for. This is clearly seen below, where the thread devolves into a flamewar about genocide, but it happens pretty much every time, so we all need to learn not to post like this. If you have a substantive point to make, please make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't post until you do.