5 ms·

> Generally speaking genocides or ethnic cleaning is definitely not in Turkish culture Go visit Batak or any other site of Ottoman atrocities and then try agai

by sofixa 4y ago

> Generally speaking genocides or ethnic cleaning is definitely not in Turkish culture Go visit Batak or any other site of Ottoman atrocities and then try again. Brutal ethnic cleansing was very much an Ottoman thing throughout Ottoman history, and especially so in the last couple of centuries of decline. Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Armenians, etc. were brutally supressed and massacred many times. > well, I'm not sure about this but, If I were Ataturk, I would probably build a secular Ottoman state like Ottoman v2 Honestly, in the post-WWI landscape, who would have wanted that? Peoples wanted their own nation state, nobody was interested in living in a multi-ethnic empire where they have no voice. > they were the ones fought like a real men At Gallipoli, and fought like real... What's a stupid aggressive animal doing stupid mistakes and getting itself killed in droves? That one. The Ottoman war effort was a(n almost) total failure. The sheer incompetence of the Ottoman high command and generals is only matched by other bright minds like von Hotzendorf.

m00dy 4y ago
>> Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Armenians, etc. were brutally supressed and massacred many times. If we were that bad as you said in your comments, how would they preserve their language, religion and their identity ? I suggest you to take a deeper look at Ottoman's history and Turks. The way it works is that Ottomans used islam to convert non-muslim people.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
  The Ottoman Empire had a policy of religious tolerance, which was necessary because the ethnic Turks were a minority in the Empire and couldn't afford to cause widespread uprisings by denying people their religions, their customs, and maternal languages. It doesn't change the fact that they still sent their troops (most of them not ethnic Turks, but Arabs, or children of the occupied people stolen and raised as faithful soldiers of the Empire) to drown entire cities and regions in blood as soon as they "raised their head" and demanded their independence. For example: The Constantinople massacre of 1821 was orchestrated by the authorities of the Ottoman Empire against the Greek community of Constantinople in retaliation for the outbreak of the Greek War of Independence (1821–1830). As soon as the first news of the Greek uprising reached the Ottoman capital, there occurred mass executions, pogrom-type attacks,[1] destruction of churches, and looting of the properties of the city's Greek population.[2][3] The events culminated with the hanging of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Gregory V and the beheading of the Grand Dragoman, Konstantinos Mourouzis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_during_the_Greek_War_of_Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_during_the_Greek_War... The Chios massacre (in Greek: Η σφαγή της Χίου, Greek pronunciation: [i sfaˈʝi tis ˈçi.u]) was the killing of tens of thousands of Greeks on the island of Chios by Ottoman troops during the Greek War of Independence in 1822.[2] Greeks from neighboring islands had arrived on Chios and encouraged the Chiotes (the native inhabitants of the island) to join their revolt. In response, Ottoman troops landed on the island and killed thousands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chios_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chios_massacre The Ottomans gave incentives to their enslaved people to convert to Islam and become Ottomanised. Those were peaceful incentives. But if the people did not take the opportunity offerred to them, then their lives were worth nothing and they were only fodder for the Ottomans' blades. That is what one sees if one takes a "deeper look".
  - m00dy 4y ago
    so, do you think Ottomans should have waited and sit back ? As you said, It was not under normal conditions as Greeks tried to setup their own state. Blood was shed and they won.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
      The OP pointed out that "Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Armenians, etc. were brutally supressed and massacred many times." Your comment implied this wasn't true: "If we were that bad as you said in your comments, how would they preserve their language, religion and their identity ?" So then I pointed out that, yes, the Ottomans were "that bad" and they did routinely massacre Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Armenians, etc. What are we still disagreeing about? It's not clear to me.
      - m00dy 4y ago
        There is a slight difference between normal conditions vs war conditions. I think in war conditions, both sides take risks and eventually one of them wins. That's how it works.
        YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
        So we are in agreement that "Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Armenians, etc. were brutally supressed and massacred many times". Correct?
        m00dy 4y ago
        Not really. Under normal conditions, they were living in the empire peacefully as they were able to preserve their culture/language/identity.
        YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
        And then they were brutally massacred, correct?

by sofixa 4y ago

m00dy 4y ago

>> Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Armenians, etc. were brutally supressed and massacred many times. If we were that bad as you said in your comments, how would they preserve their language, religion and their identity ? I suggest you to take a deeper look at Ottoman's history and Turks. The way it works is that Ottomans used islam to convert non-muslim people.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
The Ottoman Empire had a policy of religious tolerance, which was necessary because the ethnic Turks were a minority in the Empire and couldn't afford to cause widespread uprisings by denying people their religions, their customs, and maternal languages. It doesn't change the fact that they still sent their troops (most of them not ethnic Turks, but Arabs, or children of the occupied people stolen and raised as faithful soldiers of the Empire) to drown entire cities and regions in blood as soon as they "raised their head" and demanded their independence. For example: The Constantinople massacre of 1821 was orchestrated by the authorities of the Ottoman Empire against the Greek community of Constantinople in retaliation for the outbreak of the Greek War of Independence (1821–1830). As soon as the first news of the Greek uprising reached the Ottoman capital, there occurred mass executions, pogrom-type attacks,[1] destruction of churches, and looting of the properties of the city's Greek population.[2][3] The events culminated with the hanging of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Gregory V and the beheading of the Grand Dragoman, Konstantinos Mourouzis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_during_the_Greek_War_of_Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_during_the_Greek_War... The Chios massacre (in Greek: Η σφαγή της Χίου, Greek pronunciation: [i sfaˈʝi tis ˈçi.u]) was the killing of tens of thousands of Greeks on the island of Chios by Ottoman troops during the Greek War of Independence in 1822.[2] Greeks from neighboring islands had arrived on Chios and encouraged the Chiotes (the native inhabitants of the island) to join their revolt. In response, Ottoman troops landed on the island and killed thousands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chios_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chios_massacre The Ottomans gave incentives to their enslaved people to convert to Islam and become Ottomanised. Those were peaceful incentives. But if the people did not take the opportunity offerred to them, then their lives were worth nothing and they were only fodder for the Ottomans' blades. That is what one sees if one takes a "deeper look".
- m00dy 4y ago
  so, do you think Ottomans should have waited and sit back ? As you said, It was not under normal conditions as Greeks tried to setup their own state. Blood was shed and they won.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
    The OP pointed out that "Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Armenians, etc. were brutally supressed and massacred many times." Your comment implied this wasn't true: "If we were that bad as you said in your comments, how would they preserve their language, religion and their identity ?" So then I pointed out that, yes, the Ottomans were "that bad" and they did routinely massacre Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Armenians, etc. What are we still disagreeing about? It's not clear to me.
    - m00dy 4y ago
      There is a slight difference between normal conditions vs war conditions. I think in war conditions, both sides take risks and eventually one of them wins. That's how it works.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
        So we are in agreement that "Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Armenians, etc. were brutally supressed and massacred many times". Correct?
        m00dy 4y ago
        Not really. Under normal conditions, they were living in the empire peacefully as they were able to preserve their culture/language/identity.
        YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
        And then they were brutally massacred, correct?