History Turkey discussion thread

Attachments

  • 1721396067758l.webp
    1721396067758l.webp
    16.4 KB · Views: 3
Constantinople (now Istanbul), is interesting for being the only major city in the world that sits on two continents: Europe and Asia. That alone makes Turkey a bit of an anomaly geographically. The city’s fall in 1453 was a turning point in history; it basically ended the Byzantine Empire and triggered a flood of Greek scholars fleeing to the West, kickstarting the Renaissance. That's what got me interested in learning about Turkey’s past.
 
Dremora said:
I don't know too much about the holodomor in particular but I looked into the circassian genocide from the Russian perspective once and found out how different the story is for them. I think most of these "genocides" are well known not because anyone genuinely cares but because they are used as political tools to destabilize nations. What they attempt to do to Russians with stuff like holodomor is the same thing they do to the Turks with the so-called Armenian genocide (fake and gay btw, might talk about it in detail later), and the same thing they do to Germany with muh holocaust.
Click to expand...
How did the Armenian genocide not happen?
 
Anon_Humor said:
How did the Armenian genocide not happen?
Click to expand...
Armenians were the most favored ethnicity in the whole of the Ottoman Empire, very similar to the Greeks. They were given the title "Millet-i Sadıka" which means loyal nation, because they did not rebel against Ottoman authority even as the Muslim Arabs rebelled. Pretty much all the evidence we have from those times points to the fact that Armenians were treated extremely well and were economically even better off than the Turkish anatolian population for centuries straight. All that was asked from them in exchange for their privileges was for them to respect the authority and stay loyal. And they did, for a time.

Then comes WW1, when the Russians were invading from the caucasus, Armenians actively cooperated with them, despite the patriarch of their own church urging them to stay loyal. Driven by ethnic hatred they started the conflict. This must be understood. Armenians rebelled against their own government; they started it.

Even so, the Ottoman government did not give any order to "exterminate" these Armenians, there is no evidence of this. It was a relocation campaign where the Armenians would be moved away from territories closer to where the fighting took place, to far away places. During this campaign of relocation, they suffered a lot. So did the Turks. Because circumstances were brutal, people were poor, and the Ottoman government didn't have enough resources to take care of all their needs. A tragedy all around for everyone really.

And then, decades later, a bunch of faggots come at us and tell us that we committed muh genocide against Armenians and that we were the bad guys all along for... responding to Armenian aggression? And keep in mind, Armenia at the time basically wanted the whole of eastern anatolia for itself. The great powers wanted to carve up Turkey among themselves.

I'm sorry, but this entire narrative is politically motivated bullshit. The Armenian genocide is fake and did not happen in the way they tell you.
 
Dremora said:
Armenians were the most favored ethnicity in the whole of the Ottoman Empire, very similar to the Greeks. They were given the title "Millet-i Sadıka" which means loyal nation, because they did not rebel against Ottoman authority even as the Muslim Arabs rebelled. Pretty much all the evidence we have from those times points to the fact that Armenians were treated extremely well and were economically even better off than the Turkish anatolian population for centuries straight. All that was asked from them in exchange for their privileges was for them to respect the authority and stay loyal. And they did, for a time.

Then comes WW1, when the Russians were invading from the caucasus, Armenians actively cooperated with them, despite the patriarch of their own church urging them to stay loyal. Driven by ethnic hatred they started the conflict. This must be understood. Armenians rebelled against their own government; they started it.

Even so, the Ottoman government did not give any order to "exterminate" these Armenians, there is no evidence of this. It was a relocation campaign where the Armenians would be moved away from territories closer to where the fighting took place, to far away places. During this campaign of relocation, they suffered a lot. So did the Turks. Because circumstances were brutal, people were poor, and the Ottoman government didn't have enough resources to take care of all their needs. A tragedy all around for everyone really.

And then, decades later, a bunch of faggots come at us and tell us that we committed muh genocide against Armenians and that we were the bad guys all along for... responding to Armenian aggression? And keep in mind, Armenia at the time basically wanted the whole of eastern anatolia for itself. The great powers wanted to carve up Turkey among themselves.

I'm sorry, but this entire narrative is politically motivated bullshit. The Armenian genocide is fake and did not happen in the way they tell you. I might talk about it more in detail in the Turkey discussion thread to avoid derailing this thread too much.
Click to expand...
So there was no genocide? Then why do a see photos of piles of dead Armenians? Are they faked?
 
Anon_Humor said:
So there was no genocide? Then why do a see photos of piles of dead Armenians? Are they faked?
Click to expand...
We never said people didn't die. We said:

1. The suffering and death was collective, not exclusive to Armenians.

2. More Turks died during the same time period than Armenians. But since Turks are an inferior race in the eyes of westoids (except Germans during ww1, I'll give them credit there. They were on our side.) I guess those deaths don't count.

3. The pre-ww1 Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire was already less than 1.5 million, which makes the "Turks genocided 1.5 million Armenians!" claim very stupid and silly. The actual losses were probably more like 400k-600k.
 
Proof that Atatürk was against the idea of a jewish state in the middle east. Today's Turkish leftists who pretend to be followers of Atatürk willingly ignore this and say "hurr durr the palestinian issue is not our business." But reality is quite different.

Atatürk's concerns about the Arabs and his words "We will fight if we have to" against the to-be-established State of Israel.

According to the document kept in the National Archives of Ankara, in file number 030 10 266 793 25, the full text of this 1937 speech made by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in the Parliament regarding the Holy Land is as follows:

“It is a great pity that the Arabs could not influence European politics, believed in this so-called word of independence, and made Arab countries captive to European imperialism for this purpose. No one knows the confusion and discontent that exists among the Arabs like we do. In fact, we stayed away from the Arabs for a few years. But now that we have enough confidence in ourselves and know our power, we will prevent the sacred places of our great religion, Islam, from falling under the influence of the Jews and Christians."

(A short note from me here, Atatürk's anti-christian rhetoric is exclusively towards the western christians who were supporting zionism. Atatürk did not take any issue with those Turkish Christians (Karamanlides, look it up) who fought on the side of the Turks during the war of independence, for example. He would only take issue with Christians who weren't loyal to the state.)

"Therefore, we would like to say that;

We will not allow these places to become the playground of European imperialism. We have been accused of being irreligious and indifferent to Islam by some people who are enemies of the Turks and the state. But despite these accusations, we are ready to shed our blood today to ensure the last wish of Muhammad, that the holy lands will always remain under Islamic rule."

"Today, by the grace of God, we are strong enough to declare that we will not allow foreign domination and prestige to be on the throne (under) the sacred lands for which our ancestors fought against the Christians under the rule of Saladin. We have no doubt that the entire Islamic world will rise up and take action when Europe takes the first step to seize these sacred places."


Yes, these are the thoughts of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the person who had the courage to close the Masonic lodges in one day and for the first time in the world, about the possible establishment of the state of Israel.

ATATÜRK FREQUENTLY EXPRESSED HIS THOUGHTS ABOUT THE STATE OF ISRAEL TO BE ESTABLISHED AS FOLLOWS IN HIS SPEECHES:

"If the State of Israel is established in Muslim lands, which will stab like a dagger into the heart of the Muslim world, we will risk war if necessary, and we will not hesitate in the slightest."

Contrast this attitude with the attitude of those who came after Atatürk, and the attitude of those who rule over Turkey today and you will see just how great a leader Atatürk was. I just wish he had lived long enough to guide Turkey through WW2.
 
Cortex said:
He would’ve sided with the Axis powers, naturally.
Click to expand...
I see this as impossible because Atatürk's Türkiye had extremely good relationship with the soviets from the beginning. He'd just go solo. Thing is, Türkiye started to lean towards being on the side of NATO after WW2 (sided with them during the korean war), I think this was due to the incompetence of turkish leaders who didn't know how to handle soviets. Atatürk wouldn't have made the mistake of joining nato and that's what I was referring to more or less. His WW2 policy wouldn't be too different from what Turkey did irl, but the way he'd handle the aftermath of it would be very different.
 
Dremora said:
I see this as impossible because Atatürk's Türkiye had extremely good relationship with the soviets from the beginning. He'd just go solo. Thing is, Türkiye started to lean towards being on the side of NATO after WW2 (sided with them during the korean war), I think this was due to the incompetence of turkish leaders who didn't know how to handle soviets. Atatürk wouldn't have made the mistake of joining nato and that's what I was referring to more or less. His WW2 policy wouldn't be too different from what Turkey did irl, but the way he'd handle the aftermath of it would be very different.
Click to expand...
It’s frustrating how he threw that all away in exchange for some alcohol and tobacco.
 
Cortex said:
It’s frustrating how he threw that all away in exchange for some alcohol and tobacco.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he was addicted to those pretty much. I should also mention that Hitler himself commented on his death in 1939 by saying that since his death, Turkey is being ruled by a bunch of weak-willed idiots. He was right. They sold out the country's independence at first chance for their precious comfort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cortex
Caged Why is this site blocked in Turkey
2
Replies
27
Views
381
panchito
panchito
Dremora
History Georgia/საქართველო discussion thread
Replies
23
Views
415
1Based Frog1
1Based Frog1
Anon_Humor
News Hurricane Milton discussion and conspiracys
2
Replies
30
Views
228
panchito
panchito
Back
Top