Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RomanByzantineAltHist Re: Roman-Byzantium Club

Expand Messages
  • John Piccone
    The hostility toward Turks is quite startling, and the revisionism disturbing. The population of Ottoman Europe prior to 1876 was 43% Muslim. Some are
    Message 1 of 20 , Apr 18, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      The hostility toward Turks is quite startling, and the revisionism
      disturbing.

      The population of Ottoman Europe prior to 1876 was 43% Muslim. Some
      are accounted for in the Bosnian Muslims and Albanians, but the rest
      were either massacred, or driven out to become refugees in Anatolia.
      In WWI, 2.5 million Muslims were killed in Eastern Anatolia, in a
      period of horrendous ethnic strife. Contrary to assertions below,
      the Western area of Anatolia did NOT have a Greek majority, nor had
      it for centuries; census data is freely available to support this.

      Finally, the Treaty of Sevres, violated by the powers that imposed
      it, was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne, which was still a peace
      treaty to end WWI between the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic and the
      Entente, recognizing the Ottomans/Turks as the surrendering party.
      The population exchange was mandated by the victors, the Entente, not
      by the Kemalists.

      Greeks had always been a priveledged group in the Ottoman empire,
      even after the war for Greek independence, subject for most of
      Ottoman history to the spritual and temporal authority of the
      Orthodox Patriarch, just as the Armenians were to the Armenian
      Patriarch.

      As stated below, "Turk" is not a word with an easy definition. For
      instance, my maternal Grandmother, who called herself Turkish, was
      actually Albanian. My maternal grandfather was half Circassian.
      Ottomans classified themselves by religion, not ethnicity; thus
      Muslims became "Turks", and Orthodox became "Greeks", even though
      many of them were not Greek, and many were Turkish-speaking. This is
      another reason why it has taken so long for the Turkish public to
      become aware of the Kurds as a seperate ethnicity; they were always
      regarded as "mountain Turks".


      --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "jcunningham9
      <jcunningham9@y...>" <jcunningham9@y...> wrote:
      > I find the Turkish component of this thread by Msr. Roper quite
      > interesting...and mistaken. It seems he has a fundamental
      > miconception over the composition of the Ottoman Empire. The Empire
      > was a truly multi-ethnic state, and when Kemal Ataturk created the
      > Turkish Republic from the ashes of the Empire this tradition
      carried
      > forward. To be a "Turk" was to be anyone of any Ottoman background
      > who was a citizen of the new Turkey. So the Kemalists did
      not "expel
      > other nationalities" to create a new Turkey, and what expulsions
      did
      > occur were conducted by the Ottoman Empire as a reaction to
      internal
      > nationalist movements seeking to break away from the Empire. This
      > does not excuse any atrocities, but it is important to consider
      that
      > the "Armenian Genocide" took place during a period of extreme
      > upheaval and chaos, during which millions of Ottoman citizens died
      or
      > were displaced.
      >
      > I mean, ask yourself, who is a Turk? Might as well ask who is an
      > American. Kemal Ataturk was a Balkan-Greek Ottoman - born in
      > Salonika, now part of Greece. How "ethnically Turkish" was he? Or
      my
      > wife's family -- Turks from what was once Bosnia and Macedonia. Or
      > another Turkish friend of mine who's family hails from Armenia
      > originally. So your basic concept of some extreme
      nationalist/racist
      > Turkey is absurd!!!
      >
      > Further, the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire was followed by a
      > land grab by Greece and the Western Powers that blew up in their
      > faces! The Ottoman Empire surrendered in 1918, and a coalition land-
      > grab led by the European powers included an invasion of Asia Minor
      by
      > Greece in 1919. Not only was Greece promised what is now western
      > Turkey, but the Kurds were also used by the Western powers in the
      > east and promised a homeland – they seem to have come up on the
      short
      > end, eh? Further, I might ask you how many Turks were left in the
      > Greek Peninsula following the Greek War of Independence and the two
      > Balkan Wars preceding WWI? I would submit to you that the number
      > was "zero." The Greek invasion of Turkey was a bloody affair that
      > included well document atrocities equaling those suffered by the
      > Greeks under Ottoman occupation, and could very well explain why
      > those Greeks living in Asia Minor were booted out or "encouraged"
      to
      > leave following Ataturk's liberation of Turkey from the Western
      > powers (and Greece). And the Western powers violated the treaties
      > that the Ottomans "agreed" to in permitting the Greek invasion in
      the
      > first place, an invasion which attempted a thrust into Anatolia to
      > seize what little was left of the Empire for "turks" at all.
      >
      > In fact, it was only with the invasion and occupation by the West
      > that the concept of a nation called "Turkey" became possible, and
      > that a ground-swell of action against the invaders took on the role
      > of a nationalist liberation movement. The European Powers ended up
      > having to recognize the Kemal government that emerged, given a
      > nationalist movement of such a large scope, and the military
      failures
      > suffered by the Greeks and European powers, they were essentially
      > powerless to change this without a major resource commitment they,
      > and their publics, were not prepared to make. The Europeans
      > pragmatically followed they policy they nearly always do –
      recognize
      > those in power as the legitimate government.
      >
      > So your argument that somehow if these shaky treaties, immediately
      > violated by the powers that dicated them, somehow could have led to
      a
      > different result in which there was a Kurdish nation (and there is
      an
      > Armenian nation -- how does that keep getting forgotten?), American
      > Zones, and a fundamantally different structure, seems off.
    • st_prez
      Yes, this was sort of what Mustapha Kemal was on about. The definition of = turks, though, comes from the Young Turk movement that succeeded Abd-al-Hamid
      Message 2 of 20 , Jan 17, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, this was sort of what Mustapha Kemal was on about. The definition of =
        "turks," though, comes from the "Young Turk" movement
        that succeeded Abd-al-Hamid II (the Paranoid). These cats were trying to m=
        ake the empire Turkish as an ethnic thing appropriate to a
        modern state. They WERE trying to sell a sort of pan-Turkish ideology, whi=
        ch is why Enver Pasha ended up getting killed as a
        Turkish Freikorps leader in central Asia after the Russian empire fell apar=
        t. They weren't 'Islamic fanatics.' They were 'ethnic
        cleansers.' The post-WWI Greeks were trying to do exactly the same thing, =
        but they lost, and that's why the boundaries are where
        they are today. The Armenians got caught between the 'Young Turks' and th=
        e Bolshevik revolution, and they really paid the price.

        In my own Alternate Byzantium, this is the 'Young Hellas' movement, involvi=
        ng an attempt to reintruduce 'classical' Greek culture by
        (again) a bunch of rich kids educated at Paris and Heidelberg, and taking t=
        he writings of George Gemistos Plethon as their textbook.
        Anyone can be a Hellene, as long as he is a Platonist and speaks the kathar=
        evousa. Hence the revolution of 1918, led by the
        Christian Revolutionsry party, and the subsequent establishment of the Demo=
        tic Republic of the Roman People. After that, things get
        interesting . . .

        --- In RomanByzantineAltHist@yahoogroups.com, "jcunningham9 <jcunningham9@y=
        ...>" <jcunningham9@y...> wrote:
        > I find the Turkish component of this thread by Msr. Roper quite
        > interesting...and mistaken. It seems he has a fundamental
        > miconception over the composition of the Ottoman Empire. The Empire
        > was a truly multi-ethnic state, and when Kemal Ataturk created the
        > Turkish Republic from the ashes of the Empire this tradition carried
        > forward. To be a "Turk" was to be anyone of any Ottoman background
        > who was a citizen of the new Turkey. So the Kemalists did not "expel
        > other nationalities" to create a new Turkey, and what expulsions did
        > occur were conducted by the Ottoman Empire as a reaction to internal
        > nationalist movements seeking to break away from the Empire. This
        > does not excuse any atrocities, but it is important to consider that
        > the "Armenian Genocide" took place during a period of extreme
        > upheaval and chaos, during which millions of Ottoman citizens died or
        > were displaced.
        >
        > I mean, ask yourself, who is a Turk? Might as well ask who is an
        > American. Kemal Ataturk was a Balkan-Greek Ottoman - born in
        > Salonika, now part of Greece. How "ethnically Turkish" was he? Or my
        > wife's family -- Turks from what was once Bosnia and Macedonia. Or
        > another Turkish friend of mine who's family hails from Armenia
        > originally. So your basic concept of some extreme nationalist/racist
        > Turkey is absurd!!!
        >
        > Further, the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire was followed by a
        > land grab by Greece and the Western Powers that blew up in their
        > faces! The Ottoman Empire surrendered in 1918, and a coalition land-
        > grab led by the European powers included an invasion of Asia Minor by
        > Greece in 1919. Not only was Greece promised what is now western
        > Turkey, but the Kurds were also used by the Western powers in the
        > east and promised a homeland – they seem to have come up on the short
        > end, eh? Further, I might ask you how many Turks were left in the
        > Greek Peninsula following the Greek War of Independence and the two
        > Balkan Wars preceding WWI? I would submit to you that the number
        > was "zero." The Greek invasion of Turkey was a bloody affair that
        > included well document atrocities equaling those suffered by the
        > Greeks under Ottoman occupation, and could very well explain why
        > those Greeks living in Asia Minor were booted out or "encouraged" to
        > leave following Ataturk's liberation of Turkey from the Western
        > powers (and Greece). And the Western powers violated the treaties
        > that the Ottomans "agreed" to in permitting the Greek invasion in the
        > first place, an invasion which attempted a thrust into Anatolia to
        > seize what little was left of the Empire for "turks" at all.
        >
        > In fact, it was only with the invasion and occupation by the West
        > that the concept of a nation called "Turkey" became possible, and
        > that a ground-swell of action against the invaders took on the role
        > of a nationalist liberation movement. The European Powers ended up
        > having to recognize the Kemal government that emerged, given a
        > nationalist movement of such a large scope, and the military failures
        > suffered by the Greeks and European powers, they were essentially
        > powerless to change this without a major resource commitment they,
        > and their publics, were not prepared to make. The Europeans
        > pragmatically followed they policy they nearly always do – recognize
        > those in power as the legitimate government.
        >
        > So your argument that somehow if these shaky treaties, immediately
        > violated by the powers that dicated them, somehow could have led to a
        > different result in which there was a Kurdish nation (and there is an
        > Armenian nation -- how does that keep getting forgotten?), American
        > Zones, and a fundamantally different structure, seems off.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.