The Ottoman empire and the Christians

[Prince Cobra]

I decided to make a new thread just because the nice thread of 553 years ago was going to go off its theme.
Wow, is this a coalition against me? So I will retreat here to fight to the last knife...
Enough jokes.

Wizard,
Yes, most of the convertions that ahppened in the empire were forced in one or another way. Of course, the Ottoman government did not have any interest to convert all christians to the true faith. Yes, jizie (but not only it) gave good money to the sultan... Yes, devshirme good janissaries ( but not forever)... But do not forget that Christians tempt to rebel more than the Muslims in a Muslim theocratic empire. That's why people who were converted to the Muslim religion were tolerated and that process was encouraged because the Ottomans knew few of the Christians would voluntary change their religion ( which was very very important for the person at that time). Now I talked about the Christian nations with tradition like Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs. But others like Albanese and Bosnians were either heretic or just not with so firm traditons in the Christianity. The fact they are Muslim now proves my point. The sultan wouldn't mind if there are some areas which are loyal to death to their master... Who would? The Rhodope problem is connected with this in a different way. Rhodopes are a big strategic mountain near to the Egean sea. While fighting at sea or sending armies to a distant places like Hungary (poor Hungary, it gave many victims) the sultan needed secured rear. Imagine how would the Ottomans defeat rebels in a big mountain while fighting at other fronts ( yes, they would but the victims... and the sultan could have a heart attack by these problems). That's why a large part of the Bulgarians in the Rhodopes were converted to Islam. You will say its because of a strategic purposes? Yes, but that was one of the reasons the Spainish government to kill many morisks (christened Moors) who were believed to help to the Muslim pirates.
The second thing it was not better than its contemporaries. This is my point. Yes, in a different way. The religious wars ended in XVI- XVII century. The descrimination (in one form or another) of the empire continued to its end. There were no effective reforms, the empire was rotting together with all the Christians there. And what is more important- it made the Southwestern Europe the backyard of Europe. In this way it prepared all these prettyy ethnic conflicts that occured in Macedonia (poor Macedonia) , Jugoslavia... and Minor Asia ( why do you ignore the Armenians and the Greeks who died).
Third point... I DO NOT AGREE. First the Turkish problem came from Minor Asia. When the Byzantines lost it everything went to hell. The Dusan death made the things worse and the stupidity and blindness of the Balkan rulers... Yes, it cost too much. The alternative- many. The Byzantine empeors (esp. Michael VIII and Cantacuzenus) should have been more careful, the Balkan rulers wore glasses. And everything would be fine. Byzantium would have survived, the same is for Serbia and Bulgaria and the others. catholic countries? We had withstood to their ambitions and so it would be. The Balkan people would be in Europe ( like Denamrk, Portugal, Italy) in the full sense of the word. And the culture of Europe richer ( look Palaelogian Reanissance).
How dangerous are the Catholic... Austria was not. Although fanatic in some ways in its territory lived Orthodox ( in Transylvania and other areas), Protestants... About the ethnic Balkan picture- without the goodness of the Ottoman conquest- Bulgarians would not have lost their lands in Dobrudja, Macedonia and some parts of Tracia which population was the Bulgarians until XXth century. Some unpleasant things happened ot the Bulgarians there after some wars(1913,1918)... Or the byz would have never lost al of Minor Asia...
Reen Roink,
If Constantinople fell in 717 maybe the Central Europe would be Muslim now.
Any of the charges are historically accurate. Ask the Armenians and the Greeks. And Bulgarians ( just PM me ) .
Watchman,
Let's take yor child and your life and to live in a corrupted system ... You will be happy?! ( just my rethoric, nothing personal).
Akanji were really terrible they were looting the lands and killed and enslaved the population. So the undisciplined troops never disappeared ( although there were many proffessional). Although I agree this troos did not pillaged the conquered territories ( at first but after XVIII centry everything changed ).


Everybody is free to discuss. More point of views the better!

[Watchman]

Might I point out the Akinjis' assorted Balkan Christian colleagues (or for that matter the equivalent Ottoman and Russian irregular border fighters off in the Caucasus) were no less dreadful scourges of defenceless civilians ? Heck, even in the Thirty Years' War, which made something of an European record in the sheer scale, thoroughness and horror of devastation pre last century, irregular light mercenary cavalry from the Balkans (dubbed collectively "Croats" in contemporary sources) enjoyed a dubious reputation as particularly cruel and fearsome ravagers...

Centuries of tit-for-tat feuding tends to do that. The main difference would be that the sheer power of the Ottoman regular forces on campaign just allowed their irregular terror troops to cover more ground than was normally the case with their opponents'.

And East and Central Europe went their happy way to socioeconomic stasis and decreptitude chiefly on their own efforts (as for that matter did the Ottomans) - the Ottoman and Tatar threats merely providing the feudal aristocracy with convenient excuses to hang onto their antiquated priviledges. Most scholars seem to consider the critical break point the one where they hung on to serfdom while Western Europe abolished it...

[kataphraktoi]

A common method is to always argue that Christianity treated its minorities worse than Muslims, no doubt about it, Christianity was worse but is that suppose to say that because of relativity, living under Muslim rule was good? The bottom line is that in either society, it would still be crap as a religious minority. Isn't that really the case? Saying someone else is worse does not make you any better, you would just as bad but to a lesser degree and yet it is still BAD is it not?

People will undoubtedly qoute to me the words:

"Better the Sultan's Turban than the Pope's Mitre" spoken by an Orthodox Christian.

However, how many people know that this same Orthodox Christian was Lukas Notaras who was executed by Mehmed the COnqueror and whose wife and daughters were taken into the SUltan's harem?

For crying out loud, I'd be peeved if someone took my wife and considered their right because I was an "infidel".

[Watchman]

Reality check - back in those days it kinda sucked to be a commoner and/or noticeable minority everywhere. The Muslims just get brownie points for overall tolerance which they took a *really* long time to shed.

However, how many people know that this same Orthodox Christian was Lukas Notaras who was executed by Mehmed the COnqueror and whose wife and daughters were taken into the SUltan's harem?

I'm willing to hazard the guess most folks would actually find that preferable to, say, getting tortured and murdered by Catholic "crusaders" who on the side also rape your womenfolk before murdering them...

AFAIK those royal harems were incidentally pretty cushy places to live in. The chief problem would be that all the ladies in there intrigued against each other pretty intensely for the Sultan's attention.

For crying out loud, I'd be peeved if someone took my wife and considered their right because I was an "infidel".

I'm guessing that had more to do with Mehmed being the Sultan than Lukas being Christian, though.

[IrishArmenian]

Well, the Ottomans, near the end oif their reign we brutal to Christians. In the late 1800's many Armenian Christians were killed for no apparent reason, but that was not enough. From 1917-1925, about 1.5 million Christian Armenians were either burnt, starved, shot, or beaten to death. All because they would not convert to Islam. They were exiled to the Syrian desert where, if they had not been killed by the constant death-marches, starvation, or cruel soldiers, were exiled to and left to die. I, in fact, had relatives that lost many family and escaped, but many more were not as lucky. If that were not enough, the Turkish Government to this day still say that no Genocide ever happened and the "Great" American leader sides with them because he does not want to lose favor with them, also, the Turkish Government disagrees with this depite many Turks that acknowledge the Genocide.

[Watchman]

Although you forgot to mention the part where a lot of understandably angry Armenians joined the Russian Reds, got trained and armed and formed into their own regiment or division or whatever, invaded Turkey, and massacred every Turk they could find...

Sort of how like Greeks conveniently seem to forget the way they treated Turkish civilians during their little revolution, or how they right after WW1 went and massacred one Turkish coastal town across the Aegean mainly out of sheer spite so far as I know.

AFAIK the Bulgarians can file valid one-sided grievances, however.

I do agree Istanbul should owe up and just admit the Armenian genocide, though. The way they keep denying it annoys me already on general principles.

Around the dawn of the 1800s there is however a major paradigm shift in the form of nationalism bursting onto the scene bigtime. I would suggest people think of the time before it as a period largely separate from what came after, as things in general were getting fairly different everywhere.

[Reenk Roink]

A common method is to always argue that Christianity treated its minorities worse than Muslims, no doubt about it, Christianity was worse but is that suppose to say that because of relativity, living under Muslim rule was good? The bottom line is that in either society, it would still be crap as a religious minority. Isn't that really the case? Saying someone else is worse does not make you any better, you would just as bad but to a lesser degree and yet it is still BAD is it not?

Here's the thing:

Under the Ottomans, the Jews prospered. They were given positions in the government, they were left semi-autonomous, and best of all, they weren't harassed much. That in itself is 'benevolence'. It's not as much of a matter that "the Christians treated the Jews worse than the Muslims, who also treated them badly, just not as badly". It's a matter of "the Christians on general treated the Jews badly; the Ottomans on general left them alone, sure there were atrocities, but there were also golden years...".

Oh and like Watchman said, much of the Ottoman atrocities against the Armenians and Greeks was preceded by pretty good will.

This is telling that while Bulgars and Serbs were assigned to the Orthodox Patriarch, the Armenians got their own separate millet, due to their early interaction with the Ottomans.

As for the Greeks, it's quite telling that some Greeks opposed the Greek War for independence, as they were so prosperous under the Ottomans. Of course the atrocities on the Ottoman side during the war reduced this sentiment.

[L'Impresario]

As for the Greeks, it's quite telling that some Greeks opposed the Greek War for independence, as they were so prosperous under the Ottomans. Of course the atrocities on the Ottoman side during the war reduced this sentiment.

That's somewhat inaccurate. Excessive administrative corruption, mostly at the local level and the institutionalisation of the "çiftlik", led the greek peasantry to a very miserable state. "Free" farmers would become extinct, as most taxes were not to be paid in product and they were a heavy burden that turned the majority of the population practically into serfs, even during the 18th and 19th centuries. Rebellions did occur, esp. after nationalism came around.

The fact that a small but important percent of Greeks had vertebral positions in the Ottoman state or were successful traders doesn't show general contentment. The same persons would be the ones advocating and propagating the "modern" nationalistic trends.

Without a doubt, the Greeks who enjoyed thoroughly Ottoman rule were the clergymen, esp. the higher ranks. They had everything to lose if a national state appeared.

Furthermore, the attrocities were not the decisive factor for the general dissent, even though actions like the Chios Massacre did motivate even the more reserved ones.

Sort of how like Greeks conveniently seem to forget the way they treated Turkish civilians during their little revolution, or how they right after WW1 went and massacred one Turkish coastal town across the Aegean mainly out of sheer spite so far as I know.

Also, it can be safely said that atrocities were not tit for tat during the greek uprising. One side could - and did- inflict disproportionately greater damage in many different regions. The majority of the greek population was living even after 1830 outside the national state.

I'm also interested in learning about the massacre of that coastal town, as I might be missing something from the relevant bibliography. Naturally, it's not very hard to find wrongs perpetrated by the Greeks, but this single case I haven't heard of.

[kataphraktoi]

Reality check - back in those days it kinda sucked to be a commoner and/or noticeable minority everywhere. The Muslims just get brownie points for overall tolerance which they took a *really* long time to shed.

I already said the first part. And as for overall tolerance, as far as I'm concerned the Ottomans were just like other states. Come to think of it, relativity is a fragile concept to use when it comes to comparison. Positions on tolerance and intolerance are dynamic and inconsistent in every empire's timeline.

I'm willing to hazard the guess most folks would actually find that preferable to, say, getting tortured and murdered by Catholic "crusaders" who on the side also rape your womenfolk before murdering them...

Relativity does not make the alternative better either. Its still sexual slavery.

AFAIK those royal harems were incidentally pretty cushy places to live in. The chief problem would be that all the ladies in there intrigued against each other pretty intensely for the Sultan's attention.

Agreed on that part. Cushy but not exactly a glamorous life either. Although the alternative of poverty makes for an equally unglamorous life too.

I'm guessing that had more to do with Mehmed being the Sultan than Lukas being Christian, though.

I'd say both. Mehmed being...well Mehmed and the added fact that of taking an infidel's wife is an equally satisfying act against an infidel.

[LeftEyeNine]

Well, the Ottomans, near the end oif their reign we brutal to Christians. In the late 1800's many Armenian Christians were killed for no apparent reason, but that was not enough. From 1917-1925, about 1.5 million Christian Armenians were either burnt, starved, shot, or beaten to death. All because they would not convert to Islam. They were exiled to the Syrian desert where, if they had not been killed by the constant death-marches, starvation, or cruel soldiers, were exiled to and left to die. I, in fact, had relatives that lost many family and escaped, but many more were not as lucky. If that were not enough, the Turkish Government to this day still say that no Genocide ever happened and the "Great" American leader sides with them because he does not want to lose favor with them, also, the Turkish Government disagrees with this depite many Turks that acknowledge the Genocide.

An Armenian who feels blunt enough to talk about Armenian Issue being a "genocide", should be able to give answers to who Taşnak Sütyan and ASALA were, and how 500.000 Turks were tortured and murdered before what you call a "genocide".

I can't still imagine how those gangs were so brutal enough to open wounds on Turkish soldiers' shoulders calling that "they have promoted". I still can't find an answer how humanistic it is that Turkish women were raped in mosques for so long that they couldn't walk just "right". I have read how Russians were left speechless with what Armenian gangs had done, and tried to prevent them as long as they were there with those gangs.

Take of your goggles with which you are playing the innocent to the whole world. If Armenians are really looking for answers to some murders, they will find so many questions in their very own history. Whole world may be dumb enough to watch the play on the stage -what's more anything against the Turk is generally favorable-, but Armenians should not forget that it is not as it was a year ago. We are not sitting on our lazy arses any more.

One will hear the truth in the time to come, if his hands are not on his ears.

[DukeofSerbia]

But others like Albanese and Bosnians were either heretic or just not with so firm traditons in the Christianity.

I don't have time to write a lot, but I will write only this - Bosnians didn't exist in history. The nation under that name came in 90' of XX century when Slavic Moslems sheltered their religion.

Inhabitants of medieval Bosnia were Orthodox Serbs and partly Romancatholics Croats. So called "Bogumils" were only small religios minority.

Albanians were mostly Romancatholics and partly Orthodox Christians.

[Watchman]

Relativity does not make the alternative better either. Its still sexual slavery.

That could be said of the better part of historical (and not a few modern) takes on marriage, though.

At least the women in the harems had only the intrigue to be afraid of.

AFAIK the Ottomans really were the ones to "throw the first rock" in those about three ugly cases I know of (ie. the Greek revolution, the Bulgarians and the Armenians), although in the two latter cases the actual Ottoman adminstration wasn't looking for anything such in the beginning but eventually pretty much had its hand forced by circumstances, or rather unrest and secessionist ideas brought about by factors they had little control over. Namely, the Circassians. Those happy folks were one bunch of those seminomadic border fighters the Ottomans' border regions bred on both sides, displaced by territory losses to Russians and for lack of better alternatives resettled in Bulgaria and the Armenian areas. Now, three guesses what happens when you drop such a cheerful bunch of career ravagers A) away from enemy borders B) still armed C) amongst essentially unarmed and defenceless "infidel" civilian populations ?

Nothing pretty, that's for certain. Naturally the populaces subjected to their depredations weren't exactly happy about it, but when the push came to shove the Ottomans seem to have preferred eradicating the "troublesome infidels" rather than trying to rein in the Circassians (probably a cold cost-efficiency analysis that - they may well have figured they needed the latters' guns more than the formers' taxes and goodwill), with well-known results. I'm quite willing to bet early nation-state antipathies against such relatively well-off minorities of rather different ethnic and religious bent also played a part.

In the case of the Armenians at least this also led to a pretty predictable vicious circle of counter-atrocity (the second the Armenians could manage it, anyway) and counter-counter-atrocity ad nauseum or until both sides were spent and got better things to think about, and I'd be really surprised if the Bulgarians didn't lynch some hapless Muslim civilians on general principles too.

As for the Greek revolution, by what I've read of it if the rebels didn't surpass the Ottomans in viciousness it certainly wasn't for a lack of trying. The two sides seem to have tried to beat each other in sheer barbarism. The Ottomans may have won in scale, though, since they could also pick on Greeks outside the actual combat zone whereas the Greeks had to settle for murdering Turks and Muslims they could get their hands onto.

I'm also interested in learning about the massacre of that coastal town, as I might be missing something from the relevant bibliography. Naturally, it's not very hard to find wrongs perpetrated by the Greeks, but this single case I haven't heard of.

I don't recall the name of the place and no longer have the book I read it in, but goes so apparently that after what was left of the Ottomans changed its name to Turkey and signed armistice the Greeks apparently saw something of an opportunity and landed in force in the town (which wasn't a particularly small one either, I understand) and spent a while massacring the population. There was an Allied naval contignent (mainly in the area to keep an eye on the Turks) sitting right next to the harbor who simply let the Greeks through and then intensely looked the other way when they ran amuck...
*shrug* Ugly stuff, anyway.

You know, my mother has a habit of somewhat cynically observing the just about exactly only major innocent victims in the world would be the Gypsies, who've been given the boot nearly as thoroughly as the Jews but unlike them have never been in the position to oppress someone else for their part... They also still tend to be somewhat persona non grata in most countries, I understand - I know the general attitude to them here really could use some cleaning.

[L'Impresario]

I don't recall the name of the place and no longer have the book I read it in, but goes so apparently that after what was left of the Ottomans changed its name to Turkey and signed armistice the Greeks apparently saw something of an opportunity and landed in force in the town (which wasn't a particularly small one either, I understand) and spent a while massacring the population. There was an Allied naval contignent (mainly in the area to keep an eye on the Turks) sitting right next to the harbor who simply let the Greeks through and then intensely looked the other way when they ran amuck...
*shrug* Ugly stuff, anyway.

I gather then that you aren't referring to İzmir/Smyrna then, because this would 've been an erroneous account from any point of view. But then again the series of events described here don't point towards any actual historical occurance.

[Watchman]

I looked İzmir up in Wiki (hardly the most reliable source, but usually good for the general idea) and found the appropriate bit rather familiar-sounding. But, as mentioned, I no longer have the book I originally read it in in my possession.

Following the links there incidentally took me to an article on the Great Fire of Smyrna, which laconically notes at the beginning "The neutrality of this article is disputed."
I can imagine, especially as all the main participants in these tugs-of-war tend to be noted for, shall we say, less than unbiased and highly emphatic positions that don't exactly meet in the middle.

There's stuff about Turks slaughtering Armenians and Greeks when they reconquered the place (fair enough; I've not the slightest difficulty believing it), but what I find curious is the almost utter silence and a conspicious absence of all details of what the Greeks were up to after they landed. There's a particularly suspicious line "The resistance started immediately, mainly by small groups of irregular Turkish troops in the suburbs and the Greeks sustained many losses"; given the general mentality of these conflicts in general and the rather festering relations between the two groups in particular I for one find it a wee bit difficult to swallow the idea this wouldn't have led to reprisals against Turkish civilians. The somewhat one-sided curtness of the descriptions of the goings of the war (as Turkish excesses seem to be readily enough brought up) also rings some alarms bells in my head...

It's kind of like staring at a blank white spot in a map and starting to wonder just what the Heck it actually contains.

Well, of course aside from that one cute footnote about the Greeks' scorched-earth policy.

[Rosacrux redux]

Watchman,

Your reference about the Smyrna incidents was primarily a very, very innacurate one (the quote impressario brought up) and when you find an actual account, you still insist that there must be something else... well, this is a period of history I know all too well and I can point out to you that, yes, the Greeks did not hunt down Turkish civilians. Fair enough? No? Then why no Turkish civilian fled the Greek-occupied areas? Greece had occupied at one point 1/3 of Asia Minor in that conflict, it wasn't just Smyrna. But they did not run any pogrom, and that's why no Turks fled the Greek-held areas. Contrary to what the Turks did when they reclaimed the area. Thousands of Greeks were trying desperately to find means to get out of there before the advancing turkish forces came through, because they knew they would be raped and massacred. Alternatively, they fled to non-war zone areas, where they could hide out until the fuss is over, in order to save their lives. The Greek population of Smyrna, were slaughtered to the last man, woman and child. So simple, really.

The Turks were a particularly brutal bunch. Political correctness may not permit you or others to accept that simple fact of reality, and thus you are trying to find similar acts on behalf of the Greek side. Well, sorry, there were none. The massacre of Tripoli in the 1821 revolution is the sole incident of mass reprisals against civilians by the Greeks against the Turks.

[Watchman]

I may be excused if I'm a bit sceptical of any claims of these assorted Balkans and Asia Minor atrocities being one-sided, or any such claims in general.

James Loder Park, the U.S. Vice-Consul in İstanbul at the time, who toured much of the devastated area immediately after the Greek evacuation, described the situation in the surrounding cities and towns he has seen, as follows: "Manisa...almost completely wiped out by fire...10,300 houses, 15 mosques, 2 baths, 2,278 shops, 19 hotels, 26 villas…[destroyed]. Cassaba (present day Turgutlu) was a town of 40,000 souls, 3,000 of whom were non-Moslems. Of these 37,000 Turks only 6,000 could be accounted for among the living, while 1,000 Turks were known to have been shot or burned to death. Of the 2,000 buildings that constituted the city, only 200 remained standing. Ample testimony was available to the effect that the city was systematically destroyed by Greek soldiers, assisted by a number of Greek and Armenian civilians. Kerosene and gasoline were freely used to make the destruction more certain, rapid and complete." "The destruction of the interior cities visited by our party was carried out by Greeks. The percentages of buildings destroyed in each of the last four cities…were: Manisa 90 percent, Cassaba (Turgutlu) 90 percent, Alaşehir 70 percent, Salihli 65 percent. The burning of these cities was not desultory, nor intermittent, nor accidental, but well planned and thoroughly organised. There were many instances of physical violence, most of which was deliberate and wanton. Without complete figures, which were impossible to obtain, it may safely be surmised that ‘atrocities’ committed by retiring Greeks numbered well into thousands in the four cities under consideration. These consisted of all three of the usual type of such atrocities, namely murder, torture and rape."

Especially after reading interesting details like that.

Put this way: the Serbs may have committed the worst crimes in the Yugoslavian Succession Wars, but Bosnia still owes Hague a couple of nasty war criminals too...

[LeftEyeNine]

Watchman,

Your reference about the Smyrna incidents was primarily a very, very innacurate one (the quote impressario brought up) and when you find an actual account, you still insist that there must be something else... well, this is a period of history I know all too well and I can point out to you that, yes, the Greeks did not hunt down Turkish civilians. Fair enough? No? Then why no Turkish civilian fled the Greek-occupied areas? Greece had occupied at one point 1/3 of Asia Minor in that conflict, it wasn't just Smyrna. But they did not run any pogrom, and that's why no Turks fled the Greek-held areas. Contrary to what the Turks did when they reclaimed the area. Thousands of Greeks were trying desperately to find means to get out of there before the advancing turkish forces came through, because they knew they would be raped and massacred. Alternatively, they fled to non-war zone areas, where they could hide out until the fuss is over, in order to save their lives. The Greek population of Smyrna, were slaughtered to the last man, woman and child. So simple, really.

The Turks were a particularly brutal bunch. Political correctness may not permit you or others to accept that simple fact of reality, and thus you are trying to find similar acts on behalf of the Greek side. Well, sorry, there were none. The massacre of Tripoli in the 1821 revolution is the sole incident of mass reprisals against civilians by the Greeks against the Turks.

Which period is that you are referring to -I mean the killing of the Greeks in İzmir by Turks- RosaRedux ?

[L'Impresario]

I may be excused if I'm a bit sceptical of any claims of these assorted Balkans and Asia Minor atrocities being one-sided, or any such claims in general.

Well, it's only natural to be sceptical, in such instances it can be very hard to find some middle ground. Sources and eyewitnesses are also discredited with relative ease by the two sides.

The internalization of the official version of the events by each country's populace can't allow a productive discussion of the issue. Either way, this is a very important historical period for the whole region, and anyone interested should go through the pain to educate himself perusing not only sources regarding the history of the Ottoman, Greek and Turkish states -at least since the Balkan Wars for the first two ones- but also the Great Powers' attitudes on the East Mediterranean and the political developments in Russia.

I'll try to -extremely briefly- summarize the typical popular opinions:

A Greek would say that their army landed at Smyrna in accordance with the Sevres treaty in order to guarantee the safety of the Greek majority in the region and allow a future referendum to take place that would determine the fate of Smyrna and the surrounding region, in accordance with the promises made by the Entente in order to convince Greece to join them in the Great War and enforcing the new self-determination clause that gained popularity in the West.

The Greek soldiers were greeted as liberators and secured the area they were responsible for, until Mustafa Kemal formed a new, "turkish" government, rejected the Sultan's authority and refused to accept the Treaty of Sevres. The Greeks were encouraged by the UK, even though the French and, esp., the Italians weren't that happy about it, to make the upstarts accept the treaty. Therefore, they launched their offensive towards Kemal's seat, Ankara.

The Great Powers though weren't too comfortable with the idea of intervening and limited their support to the rhetorical level. The greek side run out of luck when internal politics got in the way. The elections called for the return of the pro-German King Konstantinos and the pro-British Venizelos who got Greece into WWI resigns from PM. The army is purged from Venizelos supporters and royalist cronies occupy most of the important military ranks.
The Entente realizes that Kemal is here to stay and negotiates separate peace treaties, while the Russians openly support the Turks by providing supplies and armaments.
Greek supply lines are thinly stretched in barren Anatolia and when the Turks launch their counterattack, the Greek army will find itself struggling back to Smyrna. Greek civilians also follow for fear of reprisals. Greek POWs are sent to death marches in the far reastern reaches of Anatolia.

There, the "Asia Minor Catastrophe/Disaster" (as the events are known among the Greeks) culminates. Murder by irregulars of thousand Armenians and Greeks and the subsequent actions of the Turkish army, with the famous premeditated arson, creates panic and the Christians try to save whatever they can get hold of before swarming the port, where Entente warships sit around doing nothing but watch the many thousand Greeks drown in overfilled fishing boats or killed by looters,comprised of soldiers and civilians alike, inspired by simple greed and the newly found nationalistic frenzy that Kemal's "one nation Turkey" brought forward.
Most of the refugees find refuge in Chios and the nearby greek islands, hoping that all this is temporary and that their allies will act and return them to their homes. But this isn't meant to happen, as the Treaty of Lausanne tries to create more stable, homogenous countries. The population exchange follows and about 1.5 million Greeks leave Turkey and 500.000 Muslims abandon their homes in Greece. Compensations are minimum.



A Turk would mention that the Ottoman Empire betrayed their own people and left their rightful lands to imperialistic hands, with Greece being the main agent for delivering the unjust terms of the Sevres Treaty. Terms so vile that the survival of the Turkish nation was at stake, with Italians, French and Greeks cutting chunks off their homeland.

So, under the close protection of the British destroyers, the Greeks occupy İzmir and start immediately their repressive actions against the Turkish population. Civilians are shot for the most ridiculous of reasons and this would be only the start of the brutalities.

The Turks are cornered with few, if any, allies, facing an imperialistic coalition. Atatürk had to secure his flanks from a variety of enemies, both internal and external. Military action was taken against the French, the Italian and the Armenian invaders and land was ceded to the Greeks who moved against Ankara, inspired by the "Megali Idea" that called for the restoration of the Byzantine Empire. Leaving a trail of destruction, the Greek army is immobilized about 100 kilometers away from Ankara. But Atatürk had prepared a counter-offensive that would repel the Greeks and force them to evacuate Asia Minor. The other fronts were also stabilized, and by personally commanding the Turkish armies near Sakarya river, Atatürk is the father of yet another great victory in the War of Independence.

While retreating, the Greek army tries to slow the enemy by eradicating any possible source of supplies and in a revengeful mood goes into a raping and killing spree. İzmir won't be spared, as the affluent Greeks that lived there don't want to leave their properties to turkish hands, and the city is set on fire.

The West, as always, has no qualms of blaming the Turks once again, and still uses hypocritically the turkish "cruelty" and "barbarism", as well as notions as "human rights" and "democracy", in order to gain diplomatic leverage and force its decisions on the Turkish people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm, this whole thing took me more space and time than I initially planned.

[LeftEyeNine]

The West, as always, has no qualms of blaming the Turks once again, and still uses hypocritically the turkish "cruelty" and "barbarism", as well as notions as "human rights" and "democracy", in order to gain diplomatic leverage and force its decisions on the Turkish people.

Oh..I'm...impressed..

[IrishArmenian]

An Armenian who feels blunt enough to talk about Armenian Issue being a "genocide", should be able to give answers to who Taşnak Sütyan and ASALA were, and how 500.000 Turks were tortured and murdered before what you call a "genocide".

I can't still imagine how those gangs were so brutal enough to open wounds on Turkish soldiers' shoulders calling that "they have promoted". I still can't find an answer how humanistic it is that Turkish women were raped in mosques for so long that they couldn't walk just "right". I have read how Russians were left speechless with what Armenian gangs had done, and tried to prevent them as long as they were there with those gangs.

Take of your goggles with which you are playing the innocent to the whole world. If Armenians are really looking for answers to some murders, they will find so many questions in their very own history. Whole world may be dumb enough to watch the play on the stage -what's more anything against the Turk is generally favorable-, but Armenians should not forget that it is not as it was a year ago. We are not sitting on our lazy arses any more.

One will hear the truth in the time to come, if his hands are not on his ears.

If you go a little bit back to the 1890's, I beleive, the Ottoman Turkish government accused the Armenians of rebellion, and many Armenians were killed. As soon as the time arose, yes many Armenians (including members of my family) actually DID rebel against Turkey and slaughter many innocents. I do not praise them for that, in fact, many were ashamed of it. The whole Genocide though, did blow things out of proportion, and even non Armenian members of the Turkish Government (though this time it was the "Young Turks) advised against it.
And, about the hands in our ears, we are a damm stubborn people. And you seem to have a very, very strong feeling about this, I am only talking about the past, unless you gave the order, or shot the innocents, I have no quarrel with you.

[LeftEyeNine]

I admit, the Armenians before me were quite ruthless to the Turks, but if you go a little bit back to the 1890's, I beleive, the Ottoman Turkish government accused the Armenians of rebellion, and many Armenians were killed. As soon as the time arose, yes many Armenians (including members of my family) actually DID rebel against Turkey and slaughter many innocents. I do not praise them for that, in fact, many were ashamed of it. The whole Genocide though, did blow things out of proportion, and even non Armenian members of the Turkish Government (though this time it was the "Young Turks) advised against it.
And, about the hands in our ears, we are a damm stubborn people. And you seem to have a very, very strong feeling about this, I am only talking about the past, unless you gave the order, or shot the innocents, I have no quarrel with you.

So a number varying from 400.000 to 1.000.000 of murdered Armenians can be called a genocide, but approximately 500.000 Turks getting killed can not ?

No nor Armenians neither Turks were massacred. It had been some kind of a clan war that took more lives than the likes. It was not a genocide at both ends.

[kataphraktoi]

Blaming the other side for similar atrocities does not exonerate nor lessen one's own atrocities does it?

Only way forward is to accept blame for what really did happen but some people seem to think they are the historical model of tolerance and equality.

Human nature is capable of lying to itself and committing the worst atrocities ever.

[LeftEyeNine]

Blaming the other side for similar atrocities does not exonerate nor lessen one's own atrocities does it?

Only way forward is to accept blame for what really did happen but some people seem to think they are the historical model of tolerance and equality.

Human nature is capable of lying to itself and committing the worst atrocities ever.

If you really want some new genocide in history books, then there's one spare room for Turkish Genocide for sure.

I still insist that it was all of a conflict in which two sides did the same to each other. What happened to Armenians and Turks were both massacres but I don't think both qualify as genocides.

Edit: Starting from your second sentence I can say that so many people think that they are the birthplace of civilization and humanity.

I can also say that human nature is capable of assaulting in other areas if the battlefield did not work out for them.

I've said so many times and I'll say it again :If there had been a genocide, I would admit it. But it did not happen.

[kataphraktoi]

Add to that the genocide of the Assyrian and Nestorian Christians under Ottoman rule near the end of its life. These Christians are one of the most unknown minority groups in the Middle East and suffered terribly in the late Ottoman era.

Even today, they are discriminated and harassed (specifically by Iraqi Kurds) in the Ardabil-Mosul area. Its funny, those Kurds in power complain about being victims...how ironically hyprocritcal that they deny aid to the minority groups under their supervision.

[LeftEyeNine]

Add to that the genocide of the Assyrian and Nestorian Christians under Ottoman rule near the end of its life. These Christians are one of the most unknown minority groups in the Middle East and suffered terribly in the late Ottoman era.

Here we go again

How can you believe the possibility of extinction of particularly Christians, in a state which is controlled by England, France, Russia and some others ?

[Prince Cobra]

I was a little bit busy. So here is my answer...
DukeofSerbia
Thanks for the elucidation.The Bosnians are young nation created after the middle of XXth century. However the native of Bosnia were mainly heretics although the formal religion was the Catholicism the Bogomil herecy was very popular.
To Watchman
Yes, but Ottoman empire was militaristic and its economy was the worst of all. The reforms were slow and unefficient. Without the Ottoman rule Southern Europe would have been definately better.
That's true- Bulgarians are known not only as people in post- communist country called Bulgaria, and who lost two world wars and one local war against all its neighbours ( which actually failed the plan of including all the Bulgarians in one country) but as very tolerant to the minorities. They are the one of the few countries who saved their Jews and I am proud of this event. In Bulgaria there are Muslim population and there is no problems between the Bulgarians and them ( actually many of them are Muslim Bulgarians and there is a Turkish minority, too.) The only accident between the Bulgaria and the Muslims was when the Communist regime decided to change the name of the Muslim with 'better' ones ( Bulgarian, not Muslim).( Actually there is very strong relation between the Muslims and the Bulgarians- even the Muslims give money for Orthodox churches and vice versa ( the Bulgarians for a mosque). So this was a decision of the communistic dictator who had nothing to do with the Bulgarian nation ). That was a great mistake of our Communistic leader but it was not the only one... Fortunately the regime and his attemts ended in 1989. After this there are absolutely no problems between the Bulgarians and the Muslims. And I hope there will be no more accidents in the future, too!

To kataphraktoi
A common method is to always argue that Christianity treated its minorities worse than Muslims, no doubt about it, Christianity was worse but is that suppose to say that because of relativity, living under Muslim rule was good? The bottom line is that in either society, it would still be crap as a religious minority. Isn't that really the case? Saying someone else is worse does not make you any better, you would just as bad but to a lesser degree and yet it is still BAD is it not?
Yes, that's true. Although the case with the Orthodox was slightly different. In Hungary and later in Austria the Orthodox in Carpatia were on the bottom,too. But most of them preserved their religion( I do not tell you it was better for Bulgaria and other Balkan countries to be conquered by Austria. No, it was better to be free!). So there was no a big difference until XIXth century ( Austrain Catholics were not worse than the Ottomans to the Orthodox).But later... No genocide in Austria-Hungary. However the Armenians in Minor Asia were brutally massacred and the same fate would have been for the Balkan Christians in the Ottoman empire if they had been in it (there were many Christians in Macedonia and Tracia (btw many of them were Bulgarians although others were not) but fortunately such organised genocide as the Armenian was not planned for them yet. Unfortunately the fate of the Bulgarians there was slightly different ( at least they were not slaughtered in large numbers - if this could be any comfort. There were difference although not very sufficient. Unfortunately.)- after these territories were conquered by Greece and Serbia in 1913 and 1918 the Bulgarians there were either forced to emigrate or to be under descrimination ). So the ethnic conflicts were not an exception in the Balkan countries,too. .) And I can not ignore this- yes, in the beginning the Ottomans let the Orthodox be Orthodox ( but please do not forget that Hungary and Austria also let people in the Carpatia be Orthodox although they do not like it;later the same was with the Polish under the Russians (although some unpleasant things happened to the Polish they stayed Catholics), but later- the tlerance ended. It was the nationalism syndrome- OK but it is absolutely normal for an European country to create its nation. However this was combined with a conservative empire in decline ( after all one of the greatest weakness of the Ottoman empire is its economy) , a horrible regime of Abdulhamid II and the idea of Panislamism supported by the sultan so the tolerance changed to fanatism. Yes, the Islam was tolerant but in the Ottoman empire it changed in a worse way. And when we talk about the tolerance of the Ottoman sultans we can not ignore this- it can be in the end of its historiacl life but it happened. That's why I said there was no 'benevolence' to the Christians. The Austrian rulers were more tolerant compared to the Ottoman sultans ( at least in Austria there was no genocide). And yes, kataphraktoi I absolutely agree you should not compare two regimes who was worse- the most important thing was that it was bad regime ( that's why I hate to compare Hitler with Stalin).
To LeftEyeNine
Unfortunately it was a genocide. Armenians were planned to be destroyed. The government of Abdulhamid II participated in the massacres of the Armenians.I appreciate your attempts to clear the name of your country. But this was the bitter truth. You are not guilty of the things that were decided by the government especially by a government which was hated even by its people. The time of Abdulhamid II was called ' zulum ' which means ' destruction' in Turkish . And the European countries stopped it for a while. But after the Crete rebellion they focused on this problem and the massacres continued. After that the preoccupation of the Great powers with the First World war didn't let them stop it. Later the genocide continued because when one tradition is founded its difficult to be stpped. That of course did not excuse nor the killers neither in 1917 nor in 1925. The only things which should be done is to accept the past ( which is difficult) and to head for a better future. It was not coincidence I named the thread The Ottoman empire ( between 1299 and 1924) and the Christians not the Turkey and the Christians. The case with the Armenians killing the Turks- that was the bitter result of the genocide over the Armenians. And as always of the the citizens pay for the mistakes government which is completely unfair! More than 1 500 000 Armenians and 500 000 Turks?! And that in the XXth century.
About the Greek question. Greece suffered from the ' Megali idea' . It was not easy to accept that the territory of your country is only a small part of the former world empire called Byzantium. That caused the unpleasant conflict that caused 500 000 Muslim to emigrate and many Orthodox Bulgarians to emigrate from their homes in Tracia and Macedonia under Greek rule. And 1 500 000 Greeks fleeing from Minor Asia. In addition the hatred between the Greeks and the Turks is very old so ... this is the effect. As for the Bulgarians- the Greek nationalism said its cruel word. Greece was not alone the same happened in Serbia and Romania . More or less the nationalism were in Bulgaria too. Although there were no persecution of the minorities in Bulgaria the Bulgarian monarch Ferdinand I ( nice Bulgarian name isn't it? He is a German and no Bulgarian will remeber him with good- two lost wars(the Second Balkan and the first world war)) and the government dreamed not only to union the Bulgarian nation in Mizia, Tracia and Macedonia(the historical provinces of Bulgaria- something absolutely fair) but to conquer Thessalonica and Istanbul ( some cities that had never been Bulgarian). As for Smyrna- I can not comment it ( not info and time). This was in the past. And once again I hope everything stays in the history.
This is the Balkan peninsula. Nobody is happy.

[Sarmatian]

Put this way: the Serbs may have committed the worst crimes in the Yugoslavian Succession Wars, but Bosnia still owes Hague a couple of nasty war criminals too...

Please avoid generalization when you speak about sensitive topics like this one. There are about 10-12 millions Serbs in the world, and only a few are war criminals.

[Cronos Impera]

So my dear Bulgarian friend, if the Ottomans didn't conquer Constantinopole, others would have and it would have been a lot nastier. By the time the Byzantines had lost the holdings in Anatolia, the Balkans ware poor and weak. By the time Constantinopole fell, all the residual power of the dying Empire flooded the Balkan Peninsula.
Soon ( around 1600) the only real Orthodox power in the Balkans ware Wallachia, Moldavia and catholic Transylvannia. This unique political scheme kept Russia and SAustria out of the "cookie box".
Your Bulgaria, Stephen Asen was created by three different nations ( The Bulgarians, The Vlachs and The Slavs) and it was pretty unstable by the time Ottoman Turkey rose as a regional power. I remind the Asen Brothers ware vlachian and created a joint Romanian-Bulgarian state. Also if King Ferdinand wanted so, Bulgaria might have merged with Romania in a federation simmilar to Cechoslovackia, called Bromania or.......
To be honest, the Fall of Constantinopole was one of the best events in Medieval history. The Balkans ware unified against a single enemy for the first time and the cultural heritage of the Serbs, the Greeks, the Albanians, the Romanians, the Bulgarians and many more ware saved. A christian superpower might have assimilated those cultures.The Ottoman culture didn't.
The Catholic superpowers ( Hungary, Italy, Austria) and Russia ware forced to cunfrunt the Ottomans not a band of scattered nations and kingdoms across the Balkans and Carpathians.

[kataphraktoi]

Here we go again

How can you believe the possibility of extinction of particularly Christians, in a state which is controlled by England, France, Russia and some others ?

Haven't you heard of the politics of convenience? Perhaps you're familiar with media coverage, or more specifically, lack of coverage.

Of course you haven't...

Isn't it convenient to deny genocide as well. Your argument that Armenians committed genocide does not rule out Turkish genocide of Armenians. And besides, Turks and Armenians are not clans, how can it be a clan war? Its a battle for survival. You try to exterminate the Armenians, they got P*ssed of and try to give you a taste of what they experienced. I'm not saying the slaughter of Turks was justified, I'm saying what the hell do you expect when you commit such atrocities against a people?

Why can't Modern Democratic Turkey admit it?? Is there a masculine culture that does not want to lose face? Is it pride? Is it a combination of both?

Cronos Imperia:

To be honest, the Fall of Constantinopole was one of the best events in Medieval history. The Balkans ware unified against a single enemy for the first time and the cultural heritage of the Serbs, the Greeks, the Albanians, the Romanians, the Bulgarians and many more ware saved. A christian superpower might have assimilated those cultures.The Ottoman culture didn't.

The cultural heritage of the Serbs, the Greeks, the Albanians, the Romanians, the Bulgarians was preserved by their own efforts, not Ottoman "niceness". Even under Catholic rule, Orthodox Christians resisted assimilation. Eg. Ukraine under Polish-Lithuanian rule. So under Ottoman rule, it was not any better or worse. The independence movements of the 19th century were the by-products of a strong determination to preserve one's heritage under occupation by an alien culture and religion. However, others assimilated into Ottoman culture and religion better than others like the Bosniaks and Albanians.

[DukeofSerbia]

I was a little bit busy. So here is my answer...
DukeofSerbia
Thanks for the elucidation.The Bosnians are young nation created after the middle of XXth century. However the native of Bosnia were mainly heretics although the formal religion was the Catholicism the Bogomil herecy was very popular.

Constitutive nations in Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina are Bosnjaks, Serbs and Croats. Muslims are introduced as a nation after WW II in Constitution of Socialist Federal Republik of Yugoslavia. It's one of the world's greatest perversion that religion became nation!

It's a popular tale that medieval Bosnia was heretical (so called Bogumils). The main religion was Orthodox Christianity and people were over 90% Serbs. You should know that for Romancatholics (for long time in history) Orthodox Christians were some kind of infidels. And those Bogumils were called Patharens because in Orthodoxy "And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets" and Romancatholics teach that Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father and the Son (Filioque).
And the most Bosnian rulers were Orthodoxs (especially king who were all Orthodox).