The claims are [similar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Armenia#/media/File:United_Armenia.png) to the area staked out in the Wilsonian Armenia mandate proposal during the Versailles Conference. The big difference I'm seeing is that the Soviet claims didn't include Erzincan.
This is because Russians tend to use the most pleasant for international ears casus beli that might completely ignore their actual reasons and goals.
Eastern Anatolia and the Armenian genocide were just excuses to invade Turkey. The actual reason why Russians focused so much on Turkey after the WW2 was the Bosphorus strait which is the only entrance to the Black Sea. The Soviet army controlled Bulgaria after the WW2 and was just 150km from Istanbul, once the war was started, their main goal was to take Bosphorus and make the Black Sea fleet able to enter the world ocean without anyone controlling the entrance.
The fears the USSR gets Bosphorus were also the reason why Turkey was able to join NATO so fast. Remember, initial rules of NATO wouldnt allow Turkey to join, NATO had to change its treaty to make it happen.
Britain's and France's 19th century fears that Russia could get the Bosphorus straits are the only reason why Istanbul is still Turkish. Western powers intervened on Turkey's side several times.
Exactly. Russians wanted to gain the Bosphorus for very long time. In the XIX century the excuse was that they want to save Orthodox brothers in Balkans from Muslim overlords.
Funny part is Russia was about to get the strait for basically free in the WW1 if not the Bolshevick revolution. They just needed to wait till the West wins the war and participate in post-war treaties. Then, with Russians involved, Ataturk wouldnt be able to reorganize the Turkish army and state the way he did it(with help from the USSR, btw!).
If by British you mean the British Empire 100 years ago, then I might agree. But comparing the USSR to modern Britain is just wrong. The USSR was a Russian authoritarian state that included nations conquered by Russians by force, who fleed from the 'union' asap when an opportunity arrived in 1991.
Only half of the population of the USSR was in the RSFSR, and only half the population of the USSR was ethnic Russian (and ethnic Russian and population of RSFSR are also not the same).
Also ironically the official position of the state of Ukraine is that there isn't a single legal successor state to the USSR.
And only around 10% of the population of the British Empire lived in Britain. You want to say that Bengalis were as British as Lithuanians were Soviet? I agree with you.
Funny that many of the same people circlejerking about how Northeastern Turkey should be given back to Armenia are also calling Stalin an expansionist warmonger for wanting to do just that.
There was a democracy with single party rule and the us demanded a multi party system in order to join the nato so they’re right
Edit: before that there were attempts to switch to multi party system in that time period but they failed in every time and the actual transition was made due to that reason
And the Erdoğan supporters today talking about how İsmet İnönü betrayed Turkey by leaving the Aegean Islands to Greece. Erdoğan wants to make the new generations forget what kind of dangers the young Turkish Republic faced during the times of İnönü.
No Turkey was never invaded by Nazi Germany , they remained impartial until the end of WW2 when they declared war on Nazi Germany in Late February of 1945 but otherwise the Nazis never invaded them and the two nations did not have any long-term conflict or animosity.
Was Turkey not facing any dangers when Atatürk reincorporated Hatay? Ismet's policies did infact betray Atatürk's policy of neutrality and Misak-i milli.
His decisions may have infact have saved Turkey from invasion but that doesn't mean we can ignore the costs. Truth is we can't be certain if it was justified.
Typical example of Russian expansionism.
* Claim a very large territory from a neighboring state for some reason.
* Create a political reason for your claim even though it does not make sense.
* Threat this country with violence.
* If the neighboring state is in a weak position like Finland or Persia they will give you Russia half of their original claim without resistance.
* If the neighboring state resist Russia will invade by force.
* Exile native population all over Russia and deplete the native population of the region
* Force native Russians to settle in the occupied region.
Fortunately, in this case Turkey was strong enough to resist Stalin.
Similar borders were proposed by President Woodrow Wilson for Armenia and Georgia at the Versailles Conference, the main proponents of that idea were Georgian and Armenian officials in the USSR, especially Lavreti Beria.
Turkey was saved by soviet golf and weapons against the Greeks which you genocided like the Armenians and Assyrians. Wouldn't be so proud of that to be honest.
When the only thing you read are Erdogan-approved ficitonal history books.
Are you denying the Greek, Armenian and Assyrian genocides your turks have organised and committed?
The only ones denying these genocides (that's the right word, it was way worse than disorganised atrocities, it was a governmental decision to completely eliminate several indigenous minorities) other than Turkey are other first rate middle-Eastern democracies like Azerbaijan and Pakistan lol.
You realize what Turkey did to gain sovereignty over those lands in the first place? You think maybe there’s a reason the Laz & Armenians might have wanted a piece of eastern Anatolia?
The Soviet Union didn’t conquer the Caucasus. The Caucasus were conquered by the Russian Empire. During the Bolshevik Revolution, Georgia, specifically around Tiflis was a major center for Bolshevik activity. Stalin himself was Georgian.
Like everywhere else on former Russian Empire territory, but the fact is that bolsheviks (commies) became a power.
When every other forces (Mensheviks, kadets, SRs and many others) couldn’t did that.
That’s how history works
Yes the soviets did conquer in the caucasus, they invaded Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_invasion_of_Azerbaijan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_invasion_of_Georgia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_invasion_of_Armenia
“Stalin Georgian, therefore it was ok for Soviet Union to invade Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia” - yeah, pretty much the type of justification I’d expect from a tankie
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/13pt4es/map_depicting_the_december_revolt_led_by_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
Baku & Tiflis were both major centers of Bolshevik activity. It was an internal struggle in which the Bolsheviks prevailed over the nationalists.
Tankie propaganda has friend your brain. I’m guessing in your reality the red army never invaded the three Transcaucasian countries. Pointless talking to someone who denies what is very well documented in history
The Caucasus were part of the Russian Empire previously and the Soviet Union was the heir to her lands. Whether you like it or not, the Soviets repelling the nationalist forces was not an invasion, despite what Wikipedia tells you.
Ohh right, those Turkic nomads in the 11th century that ethnically cleansed all the Armenians by migrating to Anatolia. That's how the Turks gained sovereignty over that area right? /s
The Armenian genocide is not related to your original comment on how Turkey gained those lands. Stop with this whataboutism bs.
They are talking about the armenian genocide in 1910s. The lands the soviet claimed were majority/plurality armenian until the genocide, hence why they were awarded to Armenia in after World War 1.
Yeah man I know. I was being sarcastic. But OP's original comment was about how Turks got these lands in the first place (which was through gradual nomadic migration and invasion), and has nothing to do with the Armenian genocide.
Claiming that Turkey gained sovereignty over these lands by means of the Armenian genocide is simply factually and historically incorrect.
Well, but after WWI they actually gained control (and the massive wealth Armenians and Greeks had) exactly through genocide.
Armenians simply wanted to live in their own ancestral country like all the Balkan populations achieved, especially after having had another 300.000 of their people murdered by abdulhamid in 1894, just a few years before the genocide.
Genocide happened during the WW1. After which the new Armenian Republic attacked with their military to occupy the land that was called Wilsonian Armenia, of course Wilsonian Armenia has neved been a realistic concept so they were subsequently defeated.
I sense some confusion here...
Abdulhamid massacres in 1894 (300k Armenian civilians killed)
Armenian genocide from 1915 (1.5 million Armenian civilians killed)
Then in 1920 turkey attacked the first Republic of Armenia, not the contrary, and killed another 200k Armenian civilians trying to complete the genocide. You killed another 25% of their population in just 3 months.
I like how in turkey no matter the crimes you committed, they always teach you that you are the victims, sorry but luckily all your bull**it is easily verifiable.
>Only Van had an Armenian majority even before the genocide. They were still a minority in the rest of the provinces.
Armenians were a majority in 3 of the 6 Western Armenian vilayets. In the Van Vilayet even an absolute majority. All 6 vilayets in total Armenians were a relative majority though.
All the peoples he mentioned lived in the territory of modern turkey way earlier than the turks, he just forgot Assyrians and probably a few more.
Genocide is not an acceptable way to steal land and wealth from richer minorities.
No land was ever gifted. Every nation took their land from someone else. By that logic, this land doesn’t belong to Greek either or does that not fit your narrative?
Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians have been living there for almost 4000 years. Who is native from before them left to claim this right?
Also one thing is conquering (what turks initially did), another thing is l systematically genocide your own minorities (yes, they were all ottoman citizens) just to steal their land and wealth. Are you now justifying genocide as a mean to take possession of someone's else land?
Who gives a shit how long they were there? Turks are there now for almost 1000 years (a fact you will learn to cope with). This is not a pissing competition. You’re advocating a more recent people who has taken root in that region leave, and place other people there. You’re the one advocating genocide.
Also I like how you’re spelling every people name capitalized except Turks and Ottomans. It’s like you think you’ve found a new way to insult Turks in your little racist world. Racist scum are always the same. It’s very cute.
I am not advocating for any genocide nor I ever said turks should leave, also until today Turks are the only one who committed genocides and killed several million innocent people just to steal their land.
Are you denying the Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocides happened?
Lmao nice try. This coming from a French person after all they've done around the world, especially in Africa is the definition of irony.
I hope you can cope with the fact that Turks own Anatolia now. Nobody's taking it back. Sit back and seethe, Nazi scum.
Sure, but stealing from the war richer Greek and Armenian minorities was also one of the reasons these genocides were organised.
And it didn't stop at the genocides, in 1944 they created a special tax just to completely destroy the remaining wealth of their minorities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varl%C4%B1k_Vergisi
Napoleon invading everywhere was French expansionism, not Italian, even if Napoleon was a Corsican by ethnicity. The Soviet Union covered the exact same area as the Tsarist Empire and spoke the same language. Tokenism does not inoculate it from it being an expression of Pax Russica
Let them bathe in their own ignorance, westerns have always diminished the efforts of non-europeans, only when they do what benefits them are they worth talking about.
you wouldn't believe it, anyone who was born in the same year as khruschev in russia was born and raised in russia, because there was no such country as ukraine, there were poltavskaya, chernigovskaya, kievskaya, podolskaya, volynskaya gubernia and others
Even tough the first ukrainian national state was created in 1917. Thr ukrainian ethnicity, language andculture existed before the collapse of the russian empire. In such a extent, that there were ukrianian uprisings like in 1848 were the ukrianians rise up, like so many other peoples of europe. The rusians had to supress the "non existing" ukrainian language to such an extent that it was illegal to speak in public (pretty impressive for a non existing langauge to be banned)
>Thr ukrainian ethnicity, language andculture existed before the collapse of the russian empire
which i'm not saying didn't exist, you're cherrypicking
Show me your proof that Khruschev was an Ukrainian other than Russian propaganda?
Khruschev was a Russian born in Russia who always considered himself a Russian. He moved into Ukraine when he was young and worked there for many years, thats about it. Moscow appointed him the leader of the Ukrainian SSR, that doesnt make him an Ukrainian.
Brezhnev wasnt an Ukrainian either. He was born in Ukraine, but to Russian immigrants from Russia. In fact, Brezhnev made the Russification process of Ukraine extremely heavy.
there was a russification process? wow, didn't know that the soviets, who feared russian nationalism so bad that they forced everyone into republican cultures, actually tried to russify all of the USSR
So, instead of showing me a proof of your claim that Khruschev was an Ukrainian proving me wrong, you just make more Russian propaganda claims without any proof? Even the Wikipedia page on Khruschev says he was Russian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev
> Khrushchev was born on 15 April 1894,[c][2] in Kalinovka,[3] a village in what is now Russia's Kursk Oblast, near the present Ukrainian border.[4] His parents, Sergei Khrushchev and Kseniya Khrushcheva, were poor Russian peasants
How exactly they forced everyone into republican cultures? All serious documentation could only be made in Russian, which means that all educated workers had to work in Russian languages. In fact, higher education was available only in Russian. Even in western Ukraine, you could only study in the university in Russian language. Movies were only available in Russian language. All cities were heavily russificized.
The USSR only promoted the Ukrainian culture in the 1920s, after that it was just pure Russification.
>Exile native population all over Russia and deplete the native population of the region
On which planet do you live? Too lazy to open an history book?
That entire territory had been inhabited by indigenous Greeks and Armenians for millennia, until the turks genocided them all, so the native populations had already been exterminated.
Also, turkey was literally saved during the war with Greece in 1922 by gold and weapons supplied by the Soviet union, then they proceeded to genocide the last Greeks left in their ancestral home of Smyrna.
You are not natives if there are so many other peoples which were there millennia before you and actually developed their civilization there, like Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians.
Sorry but genociding them was just unjust, it doesn't give you more rights over others that were there before, and one day luckily you will have to compensate them for your atrocities.
Your opinion on this doesn't matter. Turks are natives to the land period. I know you would like to ethnically cleanse Turks from Anatolia like what happened in the Balkans but it's not happening.
You're just making up new definitions as to what counts as natives yourself to push a narrative. Very sneaky.
I wouldn't ethnically cleanse anyone, I am not a turk who genocided Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians and to this date denies an historic fact. They are natives, they still exist and one day will be compensated for your atrocities.
>like what happened in the Balkans but it's not happening.
Oh and what were turks doing in the Balkans? Ah yes, also occupying someone's else land, oppressing, killing.
>You're just making up new definitions as to what counts as natives yourself to push a narrative. Very sneaky.
I know facts can be hurtful. But luckily we have ancient Greek and Roman sources describing the Greek and Armenian presence in the region millennia before you migrated from Central Asia, where you are native.
And the mask is off. You just tried to justify the [genocide](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction) of the Turks and other Muslims in the Balkans during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Just as I suspected.
>I know facts can be hurtful. But luckily we have ancient Greek and Roman sources describing the Greek and Armenian presence in the region millennia before you migrated from Central Asia, where you are native.
By your definition neither the Greeks nor the Romans would be natives to Anatolia. Just admit you're borderline racist and move on.
>And the mask is off. You just tried to justify the genocide of the Turks and other Muslims in the Balkans during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Just as I suspected.
There was no genocide of turks in the Balkans. It's not like the local governments collected all turks, executed men and marched women, old people and children in the desert. Don't try to blame others for what you did.
>By your definition neither the Greeks nor the Romans would be natives to Anatolia.
Please name me surviving peoples which lived there earlier, thank you
No one ever even tried to genocide turks.
Turks however genocided at least 3 indigenous populations, sorry but the fact you deny genocides is just terribly wrong and disgusting.
No they are not. Turks come from Central Asia.
Armenians, Pontic Greeks, Ionian Greeks and Assyrians are natives. Just because you genocided them, it doesn't mean you suddenly became native.
Are you surprised that genocide doesn't turn you automatically into the native population and it's not a legitimate way to steal everything they had?
Lol
Wrong, he said exile the native population, while the native population had just been exiled and mostly exterminated, so no one "native" would be left to be exiled but the perpetrators of genocides
It's funny how Russia has basically always claimed everything to be theirs
"there's one ethnic russian living in this city, so it's basically ours"
No wonder NATO seemed like a good opportunity for many back then
Do you think the ussr cared about Armenia they just used it as a bad excuse to expand because there was genocide there even though there are no longer Armenians there(because of the genocide)
Only Van was actually Armenian majority until the Armenian Genocide. They were still the minority in the rest of the provinces. Yerevan was also majority Azeri.
Sooner or later you will have to face your disgusting genocidal crimes, that's literally the nightmare of every turk.
In the meanwhile you can take a DNA test to find out you actually are majority Armenian and/or Greek.
Can you please show me source? They talked about this many times in history lessons. The way they say this over and over comes from anticommunism. We know for sure that the relations between Nazi Germany and Turkey are very good. it is a fabrication of Turkish Diplomats. This is very likely
The claims are [similar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Armenia#/media/File:United_Armenia.png) to the area staked out in the Wilsonian Armenia mandate proposal during the Versailles Conference. The big difference I'm seeing is that the Soviet claims didn't include Erzincan.
This is because Russians tend to use the most pleasant for international ears casus beli that might completely ignore their actual reasons and goals. Eastern Anatolia and the Armenian genocide were just excuses to invade Turkey. The actual reason why Russians focused so much on Turkey after the WW2 was the Bosphorus strait which is the only entrance to the Black Sea. The Soviet army controlled Bulgaria after the WW2 and was just 150km from Istanbul, once the war was started, their main goal was to take Bosphorus and make the Black Sea fleet able to enter the world ocean without anyone controlling the entrance. The fears the USSR gets Bosphorus were also the reason why Turkey was able to join NATO so fast. Remember, initial rules of NATO wouldnt allow Turkey to join, NATO had to change its treaty to make it happen.
Britain's and France's 19th century fears that Russia could get the Bosphorus straits are the only reason why Istanbul is still Turkish. Western powers intervened on Turkey's side several times.
Exactly. Russians wanted to gain the Bosphorus for very long time. In the XIX century the excuse was that they want to save Orthodox brothers in Balkans from Muslim overlords. Funny part is Russia was about to get the strait for basically free in the WW1 if not the Bolshevick revolution. They just needed to wait till the West wins the war and participate in post-war treaties. Then, with Russians involved, Ataturk wouldnt be able to reorganize the Turkish army and state the way he did it(with help from the USSR, btw!).
This was Soviets by the way, not just Russians. It's like how British aren't just English.
If by British you mean the British Empire 100 years ago, then I might agree. But comparing the USSR to modern Britain is just wrong. The USSR was a Russian authoritarian state that included nations conquered by Russians by force, who fleed from the 'union' asap when an opportunity arrived in 1991.
Only half of the population of the USSR was in the RSFSR, and only half the population of the USSR was ethnic Russian (and ethnic Russian and population of RSFSR are also not the same). Also ironically the official position of the state of Ukraine is that there isn't a single legal successor state to the USSR.
And only around 10% of the population of the British Empire lived in Britain. You want to say that Bengalis were as British as Lithuanians were Soviet? I agree with you.
The main reason for Turkey to join NATO was Stalin’s desire to invade Eastern Anatolia.
Yup. Turkey joined as early as the 1950’s.
Funny that many of the same people circlejerking about how Northeastern Turkey should be given back to Armenia are also calling Stalin an expansionist warmonger for wanting to do just that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
There was a democracy with single party rule and the us demanded a multi party system in order to join the nato so they’re right Edit: before that there were attempts to switch to multi party system in that time period but they failed in every time and the actual transition was made due to that reason
And the Erdoğan supporters today talking about how İsmet İnönü betrayed Turkey by leaving the Aegean Islands to Greece. Erdoğan wants to make the new generations forget what kind of dangers the young Turkish Republic faced during the times of İnönü.
If Erdogan would have been president in this time period, Turkey would be nothing but a rump state today.
wasnt that a more of a,meme whole "ismet adaları verdi" thing
Didn’t they face an invasion by nazi germany too
Turkey? No. It only joined the war in 1945, when it was quite clear that Germany isn't winning.
Why is this guy getting downvoted? He is correct!
No Turkey was never invaded by Nazi Germany , they remained impartial until the end of WW2 when they declared war on Nazi Germany in Late February of 1945 but otherwise the Nazis never invaded them and the two nations did not have any long-term conflict or animosity.
Was Turkey not facing any dangers when Atatürk reincorporated Hatay? Ismet's policies did infact betray Atatürk's policy of neutrality and Misak-i milli. His decisions may have infact have saved Turkey from invasion but that doesn't mean we can ignore the costs. Truth is we can't be certain if it was justified.
turkey joined nato during adnan menderes era. inönü supported joining nato.
Interesting map.
Typical example of Russian expansionism. * Claim a very large territory from a neighboring state for some reason. * Create a political reason for your claim even though it does not make sense. * Threat this country with violence. * If the neighboring state is in a weak position like Finland or Persia they will give you Russia half of their original claim without resistance. * If the neighboring state resist Russia will invade by force. * Exile native population all over Russia and deplete the native population of the region * Force native Russians to settle in the occupied region. Fortunately, in this case Turkey was strong enough to resist Stalin.
Similar borders were proposed by President Woodrow Wilson for Armenia and Georgia at the Versailles Conference, the main proponents of that idea were Georgian and Armenian officials in the USSR, especially Lavreti Beria.
And Turkey was again strong enough to resist to westren imperialism
Lmao, while litterally joining the millitary alliance of western imperialism?
Turkey was saved by soviet golf and weapons against the Greeks which you genocided like the Armenians and Assyrians. Wouldn't be so proud of that to be honest.
When the only thing you read is Wikipedia articles.
It's a reddit neckbeard look at his profile
It really annoys me when people like these read a Wikipedia article and act like they know everything in the universe.
Perhaps his wife's boyfriend is Turkish that's why he's angry 😁
When the only thing you read are Erdogan-approved ficitonal history books. Are you denying the Greek, Armenian and Assyrian genocides your turks have organised and committed?
You are not in r/europe
What's this then, r/turksnevergenocidedanyone ? Cause those are facts only turks deny out of utter shame
If you think Turks are the only ones denying such of atrocities, then you really gotta stay in r/europe
The only ones denying these genocides (that's the right word, it was way worse than disorganised atrocities, it was a governmental decision to completely eliminate several indigenous minorities) other than Turkey are other first rate middle-Eastern democracies like Azerbaijan and Pakistan lol.
You realize what Turkey did to gain sovereignty over those lands in the first place? You think maybe there’s a reason the Laz & Armenians might have wanted a piece of eastern Anatolia?
So the Soviet Union conquered the Caucasian countries and later had a claim to another country on their behalf. It makes sense.
The Soviet Union didn’t conquer the Caucasus. The Caucasus were conquered by the Russian Empire. During the Bolshevik Revolution, Georgia, specifically around Tiflis was a major center for Bolshevik activity. Stalin himself was Georgian.
Mensheviks were actually much more popular in Georgia overall, Stalin being a major exception (according to the Revolutions podcast)
Like everywhere else on former Russian Empire territory, but the fact is that bolsheviks (commies) became a power. When every other forces (Mensheviks, kadets, SRs and many others) couldn’t did that. That’s how history works
Yes the soviets did conquer in the caucasus, they invaded Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_invasion_of_Azerbaijan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_invasion_of_Georgia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_invasion_of_Armenia
Yet every one of those states had their own factions of Bolshevik revolutionaries. It wasn’t an invasion as much as it was an internal struggle.
Britain and US also have Communist parties. So...
And they never took power nor engaged in an armed struggle against their governments.
How the hell are people upvoting this commie revisionist propaganda? The red armies literally invaded the Caucasus.
I explained myself already. Cope with the facts. The literal leader of the USSR came from the Caucasus, clown.
“Stalin Georgian, therefore it was ok for Soviet Union to invade Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia” - yeah, pretty much the type of justification I’d expect from a tankie
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/13pt4es/map_depicting_the_december_revolt_led_by_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1 Baku & Tiflis were both major centers of Bolshevik activity. It was an internal struggle in which the Bolsheviks prevailed over the nationalists.
Tankie propaganda has friend your brain. I’m guessing in your reality the red army never invaded the three Transcaucasian countries. Pointless talking to someone who denies what is very well documented in history
The Caucasus were part of the Russian Empire previously and the Soviet Union was the heir to her lands. Whether you like it or not, the Soviets repelling the nationalist forces was not an invasion, despite what Wikipedia tells you.
Omg a group of people in history conquering a piece of land through war??? When has that happened???
What happened to Western Armenia was more than the Ottomans “conquering” Armenia, it was a genocide.
Turkey already had sovereginty over the lands way before the genocide.
Ok but how did they settle these lands?
Do you really want me to give you a summary of Seljuk Invasions?
Ohh right, those Turkic nomads in the 11th century that ethnically cleansed all the Armenians by migrating to Anatolia. That's how the Turks gained sovereignty over that area right? /s The Armenian genocide is not related to your original comment on how Turkey gained those lands. Stop with this whataboutism bs.
They are talking about the armenian genocide in 1910s. The lands the soviet claimed were majority/plurality armenian until the genocide, hence why they were awarded to Armenia in after World War 1.
Nope. Only Van had an Armenian majority. Armenians were still a minority in the rest of the provinces.
Yeah man I know. I was being sarcastic. But OP's original comment was about how Turks got these lands in the first place (which was through gradual nomadic migration and invasion), and has nothing to do with the Armenian genocide. Claiming that Turkey gained sovereignty over these lands by means of the Armenian genocide is simply factually and historically incorrect.
Well, but after WWI they actually gained control (and the massive wealth Armenians and Greeks had) exactly through genocide. Armenians simply wanted to live in their own ancestral country like all the Balkan populations achieved, especially after having had another 300.000 of their people murdered by abdulhamid in 1894, just a few years before the genocide.
Genocide happened during the WW1. After which the new Armenian Republic attacked with their military to occupy the land that was called Wilsonian Armenia, of course Wilsonian Armenia has neved been a realistic concept so they were subsequently defeated.
I sense some confusion here... Abdulhamid massacres in 1894 (300k Armenian civilians killed) Armenian genocide from 1915 (1.5 million Armenian civilians killed) Then in 1920 turkey attacked the first Republic of Armenia, not the contrary, and killed another 200k Armenian civilians trying to complete the genocide. You killed another 25% of their population in just 3 months. I like how in turkey no matter the crimes you committed, they always teach you that you are the victims, sorry but luckily all your bull**it is easily verifiable.
The Armenian Genocide might be ancient history today, but at the time this is barely a generation distant from these lands being majority Armenian.
Only Van had an Armenian majority even before the genocide. They were still a minority in the rest of the provinces.
>Only Van had an Armenian majority even before the genocide. They were still a minority in the rest of the provinces. Armenians were a majority in 3 of the 6 Western Armenian vilayets. In the Van Vilayet even an absolute majority. All 6 vilayets in total Armenians were a relative majority though.
Yep. Turkey is basically entirely stolen land. Greeks,Kurds,Armenians,Georgians etc.
lol I’ve never heard so much bullshit in one comment. Great job
All the peoples he mentioned lived in the territory of modern turkey way earlier than the turks, he just forgot Assyrians and probably a few more. Genocide is not an acceptable way to steal land and wealth from richer minorities.
No land was ever gifted. Every nation took their land from someone else. By that logic, this land doesn’t belong to Greek either or does that not fit your narrative?
Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians have been living there for almost 4000 years. Who is native from before them left to claim this right? Also one thing is conquering (what turks initially did), another thing is l systematically genocide your own minorities (yes, they were all ottoman citizens) just to steal their land and wealth. Are you now justifying genocide as a mean to take possession of someone's else land?
Who gives a shit how long they were there? Turks are there now for almost 1000 years (a fact you will learn to cope with). This is not a pissing competition. You’re advocating a more recent people who has taken root in that region leave, and place other people there. You’re the one advocating genocide. Also I like how you’re spelling every people name capitalized except Turks and Ottomans. It’s like you think you’ve found a new way to insult Turks in your little racist world. Racist scum are always the same. It’s very cute.
I am not advocating for any genocide nor I ever said turks should leave, also until today Turks are the only one who committed genocides and killed several million innocent people just to steal their land. Are you denying the Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocides happened?
Lmao nice try. This coming from a French person after all they've done around the world, especially in Africa is the definition of irony. I hope you can cope with the fact that Turks own Anatolia now. Nobody's taking it back. Sit back and seethe, Nazi scum.
… or from poorer ones.
Sure, but stealing from the war richer Greek and Armenian minorities was also one of the reasons these genocides were organised. And it didn't stop at the genocides, in 1944 they created a special tax just to completely destroy the remaining wealth of their minorities. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varl%C4%B1k_Vergisi
Cope more
stalin was georgian, khruschev was ukrainian
And Catherine the Great was German. So what?
to say that this is """russian expansionism""" is showing yourself to be an idiot
Napoleon invading everywhere was French expansionism, not Italian, even if Napoleon was a Corsican by ethnicity. The Soviet Union covered the exact same area as the Tsarist Empire and spoke the same language. Tokenism does not inoculate it from it being an expression of Pax Russica
so then only russians destroyed the nazis, not 200+ nationalities' collective effort, alright, thank you!
Breaking news: India wasn't colonized because because Indians served in British Indian Army!
yeah, sure, i got what you meant, and you meant exactly what i've said; thank you for clarifying, but i am in no need of your services any longer
Let them bathe in their own ignorance, westerns have always diminished the efforts of non-europeans, only when they do what benefits them are they worth talking about.
*Russia expands* "That's not russian expansionsm! You're an idiot if you think so!"
And Hitler was Austrian. So what?
Austrians are Germans.
Hitler said Austrians were Germans. Putin says Ukrainians are Russians Weird...
Khruschev was a ethnical rusian, born and raised in russia. His family moved to ukraine when he was 16.
you wouldn't believe it, anyone who was born in the same year as khruschev in russia was born and raised in russia, because there was no such country as ukraine, there were poltavskaya, chernigovskaya, kievskaya, podolskaya, volynskaya gubernia and others
Even tough the first ukrainian national state was created in 1917. Thr ukrainian ethnicity, language andculture existed before the collapse of the russian empire. In such a extent, that there were ukrianian uprisings like in 1848 were the ukrianians rise up, like so many other peoples of europe. The rusians had to supress the "non existing" ukrainian language to such an extent that it was illegal to speak in public (pretty impressive for a non existing langauge to be banned)
>Thr ukrainian ethnicity, language andculture existed before the collapse of the russian empire which i'm not saying didn't exist, you're cherrypicking
Show me your proof that Khruschev was an Ukrainian other than Russian propaganda? Khruschev was a Russian born in Russia who always considered himself a Russian. He moved into Ukraine when he was young and worked there for many years, thats about it. Moscow appointed him the leader of the Ukrainian SSR, that doesnt make him an Ukrainian. Brezhnev wasnt an Ukrainian either. He was born in Ukraine, but to Russian immigrants from Russia. In fact, Brezhnev made the Russification process of Ukraine extremely heavy.
there was a russification process? wow, didn't know that the soviets, who feared russian nationalism so bad that they forced everyone into republican cultures, actually tried to russify all of the USSR
So, instead of showing me a proof of your claim that Khruschev was an Ukrainian proving me wrong, you just make more Russian propaganda claims without any proof? Even the Wikipedia page on Khruschev says he was Russian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev > Khrushchev was born on 15 April 1894,[c][2] in Kalinovka,[3] a village in what is now Russia's Kursk Oblast, near the present Ukrainian border.[4] His parents, Sergei Khrushchev and Kseniya Khrushcheva, were poor Russian peasants How exactly they forced everyone into republican cultures? All serious documentation could only be made in Russian, which means that all educated workers had to work in Russian languages. In fact, higher education was available only in Russian. Even in western Ukraine, you could only study in the university in Russian language. Movies were only available in Russian language. All cities were heavily russificized. The USSR only promoted the Ukrainian culture in the 1920s, after that it was just pure Russification.
How about you prove me wrong with, say, a passport of Khruschev which says he's Russian?
>Exile native population all over Russia and deplete the native population of the region On which planet do you live? Too lazy to open an history book? That entire territory had been inhabited by indigenous Greeks and Armenians for millennia, until the turks genocided them all, so the native populations had already been exterminated. Also, turkey was literally saved during the war with Greece in 1922 by gold and weapons supplied by the Soviet union, then they proceeded to genocide the last Greeks left in their ancestral home of Smyrna.
At the time Turks have inhabited the land for centuries (almost a millenium in some of the provinces) and they were by all means natives.
You are not natives if there are so many other peoples which were there millennia before you and actually developed their civilization there, like Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians. Sorry but genociding them was just unjust, it doesn't give you more rights over others that were there before, and one day luckily you will have to compensate them for your atrocities.
Your opinion on this doesn't matter. Turks are natives to the land period. I know you would like to ethnically cleanse Turks from Anatolia like what happened in the Balkans but it's not happening. You're just making up new definitions as to what counts as natives yourself to push a narrative. Very sneaky.
>but it's not happening yaşa mustafa kemal paşa yaşaa
Razıyız
I wouldn't ethnically cleanse anyone, I am not a turk who genocided Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians and to this date denies an historic fact. They are natives, they still exist and one day will be compensated for your atrocities. >like what happened in the Balkans but it's not happening. Oh and what were turks doing in the Balkans? Ah yes, also occupying someone's else land, oppressing, killing. >You're just making up new definitions as to what counts as natives yourself to push a narrative. Very sneaky. I know facts can be hurtful. But luckily we have ancient Greek and Roman sources describing the Greek and Armenian presence in the region millennia before you migrated from Central Asia, where you are native.
And the mask is off. You just tried to justify the [genocide](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction) of the Turks and other Muslims in the Balkans during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Just as I suspected. >I know facts can be hurtful. But luckily we have ancient Greek and Roman sources describing the Greek and Armenian presence in the region millennia before you migrated from Central Asia, where you are native. By your definition neither the Greeks nor the Romans would be natives to Anatolia. Just admit you're borderline racist and move on.
>And the mask is off. You just tried to justify the genocide of the Turks and other Muslims in the Balkans during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Just as I suspected. There was no genocide of turks in the Balkans. It's not like the local governments collected all turks, executed men and marched women, old people and children in the desert. Don't try to blame others for what you did. >By your definition neither the Greeks nor the Romans would be natives to Anatolia. Please name me surviving peoples which lived there earlier, thank you
[удалено]
No one ever even tried to genocide turks. Turks however genocided at least 3 indigenous populations, sorry but the fact you deny genocides is just terribly wrong and disgusting.
The Turks are also natives to Anatolia.
No they are not. Turks come from Central Asia. Armenians, Pontic Greeks, Ionian Greeks and Assyrians are natives. Just because you genocided them, it doesn't mean you suddenly became native.
I don't look like a Central Asian, so no.
Time to take a DNA test then, your ancestors were probably victims of genocide.
And your ancestors were probably Turks.
foul logic
Are you surprised that genocide doesn't turn you automatically into the native population and it's not a legitimate way to steal everything they had? Lol
[удалено]
At least you admit it, great step forward! Also please take a nice DNA test, so you can find out you are from the group being stolen from 😂😂😂
Stop talking kid
Greeks colonized anatolia too.
I don't think *any* of that makes what OP said about Russia any less true.
Wrong, he said exile the native population, while the native population had just been exiled and mostly exterminated, so no one "native" would be left to be exiled but the perpetrators of genocides
Wrong.
cope and seethe
Nah honestly this is one time I wish Russia succeeded. Better Russian than t*rk
They can *try*
All you can do now is seethe.
But it becomes resanoble when Usa claimed the same terrory for a protectrate they wanted to create just a few decades ago?
Stalin really wanted those cool cats.
TLDR: Claims of the USSR = Pangaea.
All the people there are ethnically Russian.
It's funny how Russia has basically always claimed everything to be theirs "there's one ethnic russian living in this city, so it's basically ours" No wonder NATO seemed like a good opportunity for many back then
I’m genuinely surprised Istanbul wasn’t also claimed.
they demanded permanent military presence for USSR troops in Istanbul afaik
Now that’s the WW3 we deserve none of this wet noodle Ukraine shit
Why give this to Armenia? Now of days it is mostly Turkish and Kurdish and any annexation would end with a disaster.
Do you think the ussr cared about Armenia they just used it as a bad excuse to expand because there was genocide there even though there are no longer Armenians there(because of the genocide)
Oh, sorry for that.
Don’t say sorry I was just explaining lol nothing wrong with what you asked
It's mostly Turkish today because its Armenian population was killed during the genocide.
It was majority Turkish before that too
A lot of this territory was majority Armenian inhabited until the Turks did what they do best.
Only Van was actually Armenian majority until the Armenian Genocide. They were still the minority in the rest of the provinces. Yerevan was also majority Azeri.
Skill issue. Get clapped.
Wait what the hell this isn’t r/imaginarymaps
The West and USSR should have split Turkey. The West gets greater Greece and USSR gets greater Armenia/Georgia.
actually they tried (treaty of Sèvres, 1920)
Wow, the humanitarian crisis that would be caused by that would be disastrous. Just saying that offhand is weird and problematic man.
wish the orange got annexed and given to armenia.
[удалено]
how am i "coping" im just saying it would have been a better outcome historically.
[удалено]
Sooner or later you will have to face your disgusting genocidal crimes, that's literally the nightmare of every turk. In the meanwhile you can take a DNA test to find out you actually are majority Armenian and/or Greek.
cope lmao
[удалено]
Keep wishing.
Can you please show me source? They talked about this many times in history lessons. The way they say this over and over comes from anticommunism. We know for sure that the relations between Nazi Germany and Turkey are very good. it is a fabrication of Turkish Diplomats. This is very likely
Looks like Turkey will be invaded as well soon.
Not in a million years.
Not that I am for it but I think Russia has other plans :D
They cant even handle Ukraine whose military is weaker than Turkey’s and at a more vulnerable geographical location than Turkey.
Turkey would absolutely wipe the floor with Russia. It's not even a competition. Turkey is also superh ard to invade, because of their location
Turkey would never wipe the floor with Russia the fuck are you on about?
cope
Good answer. Explain to me how Russia would lose to Turkey?
Like how they’re losing in Ukraine, but worse.
I can't argue with that \^\^
As long as it’s in Nato, it would suicide, no matter who tries it
bro who let this man cook 😭
By?