Support NeoGAF

[Gabriel_Logan]

Not knowing too much about this topic, what were Turkey's "justification" for committing the Armenian genocide?

Long story short they were seen as a liability and possible ally of the Russians. I think Turkey had some problems with collaborators who were Armenian? I'm not even sure about that its been so long since I looked into it.

 

[Already Torn]

The weirdest thing is that obviously none of the people trying to deny this genocide were directly responsible for it. We wouldn't get mad at them if they admitted it, and it wouldn't put any shame on them you know? But now they are bringing that shame upon themselves by denying it.

I must be missing some cultural thing that makes denying it somehow preferable. Like was anybody mad at Obama in Japan when he gave that speech?

 

[Gabriel_Logan]

Wait I'm pretty sure this list is BS. The United States for example does not recognize the genocide, although some states do at their level.

Here is a map of US states that recognize the genocide. Glad to see my State (Missouri) on there.

 

[Phantast2k]

This is very good, but I don't want anyone to have illusions about the motivation: It's a calculated, political move to put Turkey (Erdogan) under pressure. And it can be escalated at will: Germany putting its weight behind a EU-wide recognition, permission of (edit: judicial disputes over) compensations, etc.

I wonder if Erdogan caves.

 

[SecretMoblin]

Wait I'm pretty sure this list is BS. The United States for example does not recognize the genocide, although some states do at their level.

yeah, most US states do, the US House has passed recognition resolutions a few times but they never got through the Senate.

and yes, as posted above, the Obama administration including his former SOS Clinton have a... 'complicated' relationship with recognition

 

[Cocaloch]

Not denying, contesting, or even debating that this is exactly what happened, but I will add context to this. The Allies had made no secret what their aspiration was towards the Ottoman Empire; Britain had been encroaching on Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and took Egypt and Cyprus, France was openly interfering in Lebanon and Syria and enforcing the Capitulations, Italy had already seized Libya, broken off Albania, and was interested in further expansion into the Eastern Mediterranean at Ottoman expense, and Russia had been expanding southwards at Ottoman expense for over 150 years at this point, and finally, Greece and its Megali Idea aspirations were no secret to anybody. The Ottoman Empire was perpetually the whipping boy of Europe for the last century and no power respected its territorial integrity, it's political sovereignty, or even the rights of its non-Christian citizens.

And there were already plans in place for what to do with the Ottoman Empire, even before they joined the Central Powers, what with Greek irredentist claims, Italian delusions of a new Roman Empire by taking Southwestern Anatolia, French desire for Cilicia and Syria, British oil interests in Iraq, and Russia's centuries long claims to be the heirs of Rome and to take the entire Black Sea coast and Constantinople.

What am I trying to get at here? Not much, really. There's no justifying Ottoman actions, by any means or form. What I am trying to do is simply highlight the fact that Europe had collectively placed the Ottomans between a rock and a hard place; the Ottomans were more or less set up to fail by 1914 and Europe's incessant support for nationalists, separatists, and their previous dismantling of the Empire during the Congress of Berlin pretty much neutered any peaceful stabilization of the Empire, as well as ruining Ottoman attempts to embrace a multicultural state via Ottomanism.

Judge the Ottoman Empire harshly for its actions. But keep in mind context. The Ottomans did the deed but Europe pretty much helped lay the groundwork for its violent end.

I think you should think long and hard before standing by this. Historically context is always important and if you want to know the how and why then these questions must be asked. But we are dealing with judging a horrific event just out of living memory, an event that was in many ways one of the pillars of the creation of the Turkish state. I think it is unwise to put any of the blame on the west for this. Otherwise we could blame Britain, the US, and especially France for the Holocaust. Ultimately European encroachment in the area is morally no different, and perhaps in some ways more legitimate, than that of the Ottomans some 6 centuries before. I'm not defending it, but I am saying it simply isn't an excuse for these actions. Nor do you make a good case for why the Ottoman state had a mandate to continue. It's historical legitimacy was based on a mixture of conquest and administration, and when it lost both of those things it was only a matter of time till it would begin bleeding less attached provinces. Moreover, like many states, it simply could not keep up with the changing demands of what the state should be in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. It couldn't go on because it simply couldn't compete. While it did continue existing after 1839, it was simply always going to lead to the development of a nationalist Turkish state and the dissolution of the Ottoman state.

The weirdest thing is that obviously none of the people trying to deny this genocide were directly responsible for it. We wouldn't get mad at them if they admitted it, and it wouldn't put any shame on them you know? But now they are bringing that shame upon themselves by denying it.

I must be missing some cultural thing that makes denying it somehow preferable. Like was anybody mad at Obama in Japan when he gave that speech?

Not to generalize, but I think it's fair to say that nationalism is a stronger force in Turkey compared to most of Europe, and the genocides were a big part of the formation of the Turkish state.

 

[hobblygobbly]

armenia doesn't?

Wait I'm pretty sure this list is BS. The United States for example does not recognize the genocide, although some states do at their level.

I am not too sure, this is the list some news outlets have used so it's what I went with. I suppose Armenia isn't on the list since it excludes nations that no longer exist technically (think it was recognised during Armenia SSR, not Armenia today, but it carries over, just not for the list? Think the list exists for modern recognition?)

Seems like the same reason why the Ottomon Empire isn't on there even though it recognised it officially (despite Turkey today that doesn't). The note on wikipedia (with all its sources) states:

The verdict of the Turkish courts-martial of 1919–20 acknowledged the Armenian Genocide (then known as "war crimes"), and sentenced the perpetrators to death.[89] However, in 1921, during the resurgence of the Turkish National Movement, amnesty was given to those found guilty. Thereafter, the successive Turkish government, under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, adopted a policy of denial.[89][90][91][92]

In any case the actual wikipedia article is the most comprehensive since it includes regional governments (i.e such as the U.S states that do).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide_recognition

 

[dakun]

good. i come from a Turkish family an the length they go at to deny an obvious fact is disgusting. I've had some heated arguments with them about this issue.
Too many Turks see themselves and their country as infallible. They are quick to point fingers at other people or countries but when it comes to doing some self reflection they are arrogant and outright lie.

 

[Archer]

Glad it's now recognized.

 

[IrishNinja]

just wanted to thank Jasper for his informative posts here, learned a great deal about this today as a result of your efforts

 

[Piecake]

I'm sorry guys. This issue is just so emotive, and I can't go against what pretty much every member of my ethnic group feels, in that this is less about humanitarian concerns of the Armenian victims, but it's more about using it as a political leverage against Turkey.

I wish I wasn't such a brainwashed fool, but our ethnicity is hugely nationalistic, and indeed this issue actually unites both Secular and religious Turks together in expressing frustration towards the German parliament decision.

I don't know what to feel anymore. The issue upsets me, it upsets me that Turkey is seen as evil in the West, it upsets me that Turkey is so stubborn about the issue, I just wish my country of ethnic origin could be normal and integrated properly like Western Europe/America, but alas we are in this god damned mess and looking like idiots to you guys.

If we are being cynical, I would say that Germany's motive is more or less to gain some face back after Erdogan used an obsolete German law to take a German citizen to court because that person hurt Erdogan's poor poor feelings.

Turkey made Germany look weak and hurt the German govts domestic popularity. I don't think anyone should be surprised that Germany responded like this.

As for being evil, I doubt very many people think Turkey and its citizens are evil. Turkey just seems insanely nationalistic to the point of delusion and Erdogan comes off as petty, pathetic, and autocratic.

 

[EMT0]

I think you should think long and hard before standing by this. Historically context is always important and if you want to know the how and why then these questions must be asked. But we are dealing with judging a horrific event just out of living memory, an event that was in many ways one of the pillars of the creation of the Turkish state. I think it is unwise to put any of the blame on the west for this. Otherwise we could blame Britain, the US, and especially France for the Holocaust.

While I see what you're getting at and don't disagree that my point is on something of a slippery slope with regards to trying to balance morality and history, there's a a pretty significant difference between Germany pre-WW2 and the Ottoman Empire at 1914, facing existential threats from all sources.

Ultimately European encroachment in the area is morally no different, and perhaps in some ways more legitimate, than that of the Ottomans some 6 centuries before.

Perhaps, but it's worth keeping in mind that Europe's Great Powers were rife with hypocrisy with regards to when they did or did not intervene, support, or denounce. Britain's treatment of Ireland being but one example. Trying to justify, well, much of history's events is mental gymnastics and not really something worth doing, but I think it's easy to agree that Europe's Great Powers in that era are some of the easiest to critique in terms of morality or legitimacy. Nor am I sure why you're bringing up the original Ottoman conquests way back when. The Ottoman Empire WAS transitioning into a proto-industrial state as of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78. It was also beginning to experiment with civic participation in government and the idea of parliament and local representation, and had made moves to give and protect the rights of its many ethnic minorities. I'd feel safe arguing the idea that the Ottomans had some degree of legitimacy to continue their administration of the Balkans; it's not as though they were shamelessly looting the lands and disregarding any and all concerns from the locals like the British in India. It's why the Tanzimat Era happened, after all.

I'm not defending it, but I am saying it simply isn't an excuse for these actions. Nor do you make a good case for why the Ottoman state had a mandate to continue. It's historical legitimacy was based on a mixture of conquest and administration, and when it lost both of those things it was only a matter of time till it would begin bleeding less attached provinces.

Eh, one expansionist state losing provinces to another state with aspirations of expansion is tit for tat and never worth getting worked up about, but in the case of the Ottomans in the 19th century it's no secret that they were treated as the perpetual other within Europe, isolated diplomatically, and treated with the Victorian gloves other powers treated, say, Japan, with. Maybe useful, backwards, and other due to whatever critique was chosen, be it religion, dress, customs, or government, etc. The Ottomans had no more or less right to exist than any other state, but Victorian Europe did not see it as such. Hence my post detailing the ways Europe had systematically stomped on them.

Moreover, like many states, it simply could not keep up with the changing demands of what the state should be in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. It couldn't go on because it simply couldn't compete. While it did continue existing after 1839, it was simply always going to lead to the development of a nationalist Turkish state and the dissolution of the Ottoman state.

1839 is a very odd cutoff to declare a Turkish state inevitable. For one, the Turks' national awakening as a political force happened in the very late 19th century, arguably even the early 20th century, and only as a result of the continued failures of the Ottoman Empire to defend itself; similar to Albania's own national awakening once the Ottoman Empire could no longer protect Albania and its people from encroaching Christian powers. Turks began to believe that the multicultural experiment had failed, hence the need for their own nationalism. For another, the Ottomans did beat the Russians back during the Crimean War on their own and were fairly matched with the Russians in their 1877-1878 war with them; I'd argue that the Congress of Berlin was when the clock started ticking towards the inevitable dissolution as a result of outside forces; it's worth keeping in mind that while the Ottoman Empire may have looked large on paper, it's economic and political core was the Balkans. Losing half their holdings in one fell swoop was far more of a death knell than losing the Levant or Egypt could ever be.

To conclude, I'm not sure why what I posted is objectionable; nothing I stated was a distorted fact to the best of my knowledge. If there was, feel free to point out what I specifically said that wasn't true and I'll retract it. Does the Ottoman Empire merit any and all critique for its actions? Of course it does, and it always will for those are unforgivable actions that tarnish its legacy, be it previously positive or negative. But things don't happen in a void, and I'm fairly sure that a majority of posters were not fully aware of the political context of the era. And hell, I didn't even touch on exactly what the European powers had been doing to incite violence and ethnic tension. I could, but I won't, because derailing a thread further that in part respects those who suffered would be wrong. But let's not pretend like Russia wasn't preaching Pan-Slavism to the Serbs and Bulgarians, that the British didn't incite the Arab Revolt for the sake of political gain, or that the French and Russians hadn't been trying to legally usurp Ottoman legal authority over its Christian subjects. It's very blatant and requires close to zero critical thinking to anybody that does a cursory reading on the Ottomans in the era that European powers destabilized the Ottoman Empire and fueled its ethnic tensions beyond what tensions were there before.

 

[AP90]

About damn time. Turkey has been denying it for years.

 

[Kurtofan]

nationalism makes people go crazy

 

[Jasper]

Turkish media is having a field day...

 

[Jasper]

Also here is John Oliver's fantastic segment on the topic of the Armenian Genocide...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGHBbaShIhU

 

[Orniletter]

When you have to resort to blabbing about Germany's Nazi past during a contemporary argument you know you have lost (looking at you Greece and Turkey).

Yeah, it's the lowest of all low hanging fruits.

See it this way, the only comparison they can come up with is another genocide. Thats more honesty than probably intended.

Haha, true enough !

 

[zou]

If we are being cynical, I would say that Germany's motive is more or less to gain some face back after Erdogan used an obsolete German law to take a German citizen to court because that person hurt Erdogan's poor poor feelings.

Turkey made Germany look weak and hurt the German govts domestic popularity. I don't think anyone should be surprised that Germany responded like this.

As for being evil, I doubt very many people think Turkey and its citizens are evil. Turkey just seems insanely nationalistic to the point of delusion and Erdogan comes off as petty, pathetic, and autocratic.

The law gives them the choice whether to prosecute or not. So it's not like Turkey "tricked" them.

 

[Raven117]

It's not about Turkey being a threat, it's about turkey being an important ally in the region.

Yup. This is it folks...If any of you are confused about what Germany did is a big deal, then re-read this quote.

Turkey is an exceedingly important ally in the region, and to piss them off is to put a lot of Europe in peril.

Edit: Not making a comment one way or another if Germany should or shouldn't have recognized genocide....just saying why its a big deal.,

 

[Hellwarden]

Good on Germany.

It's fucking nonsense that we don't do the same here on a national level, especially since most states do recognize it here.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Turkish media is having a field day...

godwinslaw.jpgs

When you exert control over media, you don't have to make sense with your criticism, just its decible level.

 

[Slo]

Here is a map of US states that recognize the genocide. Glad to see my State (Missouri) on there.

Why exactly would it benefit a state to either confirm or deny this event. Like, why are people asking Nebraska's opinion on the event?

 

[Stereogatari]

When you exert control over media, you don't have to make sense with your criticism, just its decible level.

That's not applicable in this case. Even Secular dailies that are critical of AKP had headlines lambasting the German parliament. It's an issue that Turkey has had before AKP/Erdogan and will have after them as well.

 

[Bedameister]

I'm very proud over that decision but it should have been made decades ago. Also Merkel and all the other important politicians should have been there.
But I can understand that they don't want to piss of Erdogan too much wich is a shame.

 

[kruis]

Good for Germany.

Germany didn't deny the Holocaust though and has strongly gone after those that do.

Also, Germany didn't commit three genocides in the span of two decades. Turkey did.

Let's not forget about the Kurds. Not a genocide, but they Turks have been suppressing them for centuries. There was a short lived detente, but then Erdogan lit up that fire again so that his islamist-nationalist party would get more votes in the next election and he could finish his grab for more power.

 

[GrantDaNasty]

Good.

It's frankly disgusting (and really short-sighted) for Turkey's Foreign Minister or whoever it was to say "Germany recognizes the Armenian Genocide? You people gassed Jews!".

....And Germany acknowledges the horrible things they did, they make it a topic to be taught in schools, so that all future generations could know the possible horrors committed by the evils of mankind and know not to succumb to it.

Unlike what Turkey does by pretending they never murdered Armenians by the scores in what can ONLY be described as genocide and a horrific war-crime.

Fuck you Erdogan, and fuck anyone that wishes to deny the Armenian Genocide.

 

[Kathian]

Doesn't really work when the genocide of the Jews was heavily influenced by the successful genocide of the Armenians. Its basically - do the damage you can now before the war is over.

 

[Hands of Stone]

For those unaware...

That was extremely informative and horrific. Shout outs to who posted that Reddit post as well.

 

[Bedameister]

....And Germany acknowledges the horrible things they did, they make it a topic to be taught in schools, so that all future generations could know the possible horrors committed by the evils of mankind and know not to succumb to it.

They sure do for the horrible things they did in WW2 but there are also things where Germany is not really leading as a good example. It took them until 2015 to recognize the Herero and Namaqua genocide and the whole discussion is not even over yet.

 

[Hands of Stone]

Not knowing too much about this topic, what were Turkey's "justification" for committing the Armenian genocide?

From the same reddit thread linked from earlier:

"This response was much longer than I intended, so I don't think it systematically covers as much as I should have. Again, this was meant as an addition to the early linked material, especially the comment chain with Georgy. None of this ignores the fact that somewhere around a million to two million Ottoman Christians were killed in the period 1915-1918, but there are several important points (in additions to the points I linked to in the above comment):
1) the strong connections between the Young Turk-led Ottoman Empire and the early Turkish Republic,
2) the emotional response that a recognition of the Armenian genocide implicates not only the Ottoman state (who only some care about), but to many Turks seems to paint "our grandfathers", who were proudly and valiantly serving the Ottoman state in a hopeless war, as cold-blooded murderers,
3) the wider context of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire amid rising nationalism,
4) the rhetoric of Ottoman Muslims as perpetrators and Armenians as victims ignores the cycles of expulsions, violence, and flight ignores all incidences where Muslims/Turks were perpetrators of ethno-religious violence in some places and victims in others (again, we're talking millions of refugees over a few decades here, and hundreds of thousands in the immediate lead up to World War I, with losses in World War I promising to generate even more millions of Muslim/Turkish refugees if the Armenians establish a state in Eastern Anatolia and the Greeks extend their state, as they hope to, into Western Anatolia and possibly even Istanbul).

This last point is broadly true, of course: we tend to paint history in terms of groups being either victims or perpetrators of violence when the reality is more complicated--relatively few people who know about the Holocaust know about the systematic flight and expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe after World War II (where at least half a million, and maybe up to two million, ethnic German civilians were killed and more than ten million displaced) and relatively few who are critical of Israel's policy towards Palestinian refugees know about the flight and expulsion of Jews from Arab and Muslim Lands (where about a million Jews were displaced in a relatively short period), as just two of many examples."

As to why Turkey doesn't wanna admit wrong doing:

"I should add that in the past especially, there were fears that admitting fault would mean restitution would have to made, and Armenians would try to some reclaim Wilsonian Armenia (the state promised to them by the Allies in 1918 on land that makes up about 1/4 of modern Turkey, but firmly under Turkish control by the early 1920's as the allies refused to help the Armenians claim it), or Turkey would have to pay huge restitution (in the 1950's, West Germany paid about billions of marks in reparations, though this was nominally payment for the slave labor, the cost of absorbing refugees, and confiscated property, but not the actual murder of people) or even Turkey and Turkish land owners would face thousands of individual suits by survivors and their descendants for compensation for property lost as part of the forced relocation (something similar is currently happening in the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, where ethnic Greek Cypriots displaced in the 1974 civil war/Turkish invasion of Cyprus are suing in international courts for the return of the property they had to leave behind).

As we are a century from the events, the chance of anything more than a token payment is smaller by the year, but in the 1960's and 70's, when Germany was paying out billions in claims, there was a real fear that the often broke Turkish state might be forced to pay huge amounts in reparations or (among the more paranoid) give up land."

 

[FoxSpirit]

Well, things have gone more and more sour. Then again, Turkey is currently preventiving refugees with Academic background from going to Europe. Seriously.

Turkey was an ally but in 2 years the ally status will be Gadaffi level.

 

[OverBlood 3]

What's the UK government's view on the subject?

I can already guess but I'm struggling to find anything decent info wise.

 

[Nokterian]

For those interested in which countries recognise the genocide, here's a list: http://www.armenian-genocide.org/recognition_countries.html

1. Argentina
2. Austria
3. Belgium
4. Bolivia
5. Brazil
6. Bulgaria
7. Canada
8. Chile
9. Cyprus
10. France
11. Germany
12. Greece
13. Italy
14. Lebanon
15. Lithuania
16. Luxembourg
17. Netherlands
18. Paraguay
19. Poland
20. Russia
21. Slovakia
22. Sweden
23. Switzerland
24. United States
25. Uruguay
26. Vatican City
27. Venezuela

We are at the 17th place..unbelievable for shame with our government.

 

[Kinsei]

We are at the 17th place..unbelievable for shame with our government.

That list is in alphabetical order.

 

[pgtl_10]

Why is it so hard for Turkey to admit the crimes of a former government? What's their motivation for denying it?

Reparations. It's kinda the same for Israel having an anti-Nakba policy. To accept something opens the door to solutions you don't want.

 

[BajiBoxer]

We are at the 17th place..unbelievable for shame with our government.

Change your country's name. Problem solved.

 

[Oersted]

Why exactly would it benefit a state to either confirm or deny this event. Like, why are people asking Nebraska's opinion on the event?

It matters what is taught in schools for once. It might not matter to Island what is taught in Nebraska, but pupils are off for the better.

They sure do for the horrible things they did in WW2 but there are also things where Germany is not really leading as a good example. It took them until 2015 to recognize the Herero and Namaqua genocide and the whole discussion is not even over yet.

And it took till 2016 that Germany recognized the Armenian genocide. Yes, in both cases it was about time.

 

[Theonik]

Reparations. It's kinda the same for Israel having an anti-Nakba policy. To accept something opens the door to solutions you don't want.

That in itself is quite sickening considering the current Turkish government is more than OK with benefiting from those crimes by using seized land and resources for national projects.

 

[robertsan21]

I find it pathetic how much of a tantrum Turkey throws over this. If they're going to break off diplomatic ties over something like this then it's not worth having those ties with them to begin with.

.

 

[Tankman]

The Ottoman Empire WAS transitioning into a proto-industrial state as of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78.

For another, the Ottomans did beat the Russians back during the Crimean War on their own and were fairly matched with the Russians in their 1877-1878 war with them; I'd argue that the Congress of Berlin was when the clock started ticking towards the inevitable dissolution as a result of outside forces;

I'm not contesting the imperial aims of the European powers, but you are ignoring the financial issues facing the Ottoman Empire. The series of wars and industrialization that occured in Empire in the 19th
century required huge loans from Britain/France. The Ottomans inability to pay their debts resulted in the OPDA(loss of economic autonomy). This was one of the main(if not most important) reasons they sought an alliance with Germany at the start of WW1.

 

[NyMartin90]

I'm not contesting the imperial aims of the European powers, but you are ignoring the financial issues facing the Ottoman Empire. The series of wars and industrialization that occured in Empire in the 19th
century required huge loans from Britain/France. The Ottomans inability to pay their debts resulted in the OPDA(loss of economic autonomy). This was one of the main(if not most important) reasons they sought an alliance with Germany at the start of WW1.

The economic factor is a major contribution. I'm currently writing my thesis on this topic of why they joined the Germans. The major reason is Germany was the only empire that wanted to build up the Ottoman empire instead of pry on its territory or economy. The Ottoman Army was trying to become a modern army for a majority of the 19th century through reforms and most of its trainers and instructors came from Prussia/ Germany. Specifically Gen. von der Goltz Pasha infused Prussian ideology within the army that then led the Young Turk Central Committee to choose Germany. Most of the higher ups in the Ottoman Military chain of command from 1908-1914 were trained and had close ties to Germany.

 

[kame-sennin]

Why is it so hard for Turkey to admit the crimes of a former government? What's their motivation for denying it?

Because they're still committing genocidal acts against various groups like the Kurds.

 

[Jasper]

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said charges the Ottoman Empire committed a genocide against the Armenians are being used as "blackmail" against Turkey, insisting that Ankara will "never" accept such accusations.

"I am addressing the whole world. You may like it, you may not. Our attitude on the Armenian issue is clear from the beginning. We will never accept the accusations of genocide."

"The countries that are blackmailing us with these Armenian genocide resolutions have the blood of millions of innocents on their hands."

"Just like Europeans are doing now [to the refugees] we could have sent them [Armenians citizens living and working in Turkey] to Armenia. We can do that."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/06/erdogan-armenia-genocide-blackmail-turkey-160604151409300.html

Such a hateful bastard! Fuck off Erdogan!

 

[univariate]

It's time to remove Turkey from NATO. Erdogan fucked that entire country, amazing.

 

[Ogodei]

Good! It baffles my mind that some countries still feel like there's any benefit of denying genocide. Most of people who committed it are dead, just own up to it, so there's at least some closure.

The modern Turkish Republic and the Young Turk political party are twined together in their responsibility for this, as they were the leading political force in the Ottoman monarchy at the time. It would be like if the founders of the US had also done the Trail of Tears at the same time, but up to 11. They love them some Ataturk over there.

Which is surprising for the Erdogan regime, which is utterly opposed to Ataturk's vision of secular modernism, but the appeal to nationalism and know-nothingism i guess keeps them on the side of the denialists.

 

[Condom]

Well, things have gone more and more sour. Then again, Turkey is currently preventiving refugees with Academic background from going to Europe. Seriously.

Turkey was an ally but in 2 years the ally status will be Gadaffi level.

You mean 'We'll invade your country and do a coup that will end up into chaos'-level?

 

[SmartBase]

Turkey was an ally but in 2 years the ally status will be Gadaffi level.

Not sure if serious, Turkey's our next EU member.

 

[Walker_Boh]

Long story short they were seen as a liability and possible ally of the Russians. I think Turkey had some problems with collaborators who were Armenian? I'm not even sure about that its been so long since I looked into it.

From the same reddit thread linked from earlier:

Interesting. Hopefully there will be a WWI class I can take next semester since topics from that era are rarely discussed.

 

[Interceptor]

Not sure if serious, Turkey's our next EU member.

Not going to happen. I'll give it 5 years to crumble just like syria. Piece by piece. People called me crazy when i said the same about lybia, syria and egypt years before the arab spring and yet here we are.

 

[I Stalk Alone]

If anyone is an expert on genocide, it would be the germans so you can trust their word for it. Yada yada yada hail hydra.