Ask a Turk

[Winner]

Hope this helps, feel free to ask if you want to know about any specific part of history.

Very interesting, thanks!

 

[knigh+]

Well, it is true that Greece is the only european country which has lost its main historic capital. Constantinople was the obvious center of the greek-speaking world, and the greek people (although byzantines were not only greeks) for more than 1000 years. As such it is a bit sad that many important monuments are not in Greece, whereas they wouldnt have existed without Greece.

But it was established as a colony of mainland Greeks, and wasn't important at all before Constantine decided to make it so in 4th century AD. So technically speaking, you still have most of the important cities of ancient Greece. Yes I get that Constantinopolis is the most important city in Greek history, but you must understand that Istanbul is also the most important city in Turkish history. Ok, 1123 is bigger than 553 (in years), but it doesn't change the previous sentence.

Of course everything in one's world of thought is subject to change, and moreover it is symbolic in nature. Ie my view of "Constantinople" is not the city itself, where i have never been, but more of a symbol, and a concept.
However Constantinople still had more than a hundred thousant greeks until the violent pogroms of 1955, after which the city was populated by central anatolian turks, who now are a very clear majority.

Turks became a clear majority starting from 16th century. At some point in 19th century, the city, as Ottoman capital, had more than 1 million population. The proportions (Greeks being 10-20%) did not change from 16th century until 1955, the citys Greeks were exempt from even the population exchange of 1923. Nevertheless, During Ottoman period, Greek was used as a second official language. During the regrettable events of 1955, the city's population was 1,268,771. Now it is more than that of entire Greece.

As for coastal asia minor; the disastrous turn of the greek-turkish war of 1920-1922, which could have had a very different outcome if some things had happened a bit diffrently, nailed the coffin of that idea.

Miscalculation on the British side
If it wasn't for the Brits, Greeks wouldn't have pressed so hard, we possibly wouldn't have had the exchange of 1923, and our relationships would probably have been much better since then.

Today megoloideatism is seen as anachronistic, and generally not serious, with which view i agree since a war between Greece and Turkey would probably obliterate both, and then it would have no gain either due to intervention from other powers.

Every country is entitled to a small portion of fanatics

War between Greece and Turkey is no longer anything more than a hypothetical exercise for military tacticians (and for Greek military to get money from the government).


Hey, this is the "ask a Greek" thread, I wrote only because Turkish opinion seemed relevant here. In order not to clutter this thread further, if anyone wants to hear more from me, please PM or ask in "ask a Turk" thread.

 

[Sheep]

What do you think of the Turkish laws that prohibit the crticisim of the Turkish nation, state or government and thus has given a few 'politcally unreliable' journalists problems?

What is the deal with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus?

Why does Turkey cover up the Armenian masacres?

Finally why did Turkey steal Turkish Delights when they are really Greek?

Thanks

 

[knigh+]

Hi Sheep

each of your questions actually deserve several hours, which I don't have.

What do you think of the Turkish laws that prohibit the crticisim of the Turkish nation, state or government and thus has given a few 'politcally unreliable' journalists problems?

It is not "criticism", it is "insult". I agree the law 301 is too vague, and often abused by nationalist prosecutors. However, the judges know this very well, and disregard such cases. So the cases with several writers and journalists that get widely publicised in foreign media actually always get dismissed. It is news when such a trial starts, but not news when it gets dismissed. And people think Turkey is actually sentencing people for what they say because of it, which is untrue (at least I am not aware of any such case that did not get a quick dismissal). What can I say, the law is badly written and redundant (If people feel insulted, they can always sue for insult anyway), but you should keep in mind that media is never an objective source (I'm not saying they keep sides, but they selectively publicise events depending on ratings)

With all the misguided/racist European laws against freedom of speech for Turks, ours is not that bad.

What is the deal with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus?

That question is too broad to answer in a day...even at talking speed it took several hours the last time my Greek officemate and I discussed it.
Both sides have points in which they are right, and they have overlapping interests that they don't want to concede at any cost. Makes it unsolvable. Usually who is cooperative who is not fluctuates, last few years with EU backing the Greek Cypriot government is the uncooperative side by far - in my opinion.

Here is the most comprehensive and objective website I know about the Cyprus issue. It is compiled from articles/interviews/accounts from British/American/Turkish/Greek/Cypriot historians/journalists/politicians/eyewitnesses (might be some more combinations).
You go into the Main Narrative, which is like a summary with links to all other articles in the site. Without going into any other article, the Main Narrative takes a couple of hours to go through. Other than the main narrative, the historical background articles are quite good too.

Why does Turkey cover up the Armenian masacres?

Has it? I am not aware of that.
This is a result of Armenian propaganda. Everybody (includin Turks) accepts that great numbers of Armenians perished.
Turks (or at least I) refuse to commemorate their deaths on principle because everybody else refuses to commemorate the huge numbers of Turkish (and Kurdish) civilians killed by Armenian gangs in the same period. The world is misguided about who the genocide deniers are.
The problem is Turks had a lot more population. So killing similar numbers on both sides would reduce the Turks by 5% while reducing the Armenians by 50% for example. So it had a higher impact on Armenian nation. (I am not saying it was that many, more or fewer. Nobody knows the actual number in either side, but both sides have lots of dead greatgrandparents. I have seen Armenian sources as low as 300k, and as high as 2M; the same range on Turkish side).
I personally wouldn't mind if there were a ceremony or monument commemorating, I don't know, "Eastern Anatolia Tragedy" or something like that. But Armenian propaganda tries (and succeeds) to tell one side of the story of suffering, sometimes even by falsified evidence to be disproven by other Armenian historians, and make it look like they were an innocent unarmed bunch. On top of this they go found/help terrorist organizations that kill Turks and try to teach children in the rest of the world to hate Turks. This kind of hatemongering done through an unfair publicity contest, despite Turkey's several calls for an investigation by historians, is what most Turks can't stomach.

Saying one nations deaths matter more than the other is blatant racism, and that's exactly what Armenian genocide advocates have been doing.

It is like blaming the current fighting in Iraq on the Shias (or Sunnis) and claiming the other side is unarmed innocents. War always has civilian casualties, civil war even more so. It is time for people to grow up and see that they can't paint a warfront in black and white.

Finally why did Turkey steal Turkish Delights when they are really Greek?

It is difficult to determine some of the common elements of the cuisines. Some dishes have obvious foreign names. For example Greeks call the stuffed grape leaves "dolma" which is the Turkish word meaning something stuffed/filled. Turks have mousakka which, unlike most other Turkish dishes, doesn't mean something in Turkish (My guess then would be that it is Greek). Then there are things in the middle, like doner=gyros which come from the word to turn in both languages.

In The case of Turkish delight, it is called "lokum" in both sides, which was probably derived from the Turkish word "lokma" meaning "one mouthful / one bite". Besides in Turkey it has about 10 times more flavors and ways of making than the Greeks - so I'll say Turkish Delight is likely to be Turkish indeed.


PS. Due to my time constraints I don't think I'll be able to turn Cyprus or Armenian issues into a prolonged discussion, which I had had several in life and CFC. Just to let eager Greeks and Armenians know, before they take an offensive on me

 

[Kyriakos]

loukoumas...

 

[Tortosa]

Is there any surviving Hittite culture, ruins, etc.?

 

[knigh+]

Is there any surviving Hittite culture, ruins, etc.?

Yep, lots.

There are 3 prominent archaeological sites, all of which are 100 miles east of Ankara: Hattushash, Yazilikaya, Alacahoyuk. Hattushash was the capital and is the largest site (by that I mean several km squares large, you have to have hiking shoes and water large) It was quite big in its time, but also a very widely spread city.

Lionsgate from Hattushash.

Don't expect big buildings etc. It is more like Mycene in Greece . Only the foundations and some walls remain. The only buildings from that time that are still standing are in Egypt and Mesopotamia I suppose.

Best museum to see Hatti (the guys before Hittite), Hittite, Phrygian, Lydian, etc. artifacts is the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara. I think (not sure) there is also a local museum of Hittites in the city of Chorum (within 1hr of all three sites).

There are other sites from older civs than Hittites as well. Catalhoyuk is the oldest fortified city, archeaologists estimate its pop to be 10000. Troy from the same time as Hittites is also in Turkey. And many others.

 

[Tortosa]

Thanks, I like that lion on the right hand side. The legs look crisp and detailed despite their age.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Was there really an organized and methodic slaughter of Turks by Armenian "gangs" that killed between 200K (minimum) and 1.5 million, and how could they have done it (killed a number of Turks equal to half their own population)? I have seen no evidence of figures this high, whereas that is what the Armenians suffer. Now I realize both sides can be biased but how come Turkey disagrees with the entire rest of the world?

 

[knigh+]

Was there really an organized and methodic slaughter of Turks by Armenian "gangs" that killed between 200K (minimum) and 1.5 million, and how could they have done it (killed a number of Turks equal to half their own population)?

When I said gangs, I did not mean street gangs in movies. Armenian sources proudly boast 200k soldiers fighting against Ottoman Empire in ww1 (which is before there was the country of Armenia). I can only assume the Ottoman forces were more - let's say 300k. If a total of 500k soldiers are fighting before the spread of notions like human rights and Geneva convention, it is not unreasonable to expect a million collateral casualty on each side.

The more accurate description is: It is not like a sudden spree of killing. The Turkish version of the story starts from 1890s (but there are few instances - A massacre of 500 Turkish soldiers by a gang of 5000 Armenians in 1840s, then a preemptive execution of a similar gang by the government in 1870s, but these are small numbers). There was some mistrust between peoples due to past few incidents, and Armenians (like every other nation) wanted independence - for which they needed lands where they would be undisputed majority. So the number of Turkish plus Kurdish casualties through the next 25 years is 2-2.5 million. Ottoman records document massacres in a very detailed fashion (incident: X village; date; population 234; survivors 3; list goes on for xxx pages). Of course people want to disregard these because they are from the "guilty" side. But where else do you expect to find records of domestic incidents of Ottoman Empire, of course from Ottoman records.

next paragraph is somewhat my two cents of what might have happened.

As ww1 approached Turks and Kurds started to have similar armed gangs to fight off Armenians. But by this time mixed settlements were almost all gone, and each side were able to protect their settlements. Neither side could make overwhelming attacks because the government was arresting and executing all (regardless of ethnicity) such armed gangs. Then in 1915 Armenians were to be moved to Syria under government forces. Some local officers added "re" in front of the "move" for convenience, but most of them tried to carry out orders and keep the Armenians alive. However once they were out of their protected settlements, they were prey for the Turk/Kurd gangs who wanted to avenge their killed families.

I have seen no evidence of figures this high, whereas that is what the Armenians suffer.

mass graves, eyewitness accounts, dead grandparents of some people, reports of Russian officers, etc. - similar things to what Armenians use as proof, but more. Actually many (not all) things Armenians cite are often disproven in historical arena, but as they have a much louder voice they keep repeating such stuff. I remember multiple incidents of Armenians threatening Armenian historians to silence when they disproved an alleged evidence. On the other hand, Turks sometimes take things out of context when they advocate their position. But I haven't seen faked evidence from the Tukish historians yet - Armenians generate plenty, disproven by historians from a variety of nations.

Now I realize both sides can be biased but how come Turkey disagrees with the entire rest of the world?

Armenians had a 80-year head start in what they turned into a publicity race. While Armenians told their suffering to the world, Turkey didn't feel the need to - in order not to be hatemongering (until people started realizing this issue is becoming a diplomatic problem). Turkish history books etc. don't talk about civilian war casualties and war crimes - not to incite racism to young minds (or that way were my history books). I didn't even know about the issue until I started to search information about it 7-8 years ago.

So now there's the Armenian Diaspora who grew up listening to horror stories and learning to hate Turks with the whole world brainwashed by their constant plea. And on the other side Turks who can't put out a coherent answer, and keep babbling with nationalistic outbursts (which makes Turks' case less believable although it has more evidence behind it) because
1- Until 15 years ago all we knew was (Armenia is our eastern neighbor, Turkey has tens of thousands of citizens that are Armenian)
2- Now in some supposedly modern European countries Turks get jailed if they say any of the stuff I write here (and then they try to teach us freedom of speech!)
3- We don't hate Armenians and many people don't even understand how strong their hatred is (I suppose our pg-13 history books were good for us but bad for our understanding them). Well, now Turks don't like Armenians because now we are aware that all the Armenians do is constantly wish ill upon Turks. On top of that in the last decade Armenians invade Azerbaijan, massacre and displace another million Turks, and nobody except Turkey seems to be against it. Another confirmation (in the eyes of Turkish public) that Turkish lives are worthless in western opinion and the west is racist. But we are still far from hatred I think.

That was a long one - probably I won't have time to write any other long answers this week because I'm busy.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The Turkish account, including what you just said here, is at odds with what every other historian in the world is saying - mass deportation of Armenian civilians with no regard for their wellbeing, combined with mass murder. Whereas you claim some sort of armed rebellion, where for some reason it was mostly civilians who died. Like I said, as this goes against what every non-Turkish historian says, some proof would be nice.

 

[knigh+]

First of all, there are plenty of American history professors supporting the Turkish side (Bernard Lewis, Princeton; Justin McCarthy, University of Luisville; Stanford Shaw, UCLA are ones directly off the top of my head - there were more that I don't immediately remember). The historians whose speciality is Ottoman Empire often avoid the discussion (because there can be no unbiased discussion under the death threats of Armenian Diaspora), the remaining are divided - which is perfect for a healthy scholarly discussion. Except that Armenians clutter the field immediately by bringing out support from other historians whose expertise is unrelated, who can't even read the Ottoman language, and who just repeat what their Armenian benefactors tell them in order not to seem anti-genocide.

The problem is not that Turkish account contradicts with the Armenians'. It adds the information Armenians selectively choose not to publicise.

As for what you said,

There was a massive armed rebellion of Armenians, true.
There was massive deportation of unarmed Armenians, half of whom died, also true.

These don't contradict. They just show the disregard for human life, of the triad of dictators that took over the empire right before ww1. You can also see this from when the triad sent an army of 110k to the russian front in winter without coats or boots. 90k froze to death before reaching the enemy.

And I also described in my previous post that there was mass deportation of Armenian civilians, combined with mass murder. Then you claim I contradict with that. If you aren't going to read it properly, what is the point of me writing?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, mass deportation of civilians with no regard for their welfare is pretty bad. And this was merely the last in a long line of persecutions against the Armenians. I am not saying the Armenians were all saints, but as a minority group within an empire they had little ability to do much. And although other individuals (Turks or other ethnic groups) bore some responsibility, yes it was a large part of the old regime. So why the reticence among other Turks (not you particularly) in discussing it?

 

[knigh+]

forgive my english - what's reticence?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Reluctance, unwillingness to talk about it, acting like it didn't happen or it was no big deal.

 

[knigh+]

Because
1- although Turks lost many people in the Eastern front (relative to Turkey), it wasn't that big within the greater picture. For the rest of the world the Great War was 4 years, for Turks it was 11. We lost ridiculous numbers of civilians in Balkans and Western Turkey as well. At the time of the Armenian deportation 1 million troops were fighting the densest battle in history of the world on a tiny strip of land. Of course the government couldn't spare enough troops to protect the Armenian convoy (the actual orders specified the escort to be one soldier every 100 meters, if that makes Turks seem to have no regard with human life, so be it) Our nation had so many scars that we forgot which enemy inflicted which wound.
2- It wasn't the only "betrayal", Arab revolt was far less bloody but hurted more because it was unexpected.
3- From strategic point of view, I don't see how Ottoman (or any other) government could have dealt with the situation significantly better.
4a- Nations tend to identify themselves with a single symbol (Americans and freedom). For Armenians, that symbol is the period of suffering which they call genocide. For Turks it is the period of suffering which we view as a heroic and miraculous last stand of the nation. The words genocide and heroic don't mix well.
4b- April 23rd is International children's day - a national holiday in Turkey. April 25th is the ANZAC day (from 1915 - same year as the Armenian event), on which various enemies of Turks in ww1 commemorate the war and both sides acknowledge the heroism, honor and humanity of the other in battle. In between these is a bunch of people preaching to the world that Turks are the absolute embodiment of evil and must be racially prosecuted. It doesn't fit.

I know this is a list of emotional responses rather than logical, but your question - people's behavior - is affected primarily by emotions.

4a goes both ways, claim of being innocent victims don't go well if you have killed several relatives of your killer or if you recruited an army of 200000 soldiers. That's why Armenians repeatedly refuse all calls from Turkey for the matter to be discussed by historians from both sides as well as third parties. They not only have the reticence to talk about it, but are also trying to spread it to other countries (Switzerland so far prosecuted 12 Turks for speaking their opinion that it was not a genocide, Belgium had one or two as well. France made a similar law. yay for freedom of speech in Europe)

 

[Sheep]

Dont you just love the PKK?

 

[knigh+]

They used to be "restless tribes" level barbarians in the 90s. Now they are... I forgot what were the smaller barbarian levels in civ

Turkey lost hundreds of teachers to PKK in addition to thousands of soldiers and villagers. They used to target teachers to keep the education level low in the region so that they could recruit children easier, which worked for a while. Then the lady-in-charge took an iron-fisted approach, which also worked to some extent.

 

[Abaddon]

What was it like in 500AD?

 

[knigh+]

What was it like in 500AD?

Where?

In today's Turkey (which was part of Byzantine Empire in 500AD) or in the Turkish Civ of that time (nomadic tribes in central Asia)?