No Greek-Turkish Population Exchange

Because, by most reasonable definitions, they weren't. Genocide has a very narrow, specific definition; labeling every incident of mass death a genocide rather cheapens the term.

Oh man, labeling the deaths of a few hundred thousand as mass killings sure makes it feel better than if its labeled a genocide! *sarcasm*
Seriously, so its worse if a million people are killed in a ""**Genocide**"" than a million people killed for other reasons? (Political, or to keep the people down)
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Oh man, labeling the deaths of a few hundred thousand as mass killings sure makes it feel better than if its labeled a genocide! *sarcasm*
Seriously, so its worse if a million people are killed in a ""**Genocide**"" than a million people killed for other reasons? (Political, or to keep the people down)
I think the definition genocide is something like an attempt by a government to completely erradicate an ethnic group on their territory, which ironically disqualify Darfur, since we can't prove any connection between the Sudanese government and those murdering militias (I am sure there are plenty of connections, they just can't be proven).
 
Oh man, labeling the deaths of a few hundred thousand as mass killings sure makes it feel better than if its labeled a genocide! *sarcasm*
Seriously, so its worse if a million people are killed in a ""**Genocide**"" than a million people killed for other reasons? (Political, or to keep the people down)
It's not about being better or worse, or making any sort of moral judgements at all; it's about being accurate. Genocide has a specific definition, and the term should not be used simply to refer to any incident of mass death.
 

Keenir

Banned
Really? Well, they do say that knowing is half the battle.

I know you said so in the other post. I was joking. Geez.

and food is the other half. (Napoleon says so)

oh. sorry. absence of smilies makes me nervous in topics like these.

apologies.
 

Keenir

Banned
Oh man, labeling the deaths of a few hundred thousand as mass killings sure makes it feel better than if its labeled a genocide! *sarcasm*
Seriously, so its worse if a million people are killed in a ""**Genocide**"" than a million people killed for other reasons? (Political, or to keep the people down)

Stalin's enemies came from all over Russia, from all different backgrounds - so you can't really say "Stalin genocided his rivals."
 
nah, that was politicide. Similar concept though.

Anyway, my two cents on the topic-I agree with getting rid of Venizios (or however you spell it). In fact, I would have suggested that earlier, but I couldn't remember the guy's name. For a good account of all the wrangling and stupidity that went on immediately post-war, check out Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan. I think it's the definite account of that era.

Since people are *still* arguing over the genocide issue, I figure I'll throw my two cents in. Anatolia 1915-22 was a very, very nasty place. And it was not just a one sided conflict. It was Turk vs. Greek vs. Kurd vs. Arab vs. everybody. The Armenians, in my mind, just got the worst of it because they were relatively well off and scattered geographically, making them a vulnerable target. As for the actual acts themselves, it was definitely ethnic cleansing, usually by multiple parties against each other. I do not believe it was some sort of systematic murder machine, as some would have you believe, but rather an uncoordinated spasm of violence as local strongmen and criminals and overzealous or psychotic army officers took advantage of the situation and made off with their neighbors belongings, similar to what happened with the break up of Yugoslavia.

Whether or not that was genocide is up to you to decide. Personally, I believe ethnic cleansing does count, from my reading of the Genocide Convention (in whole or in part), but again, personal view. I don't expect everyone else to agree with me.

Also, one more thing. Ian, I love ya as admin, but please don't diss the IAGS. There may be some crazies in their ranks, but they've done a lot of good with research and raising awareness about crimes against humanity.
 
Wow, this thread has some nasty stuff :eek:

So what would have happened...

My take is :

1. There's going to be nasty stuffs happening for both minorities in both countries. Simply because they're minorities.

2. The greeks in Turkey will probably fare a bit worse than the turks in greece. Simply because Turkey fared worst than Greece. It was invaded, devastated, carved out, fought back. Greece didn't experience any of this. So the Turks would be bitter.

3. From what I gather, the greeks in Turkey were rich. They were mercantile class while the Turks in greece were peasants. Expect arbitrary taxes, confiscations of goods, etc for the greeks in Turkey. While the Turks in greece can expect land seizures, legal dicriminations, etc

4. As long as Mustafa Kemal is alive, no pogroms would've occurred. He wants a modern Turkey on par with Europe. Persecuting minorities would not be on his to-do list. Remarkably modern and has a view to the future that guy.

5. There MIGHT BE some kind of "segregate but equal" laws in BOTH countries.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
While I am of the opinion that there was an Armenian genocide, I am not anti- Turkish. Actually I think there was just cause for the invasion of Cyprus (seeing that the Turks there risked being literary thrown into the sea). And I support Turkish EU membership, and am against EU expanding to Caucasus.
 
Top