...why the focus on Ottoman culpability in the Hamidian massacres and not, say, the Russians' role in the Circassian genocide?
It was the only somewhat humane way at least. To have expected the Ottomans to change their ways was like waiting for the proverbial leopard to change his spots.
I don't see the Turks defeating Russia by themselves.What if...
Hear me out...
The Ottomans were the ones to propose such an exchange? They pull off some sort of smashing victory over Russia in the Caucasus, basically control the entire region, and then impose population exchanges to prevent Russia declaring war for them again? Sort of like what happened to Greece
There would still be the Greek minority. And I can only laugh at fools who think the Ottoman Empire could have been reformed and that it could justly rule over Christians.Going back to the OP it won't work simply because it would be a terribly stupid idea for Russia, geopolitically speaking. The opression of the Orthodox minority inside the OE morally legitimized any type of future intervention in the straits. Such population exchange would simply destroy the perfect causus belli.
There would still be the Greek minority. And I can only laugh at fools who think the Ottoman Empire could have been reformed and that it could justly rule over Christians.
There would still be the Greek minority. And I can only laugh at fools who think the Ottoman Empire could have been reformed and that it could justly rule over Christians.
There would still be the Greek minority. And I can only laugh at fools who think the Ottoman Empire could have been reformed and that it could justly rule over Christians.
The empire ruled Christians just fine. The Greek and Armenian movements were purely nationalist, not religious.
There were no issues with other Christian groups in the Empire.
The ottomans had Muslim dissidents aswell and had Christians in more than just the Balkans, both your points are moot.The nationalists just happened to be Christians then?
You mean all the Balkan peoples?
The ottomans had Muslim dissidents aswell and had Christians in more than just the Balkans, both your points are moot.
They'e pretty self explanatory, there were Christians in other parts of the ottoman empire than just the Balkans and they had issues with groups other than just Christians look at Egypt.I just don't see how what you're stating contract my points. If you care to clarify it precisely it'd be helpful.
They'e pretty self explanatory,
there were Christians in other parts of the ottoman empire than just the Balkans
and they had issues with groups other than just Christians look at Egypt.
A rebellious region is a rebellious region whether or not they were freedom fighters scarcely matters, the point the ottomans had Muslims give them trouble aswell and Christians that didnt.Okay, I guess.
Who said that there weren't Christians outside the Balkans? The very OP is about an Anatolian minority.
In this particular case they had an issue with a rogue viceroy. Or are you claiming that Muhammad Ali was some kind of Egyptian freedom fighter?
A rebellious region is a rebellious region whether or not they were freedom fighters scarcely matters, the point the ottomans had Muslims give them trouble aswell and Christians that didnt.
I am not sure if etnic cleansing (and forced population transfers are a form of ethnic cleansing) is a humane way of solving a problem.
And on a related note, didn't the first population transfers as such only happen after WWI IOTL?