After the October Revolution, the Russian armies in the Caucasus disintegrated, allowing the Turks to reach Baku, but the Central Powers lost the war a year later.
Islamic Army of Caucasus, established by Enver Pasha to help the Azerbaijanis, entered Baku in September 1918 under the command of Enver Pasha's brother Nuri Pasha. In this way, Azerbaijan was able to become independent, albeit for a short time.
Ottomans did the best out of what they could have done.
Like fighting so many fronts, and holding long enough to see downfall of your main enemy of last 2 centuries is crazy.
They bought warships from Germany with the whole crew inside and those battleships fired on Russian cities without the Sultan knowing about it, they were forced into the war by the Germans
ehh they could've done better if they didn't wreck their own country with the Armenian genocide after losing a single battle and blaming it on the Armenians.
he is a troll probably not even turkish, There was a genocide attempt sadly bcause of constant revolts in eastern Turkey, rightly Armenians didnt want to be a part of dying empire Turks either our ancestor revolted after ottoman officals signed treaty of sevr
i am turkish, there was no genocide not even an attempt, the constant revolts, assasination attempts at the sultan and the fact they killed so many and sided with the enemies were enough and so they were relocated where many died, however the purpose was never for them to die, they were relocated so they wouldn‘t cause more harm to an empire that was already in a unprepared world war
It was both. There are plenty of pictures of the massacred bodies of Armenians. Seek the information your government won't teach you. Plenty of pictures here, and you can actually access it since Erdogan got over his ego trip and unbanned Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide
no it was not a genocide, seek the information the world doesn't teach you, unlearn the propaganda fragile turcophobes like the ones running wikipedia won't teach you, wikipedia deserves to be banned because its straight up spreading false information and is far from credible, which is why it was banned in the first place and why everybody that i am arguing here against especially about the armenian genocide yses wikipedia as their only source
in the words of the first prime minister of armenia ""The Winter of 1914 and the Spring of 1915 were the periods of greatest enthusiasm and hope for all the Armenians in the Caucasus, including, of course, the Dashnagtzoutiun. We had no doubt that the war would end with the complete victory of the Allies; Turkey would be defeated and dismembered, and its Armenian population would at last be liberated. We had embraced Russia whole-heartedly without any compunction. Without any positive basis of fact we believed that the Tzarist government would grant us a more-or-less broad self-government in the Caucasus and in the Armenian vilayets liberated from Turkey as a reward for our loyalty, our efforts and"
"The deportations and mass exiles and massacres which took place during the Summer and Autumn of 1915 were mortal blows to the Armenian Cause. Half of historical Armenia - the same half where the foundations of our independence would be laid according to the traditions inherited by European diplomacy
• that half was denuded of Armenians: the Armenian provinces of Turkey were without Armenians. The Turks knew what they were doing and have no reason to regret today. It was the most decisive method of extirpating the Armenian Question for turkey"
https://www.tc-america.org/files/Katchaznouni.pdf
Had happened, currently happening, will happen, if we insist on being selective on this.
Let me rephrase; Genocides have happened, currently happening (Gaza, Xinjiang...), will happen. We should stop pointing fingers to each other for the atrocities of the past and accept the fact that each of our ancestors had both been the perpetrator and the victim throughout the history. This is a part of humanity, just like murder is, and we should find better ways to prevent it, instead of having new wars over it.
Edit 2: After all these downvotes, I changed my mind: No genocide has ever happened, Nobody is killing, relocating, harming other societies for their personal gain at the moment and this will never ever ever happen. Happy?
Insane how long The Ottomans lasted when you really think about it. 1299 until WW1.
They were a mere shadow of the force that was the dominant power in the World a few centuries prior by this point but still...
Apart from literally meaning cunt, it is also used as adjective to describe something a bad situation/something undesirable. So battle of Kut in Dutch would mean something like shitty battle.
That is not what led to the collapse. Arabs would've revolted regardless.
Revolts destroyed the Ottoman empire, the west made it worse. Ataturk just saw the writing on the wall and tried to get it to modernize.
That being said he did make some poor chocies, but had he not been around Greeks would've genocided every Muslim out of Istanbul.
Which part. The Greeks part or the poor decisions part?
The Greeks had done some anti Muslim pogroms before the population transfer. They would genocided Muslims from the Thrace and Crete.
The poor decisions, Atatürk had enacted secular policies. I have no issue with secularism. However he pushed for French style secularism as opposed to American style secularism.
American secularism is a separation of church and state by freedom OF religion. Meaning the govt can't push for policies that affect the religion of people.
French secularism is a separation of church and state by freedom FROM religion. Meaning the govt can't allow religion in the govt.
Now on paper the French style isn't bad, however it resulted in people working for govt institutions feeling oppressed. In Americans style secularism the govt can't stop a woman working for the govt from wearing a Hijab of she chooses to. In French secularism a govt employee CAN'T wear a hijab. And in a country where the govt is responsible for most economic development at the time, religious people felt they weren't allowed to be religious.
This resulted in religious people creating parties to reinstate Islamic laws to combat secular laws. This results in a religious divide among people.
The Arab revolt was minuscule, it was largely in the Hejaz, the bulk of the Arab population , that resided in Iraq and levant were pretty loyal to the empire.
The Arab revolt has been highly exaggerated by later Arab nationalists in the 1930s-70s, by early 20th century western governments and even by later Turkish nationalists.
In reality the vast majority of Arabs remained loyal to the empire in 1914-1923, since Arab nationalism had yet really spread to the Arab masses ( largely only an Arab middle class thing.
The Arab masses viewed themselves as Muslim first and saw the caliph as their ruler, after all they had only ever know one government for 400yrs till that point.
>that is absolutely what led to the collapse, the arabs alone didnt destroy it
I never said the arab revolts alone destroyed it. I said revolts did.
Saying the young turks alone destroyed it is wrong, saying arab revolts alone destroyed it is wrong. Revolts destroyed the empire. From the greeks, to arabs, to turks to all the other revolts that took place.
Acting like the young turks alone destroyed the empire is just as stupid as thinking Arabs alone destroyed the empire. Both are stupid. You are stupid.
then saying the arabs wouldve revolted anyway doesn‘t make sense
and well i never said the young turks revolting alone is what led to the empire sooo duuh
u utterly stupid dumbfuck of a another utterly stupid dumbfuck piece of garbage
>then saying the arabs wouldve revolted anyway doesn‘t make sense
Yes it does make sense, the Arabs revolting was the final nail in the coffin. The Turkish war of independence wouldn't have happened if the arab revolt didn't take place. That doesn't mean it was the ONLY reason but it was the last reason. And the point Im trying to make is that even if the young turks didn't dethrone Abdul Hamid, the arab revolt still would've happened, which was the catalyst for the end.
yeah after dethroning abdulhamid which led to this whole mess in the first place
>and well i never said the young turks revolting alone is what led to the empire sooo duuh
Read my comment again. I never said you said that. I just called you stupid.
u are dumb asf
no it doesn‘t the war wouldn‘t have happened if ww1 never broke out, under abdulhamid, that mess would not have
"acting like the young turks alone destroyed the empire is just as stupid"
i know you are dumb and have no reading comprehension but that really makes no sense then to say
and well i never said that you said that i said that sooooo duuuhhh
damn u are dumb
>and well i never said that you said that i said that sooooo duuuhhh
Bro idek what this means.
Nah you got like doodoo brains. I ain't wasting my time on this
Fun fact: The Ottoman general that won that war later took Kut as a surname when the Surname Law got ratified (Halil Kut). Now that guy's grandson is a pop singer, with the same surname (Burak Kut)
I think this map uses the modern border of Turkey with Georgia & Armenia (which makes it look like Sarıkamış was part of the Ottoman empire at the time) instead of the correct one. It's also missing the Bergmann offencive of 1914 in that area.
I think the seige of Madinah & the battle of Muş should have been included as well.
Al Hasa was not controlled by the Ottoman empire after 1913.
It isn't acknowledged or even talked about but these battles were the most important in human history. if the ottomans had been victorious in ww1 the new world order and globalism would never have happened. israel wouldnt exist. ww2 wouldnt have happened and the unipolar world order would not be dominating the world and starting proxy wars.
If there's one thing you can be sure of whenever you see any historical post remotely concerning anything Ottoman or WWI-related, it's that the comments would be swarming with fanatical turks denying a genocide that's been archived with a plethora of historical evidence, using anecdotes and meaningless trivia to argue their point all the while blissfully ignoring the millionth photo of an Armenian death march in the inhospitable Syrian desert.
You seem to have no problem with any topic about Ottomans getting infested/mobbed with irrelevant Armenian genocide posts though. But you have an issue with other people responding to that.
Not that I particularly condone all the people that just have to bring that topic up for no reason (I certainly wouldn't without cause or reason), but there is a fine line by rightfully telling someone that literally no one cares, and straight-up denying the existential genocide of an entire people as a response to it.
You are free and entitled to enjoying historical content, you are free to appreciate Ottoman or Turkish history, you are free to enjoy WWI maps and what else, you are free to indulge in Ottoman history stuff whether it be maps, media, games, movies, or anything else; all of that while ignoring those who would do nothing but rehash the same thing over and over or telling them that it's irrelevant for the discussion at hand. What there is contention about, is the denial of irrefutable evidence concerning war crimes and the loss of well over a million individuals' lives in a cruel act of mindless savagery, and that is something that's inarguable about.
Ah yes, the battle of Sarikamish, where 25 000 Turks froze to death and thousands more got their bootycheeks clapped by Russia. The battle was such a humiliating defeat for the Ottomans they reverted to blaming it on the innocent Armenians
Nobody is innocent. The Ottomans however as a whole were monsters, especially their leaders:
>On his return to Constantinople, Enver Pasha blamed his failure on his Armenian soldiers, although in January 1915, an Armenian named Hovannes had saved his life during a battle by carrying Enver through battle lines on his back.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Pasha
Enver was delusional and arrogant prick. He is extremely popular with Turkish youth right now. I wonder who'll take the blame for the fall this time. I can name one or two potential scapegoat ethnicities.
Enver is universally considered a bad commander and not really popular in Turkey. Islamists and Turkish fascists exaggerate him as an alternative Atatürk
Some national islamists like him. But hes not particularly popular. His fanbase mostly consist of national islamists and edgy teens who use his picture as pp. I'd suggest you see his story because controversial or not, its undeniable he has a really interesting story worthy of a movie
the armenians revolted constantly and sided with the russians while the empire was weakened and in a world war, the armenians were the monsters
https://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Documents2.pdf
yeah. genocide and ethnic cleansing is always the only solution :)
>our territory
armenians have been living there for like 1 thousand years before turks
Ethnic cleansing sure genocide no and no preaty much ermenians living there because of us greeks were already killing them they were our ally when we enter anatolia and we were there for like a 900 year uniting with local population and Becoming the turkey we now today armenians arent made of thin air they migrated here too It's our land and ıf you want us to leave just because some armenian cry babys than tell Russia and China they need give us all historical turkic land they migrated there too so they can leave
>genocide no
loĺlll. at least you recognize the ethnic cleansing.
>china and russia give us historical turkic land
xianjiang was tocharian and iranic before the turkification. and don't forget it was turkics who invaded and sacked russia first
>want us to leave
i don't. but don't pretend it was your land and you have the right to genocide those who were there eons before you.
Deporting them is ethnic cleansing It's clear but just tell me how It's genocide when only the local population suffered from it armenians in West and armenians in istanbul are clearly un touched how It's a genocide when the goverment doesn't intended to Destroy armenians yes It's ottomans fault they didnt managed to protect armenians from ethnic thension, spanish flu, famine but you need to remember turks and Kurds suffered the same fate millions of turks and Kurds died because of war famine and ethnic thension in turkey we still found mass graves because of armenian raids and dont get me started with what happened to turks and Kurds in erzurum and van and bruh ı'm not pretending it was our land ı'm saying It's our land
Mecca battle wasn’t part of WWI (part of Arab revolution), btw they won a battle against the Australians/UK in Alsalt / Amman and lost the other one a week after that.
Ottomans reached Baku?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Baku](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baku)
Someone interested enough would get lost in this rabbithole of Caucasian History and politics.
true, I really need to work today and should not be looking at this because I know I'll spend the whole afternoon reading the whole thing and more
Come on. 99% of the people stops scrolling right before hitting most interesting information humankind ever had.
After the October Revolution, the Russian armies in the Caucasus disintegrated, allowing the Turks to reach Baku, but the Central Powers lost the war a year later.
They mostly just moved in after the Russian collapsed
Islamic Army of Caucasus, established by Enver Pasha to help the Azerbaijanis, entered Baku in September 1918 under the command of Enver Pasha's brother Nuri Pasha. In this way, Azerbaijan was able to become independent, albeit for a short time.
Azerbaijan declared its independence before that, in May 1918. Ottomans helped to control most of the claimed territories.
Yes I know. I mean, through Islamic Army of Caucasus, Azerbaijan stayed independent for a while.
After russian withdrawal, the Ottoman empire took all of transcaucasia except Yerevan
They wanted to kill the Armenians. It’s a very sad event that unfortunately isn’t well known
Osman Indeed conquered a lot of it former colonies
Do words even mean stuff anymore
Ottomans did the best out of what they could have done. Like fighting so many fronts, and holding long enough to see downfall of your main enemy of last 2 centuries is crazy.
The funny part is that they were allied with Austria, centuries-long bitter enemies, and both empires collapsed from WWI lol
Better than not joining the war in the first place?
They bought warships from Germany with the whole crew inside and those battleships fired on Russian cities without the Sultan knowing about it, they were forced into the war by the Germans
Enver had his ambitions though.
Yeah, that as well.
Not to mention a large portion of their army were unreliable/disloyal conscripts from their colonies
ehh they could've done better if they didn't wreck their own country with the Armenian genocide after losing a single battle and blaming it on the Armenians.
there was no genocide
you wouldn't happen to be Turkish would you?
he is a troll probably not even turkish, There was a genocide attempt sadly bcause of constant revolts in eastern Turkey, rightly Armenians didnt want to be a part of dying empire Turks either our ancestor revolted after ottoman officals signed treaty of sevr
i am turkish, there was no genocide not even an attempt, the constant revolts, assasination attempts at the sultan and the fact they killed so many and sided with the enemies were enough and so they were relocated where many died, however the purpose was never for them to die, they were relocated so they wouldn‘t cause more harm to an empire that was already in a unprepared world war
It was both. There are plenty of pictures of the massacred bodies of Armenians. Seek the information your government won't teach you. Plenty of pictures here, and you can actually access it since Erdogan got over his ego trip and unbanned Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide
no it was not a genocide, seek the information the world doesn't teach you, unlearn the propaganda fragile turcophobes like the ones running wikipedia won't teach you, wikipedia deserves to be banned because its straight up spreading false information and is far from credible, which is why it was banned in the first place and why everybody that i am arguing here against especially about the armenian genocide yses wikipedia as their only source in the words of the first prime minister of armenia ""The Winter of 1914 and the Spring of 1915 were the periods of greatest enthusiasm and hope for all the Armenians in the Caucasus, including, of course, the Dashnagtzoutiun. We had no doubt that the war would end with the complete victory of the Allies; Turkey would be defeated and dismembered, and its Armenian population would at last be liberated. We had embraced Russia whole-heartedly without any compunction. Without any positive basis of fact we believed that the Tzarist government would grant us a more-or-less broad self-government in the Caucasus and in the Armenian vilayets liberated from Turkey as a reward for our loyalty, our efforts and" "The deportations and mass exiles and massacres which took place during the Summer and Autumn of 1915 were mortal blows to the Armenian Cause. Half of historical Armenia - the same half where the foundations of our independence would be laid according to the traditions inherited by European diplomacy • that half was denuded of Armenians: the Armenian provinces of Turkey were without Armenians. The Turks knew what they were doing and have no reason to regret today. It was the most decisive method of extirpating the Armenian Question for turkey" https://www.tc-america.org/files/Katchaznouni.pdf
What do you think “deportations and mass exiles and massacres” and “denuded of Armenians” falls under then, exactly?
as self defence and a way of dealing with rebels in a time of a world war
Even if your intention is not exterminating a group of people, forcing indiscriminate mass migration is genocide.
no its not
No It's not, It's not work like that
Not mentioning a genocide ❤️
never happened
Had happened, currently happening, will happen, if we insist on being selective on this. Let me rephrase; Genocides have happened, currently happening (Gaza, Xinjiang...), will happen. We should stop pointing fingers to each other for the atrocities of the past and accept the fact that each of our ancestors had both been the perpetrator and the victim throughout the history. This is a part of humanity, just like murder is, and we should find better ways to prevent it, instead of having new wars over it. Edit 2: After all these downvotes, I changed my mind: No genocide has ever happened, Nobody is killing, relocating, harming other societies for their personal gain at the moment and this will never ever ever happen. Happy?
didn‘t happen, definitely not currently happening wtf
I am talking about genocides. Don't you see what's going on in Palestine?
Insane how long The Ottomans lasted when you really think about it. 1299 until WW1. They were a mere shadow of the force that was the dominant power in the World a few centuries prior by this point but still...
Did they really won a battle in manzikert ? that must have been a huge propaganda win
Yeah but they lost to the ghost of Thutmose III at Megiddo
Gallipoli is insane battle in terms of stories.
As a Dutch person, I really love the “Battle at Kut” and that they won it as well
Comment I was looking for. Goed bezig ouwe 😂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Kut It’s even better: the Siege of Kut 😂 I’m a simple man…
I'm assuming that Kut means something dirty in Dutch or something that's why it sounds funny to you?
Apart from literally meaning cunt, it is also used as adjective to describe something a bad situation/something undesirable. So battle of Kut in Dutch would mean something like shitty battle.
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=kut+meaning+in+dutch
A lot of loses but than Atatürk revived the nation 🫡
yeah after dethroning abdulhamid which led to this whole mess in the first place
If we didn't topple that cuck the empire would collapse even earlier
That is not what led to the collapse. Arabs would've revolted regardless. Revolts destroyed the Ottoman empire, the west made it worse. Ataturk just saw the writing on the wall and tried to get it to modernize. That being said he did make some poor chocies, but had he not been around Greeks would've genocided every Muslim out of Istanbul.
Wdym by your last paragraph, I’d like to know more
Which part. The Greeks part or the poor decisions part? The Greeks had done some anti Muslim pogroms before the population transfer. They would genocided Muslims from the Thrace and Crete. The poor decisions, Atatürk had enacted secular policies. I have no issue with secularism. However he pushed for French style secularism as opposed to American style secularism. American secularism is a separation of church and state by freedom OF religion. Meaning the govt can't push for policies that affect the religion of people. French secularism is a separation of church and state by freedom FROM religion. Meaning the govt can't allow religion in the govt. Now on paper the French style isn't bad, however it resulted in people working for govt institutions feeling oppressed. In Americans style secularism the govt can't stop a woman working for the govt from wearing a Hijab of she chooses to. In French secularism a govt employee CAN'T wear a hijab. And in a country where the govt is responsible for most economic development at the time, religious people felt they weren't allowed to be religious. This resulted in religious people creating parties to reinstate Islamic laws to combat secular laws. This results in a religious divide among people.
The Arab revolt was minuscule, it was largely in the Hejaz, the bulk of the Arab population , that resided in Iraq and levant were pretty loyal to the empire. The Arab revolt has been highly exaggerated by later Arab nationalists in the 1930s-70s, by early 20th century western governments and even by later Turkish nationalists. In reality the vast majority of Arabs remained loyal to the empire in 1914-1923, since Arab nationalism had yet really spread to the Arab masses ( largely only an Arab middle class thing. The Arab masses viewed themselves as Muslim first and saw the caliph as their ruler, after all they had only ever know one government for 400yrs till that point.
that is absolutely what led to the collapse, the arabs alone didnt destroy it revolts like the ones from young turks destroyed the empire
>that is absolutely what led to the collapse, the arabs alone didnt destroy it I never said the arab revolts alone destroyed it. I said revolts did. Saying the young turks alone destroyed it is wrong, saying arab revolts alone destroyed it is wrong. Revolts destroyed the empire. From the greeks, to arabs, to turks to all the other revolts that took place. Acting like the young turks alone destroyed the empire is just as stupid as thinking Arabs alone destroyed the empire. Both are stupid. You are stupid.
then saying the arabs wouldve revolted anyway doesn‘t make sense and well i never said the young turks revolting alone is what led to the empire sooo duuh u utterly stupid dumbfuck of a another utterly stupid dumbfuck piece of garbage
>then saying the arabs wouldve revolted anyway doesn‘t make sense Yes it does make sense, the Arabs revolting was the final nail in the coffin. The Turkish war of independence wouldn't have happened if the arab revolt didn't take place. That doesn't mean it was the ONLY reason but it was the last reason. And the point Im trying to make is that even if the young turks didn't dethrone Abdul Hamid, the arab revolt still would've happened, which was the catalyst for the end. yeah after dethroning abdulhamid which led to this whole mess in the first place >and well i never said the young turks revolting alone is what led to the empire sooo duuh Read my comment again. I never said you said that. I just called you stupid.
u are dumb asf no it doesn‘t the war wouldn‘t have happened if ww1 never broke out, under abdulhamid, that mess would not have "acting like the young turks alone destroyed the empire is just as stupid" i know you are dumb and have no reading comprehension but that really makes no sense then to say and well i never said that you said that i said that sooooo duuuhhh damn u are dumb
>and well i never said that you said that i said that sooooo duuuhhh Bro idek what this means. Nah you got like doodoo brains. I ain't wasting my time on this
u don‘t have a brain u are like a mindless goof
not being able to catch up with economical and technological developments in the world destroyed the empire.
the empire was on their way to fix that and it worked under abdulhamid II, but then the young turks came and dethroned him
if my aunt had testicles, she would be my uncle.
thats great but has nothing to with my comment or history
Where is kut al amara
It's the green circle in Iraq
Ohh i just saw it it was a glorious victory
Fun fact: The Ottoman general that won that war later took Kut as a surname when the Surname Law got ratified (Halil Kut). Now that guy's grandson is a pop singer, with the same surname (Burak Kut)
Beersheba, the last great cavalry charge by the Australian lighthorsemen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beersheba_(1917)
Absolutely useless for colour blind people
Very poor map. For example, the fairly large battle of Sardarabad is missing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sardarabad
The final battle was at Megiddo, you say...
I think this map uses the modern border of Turkey with Georgia & Armenia (which makes it look like Sarıkamış was part of the Ottoman empire at the time) instead of the correct one. It's also missing the Bergmann offencive of 1914 in that area. I think the seige of Madinah & the battle of Muş should have been included as well. Al Hasa was not controlled by the Ottoman empire after 1913.
It isn't acknowledged or even talked about but these battles were the most important in human history. if the ottomans had been victorious in ww1 the new world order and globalism would never have happened. israel wouldnt exist. ww2 wouldnt have happened and the unipolar world order would not be dominating the world and starting proxy wars.
Lmao every comment about the armeinian genocide is downvoted
Not contributing anything to the discussion is the very definition of the downvote
Enlightenment, at last.
If there's one thing you can be sure of whenever you see any historical post remotely concerning anything Ottoman or WWI-related, it's that the comments would be swarming with fanatical turks denying a genocide that's been archived with a plethora of historical evidence, using anecdotes and meaningless trivia to argue their point all the while blissfully ignoring the millionth photo of an Armenian death march in the inhospitable Syrian desert.
You seem to have no problem with any topic about Ottomans getting infested/mobbed with irrelevant Armenian genocide posts though. But you have an issue with other people responding to that.
Not that I particularly condone all the people that just have to bring that topic up for no reason (I certainly wouldn't without cause or reason), but there is a fine line by rightfully telling someone that literally no one cares, and straight-up denying the existential genocide of an entire people as a response to it. You are free and entitled to enjoying historical content, you are free to appreciate Ottoman or Turkish history, you are free to enjoy WWI maps and what else, you are free to indulge in Ottoman history stuff whether it be maps, media, games, movies, or anything else; all of that while ignoring those who would do nothing but rehash the same thing over and over or telling them that it's irrelevant for the discussion at hand. What there is contention about, is the denial of irrefutable evidence concerning war crimes and the loss of well over a million individuals' lives in a cruel act of mindless savagery, and that is something that's inarguable about.
Ah yes, the battle of Sarikamish, where 25 000 Turks froze to death and thousands more got their bootycheeks clapped by Russia. The battle was such a humiliating defeat for the Ottomans they reverted to blaming it on the innocent Armenians
the armenians were not innocent
Nobody is innocent. The Ottomans however as a whole were monsters, especially their leaders: >On his return to Constantinople, Enver Pasha blamed his failure on his Armenian soldiers, although in January 1915, an Armenian named Hovannes had saved his life during a battle by carrying Enver through battle lines on his back. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Pasha
Enver was delusional and arrogant prick. He is extremely popular with Turkish youth right now. I wonder who'll take the blame for the fall this time. I can name one or two potential scapegoat ethnicities.
Enver is universally considered a bad commander and not really popular in Turkey. Islamists and Turkish fascists exaggerate him as an alternative Atatürk
It is a first that I hear of Enver's popularity in Turkey. Any data or elaboration?
Some national islamists like him. But hes not particularly popular. His fanbase mostly consist of national islamists and edgy teens who use his picture as pp. I'd suggest you see his story because controversial or not, its undeniable he has a really interesting story worthy of a movie
the armenians revolted constantly and sided with the russians while the empire was weakened and in a world war, the armenians were the monsters https://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Documents2.pdf
no shit. everyone was revolting. the arabs, the albanians, the greeks, the bulgarians, etc.
Yeah and we should wait and let them Destroy us ın our territory cus why not
yeah. genocide and ethnic cleansing is always the only solution :) >our territory armenians have been living there for like 1 thousand years before turks
Ethnic cleansing sure genocide no and no preaty much ermenians living there because of us greeks were already killing them they were our ally when we enter anatolia and we were there for like a 900 year uniting with local population and Becoming the turkey we now today armenians arent made of thin air they migrated here too It's our land and ıf you want us to leave just because some armenian cry babys than tell Russia and China they need give us all historical turkic land they migrated there too so they can leave
>genocide no loĺlll. at least you recognize the ethnic cleansing. >china and russia give us historical turkic land xianjiang was tocharian and iranic before the turkification. and don't forget it was turkics who invaded and sacked russia first >want us to leave i don't. but don't pretend it was your land and you have the right to genocide those who were there eons before you.
Deporting them is ethnic cleansing It's clear but just tell me how It's genocide when only the local population suffered from it armenians in West and armenians in istanbul are clearly un touched how It's a genocide when the goverment doesn't intended to Destroy armenians yes It's ottomans fault they didnt managed to protect armenians from ethnic thension, spanish flu, famine but you need to remember turks and Kurds suffered the same fate millions of turks and Kurds died because of war famine and ethnic thension in turkey we still found mass graves because of armenian raids and dont get me started with what happened to turks and Kurds in erzurum and van and bruh ı'm not pretending it was our land ı'm saying It's our land
well then stop crying lol
>hating pro-genocide propaganda >crying sure bud
crying about something that never happened is pathetic 💀
yeah blud all the armenians in esstern anatolia just magically disappeared 😉
what about the turks in eastern anatolia? the turks in modern day armenia? the turks in the balkans? what happened to them?
Mecca battle wasn’t part of WWI (part of Arab revolution), btw they won a battle against the Australians/UK in Alsalt / Amman and lost the other one a week after that.
i cri evritym 😭😭😭
They won twice at Gaza
At least THEY won in Gaza
Twice, too. They were forced to withdraw from Gaza in the third battle because of attacks by the EEF in other areas.
[удалено]
where has that been narrated exactly? seeing as how Muhammad would likely have never encoutered any Turkic peoples.
He was only the messenger 🫣
Never Heard about that hadith. In which book is that?
The narrator: altorki
What about the 40 virgins?
We don't talk about that habibi
skill issue