Comments by "Ggoddkkiller" (@ggoddkkiller1342) on "Knowledgia" channel.

Some points were missed in the video: 1- Armistice of Mudros also included Ottoman surrendering their weapons, millions of artillery guns, machine rifles, bullets etc were surrendered while many Ottoman officers didn't accept it and delivered their arms to civilians instead of surrendering them. Ofc 15. Army corps under command of Kazim Karabekir Pasha entirely refused to follow the armistice and neither surrendered their arms nor disbanded their forces. Later on they became the backbone of Turkish resistance. Same as they did in Germany, entente powers kept occupying territories for few days after the armistice was signed. France occupied some territories in northern Syria while British occupied Mosul which remained as a hot topic for decades. 2- Most of Turkish regular army was either fighting against Armenia in the east or Greeks in the west while mostly irregulars fought against France and British in the south. Even then they managed to capture some cities from them and after Armenia got defeated and signed a peace agreement, French also signed a peace agreement. Western sources often claim it was Turkey which attacked Armenia but it is entirely false. You can find the manifesto of their Prime minister who states it was them who attacked crystal clear. He even adds Turks wanted to confer but they refused believing they were going to win. Only few hours before Soviets began occupying Armenia they signed a peace agreement and ended the war. So at last Turkish forces could unite against Greek army but even then Greek army had 130,000 soldiers and 70,000 reserve against 105,000 Turkish soldiers with zero reserve at the battle Dumlupınar. 3- Soviet support for Turkish resistance wasn't large scale but they sent arms and supplies in exchange of 'future grain' that Turkey was going to grow in following years and send them. So they were pretty much sending arms for free and newly established Ankara government didn't have much resources so it was crucial. Saying new government was nationalist is just a simplification, there were many people in the parliament following different ideologies including even communists and islamists. And the new government adopted socialist policies as well. So Soviets saw the new government as a potential ally for them and supported the resistance. Even today there are some socialist policies in Turkey and also a communist party who isn't very large but can win municipalities in local elections. 4- The biggest mistake of entente powers they severely miscalculated how much resistance Turks could mount. Back then there were less than 10 million Turks living and it was a laughable number compared to their colonies with hundreds of millions population. So at first they really thought they could occupy and colonize Anatolia as they wished, but after Turkish resistance they quickly realized it was impossible. Turkey is a 82% mountainous country and the resistance could keep it going for decades so they took best deal they could get and left. Mosul was left under British administiration for 100 years that later on they made it a part of Iraqi mandate. Hatay was granted a special administration with their own government that later on they decided to join back Turkey. Soviets and Caucasus countries signed agreement of Kars in favor of Turks especially Azerbaijanis, this agreement ceded Nachivan and Karabagh to Azerbaijan. Greece and Turkey signed Lausanne agreement Turkey ceding all Greek majority islands to Greece expect 2 miles radius from the mainland while Greece returning territories in Thrace. It also included population exchange that Greece sent 500,000 Muslims while Turkey 1.5m Greeks. However a part of Aegean islands weren't Greek back then rather Italian. After WW2 Allies ceded all Italian islands to Greece without caring 2 miles radius Lausanne had despite Turkey's objection. So today Turkey refuses 2 miles radius of those islands as Greek and it is the main dispute between two countries. Mosul is a hot mess so Turkey never claimed it so far, even if according to international laws Turkey can really claim it as there is no agreement ceding the territory to Iraq..
268
One of the most important factors which caused Entente powers to believe they could colonize Anatolia or at least turn it into a mandate is often missed, it was because there were less than 10 million Turks living during that time. European populations were much larger such as Russian empire had 166 million population, even total population of Greeks 6.5 million and Armenians 4.5 million was more than Turks. While Entente powers had colonies and mandates with much larger populations. So in their eyes Anatolia was served to them on a golden plate but ofc they miscalculated how far Turks can push for their independence. There was no way on Earth their invasion would be accepted by Turkish public, Ottoman might be surrendered but this didn't change anything. Even centuries ago when Mongols invaded Anatolia it was same that Seljuks accepted becoming a Mongol vassal while not Turkish tribes, they kept fighting and Mongols had to invade Anatolia 3 times more! For example Kayı tribe which established Ottoman was also fighting against Mongols and for this reason they had support of other tribes. Invading Constantinople and allowing Greeks to invade western Anatolia sealed their fate as soon as they happened..
48
There were German plans for forcing Turkey to join Axis or at least let troop movements but they were planning to do that diplomatically by pushing as far as Syria so encircled Turkey would have no choice but accept their demands. Due they knew a military operation was doomed to fail as even if Turkish army was very weak compared to Germany they could still use natural defenses like Turkish straits and defend for months if not years. And even after Turkish army was defeated there would be still strong armed resistance against German forces same as post-WW1 so Germany didn't need another front which would constantly suck resources and manpower!! On the other hand USSR was seen as a great enemy by Turkey which is why Turkey didn't want to join allies while Germany failed in north Africa and couldn't push into Syria so Turkey stayed neutral for pretty much entire war then joined NATO against USSR...
43
A fun fact, Hagia Sophia is still registered as property of Mehmed the conqueror. When Türkiye was established it inherited all Ottoman properties but not the ones registered to Sultans. Ottoman had pretty strict rule of ''government property'' for centuries unlike western Kings who owned everything in the country. So vast majority of palaces etc were already government property while Sultans had some small palaces or properties here and there, they are still owned by descendance of Ottoman dynasty today.
23
You can easily tell only English sources were used as Ottoman army was vast majority cavalry not infantry. According to Turkish sources Ottoman army had 8,000 Janissaries, 4,000 Kapıkulu heavy cavalry and around 40,000 Sipahis. So 60,000 number is quite accurate but cavalry ratio was 4:1 at least and that was why Ottoman was very keen to catch Mamluks in a pitched battle instead of a defensive war. Because of this heavy cavalry army Ottoman always struggled to capture castles and towns that cavalry was useless in sieges. So Sultan Selim wasn't sending envoys to trick Mamluks rather he was acting like Ottoman was weak so Mamluks would dare to face them in a pitched battle which was exactly what happened. According to Turkish sources Ottoman cannons were causing heavy casualties for Mamluks so they threw everything for an all out assault on Ottoman sides where light armoured Sipahis were positioned. Sipahis were light armored skirmish forces and they could not handle heavy combat well so they struggled a bit but managed to repel Mamluks. Soon after entire Mamluk battle formation collapsed. Also Turkish sources very clearly state Hayır Bey retreated after right wing collapsed because of Mamluk casualties not before. About Mamluk sultan Ottoman forces just found him dead on the battlefield, nobody exactly knew how he died. It is believed he died from falling from his horse but it is even possible his own soldiers killed him. Entire battle took 8 hours, vast majority of Mamluk army got killed or captured while 2,000 Mamluks refusing to follow orders got executed after the battle. I don't know why western historians ridiculously act like Turkish sources are unreliable while it is all there without much fantasy or bias like ''instant stroke'' etc. You can argue English sources are better for youtube videos as they are full of spicy fantasy that i would agree..
20
Complete political nonsense from the start to the end as first they somehow claim Anatolia got hellenized peacefully while in reality Greek historians tell very different story like how entire population of Troy got slaughtered or enslaved when Greeks captured the city!! Lets assume those Greek historians were lying somehow what about thousands of paintings which can be found all around Greece showing enslaved Anatolians getting beheaded as offerings to greek gods?? They are lies as well??? Peaceful hellenization is just a total joke in every way and they even completely ignored Roman atrocities such blinding thousands of Bulgars by Basil II, other massacres of Pagans or Latin genocide done by Greeks, i guess those were irrelevant.. Then they claim Ottoman had turkification and conversion projects which is a total lie without any question due Ottoman was actually very tolerant against other Abrahamic religions such as when Christians captured Iberian peninsula they issued an order that everybody had to convert to Christianity including Jews if they wanted to stay in Spain and tens of thousands of Jews refused and migrated into Ottoman where they could live freely under Millet system which was letting minorities to even introduce their own laws!! And they were full citizens of Ottoman that their only difference to Muslims was paying slightly higher tax called Jizya tax, in fact there wasn't even a Turkish millet rather Turks were considered as a part of Muslim millet and had exactly same rights as Arabs etc which shows how ridiculous claiming Ottoman had turkification project!! And forceful recruitment aka blood tax was only taken if somebody failed to pay their taxes so rich non-Muslims like Greeks never had to enlist their children while much poorer Balkan nations like Serbians often had to enlist their children but there are even records people offered their children themselves simply because living in a poor village during medieval era was much more dangerous than becoming one of the most elite soldiers on Earth who got paid very high salaries as well!! Some westerners consider Janissaries as slavery somehow while they were getting paid very well, they could marry, retire and buy property, what a ''slavery'' indeed which literally had way more rights than ''free'' villeins who were vast majority of European population for centuries.. Then they completely ignore there were millions of Muslims living in Balkans and after Ottoman lost those places they faced every kind of atrocities, hundreds of thousands got killed and millions were forced to migrate into Ottoman!! Same happened in Crimea in 1783 and Circassia in 1860 where Muslims were completely ethnic cleansed by killings or forceful displacements to Ottoman but even if Balkan, Crimea and Circassia massacres happened decades before Anatolia it is somehow told as Ottoman started this violence for obvious reasons ofc!! But in reality those massacres were the whole reason why Ottoman nations were becoming extremely hostile against each others and the violence continued in Anatolia as well where Greeks and Armenians rebelled against Ottoman and started to attack both Ottoman forces and Turkish civilians while in return Turkish civilians attacked them and Anatolia was fallen into a total civil war which was why population exchanges happened as living together peacefully wasn't possible anymore!! Here is an academic writing published by seven western universities which is about how Greeks and Armenians killed hundreds of thousands Turkish civilians in Anatolia: http://www.academia.edu/35312332/Revisiting_the_Fire_of_Izmir But sadly nobody cares about the real history including even so called historians which is why there are so many nonsenses in ''history'' books that this video is one of those, what a shame...
18
US/western world somehow considered USSR as an ally for years against nazis even if their humanitarian records were equally bad but Turkey always kept considering USSR as an enemy (Perhaps because Russo-Turkish rivalry) which is why they refused to join allies during WW2!! After the war USSR became the number one enemy for the western world so Turkey joined NATO against USSR not against Middle east...
18
@nikhtose You are talking about Greeks and Armenians living in Anatolia while im talking about their entire populations! Ottoman lost vast majority of Balkans and eastern Anatolia/Caucasus to Russian empire so indeed there weren't many Greeks and Armenians living in Ottoman anymore. While pretty much entire Anatolia was Turkish/Muslim majority in 1914 but as i stated their population was actually quite small compared to other countries..
13
@Official-Comments You also have no idea about history nor geopraphy sadly, first of all Greeks colonized entire Anatolia starting from Alexander's invasion which happened in 333 BC while Seljuks invaded Anatolia in 1071 AD so Greeks only controlled Anatolia for 1404 years not 3500 that only God knows where you learned that! Secondly Seljuks were vast majority Oghuz Turks who have been living between Caspian and Aral seas which is only 1000 miles away not 8,000 miles!! And the worst of all Greek control of Anatolia actually ended when Roman empire invaded Anatolia in 63 BC and it remained under Roman control until Turkish invasion so Greeks controlled entire Anatolia for only 270 years, Romans did for 1134 years and Turks did for 952 years but it is still ''Greek lands'' if you are ignorant person without slightest history knowledge ofc...
12
@spaceexplosion1300 Yunanistan imzacı ülkelerden biridir yoksa nasıl toprak takası falan yapılabilirdi. Ama Lozan bir çok maddeye sahip ulusarası bir anlaşmaydı orası doğru. Mesaj zaten uzun olduğu için atladım oraları, zaten Musul hariç bütün eski Osmanlı topraklarından feragat edilmesi harici öyle önemli madde bulunmuyor.
11
@heysemkaya7557 First time i'm seeing Turkey didn't send a delegation because they thought they didn't deserve it. In all sources i've seen it is stated that Turkey wanted to receive islands within 3 miles same as Lausanne. So they wanted to extend Lausanne coverage to entire Aegean. (Did a small mistake in my message, it is 3 miles not 2.) Those islands don't worth anything anyway, in fact vast majority of them are uninhabited rocks and islets. However they all have territorial waters and could be used to claim EEZ. On map it is looking like Turkey has great access to Aegean but it is not true, even with 6 miles Greek territorial waters most of Aegean is a Greek sea and Turkish waters are limited with only narrow pasages. If they increase their territorial waters to 12 miles entire Aegean becomes Greek waters and Turkish access would be blocked. Greece also trying to use Kastellorizo island to reduce Turkish EEZ over 100,000 km². Kastellorizo is only 2 km away from Turkish mainland so if Lausanne was extended it was a Turkish island today. Plus it has only 200 population but somehow Greece can claim 100,000 km² EEZ using such a small island. They even increased their airspace in Aegean to 10 miles. There is only one country on Earth which has longer airspace than their borders and territorial waters and it is Greece! Ofc it is a direct violation of international laws and Turkey completely refuses it, still acting like Greek airspace is still 6 miles. Honestly it is a miracle Aegean dispute didn't cause a war already and international community should stop playing games and try to find a solution instead as no country can accept nor tolerate these violations forever..
10
@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5f I'm sorry but those are just false information. For example Ataturk wrote it himself as Soviet support was for 'future grain' as i mentioned and he also added all grain promised was sent in following years. He doesn't mention anywhere promising socialist reforms, in fact it would be impossible anyway. Because even if there were some socialists in the parliament majority wasn't so keen to ally themselves to Bolsheviks. For example after Bolsheviks occupied Caucasus, it was seriously argued in the parliament if they should add Azerbaijani lands to Kuvai Milliye which could escalate into a war with Bolsheviks. Fortunately not long after Kars agreement was signed, both Azerbaijan gained some lands and Soviet union recognized it. So even if Azerbaijan became a Soviet state at least its people and lands were secured and the parliament dropped such arguments.
10
@michaeldalapo9730 You just continue your nonsense assumptions such as ''Soviets got surprised which is why operation barbarossa was so successful'' but i guess Finland also surprised USSR somehow which is why USSR failed to defeat such a small country, right?? LMAO!! Operation barbarossa was successful as soviets had extremely ill-trained soldiers and they were extremely brutal against their own population as well which is why their soldiers were just deserting their armies such as during operation barbarrossa USSR had total 5 million casualties and 3 million of them were missing or captured which makes 60% of total casualties while on the other hand Germany had only 4% missing or captured!! Another point which shows how ridiculous claiming USSR got surprised that they had only 2.5 million soldiers in 1939 while they had 6 million soldiers in 22 June 1941 just before operation barbarossa started so if Soviets were so ''clueless'' care to explain why they increased their military personels more than twice??? In 1941 USSR just had no chance to stop German army in anywhere on Earth.. And now you literally started lying??? As i never ever saw any article which claims allies had any lack of supplies in Africa rather it is exact opposite such as here is an article which says UK heavily supplied Tobruk in order to defend it as long as possible for not giving a big port to Germans and Rommel had very serious lack of supplies even while he encircled Tobruk!! Here reduce your ingorance a little bit please: https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=HtEcBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=encircled+tobruk+supplies&source=bl&ots=iqzBKa3I8e&sig=ACfU3U1aZIkmN5z5Dn19GvlTycAPfZU6Sg&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYnMn105PqAhXXvosKHfSkDTQQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=encircled%20tobruk%20supplies&f=false And the whole purpose of Germany sending an army to Africa was capturing Egypt not defending absolutely worthless Libya at all!! So if Turkey route was open instead of miserably fighting in Libya Germany could send those forces to Syria through Turkey and easily supply them as Turkey had railroads between Europe-Istanbul and Istanbul-Syria!! And your comparison about Italian mountains and Turkish mountains again is just another nonsense as Turkey is exactly 6 times larger than Italian peninsula and yes there are mountainous regions and there are also completely flat lands so there is no real problem sending troops to east nor supplying them, in fact Ottoman launched a great campaign in 1918 and cleared all entente soldiers from not only eastern Turkey also Georgia, northern Iran, Azerbaijan and even Dagestan within just few months while according to you it is impossible to cross those areas somehow... Lets assume it is really impossible but what about Black sea routes then?? Soviet black sea fleet was already very small and with involvement of Turkey axis could gain absolute naval and air superiority in black sea and could both send troops to the east then supply them but i guess black sea was too mountainous as well??? LMAO!!.. And another proof comes from you which shows how ignorant you are due Germany also had a nuclear program, in fact US captured U-234 in 14 May 1945 (After Germany surrendered) with 1,200 pounds of uranium and other secrets about V2s, jet aircrafts etc which was sent to Japan!! So in such a senario Germany was going to capture Egypt then many more parts of Africa and gain access to many times more resources including many times more uranium in 1941 so they could speed up their nuclear program and actually finish making a nuclear weapon before USA especially if we consider German technology was far better than US during that time, in fact first US jets and missiles etc were literally developed from German WW2 weapons...
8
@michaeldalapo9730 A complete nonsense in every way as you ignore so many things such as i wonder how exactly you assumed Germany had to cross any mountains while there is a completely flat route from Istanbul > Ankara > Adana > Diyarbakır > Van > Tabriz > Erdebil > BAKU!! But i guess soviets were going to block Iranian route somehow like they blocked German army in Russia?? Or perhaps local populations were going to fight back even if they all were Turkish allies or directly Turks such Azerbaijani Turks who live in northern Iran in both Tabriz and Erdebil and Azerbaijan??? If Germans could use Turkey route they would reach Baku in a month and reach Stalingrad in 6 months maximum while Barbarossa took 14 months as they had to wait during the winter!! Germans could also invade oil rich Iraq and rest of Iran easily then push into Egypt as their biggest problem in north Africa was sending their troops there at first place as Italian navy was tasked to both carry German troops and supply them but they miserably failed because not only Italian navy was insanely weaker than allies, also ports in north Africa were too small so Italy couldn't send big convoys due there weren't enough capacity to dock them rather had to send small convoys which often got caught by allies!! Which is why German army always fought in north Africa outnumbered, outgunned and out of supplies even then allies struggled a lot to defeat them so if Germany could send their forces and their supplies through Turkey you can bet they were going to capture Egypt in no time and cut the most important supply route for allies!! Even then i would agree most probably axis was going to loose the war again but instead of 6 years WW2 would take at least 10 years and in this time it was very possible Germany would develop nuclear weapons and drop one on London so nobody knows for sure what could have happened if Turkey joined axis...
7
Bangbabangbabangbang Nope, not at all as in 1933 Ataturk was still alive and he was against any foreign investments rather tried to develop Turkish economy domestically, in fact you can see how serious he was in his speeches like ''Completion of independence is only possible with financial independence'' in 1937!! So he wouldn't accept German investments for sure, another problem is that you claim Turkey wanted Caucasus which isn't true as Soviets already recognized the independence of all countries in Caucasus with the treaty of Kars in 1921 so even if Turkey would rather to make Azerbaijan completely free from Soviet union but they were already independent, other than that Turkey had no interests in Caucasus. You can understand how important the treaty of Kars for Turkey as after Turkey joined NATO and became an enemy of USSR Stalin etc threatened to annul the treaty and claim some parts of Turkey but they never did so officially as the treaty isn't only about Turkey rather all Caucasus countries so annuling it would have created many problems...
6
@abdulazizsaleh8549 Technology and military production wise Germany was many times stronger than Turkey but as you said Germany was already in a war against both Russia and allies so also attacking Turkey was just too much especially if we consider Turkish people wouldn't accept German rule like Polish or French people rather would keep fighting which is why they had to ''convince'' Turkish government diplomatically so they can use Turkish territories without facing any insurgency...
5
@UnwantedFeather It is correct Anatolia is very mountanious but there are natural mountain passes all around it which had roads as well and Turkey also had a railroad between Istanbul and Syria so German forces could push into Syria then advance into Baku through flat lands of Iraq and Iran. And lesser Caucasus mountains aren't that much of obstacle due even Ottoman launched a campaign in 1918 against Russians and captured entire eastern Turkey then pushed into Georgia, Iran, Azerbaijan and even Dagestan within just few months...
5
Knights who slaughtered entire populations of cities including huge ones like Antioch and Jerusalem, knights who plundered all the way from Europe into Jerusalem including not only dozens of Orthodox towns also even many Catholic towns were worried about pilgrims getting robbed?? Just LMAO!..
5
WW1 + Spanish flu casualties: Germany 2,800,720 / 4.32% of total population France 1,737,800 / 4.39% Austria-Hungary 2,081,200 / 4.05% Italy 1,243,400 / 3.49% United kingdom 1,011,687 / 2.23% Russia 3,394,369 / 1.94% Ottoman 3,271,844 / 15.36% And the war didn't end for Turks with WW1 as allied powers occupied Turkey and Turks kept fighting in the Turkish war of independence which caused hundreds of thousands more casualties from both Turkish soldiers and civilians who got targeted by Greek forces: http://www.academia.edu/35312332/Revisiting_the_Fire_of_Izmir So the Republic of Turkey literally inherited a giant graveyard from Ottoman and it is why Turkey was always very isolationist since then and only acted if it was absolute necessity which is same today despite very wrong claims that we are an aggressive nation!! We are a warlike nation not an aggressive nation at all especially compared to ''world powers'' which have to start wars every few years...
3
@Loyal94 You don't make sense at all as in such senario it means Germany was going to use it's entire power against USSR alone and not only Poland and Turkey will join the war also Japan as well without any question at all as they already had a small scale war against them!! So in such a senario USSR would get invaded from the west, Caucasus and the far east at the same time which would completely destroy their any chance...
3
Turks fought against literally every nation in Europe from Portugese to Swedish and from Russians to British! The empire was always at war or preparing for a war so couldn't send much aid around. Perhaps Ottoman could be more successful if they focused on East not in Europe so much. But it is equally possible in that case they were going to pushed out of Europe and even Anatolia as that was what most European empires wanted for centuries especially russkies who alone had 12 wars with Ottoman...
3
@Anastas1ios I already claimed and backed my ''propaganda'' in my message but you somehow missed that i guess...
3
@NikephorosCaesar Care to share when westerners will leave North America, South America, Australia, South Africa, huh? You two faced clowns claim entire continents as western lands even if they were invaded only few centuries ago while still considering Anatolia Greek even if Turks invaded 1000 years ago. The worst of all Greeks aren't native Anatolians neither and they invaded Anatolia EXACTLY same as Turks did! You would brag about Troy, trojan horse etc while completely ignoring Homer also talks about how ENTIRE population of Troy was killed or enslaved for obvious reasons..
3
If the western borders of Ottoman were secure Ottoman could organize a massive campaign which would take years and capture Iran but the western borders were never secure so they couldn't risk such a massive force. Also Oghuz Turkic nations same as Ottoman Turks were mostly ruling Iran like Afsharid dynasty and Qajar dynasty which was actually securing Ottoman eastern borders so any campaign against them was just pointless, in fact Ottoman and Iran only fought large battles when Persians were ruling Iran like Safavid dynasty!! (Safavid dynasty was actually Iranian Kurds but they favoured Persians greatly to stay in power and it was basicly a Persian rule) But sadly the terms Persian and Iranian are often confused in the video that Persian is a race name while Iran is a country name which includes Kurdish, Turkic etc minorities in the region...
2
Millions displaced or killed = genocide Millions displaced or killed = deportation Millions displaced or killed = rEcoNcLliaTion Historical examples, deportation of Crimean Tatars, German reconciliation, expulsion of Muslims from Balkans, deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia. You gotta be really blind if you can't see the pattern here and how humanism is used as a tool..
2
@Official-Comments I guess you are having a mental breakdown because there isn't a single western country on Earth which recognized a single one of their countless genocides against MILLIONS of Africans, Native Americans, Indians, Asians so far. But somehow Muslim countries get ''jail free card'', what a moronity!
2
Complete political nonsense from the start to the end as first they somehow claim Anatolia got hellenized peacefully while in reality Greek historians tell very different story like how entire population of Troy got slaughtered or enslaved when Greeks captured the city!! Lets assume those Greek historians were lying somehow what about thousands of paintings which can be found all around Greece showing enslaved Anatolians getting beheaded as offerings to greek gods?? They are lies as well??? Peaceful hellenization is just a total joke in every way and they even completely ignored Roman atrocities such blinding thousands of Bulgars by Basil II, other massacres of Pagans or Latin genocide done by Greeks, i guess those were irrelevant.. Then they claim Ottoman had turkification and conversion projects which is a total lie without any question due Ottoman was actually very tolerant against other Abrahamic religions such as when Christians captured Iberian peninsula they issued an order that everybody had to convert to Christianity including Jews if they wanted to stay in Spain and tens of thousands of Jews refused and migrated into Ottoman where they could live freely under Millet system which was letting minorities to even introduce their own laws!! And they were full citizens of Ottoman that their only difference to Muslims was paying slightly higher tax called Jizya tax, in fact there wasn't even a Turkish millet rather Turks were considered as a part of Muslim millet and had exactly same rights as Arabs etc which shows how ridiculous claiming Ottoman had turkification project!! And forceful recruitment aka blood tax was only taken if somebody failed to pay their taxes so rich non-Muslims like Greeks never had to enlist their children while much poorer Balkan nations like Serbians often had to enlist their children but there are even records people offered their children themselves simply because living in a poor village during medieval era was much more dangerous than becoming one of the most elite soldiers on Earth who got paid very high salaries as well!! Some westerners consider Janissaries as slavery somehow while they were getting paid very well, they could marry, retire and buy property, what a ''slavery'' indeed which literally had way more rights than ''free'' villeins who were vast majority of European population for centuries.. Then they completely ignore there were millions of Muslims living in Balkans and after Ottoman lost those places they faced every kind of atrocities, hundreds of thousands got killed and millions were forced to migrate into Ottoman!! Same happened in Crimea in 1783 and Circassia in 1860 where Muslims were completely ethnic cleansed by killings or forceful displacements to Ottoman but even if Balkan, Crimea and Circassia massacres happened decades before Anatolia it is somehow told as Ottoman started this violence for obvious reasons ofc!! But in reality those massacres were the whole reason why Ottoman nations were becoming extremely hostile against each others and the violence continued in Anatolia as well where Greeks and Armenians rebelled against Ottoman and started to attack both Ottoman forces and Turkish civilians while in return Turkish civilians attacked them and Anatolia was fallen into a total civil war which was why population exchanges happened as living together peacefully wasn't possible anymore!! Here is an academic writing published by seven western universities which is about how Greeks and Armenians killed hundreds of thousands Turkish civilians in Anatolia: http://www.academia.edu/35312332/Revisiting_the_Fire_of_Izmir But sadly nobody cares about the real history including even so called historians which is why there are so many nonsenses in ''history'' books that this video is one of those, what a shame...
2
@BringBacktheGreeks Complete political nonsense from the start to the end as first they somehow claim Anatolia got hellenized peacefully while in reality Greek historians tell very different story like how entire population of Troy got slaughtered or enslaved when Greeks captured the city!! Lets assume those Greek historians were lying somehow what about thousands of paintings which can be found all around Greece showing enslaved Anatolians getting beheaded as offerings to greek gods?? They are lies as well??? Peaceful hellenization is just a total joke in every way and they even completely ignored Roman atrocities such blinding thousands of Bulgars by Basil II, other massacres of Pagans or Latin genocide done by Greeks, i guess those were irrelevant.. Then they claim Ottoman had turkification and conversion projects which is a total lie without any question due Ottoman was actually very tolerant against other Abrahamic religions such as when Christians captured Iberian peninsula they issued an order that everybody had to convert to Christianity including Jews if they wanted to stay in Spain and tens of thousands of Jews refused and migrated into Ottoman where they could live freely under Millet system which was letting minorities to even introduce their own laws!! And they were full citizens of Ottoman that their only difference to Muslims was paying slightly higher tax called Jizya tax, in fact there wasn't even a Turkish millet rather Turks were considered as a part of Muslim millet and had exactly same rights as Arabs etc which shows how ridiculous claiming Ottoman had turkification project!! And forceful recruitment aka blood tax was only taken if somebody failed to pay their taxes so rich non-Muslims like Greeks never had to enlist their children while much poorer Balkan nations like Serbians often had to enlist their children but there are even records people offered their children themselves simply because living in a poor village during medieval era was much more dangerous than becoming one of the most elite soldiers on Earth who got paid very high salaries as well!! Some westerners consider Janissaries as slavery somehow while they were getting paid very well, they could marry, retire and buy property, what a ''slavery'' indeed which literally had way more rights than ''free'' villeins who were vast majority of European population for centuries.. Then they completely ignore there were millions of Muslims living in Balkans and after Ottoman lost those places they faced every kind of atrocities, hundreds of thousands got killed and millions were forced to migrate into Ottoman!! Same happened in Crimea in 1783 and Circassia in 1860 where Muslims were completely ethnic cleansed by killings or forceful displacements to Ottoman but even if Balkan, Crimea and Circassia massacres happened decades before Anatolia it is somehow told as Ottoman started this violence for obvious reasons ofc!! But in reality those massacres were the whole reason why Ottoman nations were becoming extremely hostile against each others and the violence continued in Anatolia as well where Greeks and Armenians rebelled against Ottoman and started to attack both Ottoman forces and Turkish civilians while in return Turkish civilians attacked them and Anatolia was fallen into a total civil war which was why population exchanges happened as living together peacefully wasn't possible anymore!! Here is an academic writing published by seven western universities which is about how Greeks and Armenians killed hundreds of thousands Turkish civilians in Anatolia: http://www.academia.edu/35312332/Revisiting_the_Fire_of_Izmir But sadly nobody cares about the real history including even so called historians which is why there are so many nonsenses in ''history'' books that this video is one of those, what a shame...
2
Knights who slaughtered entire populations of cities including huge ones like Antioch and Jerusalem, knights who plundered all the way from Europe into Jerusalem including not only dozens of Orthodox towns also even many Catholic towns were worried about pilgrims getting robbed?? Just LMAO!! You can tell a biased/more appealing history, there is nothing wrong with that but i think there should be a logical limit to the amount of ridiculous bias..
2
@s1002546 Migration Period: It is well documented that many of those ''Huns'' (First of all you need to learn there was no nation called Huns rather it was a Nomadic confederation consisting many nations) had Turkic names, in fact it becomes even more proven if we accept how Hunnic empire and Xiongnu empire were linked. So it is questionable if ruler class of Hunnic empire was actually Turkic or not but Turkic people were a part of it without any question. Crusades: It was Seljuks who slaughtered at least 50% of first crusade armies while according to some sources it was as high as 80%! And by an extreme ''coincidence'' crusaders never ever used Anatolian land route again but still crusades were between ''Europeans and middle eastern powers''. Especially while there were many crusades against even Ottoman alone but ofc all of them were slaughtered and Ottoman actually ended crusade age, a sad story.. Islamization of Northern India: You somehow admit they all had Turkic origin and refuse it at the same.. Age of Discovery: Exploration became exploration after European realized there were whole unknown continents. Before that Europeans were simply trying to reach India and break the trade monopoly Ottoman could establish between the west and east. So yep if Ottoman didn't exist age of discovery might have happened centuries later and by other people as well. Conquest of Constantinople and the fall of the Roman Empire: You just show how much history you know because Byzantine name was fabricated by a German historian 200 years later than the fall of Constantinople. While that empire never ever called itself ''eastern roman empire'' neither. Rather for it's entire history it was always and officially called ROMAN EMPIRE, in fact for several centuries they even tried to capture back Italy but later gave up on that quest.
1
Complete political nonsense from the start to the end as first they somehow claim Anatolia got hellenized peacefully while in reality Greek historians tell very different story like how entire population of Troy got slaughtered or enslaved when Greeks captured the city!! Lets assume those Greek historians were lying somehow what about thousands of paintings which can be found all around Greece showing enslaved Anatolians getting beheaded as offerings to greek gods?? They are lies as well??? Peaceful hellenization is just a total joke in every way and they even completely ignored Roman atrocities such blinding thousands of Bulgars by Basil II, other massacres of Pagans or Latin genocide done by Greeks, i guess those were irrelevant.. Then they claim Ottoman had turkification and conversion projects which is a total lie without any question due Ottoman was actually very tolerant against other Abrahamic religions such as when Christians captured Iberian peninsula they issued an order that everybody had to convert to Christianity including Jews if they wanted to stay in Spain and tens of thousands of Jews refused and migrated into Ottoman where they could live freely under Millet system which was letting minorities to even introduce their own laws!! And they were full citizens of Ottoman that their only difference to Muslims was paying slightly higher tax called Jizya tax, in fact there wasn't even a Turkish millet rather Turks were considered as a part of Muslim millet and had exactly same rights as Arabs etc which shows how ridiculous claiming Ottoman had turkification project!! And forceful recruitment aka blood tax was only taken if somebody failed to pay their taxes so rich non-Muslims like Greeks never had to enlist their children while much poorer Balkan nations like Serbians often had to enlist their children but there are even records people offered their children themselves simply because living in a poor village during medieval era was much more dangerous than becoming one of the most elite soldiers on Earth who got paid very high salaries as well!! Some westerners consider Janissaries as slavery somehow while they were getting paid very well, they could marry, retire and buy property, what a ''slavery'' indeed which literally had way more rights than ''free'' villeins who were vast majority of European population for centuries.. Then they completely ignore there were millions of Muslims living in Balkans and after Ottoman lost those places they faced every kind of atrocities, hundreds of thousands got killed and millions were forced to migrate into Ottoman!! Same happened in Crimea in 1783 and Circassia in 1860 where Muslims were completely ethnic cleansed by killings or forceful displacements to Ottoman but even if Balkan, Crimea and Circassia massacres happened decades before Anatolia it is somehow told as Ottoman started this violence for obvious reasons ofc!! But in reality those massacres were the whole reason why Ottoman nations were becoming extremely hostile against each others and the violence continued in Anatolia as well where Greeks and Armenians rebelled against Ottoman and started to attack both Ottoman forces and Turkish civilians while in return Turkish civilians attacked them and Anatolia was fallen into a total civil war which was why population exchanges happened as living together peacefully wasn't possible anymore!! Here is an academic writing published by seven western universities which is about how Greeks and Armenians killed hundreds of thousands Turkish civilians in Anatolia: http://www.academia.edu/35312332/Revisiting_the_Fire_of_Izmir But sadly nobody cares about the real history including even so called historians which is why there are so many nonsenses in ''history'' books that this video is one of those, what a shame...
1
@gamingdealer9514 You are free to explain those ''bullshits'' exactly same as i did if you could dare ofc...
1
You can easily tell only English sources were used as Ottoman army was vast majority cavalry not infantry. According to Turkish sources Ottoman army had 8,000 Janissaries, 4,000 Kapıkulu heavy cavalry and around 40,000 Sipahis. So 60,000 number is quite accurate but cavalry ratio was 4:1 at least and that was why Ottoman was very keen to catch Mamluks in a pitched battle instead of a defensive war. Because of this heavy cavalry army Ottoman always struggled to capture castles and towns that cavalry was useless in sieges. So Sultan Selim wasn't sending envoys to trick Mamluks rather he was acting like Ottoman was weak so Mamluks would dare to face them in a pitched battle which was exactly what happened. According to Turkish sources Ottoman cannons were causing heavy casualties for Mamluks so they threw everything for an all out assault on Ottoman sides where light armoured Sipahis were positioned. Sipahis were light armored skirmish forces and they could not handle heavy combat well so they struggled a bit but managed to repel Mamluks. Soon after entire Mamluk battle formation collapsed. Also Turkish sources very clearly state Hayır Bey retreated after right wing collapsed because of Mamluk casualties not before. About Mamluk sultan Ottoman forces just found him dead on the battlefield, nobody exactly knew how he died. It is believed he died from falling from his horse but it is even possible his own soldiers killed him. Entire battle took 8 hours, vast majority of Mamluk army got killed or captured while 2,000 Mamluks refusing to follow orders got executed after the battle. I don't know why western historians ridiculously act like Turkish sources are unreliable while it is all there without much fantasy or bias like ''instant stroke'' etc. You can argue English sources are better for youtube videos as they are full of spicy fantasy that i would agree..
1
@georgeevangel899 Complete political nonsense from the start to the end as first they somehow claim Anatolia got hellenized peacefully while in reality Greek historians tell very different story like how entire population of Troy got slaughtered or enslaved when Greeks captured the city!! Lets assume those Greek historians were lying somehow what about thousands of paintings which can be found all around Greece showing enslaved Anatolians getting beheaded as offerings to greek gods?? They are lies as well??? Peaceful hellenization is just a total joke in every way and they even completely ignored Roman atrocities such blinding thousands of Bulgars by Basil II, other massacres of Pagans or Latin genocide done by Greeks, i guess those were irrelevant.. Then they claim Ottoman had turkification and conversion projects which is a total lie without any question due Ottoman was actually very tolerant against other Abrahamic religions such as when Christians captured Iberian peninsula they issued an order that everybody had to convert to Christianity including Jews if they wanted to stay in Spain and tens of thousands of Jews refused and migrated into Ottoman where they could live freely under Millet system which was letting minorities to even introduce their own laws!! And they were full citizens of Ottoman that their only difference to Muslims was paying slightly higher tax called Jizya tax, in fact there wasn't even a Turkish millet rather Turks were considered as a part of Muslim millet and had exactly same rights as Arabs etc which shows how ridiculous claiming Ottoman had turkification project!! And forceful recruitment aka blood tax was only taken if somebody failed to pay their taxes so rich non-Muslims like Greeks never had to enlist their children while much poorer Balkan nations like Serbians often had to enlist their children but there are even records people offered their children themselves simply because living in a poor village during medieval era was much more dangerous than becoming one of the most elite soldiers on Earth who got paid very high salaries as well!! Some westerners consider Janissaries as slavery somehow while they were getting paid very well, they could marry, retire and buy property, what a ''slavery'' indeed which literally had way more rights than ''free'' villeins who were vast majority of European population for centuries.. Then they completely ignore there were millions of Muslims living in Balkans and after Ottoman lost those places they faced every kind of atrocities, hundreds of thousands got killed and millions were forced to migrate into Ottoman!! Same happened in Crimea in 1783 and Circassia in 1860 where Muslims were completely ethnic cleansed by killings or forceful displacements to Ottoman but even if Balkan, Crimea and Circassia massacres happened decades before Anatolia it is somehow told as Ottoman started this violence for obvious reasons ofc!! But in reality those massacres were the whole reason why Ottoman nations were becoming extremely hostile against each others and the violence continued in Anatolia as well where Greeks and Armenians rebelled against Ottoman and started to attack both Ottoman forces and Turkish civilians while in return Turkish civilians attacked them and Anatolia was fallen into a total civil war which was why population exchanges happened as living together peacefully wasn't possible anymore!! Here is an academic writing published by seven western universities which is about how Greeks and Armenians killed hundreds of thousands Turkish civilians in Anatolia: http://www.academia.edu/35312332/Revisiting_the_Fire_of_Izmir But sadly nobody cares about the real history including even so called historians which is why there are so many nonsenses in ''history'' books that this video is one of those, what a shame...
1
@georgeevangel899 ''Mythical'' city which has ruins and thousands of historical artifacts somehow, LMAO!! And where are those films exactly??? Non-existing.. And here comes Turks are living freely in Greece nonsense, lets look if it has any truth: ''The Greek government refers to the Turkish community as Greek Muslims or Hellenic Muslims, and does not recognise a Turkish minority in Western Thrace. Greek courts have also outlawed the use of the word 'Turkish' to describe the Turkish community. In 1988, the Greek High Court affirmed a 1986 decision of the Court of Appeals of Thrace in which the Union of Turkish Associations of Western Thrace was ordered closed. The court held that the use of the word 'Turkish' referred to citizens of Turkey, and could not be used to describe citizens of Greece; the use of the word 'Turkish' to describe 'Greek Muslims' was held to endanger public order. Greece continued this stance in the beginning 21st century when Greek courts ruled to dissolve or prohibit formation of Turkish associations.'' Wow, Turks are living so ''freely'' in Greece they can't even call themselves Turkish while in Turkey everybody is free to consider themselves whatever they want!! You are a total joke in every way and actual number is around 50,000 not 120,000 especially if we consider there are only 98,000 Muslims in entire Greece...
1
@georgeevangel899 I wonder what part of your body you used to read my message as they want to call themselves Turkish while Greek government doesn't let them and even closing down their associations so it does matter what Greek government does, right ''genius''??? In your first message you very moronically claimed Turks are living freely in Greece and i just pointed the fact they don't live freely in Greece at all but instead of acknowledging Greece isn't any better you still try to claim ''Turkey is worse'' very childishly while in reality Turkey allows any Greek associations, in fact Eastern Orthodox Church is still in Istanbul!! So that's right don't argue with me until you are few years older and go beyond a joke...
1
@georgeevangel899 I didn't surprise at all you are using BSpedia as a source somehow because you proved how ignorant you are previously!! So first of all you gotta learn nobody uses BSpedia as a source simply because everybody can edit them which is why there are every kind of nonsenses on those pages. I bet you will claim ''ofc a Turk would say so'' then let me prove it; If you read my source that i shared previously you know Greeks killed at least 150,000 Turkish civilians and burned dozens of villages and cities!! Lets try to find this information on BSpedia, shall we??? Also here is the academic writing in case you didn't read it which is published by seven western universities and also uses dozens of European and US sources which shows it is completely neutral.. https://www.academia.edu/35312332/Revisiting_the_Fire_of_Izmir Could you find anything about Greeks killing Turkish civlians in that BSpedia page??? I found it after hundreds of sentences talking about ''greek genocide'' they bothered to add a single sentence which goes as ''There were also massacres of Turks carried out by the Hellenic troops during the occupation of western Anatolia from May 1919 to September 1922.'' without any information about how many Turkish civilians got killed even if there are at least 6 different estimates about Greek casualties, absolutely nothing about dozens of villages and cities which got burned by hellenic troops nor how greek army officially ordered their soldiers to kill Turkish civilians after their defeat in Dumlupınar!! They continue their lies with claiming ''Turks burned Smyrna'' while in reality there is no proof of that and it was Greeks who actually threatened entente powers with burning the city if Turkish forces aren't stopped capturing Smyrna after their total defeat in battle of Dumlupınar that you can find details in the source i shared!! So such a ''neutral'' ''source'' indeed for anybody who is ignorant or dishonorable enough to believe those lies ofc!! For example here is an article from a Greek author who actually defends Greek gnocide happened but he is honorable enough to admit greeks also killed hundreds of thousands Turkish civilians and did Turkish genocide so he claims Greece must recognize Turkish genocide first that i completely agree to him but sadly there aren't enough educated or honorable people in Greece to do so... https://neoskosmos.com/en/23903/recognising-genocide-part-four/ I strongly recommend you to read them fully to educate yourself greatly...
1
@georgeevangel899 According to the most ''trustful'', ''honest'' and ''humanist'' Press osamabinladen was a ''freedom fighter'', ''anti-soviet hero'' and ''saudi businessman'' who was using hismujahedin army to build large scale projects in Sudan: https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1539800871469.jpg According to the press Iraq was full of weapons ofmassdestruction!! Afghanistan was the only origin of 911attacks while Saudi Arabia was the greatest western ally even if pretty much all of those terrorists who did 911attacks were Saudi citizens including osamabinladen and Saudi Arabia directly supported them for decades, in fact pretty much all terroristorganizations have wahhabistorigins same as saudis: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157 According to the press killing of hundreds ofthousands Crimean Tatars and complete ethniccleansing of Crimea by Russians is just''deportation'' same as Balkans where millions of Muslims were living until vast majority of them got killed or forced to migrate byBalkan nations while exactly same thing done by Turks becomes gnocide!! Francekills over 5 million people inAlgeria but the press considers it as just ''suppressingrevolts'' while even if Armeniansalso revolted against Ottoman and actually killed hundreds ofthousands Turkish civilians unlikeAlgerians but once again it is gnocide somehow!! Belgium kills over 15 million people in Congo but according the press it is just massacres of leopold not a gnocide!! British empire and US literally ethniccleansed two entirecontinents but according to press those native Americans and Aborigines onlydied because ofsmallpox that i guess 5 million native Americans gotenslaved in north America alone to protect them fromsmallpox, right?? You want me to continue or you learned the fact that no press is neutral, never was nor ever will be...
1
@georgeevangel899 You are still using that nonsense site, huh?? What about using armeniangenocidehappened.com or turkeyisguilty.org??? You are such a joke, LMAO!!..
1
Complete political nonsense from the start to the end as first they somehow claim Anatolia got hellenized peacefully while in reality Greek historians tell very different story like how entire population of Troy got slaughtered or enslaved when Greeks captured the city!! Lets assume those Greek historians were lying somehow what about thousands of paintings which can be found all around Greece showing enslaved Anatolians getting beheaded as offerings to greek gods?? They are lies as well??? Peaceful hellenization is just a total joke in every way and they even completely ignored Roman atrocities such blinding thousands of Bulgars by Basil II, other massacres of Pagans or Latin genocide done by Greeks, i guess those were irrelevant.. Then they claim Ottoman had turkification and conversion projects which is a total lie without any question due Ottoman was actually very tolerant against other Abrahamic religions such as when Christians captured Iberian peninsula they issued an order that everybody had to convert to Christianity including Jews if they wanted to stay in Spain and tens of thousands of Jews refused and migrated into Ottoman where they could live freely under Millet system which was letting minorities to even introduce their own laws!! And they were full citizens of Ottoman that their only difference to Muslims was paying slightly higher tax called Jizya tax, in fact there wasn't even a Turkish millet rather Turks were considered as a part of Muslim millet and had exactly same rights as Arabs etc which shows how ridiculous claiming Ottoman had turkification project!! And forceful recruitment aka blood tax was only taken if somebody failed to pay their taxes so rich non-Muslims like Greeks never had to enlist their children while much poorer Balkan nations like Serbians often had to enlist their children but there are even records people offered their children themselves simply because living in a poor village during medieval era was much more dangerous than becoming one of the most elite soldiers on Earth who got paid very high salaries as well!! Some westerners consider Janissaries as slavery somehow while they were getting paid very well, they could marry, retire and buy property, what a ''slavery'' indeed which literally had way more rights than ''free'' villeins who were vast majority of European population for centuries.. Then they completely ignore there were millions of Muslims living in Balkans and after Ottoman lost those places they faced every kind of atrocities, hundreds of thousands got killed and millions were forced to migrate into Ottoman!! Same happened in Crimea in 1783 and Circassia in 1860 where Muslims were completely ethnic cleansed by killings or forceful displacements to Ottoman but even if Balkan, Crimea and Circassia massacres happened decades before Anatolia it is somehow told as Ottoman started this violence for obvious reasons ofc!! But in reality those massacres were the whole reason why Ottoman nations were becoming extremely hostile against each others and the violence continued in Anatolia as well where Greeks and Armenians rebelled against Ottoman and started to attack both Ottoman forces and Turkish civilians while in return Turkish civilians attacked them and Anatolia was fallen into a total civil war which was why population exchanges happened as living together peacefully wasn't possible anymore!! Here is an academic writing published by seven western universities which is about how Greeks and Armenians killed hundreds of thousands Turkish civilians in Anatolia: http://www.academia.edu/35312332/Revisiting_the_Fire_of_Izmir But sadly nobody cares about the real history including even so called historians which is why there are so many nonsenses in ''history'' books that this video is one of those, what a shame...
1
@George85677 The only problem here you are looking at the subject through rose-colored glasses as the Greek government enacted 12 rounds of tax increases, spending cuts, and reforms from 2010 to 2016 in order to receive bail outs from EU which triggered nationwide protests as Greece was literally selling a part of their FREEDOM for EUROS while you could somehow claim Greece wouldn't accept such a thing!! Freedom isn't free, not today nor in the past such as you act like ancient Greece was ''full of freedom'' somehow while in reality there was freedom for only Greeks themselves while other nations like native Anatolians were heavily persecuted until their civilizations disappeared forever!! In rest of Europe it was even much worse as even their own populations got persecuted heavily like Villiens (Medieval farmers/slaves) who were vast majority of European population and they couldn't buy properties, retire nor even could leave their lords' farms without their permission!! While Janissaries could buy properties and retire + they were paid very well even then it was oppression somehow!! Nope, in medieval era it was literally freedom and every sane person would rather being a Janissary than a Villein... By the way Roman empire ended ancient Greek culture not themselves at all, just check ''the persecution of Pagans in late Roman empire''...
1
@rvtalltales9327 What difference is there between crusader knights and templar knights? They are literally same people, every crusader faction tried to establish their own rule and templars were just one of them..
1
svetlanakuznetkova4292 Please teach me the difference between murderous knights and honorable knights, im very eager to learn! But sadly you can not do it as ''honorable knight'' consept is a modern fabrication, there was no honorable knights, they were all murderers and plunderers..
1
@jarlwilliam9932 Yeah, killing peasants, heretics and heathens weren't considered as dishonorable, right? Sorry, i kept forgetting about the "honor" codes of knights..
1
@TerrorbelliDecuspacis-w5f I'm sorry but that's just propaganda and none of your claims are proven. For example Ataturk wrote it as Soviet support was for 'future grain' as i mentioned and he also adds all grain promised was sent in following years. He doesn't mention anywhere promising communist reforms, in fact it would be quite impossible anyway because even if there were some socialists in the parliament majority wasn't so keen to ally themselves to Bolsheviks. For example after Bolsheviks occupied Caucasus, it was seriously argued in the parliament if they should add Azerbaijani lands to Kuvai Milliye (Lands with Turkish majority, seen like motherland) which would 100% mean there was going to be a war between Soviet union and Turkey. Fortunately not long after Kars agreement was signed, both Azerbaijan gained some lands and Soviet union recognized its sovereignty. So even if Azerbaijan became a Soviet state at least its people and lands were secured and the parliament dropped such arguments.
1
Knights who slaughtered entire populations of cities including huge ones like Antioch and Jerusalem, knights who plundered all the way from Europe into Jerusalem including not only dozens of Orthodox towns also even many Catholic towns were worried about pilgrims getting robbed?? Just LMAO!! You can tell a biased/more appealing history, there is nothing wrong with that but i think there should be a logical limit to the amount of ridiculous bias..
1
I have no idea how you consider it was way worse especially while in Europe there were no Muslims living as they all were getting enslaved, killed or forced to convert like what happened in Iberian peninsula!! On the other hand Ottoman gave all Christians and Jews full citizenship as long as they could pay their slightly higher tax called Jizya tax so it wasn't way worse rather far better than elsewhere!! And it is also wrong claiming Ataturk Turkified Christians as during Ataturk regime vast majority of Christians in Anatolia were already deported same as vast majority of Muslims in Balkans, Crimea and Circassia!! But it is correct Ataturk had a strict statism policy and tried to unite Anatolian population under one language but same thing happened worldwide such as in Spain, Germany and France where people are called Spanish, German or French but in reality there were many minorities in those countries who had nothing to do with those nations and sadly many forgot their original language and culture!! When it happens in Europe it is ''necessary actions for establishing a strong democracy'' but exactly same thing happens in Turkey it just becomes ''Turkification''??.. Here is one of the most famous ones, Trojan princess: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Sacrifice_Polyxena_BM_GR1897.7-27.2.jpg And just search as ''hellenic human sacrifices'' then you can find countless more, in fact i've even seen a wall painting where like a dozen people were getting ''sacrificed'' aka beheaded and there were accusations as those people were Trojans!! I will try to find it again and share with you but you know human sacrifices were very common during bronze age and later especially in Greek and Roman civilizations so you shouldn't be any surprised at all that there are such paintings...
1
According to Turkish sources Ottoman forces just found him dead on the battlefield and nobody exactly knew how he died. It is believed he fell from his horse but it is even possible his own soldiers killed him as Turkish sources also state serious amount of silver and gold was also found in his camp..
1
@historylover7355 That part might be also fantasy as Turkish sources very clearly state Hayır Bey retreated after right wing collapsed because of Mamluk casualties not before. Perhaps he ordered reserves to charge as well but his officers pulled him down from his horse and wounded him fatally while running away with some of the gold. It makes more sense than instant stroke lol.
1