Should Turkey return the territories it has stolen?

[Meowfoundland]

It should keep its territories. There are only about 2,000-3,000 Greeks in all of Turkey. So why would Turkey give up 13,000,000 of its people (more if you are talking about the Megali Idea.) and its capital to a country who has no legal claim? And on top of that, they should also give territories to the Armenians. Doesn't make sense really.

I don't think Ankara is going anywhere. Ever.

Even in the harsh Treaty of Sevres it was allocated to Turkey.

[Sovereign Spirits]

The people need to take back these lands for themselves, if they want them. Pakistan separated from India in such a manner. It is not uncommon. Something's got to give.

[Arilandon]

Turkey will never be split.

You dont know if it will.

[Old Tyrannia]

The Treaty of Lausanne was forced on the signers by the turkish government.

Really? The Turks forced Great Britain, Italy and Japan to sign? That's a mighty big gun they were holding.

I now have this hilarious image of Benito Mussolini, Winston Churchill and Emperor Hirohito sitting at a table surrounded by hundreds of armed guards and some poor little Turk sat on the other side with a water pistol going, "I demand... I mean... You must sign this... Please?" (yes, I know, wrong leaders for the historical period).

Anyway, have we not already had this discussion? Must be Thursday. The fact is that the Ottoman Empire were hardly treated fairly by the Allies after the First World War anyway. But most Turks don't still hold it against us- the fact is, it was long ago, the issue is no longer relative.

[Arilandon]

It should keep its territories. There are only about 2,000-3,000 Greeks in all of Turkey. So why would Turkey give up 13,000,000 of its people (more if you are talking about the Megali Idea.) and its capital to a country who has no legal claim? And on top of that, they should also give territories to the Armenians. Doesn't make sense really.

Because they were driven out and not allowed to return.

[Ihaveafreeweek]

Turk alert!

There is of course one huge difference in all of this. Things change of course, but looking away from the fact that Greeks and Armenians lived in that regions for eons before there ever was a Turk in those parts.

There is the simple fact, that they killed and displaced a huge amount of people to get those lands. And they never had to be held accountable for those actions, and now its ancient history. It’s a very stupid logic, by those standers all Israel have to, is keep the land they took for a long time. Then it will be alright. Seeing how it will be ancient history and all.

There are no people to claim the land back because so many of them died. That is why Turkey is stronger and has a far bigger population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide
500 000 to 1.5 million people dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide
300 000 to 360 000 people dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Genocide
270 000 to 750 000 people dead.

And we could also add this fun event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dersim_genocide
13 000 -70 000 Kurdish people killed

Turkey is built open blood and suffering. But it’s really swell that it’s secular and all. I am sure that is big comfort to the dead.

The dead are dead and need no comforting. Even the Armenian government makes no territorial demands, that I know of. As for living in areas for eons, the Greeks drove out the original inhabitants of Greece, the Armenians drove out the people living in Armenia, the Hebrews drove out Canaanites. Making territorial adjustments in Asia Minor now is not possible.

Well after World War 1. (After a brief attempt at statehood and invasion from Turkey from where they took more land) Armenia was first in the Soviet Union, at which time they had whatever opinion that Moscow wanted them to have. Where yet again more Armenians was killed or deported.

Afterwards they became a poor country with very few friends and powerful enemies. So no, Armenia does not demand anything from its richer and more powerful neighbor. They were barely allowed to defend themselves during the Nagorno-Karabakh War. Which they had the audacity to win instead of dying like they were suppose to.

And to the other comment about the people taking back the land for themselves, maybe they would. Who knows? But Turkey made sure that there is no people to speak about in these regions. They all died in various ways or ended up in different parts of the world. And the dead far outnumbered the living.

[New Kilballyowen]

Given that the Treaty of Lausanne supersedes Sevres, no.

The Treaty of Lausanne was forced on the signers by the turkish government.

And the Treaty of Sevres wasn't forced on the Turks? Most treaties requiring territorial concessions are forced on the party making the concession. That doesn't make them any less valid. And one treaty based on coercion can be superseded by another treaty based on coercion.

[Ihaveafreeweek]

Really? The Turks forced Great Britain, Italy and Japan to sign? That's a mighty big gun they were holding.

I now have this hilarious image of Benito Mussolini, Winston Churchill and Emperor Hirohito sitting at a table surrounded by hundreds of armed guards and some poor little Turk sat on the other side with a water pistol going, "I demand... I mean... You must sign this... Please?" (yes, I know, wrong leaders for the historical period).

Anyway, have we not already had this discussion? Must be Thursday. The fact is that the Ottoman Empire were hardly treated fairly by the Allies after the First World War anyway. But most Turks don't still hold it against us- the fact is, it was long ago, the issue is no longer relative.

Yes, the noble and just Ottoman state was surely a government worthy of getting a good deal after World War 1. It’s never like they forced an unfavorably treaty on any one before. Nor did they practice slavery all the way until the end of World War 1 or sponsored ethnic and religious discriminating.

How this noble country could be treated in such a villainous way is just baffling!

I am sure it had nothing to do with its crimes at the end of World War 1.

[Nazis in Space]

Yes, the noble and just Ottoman state was surely a government worthy of getting a good deal after World War 1. It’s never like they forced an unfavorably treaty on any one before. Nor did they practice slavery all the way until the end of World War 1 or sponsored ethnic and religious discriminating.

How this noble country could be treated in such a villainous way is just baffling!

I am sure it had nothing to do with its crimes at the end of World War 1.

This is different from the war victors... How?

[Marisena]

It should keep its territories. There are only about 2,000-3,000 Greeks in all of Turkey. So why would Turkey give up 13,000,000 of its people (more if you are talking about the Megali Idea.) and its capital to a country who has no legal claim? And on top of that, they should also give territories to the Armenians. Doesn't make sense really.

I don't think Ankara is going anywhere. Ever.

Even in the harsh Treaty of Sevres it was allocated to Turkey.

My bad, I thought the turks kept the same capital as the ottomans. I was refering to Istanbul.

It should keep its territories. There are only about 2,000-3,000 Greeks in all of Turkey. So why would Turkey give up 13,000,000 of its people (more if you are talking about the Megali Idea.) and its capital to a country who has no legal claim? And on top of that, they should also give territories to the Armenians. Doesn't make sense really.

Because they were driven out and not allowed to return.

Its sad yes, but does that mean the Turkey should just give up land in which the majority is Turkish?

[Ihaveafreeweek]

I don't think Ankara is going anywhere. Ever.

Even in the harsh Treaty of Sevres it was allocated to Turkey.

My bad, I thought the turks kept the same capital as the ottomans. I was refering to Istanbul.

Because they were driven out and not allowed to return.

Its sad yes, but does that mean the Turkey should just give up land in which the majority is Turkish?

The only reason why the majority of the population is Turkish today because those they could not kill was driven out or as in the case of Greece, they exchanged populations. Something that probably saved a lot of Greek lives.

[Arilandon]

I don't think Ankara is going anywhere. Ever.

Even in the harsh Treaty of Sevres it was allocated to Turkey.

My bad, I thought the turks kept the same capital as the ottomans. I was refering to Istanbul.

Because they were driven out and not allowed to return.

Its sad yes, but does that mean the Turkey should just give up land in which the majority is Turkish?

Well for a start they could actually allow the refugees and they descendants to return! They arent today.

[Marisena]

Well for a start they could actually allow the refugees and they descendants to return! They arent today.

Why would you want to return to a country that has murdered your people and forced you out?

[Ihaveafreeweek]

Yes, the noble and just Ottoman state was surely a government worthy of getting a good deal after World War 1. It’s never like they forced an unfavorably treaty on any one before. Nor did they practice slavery all the way until the end of World War 1 or sponsored ethnic and religious discriminating.

How this noble country could be treated in such a villainous way is just baffling!

I am sure it had nothing to do with its crimes at the end of World War 1.

This is different from the war victors... How?

They might not be better, but that was not really my point. I was just pointing out that the Ottoman state really was a horrible state, even by that the standards of that time.

And a lot of the land taken from Turkey had a different ethnic majority then Turkish, and such it was not unfair that they were giving to someone else, considering how life was for minorities in the old state. And when they reclaimed the land it had to be made more Turkish. By removing the others.

[Arilandon]

Well for a start they could actually allow the refugees and they descendants to return! They arent today.

Why would you want to return to a country that has murdered your people and forced you out?

Because they dont do it anymore? And if they did surely the consistent NATO would intervene like they did in libya.

[Marisena]

Why would you want to return to a country that has murdered your people and forced you out?

Because they dont do it anymore? And if they did surely the consistent NATO would intervene like they did in libya.

Why would they return to a country that has commited atrocities against their people when they could go somewhere more accepting?

[Living Freedom Land]

I just think they should give Istanbul to Greece. That way it can get its old, more awesome, name back.

[Arilandon]

Because they dont do it anymore? And if they did surely the consistent NATO would intervene like they did in libya.

Why would they return to a country that has commited atrocities against their people when they could go somewhere more accepting?

If they arrive many at a time i dont think there would be a problem.

[Marisena]

I just think they should give Istanbul to Greece. That way it can get its own, more awesome, name back.

It would also gain 13,000,000+ angry Turks.

[Arilandon]

I just think they should give Istanbul to Greece. That way it can get its own, more awesome, name back.

It would also gain 13,000,000+ angry birds.

Why would they live in a country that does't accept them? Would't they flee?

[Nazis in Space]

This is different from the war victors... How?

They might not be better, but that was not really my point. I was just pointing out that the Ottoman state really was a horrible state, even by that the standards of that time.

And a lot of the land taken from Turkey had a different ethnic majority then Turkish, and such it was not unfair that they were giving to someone else, considering how life was for minorities in the old state. And when they reclaimed the land it had to be made more Turkish. By removing the others.

It is, however, extremely relevant when arguing from a 'Moralistic' position. Which you are doing. What moral right would the victors have to judge the Ottomans when they were no better than them? Oh, right. None.

The reality is that

• What the Turks did in their empire wasn't really any worse than how the French ran their plantations in indochina or generally fucked shit up in Algeria
• It's no worse than the English habit to put people in concentration camps to steal diamond mines in South Africa, or to organise Abo hunting parties in Tasmania and Australia, either. Nevermind the tax issues in India or running the largest ever drug cartel and enforcing it by way of warring countries who wouldn't play along
• Moralistic viewpoints are, in any case, completely irrelevant since previous to world war one, it was a country's sovereign right to do whatever it pleased in what it owned, as well as to declare war for any reason it pleased. This was retroactivcely changed after world war one took rather longer and was more costly than expected, but retroactive changes are, of course, bullshit
• The Ottomans specifically entered the war because the allied weren't willing to promise that they wouldn't attack the Ottomans after the war, leaving them with little choice on the matter, what with being about as explicitly told that they'd get fucked in a few years as is possible in international politics
• Curiously, the ethnic minorities in question, living in turkey, were still living there after over half a millenium of Turkish rule. Evidently, the Turks didn't mind their presence for centuries. How did they end up being kicked out? Could it have anything to do with them trying to grab the land for themselves and then losing because Ataturk was more badass than the entirety of Greece and its worldpower-status allies taken together? Big surprise the Turks were loathe to let them stay after that. And if the minorities couldn't back up their demands, well... Their own fault for trying to rebel and then thoroughly failing to live up to the hype

tl;dr: There was a staggeringly unfair fight, with the turks outnumbered and outgunned at every corner, and they still kicked everyone's ass. Following the asskicking, they decided, not unreasonably so, that the folks who'd been a part of the Ottoman empire for generations, yet opted to collaborate with the allies, should be kicked out since they were an untrustworthy security risk, and promptly did so. They earned their land in the most honest fashion imaginable - a straight-up fight which they won. Deal with it.

[Living Freedom Land]

I just think they should give Istanbul to Greece. That way it can get its own, more awesome, name back.

It would also gain 13,000,000+ angry Turks.

On second thought, I think Istanbul/Constantinople should be returned to Italy because of its Roman heritage. Now how angry will the Turks be?

[Marisena]

It would also gain 13,000,000+ angry birds.

Why would they live in a country that doesn't accept them? Wouldn't they flee?

They would not consider themselves as part of Greece and would likely resist.

[Marisena]

It would also gain 13,000,000+ angry Turks.

On second thought, I think Istanbul/Constantinople should be returned to Italy because of its Roman heritage. Now how angry will the Turks be?

Constantinople was only Roman in name. The Eastern Empire was mainly Greek. And the Italians are hardly Roman, large-scale immigration made sure of that.

[Nazis in Space]

Why would they live in a country that doesn't accept them? Wouldn't they flee? :roll:

They would not consider themselves as part of Greece and would likely resist.

If by 'Resist' you mean 'Kick the shit out of the Greeks (Again) and conquer them all', then yes.

Istanbul hs 13 million people. Greece has eleven million.

Though it has to be said that Greece being a part of Turkey would definitely improve its economic situation. The Turks actually know how to economy. Greece, well...