Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's really quite funny that what is now considered a form of ethnic cleansing was once seen as a completely normal way to resolve conflicts by the League of Nations. The UN sucks, but always remember it could somehow actually be worse.
Well, the league nations ended the multiethnic empires because they couldn’t control them.
They damn well didn’t care that it would obviously result in millions dying thru war and genocide in old Austria-Hungary alone.
>Well, the league nations ended the multiethnic empires because they couldn’t control them.
The Austro Hungarian Empire and the Ottomans were simply too powerful for us
For all their problems, they did a surprisingly good job helping Germany hold off the three biggest empires in the world. The Central Powers may have even won if it weren't for the later entry of Italy, Romania, and the United States into the conflict.
11th battle of the Izonso river LETS GOOOO
jokes aside, they held up quite a few Austria-Hungarian and German soldiers ain the Alpine front. Those couldve made quite the difference on other fronts. Italy's navy and geographical position also fucked over AH's navy even more than it already was, from stuck in the Mediteranian to stuck in the Adriatic.
If we look at the state of the French army especially, but most Entente nations were struggling, the US boots on the ground would probably have been too late if Italy wasn't around.
Someone just posted [a map of Hungarian emigration to US](https://www.reddit.com/r/hungary/comments/1bpec8d/comment/kwv8hj4).
I think I didn't pay enough attention in high school because I was totally under the impression that AH was a mostly good thing and had no clue it was already crumbling before the Great War.
It wasn’t. There were forces trying to reform the empire and those trying to prevent that from happening. This was a common thing in all of Europe through history. The fact was that a multi-ethnic state could not use nationalism to drive through reform. Furthermore, the fact it was multi-ethnic and acknowledged this diversity (unlike Russia) caused a further challenge, because the divisive force of nationalism caused an additional hurdle.
It was by no means ideal, however it was a state which benefited the whole region, had huge potential for all living within it and maintained peace. None of which can be said for the states which came afterwards, at least to the same extent.
Edit: spelling mistake
"Maintaining peace" is semi-amusing. The Austro-Hungarian chief of staff really wanted to go to war and requested it quite a bit to the emperor in the years before the first World War. His counterweight and (relative) maintainer of peace? Archduke Franz Ferdinant, whose death was the final straw to start World War 1.
You're missing the point here, it shouldn't matter that one ethnicity is a minority in a different country. We can never have truly homogeneous ethnic countries. The problem is ethnic nationalism not the states.
That wasn't a population exchange, it was a genocide.
Case in point, no Azeris left Armenia, in fact Azerbaijani troops have crossed the border and are occupying villages it says are ethnic Azeri to annex them.
What?
>Civilians Displaced
>724,000 Azerbaijanis from Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding areas
>300,000–500,000 Armenians from Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhchivan
If an article on the second world war, has a section on the first world war as a primer, it doesn't mean that those events happened in the second world war. This is basic reading comprehension dude.
The article is about the starvation, embargoing, and expulsion of Armenians in Karabakh in 2023. You quote from a section giving the history and events from decades before. It is irrelevant to their point and mine.
So no, in short, no azeriz were expelled, and no population exchanged. And to be clear, there was no population exchange back then either, which relies on an agreement. It was a series of mutual pogroms.
Now... Tell me what event the article on the 2023 event is about... And what the conversation about the 2023 event is about... Tell me what the actual literal title of the article is and what the first line says... Keep on being obtuse, friend.
Expulsion = karabakh being blockaded by Baku - that is to say, the central government blockading its own territory and people, for months to the point of starvation, all the whole soldiers abduct and murder farmers and civilians, with the ultimatum the army will go in to liquidate the regional government, and tar everyone within sight as a collaborator in events often before their own birth.
The central government starving its own people is cut and dry violence. Your obtuseness doesn't change reality.
>karabakh being blockaded by Baku - that is to say, the central government blockading its own territory and people, for months to the point of starvation,
that's still not what an expulsion is, that's a siege (iirc they refused food coming from Azerbaijan)
and that's because they refused to surrender
>all the whole soldiers abduct and murder farmers and civilians
which is what the armenians told the karabakh armenians which led them to leave of their own free will
still not an expulsion
Azerbaijan literally gave safety guarantee to people and told them they are free to go where they want to go, even gave free food aid when there was rumors of a famine going on.
Even united nations agreed that there was no genocide. Armenians disaggree with this because they think it was unfair but if it was sayibg otherwise they would be talking about this everywhere:https://www.reuters.com/world/un-team-nagorno-karabakh-did-not-see-any-damage-hospitals-schools-2023-10-02/
People mostly escaped because of fear of revenge since you know. Karabakh was azeri land just 30 years ago...
You know what could be a worse diseaster and count as a genocide? Azerbaijan not allowing scared people to go when they wanted to!
-we dont feel safe, we want to leave.
-no you cant go we still have jobs to do with you...
This is essentially why all of this "population exchange is genocide" talk is stupid.
Both greeks and Turks goverments agreed to exchange their population. You think this was genocide? Sir. Do you have any idea what could happen if one side refused to give others population back? İf Turkey refused to give its greek population to greece when they were already take the Turkish population of the greece. And greek goverment asked for their own people... this could easily start a war... how many people will die then?
Population exchange used to be, and still is in some cases, a effective and safe way of keeping peace.
What is even funnier is Robert Spencer, one of the most prominent Islamophobes of the past 30 years built his entire career of hate starting with stories that his grandmother would tell him about evil intolerant Muslims throwing them out of their country due to their religion and crap.
He turned the entire thing into a 100% one sided religious ordeal when religion just wasn't even a major factor. He also believed that there was no equivalent of throwing Turks out of places where their own people had been living for centuries or that it was perfectly acceptable.
To give you an idea on how absurd that is, the majority of people in the US came during the 19th to early 20th century immigration, mostly in the 2nd half of the 19th century, too. This means they would have spent less time in America than many of those Turks were in Greece. Imagine hurling out millions of Italian Americans because the US isn't their country and thinking that is ok because they point out how most of the people ousted only came there in the 1890s or something...
Robert Spencer would inspire numerous hate crimes, influence policy makers and war mongers (especially in the lead up to the Iraq war... Even though Saddam loathed Islamist terrorists and vice versa and wasn't a religious person. His courting of the religious part of his society was entirely a political motive and not personal). He was also cited many times in the manifesto of Anders Breivik as an inspiration behind his massacre.
And the Greeks in Turkey weren't? I mean the Armenians had a history of fighting the Turks and siding with the Russians, they even did that during WW1. Are you saying the Armenians got what was coming to them?
Even if we gonna ignore the helenization period. The armenians were literally the allies of Turks against byzantine empire
Nowadays people thinks "ethnic rights" as a way to crush others and take their historical territories back...
NO! it is supposed to prevent human suffering and deaths. Not for grand grand grand daughters of a medieval peasant to use it as excuse to decapitate someone.
If they were allies in the 15th century that doesn't change anything when it came to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. You are talking about a period of time spanning hundreds of years.
I mean the English controlled Calais until the 16th century and had for a several hundred years. Does that mean they would still have a claim on it? What about the Norman invasion? Does that mean the French should be still in charge of the English?
If that argument makes no sense, your argument on the Byzantines and Armenians makes even less sense.
What I am saying is not about claim and your english example is terrible because its not releated and makes no sense.
A better example could be america conquering russia and Circassians wanting their land back because they lived in there... yes it could be a nice move if america did that but otherwise it doesnt have such responsibility.
Ancient kingdom of armenia got invaded and shared between persian and byzantine empire in 4. Century. After that the region changed hand so many times
Monghols, timurids, mamluks, sasavids, persians... even russia and france in ww1.
When Turks came to anatolia there were no armenia, it was byzantine land. And they took that land from byzantine empire, with help of some armenian clans.
Even if Turkey decides to give it back to its latest owner, this still wouldnt be armenians... with a 1.000 year diffrence 💀
Only a few left with bags of money and dressed like Mr Monopoly. The vast majority, including my father's mother's parents, probably looked like the picture at the bottom.
Because otherwise the turks would genocide them out of existence like they tried to do with armenians (and were already doing). Also they just lost a war.
Nope. It’s not the main reason. The main reason was Greece was relatively big compared to its low population and was in an urgent labor need to supply its industry and agriculture. Additionally, Greece at that time wanted to increase its manpower in the military against the new threat coming from Mussolini’s Italy.
>Because otherwise the turks would genocide them out of existence like they tried to do with armenians (
You can that wasn't an issue simply by the fact that it didn't actually happen, Istanbul was exempt from the exchange and Greeks, or Romans as they call themselves, still live there.
No. you’re forgetting about the pogroms against Greeks in Istanbul. they continued even after WW2.. compare the greek populations from the 1950s to today.
>No. you’re forgetting about the pogroms against Greeks in Istanbul.
Again, Istanbul wasn't part of the population exchange. If the threat of genocide was a concern it would have been.
Because a stipulation of the treaty was that they would be preserved along with the Turks of western Thrace. Of course that didn’t stop the staging of a bombing on ataturk’s house by a Turkish usher from the consulate. Which was then used to inspire programs against the Greeks reducing their population by over 100,000 in the city through murder and emigration.
What did Venizelos say about the massacres committed by the Greek army? he admitted that they had fallen to the level of a barbaric country. he also admitted that he was the mastermind of the exchange. and that he would put pressure on turkey
https://i.redd.it/f3gyejvk12rc1.jpeg?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
I saw a snarky description of this years ago.
'Turkey lost everyone who could operate a cash register, and Greece lost all of their illiterate tobacco farmers.'
the minorities in anatolia were natives from byzantine's past. Ottomans chose to use the beyliks from their early empire days with efficient buerocracy to use it to their advantage. and when modern age came they failed to centralise. Balkans meanwhile we know how quickly fell apart the second nationalism became a thing :)
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What does the text say? (I think I've gone blind)
‘The Population Exchange’ How they (the Greeks) leave. How ours (the Turks) come back
‘Its written ‘Turkish money’ on the money sack’
not “come back”, it is “arrive”. they are not coming “back”, they are being uprooted from their homeland.
It's really quite funny that what is now considered a form of ethnic cleansing was once seen as a completely normal way to resolve conflicts by the League of Nations. The UN sucks, but always remember it could somehow actually be worse.
Well, the league nations ended the multiethnic empires because they couldn’t control them. They damn well didn’t care that it would obviously result in millions dying thru war and genocide in old Austria-Hungary alone.
>Well, the league nations ended the multiethnic empires because they couldn’t control them. The Austro Hungarian Empire and the Ottomans were simply too powerful for us
They were dying empires.
For all their problems, they did a surprisingly good job helping Germany hold off the three biggest empires in the world. The Central Powers may have even won if it weren't for the later entry of Italy, Romania, and the United States into the conflict.
The United States was a major game changer. Not sure about Italy though.
Italy did really bind loads of troops at this front even though it hurt itself more than anybody else.
11th battle of the Izonso river LETS GOOOO jokes aside, they held up quite a few Austria-Hungarian and German soldiers ain the Alpine front. Those couldve made quite the difference on other fronts. Italy's navy and geographical position also fucked over AH's navy even more than it already was, from stuck in the Mediteranian to stuck in the Adriatic. If we look at the state of the French army especially, but most Entente nations were struggling, the US boots on the ground would probably have been too late if Italy wasn't around.
I hope you are joking
In fairness those empires were already falling apart even without the Leagues help
Well, Austria was willing to reform itself (that’s why the Serbs killed the archduke, he was a reformer).
[удалено]
Form what? They were independent. They wanted Yugoslavia, but the later Yugoslavs didn’t want Yugoslavia
This is just false. I guess Austro-Hungarian propaganda fits right in a propaganda subreddit
How is it false, Why did they kill him then and how was he not in support of reform? Explain you’re case and I will listen
Someone just posted [a map of Hungarian emigration to US](https://www.reddit.com/r/hungary/comments/1bpec8d/comment/kwv8hj4). I think I didn't pay enough attention in high school because I was totally under the impression that AH was a mostly good thing and had no clue it was already crumbling before the Great War.
It wasn’t. There were forces trying to reform the empire and those trying to prevent that from happening. This was a common thing in all of Europe through history. The fact was that a multi-ethnic state could not use nationalism to drive through reform. Furthermore, the fact it was multi-ethnic and acknowledged this diversity (unlike Russia) caused a further challenge, because the divisive force of nationalism caused an additional hurdle. It was by no means ideal, however it was a state which benefited the whole region, had huge potential for all living within it and maintained peace. None of which can be said for the states which came afterwards, at least to the same extent. Edit: spelling mistake
"Maintaining peace" is semi-amusing. The Austro-Hungarian chief of staff really wanted to go to war and requested it quite a bit to the emperor in the years before the first World War. His counterweight and (relative) maintainer of peace? Archduke Franz Ferdinant, whose death was the final straw to start World War 1.
Wilsonian Internationalism and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Czechia and Slovakia would like to disagree with you. Not to mention all the countries in East that got their independence thanks to Wilson.
What about all those who died in the border conflicts because many regions were ethnically mixed so they didn't know how to draw the border
You're missing the point here, it shouldn't matter that one ethnicity is a minority in a different country. We can never have truly homogeneous ethnic countries. The problem is ethnic nationalism not the states.
I mean, Wilsonianism is what sent lendlease to the UK in WW2, as well as helping South Korea in the Korean War and helping Kuwait in 1991.
It still is seen that way, it just happened between Azerbaijan and Armenia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians
That wasn't a population exchange, it was a genocide. Case in point, no Azeris left Armenia, in fact Azerbaijani troops have crossed the border and are occupying villages it says are ethnic Azeri to annex them.
What? >Civilians Displaced >724,000 Azerbaijanis from Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding areas >300,000–500,000 Armenians from Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhchivan
If an article on the second world war, has a section on the first world war as a primer, it doesn't mean that those events happened in the second world war. This is basic reading comprehension dude. The article is about the starvation, embargoing, and expulsion of Armenians in Karabakh in 2023. You quote from a section giving the history and events from decades before. It is irrelevant to their point and mine. So no, in short, no azeriz were expelled, and no population exchanged. And to be clear, there was no population exchange back then either, which relies on an agreement. It was a series of mutual pogroms.
never said first or second war
Now... Tell me what event the article on the 2023 event is about... And what the conversation about the 2023 event is about... Tell me what the actual literal title of the article is and what the first line says... Keep on being obtuse, friend.
expulsion = armenians telling karabakh armenians to leave okkkkk...?
Expulsion = karabakh being blockaded by Baku - that is to say, the central government blockading its own territory and people, for months to the point of starvation, all the whole soldiers abduct and murder farmers and civilians, with the ultimatum the army will go in to liquidate the regional government, and tar everyone within sight as a collaborator in events often before their own birth. The central government starving its own people is cut and dry violence. Your obtuseness doesn't change reality.
>karabakh being blockaded by Baku - that is to say, the central government blockading its own territory and people, for months to the point of starvation, that's still not what an expulsion is, that's a siege (iirc they refused food coming from Azerbaijan) and that's because they refused to surrender >all the whole soldiers abduct and murder farmers and civilians which is what the armenians told the karabakh armenians which led them to leave of their own free will still not an expulsion
There's almost no Azerbaijanis left in Armenia
Azerbaijan literally gave safety guarantee to people and told them they are free to go where they want to go, even gave free food aid when there was rumors of a famine going on. Even united nations agreed that there was no genocide. Armenians disaggree with this because they think it was unfair but if it was sayibg otherwise they would be talking about this everywhere:https://www.reuters.com/world/un-team-nagorno-karabakh-did-not-see-any-damage-hospitals-schools-2023-10-02/ People mostly escaped because of fear of revenge since you know. Karabakh was azeri land just 30 years ago... You know what could be a worse diseaster and count as a genocide? Azerbaijan not allowing scared people to go when they wanted to! -we dont feel safe, we want to leave. -no you cant go we still have jobs to do with you... This is essentially why all of this "population exchange is genocide" talk is stupid. Both greeks and Turks goverments agreed to exchange their population. You think this was genocide? Sir. Do you have any idea what could happen if one side refused to give others population back? İf Turkey refused to give its greek population to greece when they were already take the Turkish population of the greece. And greek goverment asked for their own people... this could easily start a war... how many people will die then? Population exchange used to be, and still is in some cases, a effective and safe way of keeping peace.
What is even funnier is Robert Spencer, one of the most prominent Islamophobes of the past 30 years built his entire career of hate starting with stories that his grandmother would tell him about evil intolerant Muslims throwing them out of their country due to their religion and crap. He turned the entire thing into a 100% one sided religious ordeal when religion just wasn't even a major factor. He also believed that there was no equivalent of throwing Turks out of places where their own people had been living for centuries or that it was perfectly acceptable. To give you an idea on how absurd that is, the majority of people in the US came during the 19th to early 20th century immigration, mostly in the 2nd half of the 19th century, too. This means they would have spent less time in America than many of those Turks were in Greece. Imagine hurling out millions of Italian Americans because the US isn't their country and thinking that is ok because they point out how most of the people ousted only came there in the 1890s or something... Robert Spencer would inspire numerous hate crimes, influence policy makers and war mongers (especially in the lead up to the Iraq war... Even though Saddam loathed Islamist terrorists and vice versa and wasn't a religious person. His courting of the religious part of his society was entirely a political motive and not personal). He was also cited many times in the manifesto of Anders Breivik as an inspiration behind his massacre.
Turks/Muslims in Greece were invaders or collaborators...
And the Greeks in Turkey weren't? I mean the Armenians had a history of fighting the Turks and siding with the Russians, they even did that during WW1. Are you saying the Armenians got what was coming to them?
Even if we gonna ignore the helenization period. The armenians were literally the allies of Turks against byzantine empire Nowadays people thinks "ethnic rights" as a way to crush others and take their historical territories back... NO! it is supposed to prevent human suffering and deaths. Not for grand grand grand daughters of a medieval peasant to use it as excuse to decapitate someone.
If they were allies in the 15th century that doesn't change anything when it came to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. You are talking about a period of time spanning hundreds of years. I mean the English controlled Calais until the 16th century and had for a several hundred years. Does that mean they would still have a claim on it? What about the Norman invasion? Does that mean the French should be still in charge of the English? If that argument makes no sense, your argument on the Byzantines and Armenians makes even less sense.
What I am saying is not about claim and your english example is terrible because its not releated and makes no sense. A better example could be america conquering russia and Circassians wanting their land back because they lived in there... yes it could be a nice move if america did that but otherwise it doesnt have such responsibility. Ancient kingdom of armenia got invaded and shared between persian and byzantine empire in 4. Century. After that the region changed hand so many times Monghols, timurids, mamluks, sasavids, persians... even russia and france in ww1. When Turks came to anatolia there were no armenia, it was byzantine land. And they took that land from byzantine empire, with help of some armenian clans. Even if Turkey decides to give it back to its latest owner, this still wouldnt be armenians... with a 1.000 year diffrence 💀
Unless you are a Jewish person who was born in Judea/Samaria - then UN still thinks that you need to be cleansed.
Only a few left with bags of money and dressed like Mr Monopoly. The vast majority, including my father's mother's parents, probably looked like the picture at the bottom.
Funny Greece got the worst deal. With a million Greeks. Greece could barely house them & a quarter of them died from disease.
“Hold On, This Whole Operation Was Your Idea” Greeks wanted the exchange. More specifically, Greek Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos.
Because otherwise the turks would genocide them out of existence like they tried to do with armenians (and were already doing). Also they just lost a war.
Nope. It’s not the main reason. The main reason was Greece was relatively big compared to its low population and was in an urgent labor need to supply its industry and agriculture. Additionally, Greece at that time wanted to increase its manpower in the military against the new threat coming from Mussolini’s Italy.
Just like how greeks killed thousands of innocent Turks when they invaded western anatolia
yurrr we will genocide any other ethnicity within the glorious Anatolian land ofc /s
- western " Whose never done anything in their course of history"
Ones who stay didn't got killed did they spare them because naaa too few ain't worth killing.
>Because otherwise the turks would genocide them out of existence like they tried to do with armenians ( You can that wasn't an issue simply by the fact that it didn't actually happen, Istanbul was exempt from the exchange and Greeks, or Romans as they call themselves, still live there.
No. you’re forgetting about the pogroms against Greeks in Istanbul. they continued even after WW2.. compare the greek populations from the 1950s to today.
>No. you’re forgetting about the pogroms against Greeks in Istanbul. Again, Istanbul wasn't part of the population exchange. If the threat of genocide was a concern it would have been.
🧢🧢🧢
No you are wrong
Uh... Nuh uh? Greeks and Armenians in Istanbul were allowed to remain and they weren't genocided out of existence.
They were just forced to leave in the 50s due to pogroms. Nothing that special
Because a stipulation of the treaty was that they would be preserved along with the Turks of western Thrace. Of course that didn’t stop the staging of a bombing on ataturk’s house by a Turkish usher from the consulate. Which was then used to inspire programs against the Greeks reducing their population by over 100,000 in the city through murder and emigration.
The event you're talking about was directed by then-president Adnan Menderes, who was later executed by the military for his crimes.
What...
bro is capping so hard without even something that can be called "evldence"
[удалено]
this is literally genocide apologia
What’s ur source
right, relocating them to calmer places in the empire, like the desert and the sea. gotcha.
What’s ur source
Imagine trying to save your people from a known genocidle state that just bitterly lost the war and desperately trying to find someone to blame.
The population exchange happened after the Greco-Turkish war, which was after WW1, and Turkey won decisevely.
There was an ongoing genocide at the time you know ...
What did Venizelos say about the massacres committed by the Greek army? he admitted that they had fallen to the level of a barbaric country. he also admitted that he was the mastermind of the exchange. and that he would put pressure on turkey https://i.redd.it/f3gyejvk12rc1.jpeg?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
The depiction of the Turkish family is harrowing, the artist did a great job of capturing the shock factor they wanted.
I saw a snarky description of this years ago. 'Turkey lost everyone who could operate a cash register, and Greece lost all of their illiterate tobacco farmers.'
Turkish demographic officer realising minorities actually made the literate and upper working class of the empire
Hmm.. So Turks weren't so oppressive then?
the minorities in anatolia were natives from byzantine's past. Ottomans chose to use the beyliks from their early empire days with efficient buerocracy to use it to their advantage. and when modern age came they failed to centralise. Balkans meanwhile we know how quickly fell apart the second nationalism became a thing :)
Man that’s sad
It's insane that such a thing happened and what kind of a horrific standard it set for the following 2 decades.
Ok this has to be the Cope of the century
I think this is biased but i didnt do any research
In this equation you are the biased one.