Paradox Studio Thread - 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷 Türkiye respecters only 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷

  • 🔎 If you see an alert for analytics.usips.org, this is a self-hosted system I am running as a test. It is GDPR compliant and collects no invasive information.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

What are your expectations for the EU5 release?

  • Total voters
    83
  • Poll closed .
Radola Gajda said:
Also there is large cohort of Turks who are living in Germany and other places on gibs of Euro taxpayers. So they have plenty of free time to seethe on social media if their national izzat is touched.
Click to expand...
Naah, the Turks actually tend to work. Ayrabs might be living off gibs, but Turks not IIRC.
 
UgandanBasketballviewer said:
I say all this a devout christian that feels terrible about what happened to Armenians and visited there before.
Click to expand...
Holy shit, an actual Christian Turk. I thought the majority of Christians in Turkey were either Greek or Assyrian.
Liver Crystal said:
One argument I keep seeing repeated amongst these "people" is that Ataturk =/= The Young Turks and therefore should not be held responsible for the Armenian genocide. If I'm recalling correctly, even after World War 1 had officially ended, he continued leading armed forces to completely wipe out the Armenians.
This mudslime sandnigger literally contributed to trying to completely wipe out the "first Christian nation in the world." Then he took steps to brainwash all future generations into thinking the genocide didn't even happen, or that the Turks themselves were the true victims in all this, and he is their god.
Click to expand...
Turkish nationalist forces fought Armenian forces who were trying to claim clay in Anatolia. That's not "completely wiping out" that's two sides engaged in warfare. Though some Armenians did try to cry genocide about it because they were losing hard enough that they had to run to the newly founded Daddy Soviet Russia and invite them to make the Caucasus their bitch again after they just left.
 
Ahriman said:
Ahriman said:
Meanwhile,

View attachment 9609820

Cry me a river, you Roach cunts.

ssstwitter.com_1790271192241.mp4

Daily reminder that the Turks are extinct, they are all islamicized Armenians and Greeks. And they should all be sent back to Turkmenistan.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Still kicking myself in the ass for only going to Istanbul and neglecting Greece when in the region. The Pera Palace was probably one of the most refined hotels I've ever been in.
 
UgandanBasketballviewer said:
Because you misconstrue the timelines and events. How can he both enacting a genocide and the be fighting the british in the gallipoli at the same time? There is the Armenian Genocide and the Turkish War of Independence post-WW2 which had an Armenian front. He was the commander at the second and very superficially connected at the first (technically. War of Independence was justified, first may not be (still combing through to make up my mind).

I dislike our methods of overzealous performative nationalism but lies are still lies. You shouldn't besmirch someone just on vibes alone. If you read his multiple days long address, now compiled as "Nutuk" (the speech), he himself criticizes Ottoman Empire's handling of the east and their other diaspora.

He did some non-minor stuff to kurds though admittedly but i doubt anyone here would care about kurds (brown & muslim) compared to armenians (brown & christian).

I say all this a devout christian that feels terrible about what happened to Armenians and visited there before.
Click to expand...
The genocide(s) didn't end with WW1. Turkey went to war with the newly formed Armenia (emerging from the fallen Russian Empire/Republic) as part of their war of independence, when Ataturk was very much the supreme leader of Turkey, and he sent general Kazim Karabekir forth with orders to "eliminate Armenia physically and politically". The Turks went on to kill another 1/9th of the Armenians that had survived up to this point (their population dropped from 960k in 1919 to 720k in 1920, half of whom were said to be refugees from the earlier genocide; by 1926 it still hadn't regrown to even just the 1919 post-genocide level, further population movements & natural growth having only brought it up to about 875k in the then-extant Transcaucasian SFSR) and only stopped because the Soviets annexed Armenia (thus placing the remainder under Lenin's protection), though said Soviets had also helped Turkey get to this point in the first place by sending critical supplies to the Turks when they needed it most to fight their various enemies.

Ataturk also presided over the final stage of the Greek genocide, and while I've seen Turk nationalists justify that by saying the Greeks brought it on themselves with the 1919-22 war, the 'we had to commit genocide in self-defense' excuse doesn't stand up to scrutiny when you consider that that genocide had already begun well before Greece even entered WW1 with massacres like the one at Phocaea (Foça).
 
Between the turks showing the chinks how to actually reviewbombs games and harass companies (I've been exposed to too much of the latter's faggotry over the past few years) and it happening to Paradox, the only thing more cathartic is that dyke bar story over at A&N.
 
Chuckwagon said:
The genocide(s) didn't end with WW1. Turkey went to war with the newly formed Armenia (emerging from the fallen Russian Empire/Republic) as part of their war of independence, when Ataturk was very much the supreme leader of Turkey, and he sent general Kazim Karabekir forth with orders to "eliminate Armenia physically and politically". The Turks went on to kill another 1/9th of the Armenians that had survived up to this point (their population dropped from 960k in 1919 to 720k in 1920, half of whom were said to be refugees from the earlier genocide; by 1926 it still hadn't regrown to even just the 1919 post-genocide level, further population movements & natural growth having only brought it up to about 875k in the then-extant Transcaucasian SFSR) and only stopped because the Soviets annexed Armenia (thus placing the remainder under Lenin's protection), though said Soviets had also helped Turkey get to this point in the first place by sending critical supplies to the Turks when they needed it most to fight their various enemies.

Ataturk also presided over the final stage of the Greek genocide, and while I've seen Turk nationalists justify that by saying the Greeks brought it on themselves with the 1919-22 war, the 'we had to commit genocide in self-defense' excuse doesn't stand up to scrutiny when you consider that that genocide had already begun well before Greece even entered WW1 with massacres like the one at Phocaea (Foça).
Click to expand...
You ignored the part in the article you linked where the Turkish nationalists fought Armenians in Turkish territory that was given to Armenia by the Entente. It wasn't previously Armenian territory. The same goes with the fictional quote about eliminating Armenia which was never stated and should be pretty suspicious anyway given that the only references are by three Armenian nationalists.
 
ArthuriusMartyrius said:
You ignored the part in the article you linked where the Turkish nationalists fought Armenians in Turkish territory that was given to Armenia by the Entente. It wasn't previously Armenian territory. The same goes with the fictional quote about eliminating Armenia which was never stated and should be pretty suspicious anyway given that the only references are by three Armenian nationalists.
Click to expand...
The 'Turkish territories given to Armenia by the Entente' were where the Armenian Genocide happened in the first place, because no shit, it was the Turkish portion of old Armenia. If you want to talk about clay-grabbing, then it can't go unmentioned that the Turks also carried the war into & annexed parts of Armenia which hadn't been Ottoman before WW1, like Kars & Ardahan; these were formerly parts of Russian Armenia. And even if I were to make the generous assumption that those damn dirty mountain pseudo-Jews made up the Kazim Karabekir quote, the consequences of the Turkish advance (as reflected in the Soviet censuses from years afterward, which had no reason to try to make the Turks look bad since again, they had pretty much been allies in the 1920s) demonstrate abundantly clearly that the Turks actually tried to carry out such an 'elimination' anyway. Their actions and the post-war population numbers speak louder than any words could.
 
Chuckwagon said:
The 'Turkish territories given to Armenia by the Entente' were where the Armenian Genocide happened in the first place, because no shit, it was the Turkish portion of old Armenia.
Click to expand...
So they weren't part of Armenia is what you are saying.
Chuckwagon said:
If you want to talk about clay-grabbing, then it can't go unmentioned that the Turks also carried the war into & annexed parts of Armenia which hadn't been Ottoman before WW1, like Kars & Ardahan; these were formerly parts of Russian Armenia.
Click to expand...
Those were parts of the Ottoman Empire before WW1. They were annexed by the Russian Empire. It's essentially the equivalent of France taking Alsace-Lorraine back from Germany if you want to make the comparison.
Chuckwagon said:
And even if I were to make the generous assumption that those damn dirty mountain pseudo-Jews made up the Kazim Karabekir quote,
Click to expand...
You don't need to assume anything. There is no official citation for it anywhere else.
Chuckwagon said:
the consequences of the Turkish advance (as reflected in the Soviet censuses from years afterward, which had no reason to try to make the Turks look bad since again, they had pretty much been allies in the 1920s) demonstrate abundantly clearly that the Turks actually tried to carry out such an 'elimination' anyway. Their actions and the post-war population numbers speak louder than any words could.
Click to expand...
I have no interest in contesting the Soviet numbers which also include the numbers that died from famine and disease in those years. Which is part of the reason, for example, why Azerbaijan lost about 50% of their population during that same period from 1919 to 1926 according to the population data. Wasn't all massacres and wars in that region.
 
strawberry15 said:
Ottoman sexuality is indeed very interesting. We have dildo's. there is a famous miniature where a woman presents a dildo to a qadi as an evidence for his husbands lack of manliness. the evidence was accepted and the woman actually got divorced.
Click to expand...
So it went kinda like this?

"Your honour, my client presents the wooden phallus she slams into her coochie every night."
"Hmmmmmm... Yes, yes, I see. Alright, you are free to terminate your marriage. Also, let it be known that the court declares your ex-husband a punk bitch who can't fuck for shit."

What an intriguing and novel legal idea. I think more civil and criminal courts should work like that. Thank you Turkey, very cool.
 
strawberry15 said:
Given by soviets to create good relationships and never actually occupied by an invading turkish army or diplomatic extortion.
Soviet wanted a neutral bourgeoise country rather than a western controlled one.
Click to expand...
They did actually fight (and win, obviously) a battle for Kars though? You could argue it wasn't much of a fight, but it was a fight and at least a couple hundred troops (mostly Armenian) died as a result. Same as with modern Gyumri as well. The Turks already held Kars when negotiating the final, formal handover in 1921 so it was more-so a recognition of a fait accompli rather than the Soviets generously turning over land which was in their hands rather than Turkey's.
ArthuriusMartyrius said:
So they weren't part of Armenia is what you are saying.

Those were parts of the Ottoman Empire before WW1. They were annexed by the Russian Empire. It's essentially the equivalent of France taking Alsace-Lorraine back from Germany if you want to make the comparison.

You don't need to assume anything. There is no official citation for it anywhere else.

I have no interest in contesting the Soviet numbers which also include the numbers that died from famine and disease in those years. Which is part of the reason, for example, why Azerbaijan lost about 50% of their population during that same period from 1919 to 1926 according to the population data. Wasn't all massacres and wars in that region.
Click to expand...
Well, that's where you get into the autistic weeds of any sort of irredentist cause, ie. 'what is the rightful territory of X'. The Poles, for example, could say much the same about Galicia-Volhynia & the rest of their former eastern territories (from which they'd been genocided by the likes of UPA, and which were next transferred to Soviet Ukraine by Stalin) post-WW2 for example. Or about western Poland from anywhere between the Middle Ages (for places like Silesia) to the 18th century partitions (for Greater Poland) up until WW2 funny enough, since those lands were originally Polish but taken by various Prussian/German entities and Germanized with varying degrees of severity (getting much worse in the 19th century up until, of course, the Nazis) until 1945.

Right OK, but where does that end? Literally everyone everywhere can claim 'we used to hold X/Y and should again'. Russia had land down to the Danube Delta which they lost to the Turks after the Crimean War and that wasn't too long before the 1878 war in which Turkey lost Kars, should they have been seething about that as much as they were getting ambitious about Constantinople itself? In this direction the Armenians could claim Western Armenia to be 'rightfully' theirs because after all, it used to actually be part of the medieval Armenian kingdom (could say that's a whole different entity than the First Armenian Republic and you'd be right, but I seem to recall that much the same could be said about the Turkish Republic vs. the Ottoman Empire; and in fact a lot of Turkish nationalists seem to reject large parts of the Ottoman legacy for being backwards, holding actual Turks back, etc. including Ataturk himself & the other actual founders of said republic), and why should we use 1878 (or any other date) as an arbitrary cutoff for when such irredentist claims expire.
 
Chuckwagon said:
Right OK, but where does that end?
Click to expand...
I don't really care about that. My point is that it seems silly to use it as a basis for some kind of arbitrary moral outrage stance. Balkans Turks were persecuted and slaughtered during the independence movements of those countries leading up to WW1 to the extent that it caused the largest refugee crisis in history up to that point in time. The Ottomans were even forced to give up a chunk of Eastern Thrace to Bulgaria by Germany to entice them to join the Central Powers in WW1. Neither of those is justification for any hypothetical modern attempts by Turks to "reclaim" those territories or to paint those nations as heartless monsters.

You'd even have a pretty good case that the persecution of minorities by the Ottoman state during the closing days of the empire was an understandably paranoid response to what happened to Turks in the Balkans (which was previously the economic heartland of the Ottoman Empire) driven by fear of said minorities acting as a fifth column to help external forces slaughter Turks in Anatolia further inflamed by supposed events such as Russians having secret talks with separatist leaders prior to the war to sabotage the Ottoman war effort. Doesn't justify the actions taken by the Turks in the slightest and using it as such would be silly.
 
ArthuriusMartyrius said:
I don't really care about that. My point is that it seems silly to use it as a basis for some kind of arbitrary moral outrage stance. Balkans Turks were persecuted and slaughtered during the independence movements of those countries leading up to WW1 to the extent that it caused the largest refugee crisis in history up to that point in time. The Ottomans were even forced to give up a chunk of Eastern Thrace to Bulgaria by Germany to entice them to join the Central Powers in WW1. Neither of those is justification for any hypothetical modern attempts by Turks to "reclaim" those territories or to paint those nations as heartless monsters.

You'd even have a pretty good case that the persecution of minorities by the Ottoman state during the closing days of the empire was an understandably paranoid response to what happened to Turks in the Balkans (which was previously the economic heartland of the Ottoman Empire) driven by fear of said minorities acting as a fifth column to help external forces slaughter Turks in Anatolia further inflamed by supposed events such as Russians having secret talks with separatist leaders prior to the war to sabotage the Ottoman war effort. Doesn't justify the actions taken by the Turks in the slightest and using it as such would be silly.
Click to expand...
On this much I believe we are agreed, inasmuch as the world is a fucked up place full of cycles of peoples fucking each other one way or another throughout history & the Balkans/Mideast are no exception. I'm not of the opinion that the Armenians, Greeks, etc. were goodly saints who did nothing wrong ever while the Turks are evil just for existing but my problem, such as it were, is with the strain of Turkish ultranationalists who are of such an opinion as it applies to Turks and can't seem to entertain the idea that they ever did anything maaaaybe a bit morally skeevy (if they did, then it wasn't actually as bad as their enemies say, and if it was, then it was justified). The Armenian Genocide being, of course, #1 in the list of such things but there's a bunch of others, like the Greek & Assyrian genocides.

Indeed as you say, the Greeks & other Balkan Christians persecuted their Turkish populations in the Balkan Wars, but then their nationalists can and will claim those were self-defense genocides (as the Turks say about the Armenians, Greeks, etc.) to uproot Islamic fifth columns and also settle scores after the centuries of Turkish rule, slavery, the devshirme system or whatever the fuck else they can think of; and I frankly see no great difference between those justifications and the same ones bandied about by Turkish nationalist types, besides the timescale in question being longer than the Turks' 19-20th century upheaval. As for the Assyrians, besides the 'they were a pro-Entente fifth column' excuse also used to go after the Armenians I actually can't think of anything those niggas did which could possibly have been cited as a justification for trying to exterminate them, you'd probably have to go back to the 8th century BC's Assyrian Empire to find some grave misdeed on their part since they'd been without a state & real power to hurt anyone else for about that long.

To summarize, blind & unapologetically hypocritical nationalism bad & annoying, in general. But I will admit to especially disliking the Turkish nationalist version of this since not only was it the first sort that I had the misfortune of running into 20 years ago, on different forums & threads long lost to history, but in my experience they tend to be even more extreme(ly retarded) than most other types. I've never seen an American nationalist insist My Lai never happened and if it did the gooks deserved it, I have once seen a Greek Orthodox nationalist (who of course is a Greek-American) concede that OK maybe killing/exiling all those Greek Muslims was un-Christian even if they were all janissary/Turk rapebabies & he'd rather they be converted back to Christianity instead (ironically, then, not dissimilar to the Turkish ultranats who say sure they're fine with minorities existing on Turkish soil - if they Turkify first), but never have I ever encountered a Turkish nationalist whose opinion on their own record was anything less than 100% positivity, 100% of the time, and they will go batshit insane even by Internet nationalist standards if you so much as imply it was anything less (as just happened with Pdox now).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom