Question to Turks - regarding governmental legitimacy with minority population

[1.5 million]

If Armenians had no right - as a minority - to ever rule over the provinces of Eastern Anatolia (even after WWI & the Genocide where proven Turkish misrule had occured)...then how...with Turks being quite the minority in each and every Balkan nation - could Turk rule over these nations be justified? I mean if we accept your contention that Armenians could never be fit to rule lands where they were not the majority - even considering these areas were historically known as Armenia and had for thousands of years been considered the Armenian homeland - then how could one ever feel that Turkish rule over Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and so on and so forth could ever be justified? Thus - each and every one of these independence efforts could and should be considerd - by you - as just and justified and in fact you Turks should be ashamed to have ever made claim on these lands. Is this not so? Or contrary to your claims concerning the Armenians - might there be other factors that can be used to determin political legitimacy beyond strictly population figures?

[imported_Fadix]

If Armenians had no right - as a minority - to ever rule over the provinces of Eastern Anatolia (even after WWI & the Genocide where proven Turkish misrule had occured)...then how...with Turks being quite the minority in each and every Balkan nation - could Turk rule over these nations be justified? I mean if we accept your contention that Armenians could never be fit to rule lands where they were not the majority - even considering these areas were historically known as Armenia and had for thousands of years been considered the Armenian homeland - then how could one ever feel that Turkish rule over Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and so on and so forth could ever be justified? Thus - each and every one of these independence efforts could and should be considerd - by you - as just and justified and in fact you Turks should be ashamed to have ever made claim on these lands. Is this not so? Or contrary to your claims concerning the Armenians - might there be other factors that can be used to determin political legitimacy beyond strictly population figures?

I would add here, Eastern Anatolia... when Kurds and Armenians were counted together, Turks would be a minority.

[1.5 million]

I would add here, Eastern Anatolia... when Kurds and Armenians were counted together, Turks would be a minority.

Very good point. Welcome to the forum BTW - very good to see you here.

[Hovik]

I don't know, and I don't care who they would prefer. One thing is for sure. Armenians and Kurds are indigenous to the land in question. Turks on the other hand, are NOT. This is the point I believe Fadix was trying to make... The same as Greeks or Serbians were idigenous to their land.

[Gavur]

mustafa mert
thousands years old armenia which armenia!! land is not given but it can be taken...come and take it!!

Never say never halfbreed!

[aTilla]

If Armenians had no right - as a minority - to ever rule over the provinces of Eastern Anatolia (even after WWI & the Genocide where proven Turkish misrule had occured)...then how...with Turks being quite the minority in each and every Balkan nation - could Turk rule over these nations be justified? I mean if we accept your contention that Armenians could never be fit to rule lands where they were not the majority - even considering these areas were historically known as Armenia and had for thousands of years been considered the Armenian homeland - then how could one ever feel that Turkish rule over Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and so on and so forth could ever be justified? Thus - each and every one of these independence efforts could and should be considerd - by you - as just and justified and in fact you Turks should be ashamed to have ever made claim on these lands. Is this not so? Or contrary to your claims concerning the Armenians - might there be other factors that can be used to determin political legitimacy beyond strictly population figures?

Hmm. In order to create a nation state, your nation must form the majority on the lands it is to be built. That was not the case for Armenians in East Anatolia during the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. Armenian intellectuals who knew this, motivated the Armenian population to Armenianize the region. This ofcourse meant the destruction of non-Armenian populations and that is where the problem layed. Similarly the Balkan nations who wanted their own nation state successfully wiped out the Muslim/Turkish populations to create their nations states during the 19th and 20th century. Armenians never succeeded to wipe out the Muslim/Turkish populations as the Balkan states did thus never gained their own nation state in East Anatolia. The reason for Armenian failure was cause unlike the Balkan states in which Turks/Muslims were a minority, Turks/Muslims were the majority in East Anatolia. So Armenians didn't have to wipe out a small community but the majority and that was impossible. Also Armenians due to their geography(hard for other Christians to support) and maybe the Armenian lack of military experience or maybe even culture were incompetent at eliminating non-Armenian populations. Though many Turkish/Muslim families migrated to Central Anatolia or Iran to survive the demolition of Armenian gangs in the late 19th century and early 20th century, it did not effect the demography of region much due to Turkish/Muslim migrations to East Anatolia from the Balkans and the Caucasus.

Now about the Ottoman Empire ruling vast territories that were non-Turkish/Muslim. Well, it was an empire and empires do not need large populations to gain legitimacy. The empire system itself lost its legitimacy in the 20th century.

[1.5 million]

Hmm. In order to create a nation state, your nation must form the majority on the lands it is to be built. That was not the case for Armenians in East Anatolia during the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. Armenian intellectuals who knew this, motivated the Armenian population to Armenianize the region. This ofcourse meant the destruction of non-Armenian populations and that is where the problem layed. Similarly the Balkan nations who wanted their own nation state successfully wiped out the Muslim/Turkish populations to create their nations states during the 19th and 20th century. Armenians never succeeded to wipe out the Muslim/Turkish populations as the Balkan states did thus never gained their own nation state in East Anatolia. The reason for Armenian failure was cause unlike the Balkan states in which Turks/Muslims were a minority, Turks/Muslims were the majority in East Anatolia. So Armenians didn't have to wipe out a small community but the majority and that was impossible. Also Armenians due to their geography(hard for other Christians to support) and maybe the Armenian lack of military experience or maybe even culture were incompetent at eliminating non-Armenian populations. Though many Turkish/Muslim families migrated to Central Anatolia or Iran to survive the demolition of Armenian gangs in the late 19th century and early 20th century, it did not effect the demography of region much due to Turkish/Muslim migrations to East Anatolia from the Balkans and the Caucasus.

Now about the Ottoman Empire ruling vast territories that were non-Turkish/Muslim. Well, it was an empire and empires do not need large populations to gain legitimacy. The empire system itself lost its legitimacy in the 20th century.

With such a fictional understanding of the history its no wonder you have no clue.

[Steph]

Hmm. In order to create a nation state, your nation must form the majority on the lands it is to be built. That was not the case for Armenians in East Anatolia during the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. Armenian intellectuals who knew this, motivated the Armenian population to Armenianize the region. This ofcourse meant the destruction of non-Armenian populations and that is where the problem layed. Similarly the Balkan nations who wanted their own nation state successfully wiped out the Muslim/Turkish populations to create their nations states during the 19th and 20th century. Armenians never succeeded to wipe out the Muslim/Turkish populations as the Balkan states did thus never gained their own nation state in East Anatolia. The reason for Armenian failure was cause unlike the Balkan states in which Turks/Muslims were a minority, Turks/Muslims were the majority in East Anatolia. So Armenians didn't have to wipe out a small community but the majority and that was impossible. Also Armenians due to their geography(hard for other Christians to support) and maybe the Armenian lack of military experience or maybe even culture were incompetent at eliminating non-Armenian populations. Though many Turkish/Muslim families migrated to Central Anatolia or Iran to survive the demolition of Armenian gangs in the late 19th century and early 20th century, it did not effect the demography of region much due to Turkish/Muslim migrations to East Anatolia from the Balkans and the Caucasus.

Now about the Ottoman Empire ruling vast territories that were non-Turkish/Muslim. Well, it was an empire and empires do not need large populations to gain legitimacy. The empire system itself lost its legitimacy in the 20th century.

What kind of parallel universe are you visiting from? Left is right and right is left. 1.5 is spot on, you really have no clue.
Perhaps your next move will be to organize memorials to the original turks of Western Europe who were wiped out by the Celts and Goths.

[Steph]

Though many Turkish/Muslim families migrated to Central Anatolia or Iran to survive the demolition of Armenian gangs in the late 19th century and early 20th century,

I wonder that the turks didn't evacuate Constantinople in the face of the murderous Armenian merchants and traders!

[Joseph]

If Armenians had no right - as a minority - to ever rule over the provinces of Eastern Anatolia (even after WWI & the Genocide where proven Turkish misrule had occured)...then how...with Turks being quite the minority in each and every Balkan nation - could Turk rule over these nations be justified? I mean if we accept your contention that Armenians could never be fit to rule lands where they were not the majority - even considering these areas were historically known as Armenia and had for thousands of years been considered the Armenian homeland - then how could one ever feel that Turkish rule over Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and so on and so forth could ever be justified? Thus - each and every one of these independence efforts could and should be considerd - by you - as just and justified and in fact you Turks should be ashamed to have ever made claim on these lands. Is this not so? Or contrary to your claims concerning the Armenians - might there be other factors that can be used to determin political legitimacy beyond strictly population figures?

You make too much sense 1.5 Million. That is anathema to Turks.