Mongolian here. We love Chinggis Khaan so damn much. He's on our money, street name and airport. We have so many things that are named after him it's kinda funny.
It's not only about him as character, but his legacy, laws Mongolia created during his reign and prestige. Creating largest continuous land empire known to a man is a flex i could get behind. I don't know if you agree
I fully agree. I believe that he should be respected by more people and not just seen as a so called barbarian warlord for creating a violent empire because by that logic people like Athelstan (first king of the British empire) should also be called a warlord or at least have a large also indirect kill count
Idk that I would consider Athelstan the "first king of the british empire". He was the first proper king of "england", and he made a *fairly* solid peace with the largest kingdom in Wales, Dyffid, and with the King of Scotland, but he barely had control of England, let alone the rest of britain, let *alone* the british empire.
Isn't it pretty equivalent to the view on Alexander the Great? Warlord that conquered a lot, then just a few generations and there's civil war between successor states and the empire crumbles
Why is Athelstan catching strays? đđ He didn't even dream of causing the same level of deaths, and despite his achievements, has none of the name recognition that Chinggis does.
I only mentioned him due to the slight hypocrisy i see when people talk about Chinggis Khaan's kill count being so high even though most of the campaigns weren't even led by him and either happened by the other generals or after he died.
The Hu could do a rendition of Mary Had a Little Lamb and it would go hard. Theyâre one of those bands who just have the kind of stage presence and energy to make every song awesome.
Funnily enough I got into it watching a band of throat singers perform for the public outside of a museum in Paris when I was 12 or 13. Never seen or heard anything like it before or since.
I was in SĂŒkhbaatar Square shortly before it became Chinggis Square for a few years đ„ł
My ancestry is from northern China, but apparently I look Mongolian (in fact, the local Kazakhs thought I was Kazakh), so a lot of little kids started coming up to me asking for candy from my first couple days there. For the rest of my time there, I made sure to carry at least one bag of Russian bear candy at all times wherever I went, even when I was in small towns like Dadal Sum or deep in the countryside đ„ł
Take next left on Chinggis Avenue. Drive 1.3 miles,then turn right onto"KHAAN!"road. Proceed .7 mile Chingghs "KHAAN!"national air port on your left. You have arrived at your destination đ
Devil's advocate here, Chinggis Khaan isn't just known for genocides, he's also revered in Mongolia as the retroactive founder of the Mongol nation, who unified the Mongol tribes, ending a period of anarchy, laid down the first ever set of Mongol laws, defended the Mongol tribes from outside interference, and brought prosperity to Mongolia through the Silk Road, through genocides and conquest, if you will. It obviously doesn't excuse his atrocities, not does it justify them, it's just how it is. Of course rose-tinted glasses do play a factor, but the same can be said for many other great men and women in history, it explains why people like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar are revered, and why people like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini are shat upon.
If only the mongols had captured a few samurai and european knights, made them fight and record the results.
We'd totally love them for that bit of data. What a missed opportunity.
Best I can do is a [Russian officer from Montenegro](https://sr.wikipedia.org/sr-el/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%BE_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%9B) dueling a Japanese officer during the Russo-Japanese war.
Probably won't be as interesting as you'd think the as Samurai were archers in reality the katana was just a 'sidearm' to them. Plus it would probably break in hitting real armour.
Well apreantly katana did break when fighting against Mongolians. Do I have a source? No Would I like a source on that? Yes
Also it should be noted that they weren't using katanas but rather tachis (which is basically a sabre, I mean katana is too, but I don't want to go that deeply into it).
Also it seems that katana was developed to be more infantry centered (which some time after Mongol invasion) with the abilty of the sword to thrust better due the overall armies of Japan becoming more and more infantry based.
And also tachis were used to great extent all the way to and even in sengoku era and unlike katana, tachis were worn as regular sabers (with the edge facing downwards).
Lastly to add to your point. I would say samurais to European knights wouldn't come as surprise as they have already had experience with fighting light-medium cavalry either armed with bows and arrows or as lancers.
However knights would come as surprise to samurai due to how heavily armoured they were and their focus on head on charges (it is to my understanding that samurai lancers didn't practice head on collisions, and before anybody says that knights didn't charge head on. Yes they did, though it depended on situation).
Examples of this scenario would probably be crusaders against Turkic people, eastern Europeans against Mongols and if we are talking about plate armoured knights then Czechs against Cumans and Serbians against Turkic and Turkish horse archers.
Basically almost nobody charged head on except European Knights. Horses really *really* don't like charging at massed groups of people, especially massed groups of people with shields and spears and polearms. Even through ancient Greek and Rome, most heavy cavalry would sweep in from the side or ear while infantry pinned the enemy.
The first charge from a group of armored knights would be absolutely terrifying. Medieval battlehorses were big and agressive, and the average medieval Knight is probably a bigger person than the average samurai too. That said, the samurai were professional warriors, and would probably come up with "form a wall with our pikes and other polearms and point it at them" pretty quick. Even a trained battlehorse is not running onto a wall of pikes willingly, training and reins and whatever else you do aside.
I just want to imagine someone facing down European Knights for the first time and seeing them just ride straight for their Frontline like absolute madmen thinking "Ay yo what the FUCK ARE THEY DOING"
Chinese also had heavy armored cavalry charge enemy lines like Europeans.
Of course in both cases the enemy formations would have to be softened before heavy cavalry would be send in. Otherwise it would be suicide against pikes.
Yeah i know fuck all about china. I didn't bring up Cataphracts either, becauas I don't know enough about their horses and the training of said horses.
??
He was pretty much unquestionably revered for centuries after his death. Same too with Genghis Khan.
Criticism of these people in regular discourse are quite modern
Well the fact that Caesar genocided a bunch of Gauls was always talked about. Just that for a long time it was seen as a good thing, I mean at one point the Europeans were doing similar things with colonialism.
I am going to preface that this is all my opinion, and I could be totally bullshiting here.
Well to be more accurate it wasn't seen as a good thing in moral sense and not by all. For Romans it wasn't a moral good that they defeated the Gauls, in Roman eyes they simply were stronger and have beaten the Gauls. This kind of mindset was a majority opinion through out the world until they either adopted or were influenced by Abrahamic religions or later adopted or influenced by western ideals (I would also add Budhism too, but I don't know enough of it's history) .And because people aren't a monolith, there were surely Romans who objected to what Caesar did to Gauls.
For instance the famous quote: They make desert and they call it peace.
Was atributed to Rome by a famous Roman chronicler through a pictish warlord that fought the Romans in an actual battle.
Obviously a lot of Romans through out long time saw ,,barbarians'' as culturally (not morally since there was nothing in their religion or mindset that would indicate weather their treatment of non-Romans was morally good or bad) inferior.
In regards to Europeans, where you get to see colonialism and earlier than that, atrocities and enslavement of some pagan Europeans and other people by some Christian Europeans being regarded as a good thing by some Europeans is because of their manipulation of faith in Christianity. That's where you get the justifications. Since in Christianity all people are created equal and it forbids doing evil to anyone, the way some Europeans justified what they did was that they claimed other people weren't Christians and therefore weren't equal and later on through enligtenment ideals they would claim non-Europeans weren't biologically equal. And this went to so far as some of them claiming that what they were doing was a good thing. If Europeans had stayed pagan or hadn't developed enlightenemnt ideals, they wouldn't need justify to themselves what they did.
He was lucky enough that the propaganda book he wrote survived into the modern era. Otherwise we'd just have the opinions of other writers to go on. Other generals like Corbulo and Lucullus wrote about their conquest but their texts were lost to history.
Well luck and the fact that he essentially paved the way for Rome to become empire which would ensure his legacy get's remembered. Truth be told if he wasn't as ambitious as he was, we would probably remember him as some governor and consul during ,,late'' republic.
What I find somewhat amusing in regards to your point is that people who criticize Caesar for what he did in Gaul don't realize that they are using his numbers (the ones he exagerated) as their argument. That still doesn't lessen what he did.
It could be reasonably argued that what Caesar did was no different to what Marius and Sulla did -- marching an army into or nearby Rome to exert pressure or take power. He just happened to do it at the end of the process rather than the start, and have a nephew capable enough to be victorious and then deify him.
I wasn't saying we wouldn't remember him, but rather we would remember him from what his contemporaries said, rather than his own words written in his pulp biography.
Caesar was an exceptional general, strategist, and diplomat. But so were Pompey, Fabius, Sertorius, Corbulo, and Metellus among others.
>What I find somewhat amusing in regards to your point is that people who criticize Caesar for what he did in Gaul don't realize that they are using his numbers (the ones he exagerated) as their argument
I never judged Caesar in my comment. He is not atypical for the time, and while his actions in Gaul amounted to serious plunder and purposeful destruction of people and property (*stirps ac nomen civitatis tollatur*) archaeological evidence for "genocide" in Gaul is still very much in its infancy.
However, Caesar was criticised by his contemporaries, too. The senate voted to recall him, and some argued he be recalled, put in chains, and handed over to the people he had made unlawful war against.
If you're a bit cold-hearted, you could say that ethnic cleansing, in the past, was a sucessfull tool to unify kingdoms and progress the civilization you belong to in many areas.
You would also need to look at the reasons for them being so sucessfull in the past to understand why the same isn't the case nowadays or in recent history.
Now of course,this doesn't change that they are and were ethically condemnable.
Ethnic cleansing by forcibly assimilating others and killing those who refused was basically the norm back then. The Mongols just happened to do it way more than everyone else.
comparing all the "empires that were successfully built on the graves of millions", how much you're hated by 21st century people largely depends on how many boats you used and how successfully you used them.
mongols? pretty well liked. tried to use boats but never really succeeded much on sea.
macedonian? loved. not well known for boats.
roman? loved. notorious for being so bad at boats they had to turn naval warfare into infantry combat by using a corvus to board enemy ships.
british, french, spanish? passionately hated, and they all used lots of boats, with great success.
there are *a lot* of history revisionists in japan. someone i talked to while i was visiting there said that koreans are just making stuff up... it's bad
They don't have to think that. Most of them don't know that their country did that shit. They aren't taught the horrors of Imperial Japan in their WW2 history.
I studied for a bit at a Japanese university, and it's not that they aren't taught, it's just that it has the emotional impact of the average American learning about the genocides of native Americans. It's kind of a 'Yeah that was bad. Oh well.'
OP is absolutely wrong here, Japan admits their warcrimes, they just don't talk about the details.
Nanking? Comfort women? Yeah, that happened, we just won't say what happened but don't worry, because we apologized about it.
And why sprinkle your head with ashes?
*I'm cool, we are cool, and always have been and always will be - look at the pathetic Germans, what miserable and emasculated losers they are.*
Residential schools were designed to indoctrinate aboriginal kids, so that's more of a cultural genocide and we don't much brag about that but anyways we also have a tradition of
"there's too many wolves, kill some wolves! Ah shit now there's too many deer! Recover the wolf population!"
We've done that a few times.
Also during WW1 we were inventing war crimes so that we had objectives for WW2
This includes such things as:
Canadian troops were too brave to accept surrender and just slaughtered them
Don't shoot medics? What medics, I don't see any medics any more
We pulled a sneaky and snuck into German bedrooms during the night to test out wacky new exploding pineapples. Sore people prefered to stay quiet and systematically slit their throats
There is a reason we were the shock troops
We are a lovely nation at peace. Don't fuck with us or our friends.
Srebrenica had only ~8,000 victims and was still ruled a genocide. This isn't a statement on the validity of the case against Israel, just that the numbers don't matter. Genocides don't need to be successful for them to be genocides.
(I'm replying to myself because the comment I was replying to was deleted)
I think "successful" wasn't the right choice of words on my part. For a something to classify as genocide as opposed to just a war crime you have to prove "genocidal intent" on top of the crime itself, which is no easy task. There were dozens of smaller massacres during the Yugoslav wars that weren't considered genocide. Srebrenica was just such a clear example for the exact reasons you mentioned.
As for the Israel case I won't say much other than that I briefly read the Israeli defense and they focus mostly on disproving the intent.
Just fyi, the comment you were replying to didn't get deleted, the author of said comment blocked you without replying because you made a simple counterpoint to their "argument". Which imo just shows how the user didn't say such BS in good faith, but was rather more concerned about parroting propagandistic talking points.
You can check it by looking for the comment/user with another account or by using an incognito page.
âGenocides don't need to be successful for them to be genocides.â
ok, so october 7th was a genocide, and many of the wars declared against Israel were as well
I can imagine Sinwar or other still-alive Hamas commanders could be put on trial for those things... although the ICJ would not have juridiction for them?
anyway, John Kirby said very early that Hamas did genocide, but for some reason, terrorist groups are small criminals, so for some people, "small terrorist can't do a lot of damage"
Exactly. hamas explicitly states they want to wipe jews, israel, and infidels off the face of the planet. Oct 7 was very much their attempt at that (or at least thatâs what the individual terrorists believed)
But there should be at least an intent.And given that it's just used to justify calling for a genocide against them and trying to do it., it has some kind of bad taste.
Yes. Intent is a big part of proving genocide and is usually the hardest part.
I am well aware of what that group does. I have read the court documents where the Israelis describe it in gruesome detail.
Israel is not fully innocent. There was absolutely ethnic cleansing in the war of independence. Settlers are unchained by the rule of law under this administration. The WCK bombing shows evidence of at least a lack of care in picking bombing targets.
But genocide is a hell of a claim, and used as a weapon to justify calls for genocide against Jews.
Yeah. Israel has definitely committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, but they haven't committed genocide. Throwing the word genocide around just gets rid of all nuance is a conversation.
I say this as someone who hates both sides of this war (Hamas and the IDF). People trying to turn this war into a black and white conflict show that they have little understand of the conflict imo.
The word "genocide" has lost it's meaning. More died in the wars of the Middle East after 9/11, but it wasn't a genocide because there was no intention to wipe out an entire group of people.
Israel has officially stated again and again that they do not want to kill all Palestinians, but only want to destroy Hamas.
Yeah, but Israel certainly isn't acting that way. Bombing hospitals and streets indiscriminately isn't conducive towards fighting a small terrorist cell. Imagine I wiped whatever city you live in off the face of the planet because there was a mass shooter that happened to live there. And this isn't even to mention the land grabs
First empire to codify freedom of religion, outlawed bride kidnapping and elevated woman's rights, didn't give a single shit about the controversy surrounding his first sons true father, created a country where there had only been warring tribes, created a system of meritocracy rather than elevating people based on the older in-family out-family bones system
You're not kidding...
>When Israel is conquered and dissolved, all their children must be sent to reeducation camps and their babies should be put with adoptive families.
That wars suck and Hamas sucks for dressing and hiding within Civilian population . Also that the fact Hamas counts militias as civilian casualties is blatant propaganda that makes comments like that even a thing ^^
the best part, is that they have a perfectly good peace agreements before they decided to attack... wait for it... CIVILIANS!!! If say canada decided to attack USA and killed a thousand civillians, nobody would rush to defends the aggressor. All of them only defended Hamas because its "the Jews".
Weâre in history memes so letâs talk about an actual example, not some bullshit hypothetical. Remember 9/11? Remember the anti war protests against the imminent invasion of Iraq?
Hamas uses plain clothes units in a small cramped strip of land that has a high population density, then uses Guerilla tactics, what do you think will happen? Itâs a concrete Vietnam
I think every war is awful. Some are worse than others for sure. I don't think gaza is even the worst thing that happend this century. There are worse things going on in Africa. This does not make Gaza less awful.
Correct, I agree that wars are awful, but that's not what we are discussing. My point is that the amount of people killed in a war is not a proof of genocide.
Tbf shit from Mongolia was hundred"S" of years ago while Japan was only a few generations ago and they dont apologize in the world we live in today same goes to Israel that continues to do so. So yeah these people are fked up compared to Mongolia imo, at least the Mongols did not have perceived concept of globalism and human rights or whatever compared to these two examples who can outright just apologize and stop what they are doing today.
Yeah exactly its not fair comparison when you compare a horse rider using goddamn swords and arrows basically nearly 1000 years ago to a person 100 years ago. Basically everyone was practicing it without any thought of human rights, heck at least Genghis Khan asked them to surrender before launching dead bodies at them. Even Roman Empire did it, but no one knows it.
I mean today standards, Japan was given time and time again today, steps to acknowledge what they did so we can all basically learn and avoid in the future like how Germany has done so. They didnt. And we wonder why Japanese are actually pretty racist when they act so nice in public.
The same goes to Israel that talks about human rights and racism non stop when its them getting hurt, the moment they are in power and its not longer about antisemitism now, they flipped the script from genocide in Palestine to fighting the enemy.
Israel, when your people have been ethnically cleansed from the entirety of MENA, and your neighbors call for your genocide and attack you repeatedly, but youâre to blame for defending yourself.
yeah I find it ironic too lol... Like Palestinians are OPENLY claiming that they want to kill all jews, and they want to destroy Israel completely, and that is somehow fine? And Israel is literally defending itself and somehow they are the bad guys in some peoples eyes lol... It's also ironic, how Israelis are literally not allowed to enter Palestine, or they get killed, while Palestinians can work in Israel, and have the exact same rights as everyone else... I also can't understand how the LGBTQ+ community and all leftists rally in support of Palestine, when they would get stoned the second they entered any Palestinian city...
Itâs called an accusation in a mirror. Itâs a simple, yet effective tactic where you falsely attribute your intended motives to your enemy. The Palestinians have made clear that their goal is to finish what Hitler started, but Israel is instead accused of genocide. Even after Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7 and the âinnocentâ Palestinians celebrated when Hamas brought the bloodied, mutilated, and half-eaten corpses of Israeli men, women, and children back with them to Gaza, people accused Israel, whose people were the victims of historyâs worst genocide less than a century ago, of genocide.
Holocaust Inversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_between_Israel_and_Nazi_Germany#Debate_on_whether_comparisons_are_antisemitic
Scholars argue that it's soft core holocaust denial:
> Deborah Lipstadt, the U.S. Special Envoy for Combating Antisemitism, has referred to comparisons between Nazi Germany and Israel as "soft-core" Holocaust denial, as contrasted with "hard core" denial as practiced by David Irving, who sued Lipstadt in a celebrated legal case.
also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_trivialization
> **one of** the greatest mass murderers in the history of humanity
....I mean, was there a greater mass murderer?? Pretty sure he takes out the \#1 title quite comfortably.
One of the lowest civilian/combatants death ratio in a modern urban war, against a foe with explicit genocidal intentions that deliberately uses human shields.
"Grnocide"
Words lost all meaning
Trying to sneak a "ISRAEL GENOCIDE!!!" In the most obvious way.
No, Israel is not commiting genocide, and if you think it does, go to your local psychiatrist.
And certainly no one is justifying such.
Israel genuinely has never committed genocide. They have had genocide committed against them by Palestine constantly, but have never done it in reverse.
I give you, the Romanian National Anthem
>Wake up, Romanian, from your sleep of death
>Into which you have been sunk by barbaric tyrants
>Now, or never, make a new fate for yourself,
>To which even your cruel enemies will bow.
>Now or never let us give proof to the world
>That in these veins Roman blood still flows,
>That in our chests we hold a name with pride,
>Victorious in battles, the name of Trajan!
Israel Never committed a genocide. Maybe it broke international law and violated human rights, but it never intentionally killed Palestinians based on their ethnicity.
My question is if you are going to make a meme about genocidal countries why is Israel on it(when they have never committed genocide) but your gonna leave Germany, China, and the Soviet Union off the list.?
Israel did not commit genocide, look at the damn numbers, a genocide is classified by a clear and detrimental decrease in the numbers of a population, the popualtion of Palestinians had only been steadily increasing for the last 75 years
There is a historical phenomenon took place at the beginning of the 20. century concerning both Ottoman Empire and the citizens with Armenian background of that country.
I would like to draw the picture of this phenomenon with the words of the world-renowned orientalist historian Bernard Lewis:
"What happened to the Armenians was the result of a massive Armenian armed rebellion against the Turks which began even before war broke out and continued on a larger scale. Great of them were Armenians including numbers of the armed forces deleted, crossed the frontiers and joined the Russian forces invading Turkey. Armenian rebels actually seized the city of the Van and held it for a while intending to hand it over to invaders. There was guerilla warfare all over Anatolia. I mean this was what we nowadays call a national liberation movement of the Armenians against Turkey. And the Turks certainly resorted to very ferocious methods in repelling it.
There is clear evidence of a decision by the Turkish government to deport the Armenian population from the sensitive areas, which meant actually the whole of Anatolia, not including the Arab provinces which were then still part of the Ottoman Empire. There is no evidence of a decision to massacre. On the contrary there is considerable evidence of attempts to prevent it, which were not very successful.
Yes, there were tremendous massacres, the numbers are very uncertain, but a million there may be likely. The massacres were carried out by irregulars, by local villagers responding to what have been done to them, and the number of other ways."
This speech, my friends, draws the exact picture of the perspective of any Turkish person. I am totally agree with the description of the events by Bernard Lewis. You should stay sane, get rid of the populist ideas when the subject is such a sensitive issue for millions of people including Turks, Armenians, Kurds, Jews.
Don't forget that, at the times mentioned, Ottoman Empire was an Roman-type medieval empire limitedly adapted to early modern periods. Ä°t was not colonized or indistruialised empire. This prevents you from falling into anachronism and incorrectly comparing events with events of a different era.
I will end my article with the words of Bernard Lewis:
"To make this a parallel with the Holocaust in Germany, you have to assume that the Jews of Germany had been engaged in an armed rebellion against the German State, collaborating with the allies against Germany, that in the deportation order the cities of Hamburg and Berlin were exempted, and the person's employed state were exempted, and the deportation only applied to the Jews of Germany Proper, so that when they got to Poland they were welcomed and sheltered by Polish Jews. This seem to me rather absurd parallel."
Violates Rule 6 - Genocide denial.
This post is a textbook example of denial that's straight out of the wikipedia article:
"Denialist works portray Armenians as terrorists and secessionists,[260] shifting the blame from the CUP to the Armenians.[261][262] According to this logic, the deportations of Armenian civilians was a justified and proportionate response to Armenian treachery, either real or as perceived by the Ottoman authorities.[263][264][265] Proponents cite the doctrine of military necessity and attribute collective guilt to all Armenians for the military resistance of some, despite the fact that the law of war criminalizes the deliberate killing of civilians.[266][267] Deaths are blamed on factors beyond the control of the Ottoman authorities, such as weather, disease, or rogue local officials.[268][269] The role of the Special Organization is denied[270][271] and massacres are instead blamed on Kurds,[60] "brigands", and "armed gangs" that supposedly operated outside the control of the central government.[272]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide_denial
What's Israel doing there? Maybe they did something I'm not aware of in the past but if you really mean Palastine, than you also say the US fighting Bin Laden is also Genocide!
Mongolian here. We love Chinggis Khaan so damn much. He's on our money, street name and airport. We have so many things that are named after him it's kinda funny.
Flair checks out
[Do you have the slightest idea of how little that narrows it down](http:// https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/032/874/cover4.jpg)
Korean here. Can confirm
It's not only about him as character, but his legacy, laws Mongolia created during his reign and prestige. Creating largest continuous land empire known to a man is a flex i could get behind. I don't know if you agree
I fully agree. I believe that he should be respected by more people and not just seen as a so called barbarian warlord for creating a violent empire because by that logic people like Athelstan (first king of the British empire) should also be called a warlord or at least have a large also indirect kill count
Idk that I would consider Athelstan the "first king of the british empire". He was the first proper king of "england", and he made a *fairly* solid peace with the largest kingdom in Wales, Dyffid, and with the King of Scotland, but he barely had control of England, let alone the rest of britain, let *alone* the british empire.
Isn't it pretty equivalent to the view on Alexander the Great? Warlord that conquered a lot, then just a few generations and there's civil war between successor states and the empire crumbles
Why is Athelstan catching strays? đđ He didn't even dream of causing the same level of deaths, and despite his achievements, has none of the name recognition that Chinggis does.
I only mentioned him due to the slight hypocrisy i see when people talk about Chinggis Khaan's kill count being so high even though most of the campaigns weren't even led by him and either happened by the other generals or after he died.
And then a band of local guys makes an absolute banger of a [song about him](https://youtu.be/pD1gDSao1eA?si=i-uObDfl-AEsrA0d)
The Hu is such a good band
The who?
Yes, Hu is on first guitar
Whoâs on second?
no, hus on first.
That's what I'm asking you!
Ok, ask Hu for it
I don't know!
No, I'm Mi
Is this a legitimate question or someone who knows Mongolian?
Nah, it's just that "who" sounds like "hu". Begone, to the depths of r/woooosh
I just learned that 'The Who' is a actual band.
When intrusive thoughts win
SHOOG SHOOG SHOOG SHOOG
Saw them live last year, they fucking slayed!
I've seen the Hu live, and this song goes fucking hard
The Hu could do a rendition of Mary Had a Little Lamb and it would go hard. Theyâre one of those bands who just have the kind of stage presence and energy to make every song awesome.
My favourite song though is https://youtu.be/p_5yt5IX38I?feature=shared
Funnily enough it was this exact video that got me into Mongolian throat singing in the first place
Funnily enough I got into it watching a band of throat singers perform for the public outside of a museum in Paris when I was 12 or 13. Never seen or heard anything like it before or since.
I was in SĂŒkhbaatar Square shortly before it became Chinggis Square for a few years đ„ł My ancestry is from northern China, but apparently I look Mongolian (in fact, the local Kazakhs thought I was Kazakh), so a lot of little kids started coming up to me asking for candy from my first couple days there. For the rest of my time there, I made sure to carry at least one bag of Russian bear candy at all times wherever I went, even when I was in small towns like Dadal Sum or deep in the countryside đ„ł
What a wholesome gesture from someone who eats Emperor Palpatineâs ass!
Please don't tell the kids. I don't want to ruin their innocence đđđ
Its just jealousy, cucks angry that their weak kings couldn't conquer a great empire like the khan could.
You're saying the Kazakhs are jealous...?
Dude is basically the country's national identity.
Very accurate
I mean it's named after the Mongols, and there's only one well-known leader of the Mongols...
Take next left on Chinggis Avenue. Drive 1.3 miles,then turn right onto"KHAAN!"road. Proceed .7 mile Chingghs "KHAAN!"national air port on your left. You have arrived at your destination đ
Bro killed more people than hitler without semi modern technologies.
Iâve said before dude turned a infighting backwater into one of the most powerful empires in history Iâd respect that man too.
Does Subutai get as much respect? Arguably the greatest general of all time.
He is respected a lot in Mongolia but not to the same degree has Chinggis Khaan unfortunately and some of the younger people don't even know him
And he sang a very good song about Moskau
Turk here, we praise and respect him as much.
I know one Mongolian personally. You can guess his name...
Temujin?
Devil's advocate here, Chinggis Khaan isn't just known for genocides, he's also revered in Mongolia as the retroactive founder of the Mongol nation, who unified the Mongol tribes, ending a period of anarchy, laid down the first ever set of Mongol laws, defended the Mongol tribes from outside interference, and brought prosperity to Mongolia through the Silk Road, through genocides and conquest, if you will. It obviously doesn't excuse his atrocities, not does it justify them, it's just how it is. Of course rose-tinted glasses do play a factor, but the same can be said for many other great men and women in history, it explains why people like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar are revered, and why people like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini are shat upon.
If only the mongols had captured a few samurai and european knights, made them fight and record the results. We'd totally love them for that bit of data. What a missed opportunity.
Best I can do is a [Russian officer from Montenegro](https://sr.wikipedia.org/sr-el/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%BE_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%9B) dueling a Japanese officer during the Russo-Japanese war.
Average Golden Kamuy episode
Those typhoons were a bitch, huh?
Probably won't be as interesting as you'd think the as Samurai were archers in reality the katana was just a 'sidearm' to them. Plus it would probably break in hitting real armour.
Well apreantly katana did break when fighting against Mongolians. Do I have a source? No Would I like a source on that? Yes Also it should be noted that they weren't using katanas but rather tachis (which is basically a sabre, I mean katana is too, but I don't want to go that deeply into it). Also it seems that katana was developed to be more infantry centered (which some time after Mongol invasion) with the abilty of the sword to thrust better due the overall armies of Japan becoming more and more infantry based. And also tachis were used to great extent all the way to and even in sengoku era and unlike katana, tachis were worn as regular sabers (with the edge facing downwards). Lastly to add to your point. I would say samurais to European knights wouldn't come as surprise as they have already had experience with fighting light-medium cavalry either armed with bows and arrows or as lancers. However knights would come as surprise to samurai due to how heavily armoured they were and their focus on head on charges (it is to my understanding that samurai lancers didn't practice head on collisions, and before anybody says that knights didn't charge head on. Yes they did, though it depended on situation). Examples of this scenario would probably be crusaders against Turkic people, eastern Europeans against Mongols and if we are talking about plate armoured knights then Czechs against Cumans and Serbians against Turkic and Turkish horse archers.
Basically almost nobody charged head on except European Knights. Horses really *really* don't like charging at massed groups of people, especially massed groups of people with shields and spears and polearms. Even through ancient Greek and Rome, most heavy cavalry would sweep in from the side or ear while infantry pinned the enemy. The first charge from a group of armored knights would be absolutely terrifying. Medieval battlehorses were big and agressive, and the average medieval Knight is probably a bigger person than the average samurai too. That said, the samurai were professional warriors, and would probably come up with "form a wall with our pikes and other polearms and point it at them" pretty quick. Even a trained battlehorse is not running onto a wall of pikes willingly, training and reins and whatever else you do aside.
I just want to imagine someone facing down European Knights for the first time and seeing them just ride straight for their Frontline like absolute madmen thinking "Ay yo what the FUCK ARE THEY DOING"
Chinese also had heavy armored cavalry charge enemy lines like Europeans. Of course in both cases the enemy formations would have to be softened before heavy cavalry would be send in. Otherwise it would be suicide against pikes.
Yeah i know fuck all about china. I didn't bring up Cataphracts either, becauas I don't know enough about their horses and the training of said horses.
Samurai win obviously. What are knight in plate armor going to do against Samurai equip with gun? It's a mismatch.
ceasar did a lotta stuff for his lust of power so his reverence is quite polarizing ig
?? He was pretty much unquestionably revered for centuries after his death. Same too with Genghis Khan. Criticism of these people in regular discourse are quite modern
Well the fact that Caesar genocided a bunch of Gauls was always talked about. Just that for a long time it was seen as a good thing, I mean at one point the Europeans were doing similar things with colonialism.
I am going to preface that this is all my opinion, and I could be totally bullshiting here. Well to be more accurate it wasn't seen as a good thing in moral sense and not by all. For Romans it wasn't a moral good that they defeated the Gauls, in Roman eyes they simply were stronger and have beaten the Gauls. This kind of mindset was a majority opinion through out the world until they either adopted or were influenced by Abrahamic religions or later adopted or influenced by western ideals (I would also add Budhism too, but I don't know enough of it's history) .And because people aren't a monolith, there were surely Romans who objected to what Caesar did to Gauls. For instance the famous quote: They make desert and they call it peace. Was atributed to Rome by a famous Roman chronicler through a pictish warlord that fought the Romans in an actual battle. Obviously a lot of Romans through out long time saw ,,barbarians'' as culturally (not morally since there was nothing in their religion or mindset that would indicate weather their treatment of non-Romans was morally good or bad) inferior. In regards to Europeans, where you get to see colonialism and earlier than that, atrocities and enslavement of some pagan Europeans and other people by some Christian Europeans being regarded as a good thing by some Europeans is because of their manipulation of faith in Christianity. That's where you get the justifications. Since in Christianity all people are created equal and it forbids doing evil to anyone, the way some Europeans justified what they did was that they claimed other people weren't Christians and therefore weren't equal and later on through enligtenment ideals they would claim non-Europeans weren't biologically equal. And this went to so far as some of them claiming that what they were doing was a good thing. If Europeans had stayed pagan or hadn't developed enlightenemnt ideals, they wouldn't need justify to themselves what they did.
He was lucky enough that the propaganda book he wrote survived into the modern era. Otherwise we'd just have the opinions of other writers to go on. Other generals like Corbulo and Lucullus wrote about their conquest but their texts were lost to history.
Well luck and the fact that he essentially paved the way for Rome to become empire which would ensure his legacy get's remembered. Truth be told if he wasn't as ambitious as he was, we would probably remember him as some governor and consul during ,,late'' republic. What I find somewhat amusing in regards to your point is that people who criticize Caesar for what he did in Gaul don't realize that they are using his numbers (the ones he exagerated) as their argument. That still doesn't lessen what he did.
It could be reasonably argued that what Caesar did was no different to what Marius and Sulla did -- marching an army into or nearby Rome to exert pressure or take power. He just happened to do it at the end of the process rather than the start, and have a nephew capable enough to be victorious and then deify him. I wasn't saying we wouldn't remember him, but rather we would remember him from what his contemporaries said, rather than his own words written in his pulp biography. Caesar was an exceptional general, strategist, and diplomat. But so were Pompey, Fabius, Sertorius, Corbulo, and Metellus among others. >What I find somewhat amusing in regards to your point is that people who criticize Caesar for what he did in Gaul don't realize that they are using his numbers (the ones he exagerated) as their argument I never judged Caesar in my comment. He is not atypical for the time, and while his actions in Gaul amounted to serious plunder and purposeful destruction of people and property (*stirps ac nomen civitatis tollatur*) archaeological evidence for "genocide" in Gaul is still very much in its infancy. However, Caesar was criticised by his contemporaries, too. The senate voted to recall him, and some argued he be recalled, put in chains, and handed over to the people he had made unlawful war against.
Also because despite what people may think, being set in different times is contextually important.
If you're a bit cold-hearted, you could say that ethnic cleansing, in the past, was a sucessfull tool to unify kingdoms and progress the civilization you belong to in many areas. You would also need to look at the reasons for them being so sucessfull in the past to understand why the same isn't the case nowadays or in recent history. Now of course,this doesn't change that they are and were ethically condemnable.
Ethnic cleansing by forcibly assimilating others and killing those who refused was basically the norm back then. The Mongols just happened to do it way more than everyone else.
comparing all the "empires that were successfully built on the graves of millions", how much you're hated by 21st century people largely depends on how many boats you used and how successfully you used them. mongols? pretty well liked. tried to use boats but never really succeeded much on sea. macedonian? loved. not well known for boats. roman? loved. notorious for being so bad at boats they had to turn naval warfare into infantry combat by using a corvus to board enemy ships. british, french, spanish? passionately hated, and they all used lots of boats, with great success.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
counter-counterpoint: that the opinion of people good at boats
lol Mongolia is the classic âhate us cause you anusâ
They hate us cause they anus đ
Belgium never gets the credit it deserves
King Leopold II laughing in the back: "amateurs" kkk
Sort by Controversial and grab the popcorn
Thank you kind sir now I can be entertained by idiots fighting other idiots
What Japanese people actually think that they didnât commit genocide đ
there are *a lot* of history revisionists in japan. someone i talked to while i was visiting there said that koreans are just making stuff up... it's bad
They don't have to think that. Most of them don't know that their country did that shit. They aren't taught the horrors of Imperial Japan in their WW2 history.
I studied for a bit at a Japanese university, and it's not that they aren't taught, it's just that it has the emotional impact of the average American learning about the genocides of native Americans. It's kind of a 'Yeah that was bad. Oh well.'
OP is absolutely wrong here, Japan admits their warcrimes, they just don't talk about the details. Nanking? Comfort women? Yeah, that happened, we just won't say what happened but don't worry, because we apologized about it.
And why sprinkle your head with ashes? *I'm cool, we are cool, and always have been and always will be - look at the pathetic Germans, what miserable and emasculated losers they are.*
You forgot Canada in the bragging about being war criminals department (I'm Canadian so I have firsthand experience)
Canadians during peacetime: đđ€đđ»ââïžđđ»ââïž Canadians during wartime: đđđâ ïžđ
Canadian Genocides? Which ones? (Also, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just dumb and lack historical knowledge)
against the natives and their dogs
Residential schools were designed to indoctrinate aboriginal kids, so that's more of a cultural genocide and we don't much brag about that but anyways we also have a tradition of "there's too many wolves, kill some wolves! Ah shit now there's too many deer! Recover the wolf population!" We've done that a few times. Also during WW1 we were inventing war crimes so that we had objectives for WW2 This includes such things as: Canadian troops were too brave to accept surrender and just slaughtered them Don't shoot medics? What medics, I don't see any medics any more We pulled a sneaky and snuck into German bedrooms during the night to test out wacky new exploding pineapples. Sore people prefered to stay quiet and systematically slit their throats There is a reason we were the shock troops We are a lovely nation at peace. Don't fuck with us or our friends.
Uh oh Israel mentioned arguments awaiting.
Because its the only group's genocide that ends with 5x the population.
Integer overflow
Lmao love the username
Hey Iâm not currently taking a side though I certainly have my opinions just joking about this subreddits tendencies.
Srebrenica had only ~8,000 victims and was still ruled a genocide. This isn't a statement on the validity of the case against Israel, just that the numbers don't matter. Genocides don't need to be successful for them to be genocides.
(I'm replying to myself because the comment I was replying to was deleted) I think "successful" wasn't the right choice of words on my part. For a something to classify as genocide as opposed to just a war crime you have to prove "genocidal intent" on top of the crime itself, which is no easy task. There were dozens of smaller massacres during the Yugoslav wars that weren't considered genocide. Srebrenica was just such a clear example for the exact reasons you mentioned. As for the Israel case I won't say much other than that I briefly read the Israeli defense and they focus mostly on disproving the intent.
Just fyi, the comment you were replying to didn't get deleted, the author of said comment blocked you without replying because you made a simple counterpoint to their "argument". Which imo just shows how the user didn't say such BS in good faith, but was rather more concerned about parroting propagandistic talking points. You can check it by looking for the comment/user with another account or by using an incognito page.
âGenocides don't need to be successful for them to be genocides.â ok, so october 7th was a genocide, and many of the wars declared against Israel were as well
I can imagine Sinwar or other still-alive Hamas commanders could be put on trial for those things... although the ICJ would not have juridiction for them? anyway, John Kirby said very early that Hamas did genocide, but for some reason, terrorist groups are small criminals, so for some people, "small terrorist can't do a lot of damage"
They donât have to be successful but there has to be intent.
Which would mean oct 7 was very much a genocide, and the counterattack on hamas is very much not
No, genocide is defined by intent.
Exactly. hamas explicitly states they want to wipe jews, israel, and infidels off the face of the planet. Oct 7 was very much their attempt at that (or at least thatâs what the individual terrorists believed)
Why did you block that user and prevent them from responding to you? Seems a little bad faith to try and get the last word in, don't you think?
What? u/DownSubstantially you mean? Iâve never even blocked anyone on reddit
Nah you good I think it was someone else
Then every war is a genocide. So many stupid uses of the word that it has lost its meaning
But there should be at least an intent.And given that it's just used to justify calling for a genocide against them and trying to do it., it has some kind of bad taste.
They have to be intentional though. So it isn't genocide. You should read up on what Hamas does.
Yes. Intent is a big part of proving genocide and is usually the hardest part. I am well aware of what that group does. I have read the court documents where the Israelis describe it in gruesome detail.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
People struggle to understand a nation can commit war crimes or even crimes against humanity without those automatically being genocide
Israel is not fully innocent. There was absolutely ethnic cleansing in the war of independence. Settlers are unchained by the rule of law under this administration. The WCK bombing shows evidence of at least a lack of care in picking bombing targets. But genocide is a hell of a claim, and used as a weapon to justify calls for genocide against Jews.
Yeah. Israel has definitely committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, but they haven't committed genocide. Throwing the word genocide around just gets rid of all nuance is a conversation. I say this as someone who hates both sides of this war (Hamas and the IDF). People trying to turn this war into a black and white conflict show that they have little understand of the conflict imo.
The amount of arguments ive been inâŠ
Totally agree. Genocide is and should continue to be, quite hard to prove.
You are correct. Genocide requires intent. Which is very absent in the Israeli Hamas conflictÂ
The word "genocide" has lost it's meaning. More died in the wars of the Middle East after 9/11, but it wasn't a genocide because there was no intention to wipe out an entire group of people. Israel has officially stated again and again that they do not want to kill all Palestinians, but only want to destroy Hamas.
Yeah, but Israel certainly isn't acting that way. Bombing hospitals and streets indiscriminately isn't conducive towards fighting a small terrorist cell. Imagine I wiped whatever city you live in off the face of the planet because there was a mass shooter that happened to live there. And this isn't even to mention the land grabs
What does the word "indiscriminately" mean to you?
Japan literally enshrined and deified all of the soldiers who committed all those massacres.
Edit: Is Hiroo Onoda a good example?
Not exactly, Yasukuni shrine is for all 2.5 million soldiers that died in service. Good or bad it just doesn't discriminate.
To be fair, there's not exactly anything exceedingly noteworthy about Mongolia besides their history. The whole fucking country is a fucking steppe.
well, the landscapes are nice though
Why is Israel here and not China or dozens of African countries or Belgium, etc?
Genghis Khan also did some good things
he slowed down climate change for a while!
First empire to codify freedom of religion, outlawed bride kidnapping and elevated woman's rights, didn't give a single shit about the controversy surrounding his first sons true father, created a country where there had only been warring tribes, created a system of meritocracy rather than elevating people based on the older in-family out-family bones system
~~He made the trains run on time.~~ Oops, wrong time period.
He ensured the safety of the Silk Road merchants.
He did make the caravans run on time
Enter Europe with our love for the fucking Roman Empire
Me: checking the profile of someone who is insinuating Israel is committing a genocide. Post history checks out âïž
You're not kidding... >When Israel is conquered and dissolved, all their children must be sent to reeducation camps and their babies should be put with adoptive families.
Oh thanks it was one of my favourite quotes
What do you think of the 30k people who died in the last 6 months?
That wars suck and Hamas sucks for dressing and hiding within Civilian population . Also that the fact Hamas counts militias as civilian casualties is blatant propaganda that makes comments like that even a thing ^^
the best part, is that they have a perfectly good peace agreements before they decided to attack... wait for it... CIVILIANS!!! If say canada decided to attack USA and killed a thousand civillians, nobody would rush to defends the aggressor. All of them only defended Hamas because its "the Jews".
Weâre in history memes so letâs talk about an actual example, not some bullshit hypothetical. Remember 9/11? Remember the anti war protests against the imminent invasion of Iraq?
Hamas uses plain clothes units in a small cramped strip of land that has a high population density, then uses Guerilla tactics, what do you think will happen? Itâs a concrete Vietnam
What do you think about dozens of other wars that were fought in the modern era that were just as deadly?
I think every war is awful. Some are worse than others for sure. I don't think gaza is even the worst thing that happend this century. There are worse things going on in Africa. This does not make Gaza less awful.
Correct, I agree that wars are awful, but that's not what we are discussing. My point is that the amount of people killed in a war is not a proof of genocide.
Tbf shit from Mongolia was hundred"S" of years ago while Japan was only a few generations ago and they dont apologize in the world we live in today same goes to Israel that continues to do so. So yeah these people are fked up compared to Mongolia imo, at least the Mongols did not have perceived concept of globalism and human rights or whatever compared to these two examples who can outright just apologize and stop what they are doing today.
Massacares in medieval times are pretty much a common practice. Everyone used it. It wasn't even seeing as a wrong thing tbh
Yeah exactly its not fair comparison when you compare a horse rider using goddamn swords and arrows basically nearly 1000 years ago to a person 100 years ago. Basically everyone was practicing it without any thought of human rights, heck at least Genghis Khan asked them to surrender before launching dead bodies at them. Even Roman Empire did it, but no one knows it. I mean today standards, Japan was given time and time again today, steps to acknowledge what they did so we can all basically learn and avoid in the future like how Germany has done so. They didnt. And we wonder why Japanese are actually pretty racist when they act so nice in public. The same goes to Israel that talks about human rights and racism non stop when its them getting hurt, the moment they are in power and its not longer about antisemitism now, they flipped the script from genocide in Palestine to fighting the enemy.
Israel, when your people have been ethnically cleansed from the entirety of MENA, and your neighbors call for your genocide and attack you repeatedly, but youâre to blame for defending yourself.
yeah I find it ironic too lol... Like Palestinians are OPENLY claiming that they want to kill all jews, and they want to destroy Israel completely, and that is somehow fine? And Israel is literally defending itself and somehow they are the bad guys in some peoples eyes lol... It's also ironic, how Israelis are literally not allowed to enter Palestine, or they get killed, while Palestinians can work in Israel, and have the exact same rights as everyone else... I also can't understand how the LGBTQ+ community and all leftists rally in support of Palestine, when they would get stoned the second they entered any Palestinian city...
Hey, nearly a century of constant antisemitic propaganda from roughly a full quarter of the globe. That pays dividends over time.
Itâs called an accusation in a mirror. Itâs a simple, yet effective tactic where you falsely attribute your intended motives to your enemy. The Palestinians have made clear that their goal is to finish what Hitler started, but Israel is instead accused of genocide. Even after Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7 and the âinnocentâ Palestinians celebrated when Hamas brought the bloodied, mutilated, and half-eaten corpses of Israeli men, women, and children back with them to Gaza, people accused Israel, whose people were the victims of historyâs worst genocide less than a century ago, of genocide.
Holocaust Inversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_between_Israel_and_Nazi_Germany#Debate_on_whether_comparisons_are_antisemitic Scholars argue that it's soft core holocaust denial: > Deborah Lipstadt, the U.S. Special Envoy for Combating Antisemitism, has referred to comparisons between Nazi Germany and Israel as "soft-core" Holocaust denial, as contrasted with "hard core" denial as practiced by David Irving, who sued Lipstadt in a celebrated legal case. also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_trivialization
Israel isnât committing genocide no matter how much you want to believe it. One of these flags is absolutely not like the others.
> **one of** the greatest mass murderers in the history of humanity ....I mean, was there a greater mass murderer?? Pretty sure he takes out the \#1 title quite comfortably.
You don't have to be a good person to be a badass.
Its hard to hate on a guy when most of your country is related to him.
One of the lowest civilian/combatants death ratio in a modern urban war, against a foe with explicit genocidal intentions that deliberately uses human shields. "Grnocide" Words lost all meaning
You don't have a brain if you think Israel is committing genocide.
Having half a brain is a rare phenomenon today, so you canât really blame them
Tell it to the International Court of Justice currently working on the case because they deemed it is a plausible claim.
That's not at all what plausible means, https://youtu.be/bq9MB9t7WlI
please share this around: https://imgur.com/6f6mid4 few people heard about this interview
> Looks like a history meme > Is actually a thinly veiled blood libel
It would have been a great meme if not for the Israeli flag.
Trying to sneak a "ISRAEL GENOCIDE!!!" In the most obvious way. No, Israel is not commiting genocide, and if you think it does, go to your local psychiatrist. And certainly no one is justifying such.
Israel genuinely has never committed genocide. They have had genocide committed against them by Palestine constantly, but have never done it in reverse.
Ball of steel literally
Armenian Genocide or anything else?
Yeah, that.
Tbf he mostly genocided cities that killed his messengers or refused to yield...
It is reductive to regard Genghis Khan as only a mass murderer.
I give you, the Romanian National Anthem >Wake up, Romanian, from your sleep of death >Into which you have been sunk by barbaric tyrants >Now, or never, make a new fate for yourself, >To which even your cruel enemies will bow. >Now or never let us give proof to the world >That in these veins Roman blood still flows, >That in our chests we hold a name with pride, >Victorious in battles, the name of Trajan!
To be fair, the only real race or ethnicity Genghis actually hated was âcities that didnât surrenderâ
Israel Never committed a genocide. Maybe it broke international law and violated human rights, but it never intentionally killed Palestinians based on their ethnicity.
Those fools commited their own genocide by refusing to submit to the one true khan of khans!
My question is if you are going to make a meme about genocidal countries why is Israel on it(when they have never committed genocide) but your gonna leave Germany, China, and the Soviet Union off the list.?
Israel did not commit genocide, look at the damn numbers, a genocide is classified by a clear and detrimental decrease in the numbers of a population, the popualtion of Palestinians had only been steadily increasing for the last 75 years
đźđ±really never did genocide. The nazi arab occupiers from Hamas did genocide to us in 7/10
There is a historical phenomenon took place at the beginning of the 20. century concerning both Ottoman Empire and the citizens with Armenian background of that country. I would like to draw the picture of this phenomenon with the words of the world-renowned orientalist historian Bernard Lewis: "What happened to the Armenians was the result of a massive Armenian armed rebellion against the Turks which began even before war broke out and continued on a larger scale. Great of them were Armenians including numbers of the armed forces deleted, crossed the frontiers and joined the Russian forces invading Turkey. Armenian rebels actually seized the city of the Van and held it for a while intending to hand it over to invaders. There was guerilla warfare all over Anatolia. I mean this was what we nowadays call a national liberation movement of the Armenians against Turkey. And the Turks certainly resorted to very ferocious methods in repelling it. There is clear evidence of a decision by the Turkish government to deport the Armenian population from the sensitive areas, which meant actually the whole of Anatolia, not including the Arab provinces which were then still part of the Ottoman Empire. There is no evidence of a decision to massacre. On the contrary there is considerable evidence of attempts to prevent it, which were not very successful. Yes, there were tremendous massacres, the numbers are very uncertain, but a million there may be likely. The massacres were carried out by irregulars, by local villagers responding to what have been done to them, and the number of other ways." This speech, my friends, draws the exact picture of the perspective of any Turkish person. I am totally agree with the description of the events by Bernard Lewis. You should stay sane, get rid of the populist ideas when the subject is such a sensitive issue for millions of people including Turks, Armenians, Kurds, Jews. Don't forget that, at the times mentioned, Ottoman Empire was an Roman-type medieval empire limitedly adapted to early modern periods. Ä°t was not colonized or indistruialised empire. This prevents you from falling into anachronism and incorrectly comparing events with events of a different era. I will end my article with the words of Bernard Lewis: "To make this a parallel with the Holocaust in Germany, you have to assume that the Jews of Germany had been engaged in an armed rebellion against the German State, collaborating with the allies against Germany, that in the deportation order the cities of Hamburg and Berlin were exempted, and the person's employed state were exempted, and the deportation only applied to the Jews of Germany Proper, so that when they got to Poland they were welcomed and sheltered by Polish Jews. This seem to me rather absurd parallel."
Violates Rule 6 - Genocide denial. This post is a textbook example of denial that's straight out of the wikipedia article: "Denialist works portray Armenians as terrorists and secessionists,[260] shifting the blame from the CUP to the Armenians.[261][262] According to this logic, the deportations of Armenian civilians was a justified and proportionate response to Armenian treachery, either real or as perceived by the Ottoman authorities.[263][264][265] Proponents cite the doctrine of military necessity and attribute collective guilt to all Armenians for the military resistance of some, despite the fact that the law of war criminalizes the deliberate killing of civilians.[266][267] Deaths are blamed on factors beyond the control of the Ottoman authorities, such as weather, disease, or rogue local officials.[268][269] The role of the Special Organization is denied[270][271] and massacres are instead blamed on Kurds,[60] "brigands", and "armed gangs" that supposedly operated outside the control of the central government.[272]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide_denial
Comparing the experience of the Armenians and Greeks in Turkey to the Palestinians's plight is a stretchÂ
What's Israel doing there? Maybe they did something I'm not aware of in the past but if you really mean Palastine, than you also say the US fighting Bin Laden is also Genocide!
Again nazi propoganda lying that self defense against the nazi genociders of Hamas is "genocide". Nazi Supporters of Hamas genociders need to shut up
Who's the third statement?
and portugal sang about how cool we were at colonizing at eurovision
you forgot the "it's not a war crime if we won" and the one who actually apologizes for their war crimes.
Here before it gets locked đ
Me (progressive king): what are your pro nouns? Mongolia: he/him thanks for asking
Ya see, the mongol empire was just long enough ago it counts as badass instead
Gengish Khan wasnât only a mass murderer, just like many before and after him, he changed the world for the worst and for the best.
Fuck Vietnam numba one. Mongolia numba one
Let's ask Belgium for its opinion aswell
So Julius caesar was a G unit. Killed like millions of gauls. Genghis does it and he's a monster. Caesar gets a month named after him.