Talk:Greek genocide

"It was perpetrated by the government of the Ottoman Empire led by the Three Pashas and by the Government of the Grand National Assembly led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, against the indigenous Greek population of the Empire. " so your only source is one greek source to involve Ataturk into this? resentful national feelings towards outcome of the Turkish-Greek war during Turkish liberation? I know that writing history objectively is very difficult. However whenever i come across this type of hate propaganda or any other form of political religious agenda which divides nations and people even more i get seriously disappointed into Wikipedia. 2A01:E0A:C19:D150:E598:3B76:A591:F6F6 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@2A01:E0A:C19:D150:E598:3B76:A591:F6F6 Turkey is isolated country and many Turcs are brainwashed by the government with Turkish nationalism like Greeks are brainwashed by their own government with Greek nationalism. Only reason you are not having serious problems in this page is that Turcs cannot speak English. It is shameful to feed on two nation's pain in close history and hatred. Ataturk was a great leader with modern ideas, vision and world peace, equality in mind. You don't only trick the world to take your subjective point of view when you write things like that, you also divide people even more and contribute into continuation of this quarrel. I felt like i should have elaborated what i meant by hatred and political agendas. 2A01:E0A:C19:D150:E598:3B76:A591:F6F6 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The historian, Alexander Kitroeff, is cited as supporting the contention that the events in question constituted genocide ("The historians Samuel Totten and Paul R. Bartrop, who specialize on the history of genocides, also call it a genocide; so is Alexander Kitroeff.") The footnote appears to quote him. But in fact it quotes a historian he is quoting in his extremely balanced and nuanced book review, in which he concludes that "Beyond what it achieves, this volume does not neutralize the concerns raised by those who believe the term genocide is not appropriate." 134.173.80.215 (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Below the table "Total population figures for the Ottoman Greeks of Anatolia" in the Section labelled "Balkan Wars to World War I", there is a "clarification needed" tag in the second sentence of the paragraph.

For clarification, change the sentence to:

"The Ottoman government adopted a "dual-track mechanism" whereby official government acts were accomanied by unofficial "covert, extralegal but state-sponserd acts of terror [committed] under the protective umbrella provided by the official state policies" (Akçam 2012, p. 30.), thereby allowing the Ottoman government to deny responsibility for and prior knowledge of this campaign of intimidation, emptying Christian villages."

"[committed]" was altered from "were committed" for clarity. FSchoeppner (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like to note that multiple Wikipedia users have engaged in lengthy discussions on this article, each to prove their own points. This is a contential topic as both side (Turks and Greeks) seems to include substantial side of their story. However, for clarification, this series of events named under "Pontic" or "Greek genocide" needs to be included to cover only the years of 1914-1918. Any reference to suggest it occurred aftermath could suggest potential political proganda. This is because the Ottoman Empire did not have effective government at that time, and the nationalist ideologies of the rules could be argued to have contributed to atrocities against minorities throughout the Empire.

However, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk initiated War of Indepedence effectively in an attempt of self-defence on the basis of consistent and systemic attacks committed by Greek and Armenian groups in Anatolia, and especially in the Black Sea Region (Pontus in Greek). Which is why Ataturk choose to land in Samsun to directly address this anti-Turkish sentiment from the core, and to unify Turks against the Wilsonian principles forced to be perpetrated by US, and western governments in an attempt to partitiom the Empire into multiple parts. Wilsonian principles introduced by the then US-president Wilson was introduced with the aim of taking advantage of the strategic position of Anatalia, in the pretext of "self-determination".

Therefore, to cover the years beyond 1919 simply suggest that there is also a thing called "Russian genocide" due to Russians killed as a result of Russians invading Ukraine unlawfully, contrary to international law. Lumberrr (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

"the nationalist ideologies of the rules" Which rules are you talking about? Dimadick (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

A big issue I see in the pro-genocide argument is that the way sources are treated isn’t consistent. Justin McCarthy gets dismissed pretty quickly because he’s seen as biased, but then someone like Rummel is used without the same level of criticism even though his numbers are also debated and often on the higher end. You can’t really pick and choose like that depending on what supports your argument. A lot of the scholars who call it genocide come from genocide studies, not specifically Ottoman history. And even within genocide studies, there isn’t full agreement people like Manus Midlarsky and Donald Bloxham don’t call it Genocide. On the IAGS and their 2007 recognition: The organization itself has been criticized for how it operates. Its membership is broad and not strictly limited to specialists, and these resolutions are often passed with only a fraction of members actually voting. So calling it “overwhelming consensus” is misleading from the start.

On top of that, there have been internal criticisms about lack of debate and transparency, and even splits in the field partly because some scholars felt the organization was moving too far into political declarations instead of sticking to academic work. It raises questions about how these statements are produced in the first place.

And finally, there’s the methodological issue. Critics have pointed out that in some cases the IAGS applies the genocide label quite loosely or relies on contested interpretations. Its basically a host for diaspora groups and many experts have said it as well: Here are experts who have criticized the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) and resolutions:Alan Dershowitz,Eli Rosenbaum,Elliot Malin,Izabella Tabarovsky,Jeffrey Herf,Jeffrey Mausner,Norman J.W. Goda,Salo Aizenberg and Sara E. Brown. I would like to add that Andrekos varnava has also said that the 353.000 is baseless. he calculates that from 1914 to 1923 around 300.000 to 350.000 greeks died in general in asia minor so 353.000 greekd dying alone in pontus is simply not possible lmao. I would also like to add that the King crane commision was sent in 1919 by the us and they heavily questioned the narrative made by venizelos. 1. they explicit denied that greeks were a majority in any way something venizelos claimed at the paris peace conference. They also questioned the scale of the greek Deportations during ww1. They states the situation of the greeks is differant than that of the armenians. They have said while greeks were deported and massacred it was in no way similar to armenians. Venizelos claimed that the greeks in anatolia were in direct danger of annihaltion and only an invasion would protect them. King crane found out it was baseless. they said the greeks would only be in grave danger if greece invaded symrna. Another Thing i want to say is about Tessa hoffman she talks about the 1913 Eastern thrace Deportations of greeks and argues it was the start of the genocide. The main issue is that Hofmann frames the 1913 events in Eastern Thrace as a "cumulative genocide" this one-sided, evil plan to wipe out Greeks. But the King-Crane commission, which was actually there on the ground shortly after, tells a completely different story. They called it a "fair exchange of population.": The report explicitly states that what happened was a "fair exchange of population." It notes that for every Greek who left Thrace, an "approximately equal number of Turks" migrated from territories recently conquered by Greece. By focusing only on the Greek departure, Hofmann ignores the massive displacement of Muslims that preceded or triggered it.The commission accused Greek advocates of submitting biased statistics. The report found that even before 1912, Greeks were only 42% of the population. By 1914, after the arrival of Turkish refugees from the Balkans, the Greek population was likely less than 25%. Hofmann’s "genocide" narrative relies on inflated figures that ignore the reality of a Turkish majority. SCTJC (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC)