Talk:Greek genocide

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2024

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)

Potential political propoganda in this article

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)

CONTINUATION 2026

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)

Kitroeff

Hi, I hate to wade into a contentious topic like this, but an IP did raise an important question---the views of Alexander Kitroeff on the question of genocide---which went unanswered two years back. The cite is a book review in which, as far as I can tell, Kitroeff summarizes the views of Caratzas/Hofmann et al. but does not come down definitively on one side or another ("The authors are operating on the assumption that these events constitute a 'genocide'.", p. 203). Kitroeff uses the word "genocide" in quotation marks throughout the review. This seems like a case of misrepresentation of cites to me, but leaving this and an fv tag to see if anyone disagrees. Theodore Christopher (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the tagged claim. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Photo of mutilated Greek woman teacher

Regarding the recent addition of this photo and text, which says "Members of a Kemalist unit pose for a photograph with their victim, a Greek female teacher… Her hands, breasts, and head were cut off before she was hanged by her feet". Are either of the sources WP:RS? I don't know them, but they don't seem very reliable as to exactly what is shown in the photo. I noted that the photo itself was sourced to what may have been an 'advocacy' site. It is of course very possible that the photo is genuinely of a victim, but the extent or character of her mutilation false or exaggerated, but perhaps not. I tend to think that WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies here, we should have strong sources as to the content of the photo. Pincrete (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I uploaded the photo. The source in Commons is a Pontic news site which sometimes publishes or reproduces good historical articles. In this case, it simply reproduces an article by Tessa Hofmann. I did some further research yesterday and found the photo mostly tracing back to her, so I emailed her for more information about it. As a historian of the genocides, I'm sure she has access to some information we don't so if she replies, I'll let you know! I do not mind removing the image or replacing it in the process though, if you believe that it's warranted. Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think removal is warranted while we find out if the text can be verified. I'm very conscious that exaggerated 'atrocity claims' are often attached to even seriously grotesque events, even in our own time when there is better coverage. Pincrete (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello again! We found some conflicting information regarding the dating, the origins and the context of the image. I have removed it based on that, for now. I will keep you updated if any more information comes out. Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

On the Section "Genocide as a model for future crimes"

The section deals with how the Nazis perceived Kemal. At the end of the article its pointed out that kemal did not think of hitler the way hiler thought of him . I think one needs to add Ihrigs own words: "The Nazi vision of Atatürk’s New Turkey was a highly selective one. Almost everything that conflicted with Nazi ideals and goals was either downplayed or ignored. The emancipation of women was one such topic; it was mentioned in passing but not deemed more noteworthy. Atatürk’s rather peaceful foreign policy was purposefully misunderstood. When it comes to the state of government under Atatürk, the Nazis saw a powerful leader governing through a one-party system, which for them was the only viable alternative to what they perceived as decadent Western democracy." https://armenianweekly.com/2015/10/30/hitler-ataturk/

SCTJC (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is about the Gk genocide. The extent to which Nazis imitated Turkey iro of their racial policies is clearly relevant 'aftermath', but how they differed from Turkey iro other policies and whether Turkey reciprocated the admiration starts to go off-topic IMO.

I've actually slightly 'pruned' the content and renamed the section. What about your proposed additions isn't presently covered do you think? To me it seems already to be made clear that the Nazis used Turkey's genocidal acts as a model (according to Ihrig), but any admiration was not reciprocated by Ataturk. Pincrete (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

This may be out of topic for this article. But anyway, the Nazis had reasons to misunderstand or misrepresent Kemalism as an ideology. Despite its authoritarian elements, Kemalism was a movement towards secularization and modernisation. Nazism was in many ways reactionary as an ideology, and largely inherited Völkisch nationalism's rejection of "soulless materialism, individualism and secularised urban industrial society". The ideologies were moving into much different directions. Dimadick (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, also matters like emancipation of women and secularization set out from very different base positions, as well as in different directions. Pincrete (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

References