Answer me this /his/

They genocided all non-turks and became turkey

WWI happened.

> empire
> same country

>>2345148
So what's the difference then? Ottomans were turks + some non-turks, and then they were only turks, and then they proceeded to just call their country turkey because they were now only turks?

I'd say that Atatürk helped to form a specific new Turkish identity in a new, secular nation. So much was new.

>>2345156
Not that guy but it seems you need to read up on the nature of nation states and empires. But to answer your question, they also had a bunch of land taken away post ww1 which formed many of the modern middle eastern states

>>2345183
I mean, a new government-form and a new name, minus a lot of land that they had conquered before, what's the difference beside this? I know I'm kind of asking to get an easy answer for a complicated history, but in essence I just want to know if I can regard ottomans as the "old turkey" or whatever.

>>2345226
>in essence I just want to know if I can regard ottomans as the "old turkey" or whatever.

Yes.

File: 3433247.jpg (89KB, 668x497px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 668x497px

>>2345242
Thanks.

I will leave this thread to die now. May it rest in peace.

when all else failed the core, turks, that created the ottoman empire turned to nationalism
after leading a victorious war against the allies mustafa kemal recreated turkey according to his own ideals

>>2345156
>>2345160
>Sort of both
/trv/ here - went backpacking and saw numerous museums:

Once they lost WWI a rising class (Ataturk among them) saw themselves as backward and vulnerable. This was not a uniform conclusion so it played out with elements of "Enlightened Facism" - the state took huge powers for itself issuing laws on education (of women; of non-Koranic content), culture (no silly hats; alcohol; prostitution) and mandated changes to identity ( surnames). They required the anchoring kernel of a would-be ethically/linguistically pure nation state to support this, a heartland from Izmir to Van in a line from west to east. The Istanbul peninsula was a rich, developed bonus and a defensive portal to Europe proper.

The non-Turkish speaking parts south of modern Turkey were mostly valuable as contiguous sea ports (and taken during peace negotiations). British Palestine became an shitshow and the Sultan as Caliph/Defender of the Faith collected a lot of Islam swag in Istanbul anyway. The national museum has all sorts of sword, clothing, scrolls that supposedly belong to Mohammed as well as pieces of building materials that are supposedly from the little black box in Mecca that people walk around. The museums' claims for the relics seem over-the-top but they have special rules about speaking and photographs and there is extra security in case somebody decides to steal them and kill an infidel or two on the way out the door.

Immediately after the war the borders were very fuzzy but everyone knew things weren't looking good. Forced deportations, formal population exchanges and outright genocide occurred to purify the Greek and Armenia borders on the west and east respectively. In the south, Britain wanted Iraq for the oil and France got Syria/Lebanon quid pro quo. Nobody really wanted Saudi Arabia except for proximity to Suez and in fact when oil was eventually would it was in the western region near Iran (with American rather than British investment).

>>2345302
...and the Kurds got mixed up in all of this and have been pissed ever since.

Turkey, Atatürk were at war with the Ottomans, so modern Turkey is not a continuation of that failed state

bump for more