Rise of neo-nazi Golden Dawn in Greece

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
I pointed this out to civ in the sb.

btw i want them to succeed :)
 

balai_c

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
420
Likes
462
^^ Alexander's so called invasion has two versions in existence today , one run by European chauvinists , according to whom Alexander had a bloody but emphatic victory, and he magnanimously granted Puru's freedom, and rode into the sunset; another version by Indian nationalists , where Alexander actually lost and left India with his tail neatly tucked between his legs. Anyway , since history is all about versions, let people choose what they want to believe. This topic is already has been discussed to death in this very forum , so no point beating a dead horse around.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
thats a really long time ago . but marauding turkish hordes migrating from central asia changed all that . the seljuk turkish sultan alp arslan defeated the greek army of emperor romanus diogenes in 1071 in the battle of manzikert and conquered anatolia from the greeks . partly out of policy and partly out of sheer barbarism the turks changed the entire topography of anatolia converting it into a dust bowl from a settled agricultural land . the majority of the formerly greek population of anatolia pershed in this .

later the turks founded the ottoman state in anatolia and under sultan mahmud the conqueror invaded and conquered constantinople and massacred its greek population and also conquered greece . constantinople was renamed istanbul .
Bombastic and mostly false version of history. The Turks hardly converted Anatolia into a "dust bowl"; such a description would better describe the conquests of the Mongols and, later, the Timurids. The economic foundation of the Anatolian Turkish beyliks and the Ottoman Empire was agriculture and trade, not nomadism like that of Central Asians. This is unsurprising considering that modern Turks have largely European and Middle Eastern ancestry, with only a 9-15% genetic contribution from Central Asia. In other words, what this means is that the modern-day Turks (as well as the Turks of the Ottoman era) are largely Turkicized Anatolians rather than the direct descendants of Central Asian nomads. Several studies have confirmed this, here is one:

Turkish Population Structure and Genetic Ancestry Reveal Relatedness among Eurasian Populations - Hodoğlugil - 2012 - Annals of Human Genetics - Wiley Online Library


As for the Turks "massacring" the Greeks of Anatolia, you should know that there was a huge Greek population in Anatolia until the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922 and the subsequent population exchange between Greece and Turkey (see Population exchange between Greece and Turkey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Since there are relatively few ethnic differences between the Turks and Greeks of Asia Minor, due to their largely common ancestry (as alluded to above), the population exchange was done based on religion. Those who were Muslims were identified as Turks, those who were Orthodox Christians were identified as Greeks.

It wasn't until the 19th-20th centuries that ethnic and religious minorities of the erstwhile Ottoman Empire were persecuted on a large scale. This increasing persecution, coupled with the rise of Turkish nationalism and radical groups like the Young Turks, led to genocides against peoples like the Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrians by the Turks. This is especially sad because the Ottoman Empire at its height in the 15th-17th centuries was well-known for its tolerance of minorities. Istanbul, for example, had one of the largest Jewish communities in the world with 30,000 Jews and 44 synagogues, and many Jews facing persecution in various parts of Europe settled en masse in Turkey.


BTW, if you are trying to make us empathize with the Greeks due to their experience of being conquered by Muslims, there is no need. I already have great respect for Yavanas and their ancient civilization. All they need to do is get rid of these neo-Nazi wankers and we can see a real Arya-Yavana bhai bhai. :tea:
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,590
^^ Alexander's so called invasion has two versions in existence today , one run by European chauvinists , according to whom Alexander had a bloody but emphatic victory, and he magnanimously granted Puru's freedom, and rode into the sunset; another version by Indian nationalists , where Alexander actually lost and left India with his tail neatly tucked between his legs. Anyway , since history is all about versions, let people choose what they want to believe. This topic is already has been discussed to death in this very forum , so no point beating a dead horse around.
hmm ... I think Westerners have more or less accepted the Indian version. Michael Wood made a 4 part docu drama for BBC on Alexander which actually traces his life and conquests. They pretty much acknowledge that Alexander was given his life back as bakshish after being mortally wounded.

In fact Michael Wood's fascination for India started after he made that series and then he went on to make the series on India.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
^^ Alexander's so called invasion has two versions in existence today , one run by European chauvinists , according to whom Alexander had a bloody but emphatic victory, and he magnanimously granted Puru's freedom, and rode into the sunset; another version by Indian nationalists , where Alexander actually lost and left India with his tail neatly tucked between his legs. Anyway , since history is all about versions, let people choose what they want to believe. This topic is already has been discussed to death in this very forum , so no point beating a dead horse around.
I have to believe what happened to Colin Farrell.:lol:
 

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
I think after the disastrous show of the Golden Dawn spokesperson on TV and with his women slapping and all, they are going to suffer a decline.

Remember, before the crises, they didn't get more than 0.2% of the popular vote. Now suddenly they got 8%. So with the backlash of the TV appearance, it could well back to the 4-5% mark. But they will be around until the crises exists.
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
Europe is screwed. There are similar ultra facist groups in France and Spain. Germany is seeing a Neo Nazi revival. And England is seeing a soccer thug loot spree :laugh:. Gotta love the Europeans. Well, the peace lasted 60 years now, time for more slaughter.
civ is right, when the money dries up, its easier for wank jobs to organize a few people and pull off shit.
Do not enjoy the schadenfreude.

I am expecting this to happen in India too. Make no mistake. Right wing, neo nazi etc whatever. But India is equally fcuked. And things will get a lot worse in India before it gets really worse in western Europe. Though the recovery in India will be faster, are you prepared for the coming exigency.
 

ashdoc

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
2,980
Likes
3,682
Country flag
Bombastic and mostly false version of history. The Turks hardly converted Anatolia into a "dust bowl"; such a description would better describe the conquests of the Mongols and, later, the Timurids. The economic foundation of the Anatolian Turkish beyliks and the Ottoman Empire was agriculture and trade, not nomadism like that of Central Asians. This is unsurprising considering that modern Turks have largely European and Middle Eastern ancestry, with only a 9-15% genetic contribution from Central Asia. In other words, what this means is that the modern-day Turks (as well as the Turks of the Ottoman era) are largely Turkicized Anatolians rather than the direct descendants of Central Asian nomads. Several studies have confirmed this, here is one:

Turkish Population Structure and Genetic Ancestry Reveal Relatedness among Eurasian Populations - HodoÄŸlugil - 2012 - Annals of Human Genetics - Wiley Online Library


As for the Turks "massacring" the Greeks of Anatolia, you should know that there was a huge Greek population in Anatolia until the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922 and the subsequent population exchange between Greece and Turkey (see Population exchange between Greece and Turkey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Since there are relatively few ethnic differences between the Turks and Greeks of Asia Minor, due to their largely common ancestry (as alluded to above), the population exchange was done based on religion. Those who were Muslims were identified as Turks, those who were Orthodox Christians were identified as Greeks.

It wasn't until the 19th-20th centuries that ethnic and religious minorities of the erstwhile Ottoman Empire were persecuted on a large scale. This increasing persecution, coupled with the rise of Turkish nationalism and radical groups like the Young Turks, led to genocides against peoples like the Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrians by the Turks. This is especially sad because the Ottoman Empire at its height in the 15th-17th centuries was well-known for its tolerance of minorities. Istanbul, for example, had one of the largest Jewish communities in the world with 30,000 Jews and 44 synagogues, and many Jews facing persecution in various parts of Europe settled en masse in Turkey.


BTW, if you are trying to make us empathize with the Greeks due to their experience of being conquered by Muslims, there is no need. I already have great respect for Yavanas and their ancient civilization. All they need to do is get rid of these neo-Nazi wankers and we can see a real Arya-Yavana bhai bhai. :tea:
i am only telling what is the commonly accepted version of history . even if we accept that majority of turks are greek converts to islam that does not mean that the greeks weren't persecuted . in fact , just like indian muslims are products of forcible conversion to islam the anatolian turks are products of forcible islamisation and turkicisation by means of terrible mass massacres rape of women and wholescale destruction of cities towns and villages .

when the turks settled in anatolia they were nomads . only later they became agriculturalists . if they were not nomads why would they migrate from central asia to anatolia at all ??

there was a greek population in anatoilia before the greek turkish war but it was not as huge as you say . most of the greeks lived on the coastline , but here too they were outnumbered by the turks . in the interior of anatolia there were hardly any greeks .

you should read what the people of the balkans say about turkish rule there and that will change your views about turkish treatment of minorities . the greeks serbians croatians bulgarians romanians say that living under turkish rule was a horror beyond comparison . their small children were kidnapped to to taken to serve in the sultans regiments as janissaries after being converted to islam and their young girls were sent to the sultan's and his officers' harems.....

jews were deliberately mollycoddled by the turks because their abilities brought money into the empire , but above all because they were persecuted by the christians in europe they were naturally considered as allies by the turks---enemy's enemy is friend......
 

ashdoc

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
2,980
Likes
3,682
Country flag
Why? I find your attitude truly disturbing.
if there is god in the universe the greeks should one day recapture constantinople ( istanbul ) . after all it is constantinople which is the true capital of the greek state not athens , and the largest church in the world saint sophia ( which has been converted into a mosque by the turks by adding minarets and is called aya sophia ) is in istanbul .
 

Illusive

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
3,674
Likes
7,312
Country flag
Had Alexander the Great not died earlier some Indian nationalists might have another whipping boy aside from England... Hahaha! :peace:
Wrong, he retreated:namaste:

Skip to 40:00
 
Last edited by a moderator:

balai_c

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
420
Likes
462
^^ The above video is basically a rehash of the western point of view. A History channel video, we can understand what the inference would be. It repeats the same old hat of the " tactical brilliance of Alexander The great" as a western conquering hero , thrashing the primitive Indians. It completely ingnores and omits put any description of the Indian battle plan , or how Porus, a small Indian king fought the mightiest hero of the Ancient Europe, and practically defeated him (if we accept the Western version). This part of history is completely omitted out.
 
Last edited:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top