Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 73

Thread: Armenian Genocide

  1. #1
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    11,976

    Armenian Genocide

    Found this thread on the Armenian Genocide, found it rather interesting.

    Subject: Armenian Genocide Myth
    Posted By: Yahac New Guy

    Posted At: 12/20/03 2:49
    Reply
    20th Century has been witness to shameful acts of crime against humanity. It is common knowledge that the Nazi Germany annihilated defenseless Eastern European Jews during World War II period. However, there have been claims that the victimization of Armenians during World War I was actually the very first act of genocide during the last century. In fact, Armenian Diaspora frequently suggested that Turks have committed genocide against them during the World War I period. But Turks vehemently reject such claim.

    At the turn of the 20th century Armenians were citizens of nearly 600 year-old decaying Ottoman Empire. The Islamic State, established by Ottoman Turks, was home to millions of Muslims and Christians of different races living side by side in peace for centuries. However, during the Industrialization Period in Europe the ideals of liberte et egalite of the French Revolution quickly became influential within the truly cosmopolitan Turkish empire with the help of European powers who wished to partition the vast dominions for themselves.

    At the end of the 19th century while European powers were racing with each other for recognition and domination, Ottoman Empire was struggling for its survival. Imperial Russia relentlessly pursued wars with Ottomans for over a century in order to gain access to warm waters while British kept them in check by helping Ottomans from time to time not to relinquish all powers to the Czars who masterfully utilized Ottoman minorities to revolt against the Sultans. Weakened from within, Ottoman government could no longer control the Greeks, the Serbs and other European minorities as new nations began to emerge through series of revolutions.

    When Kaiser's Germany rose as the new power of Europe British changed sides in favor of Russia and this ultimately tipped the balance of power against the Ottomans. Recognizing the strength and the resilience of Ottoman Armenians the Czar pushed them to revolt within the Ottoman State while the Russian army supported by Armenian volunteers was directly engaged with Ottoman forces.

    The results of the Armenian revolts spelled human tragedies in eastern Anatolia. While Armenian Diaspora frequently condemns Turks for the massacres of their people Turkish casualties have always been neglected in convenience.

    At the time of World War I the total Armenian population within Ottoman Empire has been tabulated around 1.5 million not only by official Ottoman sources but also by the British, the French and other Western sources. Nevertheless, Armenians always claimed that nearly 1.5 million Armenians were deliberately killed by Turks. If so, Armenians in Armenia clearly should have been extinct today.

    Both Turkish and Western historians show Armenian losses to be around 600,000 during the tragedy years of the early part of the 20th century. Meanwhile historical facts point out that Turks had nearly five times more losses due to Armenian campaigns in eastern Anatolia and Caucasus under Russian supervision.

    What occurred in eastern Anatolia was no different in the Caucasus, the Crimea, and the Balkans. As early as the beginnings of the 19th century all these lands were heavily populated by Turks. But Russian campaigns have literally exterminated Turks from these lands with the help of local nationals such as the Greeks, the Serbs, the Bulgars, the Ukrainians, and so on. However, Anatolian campaign was different because Armenians, who were literally used as peons by the Czar, were not majority in any part of Anatolia, which has been the home for the Turks for nearly a millennium.

    During the Russian invasion of eastern Anatolia and Caucasus, Turks suffered innumerable casualties by wild Armenian bands. By taking advantage from the lack of authority of the central government Armenians plundered Turkish population. However, at first opportunity Ottoman government decided to relocate Anatolian Armenian population to another part of the empire in order to put a stop to the senseless bloodshed.

    However, the decision and the following act of relocation of 1915 has been interpreted by Armenians and their supporters in the Western World as the intent and the act of genocide of Armenians. For obvious reasons it is not surprising to see that there is so much support for such claim in countries like France, Italy, and the United States.

    By the end of the 19th century the United States had received multitudes of Armenian immigrants from Ottoman domains. Many already had significant wealth, as Armenians were the richest minority within the Ottoman Empire. America became a fertile ground to establish the roots of the Armenian Diaspora fighting for an independent Armenian state within Ottoman real estate.

    Similarly France also took multitudes of Armenian immigrants who eventually became politically influential as they did in the United States. As opposed to listening to common sense and paying attention to national interests politicians remained under intense influence of lobbyists forces to formally accept the claim of genocide.

    Significant amount of damaging information against Turks came from American Ambassador Morgenthau who served until 1916 in Istanbul, the capital city of the Ottomans. Ambassador Morgenthau however never personally investigated the sites of alleged crimes against Armenians. Instead he received all of his information from his two aides working in the embassy. The aides were both of Armenian descent. All the information provided by these two Armenians were all taken at their face value. In addition, records have shown the prejudice of the ambassador against the Turks.

    Despite the fact American politicians fashionably keep using the comments of Ambassador Morgenthau to blame Turks, historians in most part do not accept such historical records as credible reports of history.

    Similarly most Armenian sympathizers have used the accounts of British Ambassador Lord Bryce and British Historian Arnold Toynbee as proof of Armenian genocide. Both these British characters, contemporaries of Ambassador Morgenthau, never produced credible and irrefutable proofs for an act of genocide committed by Turks. Once again, most distinguished historians agree that such works were a product of a wartime propaganda against the Ottomans.

    Clearly there had to be motives to pursue a defamation campaign against the Turks. The explanation in this article will be, however, an oversimplification of a complex case, which needs to be scrutinized.

    World War I was between the Central Powers of Germany and Austria against the Allied Powers (a.k.a. Entente) of Britain, France, and Russia. The clear aim of the war was an obvious power struggle within Europe. However, when the Ottoman Empire made a mortal mistake of entering the war on the side of Central Powers another goal arose for the Entente Powers; this was about an intent to partition the Turkish Empire.

    Shortly after the Ottomans entered the war multiple but well known Secret Treaties occurred between the Allied Power nations to partition the wealth of the Ottoman domains well before the clear outcome of the war. Although Armenians played a crucial role in the war for the purposes of the Entente, they were never included within the schemes of the partitioning.

    When the war ended, it became clear that the Allied Power nations had disagreements amongst themselves in terms of dividing up the Ottoman loot. As the bickering continued at Paris Conference in 1920, Armenian delegation leader Boghos Nubar Pasha served his protest to the Allied Powers for being ignored in the partitioning process while Americans, the late participator in the war, tried to play a neutral role in determining the fate of the vanquished Turks. The loser Germany was nearly kept intact, but the Turkish State was effectively rendered ineffective.

    With its historical wealth the capital city of Istanbul was taken by the British. The western Anatolia was given to Greeks. The southeastern Anatolia was quickly taken by the Italians who were angry for losing the Western lands to Greeks against the capitulations of the previously signed Secret Treaties. While the French took over the troublesome southeastern Anatolia, the British also took oil rich areas of Ottoman domains. Russia was already out of the partitioning picture since the Bolshevik Revolution, which caused the dethroning of the Czar, occurred well before the end of the war.

    Armenians were just allowed to take over the northeastern corner of Anatolia while Turks were no longer allowed to form their government. Under these extremely difficult circumstances Turks rose under the leadership of the future founder of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk), and eventually in 1923 established a sovereign state known as Turkey. The new government denounced the authority of the Sultan in Istanbul and this effectively ended the existence of nearly six-century-old empire.

    Eager to prove Turkish guilt of the alleged Armenian genocide, in 1920 the victorious British gathered most prominent Ottoman Turkish officials at the Malta War Crimes Tribunal. After all they had the implicating records of Ambassador Morgenthau, Ambassador Lord Bryce and historian Arnold Toynbee. However, as British investigations digged deeper into the claim of Armenian genocide, even with the fruitless help of the American government, the tribunal campaign began to shape up as a face losing effort for the British. The official Ottoman archives being at the full disposal of the occupying forces did not reveal a shred of evidence for the claim of alleged genocide. As a result, the investigators concluded that there was no genocide and the detainees were released free of all charges.

    Even though there was never clear-cut evidence to implicate Turks for Armenian genocide, Armenian Diaspora could never let go their claim. Even today the motive did not change from what it used to be; Armenian extremists still dream of capturing a piece of the Turkish real estate along with compensation for material Armenian losses during the war.

    Wrongfully Armenians and their sympathizers equate Armenian dilemma to that of Eastern European Jewish sufferings. The supporters of the genocide claim try to justify their efforts by showing the illegitimate recognition of the alleged genocide by some European nations and the United States.

    Such so-called official recognition is illegitimate because these acknowledgments were made by political pressures created especially during elections years in these nations. Furthermore, it is not coincidence to see that such unfortunate recognitions are made by the very countries that were members of the Allied Powers accusing the Ottoman government of calculated mass massacres of Armenians.

    As much as they did nearly 85 years ago but today as well, both Armenian Diaspora and the supporting cast of today's version of Entente still ignore the intricacies of the tragedies that began with Armenian treason followed by Armenian relocation and ending with Turkish retaliation. There was no question that Armenians instigated terror in Anatolia by massacring their Turkish neighbors under the umbrella of Russian officers. But as Turks did not give in as it was hoped, the events became more complex, and they eventually led to mutual tragedies.

    It is crystal clear that casualties occurred as a result of a bloody civil war between the two peoples. The Western nations, such as France, Italy, Australia, and United States, as members of the old Entente, perhaps feeling the guilt for not upholding their promises to the Armenians for their service against the Ottoman government, are now trying to redeem themselves by distorting historical facts and thereby desecrating history.

    The truth is in the eye of the beholder. The parties who are after the pursuit of fallacies are not interested in the truth nor will they ever be. The ultimate goal is still an attempt to revive now defunct Sevres Treaty, which would have given eastern half of modern day Turkey to Armenia as a reward for Armenian service against the Ottoman government. This was a promise to the Armenians made by the Entente but it was never upheld because no one could have ever imagined that Turks under the leadership of Ataturk, against all odds, would have eventually defy the strength of the Entente and refuse to give up their right for self determination.

    As long as the Armenian Diaspora and its supporters continue to uphold the claim of the alleged genocide Turks will never accept the guilt for a crime their ancestors never committed. Besides, ignoring the higher number of casualties caused by Armenians is an insult to the Turkish nation. The suggestion that Turks are in denial is preposterous, as this is totally baseless claim. It is not Turks who are in denial but Armenians who would like cover up their shameful act of treason.

    If it were not for such treacherous deed today Armenians and Turks perhaps would have been in peace, and innumerable souls could have been spared. Neither side is absolutely innocent. For an action there was a counter-action. Against Armenian aggression there was response from Turkish vigilantes at first opportunity. The resulting tragedies created deep wounds that now need to be mended and not aggravated by inflammatory actions of the Armenian Diaspora and the provocating outside forces.

    Common ground can be found by acknowledging the losses of both sides. The tragedies that occurred in Anatolia in the early part of 20th century should not be looked as a one sided event as one should remember that there are always two sides to a coin. Peace and prosperity between the two wounded nations can be achieved by burying the hatred.
    Subject: It's not unsupported.
    Posted By: The Duchess of Zeon Her Grace

    Posted At: 12/20/03 5:59
    Reply

    Did you know that coastal Rumania, the Danube Delta, and Bulgaria, they all used to have majority Turkish populations? They're all dead now, slaughtered in the 19th century. We forget things like that. There is no such thing as a Bulgarian--the Bulgarians of history were wiped out centuries ago and assimilated, and the modern Bulgarian State is entirely a construct of the Great Powers, particularly Russia, in a region that used to have a majority Muslim population.

    A nuanced understanding of history is appropriate in context and it's not right to view Islam as an endless history of advance and slaughter, as someone people are now trying to do, particularly in the blogosphere. The Russians were especially aggressive against Muslims in the Caucasus region, just like they are still today busy depopulating Chechnya--they did the same thing in Tsarist times, and supported the Christians of the Ottoman Empire against its rulers. The result was civil conflict, never organized genocide; the Armenians fought and killed indescriminately, and the Turks fought back and killed indescriminately.

    The main thing is calling the imprisonment of Turkish officials on Malta a "War Crimes Tribunal"; it was never really that formal, I think, though there were plans to charge them IIRC.

    I can substantiate all of this, but it might take a fair bit of time, and really it's not my argument but Yahac's; you're correct that he should support his claims with sources. However, it cannot really be called a rant, more of an appeal of some kind. I'm just not sure why it was posted here.
    Subject: I don't think the Armenian issue is that big of a deal.
    Posted By: The Duchess of Zeon Her Grace

    Posted At: 12/20/03 13:35
    Reply


    Since, to put it quite bluntly, no matter what really happened, there are no more Armenians to speak of in Turkey and no reason to worry about what happened eighty years ago when there are much more pressing issues in the region. Even if Congress did pass these resolutions, there would be a few spats between Turkey and the USA and then everyone would get over and things would go on; they would because Turkey has de facto control of all Turkey; there are no Armenians there who want an Armenian State out of Turkey or any other issue to discuss out of it.

    Of course, there already is an Armenian State, and it has its own problems--with Azerbaijan. The same applies to the Kurds these days; the Kurds lost their war and people can argue the morality of what went on all day long but unless some foreign power actively tries to do something about it, it's dead, except where Europeans whine over "cultural issues" for EU admission and then hypocritically let France ban Islamic headscarves in her public schools.

    The current point of tension for Turko-American relations unsuprisingly around Iraq and the war against the Islamists; and in both cases Turkey can choose who she is viewed in the United States by her actions, and much of the response on the other and secondary issues will be affected by this.

    These are more-or-less just historical debating points. (And, speaking of which, I think a contention could be made that ethnically the Bulgarians are just Christian Turks, and the rest is a construct, or re-construct.)

    P.S. please use the reply button when answering posts (though I'm not sure that's relevant here), and welcome to the forum. Incidently, are you actually a Turk living in Turkey? An interesting and welcome perspective if so.

  2. #2
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    11,976
    Subject: It is not democidal intent.
    Posted By: The Duchess of Zeon Her Grace

    Posted At: 12/29/03 2:25
    Reply


    The Armenians were fighting against their legitimate government. The removal of the population from the war zone was the only way to eliminate the threat to the Ottoman military forces in the region. I'm sorry, but that isn't genocide, it's just common sense--WWI was a total war, and the measures taken were completely commisurate with the situation. You can't simply stand around and let guerrillas shoot at you. It was no worse, nor really any different for that matter, than the situation in the "trail of tears" in the U.S.; and the Ottomans in fact had larger mitigating circumstances.

    The first duty of the Ottoman government was to defend its citizenry, and by engaging in warfare against the Ottoman government and by slaughtering Ottoman citizenry themselves (people who were quite innocent and not in uniform and this is documented), the Armenians had placed themselves outside of that realm of protection. They were a threat and an obstacle to the duty of the Ottoman government and had to be removed. The situation is utterly different from a genocide--from a situation where the innocent are slaughtered and unable to resist. Instead, the Armenians, armed by the Ottoman Empire's enemies, had begun to slaughter Ottoman citizens and had revolted against the Ottoman government and had fought Ottoman troops. The Ottomans did what was necessary in the situation and if they couldn't provide food and water, to bad.

    There's no comparison to the acts of the Nazis there, and never will be.
    Subject: Sources and conclusions...
    Posted By: schudak Old Friend

    Posted At: 1/11/04 9:36
    Reply
    Hi Yahac,

    sorry, but I was unable to find any sources on the alleged rebellion of the Armenians previously to mid 1915 on your site. There are MANY reports on atrocities committed by Armenians, though they report later incidents. Its not that I deny that the Muslims were victims of atrocities committed by Armenians, or that I claim the Armenians were helpless victims.
    I find this kind of websites hard to navigate and hard to bear - imho the amount of hard information there is not much better then on the "Armenian genocide"-pages.
    Perhaps you could point me to a page on that site in which the historical events are reported in a simple timeline - just for starters. From there on you can link the specific sources, so that they can be put into context. I did not find it (probably my mistake).

    However, that said I trust books far more then websites (especially those with an axe to grind). I found a pretty comprehensive recount of the events leading to the Armenian "genocide" in Edward J. Ericksons "Ordered to Die", p94-105. I do think that he is objective. I also could talk to Bernd Langensiep on that matter, who had access to the Turkish military archives (he wrote "The Ottoman Steamship navy" and a book only available in German about the German-Turkish relations, "Halbmond und Kaiseradler". Then there are of course some well documented researches on the Lipsius papers on the Armenian genocides - he had published excerpts of the German foreign office archives in 1919 claiming innocence for the Germans. The papers made available to him had carefull ommissions. In the post WWII-times these ommissions were realized and carefully studied. The results are available on paper AND on the web, both in English and German.

    Lacking more time this is what I think happened:

    - The Armenians were infrequently revolting against the Ottoman empire since the eigthteenth century.
    - 1894-96 around 100.000 Armenians are killed in a campaign starting at Sassun
    - 1909 in the wake of a revolt around 20.000 Armenians are killed in Cilicia, mainly in Adana.
    - 1910 Armenian revolutionaries launch a terror campaign in eastern Anatolia. Thousands are killed in actions and counteractions. (Similar events happened with other minorities in Albania, Kosovo or Macedonia)
    - 1912/13 the Balkan wars see huge number of Muslim refugees who have to be integrated into the remaining empire
    - 1913/14 Tendencies to create a homogene population situation are visible in the Ottoman policy. "Illoyal" minorites shall be kept below 10%. Influential political factions demand to enforce the Turkish language and culture on the whole population. Armenian groups contact Russia for potential support against this looming threat.
    - 1914/15 Russia uses its good connections to Armenians to instigate revolts and help out with weapons. Many operations of the Armenian rebels look like they are coordinated with the Russians. Atrocities on a local scale occur by both sides.
    - The Armenian main population centers lie between the 3rd Turkish army and their main supply area. In early 1915 a combined effort by the Western powers at Gallipoli and Iraq and the Russians at the Caucasus towards Erzerum and Van create a very critical situation for the Ottomans. In the case of a full scale revolt the 3rd and parts of the 4rd Turkish army will be without any supply, which would practically hand over eastern Anatolia to the Russians.
    - In April 1915 the foreign press in the Allied countries exagerates the state of revolt in Armenia to muster political support. The reports of genocide there precede the actual events.
    - A decision to deport only suspicious males is replaced by orders to relocate the whole Armenian population from the dangerous territories. While security and food are ordered to be provided, no resources are allocated to this end (since absolutely none were available).
    - reports on a strictly verbal order to kill off the Armenians in the process are confirmed both by German and American witnesses. While the existance of such an order must be assumed, there is no confirmation on the actual source nor how far it was distributed.
    - reports from many witnesses confirm that violence against the Armenian civil population started on a very wide scale once deportations started. Many of these were committed by Kurdish or Circassian groups who were almost certainly not acting on governmental orders but just preyed on their long-time "rivals", read: helpless civilians.
    - In the wake of these events, countless atrocities were committed both by Armenian forces in Russian or later independent service on Muslims and of Ottoman forces on Armenians and other minorities, in retaliation for assumed or real previous massacres. I will not go into detail here, since these were the consequence, not the reason for the whole mess. Most (if not all) of the sources on Yahacs website refer to these incidents, while some may cover local incidents happening in early 1915.


    In consequence I will withdraw my statement that there was no military necessity for that order. Given the specific situation of the Turkish army and previous incidents, I now agree that a military justification for the relocation order can be given. Wether this justifies the almost sure death of several hundred thousand civilians (the vast majority of these had no part in the revolts) is another matter.
    I will, however, stand by my statement that SOME parts of the Ottoman government had a democidal intend, and used the situation as a pretext to fulfill their political agenda. Deportations of the male population might have been sufficient to fullfill the goal, and the majority of the Armenians stood loyal to the Empire. The "solution" created here is alike to solving the North Ireland question by relocating the whole catholic population into an area where there is no food nor aid available, read: starve them to death. That "intend" was most likely limited to a small political faction within the Ottoman empire. The rest was done by centuries old rivalry and the tendency of humans to prey upon the weak when allowed to do so.

  3. #3
    New Member
    Join Date
    19 Dec 04
    Posts
    2
    You can be sure that there is no genocide.

  4. #4
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 03
    Location
    Long Island, New York, USA
    Posts
    2,726
    I learned about this in school (Im taking a class devoted just to genocide in history), very shocking and horrible what happend to the Armenians ... its a shame that it isent more well known.

  5. #5
    Regular
    Join Date
    25 Sep 04
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    85
    Truely tragic acts. With all the proof the armenians have i can't believe the turks still don't admitt too it!!

  6. #6

    Join Date
    06 Dec 03
    Posts
    413
    This always confuses me - exactly what is to be gained by forcing Turkiye to acknowledge this?
    _____________________

    when they make no laws but what they themselves and their posterity must be subject to; when they can give no money, but what they must pay their share of; when they can do no mischief, but what must fall upon their own heads in common with their countrymen; their principals may expect then good laws, little mischief, and much frugality

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    02 May 04
    Posts
    622
    How many people do the armenians claim the turks killed?

  8. #8
    Banned eMachine's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Feb 05
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by tarek
    This always confuses me - exactly what is to be gained by forcing Turkiye to acknowledge this?
    Hi, i wanna share my some info from historic lessons... Educating in univ. of helsinki...
    the most important thing is "to be studied by a neutral sources"...

    many cultures like armenians, bulgarians, other christians, frencsh, kurds [!] lived under the ottoman empire rules. but ottoman empire wanted to give a relax life for ethnic populations. ottoman empire did not get even any tax from minorities... even Armenians. just there was some provocators who wanna have independent lands in ottoman empire... armenians is a big expamle about...
    until worldwars, armenians living with ottomans like brothers and sisters, a strong and good relations there was... in the world wars, the best way is, "to provoce etnich, minority population" in the ottoman empire... England, france blahblah decided to begin to blast ottomans via provocating ethnics, then could be civil war inside ottomans, could be easier to win ottomans... <--- everybody knows it!

    i think almost whole ethnic groups and minority population provocated by eneymy of ottomans...especially armenian population. ottomans were living last years of big empire and it also makes ottoman nationalist people angry. when there was already war, when people in the big fights, when husbands in the war, wifes been raped, killed by Armenian minority, armenian minority turned 180 degrees than ottomans and been enemy against turks. after a good PROVOCATING they wanted to have lands on turkey... actually most of lands of turkey. also kurdish population. there was crime, murder, massacre by armenians, also yeah...

    i think it explanes most of things...


    imagine [a basic example]: japan, iran, india attacks to usa, usa lives last years of a big empire... same time there is civilian war inside of usa, all indian americans, ****-american, asian-americans are fighting against american gov. and american people... if you are an amereican, what could you do????


    Now, if turkey accepts armenian genocide, armenia will get verrrryy good amends
    from turkey, hell good money and some part of lands from turkey... and its a best way to lie with "armenian genocide"...

    I dont know why but armenians who lives in turkey, does not accept armenian genocide, most of europe does not accepts but some nationalist europeans supports it.

    Just its a good lie for to get money and land from turkey... i dont know why but just politicians are talking about armenian genocide, never heard truths from any historic people or something... if we heard, its just armenian historician... lol its not neutral...

  9. #9
    Banned eMachine's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Feb 05
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    50

  10. #10
    Regular
    Join Date
    21 Jan 06
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by nargothrond
    You can be sure that there is no genocide.
    Genocide of the Armenians happened in Asia Minor (Anatolia) during 1909-1923.

    Quote Originally Posted by tarek
    This always confuses me - exactly what is to be gained by forcing Turkiye to acknowledge this?
    The genocide of Armenians by Ottoman Turks of Asia Minor (Anatolia) during 1909-1923 cannot be forgotten or left unread in pages of history books. We should feel an obligation to remember those who suffered through the horror, those who died, and bring to justices those who committed the crime of genocide. The horrific events of the situation in Asia Minor must be taught to future generations. Individuals need to learn of the historic Armenian genocide, acknowledge the events and put forth evidence to help Turkey realize its historical barbaric past.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aryan
    How many people do the armenians claim the turks killed?
    The estimated number of Armenians who were systematically slaughter by Ottoman Turks in Asia Minor (Anatolia) is unclear, due to different interpretations by scholars, historians and official’s of the events during 1909-1923.

    Quote Originally Posted by eMachine
    many cultures like armenians, bulgarians, other christians, frencsh, kurds [!] lived under the ottoman empire rules.
    The majority of Kurds are Muslims, not Christians.

  11. #11
    Senior Contributor Swift Sword's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Oct 05
    Location
    Carl Perkins' Cadillac
    Posts
    1,040
    Hi Guys,

    Topic related ramblings:

    One of the better terror group names:

    "Justice Commandos for the Armenian Genocide"

    They used to have a terrorist training camp in California and did a certain amount of fund raising in the United States in general.

    I do not know just how active JCAG is these days but understand that they have started to operate in Nagorno Karabakh, possibly under a new name.

    I do not foresee genocide being dropped from the menu of options for statecraft as it has proven to be a useful tool in the past. Too, genocide is perfectly compatible with Democracy and capitalism which makes it attractive to a broad range of actors.

    Regards,

    Willliam
    Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

  12. #12
    Regular cemyaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Mar 06
    Posts
    67

    Please Read if you want to know the History not politics

    HAVE TURKS STARTED TO ASSASSINATE THE ARMENIANS SINCE 1890S?
    We see that an "Armenian Issue" has been started to be talked about during the second half of 19th century.
    If we have to find a start point for the "Armenian Issue", this can be the Reform Decree of 1856 or the Ottoman-Russian War between 1877-1878 and consequent Ayastefanos Agreement and Berlin Conference. However, we believe that it would be more beneficial to go further past, back to 1820s, to make the issue understood.
    Çarlık Russia emerged as an increasingly important state in the world power balance during this period. This imperialist power assumed the territory of the neighboring Ottoman State as a natural field of expansion and was seeking to spread to the south and southwest by using the Ottomans. As a matter of fact, Greece's separation from the Ottomans and becoming independent was a consequence of this policy of Russia to a great extent. One of the major factors of this policy was being the protector of Ottoman Christians according to Russia. This drove the Russians to take care of Gregorian Armenians besides orthodox Greeks.
    Russia tried to penetrate the Balkans at the West on one hand, while going down to Caucasia at the East on the other. This development started to put Armenian Eçmiyazin church in Caucasia under Russian influence. Eçmiyazin was the religious center where great majority of the Gregorian Armenians were dependent to.
    Eçmiyazin Church was under Russian influence in a short time and moreover, Katholikos Nerses Aratarakes joined the Russian party in 1827-28 Russia-Iran War, leading an Armenian force of 60 thousand.
    Attempts of the Russians to penetrate into the Ottoman Armenians was also by means of the Eçmiyazin Church and the name of Eçmiyazin Katholikos was started to be referred in the services in the Armenian Patriarchy in Istanbul as from 1844.
    It was not only Russia that intended to become the protector of Ottoman Christians. England and France were also aiming to make the Ottoman Armenians protestant and catholic. Upon their success in this objective, the Armenian Catholic Church was founded in Istanbul in 1830 and the Protestant Church was founded in 1847. However, no "Armenian Issue" existed neither during these developments nor at the time of declaration of Reform Decree in 1856.
    Reform Decree that meant the reorganization of social order in a Western model brought the Muslims and Non-Muslims to the same status and thus terminated the privileges and religious exemptions furnished to the Non-Muslim. Armenian Nation's Regulations prepared by the Armenian Patriarchy upon this Decree was submitted to the Ottoman Government and was ratified and came into effect on 29 March 1862. An assembly of 140 delegates was established through the regulations to negotiate the internal affairs of the Armenian society and it was required to elect 20 delegates from the members of Istanbul church, 80 delegates from the church communities in Istanbul and 40 delegates from the country.
    Reform Decree encouraged England and France besides Russia to take more care of the Armenians and this directed Russia to condense its attention to the Armenians.
    What lied beneath this attention was the imperialist interests of these states, not their sympathy against the Armenians.
    We have to consider the power relations and struggle for influence in the world during that period to see the reason for that.
    One of the important scenes of this struggle for influence and interests was the Ottoman State. One of the corner stones of the new policy was to use the Christian subjects, and particularly the Armenians, in the Ottoman State against the Ottomans and the Armenians were promised a virtual Armenia in Eastern Anatolia, although they were themselves aware that this would not come true.
    Emergence of the "Armenian Issue" upon the developments that took place after 1877-78 Ottoman-Russian War and the defeat of the Ottomans in this war is an evident proof of this fact.
    At the end of the war, Istanbul Armenian Patriarchy requested from the Russian Czar through Eçmiyazin Katholikos not to return the territories that he occupied in the Eastern Anatolia to the Ottomans, and not contended with that, he went to the Russian headquarters in Ayastefanos at the end of the war and met Grand Duke Nikola and demanded that the Eastern Anatolia be annexed by the Russians, otherwise furnished with autonomy as in Bulgaria and if this was not possible either, that reforms be made in the region in favor of the Armenians and the Russian army retreat until such reform is complete. This last demand of the Patriarch was accepted by the Russians and included in Ayastefanos Agreement as Article 16 7. We think that it is unnecessary to remind that Patriarch Varjabedyan was an Ottoman citizen.
    The Russian occupation in Eastern Anatolia provided Russia with the opportunity to increase its influence over Ottoman Armenians, the Armenian officers in the Russian army attempted to provoke the Ottoman Armenians against the state and inspired the Armenians that "they could depart from the Ottomans like the Christians in the Balkans and found their own autonomous states".
    Perceiving the intention of the Russians, England opposed to Ayastefanos Agreement. Because, an Armenia to be founded in the Eastern Anatolia under the patronage of Russia would jeopardize the security of Persian Gulf and India route of England. Upon that, England took Cyprus from the Ottomans and provided for the amendment of Ayastefanos Agreement against it, and it was decided in Berlin Conference that Russia immediately retreat from the occupied territories except Kars, Ardahan and Batum and the Armenian reform be made after that and moreover that the reform be applied under the supervision of 5 great states. England would regard the "Armenian Reform" as its own issue after that date.
    A delegation from Istanbul Armenian Patriarchy also attended Berlin Conference and having not succeeded in making their requests accepted, this delegation returned to Istanbul with the judgement that "nothing could be obtained unless struggle and rebel is initiated"8.
    Having missed the great opportunity that it had obtained with Ayastefanos Agreement and also obliged to leave Greece and Bulgaria in the West under English influence, Russia started to follow a policy aimed at directly annexing Eastern Anatolia and again tried to use the Armenians in this policy.
    The struggle of England and Russia over the Armenians is evident in the below-cited words of French author Rene Pinon, who is known with his hostility against Turks:
    "Russian and English influence collided on the back of Armenians. Armenia became a front patrol against Russian spread in the hands of England."
    This struggle became further intensified when Gladstone Government came to power in England in 1880. England abandoned its policy to protect the territorial integrity of the Ottoman State against Russia and adopted a policy directed at breaking the Ottoman Empire to parts and founding small states friendly with itself and to use them as buffers against Russia. According to England, one of such small buffer states would be Armenia.
    The first consequences of this new policy were seen as mentioning Eastern Anatolia as Armenia in English press, establishment English Consulates in the remotest points of Eastern Anatolia, rapid increase in the number of Protestant missionaries in the region and the foundation of an English-Armenian Committee in London.
    The manner in which Russia and England used the Armenians as instruments for their own ambitions was documented by many Armenian and foreign sources.
    Armenian Patriarch Horen Aşıkyan wrote in his work "Armenian History" the followings: "Many Protestant missionaries distributed to various places of Turkey make propaganda in favor of England and suggest that the Armenians will achieve autonomy with the help of England. The schools that they have founded are the sources of their secret plans."
    According to Armenian clerical man Hrant Vartabed, "The facts that Protestant communities are founded in the Ottoman country and these are protected by England and USA show that the Western powers alleging to be civilized do not abstain from exploiting even the religious feelings, which are the most sacred ones." Vartabed also accused Eçmiyazin Katholikos and V. Kevork with being instruments for the Çarlık Russia and betraying the Anatolian Armenians9.
    Another diagnosis belongs to Paul Cambon, French Embassy to Istanbul. Cambon told the followings in a report that he sent to Paris in 1894:
    "Gladstone organized and disciplined unpleasant Armenians and promised support to them. Then the propaganda committee moved to London, where it is inspired from."
    Jean-Paul Ganier told the followings:
    "The Armenians, who are called as the Loyal People, were provoked by the Russians and protestant missionaries and applied to Berlin Conference as if they were people subjected to cruelty."
    Edgar Granville stated that "there was no Armenian movement in the Ottoman country prior to Russian provocation; innocent people suffered because of dreams such as an Armenia under the patronage of the Czar" and emphasized that "the real great murderers were the Czars" and that "Armenian movements were aimed at annexing Eastern Anatolia to Russia".
    Armenian author Kaprielian stated with pride in his book Armenian Crisis and Revival that "they owed their revolution promises and inspirations to the Russians".
    Tashnak publication organ Hairenik made the following confession in its issue of ?8 June 1918:
    "The awakening of a revolutionist spirit among the Armenians in Turkey is a consequence of Russian provocation. Russia ... encouraged all kinds of centrifugal trends among the frontier people."
    Facing these facts, it would not be hard to say that the policies of imperialism to break and share the Ottoman Empire lied under the Armenian issue.
    Within the framework of such policies, some Armenian committees were started to be founded in Eastern Anatolia as from 1880 and committees called "Black Cross" and "Armenekar" in Van, and "Homeland Guardians" in Erzurum were founded. These committees remained at local level, could not be influential since the majority of Armenian people who did not have any complaint from the Ottoman administration and lived in prosperity and peace did not approve this activity, and were terminated in time.
    When it was not possible to activate the Ottoman Armenians against the state through committees founded internally, another way was tried and the Russian Armenians were made to found committees out of Ottoman territory. Consequently, the committees of Hınchak was founded in Geneva in 1887 and Tashnak in Tiflis in 1890. These committees were provided with Anatolian territory as the target and "rescuing" Ottoman Armenians as the objective.
    Louise Nalbandian, one of the present leaders of Armenian propaganda, tells the followings on the Hınchak Committee:
    "There is need for provocation and terror to activate the feelings of the (Armenian) People. The people would be provoked against their enemies and the reprisal activities of the same enemies would be used. Terror would be used as a method to protect the people and make them trust in the Hınchak program. The party (committee) intended to terrorize the Ottoman Government. By this way, the prestige of the regime would be weakened and efforts would be exerted to break it fully. The only focus of terrorist tactics would not be the government. The Hınchaks wanted to kill the most dangerous Armenians and Turks that worked for the government at that time and were trying to eliminate all the spies and informers. The party (committee) would make a unique organization in order to carry out these terrorist activities"10.
    K.S. Papazian writes the followings about the Tashnak Committee:
    "The program of the committee was to provide Turkish Armenia with political and economic freedom by means of rebellion. 8th method of the program decided in the General Assembly of the committee held in 1892 was to terrorize Government administrators and disloyal persons and its 2nd method was to damage and plunder Governmental organizations"11.
    Dr. Jean Loris-Melikoff, one of the founders and ideologists of Tashnak committee admits that "the interests of the Committee were superior to those of the society and money was collected from wealthy Armenians by means of terror in order to achieve their objectives"12.
    Varandian, also a Tashnak ideologist, makes similar confessions in his book "History of the Dahnagizoutune" (Paris, 1932).
    As Armenian authors clearly stated, the objective was to initiate rebellions in Anatolia and the method was terror. Armenian committees did not lose time to apply these programs and attempted various rebellions.
    Rebellion attempts were firstly made by the Hınchaks and the Tashnaks later followed this method. The common feature of all rebellion attempts is that they were planned and realized by committee members that came to the Ottoman country from abroad.
    The first rebellion was Erzurum rebellion in 1890. This was followed by Kumkapı protest in the same year, Kayseri, Yozgat, Çorum and Merzifon incidents in 1892-93, Sasun rebellion in 1894, Babıali protest and Zeytun rebellion in 1895, Van rebellion and occupation of the Ottoman Bank in 1896, 2nd Sasun rebellion in 1903, attempt for assassination against Sultan Abdülhamit in 1905 and Adana rebellion in 1909.
    All of these rebellions and incidents were presented as the "assassination by Turks" of the Armenians by the Armenian Committees and great disturbance was caused by reflecting them as such to the Western countries and Christian public opinions. No lie was abstained from to this end and the incidents were falsified. The Christian missionaries spread over the remotest points of Anatolia and Consulates of great states and the Embassies in Istanbul played great role in transferring this propaganda to western public opinions and making them adopt it. When the publications of the Western press in this direction were added to these, the Christian public opinions started to adopt the messages of Armenians which had no reality. Actually, the policies of their own states necessitated the adoption of such messages. Furthermore, according to the West, this was "a conflict between the Christians and Muslims and the brutal Muslims were assassinating innocent Christians". So, they should support and protect the Christian Armenians against the Muslims. This is what was actually made.
    However, it is proven by documents that the fact was not this and what lied under such propaganda of the Armenian committees was to force great states to armed struggle against the Ottomans.
    The Armenian Patriarch in Istanbul told to English Ambassador Elliott on 6 December 1876 that "if it was necessary to make revolutions and rebellions to make Europe intervene and to draw its attention, it was not hard to do so"13.
    Currie, The English Ambassador in Istanbul, sent the following report to English Foreign Ministry on 28 March 1394:
    "The aim of revolutionists in Erzurum is to cause disorder to make the Ottomans respond and thus provide for the intervention of foreign countries."14
    Graves, the English Consul to Istanbul informed in a message he sent to the English Embassy in Istanbul on 28 January 1895 that "the aim of the committees was to create a general unpleasantness and thus draw attention to the fictional pains of the Turkish Government and people and the need to improve the situation."15
    Graves also replied the question, "would these conflicts occur if no Armenian committee member had come to this country and provoked the Armenians to rebel?" of Sydney Whitman, New York Herald correspondent, as follows:
    "Absolutely no; I do not suppose that even one Armenian would have been killed."16
    Williams, the English Vice Consul to Van stated in his letter of 4 March 1896 that "Tashnak and Hınchaks terrorized their own people, instigated the Muslim people with their extreme and wild behaviors, paralyzed all the attempts directed at the implementation of the reforms and the murders of Armenian committees were responsible for all that happened in Anatolia."17
    Doughty Wily, English Consul General to Adana wrote in a report in 1909 that "Armenians tried to provide for foreign intervention."18
    General Mayewski, who was the Russian Consul General to Bitlis and Van recorded the following in a report in 1912:
    "In 1895 and 1896, the Armenian committees spread such a doubt among the Armenians and the local people that, carrying out any reform in such regions was rendered impossible. Armenian clerical men were exerting almost no effort for any religious education. On the other hand, they attempted very much to spread nationalist ideas. Such ideas developed within the walls of mysterious monasteries and the hostility of Christians against Muslims replaced religious missions. The reason of rebellions that occurred in many provinces of Asian Turkey between 1895 and 1896 was neither the great misery of Armenian peasants nor the pressure they were exposed to. Because these peasants were much wealthier and more prosperous than their neighbors. The rebellion of Armenians resulted from the following three causes:
    1. Their known evolution in political matters,
    2. Development of ideas of nationalism, salvation and independence in Armenian public opinion,
    3. Supporting of these ideas by Western governments and publication through the inspiration and efforts of Armenian clerical men."19
    Mayewski emphasized in another report in December 1912 that "Tashnak committee attempted to complicate the situation by making Armenians and Muslims conflict and prepare a ground for Russian intervention."20
    Eventually, Tashnak ideologist Varandian confessed that "they wanted to provide for European intervention"21 and Papazia wrote that "the aim of rebellions was to provide for the intervention of European states with the internal affairs of Ottoman State."22
    Armenian committees initiated each rebellion through the propaganda that the Europeans would intervene immediately after the rebellion. Some of the committee members also believed in this propaganda; committee member Armen Aknomi, who waited for the arrival of the English navy for hours during the incident of occupation of the Ottoman Bank, sulked his destiny and committed suicide.
    As it is obviously observed in the expressions of both Armenian authors and committee members and English and Russian diplomats supporting the Armenians, the reason for the Armenian rebellion was neither misery, nor reform, nor the allegation that they were subjected to pressure. The reason for the rebellion was the desire of the Westerns and Russia to break the Ottoman Empire to pieces in cooperation with the Armenian committees and church.
    The Ottomans made what every state would make against such a rebellion and sent forces on the rebels to overcome the rebellions. The rebellions could be overcome within a short time as most of the Armenian people did not adopt the activity of committees. However, as stated above, overcoming each rebellion was presented as a new "massacre".
    The arrested terrorist committee members were released with the help of great states. The leaders of Zeytun rebellion, occupation of Ottoman Bank and the assassination attempt against sultan Abdülhamit were able to freely leave the Ottoman territory through the interventions of great states, moreover, they were able to return to commit new murders by means of the false passports prepared for them.
    However, there was an essential element overlooked by both Armenian committees and the great states: the Armenians living on the territories claimed on their behalf were a small minority.
    6 Eastern provinces on which the Armenians claimed the foundation of an autonomous Armenia were Erzurum, Bitlis, Elazığ, Diyarbakır and Sivas. Armenian land claims would develop in time and cover Adana, Halep and Trabzon as well. Now, let us see the demographic structure and proportion of Armenian population to the total population in the eastern provinces on the basis of the French yellow Book that presented the Armenian population in such provinces at the highest figure among the Western sources.

    Total Population / Gregorian Armenian Population / Ratio of Armenians (%)
    Erzurum 645,702 / 134,967 % 20,90
    Bitlis 398,625 / 131,390 % 32,96
    Van 430,000 / 80,798 % 18,79
    Elazığ 578,814 / 69,718 % 12,04
    Diyarbakır 471,462 / 79,129 % 16,78
    Sivas 1,086,015 / 170,433 % 15,68
    Adana 403,539 / 97,450 % 24,14
    Halep 995,758 / 37,999 % 3,81
    Trabzon 1,047,700 / 47,200 % 4,50

    We believe that it would be beneficial to briefly mention here how Russia, who provoked the Armenians against the Ottoman State with the promise of a imaginary Armenia, treated the Armenians in its own country and what their real intention was.
    When Russia descended to the Caucasus, it started to follow a policy directed at making the Caucasian Armenians Russian and Orthodox. To this end, the law of Polijenia was passed in 1836, the authorities of Eçmiyazin Katholikos were restricted and the assignment of the Katholikos was taken into the terms of reference of the Czar. Armenian newspapers and schools were closed in 1882 and the assets of Armenian church, institutions and schools were confiscated in 1903. Briefly, with the famous words of Lebonof Rostowski, Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, an "Armenia without Armenians" was targeted. It is seen that these words are attempted to be attributed to the Ottoman Administration by some Armenian authors in recent years. This can give a clear idea about the character of Armenian propaganda.
    The pressure and cruelty applied by Russia on the Armenians was told by both Armenian and foreign authors in detail. We are contended with the following two examples:
    Armenian historian Vartanyan wrote the followings in his book The History of Armenian Operation:
    "Ottoman Armenians were completely free in terms of traditions, religion, literature and language compared to those of the Empire of Russia."
    Edgar Garnville records that "the only shelter of Armenians against Russian cruelty was the Ottoman State".
    The real intention of Russia was to annex Eastern Anatolia, not to provide for the foundation of an Armenian State on this territory. The territories on which the Armenians dreamed of founding an autonomous state were divided between Russia and France in the agreements made for sharing the Ottoman Empire during the 1st World War. The Russian Czar also clearly expressed his intention by telling Eçmiyazin Katholikos that "there was no such Armenian issue in Russia".
    Armenian author Boryan correctly diagnosed this matter with his following words:
    "Empire of Russia never wanted to provide Armenian autonomy. Therefore, the Armenians attempting for Armenian autonomy in fact carried out their activities as the agents of the Czar for making Russia occupy Eastern Anatolia."
    Conclusively, the Russians deceived the Armenians throughout years and the Armenians pursued a vain dream.
    Footnotes:

    (7) URAS, Esat; a.g.e., pp. 212-215
    (8) URAS, Esat; a.g.e., pp. 250-251
    (9) SCHEMSI, Kara; a.g.e., pp. 20-21
    (10) NALBANDIAN, Luase; Armenian Revolutionary Movement, University of California Press, 1963, pp. 110-111
    (11) PAPAZIAN, K.S.; Patriotism Perverted, Boston, Baikar Press, 1934, pp. 14-15
    (12) Loris-Melikoff, Dr. Jean; La Revolution Russe et les Nouvelles Repobliques Transcaucasiennes, Paris, 1920, p. 81
    (13) English Foreign Ministry Archive, F.O. 424/46, pp. 205-206, No. 336
    (14) English Blue Book, No. 6 (1894), p. 57
    (15) English Blue Book, No. 6 (1894), pp. 222-223
    (16) URAS, Esat; a.g.e., p. 426
    (17) English Blue Book, No. 8 (1896), p. 108
    (18) SCHEMSI, Kara; a.g.e., p. 11
    (19) General MAYEWSKI; Statistique des Provinces de Van et de Bitlis, pp. 11-13
    (20) SCHEMSI, Kara; a.g.e., p. 11
    (21) VARANDIAN, Mikayel; History of the Dashnagtzoutune, Paris, 1932, p. 302
    (22) PAPAZIAN, K.S.; a.g.e., p. 19
    Last edited by cemyaz; 27 Mar 06, at 09:50.

  13. #13
    Regular
    Join Date
    21 Jan 06
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by eMachine
    many cultures like armenians, bulgarians, other christians, frencsh, kurds [!] lived under the ottoman empire rules. but ottoman empire wanted to give a relax life for ethnic populations. ottoman empire did not get even any tax from minorities... even Armenians.
    Christians who lived in the Ottoman Empire were subjected to Islamic dhimmi laws, which gave them fewer legal rights than those of the Muslim citizens.

    Now, if turkey accepts armenian genocide, armenia will get verrrryy good amends from turkey, hell good money and some part of lands from turkey... and its a best way to lie with "armenian genocide"...
    The Turkish government denies all evidence of the Armenian Genocide, because the country fears acknowledgment of other Genocidal crimes and paying restitution. In Asia Minor (Anatolia) during the early 1900’s, the Turks began a systematic campaign to kill Armenians, Greeks (Hellenic Genocide), Assyrians (Assyrian Genocide) and anyone else who wasn’t a Turk. The fact that other ethnicity's and cultures were victims of the same Turkish extermination policy is more proof that the Armenian Genocide happened.

    I dont know why but armenians who lives in turkey, does not accept armenian genocide, most of europe does not accepts but some nationalist europeans supports it.
    There are many Eurpoean countries that officially recognize the Armenian genocide, those countries include Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, and The Holy See.

    Just its a good lie for to get money and land from turkey... i dont know why but just politicians are talking about armenian genocide, never heard truths from any historic people or something... if we heard, its just armenian historician... lol its not neutral...
    That’s not true, there are many scholars, historians and official’s, who are not Armenian, who studied the evidence and believe the Armenian Genocide occurred.
    Last edited by ColdBlueLight; 07 Apr 06, at 04:23.

  14. #14
    Banned Ellopian's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Apr 06
    Posts
    134
    to eMachine: sorry buddy, but you should read books and serious newspapers before writing about the Armenian genocide. You didn't even know that a nation like France has recognized the genocide man...!

  15. #15
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Bandaid

    Join Date
    04 Oct 04
    Location
    India
    Posts
    5,001
    This link has pictures of the genocide supposedly taken by some German officers.
    http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.ph...enocide_Photos

    Cheers!...on the rocks!!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Court clears Serbia of genocide
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 18 Mar 07,, 17:12
  2. Darfur; first genocide of 21st century
    By kams in forum International Economy
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 17 Sep 06,, 06:10
  3. Gun bans and genodcide. Stop the UN now
    By Bill in forum International Politics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 24 Aug 06,, 18:38
  4. Revealing Mindset of Pakistanis favouring 1971 Genocide.
    By vicky007 in forum International Politics
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 03 Aug 05,, 22:38

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •