Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Feb 12, 2010 15:26:32 GMT -5
Chalk, it would mean a lot to all bulgarian ppl to get back its territories which Treaty Of Neuilly-sur-Seine tored away from Bulgaria, 1919. A pursuit of our ideal for national unification with territories with predominantly Bulgarian population. That treaty was a dictate and 80 years after, we want them back, not least Eagean Thrace. Bulgaria paid a dear cost with many lives lost and involving the transfer of 300.000 people from there. Come on, what do you say?
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Feb 14, 2010 19:31:27 GMT -5
There were cases of Armenians massacring Turks/Kurds this is true however these massacres took place already after larger massacres had been committed upon Armenians, being the Hamidian Massacres between 1870 to 1909, and also post the 1915 deportations and massacres upon Armenians so the massacres Armenians committed were somewhat vengeance orientated and in any case massacres committed by Kurds and Turks on Armenians has been far greater. Not true. Let us recall: Nov. 2 - Russian Caucasus Corps invaded Armenia, took Bayazid, advanced 17 miles by Nov. 4.
Nov. 7 - Turks stopped Russians at Erzerum.
Nov. 11 - Sultan proclaimed jihad in Constantinople.
Nov. 15 - Turks defeat Russian battalion at copper mine south of Batumi, but Russian Turkestan Corps reinforced the Caucasus Corps, resumed offensive. Russians gave supplies to a volunteer Armenian division, raised from the 1 million Armenians living in Russia, that raided the region and killed 120,000 Turkish civilians. On Nov. 30, the Czar inspected the front and praised the Armenian Catholicos, saying "a brilliant future awaits the Armenians." history.sandiego.edu/gen/ww1/1915b.htmlDuring December 1914, Nicholas II of Russia visited the Caucasus Front. Nicholas II with the presence of head of the Armenian Church along with the Alexander Khatisyan who was of the president of the Armenian National Bureau in Tiflis: "All countries Armenians are hurrying to enter the ranks of the glorious Russian Army, with their blood to serve the victory of the Russian Army... Let the Russian flag wave freely over the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Let your will the peoples [Armenian] remaining under the Turkish yoke receive freedom. Let the Armenian people of Turkey who have suffered for the faith of Christ received resurrection for a new free life ...".en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_ResistanceThis doesnt mean what I have said is untrue as the masacres by Turks and Kurds upon Armenians which had resulted in deathtoll of up to 300,000 Armenians had already taken place between 1870's to 1909 so this massacre you speak of occured after larger massacres upon Armenians, and as your quoote stated most of those Arm volunteers were living in Russia not Anatolia. The same article you quote from also goes on to say... Feb. - Armenians in the far west formed a militia force of 2500 at Sivas and captured Van on Apr. 20, proclaiming a provisional independent government. The Turks responded with a campaign of massacre against all Armenians in Turkey, assisted by Kurd tribesmen who also hated the Armenians. Apr. 25 - On the same day that Britain invaded Gallipoli, Mehmed Talaat ordered the execution of 250 Armenian leaders in Constantinople, and began the massacre of 1m Armenians by the end of the year. Talaat was Minister of Interior, one of the 8 Young Turks that started the war, with Minister of War Enver Pasha, and Minister of Public Works Djemal Pasha. July 10, 1915 - U. S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, Sr., cabled Washington about the massacre, what he called "race murder" (word "genocide" not coined until 1944 book Axis Rule by Raphael Lemkin). Talaat boasted in public of his policy, claiming he was doing more than Abdul Hamid did 1895-96 when he killed 200,000 Armenians. history.sandiego.edu/gen/ww1/1915b.html
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Feb 14, 2010 20:02:00 GMT -5
Chalk, I could care less about anyone's identity. A war is a war, and they lost the war, and now they're complaining. They have their own country. Turks are 1 Million less too.. What's your point? The point is Armenian civillians were rounded up and deported an massacred they were targeted simply for being Armenian, they were not in combat
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Feb 16, 2010 14:56:29 GMT -5
The point is Armenian civillians were rounded up and deported an massacred they were targeted simply for being Armenian, they were not in combat .
Where is the proof? In the Ottoman archives, there are clear instructions to protect the civilian Armenians.
The Armenians were deported from places where they revolted - in Eastern Turkey, as the Western Armenians weren't touched since they did not participate in the mass killings of Turkish civilians.
The Ottoman gov't had every right to do so. If all the Mexicans started killing Americans in the USA (civilians) the punishment is death if you try to overthrow a gov't.
And this occurred for a while, until the Ottomans made a decision to deport the one's that revolted.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Feb 17, 2010 2:39:24 GMT -5
The point is Armenian civillians were rounded up and deported an massacred they were targeted simply for being Armenian, they were not in combat . if you want to believe it was that simple then go right ahead I believe there is much proof that it wasnt that simple. yes there were instructions to protect them yes those documents exist, but there is also evidence suggesting the CUP used that as a cover to ultimitly rid Anatolia of as many Armenians as it possibly could, there are many reports of Turks massacring deportees in different parts of the country in strikingly similiar fashion suggesting a coordinated plan. Also Armenians did not revolt in all the areas they were deported from, there are many towns and areas where they were deported from that did not have revolts and yes they were mostly deported from Eastern Turkey but they were to a lesser degree targeted in Western and other parts of Turkey also. The getting rid of Armenians served several purposes, it was partly done from security and paranoia point of view but there was more to it they became in many ways the scapegoat or punching bag for a frustrated and crumbling empire, but additionally the authorities were planning for a Muslim and Turkish nation hence ridding country of as many Christians as possible was looked at favourably. . the keyword here is "all" and all the Armenians targeted were not active combatants not even half of them were. . not true they deported as many Armenians as they possibly could not just deported but massacred also.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Feb 17, 2010 12:38:56 GMT -5
are you joking? The areas where the Armenians were deported were Eastern Turkey, and all were places of revolt...
There is no paranoia, there were Armenians killing Turks!
And justifiably so they have a right to deport them.
Actually, they weren't. The minorities did not want to be a part of the Ottoman Empire any longer. And there was no Turkish nation during that time.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Feb 17, 2010 12:44:05 GMT -5
And lastly you can look in the Ottoman archives, there is no evidence of any type of deliberate extermination of Armenians either.
It was a war in which both Turks & Armenians died.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Feb 18, 2010 2:06:49 GMT -5
not true the main place of revolt was Van once the Tehcir law was put through it gave authority to deport anyone they considered to be a suspect for revolt, with that they basically began deporting the majority of the Armenian population of Eastern Turkey, in Istanbul 250 Armenians were arrested even though there was no revolt, in several areas I can refer specifically to them when I have access to my books but in many areas Armenians were deported simply for being Armenian and there was no revolt taking place.
yes this happened but it happened after the Hamidian massacars in which Turks massacred larger numbers of Armenian civillians between 1870's to 1909. and it happened in 1917 again after Turks deported and massacred large numbers of Armenians.
Thracian the majority of Armenians targeted in Anatollia were non combatants I know you seem to struggle with that concept but its true.
.
I dont believe they have right to deport and massacre non combatants.
this does not justify deportation and massacre.
yes there was a nationalist goal of constructing a Islamic and Turkish nation.
Ottoman Archives have been controlled by Turkish authorities I suspect they show what authorities want people to see but there are Turkish documents that actually do support the idea of the genocidal behaviour of the authority upon the Armenians of Anatollia.
yes but most of those Armenians died as a result of the genocidal behaviour of the Turkish authorities.
|
|
aayy
Amicus
Posts: 469
|
Post by aayy on Feb 18, 2010 11:17:38 GMT -5
Rhezus,
IMHO almost every genocide is partly provoked by its victims. You could say for example that Jews did provoke Hitler and Germans. Still genocide isn't a way out.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Feb 18, 2010 20:04:37 GMT -5
^^ Because that's the way of the World.. Don't do things you can't handle after!
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Feb 19, 2010 4:06:36 GMT -5
Rhezus, IMHO almost every genocide is partly provoked by its victims. You could say for example that Jews did provoke Hitler and Germans. Still genocide isn't a way out. When an ethnicity of your country starts massacring yours together with some invading armies, then the losses they might ultimately suffer can not be deemed as genocide.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Feb 19, 2010 8:04:21 GMT -5
Rhezus, IMHO almost every genocide is partly provoked by its victims. You could say for example that Jews did provoke Hitler and Germans. Still genocide isn't a way out. When an ethnicity of your country starts massacring yours together with some invading armies, then the losses they might ultimately suffer can not be deemed as genocide. if only the ones doing the attacking were targeted then maybe this could be a point but if the authorities of that country actively deport and massacre 80% of that ethnicities population when only possibly 5% was involved in active combat then that is indeed genocide. and again in fact the biggest masaacres upon civillians were actually started by the Turks against Armenians throughout the Hamidian massacres from 1870's to 1909.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Feb 19, 2010 8:31:22 GMT -5
When an ethnicity of your country starts massacring yours together with some invading armies, then the losses they might ultimately suffer can not be deemed as genocide. if only the ones doing the attacking were targeted then maybe this could be a point but if the authorities of that country actively deport and massacre 80% of that ethnicities population when only possibly 5% was involved in active combat then that is indeed genocide. and again in fact the biggest masaacres upon civillians were actually started by the Turks against Armenians throughout the Hamidian massacres from 1870's to 1909. In fact, the losses that the Armenians suffered was quite high in Eastern Anatolia whilst it was relatively lower in Western parts.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Feb 19, 2010 13:39:18 GMT -5
ozkart, if people start killing your people constantly where there is no army, and this goes on for a while, your people have EVERY right to deport them out of the area to prevent the massacres ok?
It was the Armenians that started it, not Turks.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Feb 19, 2010 13:58:53 GMT -5
Boghos Nubar addressed a letter to the Times of London on January 30,1919 confirming that the Armenians were indeed belligerents in World War I. He stated with pride, "In the Caucasus, without mentioning the 150,000 Armenians in the Russian armies, about 50,000 Armenian volunteers under Andranik, Mazarbekoff, and others not only fought for four years for the cause of the Entente, but after the breakdown of Russia they were the only forces in the Caucasus to resist the advance of the Turks...."
Between 1893 and 1915 Ottoman Armenians in eastern Anatolia rebelled against their government -the Ottoman government -- and joined Armenian revolutionary groups, such as the notorious Dashnaks and Hunchaks. They spearheaded a massive Russian invasion of Eastern Anatolia. On November 5, 1914, the President of the Armenian National Bureau in Tblisi declared to Czar Nicholas II, "From all countries Armenians are hurrying to enter the ranks for the glorious Russian Army, with their blood to serve the victory of Russian arms." In the service of the Russians, traitorous Armenians massacred over 60,000 Muslims in the city of Van alone.
None of the Ottoman orders commanding the relocation of Armenians, which have been reviewed by historians to date, orders killings. To the contrary, they order Ottoman officials to protect relocated Armenians. Unfortunately, where Ottoman control was weak, Armenian relocatees suffered most. The stories of the time give examples of columns of hundreds of Armenians guarded by as few as two Ottoman gendarmes. When local Muslims attacked the columns, Armenians were robbed and killed. These Muslims had themselves suffered greatly at the hands of Armenians and Russians. Conversely,where Ottoman control was strong, Armenians went unharmed. In Istanbul and other major Western Anatolian cities, large populations of Armenians remained throughout the war, their churches open.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Feb 19, 2010 14:00:48 GMT -5
The term "genocide" did not exist prior to 1944. It was later defined quite specifically by the 1948 U.N. Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide. The standard of proof in establishing the crime of genocide is formidable given the severity of the crime, the opportunity for overlap with other crimes, and the stigma of being charged with or found guilty of the crime. While presenting the Convention for ratification, the Secretary General of the U.N. emphasized that genocide is a crime of "specific intent," requiring conclusive proof that members of a group were targeted simply because they were members of that group. The Secretary General further cautioned that those merely sharing political aims are not protected by the convention.
Under this standard of proof, the Armenian American claim of genocide fails. First, no direct evidence has been discovered demonstrating that any Ottoman official sought the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians as such. Second, Ottoman Armenian revolutionaries confessedly waged war against their own government. Under these circumstances, it was the Ottoman Armenians' violent political alliance with the Russian forces, not their ethnic or religious identity, which rendered them subject to the relocation.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Feb 19, 2010 14:01:32 GMT -5
And lastly:
Armenians suffered a high mortality. But one must likewise consider the number of non-Christian dead. The statistics tell us that more than 2.5 million Anatolian Muslims also perished. Thus, the years 1912-1922 constitute a horrible period for humanity, not just for Armenians. Documents of the time describe intercommunal violence, forced migration of all ethnic groups, disease, and famine as causes of death.
|
|
aayy
Amicus
Posts: 469
|
Post by aayy on Feb 20, 2010 12:35:00 GMT -5
Just ask yourself why Armenians supported Russian army not Ottoman army. Perhaps they had a reason.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Feb 20, 2010 14:06:43 GMT -5
Religion?
|
|
aayy
Amicus
Posts: 469
|
Post by aayy on Feb 20, 2010 15:54:53 GMT -5
Probably mostly the religion. They felttheir religion was second-sorted in Ottoman Empire, while it was first-sorted in Russian Empire.
|
|