|
Post by depletedreasons on Jun 17, 2008 1:41:40 GMT -5
Russian archives refute Armenian “genocide” claimsA document in Russia's official archives has surfaced that shows Armenians carried out mass killings in 1915, and is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that reveals Yerevan's claims of "genocide" are nothing but a lie. (UPDATED)Russian archives refute Armenian “genocide” claimsTurkish academic, Mehmet Perincek, has uncovered a 65-page report while conducting research at the Russian State Military History Archives, Hurriyet daily reported on Monday. The report was written by Brigadier General Leonid Bolkhovinitov and sent to the Russian headquarters in Dec. 11, 1915. "Armenian voluntary units had started violent slaughters against the Muslim people with racist motives," the report was quoted as saying by Hurriyet. The Russian general also said in his report the information given by the Armenians "are politically-motivated" and did not reflect the actual situation in the region. He also named the incidents as, "The issue defined as the Armenian question." "We shall not believe in the death tolls that the Armenians give. The number of missing people has been exaggerated in the memos distributed by the Dashnak party and there is no doubt that they are politically-motivated. Those Armenian gangs, who triggered the slaughters, are the ones who should be blamed for those missing," Bolkhovinitov said in his report. He also accused England of provoking the Armenians to prevent a potential alliance between the Ottoman Empire and Russia. "Before that Turks, Armenians, and Kurds used to live in peace. Even the living conditions of Armenians were much better than Kurds' and Turks," he added. This report is likely to create a new perspective on the Armenian claims, given the fact that Russia and the Ottomans were enemies during the late 1910s, increasing the importance of the report. Turkey says parliaments and other political institutions are not the appropriate bodies to debate and pass judgment on disputed periods of history. Past events and controversial periods of history should be left to historians for their dispassionate study and evaluation. However Turkey's efforts to carry a deeper investigation have yet to have a positive outcome. In 2005, Turkey officially proposed to the Armenian government the establishment of a joint historical commission composed of historians and other experts from both sides to study together the events of 1915 and to open the archives of Turkey and Armenia, as well as the archives of all relevant third-party countries and share their findings publicly. Unfortunately, Armenia has not yet responded positively to this initiative and Turkey's proposal remains on the table. www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/turkey/9192242.asp?gid=231&sz=32455
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 18, 2008 6:07:25 GMT -5
Russian archives refute Armenian “genocide” claimsA document in Russia's official archives has surfaced that shows Armenians carried out mass killings in 1915, and is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that reveals Yerevan's claims of "genocide" are nothing but a lie. (UPDATED)Russian archives refute Armenian “genocide” claimsTurkish academic, Mehmet Perincek, has uncovered a 65-page report while conducting research at the Russian State Military History Archives, Hurriyet daily reported on Monday. The report was written by Brigadier General Leonid Bolkhovinitov and sent to the Russian headquarters in Dec. 11, 1915. "Armenian voluntary units had started violent slaughters against the Muslim people with racist motives," the report was quoted as saying by Hurriyet. The Russian general also said in his report the information given by the Armenians "are politically-motivated" and did not reflect the actual situation in the region. He also named the incidents as, "The issue defined as the Armenian question." "We shall not believe in the death tolls that the Armenians give. The number of missing people has been exaggerated in the memos distributed by the Dashnak party and there is no doubt that they are politically-motivated. Those Armenian gangs, who triggered the slaughters, are the ones who should be blamed for those missing," Bolkhovinitov said in his report. He also accused England of provoking the Armenians to prevent a potential alliance between the Ottoman Empire and Russia. "Before that Turks, Armenians, and Kurds used to live in peace. Even the living conditions of Armenians were much better than Kurds' and Turks," he added. This report is likely to create a new perspective on the Armenian claims, given the fact that Russia and the Ottomans were enemies during the late 1910s, increasing the importance of the report. Turkey says parliaments and other political institutions are not the appropriate bodies to debate and pass judgment on disputed periods of history. Past events and controversial periods of history should be left to historians for their dispassionate study and evaluation. However Turkey's efforts to carry a deeper investigation have yet to have a positive outcome. In 2005, Turkey officially proposed to the Armenian government the establishment of a joint historical commission composed of historians and other experts from both sides to study together the events of 1915 and to open the archives of Turkey and Armenia, as well as the archives of all relevant third-party countries and share their findings publicly. Unfortunately, Armenia has not yet responded positively to this initiative and Turkey's proposal remains on the table. www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/turkey/9192242.asp?gid=231&sz=32455 I dont claim to be an expert on this subject but I recently read there were Turkish killings against Armenians already in late 1800's. I f that was so then it seem by 1915 there was some feelings of retribution not that I justify or agree with killings of any inoccents or civilians on any side. I see Turkey tends to call Armenians traitors but I dont get impression Armenians felt too comfortable as non Muslims in Turkey as there were supposedly laws that favoured Muslims and seemed to place Armenians in insecure positions,eg if there was dispute between Muslim and Christian law favoured Muslim. Apparently Armenians made peaceful protests about their woes to Turkish Government . If Armenians felt safe and secure in Turkey would they have had any reasons to be seen as traitors.
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Jun 18, 2008 6:51:38 GMT -5
I dont claim to be an expert on this subject but I recently read there were Turkish killings against Armenians already in late 1800's. I f that was so then it seem by 1915 there was some feelings of retribution not that I justify or agree with killings of any inoccents or civilians on any side. I see Turkey tends to call Armenians traitors but I dont get impression Armenians felt too comfortable as non Muslims in Turkey as there were supposedly laws that favoured Muslims and seemed to place Armenians in insecure positions,eg if there was dispute between Muslim and Christian law favoured Muslim. Apparently Armenians made peaceful protests about their woes to Turkish Government . If Armenians felt safe and secure in Turkey would they have had any reasons to be seen as traitors. There were Turkish and Kurdish killings in 1890s, but even in early 1800s, there were forced emigration and population exchange amongst Turks/Tatars/Kurds and Armenians/Christians due to the Russian policies in Caucasus and Eastern Anatolia. For example, Armenians were a minority in Yerevan back in early 1800s, but now, there is not a single Turk/Tatar living there in that city. For such obvious reasons, even the "Eurocentric Genocide Scholars" can not omit the events that resulted in expulsion of Armenians from Anatolia. Here is some extract from a recent article: The Armenian genocide was one of the last, and probably the largest-scale, of the series of acts of mass murder and expulsion that accompanied first the contraction, then the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and its replacement by several nation-states in the Balkans and Anatolia. The emergence from the Ottoman Empire of Greece, Serbia, Montenegro and Bulgaria as autonomous or independent nation-states during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries involved the extermination or expulsion of much of the Ottoman Muslim population that had inhabited the territories of these countries under the Ottomans. A related phenomenon was the southward expansion of Russia during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, across the northern coast of the Black Sea and into the Caucasus and the Balkans, often in collusion with local Christian peoples and similarly involving the killing or expulsion of vast numbers of Muslims - indeed, of entire Muslim peoples such as the Crimean Nogai and the Caucasian Ubykhs.
These acts of killing and explusion culminated in the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, when Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria and Montenegro finally destroyed the Ottoman Empire in Europe. According to Justin McCarthy (Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922, Darwin Press, Princeton, 1996, p. 164), the Balkan Wars resulted in the death of 27% of the Muslim population of the Ottoman territories conquered by the Christian Balkan states - 632,408 people. This is a figure comparable to death-toll of the Armenian genocide from 1915, which Bloxham estimates as claiming the lives of one million Armenians or 50% of the pre-war Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire, with another half million Armenians deported but surviving (Bloxham, p. 1).
These massacres and expulsions of Ottoman Muslims, and particularly the Balkan Wars, were both precursors and catalysts for the Armenian genocide, which was launched only a couple of years after the Balkan Wars ended. This was because a) Muslim Turkish nationalists copied the model of European-style nationalism already adopted by the Balkan Christian nationalists, involving the same principle of ethno-religious homogeneity; b) the decades of explusions of Ottoman and Caucasian Muslims to Anatolia, culminating in the Muslim exodus from the Balkans during and after the Balkan Wars, provided a constituency of embittered refugees and their descendants whom the Turkish nationalists could mobilise in the 1910s to attack Anatolian Christians; c) the settlement of these Muslim refugees in Anatolia began the process of Muslim colonisation of historically Armenian-inhabited lands that paved the way for the genocide; and d) the Turkish nationalists who ruled the Ottoman Empire in 1915 viewed the extermination of the Armenians as the necessary alternative to what they feared would be the establishment of an Armenian state in Anatolia under Russian protection, on the model of the Balkan Christian states and involving the same acts of killing and expulsion of Ottoman Muslims that the establishment of the latter had involved.For full article, please follow the link below:henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?pageid=49&id=691
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Jun 18, 2008 16:34:54 GMT -5
I dont claim to be an expert on this subject but I recently read there were Turkish killings against Armenians already in late 1800's. I f that was so then it seem by 1915 there was some feelings of retribution not that I justify or agree with killings of any inoccents or civilians on any side. I see Turkey tends to call Armenians traitors but I dont get impression Armenians felt too comfortable as non Muslims in Turkey as there were supposedly laws that favoured Muslims and seemed to place Armenians in insecure positions,eg if there was dispute between Muslim and Christian law favoured Muslim. Apparently Armenians made peaceful protests about their woes to Turkish Government . If Armenians felt safe and secure in Turkey would they have had any reasons to be seen as traitors. Apparently.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 18, 2008 18:14:06 GMT -5
I dont claim to be an expert on this subject but I recently read there were Turkish killings against Armenians already in late 1800's. I f that was so then it seem by 1915 there was some feelings of retribution not that I justify or agree with killings of any inoccents or civilians on any side. I see Turkey tends to call Armenians traitors but I dont get impression Armenians felt too comfortable as non Muslims in Turkey as there were supposedly laws that favoured Muslims and seemed to place Armenians in insecure positions,eg if there was dispute between Muslim and Christian law favoured Muslim. Apparently Armenians made peaceful protests about their woes to Turkish Government . If Armenians felt safe and secure in Turkey would they have had any reasons to be seen as traitors. There were Turkish and Kurdish killings in 1890s, but even in early 1800s, there were forced emigration and population exchange amongst Turks/Tatars/Kurds and Armenians/Christians due to the Russian policies in Caucasus and Eastern Anatolia. For example, Armenians were a minority in Yerevan back in early 1800s, but now, there is not a single Turk/Tatar living there in that city. For such obvious reasons, even the "Eurocentric Genocide Scholars" can not omit the events that resulted in expulsion of Armenians from Anatolia. Here is some extract from a recent article: The Armenian genocide was one of the last, and probably the largest-scale, of the series of acts of mass murder and expulsion that accompanied first the contraction, then the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and its replacement by several nation-states in the Balkans and Anatolia. The emergence from the Ottoman Empire of Greece, Serbia, Montenegro and Bulgaria as autonomous or independent nation-states during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries involved the extermination or expulsion of much of the Ottoman Muslim population that had inhabited the territories of these countries under the Ottomans. A related phenomenon was the southward expansion of Russia during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, across the northern coast of the Black Sea and into the Caucasus and the Balkans, often in collusion with local Christian peoples and similarly involving the killing or expulsion of vast numbers of Muslims - indeed, of entire Muslim peoples such as the Crimean Nogai and the Caucasian Ubykhs.
These acts of killing and explusion culminated in the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, when Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria and Montenegro finally destroyed the Ottoman Empire in Europe. According to Justin McCarthy (Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922, Darwin Press, Princeton, 1996, p. 164), the Balkan Wars resulted in the death of 27% of the Muslim population of the Ottoman territories conquered by the Christian Balkan states - 632,408 people. This is a figure comparable to death-toll of the Armenian genocide from 1915, which Bloxham estimates as claiming the lives of one million Armenians or 50% of the pre-war Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire, with another half million Armenians deported but surviving (Bloxham, p. 1).
These massacres and expulsions of Ottoman Muslims, and particularly the Balkan Wars, were both precursors and catalysts for the Armenian genocide, which was launched only a couple of years after the Balkan Wars ended. This was because a) Muslim Turkish nationalists copied the model of European-style nationalism already adopted by the Balkan Christian nationalists, involving the same principle of ethno-religious homogeneity; b) the decades of explusions of Ottoman and Caucasian Muslims to Anatolia, culminating in the Muslim exodus from the Balkans during and after the Balkan Wars, provided a constituency of embittered refugees and their descendants whom the Turkish nationalists could mobilise in the 1910s to attack Anatolian Christians; c) the settlement of these Muslim refugees in Anatolia began the process of Muslim colonisation of historically Armenian-inhabited lands that paved the way for the genocide; and d) the Turkish nationalists who ruled the Ottoman Empire in 1915 viewed the extermination of the Armenians as the necessary alternative to what they feared would be the establishment of an Armenian state in Anatolia under Russian protection, on the model of the Balkan Christian states and involving the same acts of killing and expulsion of Ottoman Muslims that the establishment of the latter had involved.For full article, please follow the link below:henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?pageid=49&id=691Certainly it seems it was a complex series of events that led to what occured in 1915, and paranoia from Turkish nationalists about Armenians as the article suggests was heightened by what had occured in other parts of former Ottoman empire. The article you posted gives reasons for how events were influenced but it does seem to suggest also something along the lines of*genocide ... Yes it also suggests an earlier genocide against Muslims in Caucasus and other places I take note of that but it was not exclusively at hands of Armenians even if some Armenians worked on side of Russians. When Armenians fought along side of Russians instead of for Ottoman empire what was reasons they did this, if they felt safe and secure in Turkey would they have done so or would they have been more loyal to Turkey.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 18, 2008 18:22:24 GMT -5
I dont claim to be an expert on this subject but I recently read there were Turkish killings against Armenians already in late 1800's. I f that was so then it seem by 1915 there was some feelings of retribution not that I justify or agree with killings of any inoccents or civilians on any side. I see Turkey tends to call Armenians traitors but I dont get impression Armenians felt too comfortable as non Muslims in Turkey as there were supposedly laws that favoured Muslims and seemed to place Armenians in insecure positions,eg if there was dispute between Muslim and Christian law favoured Muslim. Apparently Armenians made peaceful protests about their woes to Turkish Government . If Armenians felt safe and secure in Turkey would they have had any reasons to be seen as traitors. Apparently. Apparently what ? are you saying they felt safe and secure in Turkey at end of 19th Century and early 20th century ?
|
|
|
Post by yahadj on Jun 18, 2008 20:16:56 GMT -5
This was not solely because of safety and security issue. The material status of Amernians in Ottoman Empire was way better than the general Muslim folk. So they had this kind of feeling that they are suppressed superiors. They also considered themselves smarter than Muslims and when they saw the opportunity to carve out their own country they didn't hesitate to support the enemies of the Empire hoping to get "independence" in return. As Greeks and even Bulgarians got sucessful in their independence movements Armenians felt emboldened and confident enough to achieve theirs, too. Simple as that.
As one huge empire was collapsing and being torn in parts, of course some powerful ethnic fractions in the society would try to get advantage of that. And that is what Armenians had tried to do. But they didn't have the luck and lost. They took a risk which brought more damage to them than benefit.
Well, I sorry but that is a part of that gamble...
That is the bad side of taking a deadly risk.
Westerners seemed to support them in the beginning but once they achieved to grab their own lion piece from the cake they didn't care anymore about Armenians. It is all about interests when Western tactics are in force. Moral values serve mostly as a pretext or justification for attacking the enemy in order to expand their dominance, not aiming to bring any justice. It was about material dominance.
Armenians lost it in favor of our own survival. Why am I supposed to feel sorry about the result? Either we had to die or them. Allah SWT was on our side... Peace to the souls of innocent folk that suffered from the materialistic motives of their relatives and leaders...
PEACE
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Jun 19, 2008 1:50:22 GMT -5
Certainly it seems it was a complex series of events that led to what occured in 1915, and paranoia from Turkish nationalists about Armenians as the article suggests was heightened by what had occured in other parts of former Ottoman empire. The article you posted gives reasons for how events were influenced but it does seem to suggest also something along the lines of*genocide ... Yes it also suggests an earlier genocide against Muslims in Caucasus and other places I take note of that but it was not exclusively at hands of Armenians even if some Armenians worked on side of Russians. When Armenians fought along side of Russians instead of for Ottoman empire what was reasons they did this, if they felt safe and secure in Turkey would they have done so or would they have been more loyal to Turkey. Globally speaking, economic climate of the world began to change after the Industrial Revolution, and drastic political changes started to take place after the French Revolution. In the same period in time, Russia started to sow the crops of her modernization efforts initiated during the reign of Peter the Great, and in late 18th and 19th Centuries, Russia started waging wars against declining Ottoman Empire, Central Asian Khanates, and Persia. As of early 1800s, Russia waged two major wars on Persia. Russo-Persian War (1804-1813) and Russo-Persian War (1826-1828) resulted in Russian annexation of present territories of Dagestan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia. Russia considered the Armenians as some ally that could enable Russia's access to the Mediterranean Sea, and an ally that could protect the Russian interests before the gates of Caucasus. During and after this conquest, Russia actively started to massacre or deport the Tatars/Turks/Muslims, and encouraged the Anatolian and Persian Armenians to emigrate to the conquered territories by handing out them "some land for free". As of 1850s, the Armenians started to appear in the command lines of the Russian army, and Armenians became an important source for the Russian conscription system. After the Crimean War disaster, Russia shifted its strategy in the region, and started to target complete/partial extermination of the unfriendly tribes in Caucasus, such as the Circassians, Kumyks, Karachay-Balkars, Chechens, Abazins. Russia did see this as a strategic necessity after having witnessed the importance of the Black Sea shores during the Crimean War. The map given below is from 1840s, which outlines the borders of Circasssia, an entity that became virtually independent after the fall of the Crimean Khanate. As one could predict, the Christian Armenians were chosen as the major ally of Russia in the region, and ongoing change of populations resulted social changes in the compartments of the Ottoman Society as millions of refuges arrived from Crimea, Caucasus, and later from Balkans. Thus, the ongoing wars and huge human losses resulted in sharp decline in the income of Ottoman Muslim peasants, a class that used to offer the major tax income to the state, and most of the human resources for the Ottoman Army. In the meantime, Ottoman Armenians together with other Christian minorities enjoyed exemption from wars and military services, and experienced increase in their income (compared to the Muslims). However, the exemption from wars also resulted in high taxes for Christians and Jews, and increasing level of hatred due to horror stories proliferated by increasing number of Muslim refuges. As of 1850s, Ottoman Empire became a center of migrant inflow and outflow. Jews, Greeks, Christian Arabs stared to emigrate to the USA, Australia, Canada, and South America whilst millions of poor Muslim refuges kept on arriving to the rapidly shrinking Ottoman lands. Due to increasing effects of migration, the Ottomans decided to issue a new land reform in the 19th Century, or in other words, allocation of state lands to the arriving refuges. This was to prevent famine that could have affected the whole empire, and such strategy also targeted to increase the peasant population who could offer the human pool during the times of conflict. Kurds and other migrant arrived to Anatolia benefited from the land reforms. In the meantime, those reforms disturbed the Armenians (who used to be named as the Loyal nation by the Ottomans), conversely, Armenians started to see the Kurds as their rivals in the region, particularly after Sultan Abdulhamid issued rights to Kurds for maintaining their own local militias or security forces. Following the bankruptcy of the Russo-Ottoman was of 1877-1878, Armenians started to revolt to receive the "Russian protected rights", and tensions between Kurds and Armenians escalated. Revolts of 1890s, resulted in clashes between Armenians and the Kurds, and such clashes continued until the WWI. I think two different maps (one issued by the Armenians, the other by the Kurds) given above could explain the situation quite broadly. In conclusion, the Armenians did not trust in the Ottomans due to the practical reasons that shaped the political climate of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Instead, the Armenian nationalists developed the Eurocentric ideas on nationalism that were utilized in newly established states, such as Bulgaria, Serbia, and Romania. Thus, those actively got in touch with countries like Russia, France, USA and the British Empire, and those circles organized revolts and provoked ethnic clashes that paved the ways of the events of the WWI. Ultimately, the Ottomans supported the Kurds just like the Russians and other Europeans supported the Cossacks, Bulgarians, Armenians, Serbs, and Greeks. Eventually, disintegration of a multicultural empire did not come out as an easy task, and the remaking of nation states from proliferated ethnic and religious groups did not happen without utilizing ethnic cleansing techniques even in modern times, as witnessed the former Ottoman territories such as Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosova, Abkhazia, Karabagh, Palestine, and Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Jun 19, 2008 1:58:35 GMT -5
The Armenians,being in their historical homeland,had the right to fight for their independence to form their own state.
So dont accuse of Armenians of being traitors.They dont want to be part of the Empire,let them not be.If it means siding with someone to get what they want,so be it.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Jun 19, 2008 2:04:52 GMT -5
^^^ that pretty much sums it up..
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jun 19, 2008 4:17:31 GMT -5
If Bulgaria had exterminated her Muslims, Yahac wouldn't be born.
So, Yanni, as you have given this as a credible source and it says "Armenian genocide", do you practically agree that a genocide actually took place?
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Jun 19, 2008 5:11:17 GMT -5
If Bulgaria had exterminated her Muslims, Yahac wouldn't be born. Probably, millions of Turks like Yahac were not born due to the genocides. The author's eurocentric assumption labeling the events as a genocide is based upon the idea suggesting that the Armenian threat was some Ottoman paranoia stemmed from some conspiracy theories resembling the ones that the NAZIs developed on the Jews. However, the threat of the Armenian nationalism was not some conspiracy. It is evident that the conscripted and volunteered Armenians fought for the Russian empire during the war of 1877-1878. Later, voluntary Armenian nationalist regiments even participated in the Balkan War, and those actively involved political and military alliance with enemy states that had strong intentions to exterminate millions of Muslims who had been trying to build up their last defense lines in Anatolia. The Turks are a human cancer, a creeping agony in the flesh of the lands which they misgovern, rotting every fibre of life ... I am glad that the Turk is to be called to a final account for his long record of infamy against humanity
D. Lloyd George, British Prime Minister. 10 November 1914, cited in H.W.V. Temperley (ed.), A History of the Peace Conference of Paris, Oxford 1969, VI, 24.www.uib.no/hff/smi/publ/nereid-p.html For the Armenians have been belligerents de facto, since they indignantly refused to side with Turkey.Our volunteers fought in the French "Legion Entrangere" and covered themselves with glory. In the Legion d'Orient they numbered over 5,000, and made up more than half the French contingent in Syria and Palestine, which took part in the decisive victory of General Allenby. In the Caucasus, without mentioning the 150,000 Armenians in the Russian armies, about 50,000 Armenian volunteers under Andranik, Nazarbekoff, 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, whom they held in check until the armistice was signed. Thus they helped the British forces in Mesopotamia by hindering the Germano-Turks from sending their troops elsewhere. These services have been acknowledged by the Allied Governments, as Lord Robert Cecil recognized in the House of Commons.
Boghos Nubar Pasha was the leader of the Armenian delegation in attendance at the Paris Peace Conference after World War I.
In his letter to The Times of London, dated 30 January 1919, he openly acknowledges that it was the Armenian contributions to the allied war effort which led to their mistreatment by the Ottoman authorities.
maviboncuk.blogspot.com/2004/07/boghos-nubar-pasha-to-times-of-london.html
So, do you think that aforementioned statement suggesting a final solution on Turks was some conspiracy? Do you think that the Armenians craving for the "final account of the Turks" were the victims of some planned genocidal scheme? If you would say "yes", then you might name the events as "The Armenian Genocide". If not, then you might see it as a "bad side effect" or "some tragic consequence" of the "European ideals" that also paved the ways for the liberated Bulgaria, Armenia, Serbia, Greece, and so on.
|
|
|
Post by yahadj on Jun 19, 2008 8:24:29 GMT -5
It needed guts to do that. But don't forget about yourself, too. Turks had way more time to exterminate all of the Bulgarians, Greek and Armenians under their rule, but they didn't. You are welcome... Don't mention it. That is what our Book order us. To live in peace with those who want peace.
Then... PEACE
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jun 19, 2008 9:28:38 GMT -5
Because someone had to work and produce something in this damn empire. And Turks were definitely the most uncapable among all ethnicities.
It doesn't seem like you followed your book very strictly when you entered the Balkans.
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Jun 19, 2008 16:36:28 GMT -5
Apparently what ? are you saying they felt safe and secure in Turkey at end of 19th Century and early 20th century ? I mean I agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by fenian on Jun 19, 2008 17:45:01 GMT -5
I wouldn't like to interrupt your discussion but to encounter some posts denying the extermination of Turk/muslim population in Balkan peninsula just made me laugh of anger. Today's political condition would have totally been different than its current form in whole Eurasian territory if the muslims from Balkan and Caucasian regions hadn't been exterminated or forced to leave off to get concentrated within Anatolian borders. God damn the ones who are not capable of seeing this clear fact while keeping busy with a so called genocide dedicated to Armenians!
|
|
|
Post by panagiotopoulos on Jun 20, 2008 6:58:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 20, 2008 22:30:57 GMT -5
[
If they were materially better off due to their own hard work, efforts and abilities then they should not be targeted for that and nor should it make them superior or inferior.
Were they suppressed or not ?
My impression is as Non Muslim people they felt the laws and the system was in ways oppresive towards them. Hence again is the issue of safety and security. When any minority in any country feels that they have less rights or that law/political system of that country favours others over them then certainly it will be an issue.
[/quote]
Didnt they previously and historically have their own country and autonomous areas that they occupied with authority for long period of time? Didnt Armenia become part of Turkey in 15th century?
Are you saying that maybe a total of near 3 million Armenians women children included were threatening the survival of the then tens of millions pop of Turkey?
So the many Armenians whom were not combatants or not even in areas where there was fighting had to die why ? because they were 1: Christians and Christians were fighting Muslims in fringes of Ottoman empire and 2: because they were Armenians and some of the Armenian pop had fought on side of Russians?
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 20, 2008 22:56:27 GMT -5
Certainly it seems it was a complex series of events that led to what occured in 1915, and paranoia from Turkish nationalists about Armenians as the article suggests was heightened by what had occured in other parts of former Ottoman empire. The article you posted gives reasons for how events were influenced but it does seem to suggest also something along the lines of*genocide ... Yes it also suggests an earlier genocide against Muslims in Caucasus and other places I take note of that but it was not exclusively at hands of Armenians even if some Armenians worked on side of Russians. When Armenians fought along side of Russians instead of for Ottoman empire what was reasons they did this, if they felt safe and secure in Turkey would they have done so or would they have been more loyal to Turkey.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 21, 2008 1:17:17 GMT -5
Were 1.5 million Armenians involved in agression against Turkish state or conspiring against Turkish state. Should Muslim people in a Christian country be targeted simply because a Christian country is at war with some Muslim countries.
|
|