|
Post by depletedreasons on May 28, 2008 2:42:18 GMT -5
Excellent post, Oguz Khan. Thank you very much for the valuable contribution.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on May 28, 2008 6:33:00 GMT -5
J. A. MacGahan on Turkish Atrocities in BulgariaThe London Daily News (August 22, 1876)
Since my letter of yesterday I have supped full of horrors. Nothing has as yet been said of the Turks that I do not now believe; nothing could be said of them that I should not think probable and likely. There is, it seems, a point in atrocity beyond which discrimination is impossible, when mere comparison, calculation, measurement are out of the question, and this point the Turks have already passed. You can follow them no further. The way is blocked up by mountains of hideous facts that repel scrutiny and investigation, over and beyond which you can not see and do not care to go. You feel that it is superfluous to continue measuring these mountains and deciding whether they be a few feet higher or lower, and you do not care to go seeking for mole hills among them. You feel that it is time to turn back; that you have seen enough. But let me tell you what we saw at Batak. We had some difficulty in getting away from Pestara. The authorities were offended because Mr. Schuyler refused to take any Turkish official with him, and they ordered the inhabitants to tell us that there were no horses, for we had to leave our carriages and take to the saddle. But the people were so anxious that we should go that they furnished horses in spite of the prohibition, only bringing them at first without saddles, by way of showing how reluctantly they did it. We asked them if they could not bring us saddles, also, and this they did with much alacrity and some chuckling at the way in which the Mudir's orders were walked over. Finally we mounted and got off. As we approached Batak out attention was drawn to some dogs on a slope overlooking the town. We turned aside from the road, and passing over the debris of two or three walls and through several gardens, urged our horses up the ascent toward the dogs. They barked at us in an angry manner, and then ran off into the adjoining fields. I observed nothing peculiar as we mounted until my horse stumbled, when looking down I perceived he had stepped on a human skull partly hid among the grass. It was quite hard and dry, and might, to all appearances, have been there two or three years, so well had the dogs done their work. A few steps further there was another and part of a skeleton, likewise, white and dry. As we ascended, bones, skulls, and skeletons became more frequent, but here they had not been picked so clean, for there were fragments of half dry, half putrid flesh attached to them. At last we came to a little plateau or shelf on the hillside, where the ground was nearly level, with the exception of a little indentation, where the head of a hollow broke through. We rode toward this with the intention of crossing it, but all suddenly drew reign with an exclamation of horror, for right before us, almost beneath our horses' feet, was a sight that made us shudder. It was a heap of skulls, intermingled with bones from all parts of the human body, skeletons nearly entire and rotting, clothing, human hair and putrid flesh lying there in one foul heap, around which the grass was growing luxuriantly. It emitted a sickening odor, like that of a dead horse, and it was here that the dogs had been seeking a hasty repast when our untimely approach interrupted them. In the midst of this heap, I could distinguish the slight skeleton form, still inclosed in a chemise, the skull wrapped about with a colored handkerchief, and the bony ankles encased in the embroidered footless stockings worn by Bulgarian girls. We looked about us. The ground was strewed with bones in every direction, where the dogs had carried them off to gnaw them at their leisure. At the distance of a hundred yards beneath us lay the town. As seen from our standpoint, it reminded one somewhat of the ruins of Herculaneum and Pompeii. We looked again at the heap of skulls and skeletons before us, and we observed that they were all small and that the articles of clothing intermingled with them and lying about were all women's apparel. These, then, were all women and girls. From my saddle I counted about a hundred skulls, not including those that were hidden beneath the others in the ghastly heap nor those that were scattered far and wide through the fields. The skulls were nearly all separated from the rest of the bones - the skeletons were nearly all headless. These women had all been beheaded. We descended into the town. Within the shattered walls of the first house we came to was a woman sitting upon a heap of rubbish rocking herself to and fro, wailing a kind of monotonous chant, half sung, half sobbed, that was not without a wild discordant melody. In her lap she held a babe, and another child sat beside her patiently and silently, and looked at us as we passed with wondering eyes. She paid no attention to us, but we bent our ear to hear what she was saying, and our interpreter said it was as follows: "My home, my home, my poor home, my sweet home; my husband, my husband, my dear husband, my poor husband; my home, my sweet home," and so on, repeating the same words over again a thousand times. In the next house were two engaged in a similar way; one old, the other young, repeating words nearly identical: "I had a home, now I have none; I had a husband, now I am a widow; I had a son, and now I have none; I had five children, and now I have one," while rocking themselves to and fro, beating their heads and wringing their hands. These were women who had escaped from the massacre, and had only just returned for the first time, having taken advantage of our visit to do so. As we advanced there were more and more, some sitting on the heaps of stones that covered the floors, others walking up and down, wringing their hands, weeping and wailing. The Turkish authorities did not even pretend that there was any Turk killed here, or that the inhabitants offered any resistence whatever when Achmet-Agha, who commanded the massacre, came with the Basha-Bazouks and demanded the surrender of their arms. They at first refused, but offered to deliver them to the regular troops or to the Kaimakan at Tartar Bazardjik. This, however, Aschmet-Agha refused to allow, and insisted on their arms being delivered to him and his Bashi-Bazouks. After considerable hesitation and parleying this was done. It must not be supposed that these were arms that the inhabitants had specially prepared for an insurrection. They were simply the arms that everybody, Christians and Turks alike, carried and wore openly as is the custom here. What followed the delivery of arms will best be understood by the continuation of the recital of what we saw yesterday. At the point where we descended into the principal street of the place the people who had gathered around us pointed to a heap of ashes by the roadside, among which could be distinguished a great number of calcined bones. Here a heap of dead bodies had been burned, and it would seem that the Turks had been making some futile and misdirected attempts at cremation. A little further on we came to an object that filled us with pity and horror. It was the skeleton of a young girl not more than fifteen lying by the roadside, and partly covered with the debris of a fallen wall. It was still clothed in a chemise; the ankles were enclosed in footless stockings, but the little feet, from which the shoes had been taken, were naked, and owing to the fact that the flesh had dried instead of decomposing were nearly perfect. There was a large gash in the skull, to which a mass of rich brown hair, nearly a yard long, still clung, trailing in the dust. It is to be remarked that all the skeletons found here were dressed in a chemise only, and this poor child had evidently been stripped to her chemise, partly in the search for money and jewels, partly out of mere brutality, and afterwards killed. At the next house a man stopped us to show where a blind little brother had been burned alive, and the spot where he had found his calcined bones, and the rough, hard-vizaged man sat down and sobbed like a child. The number of children killed in these massacres is something enormous. They were often spitted on bayonets, and we have several stories from eye-witnesses who saw the little babes carried about the streets, both here and at Olluk-Kni, on the points of bayonets. The reason is simple. When a Mohammedan has killed a certain number of infidels he is sure of Paradise, no matter what his sins may be. There was not a house beneath the ruins which did not contain human remains, and the street beside was strewn with them. Before many of the doorways women were walking up and down wailing their funeral chant. One of them caught me by the arm and led me inside of the walls, and there in a corner, half covered with stones and mortar, were the remains of another young girl, with her long hair flowing wildly among the stones and dust. And the mother fairly shrieked with agony and beat her head madly against the wall. I could only turn round and walk out sick at heart, leaving her alone with her skeleton. And now we began to approach the church and the school-house. The ground is covered here with skeletons, to which are clinging articles of clothing and bits of putrid flesh. The air was heavy, with a faint, sickening odor, that grows stronger as we advance. It is beginning to be horrible. The school-house, to judge by the walls that are part standing, was a fine large building capable of accommodating 200 or 300 children. Beneath the stones and rubbish that cover the floor to the height of several feet are the bones and ashes of 200 women and children burned alive between these four walls. Just beside the school-house is a broad, shallow pit. Here were buried 200 bodies two weeks after the massacre. But the dogs uncovered them in part. The water flowed in, and now it lies there a horrid cesspool, with human remains floating about or lying half exposed in the mud. Near by on the banks of the little stream that runs through the village is a saw mill. The wheel pit beneath is full of dead bodies floating in the water. The banks of this stream were at one time literally covered with the corpses of men and women, young girls and children, that lay there festering in the sun and eaten by dogs. But the pitiful sky rained down a torrent upon them and the little stream swelled and rose up and carried the bodies away and strewed them far down its grassy banks, through its narrow gorges and dark defiles, beneath the thick underbrush and shady woods, as far as Pesterea and even Tartar Bazardjik, forty miles distant. We entered the church yard, but here the odor became so bad that it was almost impossible to proceed. We take a handful of tobacco and hold it against our noses while we continue our investigations. The church was not a very large one, and it was surrounded by a low stone wall, enclosing a small churchyard about fifty yards wide by seventy-five long. At first we perceive nothing in particular, and the stench is so great that we scarcely care to look about us; but we see that the place is heaped up with stones and rubbish to the height of five or six feet above the level of the street, and upon inspection we discover that what appeared to be a mass of stones and rubbish is in reality an immense heap of human bodies covered over with a thin layer of stones. The whole of the little churchyard is heaped up with them to the depth of three or four feet, and it is from here that the fearful odor comes. Some weeks after the massacre orders were sent to bury the dead. But the stench at that time had become so heavy that it was impossible to execute the order or even to remain in the neighborhood of the village. We are told that 3,000 people were lying in this little churchyard alone, and we could well believe it. It was a fearful sight - a sight to haunt one through life. There were little curly heads there in that festering mass, crushed down by heavy stones, little feet not as long as your finger, on which the flesh was dried hard by the ardent heat before it had time to decompose; little baby hands, stretched out as if for help; babes that had died wondering at the bright gleam of the sabers and the red eyes of the fierce-eyed men who wielded them; children who had died weeping and sobbing, and begging for mercy; mothers who had died trying to shield their little ones with their own weak bodies, all lying there together, festering in one horrid mass. They are silent enough now. There are no tears nor cries, no weeping, no shrieks of terror, nor prayers for mercy. The harvests are rotting in the fields and the reapers are rotting here in the churchyard. We looked into the church, which had been blackened by the burning of the woodwork, but not destroyed nor even much injured. It was a low building with a low roof, supported by heavy, irregular arches that, as we looked in, seemed scarcely high enough for a tall man to stand under. What we saw there was too frightful for more than a hasty glance. An immense number of bodies had been partly burned there and the charred and blackened remains that seemed to fill up half way to the low, dark arches and make them lower and darker still were lying in a state of putrefaction too frightful to look upon. I had never imagined anything so horrible. We all turned away sick and faint and staggered out of the fearful pest house, glad to get into the street again. We walked about the place and saw the same things repeated over and over again a hundred times. Skeletons of men with the clothing and flesh still hanging and rotting together; skulls of women, with their hair dragging in the dust; bones of children and infants everywhere. Here they show us a house where twenty people were buried alive; there another where a dozen girls had taken refuge and been slaughtered to the last one as their bones amply testified. Everywhere horrors upon horrors. Of the 8,000 to 9,000 people who made up the population of the place only 1,200 to 1,500 are left, and they have neither tools to dig graves with, nor strength to use spades if they had them. As to the present condition of the people it is simply fearful to think of. The Turkish authorities have built a few wooden sheds in the outskirts of the village in which they sleep, but they have nothing to live upon but what they can beg or borrow from their neighbors. And in addition to this the Turkish officials with that cool cynicism and utter disregard for European demands for which they are so distinguished, have ordered those people to pay their regular taxes and war contributions just as though nothing had happened. Ask the Porte about this at Constantinople, and it will be denied with the most plausible protestations and the most reassuring promises that everything will be done to help the sufferers. But everywhere the people of the villages come with the same story - that unless they pay their taxes and war contributions they are threatened with expulsion from the nooks and corners of the crumbling walls, where they have found a temporary shelter. It is simply impossible for them to pay, and what will be the result of these demands it is not easy to say. But the government needs money badly and must have it. Each village must make up its ordinary quota of taxes and the living must pay for the dead. We asked about the skulls and bones we had seen upon the hill upon our first arrival in the village, where the dogs had barked at us. These, we were told, were the bodies of 200 young girls who had first been captured and particularly reserved for a worse fate. They had been kept till the last; they had been in the hands of their captors for several days - for the burning and pillaging had not all been accomplished in a single day - and during this time they had suffered all that poor, weak, trembling girls could suffer at the hands of the brutal savages. Then, when the town had been pillaged and burned, when all their friends had been slaughtered, these poor young things, whose very wrongs should have insured them safety, whose very outrages should have insured them protection, were taken in the broad light of day, beneath the smiling canopy of heaven, cooly beheaded, then thrown in a heap there and left to rot.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on May 28, 2008 6:49:32 GMT -5
Some nice stuff for Mihlyuz Khan and Sause Tartar:
Gladstone and the Bulgarian AtrocitiesGeorge Horton, Excerpted from George Horton, The Blight of Asia (Indianapolis, 1926) ch II.
In the list of massacres antedating the colossal crimes which have come under my own personal observation, is cited the killing of 14,700 Bulgarians in 1876. This butchery of a comparatively few—from a Turkish view-point—Bulgarians, some fifty years ago, provoked a splendid cry of indignation from Gladstone. As this narrative develops and reaches the dark days of 1915 to 1922, during which period whole nations were wiped out by the ax, the club and the knife, and the Turk at last found the opportunity to give full vent to his evil passions, it will appear that no similarly effective protest has issued from the lips of any European or American statesman. The curious feature is that, owing to the propaganda carried on by the hunters of certain concessions, an anti-Christian and pro-Turk school has sprung up in the United States. In A Short History of the Near East, Professor William Stearns Davis, of the University of Minnesota, referring to the Bulgarian atrocities 1876, says: What followed seems a massacre on a small scale compared with the slaughter of Armenians in 1915-16, but it was enough to paralyze the power of Disraeli to protect the Turks. In all, about twelve thousand Christians seem to have been massacred. At the thriving town of Batal five thousand out of seven thousand inhabitants seem to have perished. Of course neither age or sex was spared and lust and perfidy were added to other acts of devilishness. It is a pitiful commentary on a phase of British politics that Disraeli and his fellow Tories tried their best to minimize the reports of these atrocities. They were not given to the world by official consular reports, but by private English journalists.The above is interesting, as it illustrates a quite common method of government procedure in such cases. The Tory does not seem to be a unique product of British politics. While I was in Europe recently, I talked with a gentleman who was in the diplomatic service of one of the Great Powers and was with me in Smyrna at the time that city was burned by the Turkish army. This gentleman was in complete accord with me in all details as to that affair, and asserted that his Foreign Office had warned him to keep silent as to the real facts at Smyrna, but that he had written a full memorandum on the subject, which be hopes to publish. It is significant that the Turks in 1876 were championed by Jews, while to-day such Jews as Henry Morgenthau, Max Nordau and Rabbi Wise are prominent among that group of men who are raising their voices in behalf of oppressed Christians. It is due to their influence, and to the voices of such senators as King of Utah and Swanson of Virginia, that confirmation of the Lausanne Treaty has been deferred until the blood on the bayonets and axes of the Turks should get a little drier. Speaking of Disraeli, Gladstone wrote to the Duke of Argyle: "He is not such a Turk as I thought. What he hates is Christian liberty and reconstruction." The Bulgarian massacres were made known by an American consular official, and denounced by Gladstone in a famous pamphlet. They led to the declaration of war by Russia, the treaty of San Stefano and the beginning of the freedom of Bulgaria. In a speech at Blackheath in 1876, Gladstone said: You shall retain your titular sovereignty, your empire shall not be invaded, but never again, as the years roll in their course, so far as it is in our power to determine, never again shall the hand of violence be raised by you, never again shall the flood gates of lust be opened to you.In his famous pamphlet, Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East, we have the following, a thousand times truer to-day than when it was written: Let the Turks now carry away their abuses, in the only possible manner, namely, by carrying off themselves. Their Zaptiehs and their Mudirs, their Blmhashis and Yuzbashis, their Kaimakams and their Pashas, one and all, bag and baggage, shall, I hope, clear out from the province that they have desolated and profaned. This thorough riddance, this most blessed deliverance, is the only reparation we can make to those heaps and heaps of dead, the violated purity alike of matron and of maiden and of child; to the civilization which has been affronted and shamed; to the laws of God, or, if you like, of Allah; to the moral sense of mankind at large. There is not a criminal in an European jail, there is not a criminal in the South Sea Islands, whose indignation would not rise and over-boil at the recital of that which has been done, which has too late been examined, but which remains unavenged, which has left behind all the foul and all the fierce passions which produced it and which may again spring up in another murderous harvest from the soil soaked and reeking with blood and in the air tainted with every imaginable deed of crime and shame. That such things should be done once is a damning disgrace to the portion of our race which did them; that the door should be left open to the ever so barely possible repetition would spread that shame over the world.
We may ransack the annals of the world, but I know not what research can furnish us with so portentous an example of the fiendish misuse of the powers established by God for the punishment of evil doers and the encouragement of them that do well. No government ever has so sinned, none has proved itself so incorrigible in sin, or which is the same, so impotent in reformation.The time will never come when the words of Gladstone, one of the wisest of English statesmen, will be considered unworthy of serious attention. The following characterization of the Turk by him has been more aptly verified by the events that have happened since his death than by those that occurred before: Let me endeavor, very briefly to sketch, in the rudest outline what the Turkish race was and what it is. It is not a question of Mohammedanism simply, but of Mohammedanism compounded with the peculiar character of a race. They are not the mild Mohammedans of India, nor the chivalrous Saladins of Syria, nor the cultured Moors of Spain. They were, upon the whole, from the black day when they first entered Europe, the one great anti-human specimen of humanity. Wherever they went a broad line of blood marked the track behind them, and, as far as their dominion reached, civilization disappeared from view. They represented everywhere government by force as opposed to government by law.—Yet a government by force can not be maintained without the aid of an intellectual element.— Hence there grew up, what has been rare in the history of the world, a kind of tolerance in the midst of cruelty, tyranny and rapine. Much of Christian life was contemptuously left alone and a race of Greeks was attracted to Constantinople which has all along made up, in some degree, the deficiencies of Turkish Islam in the element of mind! To these words of Gladstone may appropriately be added the characterization of the Turk by the famous Cardinal Newman: The barbarian power, which has been for centuries seated in the very heart of the Old World, which has in its brute clutch the most famous countries of classical and religious antiquity and many of the most fruitful and beautiful regions of the earth; and, which, having no history itself, is heir to the historical names of Constantinople and Nicaea, Nicomedia and Caesarea, Jerusalem and Damascus, Nineva and Babylon, Mecca and Bagdad, Antioch and Alexandria, ignorantly holding in its possession one half of the history of the whole world.In another passage Newman describes the Turk as the "great anti-Christ among the races of men."
|
|
|
Post by OghuzKhan on May 28, 2008 7:44:17 GMT -5
A usual trash contribution from a copy-past machine. As i expected, there is not a single line that could back his previous statements up. Nor is there anything with which he contest the points I made. Rather the pathetic this troll finds it useful to paste from two anti-Turkish authors. He believes and says Bulgarians have never "killed your women and children." Such a great person
|
|
|
Post by pagane on May 28, 2008 8:13:25 GMT -5
MihlyuzKhan, William Gladstone is much respected figure in European history. Go and check something for him. It is not my fault the only persons whose opinion you take into consideration, are the bath attendants in the bath nearest to you.
You are simply the same animal as your ancestors, nation of butchers, rapers and man arse lovers.
|
|
|
Post by OghuzKhan on May 28, 2008 10:30:51 GMT -5
I did check things far more numerous than your wooden head and the small thing inserted in it as a brain, could possibly comprehend, you the utterly ignorant and idiotic copy-paste machine . Gladstone's main concern was to attack Disraeli and discredit him.
The Booming Voice of Liberalism By NORMAN STONE NY Times, Book Review.February 23, 1997
Gladstone had another first when he inaugurated modern, democratic, media-manipulating politics with some rabble-rousing speeches about the Balkans. The Turks saw themselves as holding down a number of terrible problems that, without them, would plague the rest of the world... But Turk bashing was (as it has remained) Exercise 4 (a) in any manual for the would-be radically chic, and into it Gladstone plunged.
Even an author on Armenian Genocide, Donald Bloxham has criticized his approach as being hypocritical: Meanwhile, no Christian leader bothered with the suffering of Muslims in the region, Gladstone included, illustrating that ... diplomatic and popular protest was more a function of identity politics and of the strength of the ‘terrible Turk’ stereotype.[/b]
The contemporary observers were also quite suspicious about Gladstone motives. Thus, James Ashbury, a British MP has written how hypocritically he acted:
it would be interesting to trace the changes in Gladstone’s views and opinions between 1854 and 1874. In 1854 Gladstone had induced England to go to war against Russia to preserve Turkey. In 1856 he had strongly supported Paris Treaty guaranteeing the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire and he had repudiated the idea that England was responsible for the internal government of Turkey. In 1871 he had renewed the Paris Treaty and subsequently in 1872 announced through his under-secretary of state in Parliament that the condition of the Christian subjects of the Porte was greatly improved and was satisfactory. But in 1874 Mr. Gladstone suddenly found himself out of office and at all once also found that the Turkish Empire was in a most deplorable condition.
James Ashbury, MP, ‘The Eastern Question’, An Address Delivered in the Town Hall, Brighton, At the Quarterly Meeting of the Brighton Conservative and Constitutional Association, Thursday, 18 April (Brighton: Brighton Conservative and Constitutional Association, 1878), p.13.
M. Hynes opined that ‘his [Gladstone’s] fierce and tiger-like denunciation of the whole Turkish nation, indicated a state of mind in which judgement lies dormant and passion becomes the ruling power’. See M. Hynes, The Story of Russian Aggression and Turkish Defence: Being a Reply to Gladstone and Bright’s Recent Utterances on the Eastern Question (Liverpool: Author, 1877), p.28.
M. Hynes, likewise, likened Gladstone to: "a sleeper who after having fallen from office woke up and Turkish rule with its abominations for the first time met his astonished gaze." M. Hynes, 1877, p.29.
Alfred Austin, in his letter to Gladstone, invited him ‘to ask himself with merciless scrutiny whether, had the name of his pamphlet been regulated either by what it contains or by the emotion which lately invaded his retirement, he would not in candour have been compelled to call it, ‘‘Tory Horrors, or the Question between Lord Beaconsfield and Myself’’. ’ See Alfred Austin, Tory Horrors or the Question of the Hour, A Letter to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone (London: Chatto and Windus, 1876) p.4.
And it is not my fault to point to your stupid understanding of history derived from usual and useless copy-paste stuff and your unwillingness to come to terms with the reality. You claimed the number of Turks killed were only "10" when in fact a British investigator (who described "1000" as a grosss exaggeration) put it at 500 on the basis of Bulgarian and Missionairy information. You claimed the lower number is 12,000 for Bulgarians when in fact a host of subsequent and more reliable estimates put it around 3000, including by Bulgarians. You claimed Bulgarians had never killed women and children, a claim too ridiclous to deserve any consideration and rebuttal.
The bulk of my sources are non-Turkish and some Bulgarian btw if it makes difference.
.
Apparantly, you are still the same ignorant thug that you had been since I first visited this forum and could not stop giggling when I read your copy-paste 'contributions' derived from a nationalist and a simplistic grasp of history and was never surprised to see the fascistic and the racist remarks you frequently have made.
It is very funny how you get aggressive and angry when facts are thrown at you which you'd rather avoid. Jumped into the racist remarks which for log has characterized your filthy personality.
Maybe Your King was referring to the people like you when he thought of Bulgarians as "a despicable people."
For the sake of your own country, I hope that you represent a marginal segment of the Bulgarian people.
Fredrick Burnaby, On Horseback: Through Asia Minor. Preface to the 7th Edition page X:
Mr Gladstone, who, owing to his policy of agitation with reference to the crimes comitted by the Turks in Bulgaria, is the main cause of the having taken place. Mr. Gladstone, who, whilts calling for vengeance on the Turkish officials for their cruelty and oppression, and putting himself forward as the champion of suffering humanity, is now silent as to the loathsome cruelties perpetrated by Russian forces in Bulgaria...
Mr Gladstone, who lashed our people’s mind into fury by his eloquent declaration against the Turk, in his pamphlet called “Lessons on Massacre” and who now has not a word to say about the awful crimes unveiled by the Rhodope Comission.
The crimes of Nero, the massacre of St. Bartholomew are as nothing in comparison to the enormoities, the horrors, the wholesale butcheries, the atrocities, the infernal cruelties comitted by Russians and Bulgarians. Women, their childeren stil unborn, have been mutilated and cut to pieces; babies have been transfixed with lances- their agonies being the delight of Bulgarian Christians: But Mr Gladstone, the sentimantalist, is silent, Mr Lowe the rhetorician is indifferent, and Mr Bright the philanthropist holds his tongue.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on May 28, 2008 10:52:09 GMT -5
There are two posts, not only the Gladstone one. You could have read them both if your enormous brain didn't make you uncapable of wearing glasses. No company produces such big ones so they can cover that huge distance between your ears. And I don't see the difference between your copy/paste articles and mine. Yours are decorated here and there with differents fonts, underlinining and so on but they are practically the same.
Excuse me? Too much steam in the bath?
I don't know. At least I use paper before washing my arse.
Not really. Stop eating sheep only, Mihlyuz, thus your body might start smelling better. You know, the stink of suet is pretty nasty for those around you.
|
|
|
Post by OghuzKhan on May 28, 2008 11:18:24 GMT -5
You told me to check something on Gladstone, and now you complain that I ignored others which I didnt. I had earlier dealth with your hysterical claims on Bulgarian Horrors or Horrible Bulgarians.
Your failure address even one of the single points I made and attempts to turn the dabete into a childish name calling contest, coloured with your characteristic racist remarks once again indicate your ignorance. As to the sources, I do not copy-paste. Of the numerous quotations i presented, only 2 of them, by the British Historians, Bloxham and Norman Stone were copy paste. What you do is to search some garbage online and pasting them here without even checking their veracity or sources. Had you done so, you would have realized that earlier documents I presented, display a quite revealing analysis Batak , MacGahan and Schuyle and the rest of the garbage that you put here.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on May 28, 2008 15:12:51 GMT -5
Oghuz or whatever Seldjuk you are... All of your sources are copy/paste. Same as mine. Mine are not garbage, though, but historic documents. Live with that. You are a representative of a nation that has achieved nothing and contributed nothing to human civilization. Do you get it? NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!! Useless murderers, savages and cavemen.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on May 28, 2008 15:34:19 GMT -5
Long live the fight against the bulgars! Long live an Independent Circassia!!
|
|
|
Post by pagane on May 28, 2008 15:38:18 GMT -5
Terro, you fvcking homeless prick!!! All Montenegrins are proud they were never under Turks. You are not. Buzz off, you little countriless bug.
|
|
|
Post by OghuzKhan on May 28, 2008 16:42:56 GMT -5
Evidently you have nothing left to contribute other than bullshit that you are bullying the thread since the beginning to save the day. Your sources are available online from where you copied-pasted, however mine are not. To bad that you had to live under Turks for centuries and licked their asses while calling the Sultan, the Bulgarian Tsar. And still you could not back up any of the statements you previously made and here you are calling people names again . As I said you are still the same ignorant thug and it will not change. Go and beg for "chorba parasi" you useless wanker rather than wasting peoples time.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on May 28, 2008 18:42:39 GMT -5
Where the hell do you get that from you moron?
I would just rather see the Turks win instead of a nation that spawned you!
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on May 28, 2008 19:35:35 GMT -5
Do you think we're going to take those words seriously? Do you think that in an analogy, where the "American Indian" is made a savage, is an objective view?
The problem here is that Jenny starts posts that pertain to the Circassian conflict with Russia, promises justice, but will not admit any guilt in the crimes committed by his people before and after.
When it comes to Bulgarians, they were the ones that were occupied, which means many things. One thing, for instance, is that they had no goverment to lead and monitor them; therefore, groups of people acted spontaneously, without being too organized. The Turks, however, were very organized in every attrocity that they committed. The attrocities that the Turks committed are well documented throughout the centuries and have been directed against many nations and many people, so I don't see the point of trying to excuse anything.
|
|
|
Post by OghuzKhan on May 28, 2008 23:17:28 GMT -5
I could not care less about what you do or do not take seriously. I am less than impressed by the characteristic remarks that you frequently make, intending to sound and look objective, coming forward with holy inquisition style lectures. Having for long observed your extraordinarily lopsided views, I do not see any benefit into getting another endless debate.
As to the quote, I have neither endorsed nor approved the view presented in that quote and I refrained from making stupid generalizations about Bulgarian people. The reason why I put it is to show the chap who slandered the Circassians some senseless generalizations do also exist and did exist about his fellows as well, to whom he attributes ridiclous superhuman qualities.
As to the American Indians, I would have prefered not to be bothered by demagogic polemics but since you are again in the mood to lecture others, No I do not think American Indians were savages, much as I do not believe what one particularly brainless member said about Circassians.
It's great that a yokel is being made a mod in this forum who appears to be unaware about the implications of a thread subject. The thread is on the Circassians and their experiences it is not an appropriate place to dispute another member's general views by characterizing the Circassians "a savage people." If you have a problem with his unwillingness to come to terms with reality, then do whatever you want to do under a seperate thread devoted to this. Whether noticed or not, I do not take part in such discussions unless i feel greatly provoked as in this thread.
I thought i have already made it clear that I was not proud with what took place in Bulgaria in 1876.
Spontanously is a silly word to use for someone quite ignorant about what really transpired in the region.
And they were the ones who were acting in collobration with occupiers who had a government and an army and which established a rule in Bulgaria. The pattern of the atrocities perfomed were quite systematic, in each village the arms were first collected by the Russians/Cossacks under the promises of protection and then were distributed to Bulgarians who did the dirty works. And the war of 1877-78 was not the single occasion where the atrocities were committed. There were equally savage actions when they had a "government" as well, whose monitoring had proved useless.
And i do not know why I am discussing the silly demagogic points you raised. My point first and foremost, was not whether it was systematic or not or that Bulgarians were bad people but the fact that were massacres both during the April uprising and afterwards. And the neccessity to raise these points did not stemm from a passionate desire to share them but urge i felt after reading the silly remarks from an equally silly member, who claimed that there were none and that Bulgarians had never killed women and childeren.
After a bit of history in this forum, I am no longer surprised see such silly remarks which surely comes more from prejudice than any sound evidence or knowledge.
What you are doing since the beginning however, is tantamount to excusing the atocities committed on Turks. With such disregard to history and the silly manipulative tactics you often practice, I do not see any point or benefit in carrying on this debate.
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on May 29, 2008 1:06:12 GMT -5
The problem here is that Jenny starts posts that pertain to the Circassian conflict with Russia, promises justice, but will not admit any guilt in the crimes committed by his people before and after. Circassians always lived in their own lands, and the Russians never settled in Caucasus prior to the second half of the 19th Century. Most importantly, the Circassians never executed genocide on the Russians or others. I do not think that anybody puts the blame on the Bulgarian pawns of the Russians. I am well aware of the sinister nature of Russia and the crimes committed by this illegal entity. Respectfully, I believe Russia will bear the consequences of her past crimes sooner or later. There will be no waiving of responsibilities. Turks have never been so organized in such issues. Even though there exists ongoing propaganda and intensive manipulation efforts, the rest of the world knows about the criminal tendencies of "that peaceful culture", I mean the one raised upon the skulls on hundreds of millions.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on May 29, 2008 8:14:15 GMT -5
Circassians always lived in their own lands, and the Russians never settled in Caucasus prior to the second half of the 19th Century. Most importantly, the Circassians never executed genocide on the Russians or others.
^^^^
Sounds familiar...now Jan, what is the difference between 19th century and 15th century ?
I will refer to what Yahac said...do you expect ppl to be stationary ? its normal to expand and nobody can own the earth. That being said, i guess its just bad luck for the circs as it was for the pontians, armenians, asia minor hellens and of course cappodocians.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on May 29, 2008 9:00:46 GMT -5
Okay, I didn't know that. I thought you were interested in hearing everyone's opinion on the matter, but since my word has no value to you, I will disengage from interacting with you.
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on May 30, 2008 1:53:24 GMT -5
Sounds familiar...now Jan, what is the difference between 19th century and 15th century ? About four centuries, I reckon.
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on May 30, 2008 2:56:36 GMT -5
Defeat and Deportation
Even before their final victory over the Circassians the Russian government had decided to deport the majority to the Ottoman Empire and settle their lands with Cossacks. In the fifth of his “Letters from the Caucasus” General Rostislav Fadeev claimed that “Field Commander Prince Bariatinksy, satisfied with the submission of the Lezgins and Chechens, set as the goal of the war in the west Caucasus the unconditional expulsion of the Circassians from their mountain refuges [ . . . ] such was the plan of the war in its last four years.”[1] Fadeev was apparently referring to a meeting of the Caucasus commanders in October 1860 in Vladikavkaz, the subject of which was the resolution of the western Circassian question. According to Dmitry Miliutin, only Filipson argued for a humane approach to the Circassians:
In Filipson’s opinion, gentle measures should be taken with the help of Muhammad Amin to achieve the same level of submission throughout all the west Caucasus that was achieved in relation to the Abadzekhs and Natukhais, attempting to consolidate our power in the region with only a few fortified stations, the laying of roads, clearing of forests, and the establishment of an administrative system in accord with the way of life and mores of the indigenous tribes, in a humanistic spirit [ . . . ] .[2]
General Nikolai Yevdokimov forwarded the notion of removing the Circassians from their homeland completely:
In Yevdokimov’s opinion, our forces should first of all be directed against the Shapsugs, to clean (ochistit’) a wide swath along the foothills and then to become established along the ridge of the Black Mountains, beginning from the headwaters of the Laba and Belaya and then to the west; and in this manner, squeezing the mountain population, force them to accede to our demands [ . . . ] to compel them either to resettle in the open lowlands or leave for Turkey [ . . . ] .[3]
Bariatinksy and Miliutin agreed with Yevdokimov and the plan was adopted. On 10 May 1862 Alexander II officially approved of the plan. The “option” of resettling in the lowlands was never serious. The Russian High Command was aware that the Abadzekhs, Shapsugs and Ubykhs would never accept this proposal and would fight until completely defeated. Yevdokimov considered the few thousand Circassians who remained in the North Caucasus a nuisance and actively worked to reduce their numbers.[4] The notion of over one million of the most anti-Russian Circassians moving north of the Kuban River could not possibly have been proposed in earnest. Furthermore, the tribes who had already submitted to Russia were given no choice but simply driven to the coast and sent to Turkey.
In 1861 a delegation from Istanbul including one British representative arrived in Circassia and promised the remaining combatants that if they would unite as a single entity to combat the Russians the British, French and Turks would recognize them as a sovereign nation. Although at this point there was little reason to believe any foreign power would come to their aid, by summer the Circassians had established a mejlis (parliament) in Sochi, divided their remaining lands into 13 administrative units and began work on a single legal code. In 1862 the Circassians sent a delegation to Istanbul to request support, and the Circassian Committee there forwarded their petition to Paris and London. The petition was published in the British press and a wave of anti-Russian articles soon appeared. A multinational force was sent to Circassia but proved ineffective, and diplomatic efforts on the part of the British and French which continued until 1864 ultimately failed as well.[5]
By 1860 some Circassians, primarily wealthy pro-Ottoman aristocrats, had emigrated to Turkey in small numbers. The first large scale emigration was by the Nogais: in 1858-59 approximately 30,000 left the Northwest Caucasus for the Ottoman Empire.[6] In 1861 approximately 10,000 Kabardins voluntarily emigrated. At the same time the Russians were driving the Besleneis, Temirgois, Kabardins who had wished to remain, and a portion of the Abazins to the coast.[7] Some 200 Beslenei families were resettled along the left bank of the Kuban where they and a few other remnants of the feudal tribes formed the foundation of the modern Cherkess of Karachaevo-Cherkessia.[8] By the following summer 28 Cossack settlements had been established in place of the deported Circassians. In May 1862 the Natukhais who had submitted in January 1860 were ordered to resettle north of the Kuban. Cossack settlements began to appear on their land, and the following year they were driven to the coast for deportation. By the time of the deportation of the Natukhais 111 Cossack settlements had been established.[9]
The Abadzekhs, Shapsugs and Ubykhs, still naively expecting international assistance, attempted to stall the Russians. In the summer of 1861 a delegation comprised of Abadzekh Hassan Bidgev, Shapsug Islam Tkhaushev and Ubykh Haji Kerenduk-Berzek approached General Nikolai Yevdokimov, commander of the Right Flank, with a proposal for complete submission if the Russians would allow them to remain in their homelands. Yevdokimov refused and demanded unconditional surrender, accusing the Abadzekhs of violating their previous treaty of submission. The delegation traveled to Tiflis to petition General Alexander Bariatinsky, who was absent. His deputy, Grigol Orbeliani, suggested the delegation petition Alexander himself, as the Emperor was planning a visit to the North Caucasus in September. On 16 September the delegation presented their petition to Alexander. Their terms differed little from previous offers: the tribes would accept Russian suzerainty on the condition that no more forts or roads were built on their territory. Alexander, obviously angered, replied that they had one month to decide whether to resettle north of the Kuban or emigrate to Turkey.[10]
The delegation left without responding to Alexander’s ultimatum. Hemmed in from all sides, the unbowed Circassians, Ubykhs and Abazins retreated to the headwaters of the Psekups, Pshish and Psekha Rivers. On 10 May 1862 a special commission was created to work out the details of the deportation; it was decided that each deported family should be given 10 rubles compensation.[11] Poor families unable to offer resistance were rounded up and forced to march to the coast, and the resistance was slowly driven deep into the mountains by a vastly superior Russian force. Nevertheless, the mountaineers put up a fierce resistance and the Russians struggled to move forward at every step.[12] The Circassians suffered heavy losses; Russian officer I. Drozdov described the campaign of summer 1862 and the desperation of the Circassians:
The mountain was covered with the corpses of the hemmed in enemy . . . Unable to withstand this brilliant and unusual attack the mountaineers turned around and broke into total flight, abandoning their weapons, horses, and wounded on the road [ . . . ] .[13]
The entire day went badly for our enemies: they suffered heavy losses everywhere. Losses in our detachment did not exceed 30; among the mountaineers there were as many as 300 killed and wounded. The bodies of the dead and wounded mountaineers were scattered near our detachment’s position, and the mountaineers would have had to gather them under the guns of our line. Therefore the mountaineers sent a deputation the next morning with a request to gather their comrades’ bodies. This went on for days on end; the corpses, lying under the Caucasus sun for two days were already decomposing and emitted such a stench around the camp that it was impossible to breath [ . . . ] .[14]
As the army moved forward, Cossack settlements were quickly built behind them. Special regiments were assigned to watch for any Circassians who might try to return to their homeland unnoticed. The winter of 1863-64 was particularly harsh; one can only speculate how many Circassians, either living in makeshift huts or in the open, perished as a result. On 21 May Yevdokimov considered the action completed, although his troops were still pursuing at least one family that had escaped capture.[15]
The actual deportation was conducted with no concern for the welfare of the deportees. Starvation and disease raged among those waiting for transport. As Drozdov wrote:
On the road our eyes were met with a staggering image: corpses of women, children, elderly persons, torn to pieces and half-eaten by dogs; deportees emaciated by hunger and disease, almost too weak to move their legs, collapsing from exhaustion and becoming prey to dogs while still alive [ . . . ] Those alive and healthy had no time to concern themselves with the dying; the Turkish skippers, out of greed, overloaded their boats with Circassians they received payment for like cargo to the shores of Asia Minor, and like cargo threw anyone who showed the slightest sign of illness overboard. The waves threw the corpses of these unfortunate souls onto the shores of Anatolia . . . Scarcely half of those who set out made it to their goal.[16]
Even after witnessing this horrific scene Drozdov managed to justify it:
Mankind has rarely experienced such disasters and to such extremes, but only horror could have an effect on the hostile mountaineers and drive them from the impenetrable mountain thickets [ . . . ] .[17]
Because the Russians were paying the Turkish captains for each Circassian they took, the boats were drastically overloaded; boats designed to carry 50 were loaded with as many as 200. Once out to sea many ships sank. Ultimately half of the Circassians who were forced to emigrate either died en route or shortly after arriving in Turkey; according to Ottoman reports as many as 180,000 more died shortly after their arrival.[18] The actual number of Circassians who were displaced is still a matter of speculation, although the commonly accepted figure is in excess of one million and perhaps significantly more. As for those remaining, the 1882 estimates of Circassian population in the Kuban Oblast’ are:[19]
Bzhedug 16,800 Beslenei 6,600 Egerukai 2,300 Khatukai 3,400 Makhosh 1,300 Natukhai 400 Shapsug 5,200 Total 36,000
The entire Ubykh nation with the exception of a few who were moved to Kostroma province was expelled.[20] The vast majority of the Abazins, perhaps in excess of 50,000, were deported as well. The 1883 estimates of Abazin population in Kuban Oblast’ are:
Dudaruko 1334 Loov 963 Klych 121 Kyach 61 Biberdo 58 Jantamir 47 Other Tapanta 3869 Mdavei 876 Chegrei 828 Kizilbek 729 Tam 472 Mysylbai 481 Barakai 460 Bag 27 Total 10,326
The deportation resulted in a 94 percent reduction in the population of the region that would become Kuban Oblast’.[21]
Was the deportation an act of genocide? Point (c) of the United Nations Convention on Genocide defines one form as “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”[22] Despite the reports of eyewitnesses such as Drozdov, the Russian command took no steps to alleviate the deaths resulting from their deportation efforts. The problem in the United Nations definition is the question of “calculation” of destruction. In the case of the Circassians, Abazins and Ubykhs there is no evidence that the intention of the Russian Empire was to destroy them as ethnic groups but rather simply to rid the Empire of their presence, or at least transfer them to less valuable lands for the benefit of ethnic Russians. General Rostislav Fadeev presents a long argument attempting to justify the deportation of the Circassians based upon the strategic value of the land they occupied and the danger their presence posed to the Russian Empire.[23] Willis Brooks has forwarded the argument that this perceived danger was the motivation behind the deportation, and this seems to be the actual case.[24] The Russians viewed the Circassians as even more irreconcilable to Russian authority than the Chechens because of their proximity to the Ottoman Empire, which would continue to incite them to rebellion. As Fadeev writes:
A fundamental difference exists between the eastern and western Caucasus in that the Circassians, owing to their position along the coast, could never be firmly consolidated into Russia as long as they remained in their homeland [ . . . ] The reeducation of a people is a centuries-long process, but in the pacification of the Caucasus the time had come for us, perhaps for the last time, perhaps only for a brief time, to complete one of the most vital tasks in Russian history [ . . . ].[25]
According to Fadeev, the needs of the Russian State superseded any humanitarian concerns and necessitated the elimination of the Circassians.
Nevertheless, the deportations could still be viewed as “a case of ethnic cleansing carried out with brutal disregard for human suffering,” as Stephen D. Shenfield suggests in his analysis of this question.[26] Examining Russian stereotypes and drawing upon Norman Cohn’s “warrant for genocide” Shenfield concludes the Russian conception of the Circassians as a barbaric people constituted such a warrant and proposed that the deportations were in fact genocidal in nature.[27] Veliaminov certainly treated the mountaineers as little more than animals; at one point he offered a reward to his soldiers for the heads of mountaineers, which he sent to the Department of Anthropology of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg for study.[28] Caucasus historian Yakov Gordin explains this behavior:
For [Veliaminov], a student of the Encyclopedists and to some degree Montesquieu, the mountaineers’ way of life and their very worldview were in essence illegal and irrational. It was necessary either to exterminate them or force them to live correctly.[29]
As Fadeev noted, reeducating the Circassians so that they might “live correctly” was too slow a process, and so the Russians chose to eliminate them. Evidence exists of the premeditated nature of the deportation. In his memoirs Miliutin, who proposed deporting the Circassians from the mountains as early as 1857,[30] recalls: “The plan of action decided upon for 1860 was to cleanse [ochistit’] the mountain zone of its indigenous population [ . . . ]”[31]
However, the Russians had the opportunity to kill all the Circassians outright, yet they chose to deport them. Additionally, several thousand Circassians were allowed to remain in Russia. While the case of the Abazins is essentially the same as that of the Circassians, the deportation of the Ubykhs did in fact result in their complete destruction as a nation. Although the Ubykh language is not extinct, there are no more native speakers. There is no trace of their culture in the Northwest Caucasus, and their descendants live scattered throughout the Middle East. Thus, the case of the Ubykhs presents the strongest evidence for a charge of genocide against the Russian administration. However, if one applies the UN definition it could still be argued that since the Russians did not intend to destroy the Ubykhs but simply deport them this action was not “genocidal” either. St. Petersburg was uninterested in the fate of the deported peoples but certainly did not wish to annihilate them. Judging from documents of the period, the Russians would have been content if every deported person made it successfully to Anatolia and proceeded to create a new homeland for themselves. It is unclear whether the St. Petersburg government understood that this was impossible, although it is clear that commanders such as Yevdokimov were aware of the huge number of deaths but continued the deportation process anyway. At the same time it is clear that if every single Circassian, Abazin and Ubykh had been deported and all died en route to Turkey the Russians would have been equally satisfied with the results. The bottom line is that they simply did not care what happened to these people as long as they were removed from Circassia. On the other hand, there is a conspicuous absence of details of the horrific conditions faced by the deportees in the reports of 1864 written by the local officials in charge of the deportation which could theoretically have caused the administration to take steps to minimize the catastrophe.[32] At the very least Yevdokimov and the military personnel involved in the deportation could be considered guilty of genocide as defined under Point (c) of the United Nations Convention.
Paul B. Henze has raised perhaps the most significant aspect of the deportation of the Circassians, Abazins and Ubykhs:
The great exodus was the first of the violent mass transfers of population which this part of the world has suffered in modern times. Two generations later, tragedy began to overwhelm the Armenians of Eastern Anatolia. Millions of Armenians, Greeks, Turks, Kurds, and Nestorians were uprooted and hundreds of thousands died, at least during the commotion of the First World War and its aftermath. None of these ethnic disasters is entirely unrelated to the others.[33]
If one considers, as Henze proposes, that Russian actions in the 1860s set the precedent for future ethnic cleansings, then in terms of its ultimate consequences the deportation of the Circassians, Abazins and Ubykhs, officially sanctioned by Alexander II, was a unique crime against humanity, regardless of what term one wishes to attach to it.
[1] Fadeev, Kavkazskaia Voina, pp. 152-53.
[2] Quoted in Chirg, Razvitie Obshchestvenno-Politicheskogo Stroia Adygov, pp. 165-66.
[3] Quoted in Ibid., p. 166.
[4] Ibid., p. 171.
[5] Kasumov, Genotsid Adygov, pp. 140-45.
[6] Ibid., p. 151.
[7] Tugan Khabasovich Kumikov. Vyselenie Adygov v Turtsiiu—Posledstvie Kavkazskoi Voiny. Nalchik: T. Kh. Kumikov, 1994, pp. 10-11.
[8] Kasumov, Genotsid Adygov, p. 150.
[9] Polovinkina, Cherkesiia—Bol’ Moia, pp. 157-58.
[10] Esadze, Pokorenie Zapadnogo Kavkaza i Okonchanie Kavkazskoi Voiny, pp. 354-57.
[11] Kumikov, Vyselenie Adygov v Turtsiiu, p. 12.
[12] For a detailed eyewitness description of this final phase of the war, see I. Drozdov, “Posledniaia Bor’ba s Gortsami na Zapadnom Kavkaze,” Kavkazskii Sbornik 2 (1877), pp. 387-457.
[13] Drozdov, “Posledniaia Bor’ba s Gortsami na Zapadnom Kavkaze,” p. 433.
[14] Ibid., p. 439.
[15] Yevdokimov’s reports are reproduced in Kumikov, Vyselenie Adygov v Turtsiiu, pp. 47-76.
[16] Drozdov. “Posledniaia Bor’ba s Gortsami na Zapodnom Kavkaze,” pp. 456-57.
[17] Ibid., p. 457.
[18] Polovinkina. Cherkesiia—Bol’ Moia. Istoricheskii Ocherk (drevneishee vremia—nachalo XX v.). Maikop: RIPO “Adygeia,” 1999: p. 169.
[19] Kabuzan, Neselenie Severnogo Kavkaza v XIX-XX Vekakh, p. 202.
[20] T. Tatlok. “The Ubykhs,” Sefer E. Berzeg, ed. Çerkes-Vubıhlar. Ankara: Kavkasya, 1998, p. 23.
[21] A. L. Narochnitskii, ed., Istoriia Narodov Severnogo Kavkaza (Konets XVIII v.-1917 g.). Moscow: Nauka, 1988, p. 280.
[22] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Resolution 260 (III)A, United Nations General Assembly 9 December 1948, Article 2.
[23] Fadeev, Kavkazskaia Voina, pp. 149-55.
[24] Willis Brooks, “Russia’s Conquest and Pacification of the Caucasus: Relocation Becomes a Pogrom on the Post-Crimean Period,” Nationalities Papers 23.4 (1995), pp. 675-686.
[25] Fadeev, Kavkazskaia Voina, p. 152.
[26] Stephen D. Shenfield, “The Circassians: A Forgotten Genocide?” Mark Levene and Penny Roberts, eds. The Massacre in History. New York: Berghan Books, 1999, p. 154.
[27] Ibid., p. 156.
[28] Gordin, Kavkaz: Zemlia i Krov’, p. 166.
[29] Ibid., p. 197.
[30] Kasumov, Genotsid Adygov, p. 147. At one point Miliutin apparently proposed deporting the mountaineers to the Don River basin. See Valerii Dzidzoev, Natsional’nye Otnosheniia na Kavkaze. Vladikavkaz: SOGU, 1998, p. 93.
[31] Quoted in Chirg, Razvitie Obshchestvenno-Politicheskogo Stroia Adygov, p. 166.
[32] See, for example, Kumykov, Arkhivnye Materialy O Kavkazskoi Voine, pp. 149-281.
[33] Henze, “Circassian Resistance to Russia,” p. 111.
Copyright 2006, Walter Richmond. Not to be reproduced without written permission of author.
|
|