|
Post by oszkarthehun on Feb 21, 2010 11:57:08 GMT -5
if only the ones doing the attacking were targeted then maybe this could be a point but if the authorities of that country actively deport and massacre 80% of that ethnicities population when only possibly 5% was involved in active combat then that is indeed genocide. and again in fact the biggest masaacres upon civillians were actually started by the Turks against Armenians throughout the Hamidian massacres from 1870's to 1909. In fact, the losses that the Armenians suffered was quite high in Eastern Anatolia whilst it was relatively lower in Western parts. whilst Armenians lived throughout Anatollia most lived and historically lived in Eastern Turkey. Deportations of Armenians did actually take place throughout Turkey but yes was higher in Eastern parts, but the fact remains majority of those deported and massacred were non combatants this is well known. There is accounts of authorities stating their wishes to rid all Anatollia of its Armenians , an added point in the eastern provinces there was less international agencies around so authorities could do as they wished with less chance of intereference.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Feb 21, 2010 16:15:00 GMT -5
whilst Armenians lived throughout Anatollia most lived and historically lived in Eastern Turkey. Deportations of Armenians did actually take place throughout Turkey but yes was higher in Eastern parts, but the fact remains majority of those deported and massacred were non combatants this is well known. There is accounts of authorities stating their wishes to rid all Anatollia of its Armenians , an added point in the eastern provinces there was less international agencies around so authorities could do as they wished with less chance of intereference. International agencies? You mean Chinese or Japanese, Iranian, Hindu, or Brazilian? You know that all agencies existed in Anatolia back in time, were either some European diplomatic missions or some Christian missionaries. Of course many died during deportations since escalation of ethnic conflicts between 1783-1915 resulted in civil unrest all across Anatolia. This of course affected the condition of the deportees due to the fact that they were seen as allies of the Christian/European colonial powers.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Feb 21, 2010 18:25:05 GMT -5
whilst Armenians lived throughout Anatollia most lived and historically lived in Eastern Turkey. Deportations of Armenians did actually take place throughout Turkey but yes was higher in Eastern parts, but the fact remains majority of those deported and massacred were non combatants this is well known. There is accounts of authorities stating their wishes to rid all Anatollia of its Armenians , an added point in the eastern provinces there was less international agencies around so authorities could do as they wished with less chance of intereference. /quote] I simply mean peoples from various other nations "inter-national" whom were not Turks or Ottomans, the word international can be used in this context. Yes I know you want to imply they were Europeans and non Muslims so therefore cant be trusted. But reports about genocidal behaviour of the Turkish authorities from all these nations are quite similiar and there are reports from Swedes whom were neutral there are reports and accounts from Germans whom were allied with Turks and reports from Austro-Hungarians and Vambery who was actually a Hungarian Turanist and even his reports suggest a genocide then of course reports from Americans and Brits and even some reports from Turkish officers. We wouldnt expect reports from Brazillians or Indians as they were as you know not there. You have already acknowledged in a previous post an ethnic cleansing I believe it went further than that as I believe the authorities did wish to rid Anatollia from its Armenians and most likely Christian subjects considering the point of view of the Ottomans and there situation at the time this is not hard to believe especially considering what they experienced in Balkans and interference from Christian countries regarding pressuring Ottomans for reforms for their Christian subjects and considering they had the idea to construct a Turkish Muslim nation but in the end all these components resulted in what can be by definitioned called a genocide for the Armenians of Anatollia, after all 80% of Turkeys former Armenian population was cleansed from the region. "Contrary to the claims by the Young Turk regime that the "deportations" were emergency measures necessitated by wartime security , there were no military threats to the province of Angora (Ankara) when the mass deportations and masacres began there. Its Armenian community was one of the most assimilated into Turkish Political culture , but its members met a similiar fate as their compatriots in the Eastern provinces. In July under the direct orders from the Ittihadist Miralay Halil Rejayi Bey the Commander of the Fifth Army Corps headquartered at Ankara , notices were posted throughout the city of Kesaria announced the removal of all the Armenians, similiar notices were posted in Talas. The combined total of Armenians deported from Kesaria and Talas was approx 20,000."
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Feb 22, 2010 2:31:25 GMT -5
I simply mean peoples from various other nations "inter-national" whom were not Turks or Ottomans, the word international can be used in this context. I do not agree that some people from Western/European countries could be deemed as "international", particularly back in time. Could you trust in convicted witnessers of a crime that took place in a prison? Swedes? The people who had been sterilizing their minorities until 1970s? Not trustable at all. Particulary back then. Of course Aboriginals, Hindus, Chinese, Indonesians, Black Africans and Latin Americans were not there as they were being massacred by the Christian Europeans in masses back then. Perhaps it did in some instances. I am not sure, and I can never be sure of. What I am sure of is the intention of the Ottomans was to deport the Armenians out of Anatolia just like Russians deported Tatars, Circassians, Checens, and Balkan nations did deport Bosnians, Albanians, Turks, Jews, Romas and Pomaks. That is why, there is strong Armenian diaspora in almost all Western/European countries today. You can name it as you wish. However, you should not expect everyone to agree on your Eurocentric views.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Feb 22, 2010 7:24:00 GMT -5
Germany and Britain were at war with each other but both gave reports that indicated genocidal behaviour by Turk authorities upon Armenians.
not the right comparison, as I said Germans were allies of Turkey and at war with Brits and Russians. Sweden was neutral.
.
not an excuse for Turkish authorities massacreing and genocidal behaviour towards its minorities.
]There is also Armenian diaspora in Middle Eastern countries such as Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. Btw there is strong Turkish diaspora in Western countries too eg Germany has 3 and half million, Austria has a lot and Australia and probably USA also.
quote]as I believe the authorities did wish to rid Anatollia from its Armenians and most likely Christian subjects considering the point of view of the Ottomans and there situation at the time this is not hard to believe especially considering what they experienced in Balkans and interference from Christian countries regarding pressuring Ottomans for reforms for their Christian subjects and considering they had the idea to construct a Turkish Muslim nation but in the end all these components resulted in what can be by definitioned called a genocide for the Armenians of Anatollia, after all 80% of Turkeys former Armenian population was cleansed from the region.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Feb 22, 2010 10:13:36 GMT -5
Germany and Britain were at war with each other but both gave reports that indicated genocidal behaviour by Turk authorities upon Armenians. Both needed " Terrible Turk" image to distract their public from deliberate crimes they have been commiting during the war. Britain particularly brought the Armenian issue forward in order to mask the Russian crimes and deportation campaigns targeting the Jews. When the Turkish army invaded Baku in 1918, the Germans and the Russian forces allied to stop the Turkish advance. If Germans were the Turkish allies, how did this happen? That is not an excuse, but the summary of what has been going around the world. Yes, the Christian European states had been massacring tens of millions during that period in time. Of course, this placed quite an impact on how wars should have been managed. Armenian diaspora of Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria were actually the Armenians deported from Anatolia. Iran had its own Armenian minority prior to expulsion of Armenians, but some Armenian migration to Iran during WWI and afterward was also apparent. When there is struggle for land and dominion between parties, there can not be any genocide. Germans killed some 20-25 million Russian civilians during the WWII, was it a genocide? Yes, there is a definition uttered by the Western powers. However, I do not agree on that definition as I do not think that some criminals could set the rules of a certain crime committed, or have jurisdiction over the terms that must be stipulated.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Feb 22, 2010 17:57:11 GMT -5
these are not the only countries or individuals who gave such reports to simply disregard there accounts based on this reasoning is wrong as I said the Hungarian Turanist/Orientalsit Vambery who liked Turkey himslef gave similiar accounts he didnt have another motive he simply made observations on what he was seeing and hearing and many people did same thing and most of these observations indicate genocidal behaviour from Turkish authorities towards Armenians. There are too many accounts from wide range of peoples to disregard this. There was even some accounts from Turkish officers indicating same thing.
Beside from this we know Turkey was allied with Germany in WW1.
I think tens of millions is somewhat exaggeration, world populations then was not as they are now. In 1914 for exsaample in Australia aboriginals as u said were not massacred en masse , yes they suffered oppresive treatment but there was not generally massacres in that time. The Belguims in Congo and Dutch and other Europeans in Africa were treating natives very badly for sure but dont forget Arab Muslims were also Slave keepers and I think in some parts of Africa still are even now.
Armenians were citizens of Anatollia and there wasnt an official declaration of war between Armenians and Ottomans compared to all out war between Germany and Russia its not the right comparison and yes there can be genocide during war, it could be argued that the holocaust was seen by Nazi's as necessary because Jews were dominating economic elements and education etc etc, as someone said any genocide can have its reasons its rationalisations/justifications but doesnt change fact its genocide and mass killing and intentional killing of innocents occurs . As I have said majority of Armenians targeted in Anatolia were non combatants and targeting occured even in areas where there was no imminent military threat.
[/quote]
well then if u do not agree u should never use this genocide word yourself but I have already witnessed you using it regarding certain situations. In 1914 there was no such word but people who observed Arm genocide called it race murder.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Feb 23, 2010 7:54:06 GMT -5
these are not the only countries or individuals who gave such reports to simply disregard there accounts based on this reasoning is wrong as I said the Hungarian Turanist/Orientalsit Vambery who liked Turkey himslef gave similiar accounts he didnt have another motive he simply made observations on what he was seeing and hearing and many people did same thing and most of these observations indicate genocidal behaviour from Turkish authorities towards Armenians. Why should it be wrong? Do you see the accounts of the Nazis valuable? I do not. Moreover, Vambery died in 1913. So how did he witness some genocidal behaviour when he was not even alive? Which officers? If Germany was an ally of Turkey, then why did the Germans try to stop the Turkish advance in Caucasus in 1918? Just in Congo, Belgians exterminated between 10-15 million peoples between 1890-1910s. In fact, Christian European states kept on exterminating millions in other parts of Africa, Asia, Australia, America between 1890s and 1910s. In my opinion, the toll accounts no less than tens of millions even if one counts conservatively. Armenians were citizens of the Ottoman State, a state that they started working against. After all, some 150.000-200.000 Armenians engaged in armed struggle during WWI, and weakened Ottoman war efforts. The European Jews never did involve such activities in Germany or in Europe. Moreover, the war between Russia and Germany is quite right example since that brutal war involved extermination of tens of millions of civilians. What can be surely said is the fact that many Armenians died during deportation, which was executed under war time conditions. It can also be safely stressed that Armenian diaspora emerged in countries like USA, France, Canada, Australia, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt in line with the expulsion of Armenians from Anatolia. I do not go to a church and I do not confess either. However, I can use the term. For example, confession is an act, which is used to describe a religious ceremony. In a similar sense, I use the term "genocide" to define integral elements of the Western Culture.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Feb 23, 2010 19:43:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Feb 24, 2010 3:21:37 GMT -5
the point I made is accounts do not come only from one nation or a few individuals the very similiar accounts come from all the foreign agencies that were in the region at the time. Such as? Any non-European or non-Western source you could present? We do, but even though Nazi accounts are more recent, those can not be given face value. That is the point I raised. Not related to the events of WWI then. Please do that. The fact is Germans never cared about Ottomans, Armenians or their losses. In fact, Germans proposed to deport all Armenians to Russia via Caucasus. Of course, this could have been total annihilation of the Armenians. As you know, there were some German army commanders who were recruited as military advisors to the Ottoman army. Those actually proposed tactics that resulted in high casualties for Ottomans and allied forces. In reality, it can be argued that Germany has never been an ally of Turkey. Not mostly. At least 40.000 of them were Armenian militias targeting the Ottoman supply lines to help the Russian armies. In fact, what you call as the Hamidian Massacre was an ethnic clash between Kurds and Armenians. Most Armenians deported from Western parts managed to emigrate to other countries. Armenians emigrating from Eastern Anatolia experienced higher casualties due to their high level of involvement in terms of ethnic clashes that took place. Most Armenians died during deportation due to hunger or sickness. There were also some who died due to the attacks of thiefs and bandits profiting from war. Hamidian Massacre is a term used to define the Armenian losses. However, it was the Armenians who revolted and started killing thousands of Muslims in the regions they used to reside. You have any numbers for the Muslim losses? As far as I know, out of 1,5(1.7) million Armenians, at least 800.000 emigrated to other countries between 1915-1922. The remaining 280.000 as of 1922 kept on leaving the country until 1980s. Right now, Armenian population do not decrease anymore. In fact, it should be noted that tens of thousands of Armenians now prefer to live in Turkey instead of Armenia. I use it to define the crimes perpetriated by the Western/European culture. There is no point in mentioning Chinese NAZIs as we all know that the Chinese and the NAZI are incompatiable terms. In that sense, crime of genocide is quite an integral part of the Western Culture, just like the Nazism, fascism, colonialism. So, it can be used to define certain inclinations of that culture questioned.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Feb 24, 2010 19:01:33 GMT -5
the point I made is accounts do not come only from one nation or a few individuals the very similiar accounts come from all the foreign agencies that were in the region at the time. I think you know there wasnt much non western agencies in the region at the time besides from Ottomans themselves in which as I have said there are some accounts also. just watched half of documentary about Armenian genocide that I downloaded from net , in it there are 2 Turkish Professors Halil Baktay and female someone Gocek both of them agree there was a Armenian genocide one of them talks about the "Special Organisation" or deathsquad that was formed to attack convoys of Armenian deportees other one talks about the impact of what occured in the Balkans and how this incresed resentment towards Christians in Anatollia. Another Turkish guy talks about how his Grandfather did catch Armenians and burn them in a barn , this was discussed in the context that it there was a state ordered genocide but killings were also done by both Soldiers and at times ordinary people. no the accounts I was talking about were eyewitness reports that were given at the time and as I said there were reports from Germans but also others, in the Documentary I just watched there was reports from some Danes also, and as I said the Germans at this time were not Nazi's. no but his comments do relate to the genocidal attitude towards Armenians by the Ottoman authority. I will still waiting to get my books back. well they were an ally and eyewitness reports were not given by German Politicians but individual Officers or soldiers and there accounts are very similiar to most of the accounts given by range of different people. well if that number is correct then even 40.000 out of between 1 and 2 million Anatollian Armenians is hardly enough to say it was a civil war. no this is inaccurate, they were called Hamidian massacres because they were ordered by Ottoman authority Hamid, its true Hamid used his Kurdish death squads the Hamidiye to do much of the dirty work but these were not clashes but rather all out massacres given the green light by the state, there are many accounts of Hamid boasting about how many Armenians he has killed and will kill, to simply disregard this as clashes between Armenians and Kurds is just another example of how the Turks try to excuse or disclaim there involvement in such atrocities, there were massacres carried out and ordered and allowed by Turkish authorities hence Turkish state. not accurate either, even in Western Turkey Armenians were areested and jailed and some of them killed and tortured this happened in Istanbul but other parts of Western Anatollia also this featured in the documentary I just watched too. I dont believe what you are saying about massacres or high death toll only occured where there was clashes another propaganda excuse I suspect as firstly most of the Armenians had been disarmed the Turks carefully and meticulously went about disarnming Armenian villages before they would round up the civillians and then deport and masacre them and they even lied to the deportees telling them in some cases they were only being temporarily deported and would be returning later to their homes and in other cases they even made deportess pay for their own train tickets telling them they had to pay because they would later return, it was very evil and ugly buisiness indeed not saying west hasnt done bad deeds either but Turkey should face up to what really happened and what it really did to these people. in many cases deportation was a deliberate death march truth is authorities didnt care less about Armenians dying in fact for them it was a good thing, it wasnt just oppurtunist who killed and took Armenian property like many Muslim refugees from Balkans who moved into the Armenian deportees empty houses, no there was the States special organisation and there was also massacres commited by Turkish soldiers, without question in my oppinion what happened to Armenians fits the definition of*genocide for sure. show me the evidence of what you say here please. show me when and where Armenians firstly started killing thousands of Muslims. I disagree, what are called revolts or uprisings in the different places were not all the same situation, in some events they were not much more than protests that resulted in State ordered massacres of Armenians. As the documentary I watched reported at the time the Government was somewhat weak and keeping order through harsh violence had become a fairly normal method of dealing with things. in which period ? do you mean at the hands of Armenians? Ottoman Armenians or Russian Armenians or Russian Armenians and Russians ? I have seen varying numbers estimated, but the Hamidian masscares upon Armenians deathtoll is estimated between 200,000 to 300,000. emigrated lol , dont you mean deported or thrown out or escaped. something like 80% of the former Armenian population of Anatollia was ethnically cleansed from the region as a result of Arm genocide. I have seen your copy paste report and it shows that there is discrepancy on the numbers of how many Arm's live or work in Turkey , Turkish Gov gives higher numbers than those who put together that recent report, the report shows there are many Armenians who go to Turkey to work, but again if u look at the former Arm population of Anatollia to now it can be said there is a significant difference we can say that the CUP's goal of creating a mostly Turkish and Muslim society was mostly achieved and this was achieved through genocidal measures for sure.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Feb 25, 2010 4:21:52 GMT -5
Hamidian Massacres
The Hamidian massacres, also referred to as the Armenian Massacres of 1894–1896, refers to the massacring of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire, with estimates of the dead ranging from 80,000 to 300,000[1], and at least 50,000 orphans as a result.[2] The massacres are named for Abdul Hamid II, whose efforts to reinforce the territorial integrity of the embattled Ottoman Empire reasserted Pan-Islamism as a state ideology.[3]
Abdul Hamid believed that the woes of the Ottoman Empire stemmed from "the endless persecutions and hostilities of the Christian world."[4] He perceived the Ottoman Armenians to be an extension of foreign hostility, a means by which Europe could "get at our most vital places and tear out our very guts."[5]
One of the most serious incidents occurred in Armenian-populated parts of Anatolia. Although the Ottomans had prevented other revolts in the past, the harshest measures were directed against the Armenian community. They observed no distinction between the nationalist dissidents and the Armenian population at large, and massacred them with brutal force.[6] However, this occurred in the 1890s, at a time when the telegraph could spread news around the world and when the European powers were vastly more powerful than the weakening Ottoman state.
In the period of 1894-96, when the Ottoman Empire was ruled by Sultan Abdul Hamid II, tens of thousands of Armenians were massacred.[7] Some accounts suggest that the dead numbered as high as 300,000.
The origins of hostility toward Armenians lay in their status as a wealthy religious minority, in the days of the waning power of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman loss of dominion over various Christian regions was ushered in by an era of European nationalism, and the insistence of self-determination by many territories which had long been held under Ottoman authority. When nationalism spread into Anatolia, with Armenians' demanding equal rights and pushing for autonomy, the Ottoman leadership believed the Empire's Islamic character and very existence were threatened.
The success of Imperial Russia in the Russo-Turkish War, 1877-78, and the ensuing Treaty of San Stefano forced the Ottoman government to give away a large part of their territory (including the cities of Kars and Batumi) to the Russians. After these losses, the Empire was more threatened by the Russian government's claiming to support beleaguered Christian communities within the Ottoman Empire. The Treaty of Berlin—which reduced the magnitude of Russia's gains on the other side of the Black Sea—stated that the Ottoman government had to give legal protection to the Christian Armenians. The treaty's protections were not implemented.
The combination of Russian military success, clear weakening of Ottoman power, and hope that one day all of the Armenian territory might be ruled by Russia led to a new restiveness by Armenians living inside the Ottoman Empire. Starting around 1890, the Armenians began protesting to gain the protections promised them at Berlin. Unrest occurred in 1892 at Marsovan and in 1893 at Tokat. Armenians wanted reforms in the Ottoman Empire and an end to discrimination; they demanded the right to vote and establis a constitutional government.
“ In the following months, systematic pogroms swept over every district of Turkish Armenia. The slaughter of between 100,000 and 200,000 Armenians, forced conversion of scores of villages, the looting and burning of hundreds of settlements, and the coerced flight into exile of thousands of Armenians became Abdul-Hamid's actual response to European meddling.”
Another reason for the massacres were the channeling of Kurdish bandits upon Armenians instead of just anybody in the area. Historically Eastern parts of the Ottoman Empire was the most insecure place, where especially the Kurdish rebels ransacked neighbouring towns and villages. When the Empire was too weak and disorganized to halt them, Sultan Abdulhamid gave a semi-official status to the Kurdish bandits. They were known as Hamidiye Alaylari ({Abdul}Hamids's Regiments). The Sultan ignored the massacres as long as they were not directed towards the Muslim population. As the most populous and richest Christians, the Armenians faced great losses.
In 1894, Sultan Abdul Hamid II began to target the Armenian people in a precursor of the Hamidian massacres. This persecution strengthened nationalistic sentiment among Armenians. The first notable battle in the Armenian resistance took place in Sassoun. Hunchak activists, such as Mihran Damadian, Hampartsoum Boyadjian, and Hrayr, encouraged resistance against double taxation and Ottoman persecution. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation armed people of the region. The Armenians confronted the Ottoman army and Kurdish irregulars at Sassoun, finally succumbing to superior numbers and Turkish assurances of amnesty (which was never granted).
In response to the Sasun Resistance (1894), the governor of Muº responded by inciting the local Muslims against the Armenians. The historian Lord Kinross claims that this was often achieved by gathering Muslims in a local mosque and claiming that the Armenians had the aim of "striking at Islam." Sultan Abdul Hamid II sent the Ottoman army into the area and also armed groups of Kurdish irregulars. The violence spread and affected most of the Armenian towns in the Ottoman empire. The worst atrocity occurred when they burned the cathedral of Urfa, in which 3,000 Armenians had taken refuge. Turkish historian Osman Nuri observed, "The mere mention of the word 'reform' irritated him [Abdul Hamit], inciting his criminal instincts.
Tens of thousands of Armenians were massacred, both in Istanbul and elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire. Abdul Hamid's Private First Secretary wrote in his memoirs about Abdul Hamid that he "decided to pursue a policy of severity and terror against the Armenians, and in order to succeed in this respect he elected the method of dealing them an economic blow... he ordered they absolutely avoid negotiating or discussing anything with the Armenians and to inflict upon them a decisive strike to settle scores."
A French vice-consul declared that the Ottoman Empire was "gradually annihilating the Christian element" by "giving the Kurdish chieftains carte blanche to do whatever they please, to enrich themselves at the Christians' expense and to satisfy their men’s whims."[17] The French diplomatic correspondence shows that the Hamidiye conducted massacres not only of Armenians but also of Assyrians.[18][19]
The killings occurred from 1895 until 1897. In that last year, Sultan Hamid declared that the Armenian question was closed.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Feb 25, 2010 5:02:23 GMT -5
I think you know there wasnt much non western agencies in the region at the time besides from Ottomans themselves in which as I have said there are some accounts also. There was the Iranian diplomatic mission, and the consulate reported events differently. Thus, there were some missionaries reporting horror perpetriated by the Russians and their Armenian allies raised from the locals. Actually, my grandmother was a small kid when Russians invaded Black Sea Region. She personally told me how the local Armenian militias got involved in massacre of masses of Muslim peasants whilst the Russians did nothing to stop them. So, there are various accounts whether you confirm those or not. Halil Berktay is one of the few Turkish scholars who accept the Western/European interpretation with great passion. He is a Armenian Genocide celebrity together with Taner Akcam. So, all Armenian documents attepting to prove a genocide have a section on him or Akcam. He claims that a secret organization staged attacks on Armenian convoys. Unfortunately so far, he or Akcam have no document on orders, which were given to the thiefs or bandits available almost all across Anatolia back in time. Danes, Germans, Russians, Greeks? Any non-European non-Western source? Even if so, his accounts are not related to the events you try to name as genocide. OK. Individuals can only state his/her opinion on a given subject. There are also accounts on Armenian and Russian violence, particularly in terms of targeting Muslim groups. Interestingly, some of those were Germans too. Generally accepted figure on Armenian population is 1.5-1.7 million for 1914. Thus, 40.000-50.000 is the number that is applicable to the Armenians residing in the East. Let me put it this way, Turkey is now 72 million and has an army of 700.000. So, the army is about 1% of the population. 1.7 million stands for 17.000 armed soldiers. 40.000-50.000 means Armenians got really involved in armed struggle against the Ottoman State. Armenians were not happy about the land reforms of 1850s, and they were not pleasant about Kurds getting the land they claim for themselves. More importantly, they were keen to establish a state like the Romanians, Greeks, Bulgars, and Serbs did in Balkan with the help of external support. That is why, they revolted and involed armed struggle against the state, and Kurds got used by the state in order to end the revolt. So, the initiative was not Turkish, it was in fact an Armenian plan, but did not work out as they invisaged. In Istanbul and Izmir, arrest and prosecution of Armenians were rare events. That is why, there were some 280.000 Armenians in Turkey even in 1922. The Armenians of Izmir mostly left with the Greeks who evacuated the region after the collapse of the Greek army. In Eastern parts of the country, prosecuation of Armenians was not rare after 1914 since the ethnic clashes and war between Ottoman and Russian empies intermingled as of 1914. Most Armenians who emigrated from Turkey between 1915-1922 were from Western parts of Turkey. After the WWII, the Allied powers deported East European Germans to Germany, and out of 10 million Germans, about one million civilians died, of course when there was no bandid, no war, no epidemic, or no armed militias around. There is not a single Western/European country seeing this as a genocide, or is there? Nov. 15, 1914: Turks defeat Russian battalion at copper mine south of Batumi, but Russian Turkestan Corps reinforced the Caucasus Corps, resumed offensive. Russians gave supplies to a volunteer Armenian division, raised from the 1 million Armenians living in Russia, that raided the region and killed 120,000 Turkish civilians. On Nov. 30, the Czar inspected the front and praised the Armenian Catholicos, saying "a brilliant future awaits the Armenians." history.sandiego.edu/gen/ww1/1915b.htmlThere is no order of massacre found so far. Though nobody denies that Armenians suffered losses during WWI. It would be the best if you stop referring propaganda material as documentary. I asked how many Muslims did the revolting Armenians kill? Estimated or bloated? The expulsion of Armenians was some foreseenable result of the European extremism targeting the Ottoman Muslims. There is no other way to interpret it. Copy and paste? From where? If your read more on number of Armenian survivors, then you might also find that some figures that you could disagree. If you dig a bit, then you find substantial Western involvement in all crimes you state as non-Western. For example, how did Pol Pot emerge? Could you tell? I am being critical, I do not say bad is evil or bad. That would not be right to say. Defining an event as a genocide does not make anything more or less critical. Everyone is free to make up his/her own mind on a given subject. That is the beauty of freedom of thinking. In that sense, Turks in general will never comply with the Western way of thinking you advocate. Of course, there will be Turks who you like to hear, but there will be also Westerners who you do not like to hear, after all.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Feb 26, 2010 4:25:55 GMT -5
sure there can be some reports of Armenians massacring Turks because it happened to some degree, thats no secret nothing to hide if you read Taner Ackam's book Shameful Act he documents this well too. However in most if not all of these instances they already occured after Armenians had been masaacred by Muslims and with the either orders or green light of the Turkish authority. For example the link that u give here that massacre was mostly by Russian Armenians and happened already after Hamidian Massacres had occured upon Armenians so as I have said many times its no suprise Armenains were feeling a bit vengeful after losing upto 3000,000 of their own between 1870's to 1909. Its quite likely also many Armenians had fled north as result of those Hamidian massacres so those people sure felt they had scores to settle I am not actually justifying massacres I am putting things into a context.
Again in the Caucasus in 1917 there were massacres of Muslims by Armenians fighting in that region, this took place already after the 1915 deportations and massacres upon 100's of thousands of Armenians had been occuring, so sure there are some accounts of massacre of Muslims , but that does not negate the general theory of a genocide commited against the Anatollian Armenians.
I have read a lot on the subject but havn't encountered Halil Baktay in most pro genocide material I have read. I havnt read much of Halil's writing but from the books I have read I can say Ackam writes quite well on the subject, people should critique and judge his work rather than him.
Therer are plenty of accounts illustrating the Anti Armenian sentiment and Genocidal sentiment towards Armenians by Ottoman Authorities.
There might be ones I am not aware of but for me those that u listed do not belong to same country nor were they all allied at the time but I suppose for you they all look Chinese.
some theorists consider the Genocide had its beginnings in the Hamidian Massacres of 1870's to 1909, then continued from 1915 to near 1923.
his accounts show the Genocidal mentality and Anti Armenianess of Turkish Authorities.
As I have said no big suprise that there were as I have said there were some instances of violence and massacr for sure but not to same degree and manner as was done to Armenians, and often those massacres happened after larger massacres upon Armenians had already occured.
even if those figures are correct its still no justification to ethnically cleanse and murder majority of a minority that is still by majority non combatant, that is in fact Genocide/Genocidal.
I dont believe security was only goal of Ottomans , its clear they had a goal for a Pro Muslim and Pro Turkish nation so reducing Christian population as much as possible under the cover of wartime conditions was strategic and conveniant.Not to mention they probably viewed this as justice for the Muslim expulsion from Balkans I think for that reason even if many Turks know its a Genocide still they wont admit it, cause they just see it as revenge against Christian world, I see Mr Tosk subscribes to such point of view.
The state despised them already because of the external pressuring from Western countries to make reforms for Christians in Anatollia, when one of the States men was willing to make Christians equal to Muslims there was utter outrage at this idea. Secondly they were despised and hated for their succes in buisiness. Authorities deliberatly favoured the Muslim bandit Kurds to irritate and weaken the Armenians, so you cant only attribute provocation to Armenians. Armenians had little choice to empower themselves they were being grossly taxed, and they had been victims already for some time of the Kudish and Circassian banditry of course they wanted things to change thats normal in that situation, they had asked before for Government help, but they recieved ... nothing, when they superficially recieved anything it wa only under duress of foreign agency pressing for reform, same as now Turkey only made changes to appease Western countries to be considered for EU... some history repeating.
this occured already after Hamidian massacres upon Armenians not before Hamid massacres , secondly from this same article the author goes on to say how Turks commites the Armenian Genocide and gives accounts of Sultan Hamids Genocidal remarks re the Armenians.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Feb 26, 2010 4:48:29 GMT -5
sure there can be some reports of Armenians massacring Turks because it happened to some degree, thats no secret nothing to hide if you read Taner Ackam's book Shameful Act he documents this well too. However in most if not all of these instances they already occured after Armenians had been masaacred by Muslims and with the either orders or green light of the Turkish authority. You miss the whole point. So, this discussion keeps on repeating its self. The Russians sheltered and encouraged the Armenian nationalism after they entered Caucasus in early 19th Century, Thus, they started changing the demographic structure of the lands neighboring Eastern Anatolia. Million of Muslims were forced to emigrate from Caucasus whilst the Anatolian Armenian were encourged to settle in those newly Russian conquered lands. These people you refer as the Russian Armenians actually do not exist. There were Ottoman and Iranian Armenians, and the land conquered by the Russians became the lands at where Anatolian Armenians gained majority over the Muslim populations. So, when Russians and Armenians invaded Anatolia in 1914, and when those started killing the Muslim populations in areas they occuppied, it was much different in context than the ethnic clashes of 1890s that took place between the Kurds and the Armenians, which you name as the name as Hamidian Massacre. Moreover, Taner Akcam evades to focus on these delicate issues since such events erode the genocide claims he fullfills for his employers. After all, there is no document he presents other than the quotes from the books written by the Armenian or Western historians, and other than his personal opinions on some events happened in Anatolia. He blames some Ottoman officials, but his reasoning does not prove existence of any intention to execute hundreds of thousands of Armenians. Most importantly, he deliberately evades to question on how many Muslims were displaced as a result of Russo-Armenian campaigns of 1914-1915, and how many of them died due to violence and poor conditions caused by such invasion.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Feb 26, 2010 19:13:32 GMT -5
Right on Vizier!
Armenians & their Western lobbyists only paint a one sided story, and do not mention what the Armenians did themselves.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Feb 26, 2010 19:44:40 GMT -5
sure there can be some reports of Armenians massacring Turks because it happened to some degree, thats no secret nothing to hide if you read Taner Ackam's book Shameful Act he documents this well too. However in most if not all of these instances they already occured after Armenians had been masaacred by Muslims and with the either orders or green light of the Turkish authority. one reason keeps repeating is because you keep repeating that Sandiago llink, and in fact you had said that the Hamidian massacres were as a result of Armenians killing thousands of Muslims where they lived then when I asked you for evidence of that you give that Sandiego link again and that link in fact refers to events in 1914 which is after the Hamidian massacres of 1870's to 1909, so u failed to answer the question. Then as I pointed out as before the same article you use is in fact supportive of the idea of*genocide as it goes on to state Ottomans commited genocide against Armenians, so how strong is such a presentation and argument of yours then when you quote from an article that actually acknowledges the Genocide. . Russia was not always friendly to Armenians, in fact Russia had used its Tartars to commit massacres aginst Armenians when it suited Russia. the Hamidian Massacres are called such because they took place under the authority and orders of Hamid, and the Kurdish Hamidiye which worked for Hamid and were used to massacre Armenians. In the cases of physical uprising the Armenians confronted Turkish officials and those instances developed into all out massacre upon Armenians by Ottomans. There are given quotes by Hamid referring to this even in that Sandiego link you continuously give but obviously you selectively ignore such things but willingly state the parts that suit your presentation how conveniant. Turks only paint part of the story focusing entirely on a few massacres of Muslims and a few instances of revolt but ignoring the overwhelming Genocidal mentality and actions of the Turkish authority against Anatollian Armenians, describing deliberate and coordinated deportations and massscares of predominatly non combatants as "Armenian losses" and implying this occured in a civil war when in fact these victims were not targeted in any combat but simply plucked from their houses and villages and ethnically cleansed and murdered which is in fact a genocidal act especially on the scale it occured, but please continue to ignore this small point in your quest to deny simply obvious and clear acts of genocide.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Mar 1, 2010 2:47:32 GMT -5
one reason keeps repeating is because you keep repeating that Sandiago llink, That is right. This gives you the idea of how things were started. I am sorry to say this. Unfortunately, your posts get quite repetative from time to time, and it gets harder to read and answer. Nevertheless, I did not say that Hamidian Massacres were the result of Armenians killings. I indeed said, the Armenians nationalists revolted and engaged armed struggle, most importantly, those massacred Muslim populations in areas they controlled. That is what I said. I quote the article since it reverals the fact that Russo-Armenian forces were the ones which initiated the ethnic violence by killing 120.000 Muslim civilians. Russia is always friendly to the Armenians since it suits its interests. Of course, Russia does not mind commiting crimes on any ethnicty if there is some threat arising. Armenians had problems with the Kurds, and Sultan Abdulhamid did not support the Armenians against the Kurds, and in fact he eventually helped the Kurds to suppress the Armenian revolt. There is more than that. Hamidiye troops were founded to not only protect the Russian and the Iranian borders, but to control the nationalist activities that the local Armenians got involed. In fact, what you call as the Hamidian Massacre was started by the by the Armenian revolutionary groups, and that revolt involved armed struggle between militia-like units. For sure, both sides must have massacred some civil populations. It (Hamidiye Troops) was also to act as a check on this Armenian-Russian alliance and the slow but steady spread of Armenian nationalism in the eastern regions, and particularly against Armenian revolutionary activities, which although minimal in the years immediately preceding the formation of the irregular cavalry units, began to step up in pace around the time the Hamidiye was created, and which, in the following years, then, only reinforced this aspect of the militia’s raison d’etre.
I should pause for a moment to elaborate on this point, as it has been one of the most controversial in the literature on the Hamidiye. Armenian scholarship has generally presented the Hamidiye as being concrete evidence of a long-standing Ottoman policy to uproot and annihilate the Armenian population of the empire, particularly those who lived in historical Armenia and its environs. But proponents of this view have generally offered little evidence to support this claim, aside from citing the role of the Hamidiye in the massacres of Armenians that bloodied the region from 1894 to 1896. In other words, they are citing a post-facto event in order to assert what the agendas of the militia’s organizers were. I mapped the Hamidiye Regiments in order to assess this, and other claims. What I have found is that while the aim of the state at this point seems not to have been the annihilation of the Armenian population of the eastern provinces, the Hamidiye was certainly put together with the so-called Armenian conspiracy in mind. Most of the regiments were in areas where there were substantial Armenian populations, and perhaps more significantly, around points where Armenian revolutionaries were active or which they traversed as they smuggled men and weapons into the empire from across the borders. This is why, incidentally, although the initial plans for the Hamidiye also included Arab and Turkmen tribes, it was Kurdish tribes who formed the overwhelming bulk of these regiments. This is because they were the ones who lived along the threatened and fluid frontier, and they were the ones who lived near and amidst the perceived Armenian threat.www.institutkurde.org/en/conferences/kurdish_studies_irbil_2006/Janet+KLEIN.htmlFurthermore, back then there were also other Christian groups in the region at where Armenian revolutionary groups were quite active, however, those were not targeted: There are no Armenians at Mardin, only Syrian Christians (and some Moslems) who are always loyal to the Ottoman Government and are not in any way concerned in political or foreign intrigue – nor are they in sympathy with the Armenians, whose supremacy they dread. And it is to be hoped there will be no disturbance at Mardin. [she adds that the missionaries had a grievance because on landing at Alexandretta Smith's revolver had been confiscated by a Turkish official.]
Despite Finn's inaccurate or misleading statement that there were no Armenians in Mardin (Parry had given an account of Armenians in Mardin), her analysis of the relationship between Syrians and Armenians is of interest. It was important to the Syrian Orthodox, and to the Patriarch in particular, that in pursuing their contacts with foreigners, they should under no circumstance allow themselves to be compared with the Armenians who had been, and were, seeking foreign intervention.
The Foreign Office response, of course, was that the missionaries should only operate under the instructions of the British Consul at Aleppo, Henry Barnham. W.A. c**kerell, the Foreign Office official who answered Finn's request made reference in general terms to the 'violent condition of feeling among both Moslems and Christians in Asiatic Turkey.' www.stgite.org.uk/media/jewishconverts.html
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Mar 1, 2010 8:08:58 GMT -5
I below is what was said and then how you responded by posting that link referring to 1914 ... JANIHamidian Massacre is a term used to define the Armenian losses. However, it was the Armenians who revolted and started killing thousands of Muslims in the regions they used to reside. OSZKARshow me the evidence of what you say here please. show me when and where Armenians firstly started killing thousands of Muslims. below is response to above by JANI" Nov. 15, 1914: Turks defeat Russian battalion at copper mine south of Batumi, but Russian Turkestan Corps reinforced the Caucasus Corps, resumed offensive. Russians gave supplies to a volunteer Armenian division, raised from the 1 million Armenians living in Russia, that raided the region and killed 120,000 Turkish civilians. On Nov. 30, the Czar inspected the front and praised the Armenian Catholicos, saying "a brilliant future awaits the Armenians." " see how I ask you to give evidence about the era between 1870-1909 then you respond with repetitive information about 1914. Muslims massacring Armenians already occured under authority of Sultan Hamid between 1870's to 1909 which predates masacres of 1914 and with estimates of upto 300,000 Armenians were killed. ' Muslim Tatars didnt mind commiting the crimes if it suited them either. . Those Kurds Hamidiye were named after Hamid and they did his dirty work murdering Armenians which he himself bragged about and was very happy for being asscociated with. I asked you already for evidence of these massacres but so far you just write me about 1914, and now you say it happened for sure but still give me no evidence. Yes I read all of her article and so what, even Janet Klein believes there was an Armenian Genocide and even she writes that the Kurdish Hamidiye did the dirty work of Hamid same as I have already said. "The sultan named this organization, which would come to be widely regarded as one of his most prized projects, after himself—Hamidiye—to emphasize the personal relationship and bond of loyalty he wanted the Kurdish tribes to recognize not only to the empire, but to his person.""One of the primary concerns of the Kurdish chiefs had been the attempt by the new regime to force them to return the numerous tracts of land that they had been able, due to their Hamidiye connections, to appropriate from Armenian and Kurdish peasants over the previous decades." "Hamidiye chieftains were specially advantaged in this pursuit as they were allowed a free hand in their activities. While the Armenian massacres of 1894-96 certainly provided the occasion for a large-scale transfer of land from Armenian peasants to Kurdish chiefs such as Hüseyin Pasha" " But my research on the Kurdish-Armenian-state conflict as it played out before the Armenian genocide of 1915 shows that it is equally important that we understand conflict before it erupts into full-scale genocide and that we are aware of how governments can find “willing executioners” to assist in the promotion of their own aims. We can do this by not simply focusing on the victims; we must also take the perpetrators as historical subjects valid of study." www.institutkurde.org/en/conferences/kurdish_studies_irbil_2006/Janet+KLEIN.htmlConcerning this era Ottomans face complaints and accusations of Genocidal behaviour from not only Armenians but also Greeks,Assyrians and Arameans.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Mar 1, 2010 9:15:13 GMT -5
see how I ask you to give evidence about the era between 1870-1909 then you respond with repetitive information about 1914.. Since you keep on raising the same notions again and again, answers tend to become repetative repsectfully. As I told you previously, I quoted that academic link in order to reply the events of 1914-1915, not 1890s. The number you give is based upon estimation and does not provide any insight on how many Muslims were massacred by the Armenian revolutionaries. Such as when? Armenian revloutionaries revolted to seek external support. More importantly, those groups utilized armed struggle against the Kurds, and tested tactics perfected by the Russians in Balkans and Caucasus. Let us now turn to the beginning of events and hear what historian Stephanos Yerasimos, who is interested in the situation of the "political struggle" in 1892, has to say:
"The first example that all these groups (Hinchak-Tashnak) followed, both from a political perspective as well as a strategic one, was the Bulgarian one. Bulgarians formed 45 percent of the provincial population, but had managed with the moral and actual support of Europe, to kill or else expel the Turkish-Muslim majority, and to found a nation. This operation would have never succeeded if the Russians had not been involved, and if Europe had not chosen to be neutral on the subject of massacre stories out of a sense of sensitivity to public opinion. Since they succeeded, it was time to replay the same game. Civilian Armenians and even the rebellious gangs did not have enough strength to resist the Muslim majority and the Turkish army. Therefore, the main function of the Armenian gangs was to organize operations that would provoke an Armenian massacre, thus provoking the sympathy of European public opinion and forcing the great countries to intervene in favour of Armenian independency. According to a Hinchak member, "The gangs looked for opportunities to kill Turks and Kurds, to burn their villages and withdraw to the mountains. Then the angry Turks would attack civilian Armenians who were too weak to protect themselves, and would kill them in such a barbaric way that Russia would feel obliged to interfere, aiming to occupy the Armenian soil in the name of human and Christian civilisation. This "revolutionary strategy" based all its calculations on the assumption that the so-called public opinion would not be bothered when Muslims were killed, but would be affected by the brutality of the Muslim Turkish people against Armenians. However, it failed to notice that the concept of human and Christian civilisation was dependent on a very sacred international balance, and that this balance had greatly changed within the 15 years following the Bulgarian revolt."
The first tumult started with Armenians' killing of the Muslims in Kayseri, Amasya and Merzifon; and they were immediately followed by retaliations. At first, the Government took strict measures, arresting nearly 2000 Armenians, 17 of whom were sentenced to death. Fearing of Britain's threats, Abdulhamid II pardoned them. www.kesfetmekicinbak.com/kultur/tarih/00691/What Klein believes does not change the fact that the author acknowledges that the Russian sponsored revolutionary activities of the Armenians was one of the primary reasons for establishment of these Muslim troops which later on led to ethnic clashes with the Russian armed Armenians. I have never heard of Kurds accusing the Ottomans for a genocide on Kurds. You have evidence on that?
|
|