The Ottoman empire and the Christians [Archive]

View Full Version : The Ottoman empire and the Christians

Prince Cobra

06-27-2006, 17:45

I decided to make a new thread just because the nice thread of 553 years ago was going to go off its theme.
Wow, is this a coalition against me? :no: ~;) So I will retreat here to fight to the last knife... :charge:
Enough jokes.

Wizard,
Yes, most of the convertions that ahppened in the empire were forced in one or another way. Of course, the Ottoman government did not have any interest to convert all christians to the true faith. Yes, jizie (but not only it) gave good money to the sultan... Yes, devshirme good janissaries ( but not forever)... But do not forget that Christians tempt to rebel more than the Muslims in a Muslim theocratic empire. That's why people who were converted to the Muslim religion were tolerated and that process was encouraged because the Ottomans knew few of the Christians would voluntary change their religion ( which was very very important for the person at that time). Now I talked about the Christian nations with tradition like Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs. But others like Albanese and Bosnians were either heretic or just not with so firm traditons in the Christianity. The fact they are Muslim now proves my point. The sultan wouldn't mind if there are some areas which are loyal to death to their master... Who would? The Rhodope problem is connected with this in a different way. Rhodopes are a big strategic mountain near to the Egean sea. While fighting at sea or sending armies to a distant places like Hungary (poor Hungary, it gave many victims) the sultan needed secured rear. Imagine how would the Ottomans defeat rebels in a big mountain while fighting at other fronts ( yes, they would but the victims... and the sultan could have a heart attack by these problems). That's why a large part of the Bulgarians in the Rhodopes were converted to Islam. You will say its because of a strategic purposes? Yes, but that was one of the reasons the Spainish government to kill many morisks (christened Moors) who were believed to help to the Muslim pirates.
The second thing it was not better than its contemporaries. This is my point. Yes, in a different way. The religious wars ended in XVI- XVII century. The descrimination (in one form or another) of the empire continued to its end. There were no effective reforms, the empire was rotting together with all the Christians there. And what is more important- it made the Southwestern Europe the backyard of Europe. In this way it prepared all these prettyy ethnic conflicts that occured in Macedonia (poor Macedonia) , Jugoslavia... and Minor Asia ( why do you ignore the Armenians and the Greeks who died).
Third point... I DO NOT AGREE. First the Turkish problem came from Minor Asia. When the Byzantines lost it everything went to hell. The Dusan death made the things worse and the stupidity and blindness of the Balkan rulers... Yes, it cost too much. The alternative- many. The Byzantine empeors (esp. Michael VIII and Cantacuzenus) should have been more careful, the Balkan rulers wore glasses. And everything would be fine. Byzantium would have survived, the same is for Serbia and Bulgaria and the others. catholic countries? We had withstood to their ambitions and so it would be. The Balkan people would be in Europe ( like Denamrk, Portugal, Italy) in the full sense of the word. And the culture of Europe richer ( look Palaelogian Reanissance).
How dangerous are the Catholic... Austria was not. Although fanatic in some ways in its territory lived Orthodox ( in Transylvania and other areas), Protestants... About the ethnic Balkan picture- without the goodness of the Ottoman conquest- Bulgarians would not have lost their lands in Dobrudja, Macedonia and some parts of Tracia which population was the Bulgarians until XXth century. Some unpleasant things happened ot the Bulgarians there after some wars(1913,1918)... Or the byz would have never lost al of Minor Asia...
Reen Roink,
If Constantinople fell in 717 maybe the Central Europe would be Muslim now.
Any of the charges are historically accurate. Ask the Armenians and the Greeks. And Bulgarians ( just PM me ~;) ) .
Watchman,
Let's take yor child and your life and to live in a corrupted system ... You will be happy?! ( just my rethoric, nothing personal).
Akanji were really terrible they were looting the lands and killed and enslaved the population. So the undisciplined troops never disappeared ( although there were many proffessional). Although I agree this troos did not pillaged the conquered territories ( at first but after XVIII centry everything changed ).

Everybody is free to discuss. More point of views the better!

Watchman

06-27-2006, 21:32

Might I point out the Akinjis' assorted Balkan Christian colleagues (or for that matter the equivalent Ottoman and Russian irregular border fighters off in the Caucasus) were no less dreadful scourges of defenceless civilians ? Heck, even in the Thirty Years' War, which made something of an European record in the sheer scale, thoroughness and horror of devastation pre last century, irregular light mercenary cavalry from the Balkans (dubbed collectively "Croats" in contemporary sources) enjoyed a dubious reputation as particularly cruel and fearsome ravagers...

Centuries of tit-for-tat feuding tends to do that. The main difference would be that the sheer power of the Ottoman regular forces on campaign just allowed their irregular terror troops to cover more ground than was normally the case with their opponents'.

And East and Central Europe went their happy way to socioeconomic stasis and decreptitude chiefly on their own efforts (as for that matter did the Ottomans) - the Ottoman and Tatar threats merely providing the feudal aristocracy with convenient excuses to hang onto their antiquated priviledges. Most scholars seem to consider the critical break point the one where they hung on to serfdom while Western Europe abolished it...

kataphraktoi

06-28-2006, 15:57

Watchman

06-28-2006, 21:30

Reality check - back in those days it kinda sucked to be a commoner and/or noticeable minority everywhere. The Muslims just get brownie points for overall tolerance which they took a *really* long time to shed.

However, how many people know that this same Orthodox Christian was Lukas Notaras who was executed by Mehmed the COnqueror and whose wife and daughters were taken into the SUltan's harem?I'm willing to hazard the guess most folks would actually find that preferable to, say, getting tortured and murdered by Catholic "crusaders" who on the side also rape your womenfolk before murdering them...

AFAIK those royal harems were incidentally pretty cushy places to live in. The chief problem would be that all the ladies in there intrigued against each other pretty intensely for the Sultan's attention.

For crying out loud, I'd be peeved if someone took my wife and considered their right because I was an "infidel".I'm guessing that had more to do with Mehmed being the Sultan than Lukas being Christian, though.

IrishArmenian

06-28-2006, 21:52

Watchman

06-28-2006, 22:38

Although you forgot to mention the part where a lot of understandably angry Armenians joined the Russian Reds, got trained and armed and formed into their own regiment or division or whatever, invaded Turkey, and massacred every Turk they could find...

Sort of how like Greeks conveniently seem to forget the way they treated Turkish civilians during their little revolution, or how they right after WW1 went and massacred one Turkish coastal town across the Aegean mainly out of sheer spite so far as I know.

AFAIK the Bulgarians can file valid one-sided grievances, however.

I do agree Istanbul should owe up and just admit the Armenian genocide, though. The way they keep denying it annoys me already on general principles.

Around the dawn of the 1800s there is however a major paradigm shift in the form of nationalism bursting onto the scene bigtime. I would suggest people think of the time before it as a period largely separate from what came after, as things in general were getting fairly different everywhere.

Reenk Roink

06-29-2006, 00:23

A common method is to always argue that Christianity treated its minorities worse than Muslims, no doubt about it, Christianity was worse but is that suppose to say that because of relativity, living under Muslim rule was good? The bottom line is that in either society, it would still be crap as a religious minority. Isn't that really the case? Saying someone else is worse does not make you any better, you would just as bad but to a lesser degree and yet it is still BAD is it not?

Here's the thing:

Under the Ottomans, the Jews prospered. They were given positions in the government, they were left semi-autonomous, and best of all, they weren't harassed much. That in itself is 'benevolence'. It's not as much of a matter that "the Christians treated the Jews worse than the Muslims, who also treated them badly, just not as badly". It's a matter of "the Christians on general treated the Jews badly; the Ottomans on general left them alone, sure there were atrocities, but there were also golden years...".

Oh and like Watchman said, much of the Ottoman atrocities against the Armenians and Greeks was preceded by pretty good will.

This is telling that while Bulgars and Serbs were assigned to the Orthodox Patriarch, the Armenians got their own separate millet, due to their early interaction with the Ottomans.

As for the Greeks, it's quite telling that some Greeks opposed the Greek War for independence, as they were so prosperous under the Ottomans. Of course the atrocities on the Ottoman side during the war reduced this sentiment.

L'Impresario

06-29-2006, 01:12

As for the Greeks, it's quite telling that some Greeks opposed the Greek War for independence, as they were so prosperous under the Ottomans. Of course the atrocities on the Ottoman side during the war reduced this sentiment.

That's somewhat inaccurate. Excessive administrative corruption, mostly at the local level and the institutionalisation of the "çiftlik", led the greek peasantry to a very miserable state. "Free" farmers would become extinct, as most taxes were not to be paid in product and they were a heavy burden that turned the majority of the population practically into serfs, even during the 18th and 19th centuries. Rebellions did occur, esp. after nationalism came around.

The fact that a small but important percent of Greeks had vertebral positions in the Ottoman state or were successful traders doesn't show general contentment. The same persons would be the ones advocating and propagating the "modern" nationalistic trends.

Without a doubt, the Greeks who enjoyed thoroughly Ottoman rule were the clergymen, esp. the higher ranks. They had everything to lose if a national state appeared.

Furthermore, the attrocities were not the decisive factor for the general dissent, even though actions like the Chios Massacre did motivate even the more reserved ones.

Sort of how like Greeks conveniently seem to forget the way they treated Turkish civilians during their little revolution, or how they right after WW1 went and massacred one Turkish coastal town across the Aegean mainly out of sheer spite so far as I know.

Also, it can be safely said that atrocities were not tit for tat during the greek uprising. One side could - and did- inflict disproportionately greater damage in many different regions. The majority of the greek population was living even after 1830 outside the national state.

I'm also interested in learning about the massacre of that coastal town, as I might be missing something from the relevant bibliography. Naturally, it's not very hard to find wrongs perpetrated by the Greeks, but this single case I haven't heard of.

kataphraktoi

06-29-2006, 16:57

Reality check - back in those days it kinda sucked to be a commoner and/or noticeable minority everywhere. The Muslims just get brownie points for overall tolerance which they took a *really* long time to shed.

I already said the first part. And as for overall tolerance, as far as I'm concerned the Ottomans were just like other states. Come to think of it, relativity is a fragile concept to use when it comes to comparison. Positions on tolerance and intolerance are dynamic and inconsistent in every empire's timeline.

I'm willing to hazard the guess most folks would actually find that preferable to, say, getting tortured and murdered by Catholic "crusaders" who on the side also rape your womenfolk before murdering them...

Relativity does not make the alternative better either. Its still sexual slavery.

AFAIK those royal harems were incidentally pretty cushy places to live in. The chief problem would be that all the ladies in there intrigued against each other pretty intensely for the Sultan's attention.

Agreed on that part. Cushy but not exactly a glamorous life either. Although the alternative of poverty makes for an equally unglamorous life too.

I'm guessing that had more to do with Mehmed being the Sultan than Lukas being Christian, though.

I'd say both. Mehmed being...well Mehmed and the added fact that of taking an infidel's wife is an equally satisfying act against an infidel.

LeftEyeNine

06-29-2006, 18:22

Well, the Ottomans, near the end oif their reign we brutal to Christians. In the late 1800's many Armenian Christians were killed for no apparent reason, but that was not enough. From 1917-1925, about 1.5 million Christian Armenians were either burnt, starved, shot, or beaten to death. All because they would not convert to Islam. They were exiled to the Syrian desert where, if they had not been killed by the constant death-marches, starvation, or cruel soldiers, were exiled to and left to die. I, in fact, had relatives that lost many family and escaped, but many more were not as lucky. If that were not enough, the Turkish Government to this day still say that no Genocide ever happened and the "Great" American leader sides with them because he does not want to lose favor with them, also, the Turkish Government disagrees with this depite many Turks that acknowledge the Genocide.

An Armenian who feels blunt enough to talk about Armenian Issue being a "genocide", should be able to give answers to who Taşnak Sütyan and ASALA were, and how 500.000 Turks were tortured and murdered before what you call a "genocide".

I can't still imagine how those gangs were so brutal enough to open wounds on Turkish soldiers' shoulders calling that "they have promoted". I still can't find an answer how humanistic it is that Turkish women were raped in mosques for so long that they couldn't walk just "right". I have read how Russians were left speechless with what Armenian gangs had done, and tried to prevent them as long as they were there with those gangs.

Take of your goggles with which you are playing the innocent to the whole world. If Armenians are really looking for answers to some murders, they will find so many questions in their very own history. Whole world may be dumb enough to watch the play on the stage -what's more anything against the Turk is generally favorable-, but Armenians should not forget that it is not as it was a year ago. We are not sitting on our lazy arses any more.

One will hear the truth in the time to come, if his hands are not on his ears.

DukeofSerbia

06-29-2006, 18:47

But others like Albanese and Bosnians were either heretic or just not with so firm traditons in the Christianity.

I don't have time to write a lot, but I will write only this - Bosnians didn't exist in history. The nation under that name came in 90' of XX century when Slavic Moslems sheltered their religion.

Inhabitants of medieval Bosnia were Orthodox Serbs and partly Romancatholics Croats. So called "Bogumils" were only small religios minority.

Albanians were mostly Romancatholics and partly Orthodox Christians.

Watchman

06-29-2006, 20:08

Relativity does not make the alternative better either. Its still sexual slavery. That could be said of the better part of historical (and not a few modern) takes on marriage, though.

At least the women in the harems had only the intrigue to be afraid of.

AFAIK the Ottomans really were the ones to "throw the first rock" in those about three ugly cases I know of (ie. the Greek revolution, the Bulgarians and the Armenians), although in the two latter cases the actual Ottoman adminstration wasn't looking for anything such in the beginning but eventually pretty much had its hand forced by circumstances, or rather unrest and secessionist ideas brought about by factors they had little control over. Namely, the Circassians. Those happy folks were one bunch of those seminomadic border fighters the Ottomans' border regions bred on both sides, displaced by territory losses to Russians and for lack of better alternatives resettled in Bulgaria and the Armenian areas. Now, three guesses what happens when you drop such a cheerful bunch of career ravagers A) away from enemy borders B) still armed C) amongst essentially unarmed and defenceless "infidel" civilian populations ?

Nothing pretty, that's for certain. Naturally the populaces subjected to their depredations weren't exactly happy about it, but when the push came to shove the Ottomans seem to have preferred eradicating the "troublesome infidels" rather than trying to rein in the Circassians (probably a cold cost-efficiency analysis that - they may well have figured they needed the latters' guns more than the formers' taxes and goodwill), with well-known results. I'm quite willing to bet early nation-state antipathies against such relatively well-off minorities of rather different ethnic and religious bent also played a part.

In the case of the Armenians at least this also led to a pretty predictable vicious circle of counter-atrocity (the second the Armenians could manage it, anyway) and counter-counter-atrocity ad nauseum or until both sides were spent and got better things to think about, and I'd be really surprised if the Bulgarians didn't lynch some hapless Muslim civilians on general principles too.

As for the Greek revolution, by what I've read of it if the rebels didn't surpass the Ottomans in viciousness it certainly wasn't for a lack of trying. The two sides seem to have tried to beat each other in sheer barbarism. The Ottomans may have won in scale, though, since they could also pick on Greeks outside the actual combat zone whereas the Greeks had to settle for murdering Turks and Muslims they could get their hands onto.

I'm also interested in learning about the massacre of that coastal town, as I might be missing something from the relevant bibliography. Naturally, it's not very hard to find wrongs perpetrated by the Greeks, but this single case I haven't heard of.I don't recall the name of the place and no longer have the book I read it in, but goes so apparently that after what was left of the Ottomans changed its name to Turkey and signed armistice the Greeks apparently saw something of an opportunity and landed in force in the town (which wasn't a particularly small one either, I understand) and spent a while massacring the population. There was an Allied naval contignent (mainly in the area to keep an eye on the Turks) sitting right next to the harbor who simply let the Greeks through and then intensely looked the other way when they ran amuck...
*shrug* Ugly stuff, anyway.

You know, my mother has a habit of somewhat cynically observing the just about exactly only major innocent victims in the world would be the Gypsies, who've been given the boot nearly as thoroughly as the Jews but unlike them have never been in the position to oppress someone else for their part... They also still tend to be somewhat persona non grata in most countries, I understand - I know the general attitude to them here really could use some cleaning.

L'Impresario

06-29-2006, 21:00

I don't recall the name of the place and no longer have the book I read it in, but goes so apparently that after what was left of the Ottomans changed its name to Turkey and signed armistice the Greeks apparently saw something of an opportunity and landed in force in the town (which wasn't a particularly small one either, I understand) and spent a while massacring the population. There was an Allied naval contignent (mainly in the area to keep an eye on the Turks) sitting right next to the harbor who simply let the Greeks through and then intensely looked the other way when they ran amuck...
*shrug* Ugly stuff, anyway.

I gather then that you aren't referring to İzmir/Smyrna then, because this would 've been an erroneous account from any point of view. But then again the series of events described here don't point towards any actual historical occurance.

Watchman

06-30-2006, 01:17

I looked İzmir up in Wiki (hardly the most reliable source, but usually good for the general idea) and found the appropriate bit rather familiar-sounding. But, as mentioned, I no longer have the book I originally read it in in my possession.

Following the links there incidentally took me to an article on the Great Fire of Smyrna, which laconically notes at the beginning "The neutrality of this article is disputed."
I can imagine, especially as all the main participants in these tugs-of-war tend to be noted for, shall we say, less than unbiased and highly emphatic positions that don't exactly meet in the middle.

There's stuff about Turks slaughtering Armenians and Greeks when they reconquered the place (fair enough; I've not the slightest difficulty believing it), but what I find curious is the almost utter silence and a conspicious absence of all details of what the Greeks were up to after they landed. There's a particularly suspicious line "The resistance started immediately, mainly by small groups of irregular Turkish troops in the suburbs and the Greeks sustained many losses"; given the general mentality of these conflicts in general and the rather festering relations between the two groups in particular I for one find it a wee bit difficult to swallow the idea this wouldn't have led to reprisals against Turkish civilians. The somewhat one-sided curtness of the descriptions of the goings of the war (as Turkish excesses seem to be readily enough brought up) also rings some alarms bells in my head...

It's kind of like staring at a blank white spot in a map and starting to wonder just what the Heck it actually contains.

Well, of course aside from that one cute footnote about the Greeks' scorched-earth policy.

Rosacrux redux

06-30-2006, 10:35

Watchman,

Your reference about the Smyrna incidents was primarily a very, very innacurate one (the quote impressario brought up) and when you find an actual account, you still insist that there must be something else... well, this is a period of history I know all too well and I can point out to you that, yes, the Greeks did not hunt down Turkish civilians. Fair enough? No? Then why no Turkish civilian fled the Greek-occupied areas? Greece had occupied at one point 1/3 of Asia Minor in that conflict, it wasn't just Smyrna. But they did not run any pogrom, and that's why no Turks fled the Greek-held areas. Contrary to what the Turks did when they reclaimed the area. Thousands of Greeks were trying desperately to find means to get out of there before the advancing turkish forces came through, because they knew they would be raped and massacred. Alternatively, they fled to non-war zone areas, where they could hide out until the fuss is over, in order to save their lives. The Greek population of Smyrna, were slaughtered to the last man, woman and child. So simple, really.

The Turks were a particularly brutal bunch. Political correctness may not permit you or others to accept that simple fact of reality, and thus you are trying to find similar acts on behalf of the Greek side. Well, sorry, there were none. The massacre of Tripoli in the 1821 revolution is the sole incident of mass reprisals against civilians by the Greeks against the Turks.

Watchman

06-30-2006, 11:40

I may be excused if I'm a bit sceptical of any claims of these assorted Balkans and Asia Minor atrocities being one-sided, or any such claims in general.
James Loder Park, the U.S. Vice-Consul in İstanbul at the time, who toured much of the devastated area immediately after the Greek evacuation, described the situation in the surrounding cities and towns he has seen, as follows: "Manisa...almost completely wiped out by fire...10,300 houses, 15 mosques, 2 baths, 2,278 shops, 19 hotels, 26 villas…[destroyed]. Cassaba (present day Turgutlu) was a town of 40,000 souls, 3,000 of whom were non-Moslems. Of these 37,000 Turks only 6,000 could be accounted for among the living, while 1,000 Turks were known to have been shot or burned to death. Of the 2,000 buildings that constituted the city, only 200 remained standing. Ample testimony was available to the effect that the city was systematically destroyed by Greek soldiers, assisted by a number of Greek and Armenian civilians. Kerosene and gasoline were freely used to make the destruction more certain, rapid and complete." "The destruction of the interior cities visited by our party was carried out by Greeks. The percentages of buildings destroyed in each of the last four cities…were: Manisa 90 percent, Cassaba (Turgutlu) 90 percent, Alaşehir 70 percent, Salihli 65 percent. The burning of these cities was not desultory, nor intermittent, nor accidental, but well planned and thoroughly organised. There were many instances of physical violence, most of which was deliberate and wanton. Without complete figures, which were impossible to obtain, it may safely be surmised that ‘atrocities’ committed by retiring Greeks numbered well into thousands in the four cities under consideration. These consisted of all three of the usual type of such atrocities, namely murder, torture and rape."Especially after reading interesting details like that.

Put this way: the Serbs may have committed the worst crimes in the Yugoslavian Succession Wars, but Bosnia still owes Hague a couple of nasty war criminals too...

LeftEyeNine

06-30-2006, 18:22

L'Impresario

06-30-2006, 20:51

I may be excused if I'm a bit sceptical of any claims of these assorted Balkans and Asia Minor atrocities being one-sided, or any such claims in general.

Well, it's only natural to be sceptical, in such instances it can be very hard to find some middle ground. Sources and eyewitnesses are also discredited with relative ease by the two sides.

The internalization of the official version of the events by each country's populace can't allow a productive discussion of the issue. Either way, this is a very important historical period for the whole region, and anyone interested should go through the pain to educate himself perusing not only sources regarding the history of the Ottoman, Greek and Turkish states -at least since the Balkan Wars for the first two ones- but also the Great Powers' attitudes on the East Mediterranean and the political developments in Russia.

I'll try to -extremely briefly- summarize the typical popular opinions:

A Greek would say that their army landed at Smyrna in accordance with the Sevres treaty in order to guarantee the safety of the Greek majority in the region and allow a future referendum to take place that would determine the fate of Smyrna and the surrounding region, in accordance with the promises made by the Entente in order to convince Greece to join them in the Great War and enforcing the new self-determination clause that gained popularity in the West.

The Greek soldiers were greeted as liberators and secured the area they were responsible for, until Mustafa Kemal formed a new, "turkish" government, rejected the Sultan's authority and refused to accept the Treaty of Sevres. The Greeks were encouraged by the UK, even though the French and, esp., the Italians weren't that happy about it, to make the upstarts accept the treaty. Therefore, they launched their offensive towards Kemal's seat, Ankara.

The Great Powers though weren't too comfortable with the idea of intervening and limited their support to the rhetorical level. The greek side run out of luck when internal politics got in the way. The elections called for the return of the pro-German King Konstantinos and the pro-British Venizelos who got Greece into WWI resigns from PM. The army is purged from Venizelos supporters and royalist cronies occupy most of the important military ranks.
The Entente realizes that Kemal is here to stay and negotiates separate peace treaties, while the Russians openly support the Turks by providing supplies and armaments.
Greek supply lines are thinly stretched in barren Anatolia and when the Turks launch their counterattack, the Greek army will find itself struggling back to Smyrna. Greek civilians also follow for fear of reprisals. Greek POWs are sent to death marches in the far reastern reaches of Anatolia.

There, the "Asia Minor Catastrophe/Disaster" (as the events are known among the Greeks) culminates. Murder by irregulars of thousand Armenians and Greeks and the subsequent actions of the Turkish army, with the famous premeditated arson, creates panic and the Christians try to save whatever they can get hold of before swarming the port, where Entente warships sit around doing nothing but watch the many thousand Greeks drown in overfilled fishing boats or killed by looters,comprised of soldiers and civilians alike, inspired by simple greed and the newly found nationalistic frenzy that Kemal's "one nation Turkey" brought forward.
Most of the refugees find refuge in Chios and the nearby greek islands, hoping that all this is temporary and that their allies will act and return them to their homes. But this isn't meant to happen, as the Treaty of Lausanne tries to create more stable, homogenous countries. The population exchange follows and about 1.5 million Greeks leave Turkey and 500.000 Muslims abandon their homes in Greece. Compensations are minimum.

A Turk would mention that the Ottoman Empire betrayed their own people and left their rightful lands to imperialistic hands, with Greece being the main agent for delivering the unjust terms of the Sevres Treaty. Terms so vile that the survival of the Turkish nation was at stake, with Italians, French and Greeks cutting chunks off their homeland.

So, under the close protection of the British destroyers, the Greeks occupy İzmir and start immediately their repressive actions against the Turkish population. Civilians are shot for the most ridiculous of reasons and this would be only the start of the brutalities.

The Turks are cornered with few, if any, allies, facing an imperialistic coalition. Atatürk had to secure his flanks from a variety of enemies, both internal and external. Military action was taken against the French, the Italian and the Armenian invaders and land was ceded to the Greeks who moved against Ankara, inspired by the "Megali Idea" that called for the restoration of the Byzantine Empire. Leaving a trail of destruction, the Greek army is immobilized about 100 kilometers away from Ankara. But Atatürk had prepared a counter-offensive that would repel the Greeks and force them to evacuate Asia Minor. The other fronts were also stabilized, and by personally commanding the Turkish armies near Sakarya river, Atatürk is the father of yet another great victory in the War of Independence.

While retreating, the Greek army tries to slow the enemy by eradicating any possible source of supplies and in a revengeful mood goes into a raping and killing spree. İzmir won't be spared, as the affluent Greeks that lived there don't want to leave their properties to turkish hands, and the city is set on fire.

The West, as always, has no qualms of blaming the Turks once again, and still uses hypocritically the turkish "cruelty" and "barbarism", as well as notions as "human rights" and "democracy", in order to gain diplomatic leverage and force its decisions on the Turkish people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm, this whole thing took me more space and time than I initially planned.

LeftEyeNine

06-30-2006, 21:26

The West, as always, has no qualms of blaming the Turks once again, and still uses hypocritically the turkish "cruelty" and "barbarism", as well as notions as "human rights" and "democracy", in order to gain diplomatic leverage and force its decisions on the Turkish people.

Oh..I'm...impressed..

IrishArmenian

06-30-2006, 22:07

An Armenian who feels blunt enough to talk about Armenian Issue being a "genocide", should be able to give answers to who Taşnak Sütyan and ASALA were, and how 500.000 Turks were tortured and murdered before what you call a "genocide".

I can't still imagine how those gangs were so brutal enough to open wounds on Turkish soldiers' shoulders calling that "they have promoted". I still can't find an answer how humanistic it is that Turkish women were raped in mosques for so long that they couldn't walk just "right". I have read how Russians were left speechless with what Armenian gangs had done, and tried to prevent them as long as they were there with those gangs.

Take of your goggles with which you are playing the innocent to the whole world. If Armenians are really looking for answers to some murders, they will find so many questions in their very own history. Whole world may be dumb enough to watch the play on the stage -what's more anything against the Turk is generally favorable-, but Armenians should not forget that it is not as it was a year ago. We are not sitting on our lazy arses any more.

One will hear the truth in the time to come, if his hands are not on his ears.
If you go a little bit back to the 1890's, I beleive, the Ottoman Turkish government accused the Armenians of rebellion, and many Armenians were killed. As soon as the time arose, yes many Armenians (including members of my family) actually DID rebel against Turkey and slaughter many innocents. I do not praise them for that, in fact, many were ashamed of it. The whole Genocide though, did blow things out of proportion, and even non Armenian members of the Turkish Government (though this time it was the "Young Turks) advised against it.
And, about the hands in our ears, we are a damm stubborn people. And you seem to have a very, very strong feeling about this, I am only talking about the past, unless you gave the order, or shot the innocents, I have no quarrel with you.

LeftEyeNine

07-01-2006, 06:44

I admit, the Armenians before me were quite ruthless to the Turks, but if you go a little bit back to the 1890's, I beleive, the Ottoman Turkish government accused the Armenians of rebellion, and many Armenians were killed. As soon as the time arose, yes many Armenians (including members of my family) actually DID rebel against Turkey and slaughter many innocents. I do not praise them for that, in fact, many were ashamed of it. The whole Genocide though, did blow things out of proportion, and even non Armenian members of the Turkish Government (though this time it was the "Young Turks) advised against it.
And, about the hands in our ears, we are a damm stubborn people. And you seem to have a very, very strong feeling about this, I am only talking about the past, unless you gave the order, or shot the innocents, I have no quarrel with you.

So a number varying from 400.000 to 1.000.000 of murdered Armenians can be called a genocide, but approximately 500.000 Turks getting killed can not ?

No nor Armenians neither Turks were massacred. It had been some kind of a clan war that took more lives than the likes. It was not a genocide at both ends.

kataphraktoi

07-01-2006, 07:09

LeftEyeNine

07-01-2006, 13:28

Blaming the other side for similar atrocities does not exonerate nor lessen one's own atrocities does it?

Only way forward is to accept blame for what really did happen but some people seem to think they are the historical model of tolerance and equality.

Human nature is capable of lying to itself and committing the worst atrocities ever.

If you really want some new genocide in history books, then there's one spare room for Turkish Genocide for sure.

I still insist that it was all of a conflict in which two sides did the same to each other. What happened to Armenians and Turks were both massacres but I don't think both qualify as genocides.

Edit: Starting from your second sentence I can say that so many people think that they are the birthplace of civilization and humanity.

I can also say that human nature is capable of assaulting in other areas if the battlefield did not work out for them.

I've said so many times and I'll say it again :If there had been a genocide, I would admit it. But it did not happen.

kataphraktoi

07-02-2006, 05:09

Add to that the genocide of the Assyrian and Nestorian Christians under Ottoman rule near the end of its life. These Christians are one of the most unknown minority groups in the Middle East and suffered terribly in the late Ottoman era.

Even today, they are discriminated and harassed (specifically by Iraqi Kurds) in the Ardabil-Mosul area. Its funny, those Kurds in power complain about being victims...how ironically hyprocritcal that they deny aid to the minority groups under their supervision.

LeftEyeNine

07-02-2006, 08:11

Add to that the genocide of the Assyrian and Nestorian Christians under Ottoman rule near the end of its life. These Christians are one of the most unknown minority groups in the Middle East and suffered terribly in the late Ottoman era.

Here we go again ~:)

How can you believe the possibility of extinction of particularly Christians, in a state which is controlled by England, France, Russia and some others ?

Prince Cobra

07-03-2006, 12:53

I was a little bit busy. So here is my answer...
DukeofSerbia
Thanks for the elucidation.The Bosnians are young nation created after the middle of XXth century. However the native of Bosnia were mainly heretics although the formal religion was the Catholicism the Bogomil herecy was very popular.
To Watchman
Yes, but Ottoman empire was militaristic and its economy was the worst of all. The reforms were slow and unefficient. Without the Ottoman rule Southern Europe would have been definately better.
That's true- Bulgarians are known not only as people in post- communist country called Bulgaria, and who lost two world wars and one local war against all its neighbours ( which actually failed the plan of including all the Bulgarians in one country) but as very tolerant to the minorities. They are the one of the few countries who saved their Jews and I am proud of this event. In Bulgaria there are Muslim population and there is no problems between the Bulgarians and them ( actually many of them are Muslim Bulgarians and there is a Turkish minority, too.) The only accident between the Bulgaria and the Muslims was when the Communist regime decided to change the name of the Muslim with 'better' ones ( Bulgarian, not Muslim).( Actually there is very strong relation between the Muslims and the Bulgarians- even the Muslims give money for Orthodox churches and vice versa ( the Bulgarians for a mosque). So this was a decision of the communistic dictator who had nothing to do with the Bulgarian nation ). That was a great mistake of our Communistic leader but it was not the only one...:no: Fortunately the regime and his attemts ended in 1989. After this there are absolutely no problems between the Bulgarians and the Muslims. And I hope there will be no more accidents in the future, too!

To kataphraktoi
A common method is to always argue that Christianity treated its minorities worse than Muslims, no doubt about it, Christianity was worse but is that suppose to say that because of relativity, living under Muslim rule was good? The bottom line is that in either society, it would still be crap as a religious minority. Isn't that really the case? Saying someone else is worse does not make you any better, you would just as bad but to a lesser degree and yet it is still BAD is it not?
Yes, that's true. Although the case with the Orthodox was slightly different. In Hungary and later in Austria the Orthodox in Carpatia were on the bottom,too. But most of them preserved their religion( I do not tell you it was better for Bulgaria and other Balkan countries to be conquered by Austria. No, it was better to be free!). So there was no a big difference until XIXth century ( Austrain Catholics were not worse than the Ottomans to the Orthodox).But later... No genocide in Austria-Hungary. However the Armenians in Minor Asia were brutally massacred and the same fate would have been for the Balkan Christians in the Ottoman empire if they had been in it (there were many Christians in Macedonia and Tracia (btw many of them were Bulgarians although others were not) but fortunately such organised genocide as the Armenian was not planned for them yet. Unfortunately the fate of the Bulgarians there was slightly different ( at least they were not slaughtered in large numbers - if this could be any comfort. There were difference although not very sufficient. Unfortunately.)- after these territories were conquered by Greece and Serbia in 1913 and 1918 the Bulgarians there were either forced to emigrate or to be under descrimination ). So the ethnic conflicts were not an exception in the Balkan countries,too.:shame: :shame: :shame:.) And I can not ignore this- yes, in the beginning the Ottomans let the Orthodox be Orthodox ( but please do not forget that Hungary and Austria also let people in the Carpatia be Orthodox although they do not like it;later the same was with the Polish under the Russians (although some unpleasant things happened to the Polish they stayed Catholics), but later- the tlerance ended. It was the nationalism syndrome- OK but it is absolutely normal for an European country to create its nation. However this was combined with a conservative empire in decline ( after all one of the greatest weakness of the Ottoman empire is its economy) , a horrible regime of Abdulhamid II and the idea of Panislamism supported by the sultan so the tolerance changed to fanatism. Yes, the Islam was tolerant but in the Ottoman empire it changed in a worse way. And when we talk about the tolerance of the Ottoman sultans we can not ignore this- it can be in the end of its historiacl life but it happened. That's why I said there was no 'benevolence' to the Christians. The Austrian rulers were more tolerant compared to the Ottoman sultans ( at least in Austria there was no genocide). And yes, kataphraktoi I absolutely agree you should not compare two regimes who was worse- the most important thing was that it was bad regime ( that's why I hate to compare Hitler with Stalin).
To LeftEyeNine
Unfortunately it was a genocide. Armenians were planned to be destroyed. The government of Abdulhamid II participated in the massacres of the Armenians.I appreciate your attempts to clear the name of your country. But this was the bitter truth. You are not guilty of the things that were decided by the government especially by a government which was hated even by its people. The time of Abdulhamid II was called ' zulum ' which means ' destruction' in Turkish . And the European countries stopped it for a while. But after the Crete rebellion they focused on this problem and the massacres continued. After that the preoccupation of the Great powers with the First World war didn't let them stop it. Later the genocide continued because when one tradition is founded its difficult to be stpped. That of course did not excuse nor the killers neither in 1917 nor in 1925. The only things which should be done is to accept the past ( which is difficult) and to head for a better future. It was not coincidence I named the thread The Ottoman empire ( between 1299 and 1924) and the Christians not the Turkey and the Christians. The case with the Armenians killing the Turks- that was the bitter result of the genocide over the Armenians. And as always of the the citizens pay for the mistakes government which is completely unfair! More than 1 500 000 Armenians and 500 000 Turks?! And that in the XXth century. :no:
About the Greek question. Greece suffered from the ' Megali idea' . It was not easy to accept that the territory of your country is only a small part of the former world empire called Byzantium. That caused the unpleasant conflict that caused 500 000 Muslim to emigrate and many Orthodox Bulgarians to emigrate from their homes in Tracia and Macedonia under Greek rule. And 1 500 000 Greeks fleeing from Minor Asia. In addition the hatred between the Greeks and the Turks is very old so ... this is the effect. As for the Bulgarians- the Greek nationalism said its cruel word. Greece was not alone the same happened in Serbia and Romania . More or less the nationalism were in Bulgaria too. Although there were no persecution of the minorities in Bulgaria the Bulgarian monarch Ferdinand I ( nice Bulgarian name isn't it? He is a German and no Bulgarian will remeber him with good- two lost wars(the Second Balkan and the first world war)) and the government dreamed not only to union the Bulgarian nation in Mizia, Tracia and Macedonia(the historical provinces of Bulgaria- something absolutely fair) but to conquer Thessalonica and Istanbul ( some cities that had never been Bulgarian). As for Smyrna- I can not comment it ( not info and time). This was in the past. And once again I hope everything stays in the history.
This is the Balkan peninsula. Nobody is happy.:no: :no: :no:

Sarmatian

07-05-2006, 01:43

Put this way: the Serbs may have committed the worst crimes in the Yugoslavian Succession Wars, but Bosnia still owes Hague a couple of nasty war criminals too...

Please avoid generalization when you speak about sensitive topics like this one. There are about 10-12 millions Serbs in the world, and only a few are war criminals.

Cronos Impera

07-05-2006, 13:46

So my dear Bulgarian friend, if the Ottomans didn't conquer Constantinopole, others would have and it would have been a lot nastier. By the time the Byzantines had lost the holdings in Anatolia, the Balkans ware poor and weak. By the time Constantinopole fell, all the residual power of the dying Empire flooded the Balkan Peninsula.
Soon ( around 1600) the only real Orthodox power in the Balkans ware Wallachia, Moldavia and catholic Transylvannia. This unique political scheme kept Russia and SAustria out of the "cookie box".
Your Bulgaria, Stephen Asen was created by three different nations ( The Bulgarians, The Vlachs and The Slavs) and it was pretty unstable by the time Ottoman Turkey rose as a regional power. I remind the Asen Brothers ware vlachian and created a joint Romanian-Bulgarian state. Also if King Ferdinand wanted so, Bulgaria might have merged with Romania in a federation simmilar to Cechoslovackia, called Bromania or.......
To be honest, the Fall of Constantinopole was one of the best events in Medieval history. The Balkans ware unified against a single enemy for the first time and the cultural heritage of the Serbs, the Greeks, the Albanians, the Romanians, the Bulgarians and many more ware saved. A christian superpower might have assimilated those cultures.The Ottoman culture didn't.
The Catholic superpowers ( Hungary, Italy, Austria) and Russia ware forced to cunfrunt the Ottomans not a band of scattered nations and kingdoms across the Balkans and Carpathians.

kataphraktoi

07-05-2006, 15:20

Here we go again

How can you believe the possibility of extinction of particularly Christians, in a state which is controlled by England, France, Russia and some others ?

Haven't you heard of the politics of convenience? Perhaps you're familiar with media coverage, or more specifically, lack of coverage.

Of course you haven't...

Isn't it convenient to deny genocide as well. Your argument that Armenians committed genocide does not rule out Turkish genocide of Armenians. And besides, Turks and Armenians are not clans, how can it be a clan war? Its a battle for survival. You try to exterminate the Armenians, they got P*ssed of and try to give you a taste of what they experienced. I'm not saying the slaughter of Turks was justified, I'm saying what the hell do you expect when you commit such atrocities against a people?

Why can't Modern Democratic Turkey admit it?? Is there a masculine culture that does not want to lose face? Is it pride? Is it a combination of both?

Cronos Imperia:

To be honest, the Fall of Constantinopole was one of the best events in Medieval history. The Balkans ware unified against a single enemy for the first time and the cultural heritage of the Serbs, the Greeks, the Albanians, the Romanians, the Bulgarians and many more ware saved. A christian superpower might have assimilated those cultures.The Ottoman culture didn't.

The cultural heritage of the Serbs, the Greeks, the Albanians, the Romanians, the Bulgarians was preserved by their own efforts, not Ottoman "niceness". Even under Catholic rule, Orthodox Christians resisted assimilation. Eg. Ukraine under Polish-Lithuanian rule. So under Ottoman rule, it was not any better or worse. The independence movements of the 19th century were the by-products of a strong determination to preserve one's heritage under occupation by an alien culture and religion. However, others assimilated into Ottoman culture and religion better than others like the Bosniaks and Albanians.

DukeofSerbia

07-05-2006, 18:50

DukeofSerbia

07-05-2006, 19:09

The cultural heritage of the Serbs, the Greeks, the Albanians, the Romanians, the Bulgarians was preserved by their own efforts, not Ottoman "niceness". Even under Catholic rule, Orthodox Christians resisted assimilation. Eg. Ukraine under Polish-Lithuanian rule. So under Ottoman rule, it was not any better or worse. The independence movements of the 19th century were the by-products of a strong determination to preserve one's heritage under occupation by an alien culture and religion. However, others assimilated into Ottoman culture and religion better than others like the Bosniaks and Albanians.

I agree.

Just to add that Albanians became Moslems because of privileges and Bosnians never existed in history which I explained in previous post. Bosnian Moslems are Bošnjaks. Bosnians means men from Bosnia. When you say in Serbia Bosnian then you mean Serb from Bosnia. My family is from Bosnia.

cegorach

07-05-2006, 19:24

[QUOTE=kataphraktoi] Even under Catholic rule, Orthodox Christians resisted assimilation. Eg. Ukraine under Polish-Lithuanian rule.

Hmm I would rather sau that it was assimilated too quickly which was the main reason of future Cossack rebellions, but this is not the right thread to talk about it.

So under Ottoman rule, it was not any better or worse.

Not really. Ottoman rule meant stagnation in the entire area, most likely without it the Balcan nations would adopt higher standard of living and government much quicker.

Regards Cegorach:book:

LeftEyeNine

07-05-2006, 20:56

Stephen Asen,

I just don't get why I have to admit what you say, what you are told what you have read. Turks did not tell anything about the incident. If this can prove something, it proves that we are lazy asses. Turkish government is very ignorant since the death of Ismet İnönü and that makes around 50 years.

Abdulhamid II was quite a "king of the hill" kind of guy. His attempts were quite strictive but, if you look through the timeframe of the history, his attempts can be justified as "forcing a revival". Most of the Republic period establishments were origined in his time. He sent so many students abroad for education, founded many schools all over the country. And the intelligence organization was his step as well. I heard some rumours about his fingerprints about having a "hand" in the activities of IRA as a counter attack against UK. However it may be hoax, I did not research much into that subject.

"Zulüm" means "cruelty" in Turkish, by the way, not "destruction". That was a bad attempt to relate the period with that so called "genocide".

And that "lovely" Europeans trying to stop Ottomans from massacring Armenians was a good laugh indeed. How pretty and humanistic they are. I'm sure they would hand our lands back, but you know we were rather impatient.

Review history, re-read it from different "pens".

The so called Armenian Genocide is generally dated from mainly 1915. 1925 is Republic period and such action is impossible at that date. Because I know that USA and Turkey were having tense and close relationships by the period. There were even telegraphs coming and going about a single unjustified punishment in Turkey, so that it's impossible that the new country could attempt that. Everyone was worn and run out. Noone could chase such absurd stuff.

The case with the Armenians killing the Turks- that was the bitter result of the genocide over the Armenians.

Reading help :

Armenian who feels blunt enough to talk about Armenian Issue being a "genocide", should be able to give answers to who Taşnak Sütyan and ASALA were, and how 500.000 Turks were tortured and murdered before what you call a "genocide".

The Armenians' murders start following the invasion of Russians in 1877-1878. You see, 1914 is a bigger number. That means "later" for the study of history.

Later the genocide continued because when one tradition is founded its difficult to be stpped.

Turkish culture is at least as humanistic as the Western civilization. I'm a descendant of a civilization where the wifeof the Khan was as powerful as the Khan himself. This simply itself denies out any cannibalist traditions that can take root in my culture. Above anything else you mentioned here, I was rather frustrated with such claim of yours.

kataphraktoi

Isn't it convenient to deny genocide as well. Your argument that Armenians committed genocide does not rule out Turkish genocide of Armenians. And besides, Turks and Armenians are not clans, how can it be a clan war? Its a battle for survival.

I know Turks and Armenians are not clans. Take it as a means of distinction among the sides of the issue.

You try to exterminate the Armenians, they got P*ssed of and try to give you a taste of what they experienced.

Armenians try to exterminate us, we got p*ssed off and tried to give them a taste of what we experienced when they were on way of obligatory immigration. Can I state it more clear ?

I'm not saying the slaughter of Turks was justified, I'm saying what the hell do you expect when you commit such atrocities against a people?

I'm not saying the slaughter of Turks was justified, it was a war. I'm saying that what the hell do you expect when you commit such atrocities against your neighbors ?

How can you write a tale where you ignited the fire with your own bloody hands and then weep it to the whole world ?

How can your struggle be justified by killing around 40 Turkish diplomats with your terrorist organization?

How can your lie can be even uglier remembering how your ancestors used to live neighbors to mine peacefully ?

How can your "democratic demands" can be met while every 7 of 10 PKK terrorists killed is found to be Armenian ?

How can your little melting candle light any longer?

We, Turks, have a saying : "The liar's candle extinguishes by the prayer of night"

Why can't Modern Democratic Turkey admit it?? Is there a masculine culture that does not want to lose face? Is it pride? Is it a combination of both?

Because there is nothing to accept. Simply and clearly put.

There is a strong face with its pride that is standing here since 1071. When the whole world falls upon him, he fights back to his freedom.

It's a combination of all which losers did not ever have.

IrishArmenian

07-05-2006, 22:11

How can you write a tale where you ignited the fire with your own bloody hands and then weep it to the whole world ?

How can your struggle be justified by killing around 40 Turkish diplomats with your terrorist organization?

How can your lie can be even uglier remembering how your ancestors used to live neighbors to mine peacefully ?

How can your "democratic demands" can be met while every 7 of 10 PKK terrorists killed is found to be Armenian ?

How can your little melting candle light any longer?

1) We were actaully close to being exterminated. Yeah that is why. The original was not ethnic cleansing. It was not aimed at all Turks, yet all Armenians were prosecuted for the deeds of a few.
2) It is not OUR terrorist organization. How can someone be so narrow minded. Are all of Zarqawi's doings recorded on Syria's slate? Is Osama Bin Laden the face of Yemen? No. It is not our terrorist organization, just because they were Armenian. That is like saying all Irish are bold supporters of the assassinations led by the IRA, IRB and Sinn Fein. You are sorly mistaken. I think it is very offensive when you judge a whole people by their extremists. Is that not the problem in America with Muslims?
3)It is not a lie, and beleive me, everyone wishes for a peaceful world. It is the politicians that decide this. This is like judging America by George Bush, it is stupid to.
4) So now everyone who is Armenian is now the reason for your government to deny the genocide? There are much better people to judge Armenians by. I do not judge the terrorists in the Middle East by saying, how come 10 out of 10 Al Qaeda terrorists are muslim.
This all come from your prejudices and judgements when you have not examined this subject from all points of view. I originally thought that everyone here was much better than making petty, and quite offensive assumptions. I guess not.

Kralizec

07-05-2006, 22:22

2) It is not OUR terrorist organization. How can someone be so narrow minded. Are all of Zarqawi's doings recorded on Syria's slate? Is Osama Bin Laden the face of Yemen?

Eh, no because Al-Zarqawi was born in Jordan and OBL in Saudi Arabia.

Sorry I couldn't resist :sweatdrop:

LeftEyeNine

07-05-2006, 22:26

My statements above give a general idea of how "dirty" the two sides can be. I did not try to reach a generalization about all Armenians being terrorists or something. This is childish let alone being far from being rational.

I'm times and times sick of Armenians playing it to the world being so innocent and color white. ASALA and Taşnak Sütyan were all Armenian originated and this somehow carries an essence of what is happening around.

Personally I have nothing against Armenians because I have encountered and lived with none of them. But what we talk here are the politics. And they are Turks that get blamed by the genocide -just as how you called my post being offensive and petty while pointing out ASALA as a whole and PKK's most guerillas were Armenians.

Don't take it personal at all, if you did, I did not intend to do so. But if Turks are blamed for genocide, you should be well aware that Armenians were in such terrorist organizations.

And please don't present that "no not Turkish people, I mean the Turkish governemnt should admit blah blah" BS, government represents the country -whatever they may have done for the period. And what they do affects the whole nation, not only the government.

IA, I think you can use your common sense and see what I mean.

However after all this discussion will not change anything. You will believe in what you want to and same will apply for me.

Sarmatian

07-06-2006, 02:21

Not really. Ottoman rule meant stagnation in the entire area, most likely without it the Balcan nations would adopt higher standard of living and government much quicker.

Regards Cegorach:book:

That is only partially true. At first, the turks were quite progressive and they have brought much needed stability, expecially in the western balkans where the death of dushan and disintegration of serbian empire left a power vacuum. Things started getting complicated when turkish empire started to weaken. Western and central european countries started industrial revolutions while turkish empire remained feudal. The sultan's power weakened, and unscrupulous feudal lords started to exploit local population for their own gain. During these times the worst atrocities against the serbs were commited. At least this is the case with serbia, I can't be sure about other balkan countries.

IrishArmenian

07-06-2006, 04:49

Personally I have nothing against Armenians because I have encountered and lived with none of them.
Don't take it personal at all, if you did, I did not intend to do so. But if Turks are blamed for genocide, you should be well aware that Armenians were in such terrorist organizations.

However after all this discussion will not change anything. You will believe in what you want to and same will apply for me.
Oh yes, and I Turks. In fact my brother in law is Turkish (EDIT:upon further remebering, he is a Turkish Gypsy, but that is not the point...) I do not take it personal, I just get a small bit heated in debates, but I feel someone who doesn't is distant and aloof. I was also well ware of the Armenian Secret Police, and other such terrorist organizations. We all use common sense, we are all brothers.
Krazilecthank you for correcting me, but you get that whole point, yes?
I have nothing against any of you all here.:2thumbsup:

Rosacrux redux

07-06-2006, 14:01

That is only partially true. At first, the turks were quite progressive and they have brought much needed stability, expecially in the western balkans where the death of dushan and disintegration of serbian empire left a power vacuum. Things started getting complicated when turkish empire started to weaken. Western and central european countries started industrial revolutions while turkish empire remained feudal. The sultan's power weakened, and unscrupulous feudal lords started to exploit local population for their own gain. During these times the worst atrocities against the serbs were commited. At least this is the case with serbia, I can't be sure about other balkan countries.

The Turks failed to follow the "west" when they started the series of revolutions that would bring "the west" to the dominant point it is in the past two centuries worldwide. Thus, the Ottomans became stagnant (in terms of technological, social and scientifical progress) even in the early 17th century. And they kept the populations they ruled, stagnant as well. Don't forget that the Ottomans were notorious for being extremely lazy and conoisseurs of life - hard work, both mental and labour, innovation and "delicate" tasks, even as petty as book-keeping, was done by the Greeks, Jews and Armenians of the empire, and that's a historical given.

On a more general note, the Ottomans were conquerors. Pretty effective ones too, seeing that their rule over the Balkans didn't begin to wain only four centuries after their establishment here. But they conquerors. They used the people they ruled for their own gain. That sums it up for me - or as they say in Greek "it's better an hour of living free, than fourty years slavery and shackles"

kataphraktoi

07-06-2006, 14:15

Rosacrux redux

07-06-2006, 14:27

LeftEyeNine

07-06-2006, 18:17

Lefteyenine can deny any genocide committed if he wants, he condemns himself to the past by his unrepentant myopia and misplaced unjustified moral upper-ground self-righteousness.

Modern Turkey has created its own nationalistic deep-rooted sacro-sanct mythos, its hard to change it really and Lefteyenine has not addressed Ottoman oppression of Nestorian Christians, he ignored it and fobbed it off as if Nestorians were just negligible animals to be slaughtered and forgotten.

Perhaps denial is a way to save Turkish pride by not following "western" norms of being honest to itself and examining its own past. After all, nationalistic politics is still a strong element in Turkish politics.

Ok I forgot about Nestorian Christians, so what?

Predicting that you and RosaRedux are Greek culture admirers, if not Greeks yourselves, you already know that nationalism is also the strongest element of Greece. That's why in every Armenian Issue, Greeks jump in and evaluate the chances. The Greek-admirer supporters of the Armenian case is indeed interesting.

Why am I saying this ? Because you should not forget that nationalism is how we stand still just as well as you (or who you admire) do ~;)

I still don't get the idea. We have the counter-proof but why does what Armenians said should be true? Why should one Turk always keep silent and accept every "invention" such as Pontus Genocide, Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide and so on? Why is it always applied through the way of dictation based on fictive "facts"?

The answer is quite obvious but I don't think the "civilization" has guts to admit its radical dislike of Turks.

Edit: And blaming the all on nationalism is getting quite boring. Anything new you have in pocket ? I owe my existence to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, so that his principles are indispensible to me. Nationalism is one of them too. What do you expect to happen in a country founded that way? Change ? No way..It will be our doom that the day we give up his principles -and that notorious "nationalism" too, of course ~;)

Sarmatian

07-07-2006, 02:19

The Turks failed to follow the "west" when they started the series of revolutions that would bring "the west" to the dominant point it is in the past two centuries worldwide. Thus, the Ottomans became stagnant (in terms of technological, social and scientifical progress) even in the early 17th century. And they kept the populations they ruled, stagnant as well. Don't forget that the Ottomans were notorious for being extremely lazy and conoisseurs of life - hard work, both mental and labour, innovation and "delicate" tasks, even as petty as book-keeping, was done by the Greeks, Jews and Armenians of the empire, and that's a historical given.

On a more general note, the Ottomans were conquerors. Pretty effective ones too, seeing that their rule over the Balkans didn't begin to wain only four centuries after their establishment here. But they conquerors. They used the people they ruled for their own gain. That sums it up for me - or as they say in Greek "it's better an hour of living free, than fourty years slavery and shackles"

Again, I can't totaly agree. In the 16th and 17h the ottoman empire was at it's peak. After that there was a period of stagnation, and after industrial revolution it completely lost the race with western and central european countries. Also, they knew how to delegate tasks ie. serbs were craftsmen, greeks were book-keepers etc... Romans were also conoisseurs, and they carved the most powerful empire the world has ever seen.
Another point - balkan countries that were under ottoman rule achieved some form of independence during the 19 century when industrial revolution was in full swing. They could have implemented it but they didn't, partly because of their own incompetence and partly because of foreign influences. Austrian empire tried to weaken reemerging serbia because it didn't want a powerful rival in the balkans. Also, russian empire had it's own agenda. And those are christian countries.
Serbia is probably the best example, because the northern part was ruled by austria-hungary and southern by the ottoman empire. Hungarians forced serbs to change names and religion. Turks used different method - if you want a position, change your religion.

LeftEyeNine

07-07-2006, 05:46

I'm really interested in what native Balkanians think about the Ottoman rule. And I think this needs a seperate discussion.

Rosacrux redux

07-07-2006, 08:15

Ok I forgot about Nestorian Christians, so what?

Predicting that you and RosaRedux are Greek culture admirers, if not Greeks yourselves, you already know that nationalism is also the strongest element of Greece. That's why in every Armenian Issue, Greeks jump in and evaluate the chances. The Greek-admirer supporters of the Armenian case is indeed interesting.

I've said many'o'times that I am a Greek. I am not hiding my nationality. But I am not a nationalist, and I would say that the vast majority of Greeks are not nationalists and also the leadership of the country are not nationalists. That is the difference - in Greece, nationalism is alive and in certain quarters thriving, but it is not official policy and it is not the general feeling of the population. It's a marginal ideology, that takes often more media time and space than it deserves. Au contraire, in Turkey it is a fundamental element of the state and it's existence.

Edit: And blaming the all on nationalism is getting quite boring. Anything new you have in pocket ? I owe my existence to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, so that his principles are indispensible to me. Nationalism is one of them too. What do you expect to happen in a country founded that way? Change ? No way..It will be our doom that the day we give up his principles -and that notorious "nationalism" too, of course ~;)

And herein lies the fallacy! On one point you say that alright, nationalism is also prevalent in Greece. Then you proceed to defend the kemalist legacy and point out that, "hey, I owe my existence to Kemal". Well, sorry, but that's hardly encouraging about the prospects of the modernization of Turkey.

Kemal's ideas and actions might've been progressive and even radical compared to the Ottoman relics, but in the 2000s, Kemalism is a RELIC itself. You cannot recognize it because what you've learned is "Kemal or chaos", but there are gazillions of alternatives. Turkey is a secular country and that is not at stake. Now it should - at last!!! - proceed and become a Democratic country too. Otherwise it does not belong to the Democratic West. So simple.

Sarmatian

I do not think we disagree. The only point I evaluate differently, is the ability of populations that lived a great number of centuries under a backwards, reactionary culture such as the Ottoman, to wake up one day and say "hey, let's make an industrial revolution and catch up with the West". That's rather impossible, those countries lacked the whole foundation of the western way of thinking and acting, how could they follow put with something they didn't even know that existed?

It's like saying that western democracy can be forced upon every population, irregardles of culture, religion and background. That's rather innacurate, isn't it?

L'Impresario

07-07-2006, 09:32

I owe my existence to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, so that his principles are indispensible to me.

Well, I owe my existence to Atatürk as well. Actually it might be closer to 75%, as my grandmother's family came from İstanbul and my grandfather's from Trebzond. And my grandmother's parents (from my mother's side) hail from İzmir.
Also my neighbourhood and the vast majority of the ones around it were built from refugees and immigrants from Asia Minor, and most of the roads have relevant names.

So how can I not be grateful:))

kataphraktoi

07-07-2006, 09:43

Ok I forgot about Nestorian Christians, so what?

Predicting that you and RosaRedux are Greek culture admirers, if not Greeks yourselves, you already know that nationalism is also the strongest element of Greece. That's why in every Armenian Issue, Greeks jump in and evaluate the chances. The Greek-admirer supporters of the Armenian case is indeed interesting.

Why am I saying this ? Because you should not forget that nationalism is how we stand still just as well as you (or who you admire) do

I still don't get the idea. We have the counter-proof but why does what Armenians said should be true? Why should one Turk always keep silent and accept every "invention" such as Pontus Genocide, Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide and so on? Why is it always applied through the way of dictation based on fictive "facts"?

The answer is quite obvious but I don't think the "civilization" has guts to admit its radical dislike of Turks.

Edit: And blaming the all on nationalism is getting quite boring. Anything new you have in pocket ? I owe my existence to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, so that his principles are indispensible to me. Nationalism is one of them too. What do you expect to happen in a country founded that way? Change ? No way..It will be our doom that the day we give up his principles -and that notorious "nationalism" too, of course

I'm neither Greek, nor an ardent enthusiast of Greek Culture.

As for your counter-proof. What is it? Proof that Armenians committed genocide too? If true, it does not rule out Turkisjh genocide of Armenians. The only counter-proof I have read and heard from the government are denials, denials, denials and even more denials. They treat it as a non-issue. After all, what are Armenians to them?

Its not a matter of dislike of Turks, thats another example of nationalist paranoia (us against them; Turks vs non-Turks). I don't hate Turks. Heck, I'm certain of my own Turkish genetic inheritance to be sure of that.

Of course, you would forget Nestorian Christians, another minority to be slaughtered with impunity.

Prince Cobra

07-07-2006, 10:19

To Cronos Impera

I am really surprised by your statement. as a Romanian you should know that
the Wallachian princes successfully defended their indipendence from the western powers like Hungary. Note Wallachia was quite smaller than Hungary but it resisted. Also in the battle of Rovine prince Mircho the Old defeated the numerous Ottoman army. Yes, he became Ottoman vassal but Wallachia survived unlike Serbia, Bulgaria and even Hungary. So IMHO Wallachia was a good shield of the Balkan countries against the Western countries.Even Poland who disappeared from the map fell because of its own problems- the extreme power of the noblemen who elected the kings of Poland. Russia? Ok, it may pose a danger but smaller countries in the east like Georgia were conquered in XIXth century. Meanwhile the balance became the main doctrine in Europe (from the thirty years war (1618-1648) and even earlier). Note that in XIXth century no national country dissappeared from the European map. The Wallachia would be a perfect shield from the west.
Second, yes Bulgaria, Serbia and Byzantium were in a decline. If they had the historical chance to survive they would have overcome the separationism. The Balkan countries had a long tradition in the feudalism and it was high time to start its destruction. In addition in no Balkan country the tradition to elect their kings was not popular ( in Bulgaria this happened only when the dynasty is ended)- the Byzantine tradition (whcih were accepted by all Balkan countries) were defiantely against this.
Third, the problem of the balkan countries came from the lost of all of Byzantine Minor Asia. And of course in the worst possible moment. The Byzantine shield aganst the Turks was broken. And the problems of the Balkan people deteriorated the situation.
And note in Transylvania there were(and still are) many Orthodox,too. And they survived after all.
And definately falling under the scimitar of a Muslim conqueror was not the best fate!
At the end. The theory of Bulgarian- Romanian country of Asen dynasty is a little bit deabatable. First, in the end of XIIth century there were no Romanians, even the wallachian nationality was in a process of creating. At that time the population of what is now Wallachia was a mixture of different ethnic groups- Bulgarians, Cumans and many others. And from this the Romanian nationality came. The Valchs at the time of Kaloyan ( 'emperor of Bulgarians and Vlachs') meant not the modern Romanians but the people who inhabited Wallachia. The Romanian nationality was about to form which happened after the middle of XIIIth century. And Bulgaria was a country of Slavs, protobulgarians and Tracians to a lesser extend ( one of the names of the Tracins was ' Valchs' however this doesn't mean they were Romanians- just because there were a great diffference between the Tracians and the nationality in Wallachia of the late XIIIth century. The only nationality who can pretend to have preserved the Tracian blood are the Albanians( which did notmean Bulgarians and Albanians are similiar - the Tracian substance in Bulgarian nation was too little) ).
And in addition the Asen dynasty is connected with the Cumans. Just like Terter dynasty in Bulgaria. But they both considered themselves as Bulgarians.

Prince Cobra

07-07-2006, 11:03

To LeftEyeNine ( or back on the topic!)
Actually, the only historians that do not agree with the statement of genocide are some (not even all !) of the Turkish historians. I see its impossible to persuade you that this was genocide. I would cite your words I just don't get why I have to admit what you say, what you are told what you have read. . I understood about the Armenian genocide because of the film On Discovery channel ( as you know it is English), from a Bulgarian encyclopedias made by our best historians, from TV programmes on Bulgarian and so on. Only the Turkish government says ' No genocide'! I just can not understand how you can kill more than one million ( 1.5 mln) which is almost the all armewnian population in the Ottoman empire by accident and without the help of the government ! How can this Armenian children could be starved without the ' benevolent' help of the sultan?! And everything else. And this is not genocide. I ask you how many Armenians are there in Modern Turkey? And this is not genocide?!
I read the threads- yes not good at all. But I noticed the victims were of the Turks were after 1915. Not before... And OK for now I will accept some of what you say about the Armenians until I launch my own survey ( I am busy) because I am busy some Armenians did cruel things to the population killed people in a awful way. First, I believe people are good unless something dramatic has changed them. You can not just kill people for pleasure. If the Ottoman powers crushed the Armenian rebellions in the same manner as they crushed the Bulgarian rebellion in April 1876... This is not an excuse (nothing can excuse killing civil population) of course although it gives some explanation. In this cases the government should pursue only the gulty people not all. Only them not even their families let alone their nation!!!!!
About Abdulhamid II.Sorry, my Turkish is not good at all. Abdulhamid send people in a westrn universities!???? He who establish a terrible censore ( the words like ( this is interesting) : ' liberty', ' spring' ,'enlightenment' were forbidden to be used, the formula A.X=O was also forbidden ( it meant according this great sultan that this humiliates his majesty- it meant Abdul Hamid was a zero) , the French revolution was also taken from the textbooks of history (!)) and at the end there was nobody who was well edicated from a government during the reign of Abdulhamid II). And yes, the Armenian genocide started from the reign of Abdulhamid II. It is not coincidence Abdulhamid II was called the 'Red sultan' ( he was not communist but because of the Christian blood he decorated his reign with). And yes, the European government have their interests which were not so humanistic. But there were a society who cared about the Armenians and the governments were forced to engage with this problem. However the interests took over. I said the Crete problem stopped the efforts of the governments ( there were something more important than what Armenians the interests ). The interests win, indeed. And I have read some Turkish historians think of Abdulhamid II as a saviour... And I hope the principles of this ' saviour' are ignored by the Turkish government nowadays because... (read above).
And I do agree with Rosacrux Edux- Kemalism was good at its time now he is a relic, should go in the past. Turkey should be modern country!
Hey, I am a Bulgarian!!! and just to add you are not neutral, LEN!

To Duke of Serbia- I have some more things to say but I am now busy. This is for another thread.

IrishArmenian

07-08-2006, 00:46

What discovery channel program was it? I will ask my brother to record it and mail it to me.
Anyway, thank you, Stephen for being a semi-neutral force in this debate. I only say semi because I assume you are a Bulgarian Christian. And yes, while there is no excuse for slaughtering inocents, their has to be a root of the problem that brought the killing on.

LeftEyeNine

07-10-2006, 20:21

Ok, let's see how "ancient" his principles are :

ATATÜRK'S PRINCIPLES

Atatürk's principles can be summed up in six fundamentals:

Republicanism: The Kemalist reforms represent a political revolution; a
change from the multinational Empire to the establishment of the nation
state of Turkey and the realisation of national identity of modern Turkey.
Kemalism only recognises a Republica n regime for Turkey. Kemalism
believes that it is only the republican regime which can best represent
the wishes of the people.

Populism: The Kemalist revolution was also a social revolution in term of
its content and goals. This was a revolution led by an elite with an
orientation towards the people in general. The Kemalist reforms brought
about a revolutionary change in the status of women through the adoption
of Western codes of law in Turkey, in particular the Swiss Civil Code.
Moreover, women received the right to vote in 1934. Atatürk stated on a
number of occasions that the true rulers of Turkey were the peasants. This
was actually a goal rather than a reality in Turkey. In fact, in the
official explanation given to the principle of populism it was stated that
Kemalism was against class privileges and class distinctions and it
recognized no individual, no family, no class and no organization as being
above others. Kemalist ideology was, in fact, based on supreme value of
Turkish citizenship. A sense of pride associated with this citizenship
would give the needed psychological spur to the people to make them work
harder and to achieve a sense of unity and national identity.

Secularism: Kemalist secularism did not merely mean separation of state
and religion, but also the separation of religion from educational,
cultural and legal affairs. It meant independence of thought and
independence of institutions from the dominance of religious thinking and
religious institutions. Thus, the Kemalist revolution was also a
secularist revolution. Many Kemalist reforms were made to bring about
secularism, and others were realised because secularism had been achieved.
The Kemalist principle of secularism did not advocate atheism. It wa s not
an anti-God principle. It was a rationalist, anti-clerical secularism. The
Kemalist principle of secularism was not against an enlightened Islam, but
against an Islam which was opposed to modernisation.

Reformism: One of the most important principles that Atatürk formulated
was the principle of reformism or revolutionism. This principle meant that
Turkey made reforms and that she replaced traditional institutions with
modern institutions. It meant that traditional concepts were eliminated
and modern concepts were adopted. The principle of reformism went beyond
the recognition of the reforms which were made.

Nationalism: The Kemalist revolution was also a
nationalist revolution. Kemalist nationalism was not racist. It was meant
to preserve the independence of the Republic of Turkey and also to help
the Republic's political development. It was a nationalism w hich
respected the right to independence of all other nations. It was a
nationalism with a social content. It was not only anti-imperialist, but
it was also against the rule of a dynasty or of any particular social
class over Turkish society. Kemalist nat ionalism believes in the
principle that the Turkish state is an indivisible whole comprising its
territory and people.

Statism: Kemal Atatürk made clear in his statements and policies that
Turkey's complete modernisation was very much dependent on economic and
technological development. The principle of statism was interpreted to
mean that the state was to regulate the country's general economic
activity and the state was to engage in areas where private enterprise was
not willing to do so, or where private enterprise had proved to be i
nadequate, or if national interest required it. In the application of the
principle of statism, however, the state emerged not only as the principle
source of economic activity but also as the owner of the major industries
of the country.

If you are calling these fundamentals relics, I bet you all are members of an anarchistic organization.

Stephen Asen,

I understood about the Armenian genocide because of the film On Discovery channel ( as you know it is English), from a Bulgarian encyclopedias made by our best historians, from TV programmes on Bulgarian and so on. Only the Turkish government says ' No genocide'!

If sides want an outcome, Turkish side should be considered and listened to. I'm complaining about this from the start. We have documentaries but even a Bulgarian like you rushes it off and says "hey there I watched it all, you only say no". Why do we say no? Has anyone attempted to listen to and see what we have in hand ?

In March 2005, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan invited Turkish, Armenian and international historians to form a Commission to establish the events of 1915. The offer was rejected by Armenia and its foreign minister remarked that "The historians have already said their piece and it is now down to Turkey to determine its attitude."[10]

If you are all so sure about it, why scared of establishing a commission of historians?

I just can not understand how you can kill more than one million ( 1.5 mln) which is almost the all armewnian population in the Ottoman empire by accident and without the help of the government ! How can this Armenian children could be starved without the ' benevolent' help of the sultan?! And everything else. And this is not genocide. I ask you how many Armenians are there in Modern Turkey? And this is not genocide?!

The Armenian loss is a maximum of 1 million. How easy it is to exaggerate numbers of lives when comes to telling a lie, while ,in a world, even one human's life is so precious.

This is the offical Ottomant population count of Armenians in 1914:

Cities Armenian Population
Edirne 19.773
Adana 52.650
Antalya 630
Ankara 51.556
Halep 20.142
Aydın 20.142
Bitlis 20.142
Bolu 2.970
Bursa 60.119
Kayseri 50.174
İstanbul 82.880
Çanakkale 2.474
Diyarbakır 65.850
Canik 27.319
Erzurum 134.377
Eskişehir 8.592
İzmit 55.852
İçel 341
Karahisar 7.439
Karasi 8.653
Kastamonu 8.959
Harput 79.971
Kütahya 4.548
Maraş 32.322
Menteşe 12
Niğde 4.936
Urfa 16.718
Sivas 147.099
Trabzon 68.899
Çatalca 842
Van 67.792
Zor 232
Total 1.234.671

Many Western researchers give numbers approximating to the numbers we give above. Whhile Stanford J. Shaw, yields the Armenian population being 1.229.007, H. Lynch gives 1.324.246, L. De Constenson gives 1.400.000 ve H. Paster Madijian gives.

Relocation was disastrous because of both natural conditions and the avenging Turks that were horribly hurt during Armenian athrocities.

And how many ARmenians were there in 1923, that is the foundation year of Republic of Turkey. Let's hear it from the Editorial Chief of Agos newspaper -Karin Karakaşlı- that is an Armenian publish in Turkey.

..For example, in 1923, that is in the first years of the Republic, there was a population of 300.000 Armenians. 170.000 was in Anatolia while the remaining 130.000 was living in İstanbul...

And Hrant Dink, busy with being accused of "insulting Turkish identity" for the last couple of months, says..

..The Armenian populace that reached the Republic period was 300.000. And today it is 50-60.000..

Oh and I think none of the "Armenian Genocide Tellers" heard of what "Relocation" is -what caused the deaths of Armenians on their way:

Reasons of Relocation:

REASONS BEHIND RELOCATION

The decision regarding migration was taken under compulsion, in order to prevent the harmful acts of Armenians, who stabbed the Ottoman State that was their own state, in order to establish an independent Armenia. Documents confirm how the Russians and the Entente States deceived and provoked Armenians. (1)

The Armenians who were deceived by such promises as to be given the lands they obtained during the War and that their independence to be recognized; established a number of revolutionary societies (2). Armenians, who started their terrorist activities before the immigration process, continued these activities even during the immigration. They collaborated with the enemy both in the border areas and in the inner regions, and applied genocidal activities to the Moslem people (3).

Ottoman Government decided to compile the documents expressing the cruelties of the Armenians in a book and requested the documents and photographs of Armenian massacres (4). Those documents and photographs collected in a book and published under the title of Ermeni Komitelerinin Faaliyetleri ve Ihtilal Hareketleri/ Mesrutiyetin Ilanindan Once ve Sonra (5).

Armenian cruelties continued after the First Wold War as well. In fact, one of the most striking examples of such activities is the one committed in Nahcivan by an Armenian band of 1.200 people under the command of an Armenian named Hanov (6). Furthermore, it is understood from the telegraphs dispatched on 3 and 7 March 1920 respectively by Mümtaz Bey who was then the acting Governor of “Mamuretül Aziz” Province, that the Armenians protected by the French Forces in the region were then under the delmion of establishing an independent Armenia from Clicia to Adana provinces (7).

The Actualization, Terms and Environment of the Relocation Process

Upon such developments, Enver Pasha, acting Head Commander, in order to find a solution to this problem, sent the following note to Talat Pasha on May 2, 1915.

“Armenians domiciled around Lake Van, and in Van Provincial Governorate are always ready for an uprising. I think that the Armenians should be moved from these places, and centers of revolt be dissipated. According to the information given by the 3rd Army Command, the Russians caused the Moslems within their own boundaries to immigrate over our boundaries in miserable conditions. Both as a retaliation to this act, and to ensure the aim I mentioned above, either the said Armenians should be transported into the Russian land together with their families; or they should be distributed in the various regions in Anatolia also with their families. I kindly request from you the selection of the most suitable alternative and act accordingly. However, I personally prefer that the revolting people and their families be sent beyond our borders; and Moslem people their families be re-settled in their place” (8).

With this letter, which may be accepted as the first sign of the intention of immigration process, Enver Pasha requested of dispersion of Armenians in order to avoid their uprising act. According to the said letter, it is clear that the implementations would be made only in locations where the Armenians revolted; and it was carried out accordingly.

Talat Pasha, not wishing to waste time due to the urgency and importance of the matter, initiated the re-settlement implementation without waiting for the resolution of the Parliament hence did not hesitate to undertake such a heavy responsibility by himself (9). Talat Pasha, who took first considered to start immigration of the Armenians domiciled in Van, Bitlis and Erzurum regions out of the War area. He informed Tahsin Bey, Cevdet Bey and Mustafa Abdulhalik Bey, Governors of Erzurum, Van, and Bitlis Provinces respectively on the matter by cryptic communiqués dd. May 9, 1995. Talat Pasha in his above — mentioned cryptic message communicated that the Armenians concentrated in certain regions to start revolts and uprising were decreed to immigrate towards the south, and that every possible assistance should be given to the Governors in order for this decree to be implemented. Talaat Pasha noted that a communiqué concerning the issue was sent to the Supreme Military Command to the Commanders of the 3rd and 4th Armies. He informed that it would be advantageous if the implementation was undertaken in areas to cover the southern part of Erzurum along with Van, the critical sub-provinces in Bitlis, and especially the vicinities of Mus, Sasun, and Talori; and requested from the Governors to immediately initiate the implementation in cooperation with the army commanders.

Furthermore, Talat Pasha issuing a cryptic communiqué to the 4th Army Command dated 23 May 1915, listed the location requested to be evacuated as follows:

1. The provinces of Erzurum, Van ad Bitlis;

2. The subdivision of Maras excluding the city of Maras;

3. Villages and towns within the boundaries of the sub provinces of; Iskenderun, Beylan (Belen), Cisr-i Sugur and Antioch excluding the central sub province of the Province of Aleppo;

4. The sub-divisions of Adana, Mersin, Kozan and Cebel-i Bereket excluding the cities of Adana, Sis (Kozan) and Mersin;

Accordingly; Armenians evacuated from Erzurum, Van and Bitlis were decreed to be transferred to the southern part of Mousul along with the sub-division of Zor and sub-division of Urfa excluding the central city: and the Armenians evacuated from the vicinities of Adana, Aleppo and Maras to be transferred to the eastern part of the Province of Syria along with the eastern and southeastern part of the Province of Aleppo. To supervise and manage the immigration process, State Inspectors, Ali Seydi Bey and Hamid Bey were appointed to the Adana region, and to the regions of Aleppo and Maras, respectively.

It was stipulated that the Armenians arriving at the new locations of resettlement were to be settled either in the houses that they would build in the existing villages or towns; or in the villages that they would re-establish in the locations identified by the government; and that the Armenian villages were to be at least of 25 km away from the Baghdad Railway.

The protection of lives and properties of Armenians following the process of immigration, and provision of their needs such as food, drink and rest were left to the regional authorities along the transfer route. It was decreed that the immigrating Armenians to be allowed to carry along all of their belongings and arrangements about their established properties were to be prepared and submitted to the authorities concerned (11).

In order for the immigrating Armenians not to re-constitute dens of conspiracy, the Supreme Military Command communicated a letter dated 26 May 1915 to the Ministry of Interior, considering the following aspects:

1. The population of the Armenians in the locations they newly immigrated to should not be in excess of 10% of the population of the existing tribes and Moslems.

2. The villages the Armenians to be re-established should not be bigger than fifty houses each.

3. The Armenian immigrant families should not change houses either for the purposes of travel or transfer (12).

A short while after the Ministry of Interior’s measures were came in force, Russian, French and English governments issued a joint declaration stating that in the Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia, which they referred as “Armenia”, Armenians had been killed with in a month. In addition, they declared that the Ottoman Government is responsible for these events (13).

Upon the spread of the issue in international arena in this manner, Talaat Pasha, sent a communiqué dated 26 May 1915 to the Prime Ministry in order to provide a legal basis for the implementation of the immigration (14). In this communiqué, having stated that the invaders promoted discrimination among the Armenians, who were Ottoman citizens, and assisted them, in order to realize their invasory desires; that the uprising Armenians took variety of means to hinder the progress of the operation of the Turkish Army fighting against the enemy; that they abstracted the transport of food items, weapons and ammunition to the soldiers, that they collaborated with the enemy; that a group of them joined the enemy rank, and organized armed attacks against the military units and innocent civilians; that they massacred and pillaged in cities and towns; and that they provided food to the enemy navy and disclosed critical military zones to the enemy, Talaat Pasha noted that a radical measure needed to be taken for the security of the state and on this account, the Armenians rioting in war zones needed to be immigrated to other regions.

This communiqué of the Ministry of Interior was submitted immediately to the Parliament along with another communiqué written by the Prime Ministry. Talat Pasha’s statement having been reiterated in the Prime Ministry’s communiqué, it was expressed that the initiation of the immigration implementation was rightly made for the security of the state and that it was necessary to implement this policy methodically and systematically. (15) And the Parliament decreed to ratify the implementation on the some date.

In the Parliamentary decree, it was noted that it absolutely necessary to block through effective methods such harmful activities for having a negative impact on the existence and the security of the state, and that the measures by the Ministry of Interior on this account were rightfully and duly taken. Furthermore, a communiqué was issued regarding the determination of the immovable properties owned by the immigrating Armenians by a commission to be appointed, and the creation of job opportunities suitable for the conditions of the Armenians in their new locations, and the assistance to be given on the account of Immigrant’s Compensation. It was requested that an order to be written to those concerned in order to ensure the implementation of immigration securely (16).

The following communiqué dated 30 Mays 1915 sent by the Prime Ministry to the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of War and the Ministry of Finance, the regulations of implementation of the immigration were stated: (17)

a) The Armenians shall be transported to the regions allocated in a comfortable manner, ensuring the security of their lives and property.

b) Their food and drink expenses shall be covered by the Immigrant’s Compensation until they settle in their new houses.

c) Real estate and land shall be provided for them in accordance with their former financial status.

d) The government shall build houses for those in need, and provide seeds, and agricultural equipment for the farmers and agricultural experts.

e) The movables they left behind shall be delivered, and after the determination of their immovable properties settled, these shall be distributed among the Moslem immigrants to be setting in their place. Income generating from places that are not within the expertise of these immigrants such as olive, mulberry and orange groves, vineyards, shops, inns, factories and warehouse shall be either auctioned or rented and their compensations shall be recorded in deposit by savings fund to be paid to their owners.

f) Special commissions shall implement all these issues and an order shall be issued in this regard.

But I noticed the victims were of the Turks were after 1915. Not before...

How very knowledgable of yours, friend. ~:)

First, I believe people are good unless something dramatic has changed them. You can not just kill people for pleasure. If the Ottoman powers crushed the Armenian rebellions in the same manner as they crushed the Bulgarian rebellion in April 1876... This is not an excuse (nothing can excuse killing civil population) of course although it gives some explanation. In this cases the government should pursue only the gulty people not all. Only them not even their families let alone their nation!!!!!

If you can convince yourself or at least allow yourself something new to know, you should be well aware that Armenians uprising with Russian's and French's provocation after the war in 1876 against Russia. And you have just learned that Armenians endless disturbance and murders were put on hold by the Relocation. Families or innocent people died on their way to their new places, or were killed by Turkish folk that was quite furious for what Armenians had done to their very own families.

About Abdulhamid II.Sorry, my Turkish is not good at all. Abdulhamid send people in a westrn universities!???? He who establish a terrible censore ( the words like ( this is interesting) : ' liberty', ' spring' ,'enlightenment' were forbidden to be used, the formula A.X=O was also forbidden ( it meant according this great sultan that this humiliates his majesty- it meant Abdul Hamid was a zero)the French revolution was also taken from the textbooks of history (!)) and at the end there was nobody who was well edicated from a government during the reign of Abdulhamid II). And yes, the Armenian genocide started from the reign of Abdulhamid II. It is not coincidence Abdulhamid II was called the 'Red sultan' ( he was not communist but because of the Christian blood he decorated his reign with).

Will you please review what I had written just above this reply of yours ?

Abdulhamid II was quite a "king of the hill" kind of guy. His attempts were quite strictive but, if you look through the timeframe of the history, his attempts can be justified as "forcing a revival".

Ottoman Empire was laready taken under the noose, bowing down to every Western need, and it was quite obvious that this "cuddly" and "docile" way of governing did not help the saving of the empire from collapsing. I am not justifying what he restricted. But it is all understandable that he tried to build up an authority. And the environment caused it to be quite strictive and dictative. No justification, try empathizing.

And the reason he was called "red" is quite rational after all his unequalled dictatorship during his reign. Assigning the "red" to genocides is an attempt like they have done with fake quotes attributed to Hitler.

And yes, the European government have their interests which were not so humanistic. But there were a society who cared about the Armenians and the governments were forced to engage with this problem. However the interests took over. I said the Crete problem stopped the efforts of the governments ( there were something more important than what Armenians the interests ). The interests win, indeed. And I have read some Turkish historians think of Abdulhamid II as a saviour... And I hope the principles of this ' saviour' are ignored by the Turkish government nowadays because... (read above).

Oh lovely European friends are now trying to save Kurds, Armenians, Circassians, "Laz"s and every other ethnic population from our wicked bloody hands. Thanks to Europeans concerned about other minorities living kilometres away, the world is better than ever.

Believing that the only interest of the French and the Russians was saving Armenians from Ottomans during collapse of the empire is something that noone in the world with a pinch of sense of historical understanding will ever believe.

Hey, I am a Bulgarian!!! and just to add you are not neutral, LEN!

After reading your last sentences, I share the same thoughts for you, Stephen Asen. And I referred to kataphraktoi and RosaRedux while putting my thoughts about how Greeks are deeply interested in every anti-Turkish matter. ~:)

Of course, you would forget Nestorian Christians, another minority to be slaughtered with impunity.

I hate to see such pathetic attempts while carrying the historical heritage of an empire which had saved Andalucian Jews from slaughter of Christians inquisition by Bayezid II and Suleyman the Lawgiver's continuing efforts, and an empire of which economy was relying on Jews, Armenians and Rums.

For my final words, your Turkish genetic heritage does not give me a new idea. After all you are another fan of a long told lie.

kataphraktoi

07-10-2006, 22:29

Ottoman empire system was based on pragmatic exploitation of minorities. I hardly call it benevolent....just cynical. Besides why take the nice actions of one man and paint the whole history of the Ottomans with one brush stroke???

I mean, u don't like the evil actions of a minority painting the majority do u? SO why take the nice actions of a small period of history and paint a rosy picture. That's just inverted perversity.

Reenk Roink

07-10-2006, 22:51

Ottoman empire system was based on pragmatic exploitation of minorities. I hardly call it benevolent....just cynical.

You continue to claim that the Ottoman Empire's only reason for it's toleration of minorities was for "exploitation"...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the protected minorities, especially the Jews got a better deal from living in the Ottoman Empire than the other way around...

Besides why take the nice actions of one man and paint the whole history of the Ottomans with one brush stroke???

Wasn't it you who brought up an anecdote of the appointed Orthodox patriarch and then tried to extrapolate it as to make it seem that the Ottoman empire only tolerated so that they could cause more divisions between the Catholics and the Orthodox?

Please...

The fact is, the Ottoman Empire's long standing tolerance of minorities was the norm, atrocities were exceptions...

kataphraktoi

07-12-2006, 14:18

Lol, what amazing apologetics. WOuld u like to live under Ottoman rule yourself?

No, I didn't paint a picture with one anecdote. The patriarchate was set up in a way that allowed the Ottoman SUltans to retaliate against Orthodox Christians in an accessible way whenever the Sultan was displeased. Consider this, the Patriarch is in Istanbul, if Orthodox Christians displeased the Sultan, the Patriarch, head and symbol of the church is within arm's length of suffering punishment.

THAT IS HUMILIATION.

I'm not anti-Turkish, I'm telling it the way it is. REALPOLITIK

You can go on and paint rosy utopian pictures if u want.

Every new Patriarch paid the Sultan a fee when he became Patriarch, it was easy for the Sultans to exploit this and they did.

Again, u r using the Jews as the paintbrush. If only other minorities got it better too...but they didn't..........

Reenk Roink

07-12-2006, 14:42

Lol, what amazing apologetics.

Wonderful term... :rolleyes:

No, it's a conclusion based on longstanding practice...

WOuld u like to live under Ottoman rule yourself?

A dishonest question right here...

I live in the 21st century, where different government systems operate...

But I will tell you this, If I was living anywhere from the 14th-18th centuries as a minority, is their any alternative to the Ottoman Empire?

No, I didn't paint a picture with one anecdote. The patriarchate was set up in a way that allowed the Ottoman SUltans to retaliate against Orthodox Christians in an accessible way whenever the Sultan was displeased. Consider this, the Patriarch is in Istanbul, if Orthodox Christians displeased the Sultan, the Patriarch, head and symbol of the church is within arm's length of suffering punishment.

THAT IS HUMILIATION.

That is an anecdote...

I'm not anti-Turkish, I'm telling it the way it is. REALPOLITIK

Um..ok...

You can go on and paint rosy utopian pictures if u want.

Nobody's saying that living under Ottoman rule was like the Golden Age in Spain under the Moors...

Far from it...

I've already pointed out that the Ottomans were more brutal in war and less tolerant in general than the Abbasid or Ummayad Empires that preceded them...

I've already pointed out that the Ottomans of course cannot hold a candle to the religious toleration in the present secular world...

You on the other hand seem intent to paint the darkest picture of the Ottoman Empire as possible...

Every new Patriarch paid the Sultan a fee when he became Patriarch, it was easy for the Sultans to exploit this and they did.

Every Patriarch had a pretty generous control on his millet...

Again, u r using the Jews as the paintbrush. If only other minorities got it better too...but they didn't..........

Um... there is no evidence of systematic favor of Jews over other minorities. The only reason that the Jews stand out is because of their extremely poor treatment elsewhere and because they themselves did well in the empire...

kataphraktoi

07-12-2006, 17:50

Um... there is no evidence of systematic favor of Jews over other minorities. The only reason that the Jews stand out is because of their extremely poor treatment elsewhere and because they themselves did well in the empire...

Relativity gives a different picture when it is used in comparison to others, but a poor indicator of reality of experience. Tolerance of Jews by both Western and Islamic worlds are always in a state of fluctuation. Highlighting Ottoman Empire's case in isolation gives a distorted picture.

A dishonest question right here...

I live in the 21st century, where different government systems operate...

But I will tell you this, If I was living anywhere from the 14th-18th centuries as a minority, is their any alternative to the Ottoman Empire?

Again, ur viewpoints are based on relativity. Relativity states that one may be more desirable than the other, but in terms of focusing on that one state of experience it may not be an ideal place to stay. Lesser evils is still...evil.

That is an anecdote...

Come now, its an act of genius by the Sultan to have the Patriarch in arm's distance. Its practical and symbolically. Too machiavellian to be an anecdote when it is a real system.

Nobody's saying that living under Ottoman rule was like the Golden Age in Spain under the Moors...

Far from it...

I've already pointed out that the Ottomans were more brutal in war and less tolerant in general than the Abbasid or Ummayad Empires that preceded them...

I've already pointed out that the Ottomans of course cannot hold a candle to the religious toleration in the present secular world...

You on the other hand seem intent to paint the darkest picture of the Ottoman Empire as possible...

Well, at least ur not one of those blind apologists who defend the Ottoman period blindly. My hat off to you on that point.

On the contrary I'm not determined to paint the Ottomans in the darkest hues. I often get the feeling that the Ottomans are distortedly presented as an ideal model of tolerance for an Islamic regime. I'm just trying to indicate, that that's not always true. I do have genuine respect for the Ottoman achievement. But I do believe in balanced viewpoint, I just only "seem" to support a negative viewpoint when all I'm doing is trying to add the other side thats all.

Every Patriarch had a pretty generous control on his millet...

ANd heavily in debt to the Sultan for the accession fees.

Um... there is no evidence of systematic favor of Jews over other minorities. The only reason that the Jews stand out is because of their extremely poor treatment elsewhere and because they themselves did well in the empire...

Its not about systematic favour of Jews, Im talking about. If the Jews were treated really well, why couldn't other minorities recieve the same treatment? Were the Jews under the Devirshme as well?

On another matter, should the Turkish government apologised for Devirshme?

LeftEyeNine

07-12-2006, 18:33

On another matter, should the Turkish government apologised for Devirshme?

That pretty reveals your intentions, I don't think I'll benefit the discussion you are taking part in from now on.

Prince Cobra

07-17-2006, 21:05

If you are calling these fundamentals relics, I bet you all are members of an anarchistic organization.

After reading your last sentences, I share the same thoughts for you, Stephen Asen. And I referred to kataphraktoi and RosaRedux while putting my thoughts about how Greeks are deeply interested in every anti-Turkish matter. ~:)

Thanks LeftEyeNine. I have not heard such good words for me. Well, I am neither nationalist nor a anarchyst and nor a blind fan of the byzantine
( actually I am quite interested in the byz culture but I am not blind) and greek culture ( because I am sure after reading my new signature you will be absolutely convinced in your words. I am sorry but I will disappoint you- no, this is just my experiment to look from a different point of view and it is not a coincidence that I put my own character and nickname Stephen Asen in the story as a Bulgarian not as a Greek ( Byzantine) or something like that. I am Bulgarian and I will stay such forever.) I am really sorry I could not reply earlier. Anyway now I am on line and I will read everything more carefully. And by the way I still wonder how all these sources can lie- actually I did not use any Greek or Armenian sources( please note!).
About mine anti- Turkish. I have nothing against modern Turkey ( although there is still much to do). And nothing against the Turkish people. Just against some episodes of the history. But I can not agree 1mln people can disappear by accident. But as I said above I will read it again.
Irish Armenian, it was years ago. It was on the simple Discovery and it was connected with a movie about First World war. So I am not sure you will be able to record it. And by the way I still remember the phrase of Hitler about the Armenian genocide that was cited above.

IrishArmenian

07-18-2006, 19:33

After all you are another fan of a long told lie.
Left Eye Nine, it is very hard to be open minded to your opinion when you constantly dismiss the truth as "a long told lie". You seem to take this debate about us arguing that YOU killed 1 million Armenians. We are not arguing that, unless your name is Late Ottoman Empire, stop acting like we are accusing you. Ottoman does not mean all Turks, at least I think it doesn't. I think that if you say I am narrow minded, you might want to take care of this "long told lie" opinion first. I still stand by my original opinion and you attacking history, calling it a long told lie is just futile.

LeftEyeNine

07-18-2006, 20:20

Left Eye Nine, it is very hard to be open minded to your opinion when you constantly dismiss the truth as "a long told lie". You seem to take this debate about us arguing that YOU killed 1 million Armenians. We are not arguing that, unless your name is Late Ottoman Empire, stop acting like we are accusing you. Ottoman does not mean all Turks, at least I think it doesn't. I think that if you say I am narrow minded, you might want to take care of this "long told lie" opinion first. I still stand by my original opinion and you attacking history, calling it a long told lie is just futile.

Ottomans does not mean all Turks, but Turkey is the one to be requested for apologizing for the issue, and consequently Turks get blamed for it. This is nonsense, sorry.

I don't call you narrow minded or something, instead you will benefit a lot if you don't take the statements into account that are NOT directed at you.

I call it a "long told lie" because murders were not genocide, and you call it genocide because there had been 1 million murders. No one is arguing about the "strength" of their opinions. After all they are all opinions and debating needs opinions to be supported.

I am admitting the existence of a huge number of murders, but that's not one-sided, which you had admitted in this post of yours in Genocide (info) thread:

So, could we not call the Armenians killing Turks a genocide, and the Turks killing Armenians Genocides at the same time? I beleive so, and this stubborn bastard just changed his views. (Me obviously)

If there is an Armenian Genocide, then there is a Turkish Genocide. However I don't support this idea, and I call it battle loss derived from chaotic internal state of the country, something like a long lasting civil war among the nations living in a country.

Please ask back if something's not clear about what my idea is, because I'm sick of having to tell these again and again. If there's something new, please drop by. However after all ideas supported with documentary proof, I have to express my unwillingness about arguing the same things over and over. This end of the discussion goes nowhere.

Edit: Call me LEN just to make it easier.

Prince Cobra

07-18-2006, 23:22

Now I am ready to reply.

First, I did not say the European powers took care of the Christians just because they liked them. Everything is interest and I am not naive to think the opposite. However you forget that in all European countries the factor ' opinion of the society' is very strong. The polititians have their interests but they also have to take care of their popularity amongst the people. As a result sometimes ( unfortunately only sometimes) they make the government follow their opinion just because politicians want to be popular. Even in countries like Russian empire where the autocracy of the tzar dominated the opinion of the nation was important ( note this is an exception but it occurred in some cases). The example- the Bulgarian rebellion in April 1876. It ended disastrous- only few regions rebelled, 30 000 Bulgarians were killed. But it showed to the European people there are a Balkan nation fighting for its freedom and the cruelty of the Ottoman regime. The European societies sympathized to the Bulgarians... But what was more important here was the Russian society. Bulgarians are Slavs just like the Russians and this combined with the propaganda for 'liberation of the brothers' in the Russian society during the Russian-Ottoman wars led to a great support from the Russian people. This was an important factor for the following war in 1877. Thuis was one of the motives for the government- the Russian empire suffered from many problems which should be neutralised to some extend by a succesful war and showing the tzar as a liberator not only of his people but also of foreign nation. The factor 'society' was an important reason for the war between Russia and the Ottoman empire. Before the 1876 the Russian government was unwilling to start a new war ( why: still remembered the Crimean war; old weapons; social problems). Note that the results of a succesful war ( which was quite risky as any war- the Ottomans were still dangerous) were limited- no European country approved big and united Bulgaria. But after April it changed its mind because of the society. But this was not the only one reason of course- we should not ignore the interests in the Balkan peninsula and creating a docile Bulgaria ( something that never happened because the attempts of Russian government to interfere in the Bulgarian policy ended with disaster- Russia lost its positions in Bulgaria). In this case the interests of the society and government were the same and this led to a result. In the case with the Armenians iin the late XIXth it was not so effective- the governments were preoccypied with their policy ( not with the well-being of the Armenians) and the help was not so effective.
Here I will touch the other point. As I said the site you mentioned with the info did not give any information for massacres of Turkish population before 1915 . However in the Bulgarian encyclopedia I use it is said ( I will translate as better as I can) : Yet in the beginning of the 90s of XIXth century in the Eastern provinces, inhabited by Armenians, started the first phase of the Armenian genocide. It is also added that the sultan government knew and supported the massacres in the cities of Sasun, Mush, Kaiseri, Ankara. In 1895 the emissaries of England, France,and Russia suggest reforms in the empire. The reforms were not run but the genocide stopped. In 1896 the genocide started again and 300 000 people were massacred. But then the Crete's problem rose and the governments were preoccypied with their strategic interests. But the genocide started in the end of XIXth century. Probably you will quote me ' the Armenians were first'. And most probably I would answer with ' It does not matter who is first the most important here is that there is a genocide '. Actually I find facts about the guilt of the Armenians only in Turkish sites...Maybe I should seek more... It is possible to be the truth but it is also possible to be an attempt to justify the mistakes of the government with exaggerating the truth. Note, LEN, this is just some suggestions. The both are possible or most probably the truth is in the middle. I am not a specialised historian in the Armenian problem and I do not support any of them . But from what I have read I think there is a genocide over the Armenians. Most probably some Armenians are not innocent but I underline this- some not all ( just like few Turks are responsible for the Armenian genocide!), very very few of this 1mln( or 1,5 mln depending on the opinion) people could be responsible for the massacres and even in this cases their children did not deserve to die of famine or to be killed. No child does.:no: . It does not matter if it is a Muslim or a Christian.
About all these documents. First, not all documents are really consistent with the truth. It does not mean they are fake but their aim is to depict the crimes hiding the reality ( just like the consentration camp for Jews were depicted by the Nazi as not bad place for living). Maybe the real instructions are others. Because I can not believe how you can kill almost all of the Armenian population by negligence...
About kemalism. It has good ideas no doubt. But there were a dictatorship, some great restrictions. Any Turkish should be proud of Mustafa Kemal- he is really a kind of saviour of the Turkey. He make Turkey modern no doubt. He deserves this respest. But some of the features of the regime ( not of the theory- it sounds well ) are now outdated. Also the 'supreme value of Turkish citizenship' can be also debatable. There is nothing bad to be proud of your country but this can be used as justification of somebody with not so good intensions.
About Abdulhamid II. I read very carefully your statement about him. Probably I misunderstood you- I thought you justify him and make him a hero. If this is not your statement I agree with you.
About the Armenian refusal. I will use this as my final words. Of course you can use it as a proof you are right... But IMHO this is a proof for the great chasm between Turkey and Armenia. Probably the Armenians did not believe the survey will be objective. Which leads me to another thought- a century is too short time for healing such a wound in the both sides ( both Turks and Armenians suffered).
About this controversy. You can not persuade me there were no genocide ( not because I am deaf and blind but because I did not see information which is objective enough). Also there are many people who believe the same like me. And you can not say ' this is a lie. Everybody is against us. ' this is a wrong way of thinking. However I am also sure nobody can persuade you that you are wrong because of one or another reason. And also you can not persuade nobody in the opposite. After all we are not professional historians who are dealing with the Armenian problem. Furthermore, a century is too short time for revealing the truth. And this debate is almost useless to be continued ( unfortunately). This is not because my point is weaker- I can write one hundred pages arguing in the opposite but I have enough sense to stop it on time. But I hope this debate made you think a little more about what happened in Minor Asia with the Armenians and the Muslims.
More about our controversy. Please, be careful when accusing somebody of lie and blindness. It is not pleasant at all to read how blind are you or to be accused of lie. And especially wnen you are not neutral, too. That was my point. And after the things I read for me I did not feel very good. Probably Rosacrux Redux and kataphraktoi did not feel better!
As a conclusion. The only thing we have for sure is the hope. I really hope the truth will be found as soon as possible. And I agree with LEN. This topic is exhausted for now.

LeftEyeNine

07-19-2006, 06:16

Well the reason you can not find the proof I gave in any other sites than Turkish ones should give you clues about what I want to express:

This is no research. It is all based on information the so-called massacred side put on the table. It's been around a century since the time that is claimed to be the date of genocides, and the only things known are put by Armenians. Remember, the suggestion of Tayyip Erdogan, dated 2005, about the establishment of a committee of historians in order to conclude on Armenian Issue was rejected. This makes it even more suspicious. If you claim you know something, why scared to defend it?

I see most of you are stuck with the word "lie". This is no Holocaust, something lawfully defended about rejection, and if I don't believe it, I can call it a "lie". You don't like the word, I can do nothing. This is the definition from my point.

About Mustafa Kemal Atatürk; show me another leader that would be able to unite and found a country with pure democratic means under such circumstances, and I'll admit that I know nothing.

Abdulhamid II was no hero, even in my first post I had told you that I was not justifying his actions. However I am suffering "Weus Don'tus Hearus Yous Syndrome" since the beginning of this thread. I have to rewrite things I say at least twice to get read.

Persuasion is not the sole aim of this debate -in fact, almost most of them. The primary point of discussion is the expression of ideas because variety of thoughts always bring better and faster steps towards solution.

Finally, don't worry about RosaRedux and kataphraktoi, they all feel well especially hereabouts. ~;)

kataphraktoi

07-19-2006, 08:52

At least I can agree with LEN on Kemal, a great visionary indeed, especially for an Islamic society. He advocated many far reaching reforms and ideas. I dare say, Turkey would be quite backward if it wasn't for Kemal.

LeftEyeNine

07-19-2006, 17:58