Armenian Issue - Not Genocide, here's why..

Quote:

---

What to believe? 500000 murders of Muslims by Armenians or 120000000 murders of Armenians by Turks? Less? More? There is such a disparity in the numbers presented by both parties that, to the observing western eye, it seems both are biased and unable to compromise.

---

I think you accidentally hit extra three digits for the imaginary number of Armenians killed. They claim it to be 1.200.000 ..

Actually, the mis-dialogue between two parties is unavoidable. I am trying to take minor steps to discuss something, not to dismiss something. It is clear that most of the people out there were only informed by Armenian fairy tales, did not think about researching any further. So I wanted to figure out some realities on proof by opening this topic.

Quote:

---

But I do have one point. And that is of opposing Armenian nationalism. If you, LeftEyeNine, propose that the Armenians had no more right to their nation than the Turks, who arrived some milennium or two after the former, then you may just as well propose that the actions of the Serbians in the Bosnian theater of the Balkan wars in 1996 are justified. Which is an opinion that is absolutely wrong.

---

The anti-Turk platform compiled abroad is a lot more dangerous and is much further steps beyond Armenian nationalism propaganda. I am dealing for the last two days, sacrificing my time on this topic voluntarily rather than dealing with homework, because Turk image is a lot damaged out there. That is something bilateral, I accept. But "the rottening campaign for Turks" is accelerating day by day and people just do not want to listen us just because we are Turks - barbarians.

I think I generally lack the meaning I want to give, since English is not my mother tongue. I had said that under urgent circumstances like struggle for independence, you have to deserve to be free. I did not ever mention "We have more right than Armenians to live"... I am also aware of the Muslim Bosnian Genocide committed by Serbians, watched like a movie by the UN forces.. I do not want to think about any conspiracy theories..

Quote:

---

LeftNine Eye, you can’t preach something and say inverse few line after.
I should agree with you about the Armenian Genocide. I don’t have a clue if it was one or not, but as I studied history, I want facts and witnesses, not prejudices and feeling…

---

Sorry, what preaching please ? If you refer to my words about cancellation of the congress to be held, it is a must to correct if anything is wrong with my knowledgeand I did that. If you refer to any other thing, please quote it. Also I am a junior member who is unable to edit his posts yet. Thus I have to add things up or correct with a new message.

Quote:

---

"What kind of right did the British and French had that they came over."
Answer: The Ottoman Empire was allied with Germany during WW1 which means to destroy the Ottoman Empire was quiet legitimate, so to debark troops and to use the internal divisions perfectly good tactic AND strategy.

---

If you re-read that paragraph with the quote it refers to, I think you will misunderstand me less. King Henry had made a point about the killing of Greeks after their fail of their invasion. And I said that it was an act of war. I wanted to explain about the wrong point of view he was on about "war". That question was ironic, I mean.

Quote:

---

"We were kind and tolerant": Euh, I worked in Serbia, and they don’t think that the Ottoman Empire was particularly kind and tolerant: Wall of skulls in Nis, the payment for their life, the fact that each Christian family had to give one son between 5 and 20 to be slave or janissary to the Porte aren’t to be tolerant and kind…

---

Particularly Serbians were always in hatred against Ottomans. They created much trouble to Ottomans expansion. Anything can be either real or exaggerated. The Ottomans' solid hold in Balkans rely on that "taking away of kids". It was a wise way of "Turk-ization" over there. And actually Janissary army is gathered by healthy "devsirme"s. Devsirme : Culturally converted Christian boys. Actually, I still insist on Ottoman Empire's Islamic and peaceful approach at conquered lands when compared to others. The successor of Suleyman the Magnificent, Sokollu Mehmet was a "devsirme", by the way. He was a notable figure in the last times of Ottoman's peak age.

Quote:

---

"imperialistic Britain, France, Russia, Italy and Greece": And the ottoman Empire wasn’t imperialist perhaps? Suleiman went to Vienna; Turkey had the greatest empire in Europe during the longest time… Mohach in Hungary, Kosovo Polje, in Serbia/Kosovo/Kosova (depending if you are Serb or Albanian), and I can carry on like that… Greece was invaded by the Turks…

---

Did you ever see their maps of share plans of Sevres Agreement over Anatolia ? So many nations deciding the fate of a nation over some piece of paper. That seems way too imperialistic to me, maybe since I am a Turk. I may agree on the wrong use of the word with you.

Quote:

---

"Algerian Genocide by France": When, where? Named the extermination camp, show me when the French organised death march through the desert, tell me when the French to kill Algerians just because they were Algerians…

---

"Senate president of ALGERIA, AMAR BAKHOUCE (AB news)
'France must apologize for the crimes commited in 8 may 1945. France must clean the front of their own house first. The claims of armenian genocide are put in front of Turkey cause they don't wanna see a musulman country in the union. What french did in Algeria is called GENOCIDE but they define it like something else. In the war of independence 1.5 million algerians died. The thing done by France in may 1945 is a real genocide. In may cities and towns they hunted men. The people of Algeria had 1.5 million mayrtres. Today in every family, there is one member who died in this war. We want France to recognize this genocide and apologize. In addition to that, we think it's wrong to hide the archives and we want them to show the documents.'"

More discussion about this should be started on another topic, I think. If you want to find much more about this, Google is a good place to find.

Quote:

---

"500.000 murders equals to "massacre": So if I understand what you are saying, when Turks killed half a million of people that is a massacre, when others nations did the same that is genocide…

---

That "500.000" refers to Turks murdered by Armenians.

Quote:

---

...Nevertheless, if you want to make your point, you fist have to give evidences.

---

I have given proof and references for all I have said in this topic. Please take time reading the whole thing. Please..

For your conclusive words :

I am denying the existence of one-sided, ethnic cleansing, so called genocide.

The murders were ignited by 500.000 Turks murdered, many of them tormented to death by Armenians. And Armenians were killed (not in that imaginary number of 1.2 million) by the furious, and revenge-seeking Turks and Kurds on the way to relocation.

So that, it was a battle, not a genocide, I say.

That's my suggestion that goes all the page down here.

Particularly Serbians were always in hatred against Ottomans: Yes, they did. They were invaded, oppressed and murdered. They were occupied during around 600 years and had no rights just to pay for their lives… If you are interested, just read about the millet system…. And analyse what it means for the none-Muslim in the Ottoman Empire (not legal right, no access to administration unless you convert to Islam, kidnapping of your sons and daughters for slavery, the price of you life to pay every year, etc).

They (the Serbs) created much trouble to Ottomans expansion: That is what we call nowadays RESISTANCE to an occupation. You can’t blame the Serbs in doing that and exalt the Turks to do it against the French, the English and Greeks…

Ottoman Empire's Islamic and peaceful approach at conquered lands when compared to others: I should disagree with this statement: They were actually like the others, not worse but not better. When you sent armies to conquer other countries, in these times, you killed, you looted and other atrocities. When you want to controlled another country, you impose you rules… No offence meant to the Turks in doing that (it is HISTORY) but it was not a peaceful conquest, nor a peaceful peace-keeping mission… It was an occupation… and any revolt was crushed in blood.
To put all other populations in a subordinate status isn’t kind and fair. And yes, some Serbians who CONVERTED to Islam (becoming in doing this the future Bosniac) got some important jobs in the Ottoman Empire, still the Christian were denied of any legal right…

'France must apologize for the crimes commited in 8 may 1945. France must clean the front of their own house first. The claims of armenian genocide are put in front of Turkey cause they don't wanna see a musulman country in the union. What french did in Algeria is called GENOCIDE but they define it like something else. In the war of independence 1.5 million algerians died. The thing done by France in may 1945 is a real genocide. In may cities and towns they hunted men. The people of Algeria had 1.5 million mayrtres. Today in every family, there is one member who died in this war. We want France to recognize this genocide and apologize. In addition to that, we think it's wrong to hide the archives and we want them to show the documents.'
I don’t contest that the Algerian War cost a lot of life. What I contest is the use of genocide. Genocide is organised and systematic slaughter, and until now the Algerian failed to prove it. Where are the mass graves? And if France was so bad toward the Algerians why more than a million of Algerian went to work in France in the 1970’, so exactly 7 years after in Independence. I want to see so logic in this.
This sentence refers to a revolt in one town were the French Repression was horrendous, what I call a War Crime, not Genocide. Again confusion in term.
It is just, in my opinion, the same kind of thing that you blame the Armenians to do. Exploiting tragedies and War Crime then exaggerate them (genocide) and try to get political benefit on it. So, here again, you accept and deny the same thing.

The German killed 1,600,000 French during WW1 and it wasn’t genocide. Number only doesn’t mean genocide. Genocide is a political will to exterminate a nation or religion as such.

I should agree with you on the point that now everybody wanted to be “genocided”.
My concern with what you are stating is you accept this for every body else except Turkey. You accept the figure of 500,000 Turks killed by the Armenians but not the 1,500,000 Armenians killed by the Turks. It is why I said you can’t preach one thing and claim the inverse.

You gave reference, no proof.

And I still prefer libraries than Google for researches… I can check who wrote the book, his political inclinations, his goals and purposes. I can question the document. I never accept a document a word of gold. I always doubt. Example, in the text supposed to prove genocide in Algeria. You have a confusion between one event (repression in one town) and the total war, Then, the number of victims (have to be more than a million and not mentioning the civilians and fighters, figures come from where?) who became martyrs (emotional), use of very powerful words (they hunted men, like if the ALN hadn’t weapons), all that to stop people to think but to react. The last sentence is even better: The author think France hide archives: That is a piece of art. Kind of “We heard a rumour of a secret meeting wich was held in a secret place and unknown personalities negotiated a secret clause but we have no information or confirmation”. It is how to write history.
And finally the political aims: to suggest that if France is against the entrance of Turkey in the EU because human rights abuses, France should shut-up because it did worse… It is politic, not history.

Again, I don’t know if the Armenian Tragedy was or not genocide. What I want is a study, I don’t want an emotional discussion were the other point of view is dismissed and only OPINION going in one side are considered. And I certainly won’t accept any political statement as proof of something.
I probably can find a French Politician stating that the Algerians guilty of Ethnic Cleansing after they Independence when the None-Muslim populations (and the pro-French Muslims) were expelled from Algeria, having the choice between the “suitcase or the coffin”. I give you a figure: 1,500,000. You see, it is easy.

Dear Brennus,

I have for times and time stated that Ottoman Government Archives show about the last population statistics held in 1914, in which Armenians counted for 1.221.850. As an inquiring person, you must have question marks in your mind for how that number of murders fluctuate. 1.2 million? Now 1.5 ? And I prove that their whole population was 1.221.850 ?

If reference is not proof then every written word has a point of suspection. Like mine and like yours..Those references were gathered from government archives and academic studies, by the way.

...

We had some frustrating moments in the other topic - Fall Of Constantiople. And I apologize for what may have disturbed one under unbiased circumstances.

...

Let me summarize my purpose in opening that topic for the last time :

Do not believe everything you hear out there. We - Turks - have behaved slothful enough to get surrounded by this severe issue, parrying it away. So I aimed to tell you about some reality that was not just like anything told by Armenians. I tried to make a move on discussing the issue. And if I ever got more emotional than rational, forgive me.

Also I do not want to deal with fanatic thoughts over here rooted in the hatred of the past, please.

[QUOTE=LeftEyeNine]Dear Brennus,

We had some frustrating moments in the other topic - Fall Of Constantiople. And I apologize for what may have disturbed one under unbiased circumstances.

Was it not or was it there will bee always two sides but one cant claim that Turks are in hole a Genocide based nation their art and music and works of Imar Sinan can't bee the product of Genocide based nation.

Other nations have done plenty more ugly things but one cannot judge a nation by deads of some
Селам Алејкум
LeftEyeNine

I welcome your friendly manner, Magister Pediyum.

Aleykum es-Selam..

Can you copy some Ottoman sources about battle of Kosovo 1389 and Nicopolis 1396 I am righting about Ottoman economy and army during the rain of Sultan Yildirim.

As soon as I am off my graphic works, Magister.. I have some work to get it done by tomorrow and I am nearly out of time, sorry for now. But I will help you tomorrow.

If any other friend here is interested helping Magister, please drop here a copy.

I would say this is a highly provocative thread . The genocide is not in question anywhere in the academic world, pictures and evidence exist. The turkish conference on the issue was stopped by a turksih minister - I wonder why?? maybe because turkish historians themselves are casting light on this event...

I am not an expert on this subject but I saw enough material on it and respected academics and others talk about it to know that it is very wrong to deny it happened.

There is another thread going that asks why is history important, the main reason why studying history is important is to deny bad people the opportunity of falsifying the history and use it in bad ways.

Kalle

As long as you do not want to hear something new, I can not do anything about it.

This topic is opened personally in order to contribute to the discussion of the subject. We know it is hard to knock down taboos about Armenian Issue. However, the researches will shed light on the matter falsifying what was known as "history".

Bad people falsifying the truth? If I am wrong with my knowledge, help me correct it instead of labeling please.

Cemil Cicek cancelled the conference claiming that the participators were only from the opposing intellectuals, calling it unfair.. I personally do not have any idea on that. But it has severely damaged our enthusiasm to openly discuss the issue, and contradicted the invitations of Prime Minister Erdogan.

LeftEye9, you say you proved that the armenian ppl at the time were about 1,220,000 according to the turkish goverment files. I somehow feel that proof ain't really much proof of the possibly actuall armenian population, as stuff like that can certainly be cooked.

What if the armenian goverment release some file saying the arm. pop. was 12,200,000? or 122,000,000 ppl??? would you believe that? You understand of course, that goverments tend to be biassed in favor of, ehr..., their country!

Researching the truth in history takes much more effort than taking a look at some "goverment files". Especially since they are goverment ones'!

I wouldn't take for granted the turkish or armenian goverments on that matter, nor would i believe without further proof the academic resources, as these too have a tendency to be biassed in favor of politics and most often than not ruled by the goverments.

I just read these 2 pages, i have some thoughts on the matter, but i have some work to do for now. I will try to visit the post later tonight.

Quote:

---

LeftEye9, you say you proved that the armenian ppl at the time were about 1,220,000 according to the turkish goverment files. I somehow feel that proof ain't really much proof of the possibly actuall armenian population, as stuff like that can certainly be cooked.

What if the armenian goverment release some file saying the arm. pop. was 12,200,000? or 122,000,000 ppl??? would you believe that? You understand of course, that goverments tend to be biassed in favor of, ehr..., their country!

---

So Armenian claims may be meaningless as well, doesn't it ?

Amazon77, on this one I should be incline to believe the Turkish sources. It was done to raise taxes, and government are excellent in doing that.
By the same token how the Armenian made their figures… They hadn’t the resources of the Ottoman Empire to conduct such survey…
LeftEyeNine, I agree with you on the inflation of victims. But, unfortunately, if you have less than one million victims, no body care. So, if the Armenians want their tragedy recognized as a genocide that is the figure they have to reach…
The problem is, in my opinion, genocide isn’t only question of number but political aim to eradicate from Earth some group/population. So, at the end of the day, it doesn’t mater for me if the Turks (as State, Ottoman Empire) killed only 500,000 Armenians (half of the population, still), for me the matter is if they conducted a planned and systematic destruction and killing of the Armenian population and villages. By the same token if the Armenians were the one million something (including men, elderly and children) how they succeeded to kill half million of Turks? I am not bushing you or your position, I just try to give you some hints to be able to study history. Be critical and be ready to find things you don’t like for your own country… I know it is hard…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

By the way, Wikipedia has some problems :

"The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page."

That's the headline notification when you click Armenian Genocide link provided. I think things are going a bit better than before.

---

well.. Im not going to lose my time with you... but just a question.. When greeks reconquered all those territories in asia minor did they massacred the population? The reason why we kept our language was not the turkish tollerance but the fact we were not mixing with Turkish (exceptions always existed, willing or forced). People in villages were hidding their girls AND boys many times. The same atrocities turks were doing during 15th century kept doing during 19th and even 20th. Here you should not try justifie Turkish mistakes under a ''friendly talk'' veil but really concider how you will become civilized and democratic country.

Quote:

---

When greeks reconquered all those territories in asia minor did they massacred the population?

---

I think you 'll be amazed by the answer he 'll give you as much as he is by this:

Quote:

---

The reason why we kept our language was not the turkish tollerance but the fact we were not mixing with Turkish (exceptions always existed, willing or forced). People in villages were hidding their girls AND boys many times. The same atrocities turks were doing during 15th century kept doing during 19th and even 20th.

---

I think the most fruitful and wise approach is indicated by Brenus in post #42, I'll just reproduce it as something that reminds my unwillingness to accept some things in junior high-school, and try to keep in mind that this works both ways.

Quote:

---

I am not bushing you or your position, I just try to give you some hints to be able to study history. Be critical and be ready to find things you don’t like for your own country… I know it is hard…

---

Furthermore, I believe that attempts to make a villain out of someone or pass collective judgements on nations are bound to obstruct a clear view of the issue at hand.

[removed]

Let's NOT turn this thread into Hellenic-Turkish arena again. Please ask something in a way that you want to discuss something. None of us like losing time with the nonsense.

Brennus, I appreaciate your approach. So we are coming close to an agreement with you on the point of "battle or systematic killing called genocide ". I am now glad that are still people abroad off any prejudices and open to "suspection".

[removed]

Armanian genocide happened in what, 1912? The fall of Constantinopel happened in 1453.

I'm pretty sure none here were present at those events. Or their parents. Or their grandparents...:p

Also I'd like to say that although I personally find those subjects interesting, 95% of the world's population doesn't give a crap about it. Or for history in general for that matter...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

Armanian genocide happened in what, 1912? The fall of Constantinopel happened in 1453.

I'm pretty sure none here were present at those events. Or their parents. Or their grandparents...:p

Also I'd like to say that although I personally find those subjects interesting, 95% of the world's population doesn't give a crap about it. Or for history in general for that matter...

---

Well, i don't believe that "95%" (i understand you mean the vast majority of) the world population doesn't "give a crap about" ("doesn't care about" would be better). History is one of the most important sciences, as it the one characterising nations.

Of course whoever doesn't care about history is free not to participate in it's study and of course isn't obliged to post in the history forum, or read the posts here.

I, for once, am not interested in the art of cooking. This doesn't make it useless. This doesn't mean i don't enjoy a well cooked meal and this doesn't mean i prefer my food raw. ~:)

Finally, not being present at a historical event, doesn't mean you are wrong about it. Others were, they wrote about it, you just need to find information and judge it (so that you get the whole picture).

I would agree though that most probably the vast majority of the ppl playing RTW (could be "95%") are much more interested on "what to train in turn 5 as the Brutii in athens, a unit of Hastati or a unit of Velites??? plz help!", rather than the topics in the history forum. :embarassed:

So they don't care we do and that is whey we are historians the keepers of tradition and those who can point humanity on to the errors in the past so they wouldn't repeat in the future
Magistrae Vitae

LeftEyeNine, unfortunately, I have prejudices and pre-judgements, being a human being… I graduated in history and few years later I realised that I just “forgot” to write about some bad aspects involving my country in my memoir… It is auto-census and it was not voluntary… But I did it….

Amazon77, history isn’t a science. You can’t repeat the experiment and had always the same result. But it is something I like and studied… And unfortunately, no lesson learned from the past, we always do the same mistakes.
To be present isn’t a proof of impartiality, far from, I have to say. You are under influence of the family, village, community you live with, or your translator, or girl/boy friend etc… And also you can’t see far, or to the other side of the hill… You can be manipulated, lied and other processes (bought).
There isn’t a good approach just passion to understand what happened, without judgment, in context, the decisions and actions from our ancestors. You have to be aware that their mentalities were more alien (at least as much) to us than those from the lost tribe in deep jungle somewhere today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amazon77

Finally, not being present at a historical event, doesn't mean you are wrong about it. Others were, they wrote about it, you just need to find information and judge it (so that you get the whole picture).

---

My point was some people here are getting all emotional and blaming each other on a personal level.
That while they really have no idea what they're talking about. I can't get angry at today's Germans even though they occupied my country (only) 60 years ago.

And I think you'll find that a lot of people outside this little forum really don't care that much about history. 95% was exaggerating of course. But it wasn't meant to be a scientific figure...;)

Quote:

---

LeftEyeNine, unfortunately, I have prejudices and pre-judgements, being a human being… I graduated in history and few years later I realised that I just “forgot” to write about some bad aspects involving my country in my memoir… It is auto-census and it was not voluntary… But I did it….

---

I actually mentioned about pre-thoughts about the others, not camouflaging yours..

That's what human nature brings, you're exactly right. I do have those as well. However, we need to balance it if we want some discussion somewhere (that's a general expression - not intended to re-pass over what happened in this forum).

Sometimes you just let your rationality loosen and get driven by your feelings, and that's how history was made up, in fact, isn't it ? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

I am sorry, that's like saying Germany should not have apologised because it is no longer ruled by the Nazis. That, along with things like the "War of Independance", just don't make sense. Indepenace from whom? Themselves?

---

From the Greeks, Russians, Serbs, and to a lesser extent Britain and France. Or the militant proto-fascist young turks, and the Ottomans. Think of it like this the Ottomans succeded in conquering and claiming the imperial legacy of the eastern Roman empire. A legacy that the Greeks wanted back and the Serbs and Russians wanted for themselfs. The Anglo-French predations against the Turks were simply the taking of Syria by the French and Palestine/Mesopotamia by the British. It should be noted that the only reason there was an Ottoman empire around in 1915 to deport the Armenians is because of Britiain. The British stopped either the French, Russians, or Egytians from conquering the Ottomans.

Quote:

---

At the beginning of the 19th century, as Napoleon surged back and forth across Europe, the subject Christians of the Balkans became more and more restless, and Russia began to try again and again to retrieve Constantinople for Christendom and break through the Straits. The Ottomans, although achieving some successes, were not going to be able to resist this. The Empire's status as the "Sick Man of Europe" was now becoming quite established. It was Realpolitik that came to the rescue of the Sult.ân: Britain did not want Russia to be too successful and so entered into a long policy of supporting the Turks against the forces, from Russia or Egypt or wherever, that might result in the collapse of Ottoman rule. Nevertheless, Britain could not allow too much oppression of subject Christians, and as the century wore on, small Christian states, from Serbia to Greece to Bulgaria, were allowed autonomy and then independence by the agreement of the Great Powers. This did not get any of them all they wanted, and it certainly limited Russian gains, but it kept the geo-political dam from bursting and kept the Sult.ân from falling off his Throne.

---

The glory of realpolitik. Then the irony is that after 100 of propping them up the young turks repay British support with a German alliance.

Also by 1900 the Turks of the Ottoman empire were just as much a subject people of the empire as the Armenians or Greeks. Chalk that up to the marriage practices of the Sultans. Their habit of not always marrying Turkish brides left them an ethnically heterogenious stratum of nobles that ruled the empire. The young turks were a militant reaction to what the Sultans had become, to put the fate of the empire back in "properly" turkish hands. The reason Sultans declined steadaly after 1570 or so the succession practices of the Ottomans changed.

Quote:

---

It is noteworthy at this point that Ottoman Sult.âns ceased to murder their brothers on accession. Henceforth the Throne passes, by Middle Eastern custom, to brothers and even to cousins before going to the next generation.

---

I guess they though it a little barberous to butcher a couple dozen men with whom you happen to share a father to secure your rule. This lead to the accension of Sultans who had spent the better part of their lives as a prisoner in some palace, having no porper education for being a Sultan.