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

Armenian Genocide is a tool of political threatens created by Armenians so far away, not the ones in Armenia, while the "freaky" political parliaments love to use it. (I can not believe some guy who filled the movie theaters with violence and rubbish action for years now cares about Armenians..Armenian voting power over there in maybe? Heh..Pity Arnie..)

Keeping in mind that I am not a Turkish racist, let me tell you about the reality of Armenian Genocide:

Ottoman Empire covered such a vast land and such a vast foreign population for approximately 600 years. Except for the "Turk-ization" policy imposed in early conquest of the Trachia and Balkans by bringing and settling down the Turkmen migrants in these lands, Ottoman Empire always standed for its tolerance for existence, culture, beliefs over foreign populations it covered. That's why the nationalism was so effective through these lands. Suddenly Greeks, Arabs, Macedonians, Albanians, Romanians, Bulgarians etc. declared their liberty (Albania and some others were unwilling about their liberation, intersting point..). The policy of Russians, the French and the British over Ottoman Empire contributed highly on this, not to reject.

Armenians were among the happy and silent people ( called "millet-i sukun" which means "silent nation" by the Ottoman society ). The Turks who suffered their disgusting torments later say that : "We had Armenian neighbors everywhere with whom we had nice relationships, they were good and nice". So what happened? Did we turn into bloodlusting beasts suddenly ? An absolute no.

Russians were one of the major invaders through the Eastern parts of Anatolia where Armenians and Turks were living together in WWI. Their provocations and military supplements, the foundation of Tashnak committee - an Armenian terror group - leaded to Armenians massacring their neighbors. What did they do ?

They gathered up as gangs continuously assaulting Turkish villages. They gathered women, pregnants and children in mosques killing them all. Some memories of the remnants of that massacre tell about Armenians kicking the babies into fire in front of their mothers' eye. That was not a battle, they did torment. Gathering Turkish women in a mansion, raping them whole day ten by ten. The old ones say that raped Turkish women were walking strange after their disgusting lusts. They dressed off lieutenants, peeling off their skins making cuts looking like pockets or ranks of a soldier , then telling them that they had promoted. In Zeytun 100, in Van 3000 and in Mus a total of 20.000 Turks were killed (most of them tormented to death) between years 1914 - 15. The Ottoman governments actions towards calming down that Armenian massacre (not a rebel, attention) were reflected to the global news as the Moslems massacring the Christians.

514015 Turks were killed by the Armenians between 1914 and 1920 in Anatolia and Caucasian lands. Statistics belong to government archives. Summing up the numbers that were possible to figure out took about 10 minutes for me. There is a table also with uncertain numbers of killed Turks in the following link.
( http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/engli...res/lists.html )

As a result Ottoman Empire applied "tehcir" (relocation) policy that forced Armenians to emigrate from their homelands to Syria. On their way to Syria, the Armenian emigrants were killed by the furious Turkish people and virtually-hostile-against-Armenians - the Kurdish generals. Yes we killed, but you decide it in unbiased terms that it was a genocide or a revenge.

P.S. Some tidbits of reality;


IN THE 19th CENTURY IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE:
29 Armenians achieved the highest governmental rank of pasha,
22 Armenians became ministers, including Ministers of Foreign Affairs,
33 Armenians were elected to the Parliament,
7 Armenians were appointed as Ambassadors, 11 as Consul Generals,
11 Armenians served in universities as professors.


There were 803 Armenian schools employing 2088 teachers with over 80,000 pupils within the Ottoman Empire in 1901-2.

That is a fact counterparting the fake hostility suggested between the Turks and the Armenians. However, that was the past, now there is a humorous saying that "Are you Armenian?" that some Turks use when one does something crimeful and violent. I do not prefer, however. But this is a reality grown by Russians, the French and the British. Now they are harvesting what they intended to. ("they" refers to political terms not in social terms)

In light of the fact that this will undoubtedly turn into a big argument, for this is a statement rather than an explanation, I suggest this is moved to the Backroom -- unless it remains historical.

But I expect either Armenians from their diaspora, or sympathizers, to attack your point, even though it does not deny the genocide.

To start off the debate: I read, actually only an hour ago or so, that these Armenian revenge murders were sporadically and independently executed, while the deportation of Armenians, and their subsequent murder and hangings if they resisted seemed to be well-oiled and organized.



~Wiz

MODERATOR WARNING

I agree with The Wizard's assessment of this topic - this is a Backroom thread waiting to happen. I will give it a chance though. However, if you turn this thread into a political battlefield and it goes to the Backroom. Turn it into a flame war and it will be closed. If you have a problem with something in this thread, DO NOT DEAL WITH IT YOURSELF - contact me with an explanation and I will deal with the problem as best I can.

Now, with that out of the way, let's keep the discussion historical and civil please. Thank you for your cooperation.

Quote:

---

To start off the debate: I read, actually only an hour ago or so, that these Armenian revenge murders were sporadically and independently executed, while the deportation of Armenians, and their subsequent murder and hangings if they resisted seemed to be well-oiled and organized.

---

True. It was pretty well organized. French, American but also German ambassors to the Golden Gate sent letter to their governement in late 1917, asking them to try to put a stop at what the American ambassador called 'mass murdering of innocent christian civilians' (what I call a genocide).
The Armenians' exaction were caused by some silly folks who were fighting for their freedom (weither it was justified or not), while the killing of Armenians was planned by the Ottoman rulers.

Furthermore, I don't see really what's your point about "XXXXX armenians were teachers under the Ottoman Rule".
Wonder how many Jews had an important job in 1933 in Germany ? This was probably one of the reason of the hatred against them.
One of the best french socialist prime minister pre WWII was a jew, and that didn't save him from being persecuted after 1941.

As for saying that the Ottoman Empire was known for being tolerant, I think many historians won't agree with you, but who knows who's the most biased on this issue ? While I'm fascinated by the Ottoman Empire warfare, I don't have that much knowledge about its political and social side. Be sure that I'll investigate this, but until now, I give you the benefit of the doubt :bow:

I've also read news from Armenian newspaper (published in Armenia, not in France, US or Russia), and I think from turkish ones, about the genocide. It might have been exagerated (which I doubt), but it was not invented by french or american armenians afer the war.

The Armenian genocide was not just "Armenian". The Armenians were the main focus, that is why 1.2 million of them got killed. But also more than 200.000 Pontic Greeks died from 1914 to 1923 - most of them in Kemal's times (Enver and Talat just kicked the ball and Mustafa Kemal played along, methinks).

Denial of the genocide is a vain effort. It happened. It was brutal, it was savage and it was an abominal act. Accept it and live with it, instead of trying to convince anyone "it didn't happen". It reminds me the holocaust denial, quite popular in certain quarters nowadays.

Also, about the "tolerance" of the Ottoman empire, so much is true before the 19th century. But following the wake of nationalism of the occupied populations, the tolerance died off. That is how we came to the Young Turks, Enver and Talat and gang, trying to "clean" the "Turkish race" from the "unclean" christians.

Funny thing, if they really wanted to clean the Turkish race, they'd have to start with themselves. Enver was of Jewish origin, for instance. And the intermixture in Anatolia has left very few Turks with "pure blood" (if any).

What Rosacrux says pretty much sums up what I feel and think.

Just wish to add that the Ottoman empire was tolerant towards Jews, as many Jews that fled from Spain settled in Constantinople/Istanbul. And I think 40% of the population in Asia Minor from 15th-18th centuries Orthodox Christian.

I am not intending to fire up here. I have been in many forums up to now, both in my mother tongue and foreign languages. I know about forum behavior, calm down. There will be no offenses here, I promise. I hope all of us try to learn something new and keep unbiased. I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Furthermore, I don't see really what's your point about "XXXXX armenians were teachers under the Ottoman Rule".

---

I also pointed out before that the Armenians were called "millet-i sukun" - the silent nation. I pointed out that the witnesses of the 500.000 "unorganized" (?!!) murders by Armenians called Armenians "good and kind neighbors". The examples you give just do not cover with points I figure here. The Turkish society had no problem with Armenians at all. It was "invented". You can not compare it to the Jewish influence in Germany which caused hatred against them. They are absoultely different things.

Just to repeat, 500.000 deads is a huge number to be counted as a bandit move. Armenians had the organization and militaristic power of English, French and the Russians behind. These countries are "wise" enough, aren't they ?

Quote:

---

The Armenians' exaction were caused by some silly folks who were fighting for their freedom (weither it was justified or not), while the killing of Armenians was planned by the Ottoman rulers.

---

Ottoman Rulers planned to re-locate the Armenians not murder them. Here is the original copy of cryptic telegraph wired on August 29, 1915 to the Governors of Hudaverdigar, Ankara, Konya, Izmit, Adana, Maras, Urfa, Halep, Zor, Sivas, Kutahya, Karesi, Nigde, Mamuretulaziz, Diyarbekir, Karahisar-i Sahib, Erzurum and Kayseri Provinces and sub-Provinces :

"The purpose of the Government regarding the moving of Armenians from their original settlements is to prevent their anti-governmental actions; and to discourage their ambitions of establishing an Armenian State. Their massacre is completely out of question; on the contrary the safety of the groups during immigration should be ensured; and while measures for their catering should be taken, the “Immigrants Allocation” should be used to meet the cost. Armenians who are allowed to stay in their original settlements should not be re-located afterwards. As it was stated before the immigration of the dependents of military forces; protestant and catholic Armenians; and artisans (in accordance with the need) are definitely prohibited by the Government severe legal measures. Against the gendarmes and government officials who attack the immigrating groups or those who lead such attacks severe legal measures should be taken and such individuals should immediately Court-Martialled. Relevant provincial and sub-provincial authorities shall be held responsible for such events."

In another cryptic note sent to Ankara on May 27 1915 it was said that; “The measures taken by the Government regarding the Armenians are based on the necessity to ensure and protect the welfare and order of the Country. Exclusion of the Catholic and Protestant Armenians —who are at present observed as impartial at the present- from immigration, is the indication that the Government has no intention to massacre them”

References: 1) DH. EUM 2. Branch, 68/80
2) DH. EUM 2. Branch, 68/71; 2. Branch 68/84

The 1.2 millions of massacred Armenians is absolutely false.The last population statistics of the Ottoman Empire was held in 1914. According to this, the Armenian population have a number of 1.221.850. So that, we have swept them all? No.

"A total of 438.758 people were relocated and 382.148 of these safely reached their new destinations. As can be seen, the number of casualties had occurred as follows: 500 people on the road between Erzurum and Erzincan; 2000 in Meskene, between Urfa and Aleppo and 2000 others on the outskirts of Mardin were massacred in attacks launched by bandits or nomadic Arabs. Another 5000 people were killed in attacks on convoys passing through Dersim. It was understood from these documents that many people had also fallen victim to hunger while on the road. Apart from these, some 25-30 thousand people had lost their lives when struck by fatal diseases such as typhoid and dysentery. In all, an estimated 40 thousand casualties had been registered during relocation."

What's more, an Armenian advocate living in Elazig, later migrated to USA, Murad Muradyan tells in one of his letters that some Armenians were escaped to Russia and America and later 50.000 of those trained soldiers went to Caucassia. Also, Artin Hotomyan who was a tradesman in America sent a letter to the Chieftain of Security on January 19, 1915 and stated that thousands of Armenians migrated to U.S.A. and they were facing with hunger and hardships.

Reference:
Halacoglu, Prof. Dr. Yusuf, Ermeni Tehcirine Ait Gercekler (1915), TTK Publication, Ankara, 2001.

Quote:

---

Funny thing, if they really wanted to clean the Turkish race, they'd have to start with themselves. Enver was of Jewish origin, for instance. And the intermixture in Anatolia has left very few Turks with "pure blood" (if any).

---

I see no point with "puryfing" Turkish race. That is a stupid dream. I never progressed on such a matter in my message.

Quote:

---

I've also read news from Armenian newspaper (published in Armenia, not in France, US or Russia), and I think from turkish ones, about the genocide. It might have been exagerated (which I doubt), but it was not invented by french or american armenians afer the war.

---

If the whole world cries out with that lie, Armenian newspapers would feel encouraged enough to spread news on that? Isn't that logical ? Exagerration is the sole truth about the issue.

Quote:

---

The Armenian genocide was not just "Armenian". The Armenians were the main focus, that is why 1.2 million of them got killed. But also more than 200.000 Pontic Greeks died from 1914 to 1923 - most of them in Kemal's times (Enver and Talat just kicked the ball and Mustafa Kemal played along, methinks).

---

Let me tell you this. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is the founder of my country. The period you are talking about covers our Independence War times. It was when my lands were invaded after the Sevres Agreement (10 August 1920) and Mondros Ceasefire Aggreement (30 October 1918) confirmed and signed by the "patient" Ottoman government (rejected by the Turkish parliament founded in Ankara by Mustafa Kemal) , which divided the land between France, England, Greece, Kurds, Armenians, Russians, and Italians. We were fighting for freedom. What's more Mustafa Kemal landed on Samsun, a city in Black Sea region, in 19 May 1919 to start the independence move.

The Pontic Greeks did establish Pontic Greek Community secretly in Merzifon American College in 1904. Their purpose was to liberate a Black Sea Greek Republic ("Pontus Rum Cemiyeti") that extends all over the coasts of Batum to Sinop. Provided their purpose, they released a newspaper named Pontus in Istanbul and established armed gangs in Middle and Eastern Black Sea Region of Anatolia where the Greek minorities were common. The cover of the community was blown in a sudden assault to the Merzifon American college performed in 16 February 1921. So if we have to defend our lands we have to fight. That is war, not a genocide. We were having an Independence war at these times - spreading from 1919 to 1923. Please keep that in mind when talking about any incidents that occur through these times. Pontic Greek genocide is a new one that serves the Megalo Idea of the Greeks and the never-ending hostility between Greeks and Turks. Nonsense..

Quote:

---

Denial of the genocide is a vain effort. It happened. It was brutal, it was savage and it was an abominal act. Accept it and live with it, instead of trying to convince anyone "it didn't happen". It reminds me the holocaust denial, quite popular in certain quarters nowadays.

---

We have committed a huge mistake about remaining silent and parry away the issue until now. If there is something that is unavoidable in terms of rationality, I never gave up - just like our freedom efforts given against invaders. There is no genocide, I am proposing you on references, not blah-blah. I can not live with it because if there has something happened that time it was not genocide, it was a battle and/or an act of revenge (the nature of the concept "revenge" is ignored here, right or wrong, it doesn't matter for the subject.)

By the way, all countries except the mainland of the Turks - Anatolia - that Ottoman Empire covered for 600 years still talk in their own language, live their own culture and religion. That is tolerance..

Quote:

---

Just wish to add that the Ottoman empire was tolerant towards Jews, as many Jews that fled from Spain settled in Constantinople/Istanbul. And I think 40% of the population in Asia Minor from 15th-18th centuries Orthodox Christian.

---

It was Suleyman the Magnificent that let Jews settle in Istanbul. Krusader's proposal is true.


Armenians really worked hard on that subject. That is how they really convinced so many people on this. They made so convinctions that I am forced by non-Armenians to accept a fiction. The rock group SOAD continuously serve to this purpose, while rock culture rejects being fascist. They just built a hatred against Turks - spread anti-Turk fascism all around - betraying rock culture but being listened by millions. I was amazed when I searched "Armenian Genocide" in Google. My god, we have a loooooong way. A Turkish saying: "Wherever you return from the loss is profit".

I must repeat, I am unbiased as well as being a Turkish.

I fear your post does not show anything "unbiased", my friend. On the contrary, I'd say. But I don't want to start another flamewar regarding the Armenian genocide so I'll leave it here. It's your choice to live in constant denial, and I have nothing further to say on that.

Why do not you try decaying what I said, instead of "you are wrong and I am leaving" ? What makes you believe that every word you heard and read about Armenian Issue up to now should be accurate ?

Not only about this subject, but also in any other matter in life, you have to question what is going on and catch different points of view. The politicians are wise enough "to pour mud over the sun". They can direct whole population to fiction, to fear or to some exaggerated victory or to anything else. We have proofs as long as their fiction about a "genocide" is said to have. If you want to see, of course, my dear friend. No offense intended but try to be open. I am denying this so called "genocide" since the time I was able to search and comment on incidents, not for the recent time.

Actually, the Ottoman government stated that its struggle against Armenian nationalists was a legitimate conflict -- "a state has the right to respond with arms to separatists." I quite agree with this philosophy myself.

However, as I recall, to respond to a separatist movement with a program of forced relocation, which leads to the death of somewhere in between tens of thousands and 1.2 million, is not the right of a state.

What is genocide? The fact that the Armenians died along the way to Aleppo etc. is not their fault, but that of the Ottoman government. Besides, explain to me what is fake about archived Ottoman photographs of soldiers posing before executed Armenians?

It seems to me there is a big disparity of numbers between both camps, and that both need to see through the large quantities of mud thrown to locate the truth.



~Wiz

you should read some of the things written by Turkish leaders at the time:
I'd have to say that they were of a genocidal frame of mind.
I'm a bit busy to dig that stuff out at the moment but it's pretty easy to find.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Actually, the Ottoman government stated that its struggle against Armenian nationalists was a legitimate conflict -- "a state has the right to respond with arms to separatists." I quite agree with this philosophy myself.

However, as I recall, to respond to a separatist movement with a program of forced relocation, which leads to the death of somewhere in between tens of thousands and 1.2 million, is not the right of a state.

What is genocide? The fact that the Armenians died along the way to Aleppo etc. is not their fault, but that of the Ottoman government. Besides, explain to me what is fake about archived Ottoman photographs of soldiers posing before executed Armenians?

It seems to me there is a big disparity of numbers between both camps, and that both need to see through the large quantities of mud thrown to locate the truth.



~Wiz

---

I already accepted that there were murders under control of military during the relocation. No one is pure white, neither were the Armenians nor the Ottomans.

I know it was a long message up there. It was written that the Government archives say that the last population count was held in 1914 in which the Armenian population counted an exact number of 1.221.850. Does deciding to massacre the whole sum-up nation, none left behind seem logical in the middle of a war ?

The numbers are impossible to believe. And if both sides lose, it is a battle not a genocide, you can not ignore 500.000 dead bodies and talk about Armenian genocide.

One photo tells something but does not describe everything. So does the fictive 1.2-million-murder depend on a bunch of photos ? The cameras should have ultra-hi tech lenses.

Taff, If you are talking about Talat Pasha's documents, I will be proving that they were fake.

If you find time, please dig that stuff for me, I'd love to see what it is.

It wasn't just Talat Pasha, there were a few other important people whose opinions have are recorded.
Ataturk also had some things to say about the actions of his predecessors.

Sorry, I really don't have the time to look for that at the moment. If I happen upon it I'll let you know.

I understand that there is a major international project starting to research the history of the events that you are talking about: previously unavailable records etc. are seeing the light of day. I'll be interested to see what their results are.

Anyway, thanks. If you ever have the time on that, please inform me.

I also appreciate your expectations on new foundings, that really means something for us.

What I just recently heard was that indeed there was gonna be a big academic conference about this issue in Turkey very soon but some Turkish minister stopped it, wonder why....

Kalle

It was Armenian minister stopping that, not Turkish ones. How come these news arrive there in such a shape ?

By the way, Government archives have been made available to ones that show interest in the issue, while Armenia is still reluctant to open theirs. That is the declaration of our Prime Minister.

What I never understood is why Turkey should apoligise, genocide or not, it was the ottoman empire that did it not current Turkey. But I don't understand the rigidness of Turkey's politicians, the cancelation of the debate was nothing more then intimidation. With remarks like 'The Turkish people are the most innocent people in worlds history, no matter what lies are told', sounds a bit weird considering the evidence of at least mass murder.

Turkish people are never told to be "pure white spoon out of the milk". But 1.2 million people were never killed or massacred. I must repeat that I am presenting you proofs. There are so many Turks out there parrying away the issue such as "No Genocide! It's a lie!". But when someone asks about something, they can not answer. That was our colossal mistake - not getting prepared about the Armenian Issue that was clear to be brought back into spotlight on the way to EU integration of Turkey.

We killed because they killed, and that is called a battle not a genocide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Turkish people are never told to be "pure white spoon out of the milk". But 1.2 million people were never killed or massacred. I must repeat that I am presenting you proofs. There are so many Turks out there parrying away the issue such as "No Genocide! It's a lie!". But when someone asks about something, they can not answer. That was our colossal mistake - not getting prepared about the Armenian Issue that was clear to be brought back into spotlight on the way to EU integration of Turkey.

We killed because they killed, and that is called a battle not a genocide.

---

Turkey is known for sexing up their history, but there have been major armenian
atrocities against Turks and that is not commonly known. So maybe not genocide, but certainly ethnic cleansing. But it's been a while, better just let it rest.

Quote:

---

We were fighting for freedom

---

I think the Armenians, the Greeks and many other nationalities would say the same thing, because the Ottomans were the invaders. Greece, when landing troops in Anatolia, said that they were liberating their fellow countrymen from Turkish oppresion. When the invasion failed, the Turkish authorities set about massacring the Greek population in places like Smyrna and Ephesus. Aristotle Onassis was from Smyrna and fled when his family was killed. And if the Turks were so kind and tolerant, why didn't they give Armenia its independance? Remember the Greeks and the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire had more of right to it as their homeland than the Turks, because they were there first. They're probably were atrocities comitted by the Armenians and the Greeks, but let me ask you this, who would be more capable of committing genocide, the Turks, who were the rulers, or the Armeinians, who were an ethnic minority.

There are few sites with interesting articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide this is an impartial, factual website IMHO.
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Turkish.php#genocide judging from the site's name, I doubt it wants to fuel nationalistic anger.
http://www.genocide1915.info/ a pro-armenian site.
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/foru...p?TID=329&PN=1 a pro-turkish site, I put it here to provide "balance", or more specifically so that LeftEyeNine would not stage a tantrum. It also has a link to the site from where Left got his information on the armenian pashas.

Quote:

---

What I never understood is why Turkey should apoligise, genocide or not, it was the ottoman empire that did it not current Turkey.

---

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?

Quote:

---

... I put it here to provide "balance", or more specifically so that LeftEyeNine would not stage a tantrum.

---

That is not the ideal choice of wording if one wants a discussion to remain civil. I state my point in generic terms and a diplomatic tone so King Henry V doesn't throw a hissy-fit because he thinks I'm picking on him. ~;)

BTW, I want the discussion to remain civil, so let's choose our words more carefully please.

Quote:

---

I think the Armenians, the Greeks and many other nationalities would say the same thing, because the Ottomans were the invaders. Greece, when landing troops in Anatolia, said that they were liberating their fellow countrymen from Turkish oppresion. When the invasion failed, the Turkish authorities set about massacring the Greek population in places like Smyrna and Ephesus

---

Freedom is of whom deserve it. Your words end up with Turks trying to liberate Middle Asia. History is full of stories of invasions and rebellions. Inquiring these historical terms in a wrong manner, you will mix up everything. Do you know that we spilled 250.000 bodies of blood to defend against heavy English navy in Canakkale which is a heroical milestone of warfare history? We wanted freedom and we got it. These lands were ours since about 1200-1300s. Turkish indepence efforts were given under threats of Ottoman government, and the whole "Great" invaders I already mentioned about. Armenians or Greeks or whomever minorities that the "Great" ones would like, would be independent in Anatolia, if they ever deserved to. History always had oppressors and the ones under their control. That's the nature. You should forget about this point of view, because it makes no sense..

What's more since it was the Turkish parliament established by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk that planned the liberation in both armed and unarmed ways (Ottoman government was a whole different thing for that time, do not confuse). So it was obvious that this struggle would be given against to all threats to Turkish existence. Please direct your questions in this framework, from now on.

So King Henry, would you welcome someone that supports invasion of your land. Whatever the population was, it was a Turkish land. And I do not see anything strange with Greeks being swept away after such an invasion. By the way, I would be asking why Greeks burnt down all the places when they were retreating ? It is an act of war, of course. So were ours.

If you take every aspect of battle as massacring, you'd better keep off the history. You can not win your hand through handshaking, making agreements all the time. Whoever was that much merciful, I wonder. And also I wonder if such one still exists.

Quote:

---

And if the Turks were so kind and tolerant, why didn't they give Armenia its independance? Remember the Greeks and the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire had more of right to it as their homeland than the Turks, because they were there first.

---

Pff..We were kind and tolerant that after 600 years (six hundred you see) they still exist with their own language, own culture, own religion and own places where they used to be for their whole history - Lesser Armenia. Please try to understand what I try to mean in fact.

What kind of right did the British and French had that they came over here and provoked minorities and make invasions ? And do I have more right than anyone else in Middle Asia ? Do you really think that you want to discuss something or just propose blank challenges to oppose me? I fought in a battle, I won, I am free. That's the summary.

Quote:

---

They're probably were atrocities comitted by the Armenians and the Greeks, but let me ask you this, who would be more capable of committing genocide, the Turks, who were the rulers, or the Armeinians, who were an ethnic minority.

---

Through the waning period of Ottoman Empire, the great powers of Europe seized such a control over Ottoman Empire (especially in economic terms) that in these lands minorities had absoultely better rights than Turks towards the empire's collapse. Rulers had been muppets of Europe. Ottoman government could never act in such a manner that would drive things worse with them like a genocide.

What's more, it doesn't mean that Armenians can not commit 500.000 murders in such a weak and chaotic condition. And 500.000 murders equals to "massacre".

About the links you provided :
The whole world knows only what Armenians wanted them to know. One to get clear results should come over here and research through Turkish government archives as much as he/she did with Armenians. So I am not surprised with that wikipedia's definitions.

The second link is a wise choice of domain name registration -LOL-
The whole website is full of anti-Turkish proposals. Do not tell me that you really believed in a website that never mentions about Native American Genocide by U.S., the Algerian Genocide by France or Aztek Genocide by Spaniards. You really did not believe that site selling "Turkish Denial Machine" t-shirts didn't you ? They promote a fascism that works in contradictive way - filling people with anger against Turks. What's more, I never and ever accept anything from a website that uses Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's photo next to Adolf Hitler's and making up a logo with it. Ataturk never had anything related to Armenian incidents happened over there, but they propose that. Briefly, the website has no intentions on "making up things right". They serve to provide anti-Turk community.

The last link you provide and the cause you propose sums up all your manner and intentions. You are not talking to a kid over here. Talking about "balancing" to keep me out of burst is the same thing that www.unitedhumanrights.org website you provided does.

I am here to explain something and will try to avoid provocations as much as I can, I promised to Gregoshi. If you have not much to say, you'd better open the doors of your brain and keep silent. Get rid of your prejudices before discussing such a sensitive topic. Human is human before he is an Armenian, Greek, Kurd or Turk or whatever.

P.S. I just learned that the congress in Turkey about Armenian Issue was cancelled by the Turkish minister, Cemil Cicek. Sorry that I opposed that news and claimed that the Armenians did it.

Quote:

---

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?

---

That's why I am discussing the topic here. Politically, Turkey has nothing to do with the dead Ottoman Empire's deeds. However, the questions and claims are directed towards Turkish people. So that I am challenging here to show the daylight to the truth just as my descendants died for their indepence from imprealistic Britain, France, Russia, Italy and Greece.

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.

[wrong topic]

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.

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.



~Wiz

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…

"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.

"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…

"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…

"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…

"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…

Don’t misunderstand what I am saying: I admired Ataturk because he saved his country from the invaders. He succeeded to keep Turkey as a country and created the roots for a modern state (separation religion from the state, reforming the old Ottoman Empire). Nevertheless, if you want to make your point, you fist have to give evidences.
And to give a definition of genocide, because I agree with you: A massacre (even a huge one) isn’t genocide; it could be what we call now a war crime.
So I propose mine: Genocide is the will to destroy an entire population (men, women and children) because they are who they are (that is why I didn’t challenge the Native Indian Genocide in Central and North America: they were exterminated because they were Indians). A specific programme has to be programme to achieve this goal (spreading diseases, train and camps, forced labour and death march of the civilian populations. I don’t think that the death marches organised by the Japanese during the WW2 are genocide but war crimes.
Any other suggestions?

Sorry, I sent my post after yours.
The Wizard. In Bosnia, Serbs, Croats and Bosniac have the same ethnic Origin. The are either Orthodox, Catholic or Muslim and they arrived at the same moment in the Balkan. It doesn’t make Srebrenica a legitimate thing but, and I disagree with The Hague and Carla Del Ponte on this one, it wasn’t a genocide (women and children weren’t killed). It was a horrible and huge War Crime but NOT genocide.

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.