Armenian-Turkish Relations

[Army]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

I think you can answer that question yourself by simply putting yourself in our shoes. While we lived under turckish rule we were discriminated against, unfairly taxed, sporatically slaughtered and our word meant nothing in court against a muslim, then we were promised reforms and helped the reformers get elected and in turn they turned around and tried to erradicate us completely, took our lands and belongins. Ite was not too long ago that turckey showed how far it has come in regards to minority relations by slaughtering thousends of kurds, assasinating a journalist who was trying to be fair to both sides, brutally killing christians from different countries, exhiling its own cicizens for speaking the truth.... Ok so now imagine that you are a armenian being invited to leave your "normal" life in some western country to go to this land i just described. What would you do?

No, that was not what I asked.. As I said, under "normalized" conditions, being guaranteed to live "free". You may claim that is too much utopic; alright; but I am just asking "What if..."

Also, I know some Turkish history; not much but I do. The reformists who were elected in Ottoman era had lost their seats after the coup by Young Turks (Three Pashas). No one elected them; they came by military force; they even killed a minister in the parliament as far as I know. And they even exiled the Sultan himself; brang a puppet-Sultan and took the full control over the country.

So, I just want to say that; those guys were totally different from the elected-representatives.

Ah also my friend told me (a historian), in 19th centry that only Turkish-rooted riots in Anatolia against Istanbul were close the a hundred. So, the fact is, the Turkish Empire were collapsing, and no one was happy with the government or the Sultan himself. In a riot, they even killed the Sultan himself.

So.. My grandfathers at that time were not living on Ottoman lands, so I know I am not a side here, but I think Turks were also in a terrible condition too.

And when it comes to Kurds, they hated Armenians more than Turks, believe me.

[Haykakan]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

No, that was not what I asked.. As I said, under "normalized" conditions, being guaranteed to live "free". You may claim that is too much utopic; alright; but I am just asking "What if..."

Also, I know some Turkish history; not much but I do. The reformists who were elected in Ottoman era had lost their seats after the coup by Young Turks (Three Pashas). No one elected them; they came by military force; they even killed a minister in the parliament as far as I know. And they even exiled the Sultan himself; brang a puppet-Sultan and took the full control over the country.

So, I just want to say that; those guys were totally different from the elected-representatives.

Ah also my friend told me (a historian), in 19th centry that only Turkish-rooted riots in Anatolia against Istanbul were close the a hundred. So, the fact is, the Turkish Empire were collapsing, and no one was happy with the government or the Sultan himself. In a riot, they even killed the Sultan himself.

So.. My grandfathers at that time were not living on Ottoman lands, so I know I am not a side here, but I think Turks were also in a terrible condition too.

And when it comes to Kurds, they hated Armenians more than Turks, believe me.

Yeh it is too utopic to even discuss thus there is no point in discussing pointless scenerious which will never occure. It was the young turcks that many armenians backed and then got stabbed in the back. Sure it was terrible time for everyone but look at the end results, Hardly any armenians were left in their homeland, they had all been massacred or fled, their properties and belongings were stolen by turcks and kurds who still live on their lands, this is obviously NOT a random thing, the armenians were targeted byt turcks and kurds at the pleasure of the turckish government at the time who not only didn't punish or stop the perpurtators but instead released hard core prisoners convicted for violent crimes and promised them amnesty if they go kill as many armenians as they can. This was not a random event and there is plenty of documentation showing this, go look in the genocide section there is a lot you can learn there.

[Army]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Yeh it is too utopic to even discuss thus there is no point in discussing pointless scenerious which will never occure. It was the young turcks that many armenians backed and then got stabbed in the back. Sure it was terrible time for everyone but look at the end results, Hardly any armenians were left in their homeland, they had all been massacred or fled, their properties and belongings were stolen by turcks and kurds who still live on their lands, this is obviously NOT a random thing, the armenians were targeted byt turcks and kurds at the pleasure of the turckish government at the time who not only didn't punish or stop the perpurtators but instead released hard core prisoners convicted for violent crimes and promised them amnesty if they go kill as many armenians as they can. This was not a random event and there is plenty of documentation showing this, go look in the genocide section there is a lot you can learn there.

Well, I read a lot about this issue, it was my research paper topic some years ago. I mostly agree with you, however is not it wrong to define all Turks and Kurds as "bloody-Armenian-haters".. Were all of them monsters? It was a hard time, you can not defend anything when soldiers come and take your neighbors away. Even Turks do not say that "there were not stealings, no massacres" as far as I know -from them and their resources- they all agree -except ultranationalists- that Talat Pasha and his regime were a total destruction.

So, Turks do not think "Armenians deserved it!" nope.. It is more likely "We had a idiotic government and they destroyed the whole empire"

Turks think, Armenians "backstrabbed" them. You guys call it "freedom movement" but for Turks, it is "betrayal at war time". If you think calm, you'd see both sides are right.

Of course, Armenians had some right points; bad politics, taxes etc. However, Turks say that the Empire was in a terrible condition and they believe, the exile was not a purpose to kill Armenians, however the Empire lacked enough tech and logistic to keep all alive.

But they mostly agree with that there were hostile actions against Armenians and many innocent were massacred by local tribes or others. But they also say, Armenian rebels massacred Muslims too in the name of independence. It is weird because I've never met with an Armenian who accepts that "Yea, Turks also died"

So just to make you understand your.. "opponents" (?) better; Turks and Armenians, on that issue, have 2 different points:

First one is that Turks claim it was not a genocide; they accept "massacre" but they are against the 'genocide' as a "legal" term.

Second, the well known 'civil war' argument.

So hmmm.. Those are not my claims and I really do not wait for answers; just for some info.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Well, I read a lot about this issue, it was my research paper topic some years ago. I mostly agree with you, however is not it wrong to define all Turks and Kurds as "bloody-Armenian-haters".. Were all of them monsters? It was a hard time, you can not defend anything when soldiers come and take your neighbors away. Even Turks do not say that "there were not stealings, no massacres" as far as I know -from them and their resources- they all agree -except ultranationalists- that Talat Pasha and his regime were a total destruction.

So, Turks do not think "Armenians deserved it!" nope.. It is more likely "We had a idiotic government and they destroyed the whole empire"

Turks think, Armenians "backstrabbed" them. You guys call it "freedom movement" but for Turks, it is "betrayal at war time". If you think calm, you'd see both sides are right.

Of course, Armenians had some right points; bad politics, taxes etc. However, Turks say that the Empire was in a terrible condition and they believe, the exile was not a purpose to kill Armenians, however the Empire lacked enough tech and logistic to keep all alive.

But they mostly agree with that there were hostile actions against Armenians and many innocent were massacred by local tribes or others. But they also say, Armenian rebels massacred Muslims too in the name of independence. It is weird because I've never met with an Armenian who accepts that "Yea, Turks also died"

So just to make you understand your.. "opponents" (?) better; Turks and Armenians, on that issue, have 2 different points:

First one is that Turks claim it was not a genocide; they accept "massacre" but they are against the 'genocide' as a "legal" term.ias

Second, the well known 'civil war' argument.

So hmmm.. Those are not my claims and I really do not wait for answers; just for some info.

It's the year 2009, 3 million Armenians in Armenia.... the 6-7 million in the diaspora are mostly assimilated and of those numbers, majority are probably over age 50. If that isn't Genocide then I don't know what is.

[Haykakan]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Well, I read a lot about this issue, it was my research paper topic some years ago. I mostly agree with you, however is not it wrong to define all Turks and Kurds as "bloody-Armenian-haters".. Were all of them monsters? It was a hard time, you can not defend anything when soldiers come and take your neighbors away. Even Turks do not say that "there were not stealings, no massacres" as far as I know -from them and their resources- they all agree -except ultranationalists- that Talat Pasha and his regime were a total destruction.

So, Turks do not think "Armenians deserved it!" nope.. It is more likely "We had a idiotic government and they destroyed the whole empire"

Turks think, Armenians "backstrabbed" them. You guys call it "freedom movement" but for Turks, it is "betrayal at war time". If you think calm, you'd see both sides are right.

Of course, Armenians had some right points; bad politics, taxes etc. However, Turks say that the Empire was in a terrible condition and they believe, the exile was not a purpose to kill Armenians, however the Empire lacked enough tech and logistic to keep all alive.

But they mostly agree with that there were hostile actions against Armenians and many innocent were massacred by local tribes or others. But they also say, Armenian rebels massacred Muslims too in the name of independence. It is weird because I've never met with an Armenian who accepts that "Yea, Turks also died"

So just to make you understand your.. "opponents" (?) better; Turks and Armenians, on that issue, have 2 different points:

First one is that Turks claim it was not a genocide; they accept "massacre" but they are against the 'genocide' as a "legal" term.

Second, the well known 'civil war' argument.

So hmmm.. Those are not my claims and I really do not wait for answers; just for some info.

Hi, i am armenian and some turcks died to. Maybe this makes you feel better? I think anyone can understand why a opressed people would rebel but many were not only not rebeling but were fighting for the turckish army and they were the first ones who were masacred(further proof of government involvement). Your studies i guess conveniently ommited some important parts like you cant blame poor planing, legistics, lack of money... for walking people in the dessert in circles and denying them water untill they died. You cant explain tens of thousends of skulls of women and childeren with bullet and stab wounds. YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN AWAY GENOCIDE so stop trying.
To be honest this stuff should probably be discussed in the genocide forum. I wanted to get more feedback on what i wrote earlier about the turckish armenian deal and this is kind of shifting the subject.

[Army]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Yes I agree with you, that is not suitable to discuss here.

My research was two sided; I gave place to both Turkish and Armenian claims, issue by issue.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

I really don't see the nexus between the protocol and "wiping Armenian off the map".

If you connect the protocol to the sides that asked for the preconditions (Turkey & Azerbaijan) then its quite easy to see what the agenda is. It might be hard to see if you don't know the history of this conflict, or if you've never read a single article from Turkish or Azeri newspapers for the last 20 years.

Its all about land. Even Davutoglu said that even if the protocols get passed by both parliaments, Turkey cannot have relations with Armenia unless we give up Karabagh.

If you still don't understand, then I give up trying to explain.

If your interested in diminishing external threats then you shoudn't hesitate to sign the protocol as it specifically confirms Armenia's existing boundaries thereby reinforcing your statehood.

The international community already recognizes Armenia, and so does Turkey. Thats not the problem. What Turkey wishes to accomplish from these protocols is to make us voluntarily sign away the rights to the occupied territories. If Turkey was so certain that these occupied lands belonged to them, they wouldn't be so concerned with trying to convince Armenia to agree on the borders.

And I can give you many examples of neighboring countries that have border disputes, yet they still have full relations. The fact that Turkey gives special conditions to Armenia in this regard just highlights their anti-Armenian policies.

It will also help re-integrate Armenia's into the world economy and strengthen its institutions and government by formalising relations. Business, investment, people need as much certainty and reliability as possible. The current relationship is negative and uncertain and impoverishes all countries in the region. The Swiss written protocols appear to offer as much as win/win positions to both Armenia and Turkey as possible. You can wrap yourself in pride, historical injustice, emnity as much as you like but you shouldn't blame Armenian leaders for making unemotional and rational decisions that will benefit their long term interests.

You're blowing things way out of proportion. Armenia already has access to European markets via Russia. We also get Turkish goods from Georgia and Iran. The only thing an open border with Turkey would do in this regard is to speed up the already-existing trade routes we have with Europe. So you want us to sign away our national interests so we can make 5 cents more from each pound of tomatoes? Get real.

Also, the Armenian economy is consistently ranked among the freest in the world, much higher than Turkey and Azerbaijan. Open borders aren't as important as you make them seem in terms of foreign investment. Who the hell has more foreign investment, proportionally speaking, than Armenia? Maybe Israel and some tiny island republics, thats about it.

And Turkey still has no explanation as to why we need a “historical commission” to have relations. They are just throwing obstacles in the way, and these obstacles make it clear that they are not truly after diplomatic relations.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

These protocalls basicly mean that Armenia and Turckey are making a trade which is turckey will look the other way on the kharabagh issue (which is in armenias interest) and in return armenia will forfiet claims on western turckey (which is in turckeys interest).

You're not realizing a very important detail in what you just said-- A tradeoff (not a fair one, but a tradeoff) would be if we signed away western Armenia while Turkey officially recognizes Karabagh as Armenian territory.

However, what you're saying is that we should sign away western Armenia so that Turkey temporarily doesn't raise the Karabagh issue, but will eventually raise it in the future (preferably, when Armenian import/export routes are fixed on Turkey's territory meaning they have more leverage on the Karabagh issue). You essentially want to sign away western Armenia for nothing.

[Army]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

If you connect the protocol to the sides that asked for the preconditions (Turkey & Azerbaijan) then its quite easy to see what the agenda is. It might be hard to see if you don't know the history of this conflict, or if you've never read a single article from Turkish or Azeri newspapers for the last 20 years.

Turkey is really tired of this conflict. I am sure Turkey has no intention on Armenia lands. I dont know about Azerbaijan. I think, Ankara may even agree on a semi-independent Karabagh or an independent Karabagh with refugees returned.

They may even agree on a corridor to Armenia from Karabagh, maybe a strait.

Its all about land. Even Davutoglu said that even if the protocols get passed by both parliaments, Turkey cannot have relations with Armenia unless we give up Karabagh.

He said that to convince Azerbaijan, because Baku's response to the protocol was deadly for the relations.

If Turkey was so certain that these occupied lands belonged to them, they wouldn't be so concerned with trying to convince Armenia to agree on the borders.

And I can give you many examples of neighboring countries that have border disputes, yet they still have full relations.

Turks have a Sevres-phobia. Even the name makes them angry, because they think, Sevres was a plan to end them forever. I can agree with that too. The border issue with Armenia would not be such as a big problem if it was not rooted from Sevres.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Turkey is really tired of this conflict. I am sure Turkey has no intention on Armenia lands. I dont know about Azerbaijan. I think, Ankara may even agree on a semi-independent Karabagh or an independent Karabagh with refugees returned.

They may even agree on a corridor to Armenia from Karabagh, maybe a strait.

These are all thoughts and wishes. If this is all we get from Turkey, and not official guarantees, then there is no point in committing ourselves to sign away anything, and no reason to believe Turkey has changed from what its been for the last 150 years. Its just common sense.

Plus, why should we return refugees to Karabagh when none of our refugees are going to be accounted for? We have no good reason to consider accepting Tatar refugees and giving them land in Karabagh, unless the same can be done for the millions of diasporan Armenians and their confiscated lands in western Armenia, Sumgait, Baku, etc. Until that happens, you shouldn't even dream of having Tatars returned to Karabagh.

He said that to convince Azerbaijan, because Baku's response to the protocol was deadly for the relations.

Or maybe he's just being consistent with Turkish policy?

Turks have a Sevres-phobia. Even the name makes them angry, because they think, Sevres was a plan to end them forever. I can agree with that too. The border issue with Armenia would not be such as a big problem if it was not rooted from Sevres.

Thats good, because western Armenia is not dependent on the Treaty of Sevres. Our legal claim on western Armenia comes from Wilson's Arbitration, which was signed into law and was seperate from Sevres.