Questions for Turks

[TurQ]

1.5 Million

I mostly agree what you say, but the Pan-Turkist and Turanic explanation is really absurd, it has nothing to do with the Armenian issue.
Once Enver tried it. HE was dreaming that he could finish up Russian army in Sarikamis and then establish geographical relations with Central Asia. That dream died in 1914in 1 night when 80,000 soldiers frozen to death, and it was Enver's dream no one else's.

They were trying to cover-up their own asses and how could they supposed to help Central Asian Turks? They were trying to stop Invading Russian Armies in the outskirts of Istanbul in early 1910s and they were trying to stop them in Eastern Anatolia, how were they supposed even think of Pan-Turanism?


Yes Ittihadists had good relations with Hinchak and Dashnak Sutyun. They were buddies when they were allied against Sultan and organized assasination togather. When the Russians were approaching they seeked Dashnak help they knew their military and guerilla capability, as they were allies before, expected same friendship. WHen it was rejected their love relation turned into hate relation.

SythianVizer - I am familiar with this material that you posted - but again - it is at best tangental to the experience of the Armenian Genocide. It certainly is a factor - as the Muslim refugees who poured in from outlying areas of the Ottoman Empire as the Empire collapsed were feverently anti-Christian and as the pattern of Empire collapse immensly affected the attitudes of Turks - particualrly those who were to influence and become the CUP. However Armenians had nothing to do with these incidents and if you (Turks) are looking for apologies well that is your own issue that you will have to pursue seperatly (that you cannot really expect Armenians to have any sympathy with at this time - really now...yeah deny the Armenian Genocide then expect Armenians to have any sympathy at all with the plight of Turks...). You also realize that apart from the Tatars and some of the other groups the Russians expeled (after long warfare where those groups who were kicked out were often agressive and threatening in their own right - to an extent orders of magnitude more then any Armenian sedition on the Ottoman Empire) - most all of the Turks expelled represented a foreign presence who acted as cruel overlords to the locals - and they thusly were expelled with a vengence when the tables were turned. None of this has any direct bearing on the situation of the Armenians within the Ottoman Empire. In fact Armenians fought in the Ottoman Armies in the Balkan wars and again were always considered as loyal subjects of the Sultan. There was no Armenain revolt or sedition of any kind outside of some communitites who were being double taxed and otherwise cruely exploited by the local Turkish officials and Kurdish chieftans. The various Armenian political parties compoesed mostly of Armenian students who had studied abroad made scant inroads into the Armenian populace at large. The Armenians were mostly after reforms so they could live without constantly being victimized and abused - however it was the Ottoman Turkish (rule over all the subjects and racist/religeous superiority concepts) mindset and paranoia (concerning collapsing Empire and the independence movements of ethnics within it) that doomed the Armenians. The leading and prior to the war only really influential Armenian political party (outside of a few regional/town areas in the East where other parties had some local influence - such as Van) - the Dashanaks in fact had allied with the CUP prior to thie revolution and supported them monetarily and otherwise. The problem was with the typical post revolutionary radicalization where the CUP turned on the Dashnals - and the Armenians - because those who came to power in the CUP were brought up with a racist Pan-Turanist agenda and they highly resented the Armenains for their wealth and sucess and because Armenian reforms pushed by Western Powers were a source of embarrasment to the Turks. These are the factors that led to the Armenian tragedy - the Genocide. The enormity of the Armenian Genocide and the clear role of the Turks as perpetrators make any consideration of Turkish suffering during this period moot. Just as we do not focus on German suffering during WWII considering the hurt the Germans put on Jews and others during this period. The analogy is the same. So get off your high horse about Turkish suffering. I know it occured - during this period, before, and after - but in no way can you really blame Armenians for any of it - just the opposite really - if you Turks had been more accomodating with Armenians you would have had a very useful partner during this period and you would have been able to feed your people at the very least. The blame for the tragedy during this period - the Armenian Genocide and any suffering experienced by the Turkish people rests squarly on the shoulders of you Turks. First the Sultan who through greed, corruption and pride let his Empire stagnate and crumble and allowed the EMpire to undertake a series of wars which it could not win. This created your refugee situation and allowed the oppurtunity for ethnic revolt. Then later - the CUP - instead of following through with the ideals of their revolution and enacting the reform to modernize the Empire - became a bunch of greedy racist blodthirsty scoundrals of the very worst kind. Yes - it is they who got Turkey into WWI in the first place - with designs on greater Turan and who used the war to enact their bloodthirsty solution to the "Armenian Question" - to impose a "final solution" on it - just as Hitler and the Nazis did with the Jews. And after - Ataturk brutally completed the job as weall as brutally put down all opposition and extended the misery in Anatolia. So don't you try top equate anything that happened to/with the Turks to the tragedy of the Armenians. If Turkics are gone from Crimea and the Balkans - well - that is a shame - but it is not our problem and it has nothing to do with the Armenians - cannot be used as any justification or counter balancing or what have you - because Armenians as a group commited no crimes - did nothing to warrent their harsh treatment and decimation. And you claim that Armenian culture is alive and well in Anatolia - ha! That is like claiming that elphants still roam North America because you can find one or two in a zoo!

[1.5 million]

TurQ - how can you reject the pan_Turanist influence on the thinking and actions of the CUP and claim it was only Enver when GoKalp was part of the inner circle? I also cannot believe that only the dream of one man - Enver - could have allowed that offensive into the Caucuses to occur. These beliefs - that through German military might and ascendancy - that the Pan-Turanic dream mightbe realized. Obviously the CUP elites arose during a time of great hardship - of great loss and shame for the Ottomans. These individuals - who were the creme of the crop of Turks in that generation - were open for the idea of the re-ascndency of their once great people who were heirs to Empire. The Pan-Turanist propoganda fit perfectly inot these aspirations (and where blame on the demise of the Empire could be placed upon the rebellious and ungrateful minorities) and the German influence encouraging such dreams and presenting a future where Germans and Turks would be allied econmically and militarily gave the CUP ideas of how it might get out of its mess and re-establish Empire (a Turkic one). You may not be aware of the plans that the Germans had to ecomically revitalize the Ottoman Empire - by replacing Armenian and Greek entrepenurs with Germans and by deling iwth the Turks and not with the Christian minorities. All of these factors came together in the the minds of the CUP strengthening their desire to rid themselves of the (by then) hated Christian minorities and plan for a vicotry over the hated Russians in the East ans the establishment of a Turkic based Empire. Even before Enver's invasion the CUP/Ottomans had sent out Special organization units by the thousands into the Caucuses and into northern Persia/Iraq to incite the Turks and Kurds there to revolt and to prepare them for the comming Pan_Turanist Empire. These are facts. So it wasn't just Enver.

I also reject your claim that it was the Armenian parties who first turned on the CUP and not the other way around. At the Dashnak party Congress of 1914 when the Turks demanded that Dashnak Armenians of both the Caucuses and Anatolia serve them - the Dashnaks corectly determined that each group should remain loyal to the nation they were in. Before it could be determined if the Ottoman Dashnaks would follow through the Turks (CUP) had already set a plan in motion to murder the Dashnak representatives - whcih they did. This began a campaign of terror where the CUP went town to town allegedly to disarm Dashnaks where they used false accusations of potential disloyalty to arrest, imprison and murder a great many Armenians. It was a damed if you do damned if you don't situation - as the Turkish Gendarmes had quotas to fill concerning captured weapons and those (Armenians) who could not produce them were punished...and of course when arms were produced the CUP coulc claim justification for these actions. In the end they set out to demolish the Dashnak (potential) opposition - and this occured prior to any sedtious actions on the part of the Dashnaks. It was a function of the CUP enacting their extreme plan against the Armenians - and a function of the typical post revolutionary radical swing where political parties in power purge former friends as their concept of who is "with them" narrows - in this case because the liberal ideals of inclusion of all groups fell by the wayside with the ascendency of the Pan-Turanic racist CUP contingent.

[ScythianVizier]

SythianVizer - I am familiar with this material that you posted - but again - it is at best tangental to the experience of the Armenian Genocide.

Sometimes people like to abstract themselves from the external enviroment surrounding them. However, dialects of history does not operate that way.

It certainly is a factor - as the Muslim refugees who poured in from outlying areas of the Ottoman Empire as the Empire collapsed were feverently anti-Christian and as the pattern of Empire collapse immensly affected the attitudes of Turks - particualrly those who were to influence and become the CUP.

First of all, one should consider the political and social climate of the corresponding period. For sure, people who set up CUP were mostly Balkan inhabitants who did experience the hatred, injustice, and slaughter inflicted upon "Muslim Millet" of the Ottoman Empire throughout late 19th and early 20th Century.

Interestingly, CUP included not only the Turks, but also some other muslim ethnicities. For sure, they acted anti-Christian since that policy was utilized as the counter strategy deployed against the Christian enemies of the empire.

However Armenians had nothing to do with these incidents and if you (Turks) are looking for apologies well that is your own issue that you will have to pursue seperatly (that you cannot really expect Armenians to have any sympathy with at this time - really now...yeah deny the Armenian Genocide then expect Armenians to have any sympathy at all with the plight of Turks...).

Armenians were the citizens of the Ottoman Empire. Respectfully, they did have different idelogoies, perceptions, schemes for their own future after a certain phase in time. In that regard, it is evident that the relationship between the Armenians and the "Muslim Millet" of the empire had been deteriorating long before 1915.

In the first half of 19th Century, the Russians expanded in Caucasus, and they enlarged their Armenian population following the Russo-Persian War of 1826-27 and the Russo-Turkish war of 1828-29. As the Armenians lived on both sides of the border with Russia, they were gradually identified as belonging to the "domain of war, the sphere of the enemy".

During Russo-Turkish War of 1828-1829, thousands of Armenians participated against the Ottoman forces and administration. This approach was also reinforced by the "Russian Imperialistic Schemes"" designed for the "Sickman of Europe", which included "Independent Armenia" to be protected by Russia. Respectfully, some portion of the "Armenian elite" were encouraged by Russia to get ready for the times when the "tables will be turned", just like it did in Romania, Crimea, Serbia, and Greece, and later in other Balkan provinces of the empire.

You also realize that apart from the Tatars and some of the other groups the Russians expeled (after long warfare where those groups who were kicked out were often agressive and threatening in their own right - to an extent orders of magnitude more then any Armenian sedition on the Ottoman Empire) - most all of the Turks expelled represented a foreign presence who acted as cruel overlords to the locals - and they thusly were expelled with a vengence when the tables were turned.

Yes, some millions from Crimea and Caucasus were expelled by the Russian forces brutally. However, please note that the Russians did never rule Crimea before 18th, and Caucasus before the 19th Century. There were not Russians living there. Consequently, millions of people were killed by the Russians, and the rest were forced to flee to the Ottoman Empire (which resulted great financial difficulties to the empire as those migrants came with nothing but themselves).

Since those people were Muslim, and since Islam was illegal in Russia until 19th Century, these people fought agaisnt Russia in order to protect the land and the cities that they used to live. That is why, the Russian Empire became harsher in her policies, and the crimes of the Russians and their Christian allies (commited against those muslim peoples) turned into mass-slaughters, which were well documented by many Europeans.

Respectfully, whenever a war broke out between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, it was almost the same scene embodying "convoys of muslim refugees fleeing to the Ottoman Empire in order to avoid, death, rape, and plunder".

Interestingly, most of those muslims were not even the Ottoman Turks, but they wrere the natural allies of the Turks (if the Ottomans could have a chance of restriking), such as Circassians (very broad Ottoman term to define muslim population of Caucasus), Tatars, Pomaks, Albanians, and Bosniaks. More interestingly, those people consisted the majority of the land they lived upon even though they were forced to leave by the Russians and their Christian allies.

An example: http://www.unpo.org/member.php?arg=18

In conclusion, I dont agree with your perception asserting "Abstract Ottoman Enviroment" that Armenians did live peacefully. There was nothing peaceful about the 19th Century, and that is why, the Ottomans inevitably got harsher in their policies in order to neutralize the burdening effects of "forced migration" inflicting upon her economy and resources.

None of this has any direct bearing on the situation of the Armenians within the Ottoman Empire. In fact Armenians fought in the Ottoman Armies in the Balkan wars and again were always considered as loyal subjects of the Sultan.

Yes, it was evident until a certain stage in time. However, that preception did change in line with the rise of Armenian Nationalism. So, it can be said that some were royal, but itcan be also said that some were not.

There was no Armenain revolt or sedition of any kind outside of some communitites who were being double taxed and otherwise cruely exploited by the local Turkish officials and Kurdish chieftans. The various Armenian political parties compoesed mostly of Armenian students who had studied abroad made scant inroads into the Armenian populace at large. The Armenians were mostly after reforms so they could live without constantly being victimized and abused - however it was the Ottoman Turkish (rule over all the subjects and racist/religeous superiority concepts) mindset and paranoia (concerning collapsing Empire and the independence movements of ethnics within it) that doomed the Armenians.

There were Armenian revolts throughout 19th Century as a consequence of the Russian policies. When Russia inflicted wars on the Ottoman Empire, they knew the consequences, such as the financial and social problems. You must comprehend the fact that each reform requires resources to be used. Heavy taxes were the outcome of the wars, migration, and reforming efforts necessiated in the peace agreements. Interestingly, the Russian knew that the Ottomans did lack the resources due to ongoing losses of land, population as well as tax revenues. However, they did continue with their imperialistic policies.

This is rather an old trick utilized when establishing long term strategy against a weakening enemy. You inflict wars upon, and you impose terms that they can not comply with, so you assure that you could intervene when the tide is ready to blow the enemy off. The Russians did see the consequences of their policies, just like the British and Americans who did later start to launch Christian Missionary Centres all across Anatolia designed for the Armenians and other Christians.

The leading and prior to the war only really influential Armenian political party (outside of a few regional/town areas in the East where other parties had some local influence - such as Van) - the Dashanaks in fact had allied with the CUP prior to thie revolution and supported them monetarily and otherwise. The problem was with the typical post revolutionary radicalization where the CUP turned on the Dashnals - and the Armenians - because those who came to power in the CUP were brought up with a racist Pan-Turanist agenda and they highly resented the Armenains for their wealth and sucess and because Armenian reforms pushed by Western Powers were a source of embarrasment to the Turks. These are the factors that led to the Armenian tragedy - the Genocide. The enormity of the Armenian Genocide and the clear role of the Turks as perpetrators make any consideration of Turkish suffering during this period moot. Just as we do not focus on German suffering during WWII considering the hurt the Germans put on Jews and others during this period. The analogy is the same. So get off your high horse about Turkish suffering. I know it occured - during this period, before, and after - but in no way can you really blame Armenians for any of it - just the opposite really - if you Turks had been more accomodating with Armenians you would have had a very useful partner during this period and you would have been able to feed your people at the very least. The blame for the tragedy during this period - the Armenian Genocide and any suffering experienced by the Turkish people rests squarly on the shoulders of you Turks.

I dont think there was any period of moot. The empire was crumbling into pieces, and every citizen of the empire suffered.

Perhaps, you do not like to focus on the losses of the others, but it was not the policy of the east Germans to inflict wars on others, but the Third Reich. Unfortunately, those Germans suffered just like the inhabitants of the Gothic City of Dresden (which was an open city with no industrial or military base), which was destroyed by allied air forces in 1945 with some 135.000 victims, and those crimes were as bad as the ones committed by the Germans. Furthermore, Belgium killed some 10 million Africans in Congo during that "period of moot". France did kill more than a million Algerians long after that "period of moot". Holland killed millions in Indenosia. Italians, Americans, the British, they all got involved in brtual crimes agaisnt humanity during that "period of moot".

For sure, the Turkish elite of the WWI was quilty of the "ethnic cleansing polices" implemented by the CUP, but i dont think that the Turkish nation is. Demographic Engineering was a world scale policy of the late 19th and early 20th Century, and it was not intiated by the ottomans, but the Western countries.

First the Sultan who through greed, corruption and pride let his Empire stagnate and crumble and allowed the EMpire to undertake a series of wars which it could not win. This created your refugee situation and allowed the oppurtunity for ethnic revolt. Then later - the CUP - instead of following through with the ideals of their revolution and enacting the reform to modernize the Empire - became a bunch of greedy racist blodthirsty scoundrals of the very worst kind.

Sultans were almost the puppets as the empire got weaker. As I previosuly stated, such success of reforms depend upon several factors, but most importantly it depends upon the financial resources which enable governments to regulate the acts of human resources in line with the intended reforms.

Moreover, please also note that there were muslim Armenians (such as Hamshenis) living in the empire (and now in Modern Turkey), and all of them survived since the major conflict was between religions, not between ethnicites. I dont think any jew could have survived during the WWII by claiming "Christian Identity", but some Armenians did (some say that 300.000 did survive) by converting to Islam.

Yes - it is they who got Turkey into WWI in the first place - with designs on greater Turan and who used the war to enact their bloodthirsty solution to the "Armenian Question" - to impose a "final solution" on it - just as Hitler and the Nazis did with the Jews. And after - Ataturk brutally completed the job as weall as brutally put down all opposition and extended the misery in Anatolia. So don't you try top equate anything that happened to/with the Turks to the tragedy of the Armenians. If Turkics are gone from Crimea and the Balkans - well - that is a shame - but it is not our problem and it has nothing to do with the Armenians - cannot be used as any justification or counter balancing or what have you - because Armenians as a group commited no crimes - did nothing to warrent their harsh treatment and decimation. And you claim that Armenian culture is alive and well in Anatolia - ha! That is like claiming that elphants still roam North America because you can find one or two in a zoo!

Turan was an idea of the top elite of the CUP, not the "Muslim Millet" of the Ottoman Empire, and there was no such thing like "final solution", but I agree that there was mass slaughter of Christians in an Eastern "vendetta" fashion.

There are some 100.000 Christian Armenians living in Turkey (some 50.000 of them on various visas), and there are also probably several hundred thousands of Muslim Armenians (I dont count the ones who converted thorugh out 16th and 17th Centuries) who also live in Turkey as the Turkish citizens, and they are not at all like the elephants still roam in North American Zoos, but the respectful citizens of Republic of Turkey.

[1.5 million]

Sythian - while I do agree with some of your points here I disagree with much as well. I don't have time now to answer - nor will i for the next several days. suffice to say for now that I absolutly totally reject your notion of Ottoman Armenains as combatants and that CUP (and earlier Sultanate) actions taken against them were vendetta. I understand that Armenians were in a bad situation when their population was split between Russia and the Ottoman EMpire - but those within the Ottoman Empire overwhelmingly remained loyal and innocent of any of this violence. Additionaly Armenian political groups such as the Dashnaks were allied with the CUP and it was the CUP who turned on them and turned on Armenians (who initially very publically rejoiced at the CUP's comming - in fact Turks and Armenians celebrated together - and this is documented). The issue of Turkic suffering in Balkans, Caucuses etc - is related to the Genocide - but tangentilly - as a contributor to the environment explaining to a great degree how passions against Christians in the ottoman Empire - among CUP elites (as you rightly point out came from many of these areas and many were not "pure" Turk) and among the Turkish peole themselves - who absorbed many Turkic refugees from therse areas (and many of these were deliberatly settled into Armenian areas (this had been going on for some time regarding Kurds and such - a deliberate effort to lessen the one time majority of Armenians in these places) - and these newcommers were quite negatively disposed towards Armenains - strictly because the were Christian - not because they were invloved in anything regarding violence. And your issue with Armenian rebbelion and such is vastly overstated. There was at best minimal and sporadic activity of this sort - and most - if examioned individually - was from communitites who had been pushed to the brink with no relief. And as I have stated - the Armenians pl;aced great faith in the CUP - considering the inclusive rhetoric that they rode in with - thus much political activity that may have been termed seditios ceased after 1908. Of course the massacres in Adana in 1909 where the CUP commitees played part in organizing and encouraging were the first signs that perhaps elements in the CUP were not so enlightened in their thinking. Anyway - of course the events prior and in outlying or former Ottoman arewas played a great part in crafting attitudes - I still contend that they are secondary, supporting and perhaps causative factors - and the Armenian Genocide and the cleanising of Christians from the Ottoman Empire - stand by itself as a far more complete and brutal episode than any of the more sporadic massacres and cleansing that occured by the Russians or by Chritian ethnics newly freed. And I have already presented that the dynamics of many of these episodes were quite different then that of the CUP/Ottomans who were acting against thier own subjects/citizens who were loyal - much of wehat drove the CUP was a racist pan-Tukic vision - where Armenains and Christians did not fit in. And your points concerning Hamshen are irrelevant as no one - not even themselves thought of themselves - or in some case even realized anymore that these people were in fact Armenians (and I have experienced this first hand with Hamshein I have met in Turkey as recently as 2 years ago). Likewise these claims of Armenians who convereted to Islam being spared are mostly incorrect. While initially this was allowed - later is was specifically forbidden and there are a great number of accounts of Armenaisn who had been converted and temporarily spared being "deported" and killed at later dates anyway. And that Ottomans saw things along religious lines and not strictly ethnic (thus much different then the German/Nazi world view) should be no surprise to anyone who is familiar with the history of the Empire and understands these things - thus the points you attempt to raise here anre in fact non-issues.

[TurQ]

During the Balkan wars the Hamidiye Alaylari(The Hamidian Troops) formed by mostly Kurds of Eastern Anatolia fought. That was 100,000 strong army that persihed during Balkan wars. The Kurds of Eastern Anatolia lost their men to protect them from Russian/Armenian agression. You say it is tangential but for those people it was not, they saw that the Russians who killed their own local/native people in Balkans are now coming to finish them off. For those people Balkan/Eastern Anatolia connection have already been established, and now they were the defendless local people. Actually the same Balkan scenario started in Van later in Mush, Bitlis and Bingol in spring 1915. The Russian Army along with local Armenian soldiers were in outskirts of Bitlis in by summer 1915. Locals were escaping to west. Balkan events were not tangential, they were the reality for the locals.

Sythian - Anyway - of course the events prior and in outlying or former Ottoman arewas played a great part in crafting attitudes - I still contend that they are secondary, supporting and perhaps causative factors - and the Armenian Genocide and the cleanising of Christians from the Ottoman Empire - stand by itself as a far more complete and brutal episode than any of the more sporadic massacres and cleansing that occured by the Russians or by Chritian ethnics newly freed. And I have already presented that the dynamics of many of these episodes were quite different then that of the CUP/Ottomans who were acting against thier own subjects/citizens who were loyal - much of wehat drove the CUP was a racist pan-Tukic vision - where Armenains and Christians did not fit in. And your points concerning Hamshen are irrelevant as no one - not even themselves thought of themselves - or in some case even realized anymore that these people were in fact Armenians (and I have experienced this first hand with Hamshein I have met in Turkey as recently as 2 years ago). Likewise these claims of Armenians who convereted to Islam being spared are mostly incorrect. While initially this was allowed - later is was specifically forbidden and there are a great number of accounts of Armenaisn who had been converted and temporarily spared being "deported" and killed at later dates anyway. And that Ottomans saw things along religious lines and not strictly ethnic (thus much different then the German/Nazi world view) should be no surprise to anyone who is familiar with the history of the Empire and understands these things - thus the points you attempt to raise here anre in fact non-issues.

[1.5 million]

TurQ - you perhaps forget that Armenains fought alongside Turks and Kurds in the Balkan wars - so I don't at all buy this explanation - it is a great reach. (Armenian aggression in the Balkans against Turks/Kurds! come now - this is so absurd - how could you suggest such?) Besides the nomadic Kurdish deprivations against the sedentary Armenains began a hundred years or more prior to this time. It wasn't Armenains killing Kurds - it was the other way around - over and over and over again. It was only very recently before this time that Armenains were at all allowed or able to obtain arms to defend themselves. Again - you have been reading too many Turkish history books.

And don't get me started on van - you really should know better. Mush, Bitlis, Bingol as well - have you no shame? These are the sites of the most brutal killing field humanity has ever known - and you have the gaul to claim that Armenians were the cause of this violence or the perpetrators of it...

[TurQ]

No I didnt 1.5 million.

I know Armenians fought along side with Turks in Gallipoli in spring 1915, they recieved madal of hanours . I am greatful for them their belief in saving the multi-cultural society that they were living in.

be humble about the things that you dont have a clue 1.5 million. I have first had information/accounts from Bitlis/Bingol events. I didnt say Armenians were not killed in Bitlis, I said Armenians and Russians killed local Muslims in those areas.

I think you are reading fast, I said The Hamidian Alays(Troops) were organized by Eastern Anatolian Locals mostly Kurds. They were sent to fight againsts Russians in Balkans and they were perished. The locals were left without protection as their fighting age men died (100,000 of them) during Balkan wars. This was the one more reason that the locals grow more hatred against Armenians in Eastern Anatolia.

You are learning from books I am learning from my family/relatives and friends whose families experienced those events. I think you are not an Armenian it is understandable from your posts. 1.5 Million I dont think I am gonna post any replies to you(call me defeated).

TurQ - you perhaps forget that Armenains fought alongside Turks and Kurds in the Balkan wars - so I don't at all buy this explanation - it is a great reach. (Armenian aggression in the Balkans against Turks/Kurds! come now - this is so absurd - how could you suggest such?) Besides the nomadic Kurdish deprivations against the sedentary Armenains began a hundred years or more prior to this time. It wasn't Armenains killing Kurds - it was the other way around - over and over and over again. It was only very recently before this time that Armenains were at all allowed or able to obtain arms to defend themselves. Again - you have been reading too many Turkish history books.

And don't get me started on van - you really should know better. Mush, Bitlis, Bingol as well - have you no shame? These are the sites of the most brutal killing field humanity has ever known - and you have the gaul to claim that Armenians were the cause of this violence or the perpetrators of it...

[TurQ]

I understand their mistrust, I understand their resentment.

But As I said before I do not think 1.5 Million is an Armenian.

I think the worst thing for both Turks and Armenians is to comunicate via 3rd

parties. And the intervention of 3rd parties plague already existing fragile

relations. I am not refering to Armenians only, it refers to us too Crayzt(i.e. Nazi collaboration thing).

If we always be conditioned to confront or defeat verbally the *other* it wont go anywhere thats for sure, may be spending our time here is not a logical thing. As we are living outside of Turkey we hae the chance to get into contact with Armenians. I think it is our duty for those living outside to establish lines of communication( I dont know if it is really possible or not). I believe it is the only way out.

What do you think?

TurQ you should realise, or maybe your are now realising that the Armenian has been socially conditioned to never believe a Turk even if he is telling the truth. Its a shame because I believe Armenians when they tell the truth.

[Tongue]

But As I said before I do not think 1.5 Million is an Armenian.

Don't just assume things... he's half Armenian and his Armenian side is actually from Turkey -if I'm not mistaken.

[1.5 million]

No I didnt 1.5 million.

I know Armenians fought along side with Turks in Gallipoli in spring 1915, they recieved madal of hanours . I am greatful for them their belief in saving the multi-cultural society that they were living in.

Yes such a shame how they were betryad...stabbed in the back...as it were...

be humble about the things that you dont have a clue 1.5 million. I have first had information/accounts from Bitlis/Bingol events. I didnt say Armenians were not killed in Bitlis, I said Armenians and Russians killed local Muslims in those areas.

OK - when did this occur? How many are we talking about who were allegedly killed by Armenians? How can you be sure it was Armenians? Are you aware that Special Organization irregulars were killing Muslims and pillaging villages in Eastern Anatolia and when Ottoman regular Army called for thie disbandment they blamed Armenians for these crimes. etc. I'm not saying that there was no Armenian violence of this kind - however one must differentiate between Caucasian Armenians who were with Russian units and Ottoman Armenians who were persecuted by the CUP. Much/most all of the Armenian violence was after the fact/after the Genocide was underway - and much was done in direct retribution. I'm not condoning such acts - but some of this is understandable. Also sporadic massacres during war are one thing - but depopulating the entirety of Anatolia and rounding up every person - able bodied or not - children as well - and slughtering them or forcing them on depth marches filled with depravities is quite another. There is no collorary of Armenian actions against Turks of this nature and even to suggest such is quite disingenuous on your part.