Epitome of Denial

[TurQ]

Just loook at the dates 1.5 Million.
The sufferings of Muslims in Balkans and Caucusia is directly related which provoked Ittihadist measures against Armenians.

Pan Orthodoxy and Pan Slavism were in efect since early 1700s, it was not new. Russians does not take Armenian issue for their advantage, they provoked it as they did in Greece(Mora Rebellion arms supplied by Russian ships in 18th century), be it the Serbian etc.


I dont want to comment on this, just tell to a Armenian Historian, ROland Suny or Prof Hovanissian. Tell this to him.


Quote 1.5 Million ".....And when Turks boo hoo hoo the machinations of Imperlialists powers during this period - they need to understand that the Ottoman Empire was such an Imperiliast power and one that had been conducting fiendish machinations against indigeonous peole in the region for far longer then any of these newcopmer Empires.[/QUOTE]

bullxxxx! This is another way of deflecting blame from the Turkish perpetrators of the Genocide of Armenians. Suffering of Turks who were expelled from the Balkans as ethnic groups freed themselves of the oppresive ottoman Turkish yoke or even Turkics who were driven out of Crimea and or the Caucuses is only tangentally related to the Armenian Genocide (which is what this forum is about and the issue at stake here) - and is basically useful to understand how some of the (irrational? and possibly otherwise) hatred against Christians built up. Are these events worth being studied in their own right - certainly - but not as an excuse to justify the Armenian Genocide. And whatever hurts Russians were putting on various Turkics/Muslims of the Caucuses - the fact that Armenians fleeing Ottoman and Kurdish oppression in Anatolia were welcomed by them to settle there has little to do with the Ottoman opression that already was occuring (and had been for hundreds of years) and that resulted in the total Genocide of Armenians in Anatolia. And when Turks boo hoo hoo the machinations of Imperlialists powers during this period - they need to understand that the Ottoman Empire was such an Imperiliast power and one that had been conducting fiendish machinations against indigeonous peole in the region for far longer then any of these newcopmer Empires.

[1.5 million]

You are still trying to justify extreme violence against Armenains - who were overwhelmingly a peaceful cooperative people - because some other powers (or ethnic groups in the course of throwing off Ottoman oppression) commited violence against Truks/Muslims. It still does not fly nor does it at all excuse these butchers!

[TurQ]

OK then read the life of Antranik Pasha.

I am with you with the CUP ompotency, both Turks and Armenians suffered their clumpsy and impotent order.

I am no ttelling any excuses here.

Yes we still see Muslims in Balkans, some have returned back after the war.

But today in Turkey there are more Albanians then in Albania/Macedonia/Kosova, there are more Bosnians then in Bosnia and Sanjak. 30 to 40 thousand Turks left in Kosova, may be 100,000 Turks left in Macedonia and BUlgaria

Just check before and after demographics. I wont go to details, I know it is fruitless, if you are interested just learn what had happened to Muslims in Balkans and Caucusia. They were not killed or expelled by the ordinary Orthodox Christian, they were killed and expelled by Russian and Russian Organized local armies. Same were being implemented in Anatolia. CUP mercilessly got rid of their tool, the Armenians of Anatolia. THey solved the problem in the easy way to cover up their impotency to manage foreign relations and their failed policy of entering WW-I.

I do not want to talk in numbers, but if you are interested why dont you try to know the Turkish/Muslim loss in Balkans, Caucusia and Anatolia between 1908 and 1918?

The Crimean Tatar events are not related with this topic I dont know why you mention that, cause it happened during WW-II.


And I dont know how you can compare Russian and European states with Ottomans. Ottomans were multi-ethnic and Christians and Jews were being represented in the parliment. There were Armenians in Palace and Parliment. I am not saying, everything was good, may be most of the things were hard for the Armenians and other religous groups by the end of Ottoman state, but still it was not even compariable with Russians or Europeans. This Multi-ethnic body has been destroyed and every party should take their own share of responsibilty.
The discrimination increased by the end of 19th century, fore xample a law passed for religous groups to wear certain dresses, so that you can understand who is who from their dress. So on and so forth. These show that Ottomans were also collapsing morally, but even those times(late 19th century or early 20th century) I can show you Churches built by the state, or nursing homes built for the districts where Christians and Jews mostly live.

Some other points: For all the Muslims driven from various (formerly Ottoman) places in the 19th century - for the most part we still see plenty of Muslims inhabiting these places. Secondly - again this idea of armed Armenian rebellion is vasatly overstated - particulary during the immediate pre-war period being used by the CUP/Turkish propogandists to justify their actions. In fact it was no direct fault of the Armenains in any way shape or form that sealed their fate. CUP and Turkish rage and impotency over the collapsing EMpire and feelings of wounded national (religeous-ethnic) pride after several generations of Christian ascendency in the Empire are much more to blame. Understand the dynamics instead of grasping at straws for excuses. And begin by giving a deserved apology to Armenians and humble yourself - versus continuing the arrogance and fanning the flames if you truly want to resolve anything.

[TurQ]

Yes I laready said, the Ittihadist guilt is to cover up their own impotency and local Armenians along with Turks and Muslims paid. No Armenian forces ever be able to kill 80,000 Turkish soldiers but Enver Pasha did in 1 night.

This made Ottoman Army even more fragile as they needed one more soldier, and one more bullet, this was one more reason to to implement their Armenian policy.

I still dont understand, when Turks were living in multi-cultural societies along with other ethnic groups and from Balkans to Mid_east asthese ethnic groups began to get their nation states and independence, where should Turks supposed to go and built their own nation state? Go to 1910s and tell me and show me a place that Turks would live. Nation state projects were imposed by Imperialists and Turks were the last to built their own nation state.

What you say is everybody had the right to build their own state, so what about Turks? Where are they supposed to go? Should they be punished because they have built a multi-ethnic state?

You are still trying to justify extreme violence against Armenains - who were overwhelmingly a peaceful cooperative people - because some other powers (or ethnic groups in the course of throwing off Ottoman oppression) commited violence against Truks/Muslims. It still does not fly nor does it at all excuse these butchers!

[1.5 million]

I meant the Circassians when i said Tartars BTW. Anyway I am aware of these losses - however again - the relationship of these events to the Armenian genocide is tangental - and again - not caused by Armenians! Ottomans commited many atrocities as well as general oppression and essentially implementation of slavery in the Balkans. It shoudl be no surprise that when they were able these peoples hundreds of years of pent up anger resulted in harsh retribution - even if not all of the Turks who suffered were part of the Ottoman elite responsible. It was not just the Russians BTW - though Russia certainly had much to gain by diminishing Turkis/Ottoman influence in these regions. Still - it is a reach to say that the Russians had any real great sucess when it comes to the Anatolian Armenians. By and large the Armenians who were Ottoman citizens rejected Russian overtures - and in fact many were concerned that their religious freedoms might be less under Russian rule - so the interest of most was to try to make things work under Ottoman rule and hope for reform. The multi-ethnic character of the Ottoman state may have been able to persevere if it werenot for the entrenchment of the Muslim overlord mindset of the ruling Turkish elites. This, along with centuries of repression in the Balkans - certainly doomed these areas - however I think that in regards to Anatolia and the Armenains things were much different and a partnership was entirely possible and would have been sucessful - in itself and in regards to keeping the Western nations at bay. The failure was on the part of the Turks to actually impement such a thing - first the Sultan - who had no intention of giving up real power or even extending actual rights and privledges - these were often countered shortly after being granted - or were rights on paper that rarely saw reality in practice. That Armenians were seen in public life has more to do with their skill and the Turkish appreciation of such then any actual equality when it came to citizenship. And to truly get ahead one had to convert. That after the Tanzimat Armenians were found in parliment is only a testament to how paper tiger powerless such a body truly was.

Bottom line if the Ottoman Turks could have been said to have provided a government that was beneficial to all ethnics and religions then it would have justified maintenence of its sovereignty over all of these areas. As it obviously failed to deliver such then the various oppressed ethnic groups were within their rights to rebal and secede. And you cannot blame these peoples for the failures - the blame rests soley on the Ottomans themselves. While the Ottomans can be commended for allowing freedom of religion and even the whole system of allowing religious based communities to continue to exist - the resulting "nation" could not be considered multi-ethnic in the sense that we might view modern nations such as the U.S. as being such. Power was still held exclusively by the ruling Ottoman elites and laws existed that differentiated and gave great preference to practicers of one religion - Islam - over the others. The Ottoman structure failed to adapt to changing economic and political realities instead it clung to the old ways (essentially the collection of war booty by the ruling Ottoman elites) which had far away ceased to be functional. And their attempting to squeeze every last drop - while ignoring the realities of economic and social progress and the clamoring of people to be treated as citizens and not slaves doomed them. You cannot blame the minorities for the failure to adapt to these realities. And the Armenains least of all - because we did everything possible to attempt to make it work. The Ottoman givernment and the ruling Turkish people failed to give up power or to change and in their falling they lashed out and destroyed a group of people in their midsts strictly because they were by that time considered to be "other" in a time when the ruling Turks were influenced by racist concepts where "other" automatically meant "enemy".

[TurQ]

I am not gonna dispute how Ottomans were or were not.

Just tell me and give an example of slavery in the Balkans. I do not think you have a deeper understanding of what had happened in Balkans in history.

Actually Orthodox Chrsitians had little problem with Turks until mid 18th century which coincides with emergence of the Russian Pan-Orthodox, Pan-Slavic policies. Ottomans were the savors of Orthodox faith against Catholics. The Fransiscan / Catholic church was also under Sultan's protection. Most of the wars we had was against Catholics. And Turks had relatively short amount of time to rule over the Catholic dominated lands. The main political problem was with Vatican not Orthodox church thats why Ottomans ruled over the Orthodox nations more than Catholics.

No one could be able to rule those lands with sword believe me. And as we see when Ottomans tried to save those lands with swords and arms they lost it.

For example Hungaria: in Hungaria the President himself built the statue of Kanuni Sultan Suleyman conquerer of HUngaria, known as Suleyman the Magnificient in west( it was 8 or 9 year ago). Would you expect such a statue in any Orthodox country? Definetly no, because the Russian provocation and Russian hatred shaped Orthodox Christian mentallity after 18th century. Thats where the Armenian issue gets into the scene.
Rebels like Antranik Pasha were seeking Russian intervention as in Balkans, rebels like him joined the Russians in Balkans to kill Muslim populations and depopulate Balkans from Muslims(not only Turks but Local and mostly those Muslims like Pomaks, Albanians, Bosnians, Serbian and Greek converts to Islam, ). Armenian rebels promised the same cooporation and revolt. As I said before in order to attract them to Anatolia they even registered Armenians to Russian Orthodox Church.

Yes this could be relatively weak support as compared with Bulgarian, Serbian and Greek case but still the 200 years of Balkan experience and right after the Balkan wars in 1910s Russians tried to do the same by using Armenian population. No one is saying it is the guilt of ordinary Armenians.

It is the guilt of Armenian rebels to use their fellow Armenians as a political tool, it is the guilt of Russians to use their strategic existence in Anatolia as a tool, and yes it s the guilt and sin of Ittihadists to get rid this tool by their own means. Innocent people suffered during this clash of imperial interests.


I meant the Circassians when i said Tartars BTW. Anyway I am aware of these losses - however again - the relationship of these events to the Armenian genocide is tangental - and again - not caused by Armenians! Ottomans commited many atrocities as well as general oppression and essentially implementation of slavery in the Balkans.

[TurQ]

1.5 Million NO offense but you dont know about Ottoman social structure.
Most of the ethnic groups lived in the system of nations known as "MIllet system". The Serbians had their own kingdom and Chruch, Greeks had their own kingdom and Church, Romanians had the same, Hungarians etc etc. They had their own judicial system, their courts were different even in mixed areas. Their tax were more than Muslims because they were not obliged to serve in Ottoman army.

Armenian case was different, as Armenians were dispersed all over Anatolia, and since when Ottomans came into powere they didnt have a kingdom, they were like ordinary Ottoman citizens. But even Armenian CHurch( I mean the official representetive Church) has been built by Fatih Sultan Mehmet after the Conquest of Istanbul, the Armenian CHurch was chosen as the representative of the Armenians in Ottoman lands.

You can critisize or do not think Ottoman rule was just or you can think it is evil, that is entirely uptto you but you have to show a better example in those times.

[QUOTE=1.5 million]Bottom line if the Ottoman Turks could have been said to have provided a government that was beneficial to all ethnics and religions then it would have justified maintenence of its sovereignty over all of these areas. As it obviously failed to deliver such then the various oppressed ethnic groups were within their rights to rebal and secede. And you cannot blame these peoples for the failures - the blame rests soley on the Ottomans themselves. While the Ottomans can be commended for allowing freedom of religion and even the whole system of allowing religious based communities to continue to exist - the resulting "nation" could not be considered multi-ethnic in the sense that we might view modern nations such as the U.S. as being such. Power was still held exclusively by the ruling Ottoman elites and laws existed that differentiated and gave great preference to practicers of one religion - Islam - over the others. The Ottoman structure failed to adapt to changing economic and political realities instead it clung to the old ways (essentially the collection of war booty by the ruling Ottoman elites) which had far away ceased to be functional. And their attempting to squeeze every last drop - while ignoring the realities of economic and social progress and the clamoring of people to be treated as citizens and not slaves doomed them. You cannot blame the minorities for the failure to adapt to these realities. And the Armenains least of all - because we did everything possible to attempt to make it work. The Ottoman givernment and the ruling Turkish people failed to give up power or to change and in their falling they lashed out and destroyed a group of people in their midsts strictly because they were by that time considered to be "other" in a time when the ruling Turks were influenced by racist concepts where "other" automatically meant "enemy".

[1.5 million]

In the Balkans land holding was forbiden by any but Muslim and most was held by Ottoman overlords. The people were forced to convert and become Muslims or work as serfs. This is what I mean by slavery.

Obviously many locals (elites) cooperated with the Turks and became wealthy and powerful and did what they could to further curry favor - does this mean that the people were happy - well the results speak for themselves. And there were periods of prosperity and reletive peace and people thrived - but the social construct among the Ottoman Elite was such that they were running out of lands to divide and no new plunder was availiable (after the late 1600s or so...) - so after several generations they began to squeeze the people much harder then before. If it were not for such heavy handed tactics (and violent supression of "rebellions" was not a new phenomonon BTW) and were it not for the inflexibility and ultimate failure of the system the pan-Orthodox overtures of the Russians would have fallen on deaf ears.

Likewise - the Russian appeal had only moderate interest on the part of Armenians. However after the Hamadi massacres (and the growing oppression and depravations from the Kurds and from regional Ottoman Authorities) interest by many Armenains in relief - and the potential for Russian rule of their regions as opposed to the oppresive Turkish rule gained interest. By and large though Armenians just wanted to be left alone to do their thing and most had no political aspirations. Even among those who did - it was reform that was first in mind. Very few had any concept or desire of Armenian independence - and these were mostly radical students from outside Anatolia. Mostly if Armenians were unhappy - and they were often unhappy in the East as Turks and Kurds were being settled amongst them and they were unfairly burdened tax wise and otherwise - mostly these families (or in some case just the males) fled to where they could find work and a life in peace. Your claim of the Russian influence amongst the Anatolian Armenians is overstated. Armenians tened to distrust the Russians about as much as they did the Turks. Of course once large scale massacres and deprivations were occuring they looked and hoped for the Russians for relief - this is entirely understandable and you would have done the same. Again - I believe it is important to understand the entire environment of the region during this time - and in doing so one can understand the facotrs that caused such bloodthirsty barbarians to rise to power in Ottoman state during this time (just as we can see facotrs in Hitler's rise - but do we just blame the German atrocities on the inequalities of the Versailles treaty and that the nation was in Economic shambles - so atrocities against minorities are just accepted - NO - or that blame is placed elsewhere - NO)....

[TurQ]

This is not true
THis is exactly not true.

Ottomans were to destroy the feodalism in Europe, first in Balkans where they ruled. Everybody was given their own lad to use. Later in 18th century when Russian intervention started the muslims were favored more to own lands.

Christians were not servers to Muslim land lords. THis is a blatant lie. Check your resources this sounds like a propoganda.

You can say everything to Ottomans, but you can not say this. This was the most significant difference that Ottomans made in Balkans and Europe. The Balkan experience transfered to Europe, the European nations themselves oppsed the feodal system after they see the Ottomans destroying it.


[QUOTE=1.5 million]In the Balkans land holding was forbiden by any but Muslim and most was held by Ottoman overlords. The people were forced to convert and become Muslims or work as serfs. This is what I mean by slavery.

[1.5 million]

TurQ - I'm sorry - but it is you who have this wrong. It makes no sense that the Ottomans would only allow Muslims to be landowners AFTER the Russians become interested in the place - I mean come now - if anything it would be the opposite - to try to appease people.