Turkish View of Themselves

[Kharpert]

First of all, I haven't seen any article or news story to suggest any cash flow from the European Union. The reason we have so much support from Russia is because we sold half our industry to them. If Armenia was invaded, Russia would lose a lot of industry that it owns on Armenian soil.

That said, if any nation gives Armenia money, it's a gift. When these nations give some money to Armenia, it's nothing but chump change in exchange for some support from Armenia. The politics of foreign aid and donation is far more complex than you can take it at face value. Also, in terms of taxes, it's VERY little. The aid that the United States gives to Armenia costs me less than $1 in annual taxes.

[Gavur]

I wouldnt mind being a communist!
If it means kicking some Turkish butchers asses

[Kharpert]

Its a shame that the tireless Armenian lobbys managed to get section 907 of the Freedom Support Act to be passed. Now Azerbaijan recieves 1/3 of what Armenia recieves from the USA even though Armenia has less than half of Azerbaijans population.

I thought I made it clear before that there are very specific purposes behind these donations and foreign aid. The United States doesn't provide funding to Armenia just to be nice. Neither does the EU. Neither does Russia, as you proved yourself. All these nations have an ulterior purpose in supporting Armenia. If these funds don't go to Azerbaijan, it's simply because the ones giving the money have no need for it. The EU even states their own reason in the website you posted: "to build a relationship with Armenia in which the respect of democratic principles, the rule of law and human rights, as well as the consolidation of a market economy are fostered and supported."

Tireless Armenian lobbying is simply a reflection of Armenian presence in democratic countries. Guess what? There are Turkish lobbyists as well, supporting a wide range of programs and legislation for Turkey. Many also support the denial of the Armenian Genocide. So when it comes to how nations can make their presence felt in other nations, leave it to the effort of the people in those nations.


Gavur, please calm down. No one is going to draw anyone's blood, and Communism is dead.

[ScythianVizier]

I will try to at least briefly respond - however a full response to this would require quite a bit of effrot - that I can't manage at the moment

True - however as a non-Muslim millyet existed apart and as a seperate entity as well and were always viewd as such...

OK - comendably so I would agree considering the times - though motives were not entirely alturisitc but practical and farsighted

Ok yes Islam was seriously promoted in a variety of ways

Here is where I will disagree. Your pinning the blame of discontent on outside influences is too simplisitc and incorect. Armenians as they became more prosperous and international (sending children to school in West for instance) became exposed to Western ideas of rights and such Locke/Hobbes - American and Frenchrevolution - that sort of thing - and nationalism as well - (but not exclusively). Recognition of (at least occasional) creulty on part of rulling Turks didnot begin during this period - as these themes exist for long time in Armenian literature etc - only the idea that people could actually do something about it - empowerment - that protests aznd petitions and involvement - and the Tazimat is evidence of this etc - so I reject your implications here...

No - utterly reject this - rascim went the other way. Once Armenians were speaking out for themselves and petitioning - to Sultan and when that failed outside - the resentment against them built up from Turkish side - this combined with Turkish identity led to racism against Armenians - not other way around - much evidence in literature/reports of time to support this. This would be like saying that Jews became racist against Germans before WWII prompting a backlash - no

What came first - Europeans calling Ottoman sick or Ottoman decline? And again - you blame outside forces for what were clearly internal problems (initially) - Ottoman system failed for over 100 years before large enough cracks apeared for any to notice...

Mostly these were imposed from outside. And these reforms were rejected? By whome? You are twisting this 180deg and again placing blame the opposite of where it needs to go. Excuses were made to not implement reforms - not because of real reasons...

Check who began slaughtering whom when first and why. Again this view discounts prior causation and is incorrect.(I'm speaking to events internal to Ottoman Empire here - which pre-date other)



More complicated then this simple explanation. Many of the Khans and such were unwilling to submit to Russian rule and fought to the end - much warfare was occuring on both sides. I willnot apologize for Russian Imperilaism however and my sympathies are more with the subjected peoples - but one must understand the dynamics of what was occuring (and how much [or not] we can take from these situations to apply [and how] to Armenians situation..)

OK yes...

Yes there was some impact certainly. But the Ottomans had already been trying to bring dowen millyet system long before this time -I t is documented how they settled people (like nomadic Kurds and Turkmen etc) into Armenain areas since 200+ years beofre this time in ongoing policy to weaken ethnicities...

Ottoman decline far pre-dated this period. Ottoman always had difficulty to adapt after expansion stopped. CUP was more extreme then any of these others - and more complex.

Incorect and overly simplisitic assumptions not born out by facts. Most Armenains couldnot imagine an existance outside of Ottoman Empire - and for obvious (geographic alone) reasons. These views held by minority. Armenians sought reforms - with CUP afitation had diminished - violent agitation almost completely ceased and was supressed by main Armenian political groups. Failure of CUP to implemt promissed reforms and specifically return to Sultan type repression and outright slaughter of Armenians prompted disalusionmnment - still no Armenain "revlot" only sporadic uprisings all specifically against extremely repressive actions by regional and Ottoman Authorities - most of these charges are contrived.

The fact that Dashnak & CUP co-oporation alone countmands this claim...

completely false - this statement is a total unsupportable lie

Again you blame outside forces. Without such we just assume CUP would be benefiacial to all eh? Anyway toomuch speculation CUP was what it was because of extreme reation to all going on - just as Nazis were who they were - should we speculate a benevolent NAzi party as well...only if...

Well yes - their dreams of german victory and establishment of Pan-Turan at the expense of Russians was one central factor agreed...

Your point? Actually this bears out what Armenians were saying then - loyatly to nation - versus the charges against them....

Policy was enacted much earlier -actually begining in 1913 against Greeks of Agean reagion and the (Special Organization) terror was then set against Armenians of the Caucuses (and in what is nw Iran) begining ealy in 1914 and continuing to the outbreak of war where it was expanded and considerably ramped up - now you were saying? Something about justifying and blaming others I imaigne - I really think you need to read some more on this history...use of "exile" was a cover for true intent - even if to some degree it was central part of plan - intention was destruction - not relocation...this is proven.

When you start from false assumptions you can go on to conclude just about anything. While this is perhaps better then the standard Turkish -Armenains backstabbed us" it is no more true

Some who participated certainly saw it this way - but this was because they were manipulated by CUP to see it this way...make sense?

confusing. Either case shows how a revolutionary movement in highly charged/stessful times in conditions of percieved dire circumstance and under cover/protection of war environment where controls/oversite is lifted can lead to conditions where such extreme policies can be concieved and acted upon.

This is unture - giving that there was an undercurrent of Anti-semitism against Jews that was not the case per se in Ottoman EMpoire against Armenains Ok -but this is largely irrelavant as conditions for hatred - why each group was singles out and vilified are nearly idencle - very paralllel ina great many (but not all ) ways. I will also just say one thing and I willleave you to research and understand some falsities in your statement - Warsaw Ghetto uprising (hint - thin in parallel with "so-called" Van uprising....) - in part - large part...

That CUP Pan-Tukic/Islamic based worldviews differed from Nazis in some respects is just a testament to different time place and circumstance - however the dynamics and processes essentially the same - at nearly all stages

Still speculation. Let us speculate the sitution of ottomans joined the British/Allies eh? WHat then? You see we can speculate many ways and conclude just about anything. So I reject what you are implying here. If anything such thinking strenghtens the blame on the CUP for the whole mess.

CUP certainly made it so - as did the Ottomans before

01. The expansionist policies against the Ottomans empowered with the idea of "Turkish Yoke" encouraged the Christian population of the empire, so did encourage the Armenians. Rise of Armenian nationalism roots back to 19th Century, and it is also evident.
02. In the early stages of the nationalistic transoformation, perhaps the Armenians did not envisage lives without the ottoman EMpire, however at later stages they did consider such possiblity without a doubt. General Andranik is a good example for such existance, who fought against the Ottomans together with his Armenian division during the Balkan War and later with his 50.000 supporters empowered by the Czarist Russian Army who also had more than 100.000 soldiers.
03. The Europeans started to think about the Ottoman decline after the second half of the 18th Century, and it was inseparable notion from that sickness of the Ottomans.
04. Yes, I blame the Europeans since similar problems existed even in France back in the 18th Century. 1789 was not an appreciation of the French System though nobody inflicted that many wars on France after 1789. On contrary, the Ottomans were alone to receive the European assults for more than a century.
05. The expansionist European policies is not only evident agaisnt the Ottomans but also against the others. One could of course could blame the Ottomans for being brtual against internal revolts, but this was not an Ottoman invention, and harsher policies were common all across this planet all throughout 18th and 19th Centuries.
06. The expansionist European policies was different is style since those embodied ethnic cleansing of Ottoman Muslims and oppressing their religion of the survivors (who were left behind). Since the Czarist Russia did not even recognize Islam as a religion until the late 18th Century, the resistance of Khans and their poeple against the Russian Empire could be deemed as a struggle to survive.
07. Thus, the current European perception about these crimes (executed by the Russians in Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea) is evident for the double standards of their perceptions. No European country did really care about the loss of the Ottomans, nor did they see these losses as crimes. Instead, those losses of the Ottoman Muslims were casulties of the wars for liberation, and the crusades to set free the "holy lands".
08. That is why, none of those countries who recognized the "Armenian Genocide" bears a similar approach for the Cricassian, Albanian, Bosniak, Roma, Pomak, or Tatar tragedies. Instead, they deliberately act as if those never happened. This is normal since the Armenian case involves placing the blame on the Turks, however the others do involve themselves, such as the first genocide of the 20th Century, which was in fact in Belgian Congo, not in the Ottoman Empire.
09. CUP was an organization that came out of Balkans due to nationalistic rise amongst Balkan ethnicities. Similarly, the Dashnak Party was the product of the Armenian Nationalists and embodied many aspects of the CUP, and that is why, they allied for a while until they found out that such alliance is not possible for their own existance.
10. Surgun policy was even applied to muslim communites like, the Circassians, Albanians, Bosniaks, Tatars, or Pomaks. In that sense, it was not an exclusive policy agaisnt the Armenians, Greeks, Serbs, or Bulgars, but it was a policy designed to prevent ethnic conflicts by establishing diversified ethnic make up in different regions.
11. The 1878 War involved Armenians in Caucaus since Armenians of Caucasus were integrated into the Russian system as of 1865. Thus, General Louis Melikof was an Armenian who commanded the Russian armies of Caucaus in 1878, and his army embodied thousands of Armenians soliders fighting against the Ottomans.
12. How extreme was the CUP? I dont think that it was any extreme than the political climate of its time. However, it was very extreme if one is looking through the glasses of the 21st Century.
13. I dont think that the Armenians did backstab the Ottomans as the Ottomans must have been well aware of the Armenian motives for independence. Furthermore, I am not sure about NAZI style death camps or establishment of "Surgun" to cover the main policy for extermination of the Ottoman Armenians, however I dont exclude as a possibility of large scale ethnic cleansing campaign.
14. I believe that there was not any other way to see the slaughter of people differently since there was no definition of "Genocide". So, the people who killed the Armenians probably only knew that those people were Armenians who were the allies of the Russians and Europeans who killed as many as Muslims throughout 19th Century and early 20th Century, and who are moving closer to where they live day by day.
15. There was an agreed European schemes to disintegrate the Ottoman Empire before, during and after the WWI. So, it is not a speculation, but a threat existed against the Ottoman Muslims since they were the main target of those European campaigns, and in that sense, the Armenians (together with Greeks and Assyrians) were not the enemy of those Europeans, but the allies of them for their wars against the Ottomans.
16. It was the allied perception in the end which decided that the fate of the Armenians as neither Russia did move between 1894 and 1896, nor did the the allied armies try to stop the Ottomans killing and deporting the Armenians during 1915. In fact, such policies could have been prevented with an assult through Iskenderun instead of Gallipoli.
17. Are there any similaries with the Jewish Genocide, for sure there was, and I dont deny the genocidal tentencies existed in the polices of CUP, but ultimately, the Armenian Slaughter was not as industrialized or organized as the German one, and there were not so many exit points to escape for the Jews as there were in the case of the Armenians, and ultimately, I believe that the goal of the Ottomans was not for total racial annihilation of Armenians like it was in the case of the Jews.
18. Why doesnt Turkey recognise the crimes of the Ottoman CUP Policies? This is rather interesting issue, even today, it is pretty much related to the Muslim civilian losses, such as the millions of Muslims expelled from the Balkans and the Russian Empire through the long 19th Century and early 20th Century, which still remain as a part of Europe's own forgotten past.

[TurQ]

Vezir

Nice comments, I especially liked your 15th/16th points. The Brits did actually promised a *Help*thru Iskenderun assault. But their promise was just to further motivate an armed uprising in south(zeytun,adana,hatay,maras etc) and ease their job in Gallipoli. No wonder Van upsiring and declaration of Van as capital of Armenian state coincided with the Gallipolli assault.

Balkan point is also important even 10 years ago all of the European powers agreed on partition of Bosnia between Croatia and Serbia(Vence Owen plan). The French general of UN forces actually helped General Ratko Mladic to carry out massacres in Srebsrenitsa. They dont just make Balkans forget they actually repeat it.

01. The expansionist policies against the Ottomans empowered with the idea of "Turkish Yoke" encouraged the Christian population of the empire, so did encourage the Armenians. Rise of Armenian nationalism roots back to 19th Century, and it is also evident.
02. In the early stages of the nationalistic transoformation, perhaps the Armenians did not envisage lives without the ottoman EMpire, however at later stages they did consider such possiblity without a doubt. General Andranik is a good example for such existance, who fought against the Ottomans together with his Armenian division during the Balkan War and later with his 50.000 supporters empowered by the Czarist Russian Army who also had more than 100.000 soldiers.
03. The Europeans started to think about the Ottoman decline after the second half of the 18th Century, and it was inseparable notion from that sickness of the Ottomans.
04. Yes, I blame the Europeans since similar problems existed even in France back in the 18th Century. 1789 was not an appreciation of the French System though nobody inflicted that many wars on France after 1789. On contrary, the Ottomans were alone to receive the European assults for more than a century.
05. The expansionist European policies is not only evident agaisnt the Ottomans but also against the others. One could of course could blame the Ottomans for being brtual against internal revolts, but this was not an Ottoman invention, and harsher policies were common all across this planet all throughout 18th and 19th Centuries.
06. The expansionist European policies was different is style since those embodied ethnic cleansing of Ottoman Muslims and oppressing their religion of the survivors (who were left behind). Since the Czarist Russia did not even recognize Islam as a religion until the late 18th Century, the resistance of Khans and their poeple against the Russian Empire could be deemed as a struggle to survive.
07. Thus, the current European perception about these crimes (executed by the Russians in Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea) is evident for the double standards of their perceptions. No European country did really care about the loss of the Ottomans, nor did they see these losses as crimes. Instead, those losses of the Ottoman Muslims were casulties of the wars for liberation, and the crusades to set free the "holy lands".
08. That is why, none of those countries who recognized the "Armenian Genocide" bears a similar approach for the Cricassian, Albanian, Bosniak, Roma, Pomak, or Tatar tragedies. Instead, they deliberately act as if those never happened. This is normal since the Armenian case involves placing the blame on the Turks, however the others do involve themselves, such as the first genocide of the 20th Century, which was in fact in Belgian Congo, not in the Ottoman Empire.
09. CUP was an organization that came out of Balkans due to nationalistic rise amongst Balkan ethnicities. Similarly, the Dashnak Party was the product of the Armenian Nationalists and embodied many aspects of the CUP, and that is why, they allied for a while until they found out that such alliance is not possible for their own existance.
10. Surgun policy was even applied to muslim communites like, the Circassians, Albanians, Bosniaks, Tatars, or Pomaks. In that sense, it was not an exclusive policy agaisnt the Armenians, Greeks, Serbs, or Bulgars, but it was a policy designed to prevent ethnic conflicts by establishing diversified ethnic make up in different regions.
11. The 1878 War involved Armenians in Caucaus since Armenians of Caucasus were integrated into the Russian system as of 1865. Thus, General Louis Melikof was an Armenian who commanded the Russian armies of Caucaus in 1878, and his army embodied thousands of Armenians soliders fighting against the Ottomans.
12. How extreme was the CUP? I dont think that it was any extreme than the political climate of its time. However, it was very extreme if one is looking through the glasses of the 21st Century.
13. I dont think that the Armenians did backstab the Ottomans as the Ottomans must have been well aware of the Armenian motives for independence. Furthermore, I am not sure about NAZI style death camps or establishment of "Surgun" to cover the main policy for extermination of the Ottoman Armenians, however I dont exclude as a possibility of large scale ethnic cleansing campaign.
14. I believe that there was not any other way to see the slaughter of people differently since there was no definition of "Genocide". So, the people who killed the Armenians probably only knew that those people were Armenians who were the allies of the Russians and Europeans who killed as many as Muslims throughout 19th Century and early 20th Century, and who are moving closer to where they live day by day.
15. There was an agreed European schemes to disintegrate the Ottoman Empire before, during and after the WWI. So, it is not a speculation, but a threat existed against the Ottoman Muslims since they were the main target of those European campaigns, and in that sense, the Armenians (together with Greeks and Assyrians) were not the enemy of those Europeans, but the allies of them for their wars against the Ottomans.
16. It was the allied perception in the end which decided that the fate of the Armenians as neither Russia did move between 1894 and 1896, nor did the the allied armies try to stop the Ottomans killing and deporting the Armenians during 1915. In fact, such policies could have been prevented with an assult through Iskenderun instead of Gallipoli.
17. Are there any similaries with the Jewish Genocide, for sure there was, and I dont deny the genocidal tentencies existed in the polices of CUP, but ultimately, the Armenian Slaughter was not as industrialized or organized as the German one, and there were not so many exit points to escape for the Jews as there were in the case of the Armenians, and ultimately, I believe that the goal of the Ottomans was not for total racial annihilation of Armenians like it was in the case of the Jews.
18. Why doesnt Turkey recognise the crimes of the Ottoman CUP Policies? This is rather interesting issue, even today, it is pretty much related to the Muslim civilian losses, such as the millions of Muslims expelled from the Balkans and the Russian Empire through the long 19th Century and early 20th Century, which still remain as a part of Europe's own forgotten past.

[UKTurk]

Nice comments, I especially liked your 15th/16th points. The Brits did actually promised a *Help*thru Iskenderun assault. But their promise was just to further motivate an armed uprising in south(zeytun,adana,hatay,maras etc) and ease their job in Gallipoli. No wonder Van upsiring and declaration of Van as capital of Armenian state coincided with the Gallipolli assault.

Thats actually the same tactic the allies planned against Germany. I actually think it was in 1915 or 1916 when the French and British on the western front and the Russians on the eastern front launched massive offensives in the hope of breaking the Germans. All was to no avail though just like Gallipoli.

[Kharpert]

UKTurk, I fail to understand why foreign aid is such an evil thing.

Armenia does NOT occupy 20% of Azerbaijan. In fact, the Republic of Kharabagh is NOT part of the Republic of Armenia. It's not even formally recognized by Armenia. If you want to get into the absolute bullxxxx of ethnic composition, stolen land, and Khojali ALL OVER AGAIN, start a new thread.

Can you tell me what are the actions of a "truly Chrisitian nation"? What, are Christian nations supposed to be nice, coy, docile nations and turn the other cheek? Do you realize that Christian theology has absolutely no bearing on a government's actions? Did Dro start invading other nations "in the name of God?" Does Kocharian run Armenia "in the name of God?" Does Armenia receive foreign aid "in the name of God?". No.

Also, you seem to have quoted some news article about religious oppresion, but you'd provided neither a link or a source. I'm forced to believe you made it up.

So this is why Armenias biggest export seems to be terrorism.

Oh, really? Invasions count as terrorism? Then I'm sure you'll agree Turkey invading Cyprus was terrorism, too! Perhaps you'll agree Azerbaijan's treatment of Armenians is terrorism, too! Maybe you'll also think that Georgia terrorizes Armenian trade convoys, too! Jeez, how baseless can a statement get?

[phantom]

UKTurk, I think you're taking excessive liberties with the words "invade" and "liberate". When Turks are the agressors, they're simply "liberating" someone, and when Armenian civilians are attacked and repel the attackers, you term that an invasion. How does one "invade" the lands on which he's lived for almost 3 millenia? I would address your ridiculous post point by point, but I've noticed your recent posts, and I know not to make the mistake of wasting my time with odun kafalis.

[1.5 million]

Vezir

Nice comments, I especially liked your 15th/16th points. The Brits did actually promised a *Help*thru Iskenderun assault. But their promise was just to further motivate an armed uprising in south(zeytun,adana,hatay,maras etc) and ease their job in Gallipoli. No wonder Van upsiring and declaration of Van as capital of Armenian state coincided with the Gallipolli assault.

Yes it all fits eh - it was the Armenains fault - and the Turkish Genocide of the Armenains was justified - I see. So very simple and easy isn't it. Get real - you are as bad as those who blame eveery ill in the world on the Jews. Read some real history about Van, Zeitoon etc - and shame on you!

[1.5 million]

Sythian - I don't have time to answer your post 109 at the moment.

However one comment - You don't consider the CUP "extreme"? Even by the standards of Ghengis Khan (a CUP as well as Nazi icon) they were extreme. Please expalin how killing over a million innocents is not extreme - please exxpian how such barabarism is nto extremem - unless you argument that for Turks this is not extreme I entirely fail to understand your point here entirely.