Greek Genocide of Asia Minor

[TurQ]

I remember seeing a book by historian Gerard Libaridian on CUP. It could be his PHD thesis maybe. He is a personof reason. I want to read it sometime.

[QUOTE=Joseph]

I have read that article, thanks.
I think the following excerpt supports my, Elendil, and Vezir's point of view.




Interesting. I would be interested to know if there are is a comprehensive study in English on various CUP leaders and there views regarding Pan-turkism and/or pan-islam, Ottomanism, etc. It seems that some like Enver Pasha were definitely more pan-turkic than others.

I do agree that the subject has not been studied enough. I would imagine that many of the Turkish refugees from the Balkans were probably resettled in Anatolia and were probably not predisposed to think highly of their Christian neighbors after what happend. This may be another cause of the Genocide and probably why an event was basically unavoidable

[TurQ]

There is also a book on Balkan Muslims by Yugoslavian Historian Alexendre Popovic.It might be available in college libraries, I suspect if it's available in English though,it was originally written in French.
His analysis are in dept. In one chapter he analyzes the refugees from Balkans and Greek islands. He gives the numbers for the refugees for each province and classifies them origin of departure etc.

[QUOTE=Joseph]

I have read that article, thanks.
I think the following excerpt supports my, Elendil, and Vezir's point of view.




Interesting. I would be interested to know if there are is a comprehensive study in English on various CUP leaders and there views regarding Pan-turkism and/or pan-islam, Ottomanism, etc. It seems that some like Enver Pasha were definitely more pan-turkic than others.

I do agree that the subject has not been studied enough. I would imagine that many of the Turkish refugees from the Balkans were probably resettled in Anatolia and were probably not predisposed to think highly of their Christian neighbors after what happend. This may be another cause of the Genocide and probably why an event was basically unavoidable

[Joseph]

[QUOTE=TurQ]There is also a book on Balkan Muslims by Yugoslavian Historian Alexendre Popovic.It might be available in college libraries, I suspect if it's available in English though,it was originally written in French.
His analysis are in dept. In one chapter he analyzes the refugees from Balkans and Greek islands. He gives the numbers for the refugees for each province and classifies them origin of departure etc.

Here's where I think we can come to somewhat of an understanding:

1. The decline of the Ottoman Empire was extremely traumatic for Turks and would have a profound effect on their relations with minorities in the remainder of the empire.

2. Empires never end happily (looking at you President BUSH- you might want to consider this.)

3. The victimization of a nation can lead to it's victimizing of another as a n act of retribution.

[ScythianVizier]

What about These?
http://www.armeniangenocide.com/foru...ead.php?t=1315

What about those?

http://www.humanities.ualberta.ca/ottoman/module4/lecture4.htm

“When a Moslem kills a Moslem, it does not count; When a Christian kills a Moslem, it is a righteous act; when a Christian kills a Christian it is an error of judgement better not talked about; it is only when a Moslem kills a Christian that we arrive at a full-blown atrocity." - Edith Durham

[TurQ]

1.Yes it was actually. Not only in terms of human and land loss, it was a spritual trauma as well, also the identity crisis attached to it. Who am I? An Ottoman? A Turk, Kurd,Bosniak? Am I a Muslim only? Turkish Nationalism was one of the answers that adressed those questions.
Even Russian soldiers were in outskirts of Istanbul. Sharif of Mekka sided with Brits fighting against Ottoman army i.e the Caliphate. Jerusalem was gone. These all contributed trauma and identity crisis. Each and every foundation that made the traditional Ottoman identity collapsed rapidly in the eyes of avarage people.

3.Yes scapegoating..

[QUOTE=Joseph]

There is also a book on Balkan Muslims by Yugoslavian Historian Alexendre Popovic.It might be available in college libraries, I suspect if it's available in English though,it was originally written in French.
His analysis are in dept. In one chapter he analyzes the refugees from Balkans and Greek islands. He gives the numbers for the refugees for each province and classifies them origin of departure etc.

2. Yes transforming from a multicultural state to a nationstate



Here's where I think we can come to somewhat of an understanding:

1. The decline of the Ottoman Empire was extremely traumatic for Turks and would have a profound effect on their relations with minorities in the remainder of the empire.

2. Empires never end happily (looking at you President BUSH- you might want to consider this.)

3. The victimization of a nation can lead to it's victimizing of another as a n act of retribution.

[ScythianVizier]

I have never disputed that there are significant numbers of Azeris displaced. However it is clear both that the Azeri government and army began (and sustained) this aggression against NG - thei soverign neigbor in every legal sense - and that they were first to drive out (and slaughter) Armenians. Azeris who later fled did so primarily due to rumours and fears spread by their own people and by occuping (and retreating) Azeri forces. It is highly regrettable that this war has produced such essentially equivalant human tragedy on both sides - however the blame lies primarily with the Azeri side - and this is most clear. Additionally it is incorrect to consider - in any sense - NK to be occupied land - it is liberorated from Azeri aggresors who invaded and were harming the people there. The Azeri land taken by Armenia - the highlands and corridor sourounding NK and connecting it with Armenia was a neceassary action of the war - as Azeri forces continued to shell and launch Grad rockets against NK Armenian civilians from these hieghts. Armenian has offered these lands back beginning very shortly after the war asking only for assurances that NK will not be attacked. Azerbaijan has failed to provide these assurances and in fact has continued with war rhetoric and racial slurs and such. Thus this entire shameful mess its the fault of Azerbaijan - including the continued fact of refugees who are artifiically kept in horrible conditions by the Azeri govt to manipulate sympathy and fan hate. IF there were peace - those from the Azeri territores could go home - the rest are the responsibility of Azerbaijan to care for - just as Armenia has done so with the refugies from Baku and Sumgait and from the rest of Azerbaijan from which they were expelled - after pogroms against them - even prior to the Azeri invasion of NK. SO stuff it already.

When empires break up, and when new entities are being formed, usually innocent people suffer. Perhaps Azeri side could be blamed for number of reasons, however, I still dont think that military occupation of a disputed zone which eventually escalated tensions between two nations was the right policy to promote.

[ScythianVizier]

Vezir

IT is a fallacy that Armenian aspirations for indepence came after Azeri mistreatment. They know it very well that Armenian aspirations did exist strongly before 1988.
So for him it is, Azeris behaved them bad, so inorder to defend their rights they had to liberate Karabag. So simple...

That is basically well-known justification for inflicting war against an opponent. We all know the basic reasons for the dispute. When empires break up, the struggle for enlarging one's juristiction is perhaps one of the oldest strategies in history. That is what happened, and millions suffered as a consequence.

I really wonder when people would see that the wars only could bring misery and inhumane conditions for both sides?

[1.5 million]

That is basically well-known justification for inflicting war against an opponent. We all know the basic reasons for the dispute. When empires break up, the struggle for enlarging one's juristiction is perhaps one of the oldest strategies in history. That is what happened, and millions suffered as a consequence.

I really wonder when people would see that the wars only could bring misery and inhumane conditions for both sides?

Yes Germany was also justified in massacring millions of its own by your logic. Jews were/would have taken advantage of them when they were down - so they had to die.

[phantom]

That is basically well-known justification for inflicting war against an opponent. We all know the basic reasons for the dispute. When empires break up, the struggle for enlarging one's juristiction is perhaps one of the oldest strategies in history. That is what happened, and millions suffered as a consequence.

I really wonder when people would see that the wars only could bring misery and inhumane conditions for both sides?

Another one of the oldest strategies is to fight for liberty, freedom and independence from your oppressors. That is really what happened in Karabagh! What would Karabagh be today if the Azeris still controlled it. Look to Nakcivan for your answer, where not only have all of the indigenous Armenians been eliminated, but even their headstones dating back over 1000 years are being systematically destroyed and thrown into the river.

[ScythianVizier]

Yes Germany was also justified in massacring millions of its own by your logic. Jews were/would have taken advantage of them when they were down - so they had to die.

I dont think that the Third Reich was breaking up when the NAZIs decided to exterminate the Jews, Roma people and the communists. They rather considered this process as a necessity to eliminate the "sicknesses" and "viruses" confisticating their "pure society and race". Thus, their policies related the Russian civilians and the Russian prisoners of war were not much different than the policies applied to the former.