Question to people of Turkish decent

[TurQ]

The gradual word was for the period from 1915 to 64, I would call it gradual.
Obivously I mentioned the tac, 55,64 events(message #50). The rest is your prejuidice and pre-assumptions. Think twice write once.

You're joking right?

The few (Thousands - perhaps 20-40 thousand at best - just a guess from what I have read) - had hopes of repopulating villages and restarting - particualrly because of the hope from Wilson's promisses - well - most (most who managed to find something to go back to) didn't last beyond 1921-22 thanks to Karabakir and Ataturk - most were driven back out. Those Armenians who did manage to maintain within Turkey were indeed taxed and persecuted into leaving - particularly in 1955...however these were still but a very small fraction of Armenians who once occupied these lands. Talat boasted that he did more in three months then the Sultan was able to do in 30 years of attempting to "solve the Armenian problem" - and you would call this gradual? How much does the government pay you to spread this crap TurQ - you sound more pathetic with each post.

[1.5 million]

Sultan's problem was defined as "Eastern Problem" not the "Armenian Problem".
His right hand was Armenian he would have first got rid of his right hand and then Armenians.

He saw the problem totally independent of ethnicity. Just a correction. The rest is I think we agree to a degree. After 1918 during French and British occupation, TUrks fought against the Brit + French, and naturally Armenians
were on their side(French formed armies out of Cilicia Armenians). There is nothing wrong or to be blamed at this point. But they were not driven out, it was the war between Turks and Brits, and the nature of 15 events and 1919-22 are totally different.

"Eastern Problem" - "Armenian Problem" - you are quibbling with Semantics - are these not the same thing (essentially)? And I was quoting Talat in this case - and the situation of the Armenians (apealing for aid beyond the Sultan and becoming politically aware at the same time the Turks were doing so in an expansive manner) became known as the "Armenian Problem" then and it is known as such (historically) now.

Ataturk (through his agent Karabakir) was responsible for erradication of 400,000 Armenians - primarily in the Caucuses in Vilyets which had once been under Russian control (but also throughout Anatolia). He was responsible for far more then the final annhilation of the Cilician Armenians (who again were only defending their homes and lives from certain death and destruction - there was no reason for them to think otherwise - given the immediatly preceeding history).

I find it interesting that you term the nature of events between 1915 and those of 1919-22 as different...i would agree (though both were still tragic from the Armenian perspective and both involved imposition of Turkish state power upon an essentially poweless subject/formerlly subject people). Still that you see these differently makes me think that we cannot truly consider either one now to be "civil war" in the conventional sense...and certainly what would make 1915 different if not that it was a campaign of elimination of Genocide. no? Some argue that Ataturk and Karabakir wished to finish the job...and essentially they did.

[TurQ]

Nope not, because for the Sultan it was not an ethnically oriented problem.
He did not saw Armenians as enemies. He saw it as an unrest in east.

1915 was not a war between Armenians and Turks, but obviously later on it was(after 1917). Karabekir fought against Russians and Armenians. When they
lost the war they left. In 1915 there was not a divided(I mean totally) society but in 1917 there was, so they are totally different things.

"Eastern Problem" - "Armenian Problem" - you are quibbling with Semantics - are these not the same thing (essentially)? And I was quoting Talat in this case - and the situation of the Armenians (apealing for aid beyond the Sultan and becoming politically aware at the same time the Turks were doing so in an expansive manner) became known as the "Armenian Problem" then and it is known as such (historically) now.

Ataturk (through his agent Karabakir) was responsible for erradication of 400,000 Armenians - primarily in the Caucuses in Vilyets which had once been under Russian control (but also throughout Anatolia). He was responsible for far more then the final annhilation of the Cilician Armenians (who again were only defending their homes and lives from certain death and destruction - there was no reason for them to think otherwise - given the immediatly preceeding history).

I find it interesting that you term the nature of events between 1915 and those of 1919-22 as different...i would agree (though both were still tragic from the Armenian perspective and both involved imposition of Turkish state power upon an essentially poweless subject/formerlly subject people). Still that you see these differently makes me think that we cannot truly consider either one now to be "civil war" in the conventional sense...and certainly what would make 1915 different if not that it was a campaign of elimination of Genocide. no? Some argue that Ataturk and Karabakir wished to finish the job...and essentially they did.

[TurQ]

In 1914-and 15 Armenians had only 5 armies( around 1000 for each made up by Anatolian Armenians headed by Andranik), in 1918 they were organized totally not like 15. They fought under French army even fought against Turks in Palestine along with Brits.
Ataturk's and KArabekir's fight was against the British, Russian and French occupation.

Ataturk (through his agent Karabakir) was responsible for erradication of 400,000 Armenians - primarily in the Caucuses in Vilyets which had once been under Russian control (but also throughout Anatolia). He was responsible for far more then the final annhilation of the Cilician Armenians (who again were only defending their homes and lives from certain death and destruction - there was no reason for them to think otherwise - given the immediatly preceeding history).

I find it interesting that you term the nature of events between 1915 and those of 1919-22 as different...i would agree (though both were still tragic from the Armenian perspective and both involved imposition of Turkish state power upon an essentially poweless subject/formerlly subject people). Still that you see these differently makes me think that we cannot truly consider either one now to be "civil war" in the conventional sense...and certainly what would make 1915 different if not that it was a campaign of elimination of Genocide. no? Some argue that Ataturk and Karabakir wished to finish the job...and essentially they did.

[phantom]

The gradual word was for the period from 1915 to 64, I would call it gradual.
Obivously I mentioned the tac, 55,64 events(message #50). The rest is your prejuidice and pre-assumptions. Think twice write once.

1915 approximately 2 million Armenians in OE

1918 approximately 200,000 to 300,000 Armenians left in OE

Loss of approximately 1,700,000 to 1,800,000 Armenians (85-90% of the population) from their ancestral homeland of about 3 MILLENIA in a matter of 3 years.

This is what TurQ calls "gradual". I can only think of 3 words in response "Ha Siktir Ulan" . . . no offense

[TurQ]

I didnt say uniformly, I said gradually(in time).
Obviously numbers are different what we know and what you know. We say there are about 1.5, Armenians say around 2.5(you say 2 million)

Joseph said there were 300,000 in Istanbul during early republican days.

it was 1.5s falsification or misinterpretation. What I aimed actually was, during the republican days gradually Armenian population forced to imigrate first to istanbul and then from istanbul to abroad.
I was not talking about the numbers I was talking about the period. Yes you can use gradually for the period 15-64, but not the word "uniformly".
Birazda onyargisiz okuyun, lafi kicindan anlamak diye de bir tabir var ama demiyim, desemde lafim birbucuka sana deil

1915 approximately 2 million Armenians in OE

1918 approximately 200,000 to 300,000 Armenians left in OE

Loss of approximately 1,700,000 to 1,800,000 Armenians (85-90% of the population) from their ancestral homeland of about 3 MILLENIA in a matter of 3 years.

This is what TurQ calls "gradual". I can only think of 3 words in response "Ha Siktir Ulan" . . . no offense

[Joseph]

There were about 300,000 or so Armenians in Istanbul until WWII but it must be stated that quite a number of them were had fled from the east in during the various Hamidian massacres and then the Genocide. There were still enough Greek and Armenians in Istanbul at the time that they could try to blend in. Many actually hid themselves for a few years when things were really bad.

[phantom]

I didnt say uniformly, I said gradually(in time).
Obviously numbers are different what we know and what you know. We say there are about 1.5, Armenians say around 2.5(you say 2 million)

Joseph said there were 300,000 in Istanbul during early republican days.

And we know how trustworthy Turkish sources are on this subject, now don't we! As for Joseph, he also says that the actions of the Ittihadists amounted to Genocide, and probably also thinks that the total population of Armenians was 2.5 million, but you don't accept his word on that, now do you. If you want to take Joseph's numbers, then that means 500,000 Armenians were left from a total population of 2.5 million (loss of 80%); still not "gradual".

it was 1.5s falsification or misinterpretation. What I aimed actually was, during the republican days gradually Armenian population forced to imigrate first to istanbul and then from istanbul to abroad.
I was not talking about the numbers I was talking about the period. Yes you can use gradually for the period 15-64, but not the word "uniformly".
Birazda onyargisiz okuyun, lafi kicindan anlamak diye de bir tabir var ama demiyim, desemde lafim birbucuka sana deil

TurQ, using the word "gradual" is a massive deception and you know it. Perhaps after the immense destruction that eliminated 85-90% of the population within a matter of 3 years, it may have been "gradual" after that according to your slanted understanding of the word. But in no way can a rational and honest person call the loss of the Armenian presence in Turkey "gradual". Kicinla konusursan, bende kicimla dinlerim; niye guzelim kulagimi senin kicina ziyan edeyim.

[1.5 million]

it was 1.5s falsification or misinterpretation.

Please refrain from outright cowardice and demonstrate my "falsification or misinterpretation" rather then vaugely claim such as a generic excuse for your own.

[TurQ]

Phantom

It might have sounded decieving in that sense, but what I try to say should be judged in the context of my previous posts. I have said various times that for the plight of Armenians CUP should be accused.
May be it is because of the my hurry or else I might not have chance to express correctly/perfectly.
The gradual word actually aimed for the the remaining Armenians and their pattern of immigration from Anatolia to Istanbul and then from Istanbul to abroad(from 15s to 64s)
looks to me that Armenians in Anatolia actually forced or in a way made them to immigrate to Istanbul(remember
this is long before the massive immigration from the rural areas to Istanbul). I remember when first Mutafyan
was appointed as the head of the Armenian church there was a contravery around him, at that time I again
thought that the state still thinks Armenians are of some sort of national security concern.
THis is complicated issue, I can not comrehend it in full scale.
You might remember the post some months ago, when I went to airforce academy for application, I have seen
the list of the applicants that were sorted from highest OSS(SAT type exam) to the lowest. And the
highest applicant was an Armenian student. I was suprised, didnt expect to see such a thing and I have asked to colonell that "This guy is Armenian?
So will he be flying one of those F-16s?". He said "yes if he is admittedwhy not?". Obviously state
is confused about Armenians today.

And we know how trustworthy Turkish sources are on this subject, now don't we! As for Joseph, he also says that the actions of the Ittihadists amounted to Genocide, and probably also thinks that the total population of Armenians was 2.5 million, but you don't accept his word on that, now do you. If you want to take Joseph's numbers, then that means 500,000 Armenians were left from a total population of 2.5 million (loss of 80%); still not "gradual".



TurQ, using the word "gradual" is a massive deception and you know it. Perhaps after the immense destruction that eliminated 85-90% of the population within a matter of 3 years, it may have been "gradual" after that according to your slanted understanding of the word. But in no way can a rational and honest person call the loss of the Armenian presence in Turkey "gradual". Kicinla konusursan, bende kicimla dinlerim; niye guzelim kulagimi senin kicina ziyan edeyim.