"what would you do?"

[mthT]

So, what happened to these troops in the labour battalions? What do your historians say about these?

that's the problem. turkish historians say nothing about how armenians were treated in labour battalions, except taner akcam. and even they would talk about it, I think they will justify it just like the tehcir law. "well, they deserved it."

on the other hand, you claim that majority of armenian soldiers were loyal to ottomans. I don't agree with that. let's assume that reports and documents about the armenian activities are forged. why would armenians fight for a government which clearly doesn't give a xxxx about them? why would they remain loyal to ottomans in such conditions? it's maybe their only chance to claim an independent or at least more autonomous state. collaborating with russians was the logical act for armenians.


"which of these statements do you believe?"

hmm, you remind me some of the turkish nationalists here. "cut the crap man, do you say that there was a genocide or not? I don't give a damn what happened. I'm only interested in what word do you use to call 'these incidents'? are you one of us or one of them?"

I call it a genocide, you can chill now.



armenians had all the reasons to revolt and ottomans had every right to disarm armenians. but using these unarmed armenians as slaves, torturing them and forcing them to work till they die is unacceptable. this is what I believe.

[Steph]

I call it a genocide, you can chill now.

Nicely chilled mthT, thank you

Now I see where you're coming from and there's a curious logic to it. The logic the ottoman/turkish authorities have used for nearly a hundred years to explain the actions of 1915.
Yes, some Armenians sought help from the Russians, but not huge numbers. The Russian Empire, nowhere near as bad as the ottoman, wasn't the cosy lovey-dovey protector of Armenians, restrictions were in place as they were for all national minorities.
Armenians had fought and died as ottoman troops in the various Balkan conflicts of a few years previously and now were redeployed into labour battalions, disarmed and eventually annihilated. Again, we can understand that some of these troops would have been seeking independence but the bulk would have been simply getting through this military service.


Back to your point though, it tries to explain the actions of 1915. What explains the actions from 1895 to 1923?

Looking at your professor's example of turkish history "We deny the Genocide happened, we didn't do it, but if we did do it, it was because of............"

Just because turkey is an infant nation doesn't allow it to behave like an infant.

You're a clever guy,you use the net,you've open eyes & ears to learn things beyond turkey, then each day you go to university, sit in lectures where such tripe is spouted by "professors".
mthT, I can't square this circle, how do you manage?

[Steph]

it's maybe their only chance to claim an independent or at least more autonomous state. collaborating with russians was the logical act for armenians.

If the Russian Empire had survived the war, Western Armenia would have become simply more provinces within that Empire, Armenia would not have gained independence.
Rock/Armenia/Hard Place.

[mthT]

Back to your point though, it tries to explain the actions of 1915. What explains the actions from 1895 to 1923?

I'm not here to defend ottoman goverment's actions against armenians. I tried to explain why ottomans disarmed armenians because that "So, within months of joining World War One, the ottoman army is running out of troops, weapons and ammunition........
Solution, disarm and exterminate Armenians serving loyally in this ottoman army short of manpower. Divert troops and auxilaries/militias from front-line service to annihilate defenceless women, children and elders." thing sounds absurd. Blaming ottomans for that action(I mean disarming-not the labour battalions) is not rational and won't do any good. Any government would have done the same.

The Russian Empire, nowhere near as bad as the ottoman, wasn't the cosy lovey-dovey protector of Armenians, restrictions were in place as they were for all national minorities.

I know russians weren't supporting armenians for the name of human rights.

If the Russian Empire had survived the war, Western Armenia would have become simply more provinces within that Empire, Armenia would not have gained independence.
Rock/Armenia/Hard Place.

probably right. but armenians would have been happier under a christian rule.

You're a clever guy,you use the net,you've open eyes & ears to learn things beyond turkey, then each day you go to university, sit in lectures where such tripe is spouted by "professors".
mthT, I can't square this circle, how do you manage?

I usually sleep or read during the history class. and it's only one hour a week. not that bad.

[Steph]

I usually sleep or read during the history class. and it's only one hour a week. not that bad.

But you certainly didn't sleep through your english lessons!

[phantom]

Aren't you guys missing the point here? Armenians were not disarmed and killed because the Turkish authorities felt an immediate threat. They were disarmed and killed because the Turkish authorities wanted to transform Turkey into a homogenous land of Turks; a nation that could be controlled and ruled more easily. They used WWI as a cover to achieve their aim. Unfortunately for them, although it worked to eliminate the Armenians and other Christians, it ultimately left an even bigger problem for them; the Kurds whom they've been persecuting and trying to make "Turkish" for 90+ years.

As to your precise points, of course there is evidence of Turkish Armenians near the Russian front joining the Russian army. But the numbers are miniscule. There is no evidence that I've seen that the numbers exceed 5000 Turkish Armenians. Almost all the Armenians fighting for Russia were Russian citizens, not Turkish ones. They were fighting for their country, just as Turkish Armenians were fighting for their country.

[Gavur]

There is no evidence that I've seen that the numbers exceed 5000 Turkish Armenians. Almost all the Armenians fighting for Russia were Russian citizens, not Turkish ones. They were fighting for their country, just as Turkish Armenians were fighting for their country.

In any case, they were certainly a lot less then goverment sponsored hit squads and butchers of Special Organization and the Goverment trained Kurdish marauders.

[Steph]

Aren't you guys missing the point here? Armenians were not disarmed and killed because the Turkish authorities felt an immediate threat. They were disarmed and killed because the Turkish authorities wanted to transform Turkey into a homogenous land of Turks; a nation that could be controlled and ruled more easily. They used WWI as a cover to achieve their aim. Unfortunately for them, although it worked to eliminate the Armenians and other Christians, it ultimately left an even bigger problem for them; the Kurds whom they've been persecuting and trying to make "Turkish" for 90+ years.

As to your precise points, of course there is evidence of Turkish Armenians near the Russian front joining the Russian army. But the numbers are miniscule. There is no evidence that I've seen that the numbers exceed 5000 Turkish Armenians. Almost all the Armenians fighting for Russia were Russian citizens, not Turkish ones. They were fighting for their country, just as Turkish Armenians were fighting for their country.

Phantom, I've just looked at my post, I answered mthT, his professor's feeble "excuse for something that we didn't do", this official line covers 1915, again, what about the period 1895-1923?
It would perhaps be a good shout to say that there were as many Armenians not wanting to fight for Russia, if not more, than the ones not wanting to fight for the ottomans.

[lal]

They were disarmed and killed because the Turkish authorities wanted to transform Turkey into a homogenous land of Turks; a nation that could be controlled and ruled more easily.

This is exactly the point.All Anatolian people were always very friendly to each other. But this new policy of changing anatolia to a homogenous nationalist country, destroyed all brothership of people.Our sisters and brothers either converted and accepted to join us or they became unwanted GAVURS.

[phantom]

Phantom, I've just looked at my post, I answered mthT, his professor's feeble "excuse for something that we didn't do", this official line covers 1915, again, what about the period 1895-1923?
It would perhaps be a good shout to say that there were as many Armenians not wanting to fight for Russia, if not more, than the ones not wanting to fight for the ottomans.

Steph, my great-grandfather fought for the Ottoman government during WWI. Even after the Genocide his sons and grandson were all in the Turkish military. The idea that Armenians collectively were traitors is retarded. An Armenian saved Ataturk's life. An Armenian invented the modern Turkish alphabet. Hundreds of thousands of Armenian men were part of the Ottoman military, where most of them were killed by their own country. So docile were our ancestors that the Young Turks, as disorganized as they may have been, were able to erase Armenians (2 million people) from their 2500 year homeland in just 3 years. Can you imagine how hard that would be if Armenians were even a little resistant? So I am in agreement with you that this idea of Armenian treachery is bull crap.