Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

FULCRUM UPON WHICH ISSUE SITS


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#41 bellthecat

bellthecat

    A poor kitty, lost in the rain.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,643 posts
  • Location:far, far away
  • Interests:mreowing purring snuggling sleeping

Posted 21 May 2002 - 03:56 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Domino:
Ask it to him.

Steve, the newer edition would not add new stuff that the old had not, when these stuff are against the government position. Would it ?

Which is why the older one should have been the one Dadrian consulted. But since he gives page numbers for later editions he could not have actually done so. Perhaps he did not know there was a difference in the various editions, I didn't until Ali told me.

#42 Guest_Fadi_*

Guest_Fadi_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 May 2002 - 03:57 PM

I do not think it could have anything to do with erasing Armenian presence, erasing Armenian presence was planned years after.

#43 aurguplu

aurguplu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 623 posts
  • Location:istanbul, turkey
  • Interests:languages, history, archaeology, art, art history , natural history 6 nature

Posted 22 May 2002 - 12:06 AM

ok guys

last night i checked the entire table of contents of the first edition of karabekir's istiklal harbimiz. first: there is no letter by dr. rıza nur relating to ani or anything else. his name simply doesn't appear in the table of contents. second: there are references to ani ruins and its significance to the armenians, by a letter from an armenian commander, and that these lands should be ceded to armenia on these grounds, which karabekir flatly refuses.

meanwhile, i strongly suggest that the armenian side read these memoirs - in the original of course - there is much that they will find a bit hard to stomach, but it is a very thought-provoking and informative reading.

and i repeat if dadrian used the second edition instead of the first without giving adequate explanation for this choice of editions (or simple oversight) then this is a very serious blow to his reputation as a historian in my opinion and i stick to it.

cheers,

#44 aurguplu

aurguplu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 623 posts
  • Location:istanbul, turkey
  • Interests:languages, history, archaeology, art, art history , natural history 6 nature

Posted 22 May 2002 - 01:03 AM

i forgot to add:

the first edition has no index, so you have to plough through the thousand-odd pages to find what you are looking for if it is not mentioned in the table of contents.

cheers,

#45 bellthecat

bellthecat

    A poor kitty, lost in the rain.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,643 posts
  • Location:far, far away
  • Interests:mreowing purring snuggling sleeping

Posted 22 May 2002 - 06:54 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Domino:
I do not think it could have anything to do with erasing Armenian presence, erasing Armenian presence was planned years after.

That is what I am presuming - that began to happen later, starting in the 1950s and 60s.

Dadrian says Nur ordered that "the monuments of Ani be wiped off the face of the earth" saying that he (Karabekir) would "be rendering a great service to Turkey when you accomplish this goal".

Obviously, the monuments of Ani were not "wiped off the face of the earth" but all traces of the Russian period excavations do seem to have been destroyed, presumably to remove any reason for Soviet archeologists to want to visit Ani.

Dadrian, presumably going by what Karabekir writes, says that Nur's letter was sent in response to suspicions that soviet historians were spying on the Turks by pretending to study the ruins of Ani. However, this is not a credible reason as there would have been nothing to "spy" on - there is no strategic value to Ani, and there are and never have been any Turkish bases, etc, at or near Ani. Either the Turks had reverted to a society in which culture and history meant nothing and where anyone with the inexplicable wish to study such things obviously had to be doing something ilicit, or, like I said, they really they were just trying to remove legitimate reasons for Armenians to be within Turkish controlled territory.

The second is probably the true reason, but the first is not impossible - to this day most Kurds in eastern Turkey are incapable of grasping the concept of someone being interested in an historical monument for its own sake. In their eyes you must be there to try and find the vast amounts of treasure that every Kurd (of whatever degree of education) seem to be genetically pre-programmed to believe lies under every old building.

Steve

#46 aurguplu

aurguplu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 623 posts
  • Location:istanbul, turkey
  • Interests:languages, history, archaeology, art, art history , natural history 6 nature

Posted 22 May 2002 - 08:09 AM

is anyone familiar with the memoirs of rıza nur (again, the original version). dr. rıza nur had to flee turkey for having insulted ataturk (or something like that), and as far as i know he published his memoirs there. i have not read them, so cannot judge, but we have been talking about this letter business in dadrian, and the thing does not appear to be in the original edition of karabekir. does anyone know whether dr. rıza nur makes a reference to it in his memoirs or other stuff?

cheers,

#47 aurguplu

aurguplu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 623 posts
  • Location:istanbul, turkey
  • Interests:languages, history, archaeology, art, art history , natural history 6 nature

Posted 22 May 2002 - 08:14 AM

one more thing:

about this trace wiping off business: there is still a good number of armenian monuments here and there (even though they are usually - not always- labelled under different names) and some of them (especially akhtamar) seem to be in quite good shape (better shape than some seljuk monuments nearby, actually). if there really was such a policy, how come they are still standing?

cheers,

#48 Guest_Fadi_*

Guest_Fadi_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 May 2002 - 10:02 AM

Sorry Ali, I do not ignore you on purpouses... I have to finish a work for now, and my head is to occupied to use the left side of my brain to write on those boards.

#49 aurguplu

aurguplu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 623 posts
  • Location:istanbul, turkey
  • Interests:languages, history, archaeology, art, art history , natural history 6 nature

Posted 23 May 2002 - 11:59 AM

hi everyone

last night i found dr. rıza nur's letter to kazım karabekir and karabekir's reply to it. nur indeed proposes that ani be destroyed, which karabekir rejects on the following grounds:

1. ani ruins are vast, like the walls of istanbul, and even if they were destroyed - which in itself is no mean feat - they would still remain as ruins on the same spot.

2. the destruction of ani ruins would be more likely to stir up sentimen amongst the armenian religious community than to quench it.

the tone of his reply to nur's suggestion read as dismissive in the original memoirs.

the material is found between pages 960-970 (i think the reply was on page 969) in the original edition.

by the way, the original edition was from türkiye yayınevi and not nebioğlu yayınevi. apologies.

the second edition (1988) that i have is from merk yayınevi. its language is simplified (documents are left in the original language), headings are given to "chapters", and it contains biographies of prominent persons of the period, but there still is no index.

but still, i would consult the original edition.

cheers,

#50 bellthecat

bellthecat

    A poor kitty, lost in the rain.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,643 posts
  • Location:far, far away
  • Interests:mreowing purring snuggling sleeping

Posted 23 May 2002 - 02:08 PM

quote:
Originally posted by aurguplu:
one more thing:

about this trace wiping off business: there is still a good number of armenian monuments here and there (even though they are usually - not always- labelled under different names) and some of them (especially akhtamar) seem to be in quite good shape (better shape than some seljuk monuments nearby, actually). if there really was such a policy, how come they are still standing?

cheers,

Not really Ali, there is almost nothing left.

Obviously a lot of the destruction is as a result of 85 years of decay, or expanding urban development, or people taking away stone for re-use, but a lot is deliberate.

For instance, name me a single town or city (except Istanbul) that still has a pre-1915 Armenian graveyard - they have ALL been deliberately destroyed.

Most Armenian building inscriptions on houses or on fountains have also been destroyed. If you see an old fountain with an empty square hollow in the masonry, that will have been where an Armenian inscription would have been - you can see this everywhere in Turkey.

The most well known destruction of a church was the demolition using explosives of the monastery of Khtzkonk. It was destroyed by the Turkish army in the late 1950s. Today, the villagers there are a bit hazy on the actual date of destruction (they say it was in the 1970s) but still confirm its destruction was caused by the army.

Achtamar was protected because it is on an island - but of the famous monastery of Narek that was only a few miles away, not a stone remains. (And 3 or 4 years ago even Achtamar was attacked by someone using a pickaxe).

Its not even confined to Turkish territory - in the mid-1980s a Turkish army unit crossed the border into Syria to destroy an Armenian church in Kessab - their commander didn't like it that an Armenian church was visible from Turkey!

Steve

#51 Boghos

Boghos

    -= Mr Nobility =-

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Europe
  • Interests:literature, cinema, chess, history

Posted 23 May 2002 - 02:10 PM

I just wonder who Steve-Bellthecat is...really fascinating.

#52 Guest_Fadi_*

Guest_Fadi_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2002 - 02:44 PM

Ali, here is my short answer to you.

I still can not trust Karabekir memoirs, and even his honesty, for many reasons.

First of all, Karabekir was one of the inniciator of the introduction of the special taxes around WWII, he was also the same moron(sorry for the expression) that proposed the evacuation of the minorities out of Istanbul in WWII.

He was also the right hand of Halil in theior last excurtion in the East, the same Halil that planned to not lets one Armenian alive. Now do you expect me to believe this man ? He is an apologist of course, what do you expect him to write in his memoirs, something like this ?

"I joined the forces of Halil that planned to kill the Armenians to the last individual, and once for all eradicate them" Is that what you are waiting to read ? This man was a part of the head executors of the last phase of the genocide and one of the head of the post war, apologist policy from the same airs as the Edips, that from one side were talking about the large scall of the action, and from the other side accusing the Armenians of ordering mass killings.

For me Karabekir is a bloody murderer, and you are trying to reabilitate him, the same murderer that passed from its(not himan, he worth the "its" here) route from Alexendriopole and exterminating what was left of the Armenians, that from Russian statistics the population left in these regions, more then 80 % aged less then 12 years old.

"There are two factors which lead man to the extermination of his kind: the principles advocated by the idealists, and the material interest which the consequences of doing so afford certain classes. The idealists are the more dangerous, for one is obliged to respect them even of one cannot agree with them. Talaat was of that kind. I saw Talaat very rarely after the Armenian deportations. I remember well one day when he nearly lost his temper in discussing the question and said in a severe tone: 'Look here Halide Hanum. I have a heart as good as yours, and it keeps me awake at night to think of human suffering... I have the conviction that as long as a nation does the best for its own interests, and succeeds, with world admires it and thinks it moral. I am ready to die for what I have done, and I know I shall die for it. : In 1922 he was shot by an Armenian in Berlin."

Halide Edip in, "Memoirs of Halide Edip" The Century Company, NY, 1926, p. 387

These are the kind of things you will find in these memoirs, all are hidden like this, there is hidding meaning in all these writtings... you have the word extermination, with the word Armenian in the same passages, the you wonder what it means... then, the same memoirs justify the actions against the Armenians by calling them traitors, when it includes things such as a decision of extermination... the same way the Karabekir in his memoir talk about the eternel destruction of Armenia, massacre wiping out etc... etc... etc... then justify his action with events that have been allegedly reported when he was even not on the front...

Then Ali, you tell me we should read his memoir... for what ? For what we should read the memoirs of someone that associated with Halil in the last excurtions to purge the survivers of the east ? Are you serious ?

Do you want other examples of hidden messages Ali, here some for you from Kutay, even in his manipulations we see what he tries to hide.

In his biography of Talat "Talat Pasanin gurbet hatiralari", Vol.3 Istanbul: Kultur.

P. 1044, he describe of what happened to the court-Martial archives.

“These files were either burned in the stokeholes of public baths or were amongs the 56 wagonloads of historical documents which left the country as they were sold to Bulgaria at the price of 70 ‘para’ per one ‘okka.’

p. 1490

“The structure of the special organization necessarily remained secret … its ranks embraced the very valuable staff officers of the army and old and experienced commanders. From the civilian sector, they drew the select and renowned personages, identified with the fields of arts, literature and religion. The members of “Turk Ocaklari”, the focus of the power, force and will of the Turkish nationalism enrolled as a cadre units in the ranks of the Special Organization. The Special Organization operations could not have been incorporated in the literature and state archives since the organization was an entirely secret outfit. It was involved in actions which had the nature of accomplished facts, and which were the results of individual and personal decisions.”

Kutay also refer to some critic decisions, concerning orders (to the special organization). “highly secret decisions, they could not have been entered into files and archives of the state.” And during the prosecutions, the only files classed as “non-inclusive” were specifically those concerning the deportation.

In his other work “ Birinci dunya harbinde Teskilat-i Mahsusa “ Istanbul. Ercan, 1962.

p.18

“It is a fact that the Special Organization performed services which the forces at the disposal of the government and the law and order outfits absolutely couldn’t.. The measures taken for these services applied to areas within the borders of the Ottoman Empire where non-Turkish and non-Muslim races and nationalities constituted the majority of these areas populations, and which were always suspect in terms of their bonds and loyalty to the central authorities. These services were kept so very ‘secret’ that even Cabinet ministers were unaware of them” then he continue,“ The Organization’s plan involved the undertaking of measures by virtue of which the damages of the past legacies which the Ottoman state had been carrying on its shoulders as the burden and bequest of the centuries could be reduced to a minimum. When I think about it today I too find this plan ‘exceedingly courageous.’”

p.36

“In pursuit of its three principal goals, namely, unifying Turkey, Islamic Union, and Pan-Turkism, the organization carried out the state’s internal and external policies by accomplishing most important and at the same time dangerous tasks.”

Why would the things classed as the highest secrecy be the plan against the minorities, what was planned that worth the highest secrecy, more then the military secrecy?

Then he continues to quote E. Kuscubasi writings, and end up with “Ermeni tehciriyle alakadar” and finish with “hadiselerin ic yuzunde vazife almis bir insane olarak.”

All memoirs are like this, all are specicially touched to that way that the clear identification is pull of, its as well the same for Karabekirs, while like Dadrian quote, he order the eternel destruction he still write about the "Urasian" rhetoric of justification based on a war propaganda buil up in Istanbul in a time that he was even not on the direct front line.

Ah BTW, the references given here of course are from Dadrian work concerning the genocide in Turkish sources, I will find a way to send it to you.

Regards

#53 bellthecat

bellthecat

    A poor kitty, lost in the rain.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,643 posts
  • Location:far, far away
  • Interests:mreowing purring snuggling sleeping

Posted 24 May 2002 - 05:06 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Domino:
Ali, here is my short answer to you.

I still can not trust Karabekir memoirs, and even his honesty, for many reasons.

........ect. etc. etc.

Domino, I don't see the point you are trying to make. Nothing you are quoting comes from Karabekir, and if you are saying Karabekir should be ignored because he is like those writers you have quoted then why are you quoting those writers if you hold that THEY should be ignored :-)

But seriously, Karabekir, even where he is lying or distorting, will be valuable. An example just comes to mind, in one of the Turkish propaganda books, (Gurun's "Armenian File" I think), the author quotes a passage from Karabekir in which Karabekir writes that he personally put Britain's armistice representative in eastern Turkey, Col. Rawlinson, into "protective custody". This "protective custody" was actually a six month confinement in a concentration camp in Erzurum in which he almost starved to death and survived only because he was exchanged for Turkish war criminals on Malta.

How can we point out such deliberate lies unless we study the writings of those that have produced them.

Steve

#54 Guest_Fadi_*

Guest_Fadi_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 May 2002 - 06:25 AM

Steve I think you do not understand the point I am trying to make.

What I tried to prove by posting for example Edip and Kutay, is that even if someone like Edip recognise indirectly that there was a set plan of extermination she then on other passages try to justify it by a load of lies and distortions... this was because Ali told that it would be a good idea to read Karabekir memoirs, Karabekir is not a trustfull person, he like Edip and many others justify what happened to the Armenians by allegations that were build up while they were even not on the scene... this is what I am saying, what I am saying is that these people while indirectly admiting there was a plan set against the Armenians they will "discustengly" justify it. Not only Gurun refer to Karabekir an important number of denialist materials refer to him, about how "good, good" he was with the Armenians, how he lived when he was young on the region and how he heard of mass crimes perpetrated by Armenians.

Why these people were writting their memoirs ? Officials memoirs are meant to be published, and he knew it'll be in these times that the Ataturk Historical compagny was established and a state sponsered re-writting of history has been introduced... Karabekir was more "Turkish" then Ataturk himself, and without any sens of guilt was a part of these Halil etc... that after waging a war against a population starving washed their hands, and said how these peoples were enemies and traitors... all is bullcrap, I won't believe an idiot being send on the front where he joined his troups with Halil to start a purge in regions that more then 80 % of the people left were aging less then 12 years old.

You are asking me to believe the same idiot that planned by his NAZI inspirations to evacuations of the Jews, Armenians and Greeks out of Istanbul before WWII, the same idiot with his Turniastic idiologies of whos the "real Turk" This man arrogance and his vision of the Armenians as inferiors would not permit him to write that the Armenians were victims, to the same way that memoirs of NAZI officials were about how they confronted the Jewish world conspiration, Zionist Bolshevicism introduction attemps in Germany, Ghetto's revolts, the Jewish said "declaration of war" etc... Sorry I am not buying.

[ May 25, 2002, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: Domino ]

#55 bellthecat

bellthecat

    A poor kitty, lost in the rain.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,643 posts
  • Location:far, far away
  • Interests:mreowing purring snuggling sleeping

Posted 25 May 2002 - 12:45 PM

Removing evidence of a building's Armenian identity:

This is from a building in Moush, from the 1890s. It has two inscriptions, one in Armenian and the other in Ottoman Turkish. The Armenian one has been obliterated.

Posted Image

Posted Image

#56 aurguplu

aurguplu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 623 posts
  • Location:istanbul, turkey
  • Interests:languages, history, archaeology, art, art history , natural history 6 nature

Posted 28 May 2002 - 11:27 AM

dear Domino, dear steve

1. i am aware of the deliberate destruction done to armenian, greek and other stuff. i myself saw greek churches in western turkey (mudanya and elsewhere) in shameful condition.

this is of course not going to be an apology, but much ottoman stuff was also deliberately destroyed during the republican era, especially the one party rule (1923-1950). you can see a lot of buildings in istanbul where the ottoman inscriptions were destroyed and replaced with latin script ones.

also, even though not political in nature, there has been a wave of destruction of provincial ottoman and seljukid stuff, especially derelict buildings that fell out of use. these were hacked to bits and the bits were sold to antiquarians, collectors, architects, interior decorators etc.

you can still see muslim tombstones used as bartenders' platform etc., a most disgusting sight.

even though that latter destruction is not deliberate, the net result is the same.

2. re sources: you may say that karabekir is not reliable. you may be right. i may say that the armenian or oter western sources of the time are not reliable. i may be right, too. these people were not impartial observers but parties to a conflict and by definition cannot - and cannot be expected to - be impartial. you should not read karabekir with a view to believing what he says. and in fact, if you don't read him together with the memoirs of his opponents, you will almost certainly get a most distorted and incomplete picture. the same goes for the sources of his opponents.

that's what i was trying to say.

cheers,

#57 Guest_Fadi_*

Guest_Fadi_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 May 2002 - 05:48 AM

Ali, yes many western sources were "partial" but not German and Austrian ones, not for example General Paraquin, the German general that was present during Halil excurtion of the East.

Now about the destruction of Ottoman monuments, yes many have been also destroied, but for complatly different reasons, the destruction of these things could be also compared with the destruction of the Red Army during their "revolution" on the other way, Armenian monuments have been destroied to make disapear their presence from the region.

#58 aurguplu

aurguplu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 623 posts
  • Location:istanbul, turkey
  • Interests:languages, history, archaeology, art, art history , natural history 6 nature

Posted 28 May 2002 - 07:21 AM

Domino,

1. none of the sources, including german and austrian ones, can automatically be considered impartial. that does not necessarily mean they are not correct. they may in fact describe the events as they saw them very accurately. the points are 1) that they may have seen only one side of the events (and no event is one-sided), and 2) being austrian or german instead of british or french may not necessarily make one impartial against the turks: the german/austrian is still a christian, as are the armenians, and the turk muslim, and 3) many observers also relied on eyewitness/survivor accounts the problem of reliability with such sources being obvious.

2. most ottoman monuments were destroyed precisely for the same reason the armenian monuments were: to erase the memory of the past. and then, in the 20th century, turks were made to hurl insults at their ottoman ancestors for three generations, and an attempt to learn and teach old turkish (pre-1929 alphabet and language) could be a criminal offense if it were conducted outside the university.

cheers

#59 Guest_Fadi_*

Guest_Fadi_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 May 2002 - 07:59 AM

Ali, you could have been right if the reports in question were for mass distribution, but they were not.

German coverage of the event, were done in two different way, the first one was for mass consuption, accusing Armenians of this or that, in order to support German alliance with Ottoman, but on the other hand, German secret reports from the German war Intelligentsia stationed in Ottoman. These reports could not have been pro-Christian and anti-Muslim, because they were not meant to be distributed, but were only used for internal matters, and for military strategic reasons.

German presence was wide in Ottoman, their unites were present in each critic area's, there is many German officials, while in German newspapers there was a denial of what was happening to the Armenians, were describing how orders from Istanbul were given to build up anti-Armenian propaganda, or how purpously food shortage against the Armenians was blocked to lets them starve, and their communications with Ottoman officials were clear.

Ali, what you bring is a typical technic used by denialists to scream the anti-Muslim sentiment of the Western world. And when people like "Fa'iz El-Ghusein" are brough as eyewithnnes, they then find other reasons, such as they were Arabs, then anti-Turkish etc...

What happened to Refik, Ali ? Was he not attacked because of his stances ? The same refik in his report stat that the aim of the Ittihadists was to destroy the Armenians, while on the other side to "equilibrate" his stance, was talking about a said extermination policy of the Dashnaks, to the point of comparing the Dashnaks with the Ittihadists ? Even doing such he recieved threats from his colleagues and attacked as a traitor. Now one could imagine if he would not have tried to "equilibrate" these things, that he felt forced to do, because if not, he would have been killed. Or Djemal that was called a traitor, decades after the official Ottoman statistics was released, when in newspapers there was claims even that Djemal was an Armenian agent, because by making these statistics official he was giving arguments to the Armenians, or the fact that in his memoirs he wrote that 1.5 million Armenians were deported, based on the Arif commision, that claimed that this repsented 2/3 of the Armenians. supposing that there may have been even more then 2 million Armenians in the empire ?

We know how the people that were refering to the Armenians as a victims were threated... at least these Germans reporting have done it with very little fears of being harassed.

Now about comparing Ottoman destruction with Armenian presence destruction. Give me a brake Allie, when the existance of the empire was hiden from school text books etc... I can't believe that you are even trying to compare these things.

[ May 28, 2002, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

#60 aurguplu

aurguplu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 623 posts
  • Location:istanbul, turkey
  • Interests:languages, history, archaeology, art, art history , natural history 6 nature

Posted 29 May 2002 - 05:13 AM

Domino,

this is getting out of hand. remember that i have not denied the genocide and ittihad culpability, so i have no interest in resorting to denialists' techniques.

what i am saying is that you cannot take into account only reports that support your arguments and ignore other that don't.

if karabekir was the man who fought armenian forces 1919-1922, and then written a book titled "our independence war", you cannot afford to ignore it, even if you hate his guts and think he's lying through his teeth.

i agree with what you say about german sources being compiled for military intelligence reflecting what the compilers observed. these sources also talk about the actions of german officers, don't they?

and there are many other sources from way back talking about armenian separatist activity that dated way back into the 19th century. as some of these sources are (i gather) armenian, you can hardly accuse them of being on the turkish side!

also please refer to the boghos noubar address to the great powers after the war, where he states explicitly that the armenians had been on the side of the invading forces since the beginning of the war. a copy of this speech had appeared in this forum not so long ago. was he also a turkish agent?

Domino, the problem is simply this: there are facts that are unpalatable to both sides (and probably more than both sides). while i came to this forum and accepted those that are unpalatable to our nation, i find the armenian side a bit fett-dragging in accepting those that will undoubtedly be unpalatable to them.

i know that nothing will diminish turkish culpability in the genocide (and therefore i am not exerting effort on such futile pursuits), but some facts will put some (additional) blame on others, and i regret to inform you that some armenian leaders, the church, and some others, together with the germans and russians, are included in this list. and ignoring evidence that you don't like won't make it go away. we ignored the armenian genocide for almost ninety years now, did it go away?

and as far as my comparison of the fate of ottoman and armenian remains go, i stick to my opinion in general terms. you may know more about the destruction of armenian stuff, but may i humbly point out that i probably know more about the destruction of ottoman stuff.

regards,




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users