Hysterical History

[Arpa]

Hysterical History.

Is this the comedy club?

Please pardon me for posting this here. I would have much rather liked to post it under the subject topic of “humor”.

It is hysterical, as some people don’t know the difference between “hysteria” and “history”.

Hysteria you say?

Is it not obvious that they are getting hysterical and feeling the pressure?

Yes, yes. Wee know why they are doing this. They want to look like a civilized people, the “victim” so they can join that “civilized” society aka EU. Have they heard of “confession” and “repentance”, terms that those Europeans are so fond of?

Finally the tables have reversed where they are in the “defensive”, and trying to re-reverse it to appear as the “offensive”. They may have just discovered that “offense” is the best of “defense”.

See for yourselves when she/he speaks about “open archives”. Open? Open what? What do WE have to hide? It is all recorded, not only in words, but in pictures and moving pictures at that.

I have highlighted some passages below. Feel free to highlights others.

"Meanwhile, high level Armenian bureaucrats continued to serve in the

Ottoman government."

Are they talking about the likes of Grigor Zohrab whose brain was splattered all over when his cranium was crushed by a boulder?

"The much greater suffering endured by the

Muslims of the period has been almost completely ignored."

Here they must be talking about those “muslims” of Syria, Lebanon and Egypt who were massacred by their so called muslim Turks. Ask Lawrence of Arabia.

"the mass murder of Muslims when the Russians captured

Erzurum (well documented), the mass murder of Muslims in Van (well

documented), and the mass murder of Jews in Van (well documented)."

And finally. Armenians have not only massacreD “muslim Turks” but also Jews. How low can one stoop, how cheap can one get invoking the JEW which has no relevance whatsoever in this debate!! Or does it??

In conclusion. The e-addres of the author of this parody is displayed at the bottom.

Please write to them but avoid debating facts. Respond only in the spirit of their farcical post. We don’t want to stoop to their level and confuse “history” with “hysteria”.

Does everyone know the cliché; “chicken with its head cut off”? How about; “turkey with its head cut off”?

They are feeling the pressure alright and ridiculously acting like “a turkey with ruffled feathers”.

=========

ANKARA: Open Letter From Turkish NGOs:

Turks Are Ready To Confront Their History, Are Armenians Ready To Confront The Truth?

 

OPEN LETTER FROM TURKISH NGOS:TURKS ARE READY TO CONFRONT THEIR HISTORY, ARE ARMENIANS READY TO CONFRONT THE TRUTH?

 

The New Anatolian, Turkey

Jan 10 2006

 

Dear Sir, Dear Madam,

 

As representatives of Turkish 153 Non Governmental Organizations

(NGOs) we would like to express our deep concern and disappointment

regarding the "genocide" accusation inflicted upon our ancestors.

 

Herewith, we would like to convey our views and the grounds which

oblige us to explain such allegations.

 

There are accusations from almost all over the world for an "Armenian

genocide" which derive mainly from the prejudiced sources provided by

the Armenian view. There are various reasons why this view of history

has become the accepted wisdom in the world at large. No single issue

moves the Armenian diaspora as much as what has come to be known as

genocide, and many Armenians, having attained positions of wealth and

influence throughout the western world, have made the perpetuation of

this issue their crusade. As a result, virtually all the information

that we have concerning the tragic events of 1915 comes from Armenian

sources, or of their sympathizers. What works to the pro-Armenians'

advantage is that the western world has failed to regard the two

peoples on an equal plane. The much greater suffering endured by the

Muslims of the period has been almost completely ignored.

 

The inherent prejudice that prevents most people from analyzing these

events with an open mind presents as significant an obstacle today

as it did during the time of the events. It is unfortunate that the

image of the "Terrible Turk" is still alive and well. Those who can

overcome their ingrained bigotry and objectively look at the genuine

evidence soon become aware that what is known as "Turkish propaganda"

stems mainly from sources without reason to be false. These are the

very western sources that have often maintained their prejudices

against the Turkish people, along with internal Ottoman documents

never meant to be public relations exercises. Today's so-called

genocide scholars overwhelmingly support the Armenian thesis, but

there are very few historians among their ranks. Many conclude there

was genocide first, and then fit selective evidence to support their

conclusion; in effect, working in reverse of what we would normally

expect of genuine scholars.

 

After the wave of Armenian terrorism hit in the 1970s and 80s,

this subject began to be studied seriously, and many specialists in

Ottoman history came to reject the notion of genocide. For example,

69 Western academicians signed a 1985 statement to that effect.

 

Targeted increasingly by ad hominem attacks, most were intimidated

away from this debate. As a result, the pro-Armenians have succeeded

in presenting the image that it is only the Turkish government that

has come to "deny" this alleged genocide.

 

In the face of this malicious campaign to distort history, what stands

out is that pro-Armenians have rarely expressed willingness to engage

in honest debate. One must ask, if they are so certain of their facts,

what have they got to be afraid of? Why, for example, have they refused

to take their case to the International Court of Justice in The Hague?

 

The truth is that during World War I, when the Ottoman forces

were fighting on five fronts, they also faced an armed uprising of

Armenians. At the instigation and with the support of Czarist Russia,

Armenian insurgents sought to establish an Armenian state in an area

which was predominantly Muslim. With the Russian invasion of eastern

Anatolia, the degree of Armenian collaboration with the Russian enemy

increased dramatically. The Ottoman army's rear was gravely threatened

when supply lines were cut by Armenian guerilla bands.

 

Furthermore, Armenian revolutionary bands massacred the Muslims

of the province of Van, in anticipation of the expected arrival of

the invading Russian armies. The Ottoman government's response was

to order the relocation of its Armenian subjects from the path of

invading Russians and other areas where they might undermine the

Ottoman war effort.

 

That the Ottoman State's Armenian minority launched a bloody

insurrection at the very time the country was fighting a World War

goes a long way towards explaining the resultant suffering that was

borne by Armenians and non- Armenians alike. Most of the casualties

from both sides were victims of famine, disease and exposure, as well

as inter-ethnic clashes and regular warfare. A favorite pro-Armenian

source, Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, himself had written that thousands

of Turks were dying daily from starvation because few were left to till

the fields; he estimated an entire quarter of the Turkish population

had died of starvation alone. It is not correct to deem the great

numbers of Armenians who died from the same causes as 'victims of

genocide'. Ottoman archives which are now open to research without

any restriction contain tens of thousands of documents shedding light

on the relocation process. Among them are a great number of Ottoman

Government directives ordering the governors, military commanders and

other public officials, to implement the relocation in an orderly way,

taking the necessary measures for the security of those who were

being moved, with maximum care for the protection of their lives

and possessions? (However, it is also a fact that orders from the

central government were not always followed by local officials. As

often happens with operations of great magnitude, particularly those

undertaken at the last minute with limited resources and manpower,

not everything went smoothly.)

 

In the overall implementation of the relocation the nonexistence of

even a disguised intent to kill and destroy is obvious. This could

also be deduced from the following indications: All along the war the

Armenian population continued to exist in most of western Anatolia,

such as in Istanbul and Izmir where the government was in control,

and were not subjected to relocation. Those who were subjected

to relocation had to travel on foot because of lack of proper

transportation and were unfortunately attacked by lawless bands and

other renegade forces. This is the opposite of what one would expect

if there had been a government implemented policy of genocide.

 

Meanwhile, high level Armenian bureaucrats continued to serve in the

Ottoman government.

 

Contrary to overriding belief, the great wave of immigration

of Armenians came well after the war was over, and after many had

returned to their homes in what was left of the Ottoman Empire. The

Armenian Patriarch estimated some 645,000 remained as late as 1921.

 

500,000 had already mostly traveled, on their own accord, to

Transcaucasia alone, according to a UCLA Armenian professor.

 

Armenians today concede one million survived. The pre-war population

according to most neutral Western sources of the period (such as the

Encyclopedia Britannica) was around 1.5 million. Pro-Armenian claims

that 1.5 million were killed are arithmetically impossible.

 

Often called the "foremost authority on the Armenian Genocide," Prof.

 

Vahakn Dadrian himself had written (in Sept. 21, 2004) that "in

1916 ... the genocide had all but run its course." He was referring

to the relocation policy, but it is obvious that such a policy in

itself cannot be termed genocide. (Otherwise, the movement of W.W.II

Japanese-Americans would be similarly defined.) The question must

also be asked that if this process was the kind of Hitlerian "Final

Solution" it is often compared to, why should it have come to a halt

so soon?

 

The 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide requires "intent"

to be proven. Aside from hearsay, there is absolutely no factual

evidence proving any such thing. Similarly, the Armenians had been

a "political group" aiming to ethnically cleanse the Turks in a

sizeable part of eastern Anatolia, in an effort to establish their

own independent state. "Political groups" are not among the groups

protected under the Genocide Convention.

 

A "Nuremberg" was held at the end of the war, in the form of the

Malta Tribunal (1919-1921). The British sought the evidence to convict

accused Ottomans, numbering over 144 at one point. The U.S.

 

State archives were their last resort (significantly, the very

foundation of most "Armenian genocide evidence" today), and the British

Embassy in Washington delivered the following message on July 13, 1921:

"I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which

could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for

trial in Malta." Consequently, without going to trial, every single

prisoner was freed. The point here is that the 144 prisoners were

released without any charges being brought. Some 1,600 Turks were,

on the other hand, taken to tribunals and court-martials during the

war in their own country, for crimes against Armenians. Most were

convicted, and over sixty were condemned to death. These actions are

hardly consistent with an intended genocide.

 

The truth is that the Armenians' portrayal of themselves as the

helpless victims of "The First Genocide of the 20th Century"

is without any basis. Even that claim is inaccurate; there were

systematic extermination campaigns earlier in the century preceding

the Armenians, as in Albania, South West Africa, and the Philippines.

 

Often ignored, the Balkan Turks were victims of an enormous ethnic

cleansing campaign, also preceding the Armenian experience. Once again,

it is prejudice that prevents the world at large from recognizing

the tremendous tragedies the Turks suffered.

 

During 1918-1920, the newly formed Republic of Armenia systematically

exterminated their own Muslims, constituting some 38% of their

population. During and after World War I, the Armenians also killed

over half a million Ottomans, mostly Muslims including the entire

Jewish population of the caucuses, numbers that are documented in

the Ottoman archives. Few Western sources will corroborate this very

unknown tragedy because Muslim and Jewish lives were insignificant. A

British colonel by the name of Wooley, according to the U.S.

 

Archives, estimated that 300,000-400,000 Ottoman Muslims were killed

by Armenians in three districts alone. What disturbs us most is that

in the midst of deportations, massacres, ethnic cleansing, and other

atrocities, only the deaths of the Armenians is selected and falsely

characterized as genocide. Genocide can briefly be described as

killing people for what they are, rather than what they have done. No

mention is made of the Greek mass murder of Muslims in Anatolia (well

documented), the mass murder of Muslims when the Russians captured

Erzurum (well documented), the mass murder of Muslims in Van (well

documented), and the mass murder of Jews in Van (well documented).

 

Uniquely the death of the Armenians is singled out and termed genocide

with lack of any reliable documentation. Turkey does not make light of

its appalling treatment of the Armenians but it seems that governments

in the west have chosen to ignore the deaths of innocent Muslims,

let alone accept that these cases were genocide: government sponsored

elimination of thousands of civilians for no other reason than that

they belonged to a particular religion.

 

If Armenia adopts a realistic attitude and is not fearful of

confronting its past, a mixed commission to investigate the issue

could be established. In this context, first, the two parties should

set up a mixed committee of Turkish and Armenian historians. Second,

they should declare that they will open their respective archives

without any restriction on research. Third, representatives from an

international organization, for instance UNESCO, should be a part of

this process, assuming the role of public notary.

 

If the Armenian side is truly certain about the righteousness of

its claim, it should not hesitate to espouse this proposal and thus

contribute to bringing clarity to this period of our mutual history.

 

Yours sincerely, On behalf of the joint 153 NGOs' initiative

Prof. Dr. Aysel Eksi ayseleksi@hotmail.com

Edited January 11, 2007 by Arpa

[HyeFedayis]

How in the world would the Armenians kill thousands of Muslims? while the ottoman empire were very powerful its impossible.

[phantom22]

All the hallmarks of DESPERATION!

 

They are pulling out all the stops.

 

They are just miserable that Congressman Tom Lantos and other Jews are no longer their fifth column since Mein Kampf is now a best-seller in Turkey and they finked out in 2003 when they didn't allow American troops to use Turkey as a conduit for the Iraq War. They will threaten and threaten as well.

 

As long as they can inflame Jews against Armenians using such bogus information, they will continue to do so. Every trick in the book they are going to try to use.

 

Hysterical History.

Is this the comedy club?

Please pardon me for posting this here. I would have much rather liked to post it under the subject topic of “humor”.

It is hysterical, as some people don’t know the difference between “hysteria” and “history”.

Hysteria you say?

Is it not obvious that they are getting hysterical and feeling the pressure?

Yes, yes. Wee know why they are doing this. They want to look like a civilized people, the “victim” so they can join that “civilized” society aka EU. Have they heard of “confession” and “repentance”, terms that those Europeans are so fond of?

Finally the tables have reversed where they are in the “defensive”, and trying to re-reverse it to appear as the “offensive”. They may have just discovered that “offense” is the best of “defense”.

See for yourselves when she/he speaks about “open archives”. Open? Open what? What do WE have to hide? It is all recorded, not only in words, but in pictures and moving pictures at that.

I have highlighted some passages below. Feel free to highlights others.

"Meanwhile, high level Armenian bureaucrats continued to serve in the

Ottoman government."

Are they talking about the likes of Grigor Zohrab whose brain was splattered all over when his cranium was crushed by a boulder?

"The much greater suffering endured by the

Muslims of the period has been almost completely ignored."

Here they must be talking about those “muslims” of Syria, Lebanon and Egypt who were massacred by their so called muslim Turks. Ask Lawrence of Arabia.

"the mass murder of Muslims when the Russians captured

Erzurum (well documented), the mass murder of Muslims in Van (well

documented), and the mass murder of Jews in Van (well documented)."

And finally. Armenians have not only massacreD “muslim Turks” but also Jews. How low can one stoop, how cheap can one get invoking the JEW which has no relevance whatsoever in this debate!! Or does it??

In conclusion. The e-addres of the author of this parody is displayed at the bottom.

Please write to them but avoid debating facts. Respond only in the spirit of their farcical post. We don’t want to stoop to their level and confuse “history” with “hysteria”.

Does everyone know the cliché; “chicken with its head cut off”? How about; “turkey with its head cut off”?

They are feeling the pressure alright and ridiculously acting like “a turkey with ruffled feathers”.

=========

ANKARA: Open Letter From Turkish NGOs:

Turks Are Ready To Confront Their History, Are Armenians Ready To Confront The Truth?

 

OPEN LETTER FROM TURKISH NGOS:TURKS ARE READY TO CONFRONT THEIR HISTORY, ARE ARMENIANS READY TO CONFRONT THE TRUTH?

 

The New Anatolian, Turkey

Jan 10 2006

 

Dear Sir, Dear Madam,

 

As representatives of Turkish 153 Non Governmental Organizations

(NGOs) we would like to express our deep concern and disappointment

regarding the "genocide" accusation inflicted upon our ancestors.

 

Herewith, we would like to convey our views and the grounds which

oblige us to explain such allegations.

 

There are accusations from almost all over the world for an "Armenian

genocide" which derive mainly from the prejudiced sources provided by

the Armenian view. There are various reasons why this view of history

has become the accepted wisdom in the world at large. No single issue

moves the Armenian diaspora as much as what has come to be known as

genocide, and many Armenians, having attained positions of wealth and

influence throughout the western world, have made the perpetuation of

this issue their crusade. As a result, virtually all the information

that we have concerning the tragic events of 1915 comes from Armenian

sources, or of their sympathizers. What works to the pro-Armenians'

advantage is that the western world has failed to regard the two

peoples on an equal plane. The much greater suffering endured by the

Muslims of the period has been almost completely ignored.

 

The inherent prejudice that prevents most people from analyzing these

events with an open mind presents as significant an obstacle today

as it did during the time of the events. It is unfortunate that the

image of the "Terrible Turk" is still alive and well. Those who can

overcome their ingrained bigotry and objectively look at the genuine

evidence soon become aware that what is known as "Turkish propaganda"

stems mainly from sources without reason to be false. These are the

very western sources that have often maintained their prejudices

against the Turkish people, along with internal Ottoman documents

never meant to be public relations exercises. Today's so-called

genocide scholars overwhelmingly support the Armenian thesis, but

there are very few historians among their ranks. Many conclude there

was genocide first, and then fit selective evidence to support their

conclusion; in effect, working in reverse of what we would normally

expect of genuine scholars.

 

After the wave of Armenian terrorism hit in the 1970s and 80s,

this subject began to be studied seriously, and many specialists in

Ottoman history came to reject the notion of genocide. For example,

69 Western academicians signed a 1985 statement to that effect.

 

Targeted increasingly by ad hominem attacks, most were intimidated

away from this debate. As a result, the pro-Armenians have succeeded

in presenting the image that it is only the Turkish government that

has come to "deny" this alleged genocide.

 

In the face of this malicious campaign to distort history, what stands

out is that pro-Armenians have rarely expressed willingness to engage

in honest debate. One must ask, if they are so certain of their facts,

what have they got to be afraid of? Why, for example, have they refused

to take their case to the International Court of Justice in The Hague?

 

The truth is that during World War I, when the Ottoman forces

were fighting on five fronts, they also faced an armed uprising of

Armenians. At the instigation and with the support of Czarist Russia,

Armenian insurgents sought to establish an Armenian state in an area

which was predominantly Muslim. With the Russian invasion of eastern

Anatolia, the degree of Armenian collaboration with the Russian enemy

increased dramatically. The Ottoman army's rear was gravely threatened

when supply lines were cut by Armenian guerilla bands.

 

Furthermore, Armenian revolutionary bands massacred the Muslims

of the province of Van, in anticipation of the expected arrival of

the invading Russian armies. The Ottoman government's response was

to order the relocation of its Armenian subjects from the path of

invading Russians and other areas where they might undermine the

Ottoman war effort.

 

That the Ottoman State's Armenian minority launched a bloody

insurrection at the very time the country was fighting a World War

goes a long way towards explaining the resultant suffering that was

borne by Armenians and non- Armenians alike. Most of the casualties

from both sides were victims of famine, disease and exposure, as well

as inter-ethnic clashes and regular warfare. A favorite pro-Armenian

source, Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, himself had written that thousands

of Turks were dying daily from starvation because few were left to till

the fields; he estimated an entire quarter of the Turkish population

had died of starvation alone. It is not correct to deem the great

numbers of Armenians who died from the same causes as 'victims of

genocide'. Ottoman archives which are now open to research without

any restriction contain tens of thousands of documents shedding light

on the relocation process. Among them are a great number of Ottoman

Government directives ordering the governors, military commanders and

other public officials, to implement the relocation in an orderly way,

taking the necessary measures for the security of those who were

being moved, with maximum care for the protection of their lives

and possessions? (However, it is also a fact that orders from the

central government were not always followed by local officials. As

often happens with operations of great magnitude, particularly those

undertaken at the last minute with limited resources and manpower,

not everything went smoothly.)

 

In the overall implementation of the relocation the nonexistence of

even a disguised intent to kill and destroy is obvious. This could

also be deduced from the following indications: All along the war the

Armenian population continued to exist in most of western Anatolia,

such as in Istanbul and Izmir where the government was in control,

and were not subjected to relocation. Those who were subjected

to relocation had to travel on foot because of lack of proper

transportation and were unfortunately attacked by lawless bands and

other renegade forces. This is the opposite of what one would expect

if there had been a government implemented policy of genocide.

 

Meanwhile, high level Armenian bureaucrats continued to serve in the

Ottoman government.

 

Contrary to overriding belief, the great wave of immigration

of Armenians came well after the war was over, and after many had

returned to their homes in what was left of the Ottoman Empire. The

Armenian Patriarch estimated some 645,000 remained as late as 1921.

 

500,000 had already mostly traveled, on their own accord, to

Transcaucasia alone, according to a UCLA Armenian professor.

 

Armenians today concede one million survived. The pre-war population

according to most neutral Western sources of the period (such as the

Encyclopedia Britannica) was around 1.5 million. Pro-Armenian claims

that 1.5 million were killed are arithmetically impossible.

 

Often called the "foremost authority on the Armenian Genocide," Prof.

 

Vahakn Dadrian himself had written (in Sept. 21, 2004) that "in

1916 ... the genocide had all but run its course." He was referring

to the relocation policy, but it is obvious that such a policy in

itself cannot be termed genocide. (Otherwise, the movement of W.W.II

Japanese-Americans would be similarly defined.) The question must

also be asked that if this process was the kind of Hitlerian "Final

Solution" it is often compared to, why should it have come to a halt

so soon?

 

The 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide requires "intent"

to be proven. Aside from hearsay, there is absolutely no factual

evidence proving any such thing. Similarly, the Armenians had been

a "political group" aiming to ethnically cleanse the Turks in a

sizeable part of eastern Anatolia, in an effort to establish their

own independent state. "Political groups" are not among the groups

protected under the Genocide Convention.

 

A "Nuremberg" was held at the end of the war, in the form of the

Malta Tribunal (1919-1921). The British sought the evidence to convict

accused Ottomans, numbering over 144 at one point. The U.S.

 

State archives were their last resort (significantly, the very

foundation of most "Armenian genocide evidence" today), and the British

Embassy in Washington delivered the following message on July 13, 1921:

"I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which

could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for

trial in Malta." Consequently, without going to trial, every single

prisoner was freed. The point here is that the 144 prisoners were

released without any charges being brought. Some 1,600 Turks were,

on the other hand, taken to tribunals and court-martials during the

war in their own country, for crimes against Armenians. Most were

convicted, and over sixty were condemned to death. These actions are

hardly consistent with an intended genocide.

 

The truth is that the Armenians' portrayal of themselves as the

helpless victims of "The First Genocide of the 20th Century"

is without any basis. Even that claim is inaccurate; there were

systematic extermination campaigns earlier in the century preceding

the Armenians, as in Albania, South West Africa, and the Philippines.

 

Often ignored, the Balkan Turks were victims of an enormous ethnic

cleansing campaign, also preceding the Armenian experience. Once again,

it is prejudice that prevents the world at large from recognizing

the tremendous tragedies the Turks suffered.

 

During 1918-1920, the newly formed Republic of Armenia systematically

exterminated their own Muslims, constituting some 38% of their

population. During and after World War I, the Armenians also killed

over half a million Ottomans, mostly Muslims including the entire

Jewish population of the caucuses, numbers that are documented in

the Ottoman archives. Few Western sources will corroborate this very

unknown tragedy because Muslim and Jewish lives were insignificant. A

British colonel by the name of Wooley, according to the U.S.

 

Archives, estimated that 300,000-400,000 Ottoman Muslims were killed

by Armenians in three districts alone. What disturbs us most is that

in the midst of deportations, massacres, ethnic cleansing, and other

atrocities, only the deaths of the Armenians is selected and falsely

characterized as genocide. Genocide can briefly be described as

killing people for what they are, rather than what they have done. No

mention is made of the Greek mass murder of Muslims in Anatolia (well

documented), the mass murder of Muslims when the Russians captured

Erzurum (well documented), the mass murder of Muslims in Van (well

documented), and the mass murder of Jews in Van (well documented).

 

Uniquely the death of the Armenians is singled out and termed genocide

with lack of any reliable documentation. Turkey does not make light of

its appalling treatment of the Armenians but it seems that governments

in the west have chosen to ignore the deaths of innocent Muslims,

let alone accept that these cases were genocide: government sponsored

elimination of thousands of civilians for no other reason than that

they belonged to a particular religion.

 

If Armenia adopts a realistic attitude and is not fearful of

confronting its past, a mixed commission to investigate the issue

could be established. In this context, first, the two parties should

set up a mixed committee of Turkish and Armenian historians. Second,

they should declare that they will open their respective archives

without any restriction on research. Third, representatives from an

international organization, for instance UNESCO, should be a part of

this process, assuming the role of public notary.

 

If the Armenian side is truly certain about the righteousness of

its claim, it should not hesitate to espouse this proposal and thus

contribute to bringing clarity to this period of our mutual history.

 

Yours sincerely, On behalf of the joint 153 NGOs' initiative

Prof. Dr. Aysel Eksi ayseleksi@hotmail.com

[LSergiu]

Arpa, your previous statement regarding the wrong-placement of this article is, at the very least, justifiable. "Articles" like this do not deserve to be placed in other threads other than humor-related ones. I consider commenting on such garbage as time-consuming and useless. Nevertheless...

 

Often ignored, the Balkan Turks were victims of an enormous ethnic

cleansing campaign, also preceding the Armenian experience. Once again,

it is prejudice that prevents the world at large from recognizing

the tremendous tragedies the Turks suffered.

 

Often ignored, the Balkan turks were the authors of an enormous social strife among the nations of the balkans that were subjected, repeatedly, to a policy of turkification and islamization that had various stages of intensity. This policy planted the seeds of war between those individuals (widely known as traitors) who embraced islam and the turkish "culture", and the oppresed majority that, altough endured unspoken humiliation and cruelty, has chosen to maintain (defend) their original culture and Christian religion. When the decimated nations of the Balkans found a chance to take revenge for several centuries of existence as nothing more than a piece of s#it they have used that chance. Those turks, as all other humans (if you consider them as such) have to assume responsability for their past deeds. If a group of turkish hysterical historians want to "justify" the Armenian Genocide by showing the "attrocities" commited against the Balkan turks (another artificial term), they should further analyse the causes of that "ethnic cleansing campaign" against the above mentioned turks. But they (turks) cannot see the "bigger picture" because by doing that they all come to the same conclusion: the turkish (former and actual) presence in the Balkans and Middle East was/is the root of all evil. They have their hands in every conflict from the Adriatic Sea to the Caspian Lake since they began to corrupt the above mentioned territories with their presence. Not a pleasant history, if I do say so myself.

 

For example,

69 Western academicians signed a 1985 statement to that effect.

 

Nowadays for example, the turkish pockets can "buy" history equivalent of several hundreds of "Western academicians"

 

 

Archives, estimated that 300,000-400,000 Ottoman Muslims were killed

by Armenians in three districts alone.

 

If we take turkish "sources" as reliable we would come to the conclusion that for every Armenian that lived in the former Ottoman Empire there were ten times that number of muslim turks killed (by Armenians). The above quote is equivalent with "...estimated that 3-4 millions muslim turks were killed in three cities alone."

[phantom22]

Yes, there is no such thing as "Balkan Turks." These were persons indigenous to the Balkan lands who converted to Islam to raise themselves higher on the social scale, and to act as overlords of their Christian neighbors.

[zurderer]

not totally, a lot Turk settled at balkains for ruling newly conquered lands. also a lot turk exiled to balkans. That is why we have alevi turks at bulgaria.

[gamavor]

Arpa, I don't know if you ever had a chance to review American history books, but I was utterly outraged by the outright lies that those so-called history textbooks contain. Not only with regard to Armenia (actually there is no even mention of Armenia), but the world history is twisted in such a way that might make you puke.

 

Starting from ancient Egypt and Greece, through the dark ages, Crusades and up to the Cold war, lie after lie. The section on Turkey is direct copy of turkish textbooks so one wonders if there were outsourced to Ankara. The World War II section has almost no mention of the Soviet Union, etc, etc..

 

These are the textbooks intended for public schools in USA. And then we wonder why Americans are stupid.

 

The brainwashing starts at an early age.

 

 

[Accelerated]

Yea according to the British/US history WW2 chronology goes something like this:

 

1939/40 Invasion of Poland/France

1940 'The Blitz'

1940/43 North Africa

1941/45 War with Japan

1944/45 D-Day and Nazi collapse

 

Whats even more disgusting is they way the Red Army is portrayed in the few instances when the Eastern Front is covered. Presumably we won because of sheer numbers, 'the winter' and ruthless generals who had no regard for casualties. The Germans (on the Eastern Front), although brilliantly led and equipped, fought bravely but were too few in numbers to stop us. Any acts of Soviet 'bravery' on the other hand can be atributed to coercion and ignorance. Actually, the more I write about this the angrier I get, better stop right here.

Edited May 16, 2007 by Accelerated

[Zartonk]

Not only with regard to Armenia (actually there is no even mention of Armenia)

 

I'm glad you continued by parenthesizing that, because save for semester of mediocre geography, not once have I come across even a mention. Don't even get me started on how much ancient history is outright omitted.