FULCRUM UPON WHICH ISSUE SITS

[Boghos]

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

[Guest Fadi]

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

[bellthecat]

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

[Guest Fadi]

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 ]

[bellthecat]

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.

 

http://virtualani.homestead.com/files/moush1.jpg

 

http://virtualani.homestead.com/files/moush2.jpg

[Guest Fadi]

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.

[aurguplu]

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

[Guest Fadi]

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 ]

[aurguplu]

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,

[aurguplu]

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,

[Guest Fadi]

Ali, from one side you say you do not deny the genocide, and from the other side act like an apologist, all apologist btw are not deniers, Karabekir is not really a denier, like Edip or Djemal were not, they are more like apologists, with the "necessity" theses.

 

in resorting to denialists' techniques.

 

And more, I do not only agree with things that will support my argumentations. I am just critic, because the logic you are using is called "apologist" and also using the same logic you could even justify the Holocaust. For example you refer to 19th century, this is done by denialist because they have nothing serious to support their claim of what happened in 1915, so they must find a way to tell that Armenians were conspiring against the Ottoman. This argument will even not hold on water. You know why ? What happened between 1894-1896 Ali, was there any revolusionary activities left after this ? Go ahead tell me Ali. After 1896, Abdhul Hamid reported that with his iron hands vanished any Armenian inspirations. After this and untill 1915, there was no considerable Armenian "revolts" and please for the sake of honesty, do not refer me to 1909, when Armenians were demonstrating to ask the Young-Turks to support their promesses. It was with the help of the Armenians that the Young-Turks took power, it was also by their help that the Young-Turks reversed Abdul Hamid regime.

 

Now find these "Western" sources like you say, talking about any Armenian considerable revolts after 1896. Go ahead Ali. Now if you will refer me to reports such as Russian General Mayewski’s, first it has nothing to do with 1915, and second these reports have been manipulated by Mehmet Sadik, where the Russian orginal version has nothing to do with the English one, that has been translated from its French or Turkish version, that this one has been translated by Mehmet Sadik from Russian. From the Ottoman propaganda bureau.

 

Now, you refer to Boghos Noubar, have you actualy read the "adress", Ali, read it one more time, and compare it with the Jewish delegation for Palestine, and the plan of trhe construction of Israel.

 

Here I will post the orginal letter edited by the Times of London.

 

"Sir, the name of Armenia is not on the list of the nations admitted to the Peace Conference. Our sorrow and our disappointment are deep beyond expression. Armenians naturally expected their demand for admission to the Conference to be conceded, after all they had done for the common cause.

 

The unspeakable suffering and the dreadful losses that have befallen the Armenians by reason of their faithfulness to the Allies are now fully known. But I must emphasize the fact unhappily known to few, that ever since the beginning of the war the Armenians fought by the side of the Allies on all fronts. Adding our losses in the field to the greater losses through massacres and deportations, we find that over a million out of a total Armenian population of four million and a half have lost their lives in and through the war. Armenia's tribute to death is thus undoubtedly heavier in proportion than that of any other belligerent nation. For the Armenians have been belligerents de facto, since they indignantly refused to side with Turkey.

 

Our volunteers fought in the French "Legion Entrangere" and covered themselves with glory. In the Legion d'Orient they numbered over 5,000, and made up more than half the French contingent in Syria and Palestine, which took part in the decisive victory of General Allenby.

 

In the Caucasus, without mentioning the 150,000 Armenians in the Russian armies, about 50,000 Armenian volunteers under Andranik, Nazarbekoff, and others not only fought for four years for the cause of the Entente, but after the breakdown of Russia they were the only forces in the Caucasus to resist the advance of the Turks, whom they held in check until the armistice was signed. Thus they helped the British forces in Mesopotamia by hindering the Germano-Turks from sending their troops elsewhere.

 

These services have been acknowledged by the Allied Governments, as Lord Robert Cecil recognized in the House of Commons.

 

In virtue of all these considerations the Armenian National Delegation asked that the Armenian nation should be recognized as a belligerent. Had the recognition been granted, we should now have been admitted, ipso facto, to the Conference, to which even transatlantic States have found access, though having merely broken off diplomatic relations with Germany, without the least sacrifice on their part.

 

At the moment when the fate of Armenia is being decided at the Peace Conference, it is my duty, as the head of the National Delegation which has no tribute from which its voice can resound, to state once again, in the columns of The Times, the important part played by the Armenians in this frightful war. I wish strongly to urge that the Armenians, having of their own free will cast their lot with the champions of right and justice, the victory of the Allies over their common enemies has secured to them a right to independence.

 

Believe me, sir, yours very truthfully,

 

Boghos Nubar

 

Paris, January 27, 1919"

 

Nubar, is trying to justify why Armenia should be on the list of nations, trying to show that the allie owe Armenians something, by telling how well they served for them, or that because of that they were butchered, by putting a sens of guild among the allies by wishing that Armenian will be introduced in the list of nation, what happened later. And more Ali, 150,000 that he refer, are the Russian Armenians serving for their Russian empire, he is talking here on the behalf of the Russian Armenians AND the Ottoman Armenians, only denialists try to refer to this, to try to prove that the Armenians were treacherious and acted as traitors by serving for the allies, without mentioning that the very large majority of them were doing their duties as Russian subject.

 

Here some points for you, of how your insinuations are also used for the "apologists" of the Holocaust.

 

"11.Did the Jews "declare war" on Germany?

 

Yes. Newspapers around the world reported this. A front-page headline in the London Daily Express (March 24, 1933), for example, announced "Judea Declares War on Germany."

 

The Institute for Historical Review, 66 Questions and Answers on the Holocaust: A Revisionist Perspective. (Newport Beach: The Institute for Historical Review, n.d.)

 

"On September 5, 1939 Chaim Weizmann, the principle Zionist leader, had declared war against Germany on behalf of the world's Jews, stating that "the Jews stand by Great Britain and will fight on the side of the democracies . . . The Jewish Agency is ready to enter into immediate arrangements for utilizing Jewish manpower, technical ability, resources etc . . ." (Jewish Chronicle, September 8, 1939). "

 

Richard E. Harwood, Did Six Million Really Die? The Truth at Last. (Richmond, Surrey: Historical Review Press, 1974).

 

"Himmler had informed Mussolini on October 11th, 1942, that German policy towards the Jews had altered during wartime entirely for reasons of military security. He complained that thousands of Jews in the occupied regions were conducting partisan warfare, sabotage and espionage, a view confirmed by official Soviet information..."

 

Richard E. Harwood, Did Six Million Really Die? The Truth at Last. (Richmond, Surrey: Historical Review Press, 1974).

 

You see Ali, when such arguments are used for the Holocaust it sound shocking, but on the other side you use them as a "normality" you don't have to be a denier to use them, because someone can recognise the gen ocide and be an apologist.

 

Now about Boghos Nubar, Finkelstein, also refer to the same tactics used by the Jews to support the construction of Israel, increasing the number of survivers etc...

 

"i find the armenian side a bit fett-dragging in accepting those that will undoubtedly be unpalatable to them."

 

Which one Ali ? give them to me Ali, go ahead, which one ? The same Armenians that were paying 3-5 times more taxes then Turks, because they were Armenians ? The same Armenians that had to pay the said Kurdish taxes, when no one other then them had to pay it ? The same Armenians that had to open their homes at least one time per year, for the *****'s ? The same Armenians that from the Penal Code 166 had no right to carry arms, when on the other hand their Muslim neighbors were armed ? Which thing us Armenians should accept ? What ? You are trying to compare some killings and pseudo-revolts, that were entirly understadble, and that other people like the Greeks and Arabs waged a general one that compared to the Armenians in the empire had a lot more rights.

 

Now Ali, if these Armenian revolts that Karabekir or other bozzo racist apologists discribes really happened, then be glad to explain me, how come that the only places that the Ottoman expended and didn't lost its territories, is from the East, where they took a part of Russian Armenia ? They were able to take Russian Armenia at the hand of the Russian AND Ottoman Armenians, very surprising from a said poor falling empire, attacked by these crual canibal Armenians.

 

And why the Ottoman has declared war afterall Ali ? Was it not to expand from the East ? Do you know why the Ottoman was angry against the Armenians ? Because the Russian Armenians refused to join them. Why would the Russian Armenians join the Ottoman empire, when many of them joined the Russian empire before the signature of the Treaty of Berlin ? What right the Ottoman had to attack Russian Armenia ? Only this could have justified the total Armenians attack against the Ottoman.

 

Then you finis by saying that nothing will reduce the Genocide etc... Of no Ali, give me a brake, you tell me to read Nubar, you tell me to accept Karabekirian apologists, what is this ? And then you tell me that Armenians also should look at the other side ?

 

In Which text book Ottoman history has been ever DENIED ? Which one Ali, Give me just ONE example. The destruction of the Armenian presence, was above all to allege they never were there, to delet the traces of the genocide by deleting their presence, while the destruction of Ottoman monument was made in the same context as the Red Army revolution.

 

[ May 29, 2002, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[THOTH]

Domino -

 

I think you are being harsh on Ali - regardless of the truths you present. I think you are assuming that Ali is claiming more than he is. First - as much as I loath Karebakir as you do - I agree with Ali's point - we must include his memoirs in any stody of events of the region during this time - though certainly we must be aware of his biases and how he likely misrepresents his actions and that of his countrymen. Concerning the other points Ali has raised - I think that they are also valid. I understand your reluctance to admit any Armenain seperatist activities and such - considering how the Turks have used and exaggerated such actions - but we must aknolwledge their existence and understand them within the context of the times. Similarly we cannot ignore - nor let the Turks ignore - the various deprevations against the Armenaisn that occured prior to 1915 by (Ottoman) state and non-state sources - including the betrayals of the CUP, and the long time Ottoman policies to dismember the Armenian communities and supplant them with Kurds and other more recent (Muslim) immigrants into Anatolia.

[Guest Fadi]

Thoth, I do not question Armenian activities here. Ali asked me about Nubar, now the only reason that someone will ask to read Nubar adress concerning Armenian activities is for apologistic reasons. I am not saying Ali is denying the genocide, I am saying that he is an apologist, all apologists are not denier.

 

How should I answer, when someone ask me to read foreign reports during the 19 centuries, when these revolts that are described have been eradicated by Abdul Hamid iron hands ?

 

Now about Karabekir, for me this man is an Himmler, and reading him about Armenian said "revolution" would be the same thing s reading Himmler memoirs about a said Jewish revolution, that he was forced to take self-defense mesures. If you think there is something to be understood from Karabekir memoirs, then the same could be said about people such as Himmler.

 

I could be unjustfly hard with Ali, but what angers me from his part, is the comparaison of Ottoman monument destruction with the deletion of Armenians presence from the region.

 

[ May 29, 2002, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[aurguplu]

 

[ June 18, 2002, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: aurguplu ]

[aurguplu]

Domino,

 

i know you don't like this, but i will keep quoting from the boghos noubar address, from the very one you posted above.

 

boghos noubar states that armenians were enrolled at the (from our perspective) enemy ranks from the very beginning of the war (and not from the beginning of the deportations). the numbers of total armenian military enrolment boghos noubar gives in that address adds up to 205,000.

 

now two things are particularly striking here:

 

1. 205,000 is a fairly large number. if we are to accept that the armenian population of the empire at the time was slightly over two million (almost a million above the official ottoman census figures of 1914), then we find that the ratio of armenians under arms to the total armenian population of the empire is about one to ten, i.e. a full 10% of the armenian population, or better said, 20% (every fifth) of all armenian males were under arms fighting the turks. if you object and say that the 150,000 were from the russian army and acted under russian military command, and can only realistically consider at most the 50,000 volunteers from within the empire itself, still you arrive at 50,000:2,000,000, which gives you 1:40 of the total population, and 1:20 of the total ottoman armenian males. so every twentieth armenian male volunteered to fight the ottomans.

 

now the turkish population is almost 70 million strong, and our standing army is somewhere between 550,-700,000. i shall take the upper figure to please you, but still we arrive at a ratio of 1:100 for the entire turkish population, and 1:50 for the entire male turkish population. currently, one in every fifty turkish males is serving in the army (staff and non-commissioned combined). and turkey is the southeastern flank of NATO, and a country that fought a bitter civil war in the southeast for fifteen years. it is also a country with a very strong military presence in almost all spheres of life, and some 30,000 troops stationed outside its borders in an international dispute (cyprus). still, its military ratio is 1:50. yours was 1:20 at the time of the conflict, two and a half times higher than turkey today. also bear in mind that 50,000 armenians out of 2,000,000 people mean that there was at least one armenian male from every tenth armenian household in turkey, if you consider the average armenian household to be composed of 4 people (a modest estimate, if you increase it, you decrease the number of households, and increase the ratio of militant-furnishing houses to total houses. have your pick). statistically this means that there was at least one armenian from every single armenian settlement down to the last village, unless you claim that some armenian vilalges had fewer than ten households! (of course we know that in reality some regions supplied more than their fair share, some less, and some not at all).

 

to carry numerical comparison still further: in the fifteen year long war we fought against kurdish separatists, the total death toll on both sides was 29,000 (this number was revealed immediately after the capture of öcalan, and has been revised upward several times, first hitting 30,000, and then 40,000. i take the first number for i believe it reflects the truth more closely). this war was fought with far greater armies and for a much longer time, and over a greater area: it was carried out to europe as well. it was also ever so bloody in that both parties were very seriously equipped by the superpowers of the time (the turks had tanks, helicopters and planes, the kurds, terminal guided anti-aircraft, and anti-tank missiles, for instance. both sides had machine guns with 20 rounds per second capability and 100 to 400 meters effective range. and both sides were thoroughly trained i both guerilla and classical warfare. still the death toll was 29,000).

 

now the population of turkey in 1914 was some 17-18 million (actually probably slightly more), and after the war it aws down to 11-12 million. 6 million people, one third of the population, were gone. over two million greeks were killed/displaced/deported, and over a million and a half armenians met the same fate. this adds up to three and a half, at the most, four million. the remaining two million missing were the muslims (which includes turks, kurds, circassians, other caucasians and some arabs). now our reported military casualties in the first world war (the whole of it) were 325,000. this means that 1.7 million muslims who died were civilians. and nobody talks about a genocide of the turks (not even the turks themselves).

 

Domino, do you realise why we get so indignant at times, even those of us like me, who recognise the armenian genocide and what it stands for? we lost a sixth- a seventh of our population at the hands of invading armies and traitors in our country, and nobody even talks about it, perhaps mainly because we do not make an international fuss about it. but isn't it a classical case of "when indians kill, it is a massacre, when whites kill, it is a victory"? to us it is.

 

and if you are wondering how you guys managed to form such a military organisation under the ottoman empire, all you have to do is check the publications of the armenian patriarchate then and also the russian "protection" of christian minorities in turkey. you can also check today's - and any other day's - "on this day in history" whenever you check into the forum.

 

do it & see.

 

cheers,

[Twilight Bark]

And I have a nice bridge to sell you Ali Suat. It stretches from Istanbul to Dublin, and only for you, it is $999.99 plus shipping and handling.

 

And while I am at it, I would like to state that I currently have well-armed 300,000 undercover soldiers stationed in southwestern Georgia. They have the latest NATO technology, as well as hush-hush new gadgets, compliments of nanotechnological weaponry. If you are interested in divvying up Georgia, I will cut you a good deal, and will be content with 20% of the proceeds. Whaddyasay?

 

How sad. A relapse into equating an empire with a country. Repeat after me Ali Suat, "Empires are bad. It is impossible to be a traitor to an empire."

You see, Ali Suat, even if the Armenians magically were able to pull off such feats, it would still not be treachery. An empire has no moral right to exist. A Turkish nation, yes. A country of Turks, yes. A multi-ethnic federation would have been a lot better (if the 'Turks' could swallow the idea that they are equal; God forbid). Stop lamenting over lost empires. What next, Americans should lament over the phasing out of the Mafia?

 

When you wake up from your fantasy and realize that those hordes of magical Ottoman Armenian soldiers did not exist, please remind yourself to refrain from equating the Balkan wars with anything Armenians may or may not have done.

 

Very, very disappointed,

Twilight Bark

 

[ June 18, 2002, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[THOTH]

I absolutly second Twilight Bark's response. (very well stated BTW - I have tried to convey this point in argumwents of this sort in the past and never have I been able to articulate it so well - bravo!)

 

Aditionally I must ask you (Ali) whom is it that you asume these traitors to be? (I mean besides the CUP...is there anyone else that you include in this category?)

[MJ]

Dear Ali,

 

Just one late comment...

 

At its apogee, which was in 1919, the Regular Army

of the Republic of Armenia has numbered about 60,000 heads. How do you see a number 205,000 being anywhere close to being realistic?

 

Probably one can bring also few other arguments to negate the insinuation... but why?

[aurguplu]

dear everyone,

 

1. i did not use a turkish propagandist's conjecture on the existence of 205,000 armenian soldiers, i used that of an armenian, and not any armenian, that of THE REPRESENTATIVE of the armenians an international conference after wwi (hence a more reliable source than you with your bridge to dublin and your army in georgia, sorry tb). so as they say in turkish, i am his liar.

 

2. boghos noubar did not deliver his address to a bunch of know-nothings, but other representatives of the countries involved in the dismemberment of the empire, whom he could not tell something they knew not to be true (military matters are carefully recorded, you cannot just make up any number and expect people to believe it).

 

3. the speech was delivered after the war and not before, so noubar could not have used it to bribe or blackmail the allies (so tb, i am afraid your parallel there is inaccurate). he appears to have just made the point that they had served the cause as much as everyone else, and suffered for it as much as, and actually considerable more than, most others.

 

4. i insist on using the noubar letter, and shall only accept criticism of it based on other documented evidence that such a force did not exist. since armenian conscripts in the russian and french armies are well documented (not by historians but the military records themselves), and it is known that armenian armed militia did exist prior to the genocide (the armenians themselves do not deny this), this is going to be a bit difficult for you, tb. you may downplay the numbers but not much else.

 

5. the armenians frequently claim that they could not have an army or militia because they did not have an independent state and had no rigt to carry arms under ottoman legislation. well, the kurds do not have a state and they do not have a right to carry arms (that second can of course be partly disputed), were periodically disarmed during the republic, but that did not prevent them from staging 28 rebellions in 70-odd years and forming a pkk which was 50,000 men strong at the peak of its power. they were periodically bombed, deported, disarmed, resettled, their language banned etc (there are really very few things left that didn't happen to them), but that did not prevent them to acquire some serious military capability.

 

from the 19th century onwards, the ottoman armenians were under russian "protection" by a series of treaties, and yes, they did have the capacity to organise inside the empire through the patriarchate and other civilian institutions. they had a printing press (well before the turks), schools, societies, their youth studied abroad, frequently in countries that later took part in the dismemberment of the empire, and they did organise. and another point the armenians frequently bring up, namely the difference between ottoman and russian armenians, well, carrying the pkk example further, the pkk is organised in turkey, iraq, syria, and iran, in addition to european countries,and can infiltrate turkey from anywhere they want. so the armenian case that they did not organise militarily because they couldn't is not that strong.

 

6. tb says that empires do not have a right to exist. i agree. i also agree that any entity that has been formed and perpetuated by violence has no right to exist. and when we look at the word today, we see most of them gone (some, like china, are still there). by extension i understand tb also says that if you are under an empire against your will, youu have a right to rebel. i also agree. but when you rebel, you must take into account that the empire you are rebelling against is not going to sit there with its arms folded on his chest. it too is going to assert its legitimate right as a state to preserve its existence, and fight. here we come to the next point in my argument which i had been advocating since i joined this forum and which sorely has been gone amiss in the last battle of words i am afraid. here it is:

 

6. the armenian genocide is a fact. it is also an abomination, since a genocide by definition involes the killing of an entire group of people because they belong to the group by dint of ethnicity, religion, language etc., and not by some common act which could be considered a crime by any stretch of the imagination. the ottoman government could have considered fully legitimately that an attempt by a group of armenians to overthrow it in order to replace it with other entities constituted a crime against itself, and that it had a right to take the necessary measures to defend itself, but it should have confined these measures to the perpetrators of that crime rather than extending it to the bulk of the armenian nation, without regard to their innocence or guilt. this is what they did, and this is why it is a crime.

 

i fear that the armenian side is falling into a trap (that one could, by a far fetched argument, even argue that was dug by turks): on the one hand their "classical" position was that the fact of the genocide ought to be divorced from the fact that some armenians took armed action against the ottoman empire, on the principle that you cannot justify the killing of innocents by the deeds of their criminal next of kin (and that therefore the turkish position that they were punished for their crimes is untenable), and then on the other hand, some armenians come forth and say that reports of armenian armed action and existence of treacherous armenian factions within the empire prior to the genocide are nonsense or greatly exaggerated, which can be demonstrated to be false, as the noubar letter itself does.

 

there were armenian factions that plotted and acted against the empire, and the empire had sovereign rights to deal with them, violently if necessary, to preserve its existence. no empire has sovereign rights to extend the punishment of a criminal to its innocent next of kin. that, as i shall understand, is the gist of the matter in the armenian genocide. you cannot interpret a law, right, interest or whatever to pass a death sentence on an entire nation.

 

and i am afraid that was the point we missed in the above discussions.

 

regards,

[aurguplu]

martin,

 

i do not know the first thing about the armenian army in 1919, so i cannot do more than conjecture. here are some explanations that i can offer (none of them are strong positions that i would venture to defend, as i don't have data on the subject at my disposal):

 

1. i 1919, the genocide had taken place, a substantial number of armenian males liquidated or deported, so 60,000 was all that you could come up with IN 1919 in that particular area. it does not say anything about 1915 or before.

 

2. the 60,000 armenians in the armenian army were not the only armenian under arms. the russian army had always had good numbers of armenians in its ranks. so if push came to shove, you could probably field more than that number if the russians were on your side (which they frequently were-and are).

 

3. armenia has never really been a free nation, and its military capability might have been shorn by russian demands (russians, although traditionally your allies, are little more symphatetic towards you then the turks are when interests collide, and youu would agree, wouldn't you, tat there could be a clash between you and the russians over conflicts of interest in the caucasus if it weren't for the turkish - or broader speaking, muslim - threat. russians just use us as a bogey to keep you in check. if we weren't there, they could be turks to you.

 

4. you didn't have the money. you had more people than that, but couldn't come up with a bigger army for want of cash.

 

5. you had a regular army of 60,000, and a far greater militia, which had arms, would fight for the armenian cause, in line with RA demands, but wouldn't show up in official listings of the classical army. such an organisation would be a very sensitive thing to do in view of the terrain (eastern anatolia and armenia are more suitable to gureilla warfare than classical warfare), neigbours' and allies' (read: russian) demands, and cost a good deal less. this last one is especially plausible in view of te fact that irregular armies have played an increasingly important role in conflicts for the last two centuries. we lost the balkans and arabia largely to irregular armies, and saved anatolia thanks to them. the same concept was in operation recently in yugoslavia and the caucasus, to name but two theatres of war.

 

but as i said above, these are mere conjecture and not my "position" regarding the topic, as i do not have an informed one. you may well have facts that refute them one by one. if so, i would like to know.

 

regards,

[Accelerated]

I havnt the time to read the rest of this thread, but I basically agree with everything Ali has said in his last two posts, escpessially this point:

 

They have basically been the 'Turks' with all their other neighbours, escept maybe the Central Asian republics (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc).

 

[ June 19, 2002, 04:07 AM: Message edited by: Accelerated ]

[aurguplu]

dear everyone,

 

i think one stance that turkish hardliners adhere to is worth quoting here:

 

"the armenians say that we killed them all for no reason. false. the armenian leaders made a cold-blooded calculation that if their peoples would suffer atrocities at the hands of the ottoman turks, european christians would intervene like they did in the case of greece and the balkans, and that in the ensuing melee, the armenians would get a piece of land with their help. hence, they were inclined to regard any mass casualties resulting from their terrorist actions as martyrs that had to be sacrificed for the cause. they rebelled, killed, and stabbed the turks in the back at a time of war, and then the europeans disposed of them the same way they disposed of the arabs after the loss of our arab provinces, and more recently, as the usa disposed of the kurds after they sided with them against saddam and were gassed by him. and now they are whining. if they had got something out of that, they would be whining a good deal less, since they would consider the dead as martyrs necessarily sacrificed for the liberation of armenia. so in reality they are whining about territorial and political loss rather than human loss, and all this whining is actually about getting the territories back rather than making us recognise the genocide and/or pay compensation for it. go talk to any armenian, accept the genocide and payment of retribution, and see if they stop there and not come up with land claims. if they genuinely wanted nothing but recognition and compensation, they would stop there or at most ask for the return of their immovables and a right to resettle where their ancestors had lived, respecting turkish territorial integrity and accepting to live under turkish rule with equal rights as any other turkish citizen (here the human rights record of turkey is passed over in silence). but they don't. in any discussion about the subject where the turkish side has conceded to accept the genocide and reparations, territorial claims invariably followed suit. you cannot separate one from the other, because they don't. and therefore you should never venture to accept the genocide, even if it is a fact. the day you accept it, you pave the way for territorial claims, and guess whom will the russians, europeans and americans support? muslims or christians? it all boils down to that."

 

how would you guys respond to that?

 

regards,

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

there were armenian factions that plotted and acted against the empire, and the empire had sovereign rights to deal with them, violently if necessary, to preserve its existence. no empire has sovereign rights to extend the punishment of a criminal to its innocent next of kin. that, as i shall understand, is the gist of the matter in the armenian genocide. you cannot interpret a law, right, interest or whatever to pass a death sentence on an entire nation.

 

and i am afraid that was the point we missed in the above discussions.

 

regards,

---

Hello again Ali. I don't have the time now (nor wil I for the next several weeks) to address all of your points raised here (and they are good ones) - though I wish I did have the time because I welcome this discussion. Let me just say that your last point made here is something we can all agree on I would think - and in the end it is all that really matters. Briefly though - Nubar certainly was exaggerating to gain sympathy for his people before the victorious Alied Europeans - he stretched and fabricated to make his case that the Armenians deserved some spoils of victory. Do you really think that if (Ottoman)Armenians (in Eastern Anatolia) had even one tenth - even one one hundreth of the men under arms as is implied here that the Genocide could have happened unabated as it did? Would we not have heard of major military confrointations (outside of Russian initiated action or some very minor/isolated resistance/rebellion? Why are there no accounts whatsoever of any deportation convoys being rescued/liberated? - not a single one. Do you think that the Ottomans could have even held the countryside in the face of such forces (with the Russians also pressing trhe attck...). Please. Also - it should be noted that until 1917 (Russian Revolution & breakdown of control over the army) it was Czarist policy to ship Armenian to the Balkans to fight because of fear of potential Armenian nationalist ambition. Bottom line - actually very few Armenian combatents prior to 1917 in Anatolia. Sure some isolated guerilla bands - some who espoused this philosophy of provoking the Ottoman Turks to bloody retubution with the hopes of outside intervention - this is true. But the CUP and others in charge (including German military in Anatolia who do not report anything concerning any significant Armenian threat or action - just the opposite in fact) were not fooled - yet Talat & Co. were able to use the reports of the very few instances to fuel the fire of hatred - not difficult since many Ottoman Muslims were refuges from the Balkans and had witnessed the type of actions that you (and the CUP propaganda) claim were being conducted by the Armenians. Additionally the Armenians were a very convinient scapegoat for failed policies and the inability o the CUP to stem the collapse of a falling empire. They also were an oppurtunity to enrich the CUP and (in theory) provide for the war effort, provide housing for potentially rebellious refugees, sport and loot for bloodthirsty warlords and the war & these actiona offered the Turks the chance to realize Pan-Turnaic ambition and eliminate an increasingly vocal minority whose ties to outside co-religionist interests were always a potential threat to stability and Ottoman Turkish rule over their citizens & countryside. For this was (the) Genocide commited.

[khodja]

The Armenians were a diverse group.The Armenians of the Western regions of Anatolia did not expect their regions to come under Armenian sovereignity.

You confuse a number of revolutionary leaders with the Armenian community leaders as a whole. There were elements of Armenians in OttomanTurkey who were comfortable with the status quo, and who were an integral part of the Ottoman economy.The Ittihadists painted all the Armenians with one brush and underttok a genocidal campaign of every Armenian irregardless of age, sex or religious belief. Only in Istambul were the women and children spared. This was probably because the Turkish leaders did not want to inflame the passions of the West by conducting such a campaign where it would be viewed by the European diplomats en masse.

[MosJan]

MJ jan es du mek dzerkov es grel ??? bravo qez

 

Movses