Pan-Ideologies, Economic necessities, "Living space&quo

[Guest Fadi]

Here is one essay that was posted to Pigeti, Martin that I would like that you comment. I will post you others in the future, and also post Pigeti essays, answers etc... since I didn't answered Pigeti last posts, and he asked for more references, I will post you the first ones.

 

Here is my post, I taked away one paragraph, since it is talking about my "démarch" not very important.

 

"Wile now jumping on the real subject, I entered in the more complex second level understanding of the question, since at that time there was practically no reason why I should say there was no enough proof of a genocide, and I know that everybody that would do the same “demarche” that I made would conclude the same. What I tried to do is to link all this stuff and try to find the pieces of the puzzle, now that I have every information’s, I have to find the correlations(the correlations was also used during all my “demarche”, when facing to contradictory sources for the same time, using correlation factors, when you have the sources pointing in one direction and another pointing to another, when this another is illogical to the context of the time being, there is much chance that this last source is not valid), and this time the social correlation, after that historians established the historical effects, it is sociology turn, the effect of action reaction, the ideologies and all these stuffs. I tried to class them into categories, every actions etc… every events, their social implications etc… I started then to draw a table(that I didn’t finished yet), of categories sub-categories leading to the genocide. Now I will tell you the conclusions in order that you have a general idea of it, since my “démarche” is based on one year of extensive reading and interconnexions, wile my conclusion is this, every events were leading to one theme, “The Living Space” that is responsible of every known genocide, now there was two sub-categories, that are interconnected with each others(but the interconnection is not necessary), these two groups, Economic necessities and Pan-Ideology, every under classes are connected to one of these two categories or both of them. For example, the Pan-Islamism, Pan-Turanism, Turkism etc… lead all to the Pan-Ideology, as well as European intervention fear by Ottoman, as an answer for protectionism bring to national self-Defences etc…that connect to the Pan-Ideologies, the European intervention fear also is linked to Ottoman restructuration plan, of centralization and nationalization etc… all these causes affect or the Pan-ideologies or Economic necessities. The action reaction that I wrote about, the Pan-Turanism and Economical categories are the reaction that ended up with the “Living Space” theory. No place for Armenians and Turks, one of the two must go. Why ? First two reason, Pan-Ideologies(national inspirations etc…) and the Economical necessities. These two are reaction of the actions, or action-reaction events.

 

More to this there is one aspect that is not included in all this, that is very important is the Moral Universe, the Moral Universe is an entity that was interconnected to all this, more we go up to the source(Living Space) more the moral necessity is more intense. For reason of state, for national survival(or considerated for a group as national survival) some group may not be included in this moral Universe. To not be included there is conditions that must be respected, first of all the group in question must be different(by believes or origin) then the majority, the group in question has to have an impact that are seen as threat for the survival of the majority(here the threat was more economical and ideological, that again brought the Economical necessities and the Pan-Ideologies in action). So getting rid of this group become moral, because the existence of this group is seen as the problem of the majority, then immoral. Then this groups is no more included in the Moral Universe of the society in question. Another aspect that goes with morality is the “invisible man” kind of morality. What I mean by this, is like I gave the example of the mouse, that slowly start to know that eating the cheese will not heart it, but in contrary. The test of several other massacres against Armenians showed how these crimes can be don without intervention, like the person that commit the crime is invisible. An analogy that I can give is the invisible man that know that he can do what ever he want nobody will stop him, then the person in question has different morality then the persons that are visible, since the person that is invisible can choose the limits that he will himself fix(limit to what extant ?). In order to rewrite the morality of the state, the government will use these two reactions, Economical necessities and Pan-ideologies, for example. “the Armenians are controlling our economy, we are dying because of them” or the Pan ideologies. “The Armenians are the cause why we can not link ourselves with our brothers of blood” or “The Armenians are infidels, against God, getting rid of them is what God want” etc…etc…etc… The impact is clear.

 

Yet passing the line of exterminating a group of people very hard, and the government should think of it for long times, and study the consequences. Again the government did study it, since the decision of liquidation was not taken “à la hate” but took several months (1) An the decision was not so easy and “was the most difficult decision that they took in all history of existence, in which hundreds of thousands of innocent Armenians lost their lives, and even more then a million” (2) But in the same context the extermination of the Jews has not been taken also “à la hate” and was very difficult even for the NAZI, and even for Hitler (3), like the order to invade and exterminate the polish race in 1939, what Hitler didn’t respected, and changed(Hitler was a very unstable person, like Talaat. Enver etc…), when he reintroduced one year later. Here the deliberations also reintroduce a new moralistic universe that I talked about before, when they released criminals and trained them for the purpose (4) since Armenians were no more in this Moral universe, using Criminals(normally considerated unmoral) to do them away etc… More to this moral universe was the confiscation of Armenian goods, after their expropriation, Muslim families around didn’t lost time to take Armenians left belongings and this even by the demands of the authorities in places. These peoples were like the “invisible man”, take what ever you want, if you don’t do it others will do it, then “why not me ?” and more even if these people(the Muslim population) conscience was hurt, their beliefs were manipulated(religious beliefs and national aspirations), with new ideologies, and alleged necessities with Telin Alp ( the Pan-Turanism and Pan-Germanism ideologue, his famous work, Türkimus und Pantürkismus (Weimar, 1915) retrace the Pan-Turanism ideologies, the destruction of the enemy and the linkage of “the brothers of blood”) etc… Gokalp and other ideologues many anti-Armenian propaganda’s (5) were pout in action. More one of the biggest examples of Ittihad own internal fight concerning the Armenian question was Senator Riza and his friends( Every one that were disagreeing about the Policy of the Itthiad were called Riza Friend by Talaat) when they tried to change the situation, without being able so. Here first I told that the decision was very difficult, but must note here that it was not a difficult decision by Enver, Talaat, Halil, Nuri etc… but difficult to be accepted by the other ministers, since in the government there was disregards, the Plan was passed like the declaration of war against Russia without the decision of the council ministers. (6) A little party took the control of all the government “instoring” new laws after that many members against the government have been jailed, some have been killed and the rest resigned their posts, living the most fanantics and bloodish in power, all the moral universe after this was changed, and the little group that took the control of the government had again to have the approval for their diabolic plan, very difficult to find any men in the army etc… to commit the acts that they asked for, for this for the extermination they created the special organisation that was formed of criminals.

 

Now the lost of control and the lost of morality aspect could be seen as the principal lines that after been passed a genocide become possible, and even in this case inevitable. Now here an important point that is important to trace is the social difference between Germany after the Holocaust and Ottoman Turkey after the Armenocide, these two societies dealt with this tragedy in a different way, in the case of Ottoman, it was a national crises and moral, the guilt feelings were very strong, (7) this guilt feeling was less existence in the war of independence, because this time they believed that this time it was necessary, and much of the killings were out side of Ottoman territory, when for the last time the members of the special organisation were fighting in it, but unlike Germany Turkish republic has been build on the extermination of the Armenians, and this complicate all the situation (8) not in the case of Germany that was not accepting and denying what they did, when in Nuremberg, it was opposition after opposition, when Germany asked for insurance, and accepted after that Europe help them. In the case of Turkey the inverse happened, first it was acceptance, and a moral crisis that became a national silence, a silence that lasted decades, well finally became denial. Many reasons for this difference of behaving, Ottoman society unlike Germany was based on sentimentalism, religious beliefs(Christians and Muslims(maybe more in the Muslim part)), and Ottoman society unlike Germany was more impulsive, more acting in the direct situation and less “cold”(then German society). Another fact remain is in the case of the Armenocide the killing fields were many times in front of the Muslim population, amplifying this national crisis that they wanted to forget, when in the case of the Jews the deaths were more hidden and out side of German public. Another aspect is the redistribution of Armenian belongings to others that make the admission even harder(who after all will admit to live in the house of a family that has been expulsed or killed ?)

 

Now before commenting your post about economy, I want to point out another aspect, and this, the influence of the Armenian revolutionaries(if really influence there was) in the genocide contrary to the events of 1894 and 1908 leading both to massacres, there was practically no any Armenian resistance. In fact after the Russian war of 1877-1878, the Ottoman decided to restrict gun processions by minorities, more it was for the Balkan front, but also included the Armenians, the Art. 166 of the Penal code has been introduced, but this more later then planned(since the application was difficult), and this in 1886, the Law was supposed to be introduced to every elements in the Empire, but taking in consideration the events and the restrictions imposed to minorities, the Law was not including the Muslims in the empire( some Brigand bands were included but this is about all), this leaded to secret groups in the empire arming peoples, the Tashanks have don this in their introduction, that really affected in 1892… well I told that I will not cover the events of 1894, what I will now cover is the second more intensive application of the Law that prepared the destruction of the Armenians, first of all we may point out here that after 1896 massacres, practically every Armenian revolutionary groups leaved(or were killed) Ottoman, for Russia, Europe or U.S, Now after this the massacres of 1908(with the introduction of the New government, the massacres were caused and ordered by the old factions scared that Armenians would be equal) later the second application of the Law in 1911, that in application and content was very similar to the applications of NAZI gun control Laws of April 12, 1928 and later the more intensive one on Weapons in March 18, 1938. (9) Later after the Balkan war theArmenian men that served were used to build the Rail Road Germeno-Ottoman economic plan, and later the extensive conscription in Ottoman Army. Ottoman at that period was waiting rebellions but other then Van nothing really happened, they created some. But contrary to 1894, there was practically no able bodied men left, the men were served as labour worker, first front soldiers, or used for the rail road building. Of course they were some disorganized groups etc… The most intriguing of all this thing is the letter written to Talaat by the Armenian Revolutionary union in June 5, 1915, asked what is happening and why Armenians are massacred. “Who has organized these massacres ? Who is responsible for these atrocities, which far exceed the horrors of the old regime ?” Then at the end before finishing they wrote that it was these policies that “has forced the Armenians to rise to struggle against extermination.” (10)

 

Now to continue with the lethal control, the Muslims continual arming by the government before during and even after the end of the war, and the manipulation of the government(using their religious feelings), that also participated in part on this genocide, because after the introduction of Republic, the New regime(the passage to “Kemalism” is known to be the second more lethal state of this century (11)

 

Pointing all this(that I found important to tell) I will say that your post was informative, so I will take it like this, so because of this “informative” reason, I have no disregard about it. Now I will just post you above this post the table that I talked you about, and let you comment about it. It is evident that because we started, the ideas are seam to be to big, and posts to long, but with times I think it will be easier to enter in these aspects.

 

Regards

 

 

1-Dogan Avcioglu, History of National Liberation, Istanbul, 1974, Vol. 3, p.1114

« The Liquidation of the Christian elements was determined upon in the course of deliberations which were held at the War Ministry and which lasted months. »

 

2-Fikret Adanir, Geschichte der Republik Türkei

 

3-Hilberg, the Destruction of European Jewry

"Hitler did not order the annihilation of the Jews immediately upon the outbreak of the war. Even Hitler shrank from such drastic step. Even Hitler hesitated before the 'final solution.'"

 

4-A. Refik , Iki Komite /n,8./, 23

“The criminal gangs who were released from the prisons, after a week’s training at the War Ministry’s training grounds, were sent off the Caucasian front as the brigands of the Special Organization, perpetrating the worst crimes against the Armenians… .The ittihadists intended to destroy the Armenians, and thereby to do away with the Question of the Eastern Provinces.”

 

5-Example here by A. Refik, Two Committees, Two Massacres, Istanbul 1919, p.40 « In order to justify this enormous crime the requisite propaganda material was thoroughly prepared in Istanbul. (It included such statements as) “the Armenians are in league with the enemy. They will launch an uprising in Istanbul, kill off the Ittihadist leaders and will succeed in opening up the straits [to enable the Allied fleets to capture Istanbul].” These vile and malicious incitements [were such, however, that they] could persuade only people who were not even able to feel the pangs of their own hunger. »

 

6-Takvim-i-Vekayi No. 3604. July 5, 1919, the Verdict of the Military tribunal

“Riza Bey confessed this to be a fact. The war itself was not declared with the full assent of the Council of Ministers; and it was after the step to war had been taken that Minister of Finance, Djavid Bey, Churouk Sulu Mahmoud of Postal Services, and Suleyman el Boustani Effendi, Minister of Commerce, resigned their posts. This confirms further the fact that war was not declared on the decision of the council of ministers, that such a step was decided upon by the Ittihad and Terakki Party, that that Party alone declared war.”

 

7-For example here from Halide Edib a Turkish feminist in Vakit, 22 October 1918 wrote. « We are not only recognized as a people who massacred an inoffensive population but also a people who resorted to coercion to convert the victims’ religious identity... Indeed, we tried to destroy the Armenians through methods peculiar to the Middle Ages. We are living today the saddest and darkest times of our national life. »

 

8-Taner Akçan, Türk Ulusal Kimligi ve Ermeni Sorumu (Istambul 1992) pp. 156, 161. Akçam stat that “the foundation of the edifice of the Turkish republic rest on the story of the extermination of a people…” and add that the establishment of the republic, “was largely organized by the Ittihadists … who played an extremely important role … the outfit providing its most crucial support was the Special Organisation which previously had enacted the Armenian genocide.”

 

9-From the tables of genocides and the application of Lethal Laws in Lethal Laws: Gun control is the Key to Genocide, by Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, and Alan M. Rice.

 

10-The complete letter is in Tashnak movement archives(trying to find the source), but I have here a copy from Manitoba free Press, Monday, August 16, 1915

 

11-R.J Rummel, Death by Government, lethal statistics, Figure 1,2"

[Guest Fadi]

Forget to post the table, of example of Armenian economic power.

 

A reproduction of Marcel Léart. table found in, "La question arménienne à la lumière de documents, Paris, 1913.

 

pp. 65-67

 

The reproduction come from Kévork K. Bagbdjian book “La confiscation, par le gouvernement turc, des biens arméniens dits abandonnés.”

http://www.armenocide.f2s.com/1.jpg

[MJ]

Domino,

 

I remember Pigeti, with whom we have had a brief interaction in Ararat's forum. I remember him as a very intelligent person with soft manners. If I remember correctly, he is a University of Berkley Graduate Student, right? Please give my regards to him, and feel free to invite him to our discussion board. While a lot of things that Pigeti has concluded as a result of his research don't raise any question for me, with all due respect, I have to declare that never in my life have I been able to accept the Pan-Turanism as a valid motivation or a geopolitical cornerstone of the Ottoman Turkish policy, or the policy of the Republic of Turkey in the old or even new days.

 

Of coarse, there has been such thing as Pan-Turanism. Obviously, Enver has been very hot on it. But it has not been the motivation behind the Genocide, nor it has ever been a mainstream political concept in Turkey.

 

As Pigeti himself implies, the Genocide of Armenians has been in the acts since the late 19th century, probably starting from Adana. At that time there has been no Pan-Turanism in the Turkish plate or a mention of it, if I am not mistaken. What has missed at the time has been the opportunity of its implementation. While the WWI clearly not being the reason of the Genocide, it has provided the Ottomans with the long waited opportunity to implement it.

 

In the old Armenian politology Pan-Turanism or Pan-Turkism has been absolutised and portrayed as a category explaining the Turkish policies towards Armenians. I consider this opinion to be one of incompetence (nothing to do with Pigeti) and lazyness. Sort of "if there is an easy explanation, no matter how wrong it may be, why to go for more complex ones, especially that they may not be sanctioned by the perimeters defined by the Soviet politology, and especially that we are just talking, and we don't believe ourselves in any real implications." After all, the phantom of Pan-Turanism is what has kept the Armenian "horse in the barn" for decades.

 

I have few other things to take care of, now. Have to run. Talk to you later.

[Guest Fadi]

Yes Pigeti is an intelligent person, a little to complex for simplist conversations. In the boars in question there is two Turks that discuss about the genocide, one is for simplicity, Ceyhun, and Pigeti for complexity. I will try to invite Pigeti on this board, but I don't think he will really accept. An Armenian board with a lots of topics, registration etc... and I have something to finish with him, maybe after.

 

About Pan-Turanism, if I refer to Yves Ternon, for him this is one of the main differences between the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide. The importance is that the Pan-Turanism was a suplement needed for the elimination of the Armenians, the justification needed that they didn't had before.

 

Here is some of what I wrote.

 

here one point is important, is that the Racist ideology, presented just after the Balkan war was similair to NAZI racist ideologies, this is nearly a documented facts, I know I must be more clear about this, I was supposed to answer Pigeti about this, but the Pan-Turanism, was a racistic ideology. You say why others were not also exterminated. If we take a look at the orders of events, we remark the necessity context. What I mean is that the Armenians were the major threat for the future establishment of a Turkish state. Whit their economic impact, with their dispersion all over the empire, contrary to the Greeks, to the Serbs, and other groups that were situated on a near homogenous(peoples), area’s, forming a majority on their territories, and on direct allies intervention area’s, when Armenians being dispersed in Ottoman, and also another group being on the East, and constituting a minority after the repopulations of the past, having this economic power, they were of course the first target. Other groups were targeted after, the Pontian Greeks, the Assyriano/Nestrogian communities, and to end up in the first years of the republic, the Kurds on the East, when a plan of repopulation started. Why Armenians were the first target, is like asking why the Jews were the first target. More findings and new works are don concerning and the Holocaust demystified, we remark even more similarities then before. Gilbert for example, “The Holocaust: The Jewish tragedy” When I took that book before, with other books of Gilbert, he remark that the main difference between the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide, is the Killing machines used by the NAZIst, the full scales of the event(NAZI Plan was greater then Ottoman one), and the absurdity of the ideology(for the NAZI), I was a little sad about Gilbert poor bibliography about the Armenian genocide, and his poor quality conclusions, based on poor references(understandable since it was a Holocaust book, not about the Armenian genocide) but if we take Hilberg book, “Destruction of the European Jews” that is available on the majority of the libraries, even if Hilberg don’t refer so much about the Armenian case, but what is intriguing on this work is how he demystify the event. Read it Artun, and if you don’t recall another event(the Armenians ?), then I would be very surprised. Hilberg explain in the book, how Hitler took the decision, how he was not really the one that took the decision, how the racistic exterminatrice ideology, has been exaggerated in past works, how Hitler took the decision. Why he took it ?(mixed with ideologies, military and economical necessities, remind you something ?)

 

The proof of this racistic ideology is based on the fact that Armenians were citizens of Ottoman for centuries, contrary to the Balkan Muslims, that were deported, during the independence of newly formed states, or on the East, in the case of the Circassians, after the 1829 war, between ottoman and Russia, for the territory called Circassia. The deportation of these Muslims resulted just after a period, of a changing of a territory. These peoples were not citizens of the countries(Serbia, Greece, Russia etc…) not tax payers of these countries, but they ended up of being in the hand of others. The Armenians were citizens of the Empire, they were for the most part tax payers, they were in the system for centuries, eliminating the own citizens of a country take a categorisation of peoples, an ideological plan, based on a form of racism. In the case of the Armenians, it was evident, how could we explain then the sending of the Special organisation and the army for massacres out side of Ottoman, in Persian Armenian Province for example, in Karabagh, this is very clear, Generals such as Halil, or Ihsan, sent on the East, for praticaly one aim, the linkage of the front that they were supposed to win and the Ottoman. When at the same time Armenians were massacred in all these outside front(reports of von Lüttichau, Paraquin etc… from the Eastern front). It takes a racial ideology, to deport and kill their own citizens, on the same time expending on the East, for a reason that was clear, there was ideologues such as Gokalp(convicted during the Turkish military tribunal, for his responsibility on the Armenian massacres), what about Emin, Hüseyinzade Ali the Poet, Youssouf Aktchoura, Aghaoghlou Ahmed, Hamdullah Suphi, Ali Haider, Yacub Kaderi, Halide Edip? What about the chief ideologue of the Pan-Germanism and Pan-Turanism Aklp ?

To ask why only Armenians were the only ones to be exterminated, is to not understand why the Armenians were been exterminated in the first place.

 

The prove of this racistic ideology, is the introduction of the ideologues during the formation of the state, Gokalp, Emin… (and names given above)etc… were also influencial as these ideologues of the newly formed Republic. What about Mahmut Esat Bozkurt, was he not also a racist ? Even lately a supporter of the NAZI ideologies. What about the newly formed government race theories language theories ? Of what the “Turk race is”.

 

Another thing Artun is the ideologies coming from the Caucasian “Turans”. Reminding you that one of the biggest Pan-Turanist ideologue was a Tartar.

 

All this is that you can not decide to eliminate a citizen of a state without having racial categorisation. Why these citizens ? Why not others ? For example, after that the men were separated from the family, the family in term of non-rebelious group(without men, they could not be rebellious, since men older then 13 years old were separated, and isolated,( Ottoman archive 21 N. 1333 (2 August 1915), Bâb-i Âlî, Dâhiliye Nezâreti, Emniyyet-i Umûmiyye Müdîriyyeti Sifre, Fî 20 Temmuz sene [1]331, Nâzir, Tal'at'at, BOA. DH. SFR, nr. 54-A/251 )) why choosing to sent these families(after they became inoffensive ), in the desert, and not rebellious, Kurds, Arabs, Greeks and Assyrians…(in the beginning, since later it was extended to other groups), in a term, why after being made inoffensive, they were the ones sent in the desert, and not choosing others that were still offensive ? This is a direct classification based on race. When a state choose what citizen it will kill, based on an ethnic group, it become a classification that could be compared(or is) racism. It’s evident. Also what was evident, was the stereotypes existing against Armenians at that time sponsored by the government, and this before the genocide, stereotypes, such as Armenians the “ parasite” controlling the economy, or showing openly in the medias of the period(newspapers in this case, or books), that because of the Armenians, new structuration plans in the empire are impossible, due to the Armenians, the nationalization of the economy is impossible, due to the Armenians situated on the East, the plan of unification between the Caucasian Turks and Ottoman was impossible, this intensified after the Balkan war, when the Turkish nationalism more then before, could not accept the defeats in the Balkan, would have to find an enemy an easier target, to avenge, the catastrophic defeat on the Ouest, and with the Armenians on the central of all Ottoman problems,(New economic plans, and national inspirations), stereotype against Armenians not only intensified in Ottoman but also in Germany, racism, Armenians as the main problem, “The Parasites” . The modernization theories proposed by ideologues such as Dogu Ergil and Feroz Ahmed( both placing the Armenians, as an obstacle of the new modernization plans ), dependency theories, such as dependending on the Armenians, the “Infidels” stereotyping them as the silly bisnessmen, that the Ottoman economy was passing on the hand of the Armenians, living the Turks in poverity. The ideologies were not just of a first degree, non-serious ones, they were of a true concerns, they included New world Orders, with Resat Kasaba and Çaglar Keyder(also anti-Armenians, placing the Armenians as an obstacle ).

 

Another thing is that after the Balkan war, only two important minorities in the empire were left, the Arabs and the Armenians, at that time building an empire based on a national group was very important, this are important points that could not be denied, when the important “Ittihad” branch that took the control, 90 % or more of it’s members were revolutionaries, ideologues, I just have to post their names and show it, the Young-Turk was also the first government that was nationalist, in a term the first Turkish government in Ottoman history. If it was not like the NAZI racial ideologies, it appears to be near of it.

 

 

--------------------------------------

 

Now about the Pan-Slavism etc… I think Pigeti you are not doing the difference between having ideologies and pouting these ideologies in action. I will start about the Pan-Turanism, and will try to show you what was the major difference. The founder of the Pan-Turanistic ideology was a Tartar, journalist and a political leader, Yusuf Akçura, he left his leadership in Russia, and joined the Ottoman new political movement after 1908, and participated in this revolution, he is the founder of “Türk Yurdu” the Organ of the Panturanism, with the banner “Turkish Hearth”( Türk Pcagi). He studied in Paris, about the Pan-Germanism, and the “Racial Superiority” ideologies of Germanic ideologues. He started by the first edition of the “Türk Yurdu”, quoting: “The Rulers of the universe have always been the representatives of only two great nations – Turks and Germans.” Also brought up in S.A. Zenkovsky, Pan-Turanism and Islam in Russia(Cambridge, MA, 1967), that treat “Akçurian” Movement, and the inspiration of the Caucasian Muslims to join the Ottoman revolution and expend on the East. Akçura was a known anti-Armenian, bringing the necessity to eliminate Armenia: “It is necessary to destroy Armenia which the Allies want to erect as a barrier between the two brotherly segments of Turkdom, Anatolia and the Caucasus.”(René Pinon, “L’Offensive de l’Asie” Revue des deux mondes( April 15, 1920)). Zenkovsky, note: “the massacres in 1914-1916 of one and a half million Armenians was largely conditioned by the desire of the Young-Turks to eliminate the Armenian obstacle.” Before concluding that part and show the difference, I will post also some notes. Like I stated before Tekin Alp, the Chief ideologue of the collision of Pan-Germanism and Pan-Turanism, he was the one that brought union, by bringing the supper invasion plan, giving this necessity of this collision plan to expend on “a geographical and historical necessity. The condition of the German and the Turks vis à vis the Slavic peoples has not changed in a millennium of history. They still remain the common enemy of the Slavic power and must, therefore, protect themselves against the Moscovite bear…panturanism cannot attain a full measure of fruition before the Moscowite monster is overpowered.” Here then during the declaration of the war, in the November congress, of Ittihad, they declared: It is the mid-November congress of the Ittihad party. "Let us not forget that the goal of our participation in the war is not only to save ourselves of the danger which threatens us, but that we work towards a more significant end: the achievement of our national ideal. The national ideal of our people and our party pushes us to crush the enemy and to have a natural border which would enable us to link ourselves with all our brothers of race. In addition, our religious feeling controls us to release the Moslem world of the domination of infidels... We fight for our fatherland, our religion and our national ideal." All these cotations are from Tekin Alp(the chief ideologue) Türkismus und Pantürkismus, Weimar, Kiepenheuer, 1915. All quoting this is to show you that the Pan-Turanism was an important point here over the elimination of the Armenians, you seem to not accept this, but I think I brought many references that prove my point here Pigeti.

 

Now about the differences, between the Pan-Slavism and Pan-Turanism, and were all my quotes were coming to. In the case of the Pan-Slavism, it was an ideology, that was based on expansionism of territory, but mostly based on the deportation of the peoples out side of the territory wile they were expanding. The Russian Expansionist Plan on the Caucasian front was completed before 1914, before the declaration of the war, more from reports by France and the Brits Russia was weak at that time on the Caucasian front, because of the fact that after taking many Ottoman territory, they were not interested to expand(on the Caucasian front) because that, at that time there was, the concept of nationalism becoming more important, with the Muslims, Ottoman was the one that declared war against Russia, lets me remind you this Pigeti, Russia was not interested to that war. Russia was in no way inspired with the Pan-Slavism on the Caucasian front, simply because there was no Slavic people on the territories they could try to invade(on the Caucasian front I mean), there is another difference with the Pan-Turanism that was different then the Pan-Slavism, and even the Pan-Germanism, is that the Pan-Turanism was not only based on an expansion of territory and control of it, but also, of a concept of “Race linkage” a “Turania”(Gokalp, one of the principal ideologue, that even continued in the newly formed republic, and was also convinced during the tribunal). The territories based on the Turania were not only territorial expansion but also for the peoples that lived there as “brothers of blood”. When the Pan-Slavism ideology(in the case of the Russians) was mainly an expansionist ideology, here I am not talking about the Balkans and the Serbs.

 

More in the case of the Armenians, it was very different, because the Armenians, from the Turanian ideologues, were the obstacle for the formation of the newly empire, were the Turks would have the control of the economy, and also the geographical obstacle, when in the case of the Pan-Slavism that was mainly an expansionist plan, it was just forced deportation of Muslims, out side of the territory, when this would have nothing to change, since the economy was at the hand of the Russians, and the Muslims already got no any impact over it, so the ideology had less “Raison d’être”. And the massacres were not taken just “à la hate” but was decided for months, like Avcioglu note, or also what about Mehmed Cherif *****, that was for the first years of the Young-Turk, a part of the government, when he left the government, discovering that the Young-Turks were not interested to carry up the reforms, and had other secret ideologies, he then formed the “The Liberal party”. When he stat: “To be sure, the state of mind of the Unionists was not revealed to the civilized world until they had openly taken sides with Germany; but for more than six years I have been at exposing them in the Mecheroutiette (his newspaper, published first in Constantinople and then in Paris) and indifferent journals and reviews, warning France and England of the plot against them and against certain nationalities within the Ottoman borders, notably the Armenians, that was being hatched.” Interviewed published in many Journals like(New York Times October 10, 1915 (II-19:3,4), for example). He escaped since he was the target of the Young-Turk government that tried to kill him many times.

Now about the Pan-Slavism being responsible of the Pan-Turanism etc… mostly I agree with you on this one. It is also true that the Pan-Slavism preceded the Pan-Turanism(but wondering what this has to do with the Armenian genocide). Ismail Besikci, like I refered before also accuse on the Russians and the Germans about the Pan Turanism/ Pan-Turkism, the "genocide... was the result of an undertaking in which German imperialism, in a collision course with Russian imperialism ...enabled the Ittihadists to solve the Armenian question by spurring Turkism and panturanism."( Ismail Besikci, Kürdistan Üzerinde Emperyalist Bölüsüm Mücadelesi, vol. 1 Ankara, 1992 p.88 – 101). I agree with this Pigeti, and quoted in my past post, I wonder why you repeated this, like I didn’t accept it. The chief ideologue of the collision of the Pan-Turanism and Pan-Germanis, etc… and their plan were made up after all by the Pan-Germanism, and the territory taken by Russia before WWI, were after all a result of the Russian imperialism, these are evidences, I don’t understand why you open this evident subject ? What I mean is that I don’t understand why you open subjects and have to prove it, when I already pointed out this by quoting works in the past. I just have to post ideologues, like Wallerstein world theories, that was one of the center of the Pan-Germanism that inspired the Pan-Turanism. But what all this has to do, with the Armenian genocide ? As the Armeno-Ottoman problems, the final solution etc… ? What I mean is that you can not bring out-side references, were one of the two element miss(the Armenians in this case), what I mean is that, the Pan-Slavism, Pan-Germanism etc… were an important part of the “Race” concept over the Turks, that brought the emergence of the Pan-Turanism, but it has nothing to do with the Armenians themselves, and the new era of their nationalism that was a result of the French revolution, that was also responsible of the Turkish nationalism, that intensified when the first real Turkish government took the power for the first time(1908). It is good to use scientific methodology to analyse these concepts etc… but sometimes we must cut some thing, for example, in science, we cut some things, for example we know that an element exist, the existence of this element and it’s origin is very difficult to trace back, but we know that this element exist, for sure and we can work with this. In the same way we know that the Pan-Turanism exist(even if you seem to deny it’s real impact over the genocide), we just have to prove it exist, and when we go further, of the why it exist, we can go so much further that we will end up of completely changing the subject at the end. For this we should make conclusions over elements cause and effects etc… but not exaggerating by bringing elements that are not in the real sphere, on the “cosmos” of the event. And then after this, we could study other things sucg as the Muslim suffering, and the why. I don,t understand why this should be pout in the sphere of the Armenians genocide, when these two events were completely different, by the way of it’s actions, and the plan, premeditation, all the structural implication, like the special organisation, implication of physician etc… that was an establishment of a killing system, that was only comparable to the Holocaust. This is what I mean Pigeti, by this, like Israel Charny’ encyclopedia of Genocide making the image of what was in WWI with the Armenians was in WWII to the Jews. "The Armenian genocide occurred under the circumstances of the Turkish revolution and the First World War, "while the Holocaust was a product of the Nazi revolution and the Second World War." This is what it is the fondement, the Armenian genocide is the second more studied genocide, and also considered the one that has the closes parallel with the Holocaust, like also mentioned by Holocaust specialists such as Yahuda Bawer etc… Now imagine that we ask to search about the Holocaust, and we end up of talking about the deportation of Germans from Soviet Union, the Pan-Bolshevism that killed so much Germans, the allies bombings is German cities, the mass rapes of German womens, and finaly the brake doing of Germany into two piece etc… one will pose the question, yes but what all this thing has to do with the Holocaust. This is the point I am trying to make Pigeti. If we talk about German suffering O.K lets go, but not, titling it Holocaust and go so further as ending up with the millions of Germans that died, that has nothing to do, with a premedited, plan, of extermination, with redirection of peoples, anti-emigration plans waiting Germany borders and all the territories covered by the 3rd Reich etc. When in the case of the Germans, it was a mass expulsion of them waiting all Europe and Soviet Union, and not an anti-emigration plan destinated to redirect and exterminate them. I think in this case, I and all the structural well documented(yes well documented) events, there could not be any question of the fact that the Armenian genocide like the Holocaust were very distinct of the majority of other events that happened in this century, from the ideology and the way that it happened, and all the premeditation, and the economical plans of nationalization(engaged by the NAZI like the Young-Turk government)

[Guest Fadi]

Note, when I say Citizen, it's not the proper term used for now. I would better used Subject or Milleti.

[MJ]

Domino,

 

 

I will just say that, I hope admittedly, Yves Ternon is not the highest authority in these issues, as much as we may recognize him as a great humanist and intellectual.

 

As the Pan-Turanism was concerned, it has been just a peripheral (not in terms of its geography but its weight) political concept in Ottoman Turkey. In what way might’ve it been a “supplement?” They had the decision to eliminate Armenians, and all they were missing was a political outlook for the future expension of Turkey? The WWI has provided them with the perfect “supplement” that was missing. The Ottoman Empire was crumbling, and they were trying to save it. What you suggest means that under the tremendous misery that the Turkish nation or the Turkish State was at the time, when fighting almost the entire world, they were planning further expansion of the Empire? I find it very hard to defend such thesis.

 

As to the rest of your material, I agree with some of your arguments, and disagree with some others. But I am not going to negate what I disagree with it, since there are enough members in the forum who might have a vested interest in its negation, and they can do it. I don’t have such interest in it.

[Guest Fadi]

Accualy I posted them here to have critics, this was the goal of it. As for Pan-Turanism, I really think it was a supplement needed, not only to start the genocide, but at the end phase of it, and the other "mini-genocide" plans out side of the Ottoman territory.

 

I absolutly agree with you that the WWI was the supplement they needed also, but I like better to class it as the cover of the genocide, something needed for the covering of the crime.

 

Even if it would have been foolish to think of a pan-Turanistic plan, when they were attacked from many sides etc... the Ottoman government was also foolish at that time. I could also remind you that Hitler absurd ideologies also were foolish. The Ottoman at that time being the only Muslim Empire, and the only True Islamic power, had in his hand the fate of Millions of Muslims not only in the Empire but also outside of the Empire, when these Turks and Muslims outside of the Empire were the ones that brought out the Pan-Islamism and Pan-Turanism in the empire, mixed with the hate of the Muslims in the West(Balkans) that were just being pushed outside.

 

We can know this with the continuity of the war on the East, Envers letters to Karabekir, in order to attack Armenia, Karabekir memoires and speaches about the continuity of the attacks, in order to link the East with Ottoman. In the beginning it was maybe not evident, but at the end of the war, Ottoman troups in Karabagh, Baku, Persia etc... it was evident what was tried.

 

From were the critic may be. I'm waiting ;-)

[MJ]

I really don’t see in what way that doctrine was needed or has served the execution of the Genocide. Armenians of the Ottoman Empire in no way have been an obstacle for the allege program of Pan-Turanists, they have been too week, they have been too loyal, too disorganized, and an absolute minority in Anatolia. What one might’ve theoretically considered obstacle on the way of Pan-Turanists might’ve been the Eastern Armenia, which on such capacity didn’t even exist at the time – it was part of the Russian Empire.

I also don’t see why do you claim the Ottoman Turkish government was foolish. I think it is a bad argument. You judge about the foolishness or the wisdom of a government by its accomplishments. And the facts came to show that they accomplished the tasks at their hands, and even after being brought down to their knees they turned the tables around. As a matter of fact, they might be considered one of the cases studies of the most successful regimes of the last century, no matter how criminal.

I am also not aware of any serious Pan-Islamist movements –neither historically nor in modern days. Sure there have always been such conversations, but it has had or has as much chances or perhaps less, as a pan-Christian movement.

The religion has been of no interest to Ittehat, and if Armenians were even Buddhist, their destiny was defined for quite some time. The religion was only a mechanism of identification of different groups of people, since in Islamic societies people, at least traditionally, have been identified by their religion and not by their ethnicity.

And in general, I always am very skeptical of any pan-Xism movements and doctrines. I don’t think that any pan-Xist movements in history have had any adequate weight - let it be pan-Turanism, pan-Islamism, pan-Slavism or pan-Armenianism. Or should I say pan-Aryanism? Things are more concrete in history, and less universal, and no one wants to voluntarily surrender sovereignty (except perhaps some Armenian political parties ).

[Guest Fadi]

I tend to desagry ;-)

 

Ottoman was the inniciator of the war, by bombing the Russian navy and using brigand bands in Russian territories, that resulted of the declaration of the war.

 

Martin how you explain General Halil missions on the East out side of Ottoman territories, and after joined by Karabekir ? How you explain the preparation of Azeris, in order to attack Armenia from the other part ? Even if Armenians were minorities, and because of that they were not really an obstacle, here it is not only a question of numbers, but also a question of controles. The Armenians had an important control over the economy, out side of Ottoman, there was the Russian Armenians, in the Caucasus the Armenians were around 1,8 million (From Russian official statistics), so there is not only the Armenians in Ottoman there is after this. I think the plan was more complex, starting with the most vunerable Armenians, the easiest to elliminate, these are the ones in the Ottoman, returning the Armenian economical power in the hand of the Turks, then the next Target the Russian Armenia, the Karabagh mission by Halil and Karabekir are examples of this, I think. Are you questioning Dadrian conclusions ;-) You were not the one in the forum in the past saying Dadrian is a great searcher(or something like this ?) ? And more what about the Ittihad congress of Nov. 1914, the congress of the goal of the war declaration that was to cruch the enemy and to link themselves with their "brothers of blood" ?

 

Foolishness, what prevent a fool of being intelligent ? When I said fool, I meant about the action of the East, it was foolish I think, even if it succeded. Maybe for this part I may be wrong, but I'll kip my Pan-Turanistic hypotheses because for me it explain many things not explained without of it, and Dadrian conclusions about it makes for me a lots of sens I may change mind if you bring me other arguments, after all only fools don,t change mind right ? (Ah, my argument of Ittihad being foolish makes sens here no ? Ittihad even after the problems, they didn't changed mind of exterminating the Armenians, I may have a poit here no ? )

[MJ]

Dear Domino,

 

In this forum it is allowed to disagree – even with the arguments of the moderators. But not with their disciplinary actions.

 

I don’t think that anybody denies that Turkey itself has made the decision to enter the WWI. What does it prove about pan-Turanism?

 

I don’t know who has been General Hallil’s mission in East. Perhaps, you could share with me and others? Then, maybe, I would be able to express opinions.

 

Let’s assume that your arguments about the strength of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire are correct. How do they imply necessity of the pan-Turanist doctrine, and how that pan-Turanism would’ve helped to curtail Armenians’ presumed strength?

 

I indeed respect Dadrian. I have met him several times at different occasions, and have spoken to him even two days ago over the phone. I am very impressed by his immense knowledge, his iron logic and his energy for his age.

 

Additionally, I am very far from being a Genocidologist, or a historian for that matter. Moreover, to be frank with you, I have only peripheral interest in the subject of Genocide Studies. So, I wouldn’t claim any expertise. But I try to filter out emotions out of my conclusions, and if I would be wrong in something (if I realize it), I would change my opinion momentarily. However, with all this said, if any argument of Dadrian is not convincing to me, I wouldn’t hesitate to question it.

 

And since you have decided to use the “Dadrian’s authority” argument, let me tell you that I have never heard him to even use the word “Pan-Turanism.” Additionally, I have not come across that term in those of his articles that I have read. But since you have come across his usage of that term or argument, please be more specific, provide us with his exact wording and references.

 

From my side, I would like to refer you to one of his most fundamental works, the electronic version of it, unfortunately, is not available to me. Here is is:

Genocide as a Problem of National and International Law: The World War I

Armenian Case and its Contemporary Remifications

Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 14, No. 2

 

I would strongly recommend this {334 page+Appendices+Bibliography} publication to you as one of the most fundamental publication on the subject.

 

While reading this large material, unless my eyes have skipped over it, I have not come across a single mention of a “pan-“ word.

Instead, here is what Dadrian writes in the section “A. The Legal-Political Context” of the Chapter II of the refered above work:

 

“Evidence suggests that Turkey’s entry into World War I was substantially influenced by a desire to create a suitable opportunity to resolve once and for all certain lingering domestic conflicts. The recent literature analyzing the problem of genocide is replete with discussions recognizing this historical fact. Several of this discussions singled out the 1894-96 Abdul Hamit-era massacres as a historical antecedent of contemporary issues of genocide, while others focus on the World War I massacres.”

 

Upon request, I will provide you and others with the references he provides (it’s a long list – spare my effort please ), all of which, by the way, are European and American sources of the period 1946-1988.

 

If you force me, I will provide more evidence to support my statements even based on Dadrian’s own arguments, as much as I would hate to sit here and retype from his work the necessary material. But don’t do it please. It hearts my neck to look left-and-right while typing.

[Guest]

MJ

Your understanding of era seems to be somewhat more realistic.

Ittihat & Terakki Party members were originally meant to reform the ailing system of the ottoman's.

Unfortunately very soon there was a split between the members in relation to the question of pan-turanizm i.e Kizil Elma.

 

While certain members were in favour of elimination of the christian population from the new system of power - to - come others were sceptical & unwilling to even consider such an approach.

 

The Ottoman empire's last dying years were populated by spies & counter spies.

 

The " Sick Man of Bosphorous " was to be carved out for the allied forces.

 

Under these circumstances , most minority christian millet were harrassed by ottoman irregulars.

 

To have a main plan to exterminate armenians in the east might of been the policy of certain factions within the ittihat & terrakki party's agenda.

 

Coupled with the fact that re-location was viewed as an opportunity to take revenge on marching armenian millet.

 

As you are aware Ali Suat has shed some light on that issue on this forum.

 

To think that the ittihat terakki planned & executed 1.500.000 people and manage to do it without leaving any paper trail or any other kind of solid collobarating evidence ... do I need to remind you the burocratic traditions that were in place at the time?

We are talking about Ottoman's here !!!

The very people who have obsessively documented & archived everything they ever did.

 

In 16. century , when the richest library of the west i.e Rome had approx. 25.000 indivisual documents , at the same time Ottomans had approx. 1.8 million documents in their library.

For centuries Ottoman's have recorded everthing from at least 2 or 3 different sources.

Some how Ottoman's manage to commit the worlds first alleged genocide and furthermore they have done it in a way that has left no evidence other then the newspaper reports.

 

And they did it while they were in a perpetual war against at least 2 or 3 different fronts.

 

WAW what an organization they must of had at their disposal to achieve this.

 

The explanation is more likely to be found by simply asking to anatolian peasants.

[MJ]

Circassian,

 

I am tired tonight. It is past 11:00 pm, here. Don't have the energy to reply in details. (Domino has consumed it all. )

 

All I would like to tell you at this time is that your arguments are based on several false premises. Most importantly the one on the Ottomans not leaving any paper trail behind. Neither you nor I have had access to the Ottoman Archives. Additionally, we don't have the inventory count of those archives in terms of the numbers of the paper-shredders.

 

But believe me, there are preserved documents (for example the materials of the Turksih courts with their verdicts against some of the perpetrators of the Genocide), and enormous collaborating evidence.

 

The primary collaborating evidence is us, however. And there is much more. So bare with us.

 

Let me have some rest tonight, and hopefully, this topic may be picked up tomorrow.

[MJ]

Hey, it is a torture to type 9 letters every time I have to pronounce your name. Besides, it sounds sort of Armenian, wouldn't you agree? Could you think of something shorter

 

Given the popularity of the name MJ these days, how about a variation of it? Say, C-MJ ?

[MJ]

Unfortunately very soon there was a split between the members in relation to the question of pan-turanizm i.e Kizil Elma.

 

Why unfortunately?

 

While certain members were in favour of elimination of the christian population from the new system of power - to - come others were sceptical & unwilling to even consider such an approach.

 

Probably. But those at the executive branch of power were for the elimination, as the subsequent facts came to show, right?

The Ottoman empire's last dying years were populated by spies & counter spies.

 

What’s strange about it or what’s new there? Wasn’t the same in Russia, Germany, Britan?

 

The " Sick Man of Bosphorous " was to be carved out for the allied forces.

 

Did you mean to use the expression “Sick man of Europe?”

 

Under these circumstances , most minority christian millet were harrassed by ottoman irregulars.

 

Just the irregulars? Besides, to call it harassment is about the same as to call the Tomahawk missiles devices for cultivating the soil for agricultural purposes.

 

To have a main plan to exterminate armenians in the east might of been the policy of certain factions within the ittihat & terrakki party's agenda.

 

I have already addressed this issue above. How about the Armenians in the Western provinces, by the way? And don’t you think that in 1939 there were a lot of high-ranking civilian and military figures in Germany against the extermination of the Jews or starting the WWII, for example?

 

Coupled with the fact that re-location was viewed as an opportunity to take revenge on marching armenian millet.

 

Marching Armenian millet? When and where has this happened, and which Armenian millets have marched [against the Ottoman Empire, I presume]?

 

As you are aware Ali Suat has shed some light on that issue on this forum.

 

I do indeed remember what Ali has shed light on. But I have understood him very differently, somehow. And I wish Ali was back to indeed shed light on this and on other issues he had started doing in such an intriguing manner.

 

To think that the ittihat terakki planned & executed 1.500.000 people and manage to do it without leaving any paper trail or any other kind of solid collobarating evidence ... do I need to remind you the burocratic traditions that were in place at the time?

We are talking about Ottoman's here !!!

The very people who have obsessively documented & archived everything they ever did.

In 16. century , when the richest library of the west i.e Rome had approx. 25.000 indivisual documents , at the same time Ottomans had approx. 1.8 million documents in their library.

For centuries Ottoman's have recorded everthing from at least 2 or 3 different sources.

Some how Ottoman's manage to commit the worlds first alleged genocide and furthermore they have done it in a way that has left no evidence other then the newspaper reports.

 

I have partially addressed this statement of yours before. Additionally, as a matter of logic and methodology, it is easier to claim that “a paper-trail exists,” rather than “there is no paper-trail.” How did you come to this conclusion, btw?

 

And they did it while they were in a perpetual war against at least 2 or 3 different fronts.

 

It doesn’t take much might to slaughter peasants – primarily their women, elderly and children, right?

 

The explanation is more likely to be found by simply asking to anatolian peasants.

 

And what would they say?

 

P.S. Sorry for the Question&Answer tone of this memo. I haven’t gotten into the mode of writing essays this morning, yet.

[Guest Fadi]

Martin, don't forget that I also told that the Pan-Turanist was supplement. I do agree with the fact that the war was engaged to create an opportunity to resolve some internal conflicts. The Pan Turanist was supplement needed for the justification of the extermination. Now you refer to "Genocide as a Problem of National and International Law: The World War I

Armenian Case and its Contemporary Remifications Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 14, No. 2" Living in Canada for me it was not possible to obtain this work, since it's from an American Journal, and not a book, so I have to buy it in order to be abble to read it. But I could also refer you to a work by Dadrian that is about Pan-Turanism. “United and Independent Turania, Aims and Designs of the Turks.” By Dadrian, I tried to have access to this work without success, but I think the title say much about it.

 

Now about Halil Mission, it was to orginise at the East, Azeris troups, in places such as Karabagh, to exterminate the Armenians there, and trying to pass from the other front a troup for linkage to Ottoman. Karabekir had similair missions at the end. If the Pan-Turanism was not really considerable, I don,t think that the allies would have asked a Garantee to Ataturk that he would no have any Pan-Turanistic idea's.

 

Another prove of these excursions is the Mission on Persian front and the elimination of the Armenians in the Persian Armenian province, if we take a present Map of Turkey we see that the frontier pass from Armenia to Nachikevan, the exact roots of the Eastern missions of linkage with Azerbaijan.

 

As for Dadrian, his book "The History of the Armenian genocide" that I have it scanned (shuuuuu.... don,t tell it to Dadrian ), he talk about the Pan-Turanism, and inspirations of Halil, Karabekir and others.

 

Now for economic, why this has to do with Pan-Turanism, I think it don't have to do much, but we can not tell it was not an influence. Armenians having all this economic control, even if Ottoman would not decide to invade, only the extermination of the Armenians is a little Pan-Turkism, just the fact of giving the Armenians economic power in the hand of the Turks, are repopulating Armenian area's with Turks, in a term "Turkey for the Turks" this is a "Turkism" and the other plan of after giving the power in the hand of the Turks, now unite with the brothers of blood, a "Turania"

 

For me the genocide had two stade, the first one was about the "Turkism" and the elimination of Ottoman Armenians for this, second the Pan-Turanism, that would result of the elimination of the Armenians of the Caucasus, the second plan didn't succeded well, but only taking the letters of Enver and Talaat from Berlin to Karabekir, we see that after the mission of eliminating compleated, they had a mission of linkage. If not then what Karabekir and Halil troups were doing in the other front trying to link the Azeris with the Ottoman ?

 

Circassian talk about a supposed 1,8 million, typical of him of bringing something without references, and he say it was recorded from many sources, what he fail to remark is that, contrary to other archives the Turkish republic pre-Republic archives(Ottoman) are writen in another script, and the persons in charge of translating them are diplomats, and any other person don,t have access to these critic files. I heard from a Turk that the Turkish military after war tribunal files will be relieced, translated and computurise it, funny since the original Ottoman script version is still absent, and it is very unlikly that the originals will be relieced anytime soon, since in these files there is many significant proves, like the fact that Armenian childrens were killed by injecting them with morphins, drowned, or that the Ittihad plan was to exterminate the Armenians. Just supposedly reliecing an translated version prouve itself that the Turkish government really forge documents, since it would be very surprising that these translated versions will talk of any injection by morphins etc...

[Guest]

What evidence you have for your outrages claims ?

Just forgeries as usual.

Has it ever occurred to you that the reason as why the ottoman archives are not fully opened has nothing to do with armenians?

 

Domino you have managed to agitate & make enemies of any turk you have come a cross on www.turkey.com , shall I just leave this forum so that all the armenians can just talk one another .

 

MJ

 

You are saying that the evidence is you i.e the armenian people.

Well in anatolia we also have some survivors who also testify that the armenian irregulars were engaged in massacering of local turks/kurds/cherkes/afhsar,arab i e nonchristian local population.We also have eyewitnesses and surivivors of these attroticies.

What shall we do with those people who have suffered at the hand of " armenian freedom fighters or bandits depending on your point of view.

 

As to the Domino & his outrages lies,distortions & forgeries , he is not the armenian that is going to represent you in these discussions.

I am afraid he would be sooo provocative to my side , no one would ever engage with him.

 

[ May 12, 2001: Message edited by: circassian ]

[MJ]

Domino,

 

Sorry, but I don’t see the logical connection. What kind of justification did the Ittihat need to exterminate Armenians? Who were trying it to justify to? Azeris, Turkmen? Kazakhas?

 

I think you should be able to fund the Yale Journal of International Law in the Law School Library of your University. Otherwise, you can request it through the Interlibrary Loan program. Just talk to the Reference Desk of your School Library.

 

I am not familiar with “United and Independent Turania, Aims and Designs of the Turks.” If you could provide us with the conclusions of that article, and be as precise in its wording as possible, I would appreciate it. If you can scan it and send it to Garo, I hope Garo would find time to post it somewhere in the forum.

 

At different times Turks, Russians, Brits have tried to organize Azeri troops. In my view it has not had much to do with Armenia, but with a desire to dismantle Iran. Overall, I am having a little hard time to follow your arguments on pan-Turansim.

Could you bring some dates of the expedition of Hallil, and be as factual as you can? I don’t know the details of his expedition. The way you communicate it may be good for someone who already know what you are referring to, but not for those who don’t know.

You can also send Garo the chapters of Dadrian’s book you mention on the subject of pan-Turanism.

Again, I don’t see what the extermination of Armenians had to do with pan-Turanism. Armenians were a growing headache for the Ottomans in the context of preserving Anatolia not in the context of expending the Empire.

“For me the genocide had two stade, the first one was about the "Turkism" and the elimination of Ottoman Armenians for this, second the Pan-Turanism, that would result of the elimination of the Armenians of the Caucasus, the second plan didn't succeded well, but only taking the letters of Enver and Talaat from Berlin to Karabekir, we see that after the mission of eliminating compleated, they had a mission of linkage. If not then what Karabekir and Halil troups were doing in the other front trying to link the Azeris with the Ottoman ? – Domino.”

Somehow, I don’t see where does Russia come-in in your passage referenced above. Does the new Russian policy in Caucasus and the importation of the World Revolution to the shores of Mediterranean have any place in your arguments?

Additionally, I think that is his responsibility of Circassian to support his arguments with facts, and it is our responsibility to support with facts whatever we say.

 

And the story about the morphine, in my eyes, doesn’t add or diminish to any degree the criminality of the intent and the execution. What difference does it make if children are killed as a result of injection of morphine or by putting a hole in the scull? Less arguments like this we use, more to the point we would be, I think.

[MJ]

Circassian,

Follow our footsteps. Document the Armenian atrocities, put them in context, and present it to the attention of suitable parties and organizations.

For the sake of the success of the discussion in this forum, please formulate your allegations more precisely. For example, be more specific about the scale of the Armenian atrocities, the source of those atrocities, who was behind them, their targeted aim, the context of these atrocities, etc.

If Armenians have done atrocities, which at least theoretically speaking might've happened, many of us wouldn't feel proud of it, believe me.

[Guest Fadi]

Dates.

 

Halil excursions in Karabagh on April 1920, and his report to Karabekir about the execution of the Armenians in Karabagh.

 

The order of Karabekir to the 3rd division of the army courps in April 28

 

"The aim of all Turks is to unite with the Turkic borders. History is affording us today the last opportunity. In order for the Islamic world not to be forever fragmented it is necessary that the campaign against Karabagh be not allowed to abate. As a matter of fact drive the point home in Azeri circles that the campaign should be pursued with greater terror and severity."( source: Karabekir, Istiklâl Harbimiz/n.2/, p. 631)

 

Lets me remind you that Halil and Karabekir were considerated as the Suprem generals of the Eastern front.

 

Here some quotes from Halil reported by General Paraquin.

 

"Let us push to Turestan; there I will found the new empire for my little Genghis."

 

the quoe was said during the invasion of Armenia as a plan of linkage with the East, the German reports also say the same. I could refer you to others if you want.

 

What about General A.Ihsan ?

 

About the book about the Pan-Turanism I said I was not able to access to the work, but the work title indicate the content of it. I am searching it without any success.

 

Martin I am not saying that the Pan-Turanist was the REASON of the extermination, what I am saying is that it became a reason, and that it also became a suplement, more for the continuation and the outside Ottoman Armenians remove. But the Turkism itself was the prime reason, "Turkey for the Turks" Avioglu pout it in the hand of the nationalisation of the economy, a conclusion of this is that without the elimination of the Armenians the nationalisation of the economy was impossible, a nationalisation that turned against the Armenians and become more, the Turkification of economy, that extended, and became a reaction.

 

For Russian policy in the Caucasus, it could have an impact, but here, because of the fact that the war has been engaged by Ottoman by bombing the Russian Navy, it would be difficult to accuse the Russians of the actions made by Ottoman.

 

Now that Circassian has gave a link(a bad idea for him) he will possibly not come here anymore, since some juicy attacks against Armenians are present there. As for forgeries etc... Circassian already forged illegaly an entire work by changing words on it, so I think he is very bad plassed to talk of any forging.

 

Now Martin about Morphin injected, for me it makes a difference, conserning the premeditation and the structural plan of the extermination, when you use injections mass drowning of orphans, burning gates etc... the killing by its action become without dought a prepedited action, when you killed with injection thousands of childrens you can not alleg that they were don by brigand bands by accident etc... since the injection was don in Red Croissante hospitals, by doctors.

[MJ]

This is what I was asking for. Now, what does it have to do with the Genocide? By this date, the Genocide was already a done deal, right? It has continued beyond this date in some ways only in Cilicia, right?



So what? If this is what they say in 1920, and in 1921 they sign a treaty of accord with Russia, what's the importance of all this noise? Sure, Enver was still fighting against the Russians in the Asian front. Was it on behalf of Turkey, or was it his fix idea? Or maybe after committing the Genocide, and being condemned, he had found a safe refuge in the Asian front, and had become a local warlord?



Domino, with all due respect, it is evident that you have never studied and you don't know the history of our First Republic (1918-1920/21), and you don’t know anything about the new Turkish expedition in 1920 and the parties inspiring, financing and supporting it.



What's new about this link? I have always known about it, though have never visited. I can imagine what the tone of discussions may be there. But many of our Armenian Forums wouldn't be much different from it, right? Or do you mean just because we have been the victims of the Genocide, it is allowed to us to be *******s (forgive my French), but not them?



Domino, who is arguing the premeditation? Had it not been our position that the killings of Armenians, including children, had been premeditated on the state level, why would we pursue it in the "Genocide" category?

[Guest]

MJ

 

Thank you for your considerate reply.

 

Many of the evidence I am referring to is me sitting down in a cafehouse in a village and asking the elders what happened to the

" Armenians ".

 

When I say that these people are testifiying to certain events in the past , i also mean that their pictures & stories are published on major turkish newspapers - which in my opinion has had a negative effect to whatever harmony the turkish people had within turkey's borders.

 

I will try to get some of those links for people who are reading this discussion.

 

At the same time , i would like to state as to why I started to come here.

 

I am a third generation refugee from circassia. I was born in turkey and lived there till 1988. Nowadays I am a european citizen & live in UK or any other european countury if I choose to do so.

I can not live in my home land yet.

 

My aim is to find an acceptable solutions to the problems of our countries by dialog.

Admitting to a genocide of armenians by ottomans is not something that an indivisual can choose to do.

 

It is the matter of our governments respected departments jobs to make sure the i's are dotted & t's are crossed.

 

For me your acknowledment of my people's suffering is enough for me to acknowledge the suffering of your ancestors.

 

This should be the base for mutual ground.

Indivisuals are not obliged to hate one another; on the contrary we are empowered by loving one another.

(loving Domino could be delegated to you happily , i don't think I am cut out for it.)

Realistic proposal to our problems are what I am searching & that is why I am here.

 

I would rather talk about the possible future in which everybody has a winning stake in what's to be created.

 

best regards

[MJ]

Domino,

 

I see no point in this argument. After all, we are not deciding Armenia’s fortune here, right?

 

Just for clarity, I have not said there hasn’t been such thing as pan-Turanism. I have just considered that it has been taken way out of proportion by some historians, as well as by you, and it has been the main doctrine of Armenian enslavement in the post 1920 history. Again, I find it not only a pointless argument as it concerns you and me, but in general, I find it as one of the biggest misinterpretations of the history and the causations of the events in the Turko-Armenian front. I probably wouldn’t like to add anything to this.

 

I would like to also add that if we were to take serious all the speeches given in all political congresses, clubs, and fundraising “barahandesner,” then we could’ve explained the events of the period subject to discussion in the context of “tsovits-tsov Hayastan.”

As to the attacks, no I haven’t meant you. But you and all of us know perfectly well that my remarks were valid, right?

 

 

Circassian,

 

Note that my acknowledgement is of a conditional character. I will acknowledge anything which corresponds to the truth - no matter politically how inexpedient. But first, I have to be clearly told what is it that I have to be acknowledging.

 

[ May 12, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[levonyeshilian]

Circassian,

Who are you a Turk or a Circassian?

If you ever live in Germany will you introduce yourself as a German and defend Nazis?

I know the Circassians are strange people.For example the Circassians in Jordan are more Arab nationalist than an ordinary Arab.Why's it like that?

[Guest]

MJ

 

I have noted your reply & understood what you mean.

I have nothing to hide and I have no hidden agenda.

My desire to have peace is what is motivating me.

You have asked for bit more information about me; there is not much to say .

 

I am your typical caucasian ; tall , dark & handsome.

 

There lives approx. 350 million in europe , I am just one of them. I like cohesion & peace. I dislike current affairs of the world & system in which we all are living.

 

In reality Future is what interests & motivates me . History & politics are neccessary evils that needs to be repelled before the economical transformation can truely begin on our globe.

 

Trust is a rare commodity that is badly needed by all people around the world , i would like to think myself as part time trust broker.

Also like to add one more think that is bound to come out anyway.. if I lived in turkey , i would once again be the greywolf that i once was.

 

if you find me quite contradictory ; I understand.

[Guest]

Levon

 

I guess i am what you call a global human that does not see the nationality as you seem to see it.

 

I currently have 3 citizenships & can choose to live & work pretty much all around the world.

 

If I lived in germany would I be defending the germans against jews ?

 

Levon

I have german in my family , they are jews & aryans. Two of my cousins are married to two german guys and have kids that call me uncle.

 

 

I also have Jordanian in my family too !!!

I also have american jews in my family too !!

 

In fact thankx to our unspoken tragedy , i now have 168 living members of my family all over the world.

 

We all came from that 6 year old boy who landed in trabzon in last century.

 

I don't think you are reading me right here.

If you & I were in turkey today ; it would be the likes of me who would fight your corner (whatever that might be) against those who would want to kill you.(probably would make more enemies then i would ever need in the process too)

 

Why are you having difficulty understanding circassians ? Have you ever had any circassian in turkey mistreat you ?