History Of The Dashnak Party

[MJ]

If there where no other examples, the last post might've successfuly been used as case studies for falsifications of history. Given that there are enough such examples, though, it mey be let go... Edited September 24, 2003 by MJ

[Artsakh]

knight of armenia posted:

 

And did you say that the Dashnaks surrendered Kars and Ardahan to the TURKS in 1920? At least read your history before you accuse! The Dashnaks surrendered to the SOVIETS, who then gave the land to the turks. Christ, you're mixing up your accusations! Did you COMPLETELY forget the Russkies in all of this?!

 

armenia was turned over to the soviets on dec 2, 1920. thus, armenia is already soviet. as the russian troops are on the way to secure armenias borders from turkish agression, on dec. 3, ALEXANDER KHATISIAN, the dashnak beaurea head, signed over kars and ardahan to the turks through the treaty of alexandrople.

[MJ]

This thread resembles a pileup of falsifications. Maybe it is symbolic for the title of the thread...

[KnightOfArmenia]

If there where no other examples, the last post might've successfuly been used as case studies for falsifications of history. Given that there are enough such examples, though, it mey be let go...

 

Considering that you already call my post a case study "for falsifications of history," you're concession that "it mey [sic] be let go" isn't quite magnanimous. I actually got into a debate with a turk where this tactic was used; "even though the Genocide never happened and it was the Armenians that killed turks and muslims, I'm willing to concede the point in order to end the argument," were the words he used. My response, quite logically, was that, by putting in the first part that repeated the point he was trying to assert, the following concession isn't actually a concession, but rather an attempt to end further responses to shoot down his point by calling an end to the debate. To put the quote in another way, it's an opinionated baiting followed by a closing of the argument; quite simply, "you are stupid, now let's stop arguing about it."

 

That aside, the Republic of Armenia had no heavy industry or infrastructure; it had served as a battleground between Ottoman and Russian forces in the Great War, which had just ended in 1917 (for Russia, anyway), and these years of conflict had reduced any infrastructure in the area to waste. Furthermore, the Ottoman Empire's heavy industry, including armament-producing factories, were in the West, in Constantinople and the more urban centers; Armenia, and, indeed, much of Eastern Anatolia, was largely agrarian, with populated cities that didn't approach the dense population centers that were common in the more industrialized west.

 

When Russia surrendered, it gave up all of its Caucasian territory to the Ottoman Empire in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. That meant the removal of Russian forces and the munitions that they supplied; with the Allies busy in the Western Front, this resulted in the abandonment of the Armenians to the Ottoman forces. I'm not saying we didn't fight well; the Ottomans concentrated on us more than on the British. But without large stockpiles of war material, or centers in which to PRODUCE such material, fighting a war such as the one that we did was incredibly costly; add to that the devastating losses we had taken in the Genocide, with a large portion of our people, and the vast majority of our wealth, all gone, and you have the recipe for complete disaster for a nation-state.

 

The Treaty of Sevres took a heavy toll on the turks, but it left them with most of their heavy industry intact; they quickly retook the parts lost to the Greeks, and thus reestablished everything they needed to fight. Germany lost not only wealthy Alsace and Lorraine, but also the incredibly heavily industrialized Saar Basin, as well as the Rhinelands; losses like these were not experienced by the turks. Furthermore, they did not lose any of their heartland regions; all the territory lost to them had a very small minority of turks living there, if any at all. Thus, in a very short time, they had the basic capabilities that they had BEFORE the Great War started. Armenia, on the other hand, was a small, agrarian state, with a very severe refugee problem, no capital with which to build up industry, no infrastructure to successfully import industry, no regional allies, and a patron (USA) that had backed out of the treaty that bound it to the area. You don't have to be a genius to see the David-and-Goliath analogy, or to realize that, in real life, most Davids don't end up slaying the giant.

 

Add to that the fact that Russia was finishing up the most dire portions of its Civil War, and was firmly under the control of the Bolsheviks (who, at this point in time, were still under the control of Lenin and, therefore, Trotsky, both of whom advocated spreading the Revolution immediately), and the situation becomes more grim. Lenin's calculated risk with Brest-Litovsk had paid off, in that Russia had most of her losses returned to her (the ones that were turned into states, such as Poland, were targets in World War 2); but its Caucasian holdings had become independent states, however, and the Allies didn't care enough to force the turks to return them. So, Russia "liberated" these newly-formed republics from their evil bourgeois leaders, as quickly as possible.

 

OK, now that is simple history; if you try to pull any of that "falsification of history" crap, then I don't care if you turn out to be Richard Hovhanessian, because you would be absolutely be discredited in my eyes.

 

Do the math: a turkey that is led by a very successful general who retained its industrial base and population, a Russia that is in a mad dash to retake the territory it lost before those places find willing patrons in the West, and an Armenia that has just lost too much of its population, is rampant with famine and plague (due to the desperate refugee situation), and has no industrial base to attempt to rectify either of these problems or provide the supplies necessary to equip its very small army. Thus, the leadership made the decision to surrender to the lesser of two evils, and gave themselves over to the Soviets; Russia had been a harsh master, but the turks had tried to wipe Armenians off the face of the earth.

 

The USSR, still seeking to export the Revolution, sees a borderland that is now populated mostly by people of a foreign country (Kars and Ardahan). It can either hold the territory, thereby possibly fighting a war that it is not ready for (the Whites STILL exist, albeit on a definite losing scale); or it can relinquish the territory, losing nothing substantial, but gaining the good faith of the people living there. turk communists would then praise how good and caring the USSR is, and push for a People's Revolution. It did not work out that way, but that was the original plan.

[KnightOfArmenia]

armenia was turned over to the soviets on dec 2, 1920. thus, armenia is already soviet. as the russian troops are on the way to secure armenias borders from turkish agression, on dec. 3, ALEXANDER KHATISIAN, the dashnak beaurea head, signed over kars and ardahan to the turks through the treaty of alexandrople.

 

Armenia was not "already Soviet"; contrary to popular belief, it did not end the moment the treaty with the USSR was signed. Both the turks and the Russians approached Armenia with proposals guarenteeing its independence from the other. The Russians claimed that they would respect the government of Armenia and leave it alone, as long as it joined the Union. The turks claimed that they would guarentee the independence of Armenia in the face of Bolshevik expansion. The government tried to play both sides against the middle; it very nearly worked, as quite a few voices in Lenin's circle called on them to demand Kars and Ardahan back. But, again, Lenin gave the region up as a precursor to an expected revolution.

[Armat]

I must add that sometimes personal accounts tell whole lot more then dry historians. I read General Andranik and the Armenian Revolutionary Movement by Antranig Chalabian who was a foot soldier and eye witness to lot of events.Much of the picture is very grim specially events of Kars and Ardahan. There were massive dissertations in the ranks mostly different Armenian groups accusing each other of betrayal. I suggest anyone to read this book or maybe not. It will make you mad that so many opportunities were lost.

[MJ]

I must be blessed to get yet another person to check my spelling in this forum.

 

KOA,

 

I don't think you are stupid. Perhaps quite the opposite might be true. The problem is that you have no clue what you are talking about. Maybe you would be well served not to jump into arguments on topics which you have never studied and, for starters, you could go an open a couple of relevant books (not from the Glendale Community College, though) and read them. Maybe then you may come up with some relevant theories based on facts. In such case, you would only be greeted.

[MJ]

Armenia was not "already Soviet"; contrary to popular belief, it did not end the moment the treaty with the USSR was signed. Both the turks and the Russians approached Armenia with proposals guarenteeing its independence from the other. The Russians claimed that they would respect the government of Armenia and leave it alone, as long as it joined the Union. The turks claimed that they would guarentee the independence of Armenia in the face of Bolshevik expansion. The government tried to play both sides against the middle; it very nearly worked, as quite a few voices in Lenin's circle called on them to demand Kars and Ardahan back. But, again, Lenin gave the region up as a precursor to an expected revolution.

Now, this one could qualify as a masterpiece of fiction literature...

[KnightOfArmenia]

Now, this one could qualify as a masterpiece of fiction literature...

 

Your fantastic ability to render an argument null and void simply by mocking it is incredible! No, wait, it just reinforces my position, since your only counterpoint is "psh, yeah right."

 

Does it qualify as such? And I suppose factors such as Armenia's historical position as a balance between two Great Powers is nill to you? Or the historical precedent in what was being accomplished (similar to when Artavazd II supported neither the Romans nor the Persians in Antony's campaign, since doing either would have meant retribution from the other)?

 

And your whole "couple of relevant books" is VERY turkish in its spirit; that is, the "all the proof you bring up disagrees with me and is fake. Bring up proof that agrees with me, and I will accept it" mindset. But you haven't really set a position, and rather act as if your philosopher's tower is so high that you can see what we cannot; therefore, I don't really know what you claim.

 

Here's a tip, especially if you ever plan on becoming a history scholar: use sources. When you make a point, be able to back it up with concrete secondary source material. Primary material is rarely, if ever, useful (Chalabian's work is very good, but it is primary, so not as useful in a debate). My sources, for example, include Drs. Levon Marashlian, Richard Hovhanessian, George Bournoutian, and James Russel. See? Four highly accredited individuals who share my point of view; from their works, in which they have studied numerous primary sources for factual consistency, I am able to form my thesis. You learn all this in college, really.

[MJ]

Wow that's remarkable... you should be proud of yourself having Marashlian, Hovhannesian, Bournoutian and Russel share your views. All that remains is that you read their work so that perhaps you could also share their view.

[KnightOfArmenia]

Wow that's remarkable... you should be proud of yourself having Marashlian, Hovhannesian, Bournoutian and Russel share your views. All that remains is that you read their work so that perhaps you could also share their view.

 

Apparently, you've never heard of the concept of "debate," or "point/counter-point discussion."

 

See, it's simple. One side makes a point, backed up by facts from credible sources (sort of like a mini-bibliography). The other side then makes a counter-point, backing it up with facts from other (or sometimes the same) credible sources; this counter-point often completely rejects the validity of the original point made. In response, the first side makes another point, this one being a "counter-point" to the other side's counter-point. Imagine this:

 

Side 1: A

 

Side 2: B (cancels A)

 

S1: C (cancels B.)

 

S2: D (cancels C

 

S1: E (cancels D)

 

S2: Nothing

 

See? It goes back and forth until one side is able to make a counter-point that is irrefutible (not necessarily true, but if you have no facts to disprove something, then it stands in a debate). Once that irrefutible point is made, it cancels out whatever the previous argument was, which then cancels out the previous argument, etc., until the original point (or counter-point) made by the winning side remains. And thus, we get a "victor" to the debate.

 

Now, just not BELIEVING the other side, or calling their sources forgeries, is what the turks do. But they at least get into this very old form of intellectual contest; you, somehow, fail to grasp the necessity of the counter-point. What you are doing is as follows:

 

Side 1 (That's me, in case you aren't following): A

 

Side 2 (You, MJ): That is a falsification of history.

 

S1: Uhm... OK... B? With credible sources?

 

S2: So much falsification.

 

S1: Hmm... OK, C, taken directly out of a book from a credible source.

 

S2: Too bad you never read that book.

 

S1:

 

Don't worry though. Keep practicing, and you'll get the knack of the debate some day. I believe in you!

Edited September 25, 2003 by KnightOfArmenia

[KnightOfArmenia]

You know, why am I even doing this? I'll ask Dr. Marashlian to actually post on the board; he's a rather busy man, but maybe he'll have time. Especially after reading how MJ is trying to twist his works.

 

Though I must admit, I am eagerly awaiting MJ of accusing Dr. Marashlian of not having read enough of Dr. Marashlian's works to share their view.

[sen_Vahan]

As usual I am a little late:) I started to read the posts but have to apologize that did not do completely because as it happens in our forum we act "Vokrug da okolo". Anyway, regarding the history of Dashnaks... I don't know whether somebody has already mentioned but a good source might be Garegin Njdeh's book about Dashnak Party. His opinion was that from idiological and inspired party initially, Dashnakzutyun turned to a trivial mafia group. I can try to find his writing online but you can also do that, it should be available now.

 

Vahan

[Sip]

Great to see you back sen_Vahan!

[KnightOfArmenia]

Oh, don't get me wrong, sen_Vahan; I'm not defending the modern Dashnak party. Or even their political views at the time!

 

As to Njdeh, although I have the utmost respect for him, his work is still a primary source, and those sources tend to be so filled with bias (either positive or negative) that they are hard to use. Anything that is not a simple statement of facts (such as statistics or army movements or the like) must be taken with a grain of salt, until a large group of them are reviewed and sifted to gain some truth.

 

My point was that, however it ended up (a dismal failure), the attempted political maneuvering of the Armenian Republic leadership was neither foolish in its goal nor unique in its execution. I've given a historical similarity, even with a disastrous ending (Artavazd II's attempt to stay neutral between Rome and Parthia, which brought down the Artashesian dynasty); I've listed sources that agree with this, and from whom I have gotten this information. I haven't gotten so much of a response or a counter-argument, as a "says who?"

 

I'll admit I have no idea who MJ is "in real life;" judging from the way he is acting on something as superficial as an Armenian board discussing the history of a single political party, I know that he is not any of the famous figures whom I am familiar with.

[joseph parikian]

KnightOfArmenia

MJ is MJ it depends on how much wine he had before posting his vews

[TashnagZinvor]

This was supposed to be the History of the Tashnag Party

 

The Tashnags began in western turkey at the height of WWII, theyre purpose was to liberate the Armenian lands and people at all costs. For the Tashnags, there were no deals or treaties. They were a stubborn headed group of individuals whome without we would nothing today to claim as Armenia. They faught for every Armenian cause (manpower wise), Armenia was to be given to Azerbaijan during soviet times, when again the Tashnags came and faught for it. Tashnags by the thoulsands, also known by turks as Fedayis, faught in Artsakh and died for Ramgavars and Hnchagians of Armenia, whome today claim the Tashnags are traitors of the Armenians, whome start wars. All in all Tashnag is the wholy representation of the Western and Giligian Armenians, whose land is still in the hands of Turks, and recently inhabited by Kurds and Rumcas. The reasons the Tashnags (never give up), is because they still have land to fight for, whereas the eastern armenians, who were communist (of armenia and not iran), had land, whome still did not have an army, whome still rellied upon Tashnags and ASALA for manpower. Without Tashnags, Armenians of both West and East would have nothing to claim as their own. Tashnags increased in members in Lebanon, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Syria, and Serbia post WWII

Edited December 14, 2003 by TashnagZinvor

[Stormig]

This was supposed to be the History of the Tashnag Party

 

The Tashnags began in western turkey at the height of WWII

OK.

[Arpa]

OK.

WOW!!!

I didn't know any of these facts!!

Chauvinism is not a sin. I am one. But chauvinism based on ignorance can be very dangerous.

My apologies for a poor editting.

It has been said that "Ignorance is bliss". Let me rephrase that; "Ignorance is scary". This is the kind of "ignorance" that our detractors thrive on.

I am posting this under the topic of "History of the Dashnak Party" to illustrate how facts can be twisted.

Dear TZ, please check your sources before you place your big foot in your mouth again. We know how you adore and trust your Khmbapet, but please, please check your sources again and again.

=====

Posted: Dec 13 2003, 09:39 PM

Junior Member

Group: Members

Posts: 25

Member No.: 1656

Joined: 10-December 03

 

Turks and Mogolians were moslems in the year 451? Wow!! You mean some 200 years before Mohammed was born?

=======

 

Vartan Mamikon(a chinese word for messanger)ian was a Mongol. As were many of his troops. He was never in the Byzantinian Army. The Byzantinian historian Srebro speaks of Vartan as "an assimilated western" and "a foreigner fighting for the cause of his enemy"...either way, modern day Armenian portrayals of Vartan show him in Armenian/Roman armour, which I doubt he had at the time. The Armenians were known to hire on Mongol and Turk warriors, who were said to be vicious fighters. Perhaps it was essentially the fall of the Armenians, due to overpopulation of Turkic and Mongolian types?

 

I would say it makes perfect sence that Vartan would fight for the Armenians, the Mongols and Persians/Central Asian Turks(newly Muslim whod eventually assimilate into one another) were enemies.

 

This post has been edited by TashnagZinvor on Dec 13 2003, 09:40 PM

=======

World War II?

Does 1939 come before the year 1890?

QUOTE (TashnagZinvor @ Dec 14 2003, 04:04 AM)

This was supposed to be the History of the Tashnag Party

 

The Tashnags began in western turkey at the height of WWII

 

 

Stormy; OK.

===========

And then, of course this;

 

QUOTE (TashnagZinvor @ Dec 10 2003, 08:09 PM)

I would imagine Armenians are too stupid to overlook there 2 dialects and re-introduce Krapar(Church/Latin Armenian), which would dismiss the problem of misuses of foreign words and accents. I myself have learned it and find it to be closer to western-armenian. Language = Unity

============

 

 

(Note; Does not this thread need to be moved to another subject topic as it has turned into a linguistic war?)

Dear Tashnag,

I feel bad that everybody has ganged up on you, but perhaps you should have stuck yo your station and not dabble in linguistic as it is evident that you know very little about the subject. The mere fact that you transliterate (taradartsum) your nickname the way you do automatically disqualifies you. You seem to know very little about the basics of abc an D/aybbengim yev DA. Juxtapose the Latin/Greek alphabet with that created by Mashtots and tell us how how you come up with spelling "tashnag" when in the Armenian it is spelled beginning with the 4th letter, DA as in D, as in Delta. And, you pretend to be an expert of Grabar when you cannot even properly transliterate it. Krapar??? If you can read Armenian go back and see how it is properly spelled. Never mind that turkified and bastardized format.

FYI, I was not born in Yerevan nor any place close to it but I have come to realize that, with all their sins against the Armenian language they still mainatin the closest form of pure Armenian as it was intended to be.

I will go no further. If you want to discuss linguistics start a new thread in the Language section.

This is a long subject but as stated, above this is not the proper subject topic to discuss linguistics.

It is ironic, if tragic that this subject is being debated under the subject topic of "unity", yet the only unifying trait that we may have, language is being used to divide us, mostly due to ignorance.

 

PS. Please tell us what "dialect" the founders of Dashnaktsutyun sopke!!

============

Avarayr. Go down to the yeare 451 AD and click on Avarayr;

http://www.littlearmenia.com/html/history/

=========

 

http://www.origin-of-islam.com/

 

Origin of Islam: The Youngest of Major World Religions

The origin of Islam can be traced to Muhammad in about 622 A.D. This relatively young religion claims to be the restoration of true monotheism started with Abraham, and thus, supersedes both Judaism and Christianity, which were allegedly corrupt and incomplete. Islam is based on absolute submission to the one "true" god, Allah . Muslims are called to conform to the "five pillars" (disciplines) of Islam in order to achieve eternal salvation.

 

Origin of Islam: Some Background

The origin of Islam is credited to Muhammad, who lived between 570 and 632 A.D. He is believed by Muslims to be the last and greatest prophet of God ("the seal of the prophets"). It was through him that the Qur'an was dictated. Muhammad was born in Mecca, but he was chased from that city in about 622 A.D., after speaking out against the polytheism and paganism of the culture. He then established himself as a religious and military leader in Medina, and later returned in triumph to Mecca in about 630 A.D. From Mecca, Muhammad was instrumental in establishing Islam as the formal religion of all Arabia.

[TashnagZinvor]

Dear Arpa, OBVIOUSLY an Eastern Armenian,

 

I was speaking of the Iranians who were muslim during the war of Avarayr, who were enemies of the Mongols and Central Asians. The legion of Tashnagtyutyamp was formed in 1920 during the time of Armenian-American co-operation to rebuild Armenia. Deals, which of coarse, widely focused on Western Armenia (Much larger than the Eastern half of caucasian Armenia). The Tashnags, started by members of the Western Armenian culture, who spoke Western Armenian, which follows Ayp, Pen, Kin, not Ah Buh Guh, did not spell it DASHNAK, which Eastern Armenians consider to be the write way to pronounce a Western Armenian word. Search for Tasnag political members, they are "ians" and not "yans". Just because you grew up speaking an Iranian dialect of Armenian, with the heavy G, BUH, JUH, etc, does not mean our Armenian, which is closer to KRAPAR, THE WESTERN ARMENIAN WAY OF PRONOUNCING IT, is NOT turkisized, on the contrary, your people are both culturally and physically more turkisized than the Bulgarians and Turks themselves. Why? Because they sing like Turks, talk like Turks, and despite the fact that Western Armenian lands were under Turkish power, LOOK LIKE Turks!

 

.....

 

Do you call Ramgavars Rrrrramkavars? or Hnchagians Hnchakyans? If you dont, then Tashnags are not Dashnaks AG means of, or AGO in Greek. Who ever said Mashtots invented Latin? I was refering to Krapar as the "Latin to Armenians", like it is to Romans, had you cared to read more. Theres not really much I can say to someone like you, your culture is clearly nothing similar of mine. Its no wonder your people are hated at such a level that people in America and Russia consider you "nigger-like". Tashnagtytyamp, MER HOGHERUH MER HOGHERUH (NOT IMPLYING EASTERN ARMENIA), you have yours, we have ours.

 

Edited by Sasun

[MJ]

[TashnagZinvor]

I consider it an Honor that your people consider me "not of their race". Anyone who would want to be affiliated with Turkisized Irano-Afghans and Semites would have something loose in the head. I get racism from Hayastancis yes, calling me white boy, odar, and this and that. However I will always feel at home with the true Armenians, my Armenians.

[Armen]

TashnagZinvor, what's you opinion about Monte.

[MJ]

Juxtapose the Latin/Greek alphabet with that created by Mashtots and tell us how how you come up with spelling "tashnag" when in the Armenian it is spelled beginning with the 4th letter, DA as in D, as in Delta.

Dear Arpa,

 

To me, the spelling of “Dashnak” as “Tashnak” is not the worst part of his username. That is an innocent illiteracy. The problem is with the part spelled as “Zinvor.”

 

Just when have ever (except in one instance of chasing the running for their lives Turkish solders in Bash Aparan) Dashnaks have earned the right of being called Zinvor? Isn’t the right word “Mardaspan?” When have they shed blood other than of civilians and, more frequently, Armenia civilians and that by slitting their throats with a shaving blade?

 

And yes, I forgot… How about killing millions of Turks on the Internet?

Edited December 15, 2003 by MJ

[TashnagZinvor]

A liberator of the Armenian cause, a martyr and true hero. Although a member of ASALA, different from the political group Tashnags, although similar in ideology, with affiliation with my Father and Uncle, in Lebanon, during the Maronite/Muslim wars, was said to be somewhat crazy. However, either way, any man willing to put his life on the life for the Armenian cause, that is what is ours, with will always be ours, what untill death prevents will soon be ours, OUR LANDS, was a man who the JEW (Forceful inhabitants of Israel, who afflict genocide on the peoples of palestine) classifies as a Terrorist. Truly hypocracy at its best. It is funny how those who are destroying of ones nation are sympathized for, and those who fight for their nation (Serbia, Greece, Croatia, Macedonia, Chechnya, Armenia) are classifyed as terrorists and anti-western????

 

Melkonian was nothing of the sort. No Turks life is of any value, when to this very day they culturally destroy Armenians, as well as politically and socially (to other nations, ultimately by means of politics and Jewry Media), and by means of populating our lands with Kurds (in WWII), along with genocidal inflictions on the inner nation of Ottoman Armenia. Melkonian is someone that Armenian youths should look up to. Why should we suffer a racial genocide, and be denied our Land, that is our right as human beings, to fight for our cause, and stand up for our cause. But no, the Armenians are a Christian Terrorist group, violentry attacking the Super Western Muslim Turks whos quest is for peace and justice, and eating lots of Kurdish Eminems. Truley Hypocracy, and we can all thank the Jewish media.