EU's "Exit from History" - a new meaning to the term "Old Europe"

[tomcat ha]

what does the last have to do with attacking a army from behind?

propoganda? There is way more armenian propaganda than turkish.

They cleansed theire "ancient" homeland from the muslim majority so that they could claim theire own country.

Almost everywhere were they claimed as theire "ancient" homeland they didnt have a majority.

It is also strange that the ottoman empire suddenly went from being the most tolerant society in the whole world to a suppressor of minorities.

[Heresson]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by tomcat ha

what does the last have to do with attacking a army from behind?
They cleansed theire "ancient" homeland from the muslim majority so that they could claim theire own country.

So why there are still Kurds living there, huh?
So how come anyone "remembers" Armenian atrocities, if they were all cleansed by Armenians?
If the Muslims were a majority there, which is doubtable, how come this Muslim majority, which had protection of the state, managed to get "cleansed" by Armenian minority?

Almost everywhere were they claimed as theire "ancient" homeland they didnt have a majority.

I myself doubt that Armenians were a majority on all the lands they claimed, but putting "ancient" in "" is suprising.
Do You claim Armenians didn't own and inhabit these lands in antiquity?
The Turks were there first, right?

It is also strange that the ottoman empire suddenly went from being the most tolerant society in the whole world to a suppressor of minorities.

ottoman Empire was not |the most tolerant society in the world".
As I mentioned, massacres of Armenians happened earlier, like in the nineties of XIX century,
Somehow, all nations that lieved under Turkish rule - Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbians, Armenians, Syrians, Arabs even - do not seem to treat is as a very pleasant part of their history.
not to mention earlier status of dhimmis was a second-class citizen, after all.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson
The parliament refused to ratify the Buczacz treaty, and Poland managed to built enough big army to defeat Turks willing to punish her for that at Chocim and the general who did that became the new king. Also, earlier an alliance between Poland and Austria has been signed.
Turkey was at this time proud enough to think Poland was its fief and to treat its own illusions as reality. That's proven to be a strategical mistake, that's all

More than that, they were proud enough not to take any European power as an equal. That's why they did not deign to show interest in their affairs, and missed all the growing pace of social and technological development.

Originally posted by Heresson
That was only the end of temporary Turkish revival under visier Koprulu dinasty, as long as I can remember.

Sure, what I meant was there was never a revival thereafter.

Originally posted by Heresson
It's a discussion whether it should be called genocide or massacre only, not if the massacre took place

I do not say it was completely systematic.
But listen; I know people who themselves had to flee from Urfa region. Both are my Arabic teachers. One is ha;f-Armenian, half-Syrian, though his mother tongue is Turkish; his family, according to him, managed to escape, because they were enough rich to buy safety.
Another is Syrian, though having Armenian grandpa; part of his family was killed, the rest fled south.
Armenians in Cilicia and Halab regions were deported too.

Armenians were dangerous to Turkish posession of Armenia, just like earlier Greeks or Bulgarians were. Turkey knew that she could lose these grounds, if Armenians continued to live there. So it decided to get rid of them - it's rather an ethnical clearing than a genocide and originally Armenians were just supposed to be transported elsewhere. But I guess it got a bit out of control, if Armenians were, and they were, attacked elsewhere.
It wasn't the first masssacre of Armenians in Ottoman Empire anyway.

Well it can't be the fear of losing "Turkish posession of Armenia" because it was part of Turkish heartlands where Armenians were not anywhere near an overall majority for centuries that the disturbances were taking place. You sure have the right to go ahead and rhetorically call it "Western Armenia" and the fact that they were living there for 2000 years, in the same fashion some Greeks call Western Turkey "Ionia" and mention Greek presence there for a comparable time, but my point would still stand that its loss wasn't the same to the Turks with, say, loss of control of Greece.

More importantly than this, I'd actually agree with the rest of your post here. It's simply not the case that Turkey is saying nobody died. It admits that up to hundreds of thousands might have died. The issue revolves around whether it was as a result of a deliberate, well-calculated plan to exterminate Armenians. As far as evidence available goes, government on the contrary tried to make the relocation as orderly as possible, failing miserably in the end, likeyou suggest. Those that were responsible for such a grand failure were tried and even executed by the government. Allies taking over Istanbul similarly found no sign or a single document whatsoever of a grand conspiracy.

That's why it cannot be defined as "genocide". Your own description carries it outside the definition of genocide.

Originally posted by Heresson

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson
If the Muslims were a majority there, which is doubtable, how come this Muslim majority, which had protection of the state, managed to get "cleansed" by Armenian minority?

Precisely because of the reason that the Turkish army was so much in trouble in the Eastern front that all available military/police manpower was channeled to the front, leaving the field totally free for the Dashnak and Hinchak bands.

I myself doubt that Armenians were a majority on all the lands they claimed, but putting "ancient" in "" is suprising.
Do You claim Armenians didn't own and inhabit these lands in antiquity?
The Turks were there first, right?

Of course, Turks arrived in Anatolia in the early 11th century and before that Armenians lived there. But the point is that throughout history not only Armenians moved out tocities like Istanbul and Izmir, but also to regions like Cilicia, all the while there was a sustained and massive influx of settlers from Central Asia to the region and later Westwards.

That was why, unlike Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians or Serbians, they felt cheated by the forces of history that reduced them to minority in their ancient lands, unlike other peoples of the Empire. Hence their determination to attempt a rectification of this outrage, once the golden opportunity of WWI and absence and probable demise of the Turkish forces presented itself.

As I mentioned, massacres of Armenians happened earlier, like in the nineties of XIX century,
Somehow, all nations that lieved under Turkish rule - Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbians, Armenians, Syrians, Arabs even - do not seem to treat is as a very pleasant part of their history.

Sure but Armenians were in a position, alongside Greeks, to be entitled to previledges not available to others. They were an active part of life in Turkey, they held the commerce in their hands, in addition to be governed by the laws of their own Church. There were many Armenian ambassadors and high up officials in the service Empire. Their trustworthiness was so unquestioned that they alone dubbed "millet-i sadika", the loyal people. After the Greek rebellion, they even almost took over the Ottoman Foreign Ministry, where previously Greeks were dominant.

It was the aspirations of Armenian nationalists that threw it all to the winds and started the cycle of violence.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
Precisely because of the reason that the Turkish army was so much in trouble in the Eastern front that all available military/police manpower was channeled to the front, leaving the field totally free for the Dashnak and Hinchak bands.

Massacres of Armenians happened also in other regions, that certainly weren't claimed by Armenians as part of future Greater Armenia - like in Baku, when Turkish army entered it.

Of course, Turks arrived in Anatolia in the early 11th century and before that Armenians lived there. But the point is that throughout history not only Armenians moved out tocities like Istanbul and Izmir, but also to regions like Cilicia, all the while there was a sustained and massive influx of settlers from Central Asia to the region and later Westwards.
That was why, unlike Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians or Serbians, they felt cheated by the forces of history that reduced them to minority in their ancient lands,

[/quote]

This doesn't mean that there werne't Armenians left in the original Armenia, especially that the lands weren't held by Turks only since then, but also by Armenian duchies in several regions, Georgians, Mongols, Persians...
Armenians stayed a majority in Karabach and several other regions, though they didn't have a completely different history than other ones; I guess probably they stayed a majority in at least some regions of what today are eastern Turkish vilayets
Even if they were a minority in entire historical Armenia, that doesn't mean they weren't a relative or overall majority in large part of it.
This area was not very densely populated. And there was at least 1 mln Armenians in Turkish Armenia.
And this 1 mln - not taking into account the massacres, rapes and lost of property - didn't get an inch of this territory.

After the Greek rebellion, they even almost took over the Ottoman Foreign Ministry, where previously Greeks were dominant.

Therefore, I doubt all of them suddenly changed their attitude without a reason.

It was the aspirations of Armenian nationalists that threw it all to the winds and started the cycle of violence.

Were their aspirations understood by Turkish gouverment, were they given autonomy, were they not massacred earlier, perhaps all this thing would've never happened

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
Sure, what I meant was there was never a revival thereafter.

Oh, there was - after Ataturk landed in Samsun...
Could You remind me the date? It was somewhere around my birthday

Well it can't be the fear of losing "Turkish posession of Armenia" because it was part of Turkish heartlands

Turkish Heartlands, inhabited by Armenians and Kurds

my point would still stand that its loss wasn't the same to the Turks with, say, loss of control of Greece.

They did conquer it several centuries later...
And surely Muslims (not Turks) were less numerable there.
But that doesn't change the fact that there was some other nation living there before them, having no other land they could build their state on.
Turks have entire Anatolia... And these are their core provinces, not Armenian Plateau.The only thing that could have some historical significance to Turks is the Mantzikert battlefield.

failing miserably in the end, likeyou suggest. Those that were responsible for such a grand failure were tried and even executed by the government. Allies taking over Istanbul similarly found no sign or a single document whatsoever of a grand conspiracy.

I'm not sure about it. But again, how can You expain that persecutions hit also Armenians in northern Syria and Syrians themselves?
Syrians claim

That's why it cannot be defined as "genocide". Your own description carries it outside the definition of genocide.

I'm not interested in how people will call it, really.
I just think Armenians and Armenia were mistreated in this case.
Dreaming about Armenia from sea to sea was of course absurd, but as I mentioned, even Ani and Ararat mountain were annexed by Turkey, not to mention the rest.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson
Massacres of Armenians happened also in other regions, that certainly weren't claimed by Armenians as part of future Greater Armenia - like in Baku, when Turkish army entered it.

The massacre in Baku in 1918 just before the end of WWI was in the context of thousands of Azeris killed by communists and Armenians in the March of the same year in Baku, it was more an outbreak of violence upon the sight of the victorious Turkish army than a massacre actively initiated and conducted by the Turkish army itself. Armenians outside Eastern Turkey were not subjected to relocation throughout the remainder of the war. It's because of this, for example, that the occupying French forces were able to recruit local Armenians to their service when they arrived in Cilicia after the war.

Originally posted by Heresson
This doesn't mean that there werne't Armenians left in the original Armenia, especially that the lands weren't held by Turks only since then, but also by Armenian duchies in several regions, Georgians, Mongols, Persians...
Armenians stayed a majority in Karabach and several other regions, though they didn't have a completely different history than other ones; I guess probably they stayed a majority in at least some regions of what today are eastern Turkish vilayets
Even if they were a minority in entire historical Armenia, that doesn't mean they weren't a relative or overall majority in large part of it.
This area was not very densely populated. And there was at least 1 mln Armenians in Turkish Armenia.
And this 1 mln - not taking into account the massacres, rapes and lost of property - didn't get an inch of this territory.

Armenians have been quoting wildly different numbers since 1878. At one time, they embarrassed themselves when the Armenian Patriarch said there were 3 million Armenians in the whole of the empire, whereas the die-hard nationalists were talking about an overall number of 1.8 million. International observation placed the total number of Armenians in the empire around 1.5, whereas the Ottoman census of 1893 placed it at 1.3 million.

The same inconsistency is also true on the part of Armenians with regard to Eastern Turkey. The Armenians first themselves claimed a minority of 45% to 55% Muslims, then declared it was in fact a majority 60-40. Ottoman census of 1893 testifies only to a 20% minority of Armenians. International observers in at the time in the region hardly mention any great majority for Armenians in the region.

Therefore, I doubt all of them suddenly changed their attitude without a reason.

I was going to say the same thing, that from such a position of such trust towards Armenians, it would only take a major act of treachery (like hitting from the behind in a time of life-and death) to go from there (total trust) to relocations.

Were their aspirations understood by Turkish gouverment, were they given autonomy, were they not massacred earlier, perhaps all this thing would've never happened

I agree, but Armenians were not interested in regional autonomy at all. They would have none of it, the nationalists had complete control of Armenian political environment and such started all the chain reaction of events that we have been recounting here.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


Nobody is supposed not to be aware of the law; this is stated by the law as a logical consequence of the state of law, otherwise, the law would be defeated by the excuse that one does not know the law. This obligation entails the obligation to learn effectively the language, not only to make efforts. This has nothing to do with the personal liberties on the basis of which the prior decision to emigrate was made.

Or it entails that it is the job of the state to provide the law in all major languages of the area, even immigrant languages.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson
Oh, there was - after Ataturk landed in Samsun...
Could You remind me the date? It was somewhere around my birthday

19 May 1919. It was more a resurrection from dead than a "revival", I would say

Originally posted by Heresson
Turkish Heartlands, inhabited by Armenians and Kurds

Refer to my post above

Originally posted by Heresson
But that doesn't change the fact that there was some other nation living there before them, having no other land they could build their state on.
Turks have entire Anatolia... And these are their core provinces, not Armenian Plateau.The only thing that could have some historical significance to Turks is the Mantzikert battlefield.

Well sure enough you can claim a certain part of the world is inhabited by your ancestors and then say it's your right to set up a state right there. But you can't have this as a rule in the world, it would be a total mess if people started to claim places their history connected them to. Turks did not agree with the idea that Eastern Turkey was any less Turkish than Central or Western one.

Greeks after WWI exactly were thinking the same, that their ancestors have been living in "Ionia" for millenia, therefore it should be incorporated into Greece, despite the fact that they ceased to be majority there for centuries.

That logic does not get anywhere. If people insist on it, war is the only result.

Originally posted by Heresson
I'm not sure about it. But again, how can You expain that persecutions hit also Armenians in northern Syria and Syrians themselves?

If it hit them, it hit them in the general context of disorder caused by the relocation. The government surely did not order Syrians Christians to be "hit". No single scrap of evidence. This did not mean they did not suffer, they did, but that's a different context again than "genocide".

Originally posted by Heresson
I'm not interested in how people will call it, really.
I just think Armenians and Armenia were mistreated in this case.
Dreaming about Armenia from sea to sea was of course absurd, but as I mentioned, even Ani and Ararat mountain were annexed by Turkey, not to mention the rest.

Well, Armenians worlwide are more interested in how people call it, and through their almost religious adhrence to their self-centric perspective that they have imposed their version of history on the Western conscience.

That's why bitterness dominates Turkish-Armenian relations today. That's why even here in Apolyton, people were laughing when I hinted the whole thing might have another explanation, all the way having no idea about what the Turks have to say on the matter, falling hostage to cliches like "revisionism" etc.

[Heresson]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ancyrean

The massacre in Baku in 1918 just before the end of WWI was in the context of thousands of Azeris killed by communists and Armenians in the March of the same year in Baku, it was more an outbreak of violence upon the sight of the victorious Turkish army than a massacre actively initiated and conducted by the Turkish army itself.

Did the army attempt to stop the massacre?

Armenians outside Eastern Turkey were not subjected to relocation throughout the remainder of the war. It's because of this, for example, that the occupying French forces were able to recruit local Armenians to their service when they arrived in Cilicia after the war.

Hm... Actually, at least some of those were earlier refugees

Armenians have been quoting wildly different numbers since 1878. At one time, they embarrassed themselves when the Armenian Patriarch said there were 3 million Armenians in the whole of the empire, whereas the die-hard nationalists were talking about an overall number of 1.8 million. International observation placed the total number of Armenians in the empire around 1.5, whereas the Ottoman census of 1893 placed it at 1.3 million.

That's irrelevant, actually, and the number could be different also due to mass emmigration and Russian progress into Armenia.

The same inconsistency is also true on the part of Armenians with regard to Eastern Turkey. The Armenians first themselves claimed a minority of 45% to 55% Muslims, then declared it was in fact a majority 60-40. Ottoman census of 1893 testifies only to a 20% minority of Armenians. International observers in at the time in the region hardly mention any great majority for Armenians in the region.

I doubt Ottoman census can be treated seriously. Ottomans had no intention in showing real number of Armenians, if it was big.
Also, 20% is when it comes to which year and what territory exactly? It seems unreasonably low. I assume it may be, if it is close to reality, a percentage of Armenians in a much wider area than Wilsonian Armenia for example. In entire eastern Turkey perhaps.
If they were so scarce in the region, nobody would treat their pleas for independance seriously. And they did. Also, then, it is even less probable that Armenians could attempt an ethnical cleansing.
Can You imagine a 1/5 minority in a under hostile administration to attempt to murder out 4/5 of population? This is absurd.
Either one of these claims has to be droppen, or it has to be balanced.

[quote]
I was going to say the same thing, that from such a position of such trust towards Armenians, it would only take a major act of treachery (like hitting from the behind in a time of life-and death) to go from there (total trust) to relocations.
[/quote[

I think this act could be done by other Christian nations, in fact; after all the others but Armenians and Syrians got independant, Turks started to worry about this region too, espoecially since Armenians did start to speak about independence.
Also, one would have to ask what was that convinced Armenians to the fight for the treachery, if they did commit it.
It could be example of the Balkan nations again

I agree, but Armenians were not interested in regional autonomy at all. They would have none of it, the nationalists had complete control of Armenian political environment and such started all the chain reaction of events that we have been recounting here.

I do not agree. Armenians asked for autonomy several times, and they weren't granted any.
Why didn't the empire even try?

[tomcat ha]

Russia made the ethnic cleansing possible.

What if florida wants to be autonomus? will the US allow that? no.

[Kuciwalker]

Hell, we're thinking about taking away their right to vote, too.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


Nobody is supposed not to be aware of the law; this is stated by the law as a logical consequence of the state of law, otherwise, the law would be defeated by the excuse that one does not know the law. This obligation entails the obligation to learn effectively the language, not only to make efforts. This has nothing to do with the personal liberties on the basis of which the prior decision to emigrate was made.

Doesn't really sound as if we disagree

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Or it entails that it is the job of the state to provide the law in all major languages of the area, even immigrant languages.

It is helpful for the state to do this when convenient but would be absurd to require it for all immigrant languages. There are too many such languages and it can be far too difficult to maintain enough translators.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by tomcat ha
Russia made the ethnic cleansing possible.

What if florida wants to be autonomus? will the US allow that? no.

Unwise post.
Florida IS autonomous, like any other state of USA.

Well sure enough you can claim a certain part of the world is inhabited by your ancestors and then say it's your right to set up a state right there. But you can't have this as a rule in the world, it would be a total mess if people started to claim places their history connected them to. Turks did not agree with the idea that Eastern Turkey was any less Turkish than Central or Western one.

You can call Armenian plateau and Upper Mesopotamia "Eastern Turkey" just the same as You can refer to Bulgaria as Northern Turkey... Turks weren't a majority in larger part of it.
Kurds, Armenians, Syrians, Arabs, Lazes, Georgians constituted a majority at this time

Greeks after WWI exactly were thinking the same, that their ancestors have been living in "Ionia" for millenia, therefore it should be incorporated into Greece, despite the fact that they ceased to be majority there for centuries.

Greeks were still a majority in some coastal regions. They should've kept it, according to your opinion, in which only ethnography counts.
Now tell me: if the Turks will become a majority in Berlin, can Turkey claim it?

If it hit them, it hit them in the general context of disorder caused by the relocation. The government surely did not order Syrians Christians to be "hit". No single scrap of evidence. This did not mean they did not suffer, they did, but that's a different context again than "genocide".

I'm no specialist on this matter, I won't argue.

Well, Armenians worlwide are more interested in how people call it, and through their almost religious adhrence to their self-centric perspective that they have imposed their version of history on the Western conscience.

Turkey is actually reponsible for that. It didn't stop "relocations", when foreign countries protested, and later on in tried to prove nothing's happened

That's why bitterness dominates Turkish-Armenian relations today. That's why even here in Apolyton, people were laughing when I hinted the whole thing might have another explanation, all the way having no idea about what the Turks have to say on the matter, falling hostage to cliches like "revisionism" etc.

Of course Turkish account should be listened too,
but many, if not most, Turks are so biased that You can have doubts
even when it comes to things that sound reasonable.