- This topic has 8 voices and 65 replies.
-
Posts
-
I dont think the intent was to kill them, I think the Turks just did not much care one way or the other if they survived or not. The Turks were not going to divert supplies from their war effort to help what they considered a bunch of traitors.
Exactly. And please keep in mind that at the time the Turks were in conflict within themselves (the pro-ottomans and the republicans), and they were fighting the Russians, British, French, Italians who had support from the US and were aided by the Kurds, Arabs, Bulgarians, Greeks, Armenians. So a lot was going on at the same time. That trauma is one of the causes of the notion “a Turk doesn't have any friends but a Turk” and similar nonsense. Unfortunatly we became a very xenophobe nation after WW1.
The Turkish Coast is very similar to Baja California only without as many Mexicans and way more interesting ruins.
:)You may be the first in history to make that comparison.
I dont think the intent was to kill them, I think the Turks just did not much care one way or the other if they survived or not. The Turks were not going to divert supplies from their war effort to help what they considered a bunch of traitors.
Exactly. And please keep in mind that at the time the Turks were in conflict within themselves (the pro-ottomans and the republicans), and they were fighting the Russians, British, French, Italians who had support from the US and were aided by the Kurds, Arabs, Bulgarians, Greeks, Armenians. So a lot was going on at the same time. That trauma is one of the causes of the notion “a Turk doesn't have any friends but a Turk” and similar nonsense. Unfortunatly we became a very xenophobe nation after WW1.
There is some logic behind that xenophobia. I can see how Kemal Ataturk thought the world was against Turkey, especially once it became clear that the Germans would lose the war and that Turkey had chosen their allies poorly.
The Turkish Coast is very similar to Baja California only without as many Mexicans and way more interesting ruins.
:)You may be the first in history to make that comparison.
I have briefly been to the Port at Antalya several years ago, that is where the comparison hit me. The beaches are nicer in Turkey too. As a matter of fact, I am leaving the house in about an hour to go eat at an excellent Turkish restaurant we found in Bayreuth last winter. I cant decide whether I like Greek or Turkish Food better though. To be honest, I don't think there is much difference except for the names of the dishes.
It is just as hospitable on one side as the other.
Does this include those 'nice' Bedouin tribes who greeted them?Sorry, but if you march women, children, or the elderly through mountains or deserts without water or food, they are not going to survive whether it was a real desert or not.I lean heavily towards classifyinig this as a genocide because, for the most part, it ONLY INVOLVED the Armenian population. If it was not a genocide then at the very least it was ethnic cleansing.
Population question, nkuler, you keep saying it cannot possibly be 1.5 mill. but some sources say the Armenian population in the whole Empire was something like 2 mill. IF (note I say if) 2/3 of the population were killed wouldn't that put it near the 1.5 number?
I found another good document, it's in french but very understandable
Population seems controversial.The German Herman Wambery puts it at 1.3 mill and American Samual Cox puts it at 2.4.Is your chart from a Turkish census?
Population seems controversial.The German Herman Wambery puts it at 1.3 mill and American Samual Cox puts it at 2.4.Is your chart from a Turkish census?
It refers to official census and is concurrant with the Official Turkish records but I'm not sure where it was published.
Not trying to be a wise guy here (well, maybe a little), but why can't I say that is an unreliable source? From the little I've read about this so far, some claim the Turkish government (because they were in chaos?) didn't even know the accurate number of Muslims in their empire.
Not trying to be a wise guy here (well, maybe a little), but why can't I say that is an unreliable source?
You can. But then I'd ask you who would be a more reliable source? No one else had the means to conduct a census in Ottoman lands.Sure it was a chaotic time of upheaval, but I believe the Ottoman State records should be more reliable than others if only because these people were Ottoman citizens.
but I believe the Ottoman State records should be more reliable than others if only because these people were Ottoman citizens.
Not accusing, just saying:1) What are the possibilities of census corruption by the Turkish government for whatever reason?2) What if they didn't have control of or very minimal authority over the further provinces? How could they then get an accurate census?
Not accusing, just saying:1) What are the possibilities of census corruption by the Turkish government for whatever reason?2) What if they didn't have control of or very minimal authority over the further provinces? How could they then get an accurate census?
1) Not likely when you consider the time. In 1914 the Ottoman rulers were still trying to hold the Empire together by pan-ottomanism. And one of the greatest threats to them was the nationalist turks. So It was actually them who were being suppressed at the time. For example I'm a big fan of the team Galatasaray. It was founded in 1905 by high school students who played under christian psudnyms because it was illegal for muslims to congragate. (BTW the ottomans seperated their subjects not according to their nationality but religion. So turk was muslim, arab was also muslim. Turks were actually looked down upon as ignorant masses the ruling class favoured the Christian minorities as can be seen by the number of Vezirs and Sadrazams to come out of them.)I digress..So in 1914 there I can see no reason to falsify the number of Armenians or other minorities.2) Quiet possible and probable. But again, even if the Ottomans didn't have full control over some of the territorries, they still had more control than any other entity. So for any other entitiy to have accurate information just seems against the nature of things. To me anyway. I'm not saying the abovementioned census is 100% accurate. But I'd guess it's closer to truth than anything else.
Fair enough, especially #2. Thanks for the info. This is an interesting topic and I'll be looking at your sources in more depth.
It is just as hospitable on one side as the other.
Does this include those 'nice' Bedouin tribes who greeted them?Sorry, but if you march women, children, or the elderly through mountains or deserts without water or food, they are not going to survive whether it was a real desert or not.I lean heavily towards classifyinig this as a genocide because, for the most part, it ONLY INVOLVED the Armenian population. If it was not a genocide then at the very least it was ethnic cleansing.
#1 There are no Bedouins in Northern Iraq or Eastern Turkey.#2 See my earlier post about the Turks really did not care whether they survived the trip or not. In fact, many did not survive the trip. But then many Serbs did not survive the retreat across the mountains in 1914, is that then also genocide? #3 What is ethnic cleansing other than another convenient label? Destruction or uprooting of ethnic groups has happened throughout history. Or for that matter, what about the expulsion of ethnic Germans from the former East Prussia and Sudeten areas of the modern day Czech Republic after WWII. Was that also not ethnic cleansing or was that justified because of what the Germans did? I live on a street named Sudetenlandstrasse because the people that built the houses on my street were Sudeten Germans. My 82 year old neighbor was born in the Sudetenland and was driven out of his home as a child and his parents were not compensated for the loss of his family farm because they were ethnically German. It is too easy to throw labels around but every case is different.What bothers me is the moral relativism of calling one thing genocide but another not. Why don?t we just look at cases instead of trying to quantify everything? All events are not subject to equal labeling and trying to make it so is moral relativism of the worst sort. History is not that straightforward. Sorry but this gets me just a little worked up. We should not jump to conclusions. I have the opinion I have because I researched and wrote a paper on the Dardanelles campaign and the events in Eastern Anatolia directly affected Turkish operations at Gallipoli.
What makes you think they only went into northern Iraq? Many sources say otherwise. See here for example. They were deported to Syria and Jordon as well. Besides, weren't bedouin tribes nomadic? See also AMBASSADOR MORGENTHAU'S STORY, chap XXIV. The whole book is available online at that link.I'm the opposite of you scout. If it was a genocide, which by definition it was, then it should be labelled as such. I don't know what everyone's fear is admitting that. THEY PURPORSELY TARGETTED AND KILLED ARMENIANS. In this case, genocide isn't just some label. It is what it is.
