Azerbaijan Turk in Russian army in anatolia

and your source is?

ps: I did not attend middle school in Armenia

In his book "Travel to Erzurum", which passes in 1829 Russian-Ottoman War, Puskin tells that Russian Army included Turkic people, especially Tatars. However I just took a short look into the book. I didn't completely read it. Maybe it includes more details about their behaviour towards Turks.

You have provided an author, a publisher - whats the Title of the book.

P.S. Since when does wikipedia count as an Armenian mid. school crap..if you had bothered to look at page 1 of this thread, you would see that I sourced wikipedia.


Edited by mamikon - 16-Mar-2007 at 09:51

I dont know why  russian army treated so harsh at eastern anatolia.  I am from trabzon, and I heard  from my elders, Russians did not treat bad to turks.

Originally posted by Kerimoglu The Turks in World History   Wikipedia is crap anyways. So if there is an Azeri or Armenian articles - they're both crap too, just like mid schools in Armenia

Dont you think "Turks in World History" is a little broad to describe the specifc events in Baku in 1918?

Does it specifically say that the first Azeri government in 1918 was not dominated by Bolsheviks, but by Musavatists? Can you point me to the page where you read that? Because it will take only 15 min. for me to go get it and verify what you are saying, I hope you dont lie.

PS: What are you so obsessed with Armenian middle schools? As I have said I did not attend an Armenian middle school.

And yes, today they are bad, compared to those 30 years ago. However this is the case with all school in all post-Soviet countries, not just Armenia.

Please calm down the tone of discussion.

Originally posted by Mortazaa I dont know why russian army treated so harsh at eastern anatolia. I am from trabzon, and I heard from my elders, Russians did not treat bad to turks.

They are treated harshly because otherwise the pseudo-historical claims that Armenian and Russians massacred 1 million muslims during WWI would not make any sense (not that they do anyway)



Edited by mamikon - 17-Mar-2007 at 15:46

I am not complaiing about your source, just asking a question. However, I really dont think the book you posted would give you the details about the Azeri government, when it was set up.

With regards to Thomas Goltz. Do you mean the book titled Azerbaijan Diary? because when I read it, I still did not get information on the Azeri state at its beginnings. Also, he does not really try to hide his pro-Azeri leaning when he discussed karabakh.

You should read the book I posted, its an interesting read.

p.s. did you know Thomas Goltz was a persona non-grata in Azerbaijan under Heydar Aliev, since he severly criticized Aliev's regime and was much more in favor of Elchibey.


Edited by mamikon - 19-Mar-2007 at 05:50

Originally posted by Kerimoglu so on Thomas Goltz - u re denying the thing u said yourself!

huh? Read my post carefully. I said he doesnt explain what happened during the first months of the Azeri state.

Originally posted by Kerimoglu it is not 300 paged book, read pages 142 and 184

I meant the Turks in World History, not Azerbaijan Diary. I read the latter, not the former.

Originally posted by Kerimoglu Haydar and Elchibay are opponents. If he worked for Haydar, howecome he was favor for Elchibay?

When did he work for Heydar? Did you actually read the book? Did you not notice his harsh criticism of Heydar Aliev.

Maybe years after he worked, I am not sure, but I seriously doubt it.

Originally posted by Kerimoglu P.S. u say he was onesided - of course he would, everybody would - everything is obvious - there 4 resolutions of UN on that. We have such saying for the ones thinking like u - Have u eaten your head man???

no comment...