Print Page | Close Window

The lost Muslims of Yerevan

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Modern History
Forum Discription: World History from 1918 to the 21st century.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11230
Printed Date: 10-Jul-2020 at 18:24
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The lost Muslims of Yerevan
Posted By: bg_turk
Subject: The lost Muslims of Yerevan
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 07:34

We all know how Armenians have been forced away from Eastern Turkey, and the region today is virtually free of Armenians, i.e. by the modern definition it is ethnically cleansed.

What is little known in the West is that the Turks and Tatars of the terriories of modern Armenia have met a similar faith.

Yerevan, the capital of modern Armenia, was once a thriving muslim city with an overwhelming muslimg majority until the year 1914. Some 260,000 Turko-Tatars lives in Yerevan around 1830. By 1921 the muslim population had dwindled to 89,000 people. Today the town is virtually free of Muslims, but the traces of the lost community can still be found if one looks carefully enough:

For instance I came accross an interesting blog:

http://oneworld.blogsome.com/2005/12/18/living-in-a-mosque/ - http://oneworld.blogsome.com/2005/12/18/living-in-a-mosque/

Kond is all that is left of old Yerevan from the time in the 19th Century when the Armenian capital was a predominently Moslem village. Even the local secondary school still displays old photographs of minarets towering over the district, and a careful search can still yield discoveries testifying to Konds Islamic past.

Indeed, one of the mosques still stands, albeit stripped of its minarets. Since the 1920s, when the last Azerbaijani Moslems left Kond, it has been used for housing by [Christian] Armenian families that still live there, inhabiting the rooms that surround the mosques inner courtyard.

Another landmark testifying to Yerevan's islamic past is the only remaining mosque today - the Blue Mosque:

 



-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com



Replies:
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 07:37
well... i think Bg Turk your dream is a turkish state from Bulgaria to Armenia,
so the poor millions of Turks that expelled can go back home


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


Posted By: Bashibozuk
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 11:13

so the poor millions of Turks that expelled can go back home

When Turks are deported, this means "liberation", but when Turks deport the others, that means "genocide". This mentality is the cause of the ideology which still continues shaping western point of view. This is rewriting history, or simply taking out the parts which conflict your myths, or your norms of neighborship.



-------------
Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar,
Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar.
Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar,
Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben.


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 12:15
     You forgot to mention the 150-200,000 Azeris who fled Armenia because of the Karabagh conflict (they were replaced by a similar number of Armenians who fled from Azerbaijan just prior to the conflict).

     I'm curious, where did you get those population figures? I'm not denying what you're saying about Muslims being there, but personally the only people I've heard who say that 20th century-Yervan was majority Muslim are Azeri nationalists who openly use the term "Greater Azerbaijan" (which now includes the Republic of Azerbaijan, northern Iran, and the entire Republic of Armenia ).


-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 13:10

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival

     You forgot to mention the 150-200,000 Azeris who fled Armenia because of the Karabagh conflict (they were replaced by a similar number of Armenians who fled from Azerbaijan just prior to the conflict).

Which part of Armenia did the Azerbaijanis live before the conflict?

The total number of Azeri refugees, which apart from those from Armenia, also includes those from NK and surrounding territory is around a million.


 I'm curious, where did you get those population figures? I'm not denying what you're saying about Muslims being there,

Kemal Karpat, Justin McCarthy - I think they base their numbers on the Ottoman census.



-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 18:17
Originally posted by bg_turk

Which part of Armenia did the Azerbaijanis live before the conflict?


     Here are two ethnic maps, one prior to the conflict and one after. I'm assuming one is prior to the conflict because it actually shows Azeris inhabiting Armenia and Armenians inhabiting Azerbaijan. Both minorities fled.







     The maps don't show it but substantial Armenian communities in Baku were completely displaced, and I have to assume that there were some Azeris living in Yerevan that are no longer there. But you can generally see how both countries "exchanged" their populations.


Originally posted by bg_turk

The total number of Azeri refugees, which apart from those from Armenia, also includes those from NK and surrounding territory is around a million.


     The 1 million Azeri refugee estimate is by Azerbaijan's government. The reality is there were 1 million refugees on BOTH sides. The UN put the Azeri refugees at around 700-750,000, while there were over 350,000 Armenian refugees. Most of the Azeri refugees were living in the lands between Karabagh and the Republic of Armenia, and these lands in between were occupied so that Karabagh is not isolated by being surrounded by Azerbaijan (since they would have closed all the borders). I don't know whether they fled due to what they had heard about the Armenian forces, but there were no civilian deaths in these areas (only in Khojaly, which is inside Karabagh itself).


Originally posted by bg_turk

Kemal Karpat, Justin McCarthy - I think they base their numbers on the Ottoman census.


     Don't blame me if I don't trust the Ottoman census, which also claimed a maximum of 600,000 Armenians died during WW1. Their claims have been subsequently disproven by nearly every single academic study. It doesn't mean what you're saying is automatically wrong, but theres definitely doubt surrounding anything those sources mention.


-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: Artaxiad
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 18:39
It's true that there were a lot of Muslims in Yerevan. However, there weren't 260,000 Turks/Tatars there, because it was just a small town back then. Maybe you mean that there were 260,000 Muslims in the Russian Empire's province of Erevan.

Don't forget that the Russian province of Erevan also included Nakhichevan, which is now a part of Azerbaijan.

Also, note that Turks weren't the only Muslims in the province of Erevan. There were Kurds too, and others.

Yerevan in 1796:


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 20:49

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival


     Don't blame me if I don't trust the Ottoman census, which also claimed a maximum of 600,000 Armenians died during WW1. Their claims have been subsequently disproven by nearly every single academic study. It doesn't mean what you're saying is automatically wrong, but theres definitely doubt surrounding anything those sources mention.

Thanks for the map.

Concerning the figures of muslim inhabitants, I do not know on what basis you dispute the results of the Ottoman census, do you have more reliable figures?

I believe the Ottoman census is the primary source for the number of muslims. Unless you claim there was doublecounting I do not see how it is an overestimate. If anythink it is an underestimate since it is possible some muslims were simply not on the official record.

Also the ottoman census of armenians is a lower bound, not an upper bound as you claim. many armenians were simply not counted, and usually only the head of the family was included.



-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 20:51

Originally posted by Artaxiad

It's true that there were a lot of Muslims in Yerevan. However, there weren't 260,000 Turks/Tatars there, because it was just a small town back then. Maybe you mean that there were 260,000 Muslims in the Russian Empire's province of Erevan.

Yes, probably you are right.



Don't forget that the Russian province of Erevan also included Nakhichevan, which is now a part of Azerbaijan.

Also, note that Turks weren't the only Muslims in the province of Erevan. There were Kurds too, and others.

Yerevan in 1796:

A nice picture.



-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: Artaxiad
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 21:25
Around 50,000 Kurds still exist in Armenia, and they enjoy rights as Kurdish citizens of the country...


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 21:29

Kurds of the Yezidi sect - they are not muslims.

Armenia is virtually free of muslims nowadays. Who uses that mosque in Yerevan? Do you know?



-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 01:21
Iranians and Indians

with regards to the Ottoman Archives...Yerevan belonged to Russia...not the Ottoman Empire, and if the Ottomans couldnt get  a decent count in their own country, how are they going to get one in another?


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


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 09:39

sorry, the thing about the ottoman census was my own speculation. You are right Yerevan was occupied by the Russians in 1828. I do not know what Prof. Karpat bases his estimates upon (maybe a previous census, just before the occupation?), but in any case if you believe the figures are inaccurate, I would be interested to hear what the correct number of muslims in the province was according to you?

 



-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 11:37
How would I know what the number is...but because I dont know, doesn't make  Karpat's  numbers correct.

Just wondering, why have you not noticed, while reading the book (I am assuming you have read a book by Karpat or McCarthy before posting, can I know what book it was btw?) that Yerevan was not an Ottoman province?

no offense, bg_Turk, that whatever you are trying to prove, in most of your threads you say "Ottoman archives this and Ottoman archives that"...I am starting to wonder if you really have seen what the Ottoman Archives say or you are just saying that...


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


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 12:06

I know that Yerevan was occupied by Russia by the beginning of the 20th century. I simply did not know what the exact date was.

By the way I took the numbers from the sources that I pasted before:

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10040&PN=3 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10040&am p;PN=3

Concerning the Ottoman archives it is very easy to check what they say  as long as you speak turkish. Many documents pertaining to the Russian agression during and after 1915 can be accessed online at

http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/kitap/ - http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/kitap/

Some of them have english translations too.

 



-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2006 at 23:35
I dont understand: why do you call it russian agression? Ottoman Empire declared war, and Ottoman Empire attacked. How is it that the Russians were the agressors?

and that review I have seen before...oh yeah, thats the book that says Armenian, Greeks and Russians killed 6,000,000 Turks...the clause of mutual genocide...


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


Posted By: Ishkhan
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2006 at 00:56
Originally posted by bg_turk

Kurds of the Yezidi sect - they are not muslims.

Armenia is virtually free of muslims nowadays. Who uses that mosque in Yerevan? Do you know?


Nobody uses the Gk-Jami or Blue Mosque of Yerevan. It was actually quite dilapidated and downtrodden until the Iranian government supplied Armenia with funds to renovate it. Today, it serves as a museum.


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2006 at 11:25

Originally posted by mamikon

...oh yeah, thats the book that says Armenian, Greeks and Russians killed 6,000,000 Turks...the clause of mutual genocide...

It is 5.5 million and it is not the number killed, but also inclues those that have died from disease and starvation as a result of the forced migration from the lost provinces of the ottoman empire. But anyway that is not relevant to the topic.

So what in your opinion was the number of Muslim residents in Yerevan province before the Russian agression?



-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2006 at 12:01

Originally posted by mamikon

I dont understand: why do you call it russian agression? Ottoman Empire declared war, and Ottoman Empire attacked. How is it that the Russians were the agressors?

Concerning the period under consideration, i.e. the fall of Yerevan - Russians were nothing but expansionist agressors following their imperialist interests.

During the fall of Yerevan the agression was not against the Ottoman Empire, but against Persia.

Here, from an Armenian source:

These provinces were conquered by the Russians during the fourth Russian-Persian war, between 1826 and 1827. This war was initiated by the rapid advance of the indefatigable Prince Abbas Mirzas forces, numbering around 35,000 men, who made a lightning attack on the cities of Gyumri (Alexandrapol) and Ganja (Elisavetpol). These two cities fell almost immediately into the hands of the Persian forces. The wind of danger blew towards Tbilisi and the city was expected to fall at any moment. But the tables were turned after six weeks of intensive and courageous defence of the fortress in -Shushi, where the Armenians in the city, together with the garrison of the city which was limited to only 350 men under the leadership of colonel Reout, withstood the Persian army. 17 The resistance was reinforced with the brilliant victory in September 2, 1826, in Shamkhor, masterminded by General Madatian. This Armenian general defeated the 10,000 strong Persian army with his 2,000 men and retook the city of Ganja. 20

 Then, General Paskevitch, who had been appointed chief commander of the Russian army instead of old Yermolov, and his 8,000 men joined the Armenian forces of Madatian. The new commander attacked the forces of Yerevan and defeated them in the vicinity of Ganja.

One year later, in 1827, Paskevitch occupied the city of Etchmiadzin and besieged Yerevan. He subsequently marched towards Nakhichevan and took the province in June. In August the Persians, led by Prince Abbas Mirza, arrived at the plains of Yerevan in an attempt to force the Russians to end their siege, but were defeated in battle near the city of Astarah. Finally, on October 2, the garrison of Yerevan, consisting of 4,000 men and 50 canons, surrendered. Volunteer Armenian infantrymen and cavalrymen participated during the entire campaign and fought side by side with the Russian soldiers. 22

and it continues

The Russian conquests in the Caucasus and Eastern Armenia from Persia brought her in direct contact with the Ottoman Empire in Asia.

The Bosporus still attracted Russian attention in regard to the Orient, and Armenia was naturally part of this concern. From this moment on an Armenian Question was created between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, a question which for a long time had remained hidden and unclear, but which eventually was forced into the light. 26

In addition, the new border between Russia and the Ottoman Empire which ran through Armenia, resulted in the 19th century in a war in Armenia alongside the chief Russian-Ottoman war in the Balkans and Crimea.

The first Russian-Ottoman war during the 19th century (not taking into account the war between 1808 and 1812) was ignited between 1828 and 1829. The basis for this war was the Russian involvement in the Greek revolt against the sultan. This war finished in a Russian victory in the Balkans which forced the sultan to sign a peace treaty and officially recognize an independent Greece, and was followed by yet another brilliant coup in Armenia where Marshal Paskevitch led the Caucasian forces, in which the Armenian units participated, to victory. 27

The Russian chief commander, who led an army of 25,000 men (leaving behind 15,000 men in the Caucasus for the defence against an eventual Persian assault), started from Gyumri and took the city of Kars. He then went north and conquered the cities of Akhaltsikh and Ardahan.

During the Crimea War (1855-1856) Armenia once again became the second stage of war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. A Russian army of 6 000 men, led by the Armenian General Behboudian, achieved its first victory on November 14, 1853, by the Arpa River, near Gyumri, crushing the 12 000 strong Turkish army which was led by Ahmed Pasha.

Through a circling offensive of his left flank, led by Lazarian, he surrounded the right flank of Mokhtar Pasha and defeated it by the shores of Arpa River. THus Loris Melikian was able to rapidly retake the Kars fortress, which fell during the night of November 18 to the Russian attack. For this he received the St Georges Cross from the Russian tsar and the Order of Merit from the German Kaiser Wilhelm I. The battle ended with the conquest of Erzurum.

As a result of the negotiations in San Stefano and Berlin, Russia received Kars, Ardahan and Batum among its conquests in the Ottoman Empire

Reference:

http://www.armenica.org/cgi-bin/history/en/getHistory.cgi?1=999=224=999==1=3=A - http://www.armenica.org/cgi-bin/history/en/getHistory.cgi?1= 999=224=999==1=3=A

You can clearly see the instrumental role Armenians played in the Russian expansion into the region. It was a century marked by defeat after defeat for the Muslims forces.

Hundreds of thousands of muslims were displaced and flocking towards the lands that were still under Muslim control. The distrust against the Armenians was rising.



-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2006 at 16:19
thats 1827...we  are talking about Russian agression of WWI arent we?

Originally posted by bg_turk


Concerning the Ottoman archives it is very easy to check what they say  as long as you speak turkish. Many documents pertaining to the Russian agression during and after 1915 can be accessed online at


the Russian expansion was not Armenia vs. Ottoman Empire, or Armenia vs. Persia....It was Russia against both of them...you see Russian gains in the Balkans, Georgia, Crimea....no Armenians there...

Russian expansion absolutely has nothing to do with Armenia...Armenians were just another subjects of Russia empire...not better than any other subjects.

And did you expect the 6000 Armenians fight with the Ottoman side? they were Eastern Armenians...why would they help the Ottomans? They were Russian subjects.

While Armenians in the western Armenia were not allowed to help the Ottoman Empire, since they were not allowed to join the Army...



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


Posted By: Ishkhan
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2006 at 17:41
Originally posted by bg_turk

So what in your opinion was the number of Muslim residents in Yerevan province before the Russian agression?

The Muslim presence, like the Christian presence was small, since Yerevan was just a village back then. Alexandropol, Baku and Tiflis were the major Transcaucasian cities.


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2006 at 18:19
Originally posted by bg_turk

You can clearly see the instrumental role Armenians played in the Russian expansion into the region. It was a century marked by defeat after defeat for the Muslims forces.

Hundreds of thousands of muslims were displaced and flocking towards the lands that were still under Muslim control. The distrust against the Armenians was rising.

     Armenians were subjected to Ottoman and Russian rule, and had to follow the orders of their respective empires regardless of what they really wanted to do. Plus, what you mentioned are just military campaigns, not an expulsion of Muslims from the Caucasus.


Originally posted by bg_turk

Russians were nothing but expansionist agressors following their imperialist interests.


     Um, what do you call the Turkish and Persian states during this time? Ottomans, an empire, were not expansionist aggressors, but stateless Armenia was responsible for what happened to all the Muslims in the Caucasus, right? (not to mention on the OTHER SIDE of the Caucasus mtns).


In August the Persians, led by Prince Abbas Mirza, arrived at the plains of Yerevan in an attempt to force the Russians to end their siege, but were defeated in battle near the city of Astarah. Finally, on October 2, the garrison of Yerevan, consisting of 4,000 men and 50 canons, surrendered. Volunteer Armenian infantrymen and cavalrymen participated during the entire campaign and fought side by side with the Russian soldiers.


     The battle took place in Armenia, of course there are going to be a group of rebels who were ready to join anyone who would help them overthrow Persian occupation. I don't see how this, or any of the other instances you mentioned, constitutes as Armenian aggression. The fact that there are SOME Armenian volunteers for the Russian army just means Armenia is a country just like any other, with a small group of rebels who will join any invader to overthrow their current rulers.

     You're turning an economic issue into a religious and ethnic one. Many of the Armenians who wanted to overthrow Muslim rule were sick of paying excessive taxes for being non-Muslims in an Islamic empire. Under the Russians this ridiculous tax didn't exist. God knows how many financially poor Armenians became Muslims during this time because of this stupid "Islamic" law.

     Also, Armenians have been politically divided for millenia. For every Armenian who wanted to overthrow Muslim rule, there were many more Armenians who wanted to stay under their current rulers, since many Armenians in both Persian and Turkish empires were economically very successful for centuries. This doesn't mean there weren't any poor Armenians, but we don't know much about them, since many of them converted to Islam and disappeared from the Armenian community completely.

-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: Artaxiad
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2006 at 18:27
There may have been numerous Turks in the Russian province of Yerevan (roughly corresponding to the modern day Republic of Armenia). That doesn't mean anything, though. In the Russian archives, it is said that in the early 1820s, Armenians formed a majority in Tiflis. That doesn't mean anything either because we know that Tiflis isn't part of Armenia.


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 09:17

This is know secret, the Turkic rulers governed the area for over 1000 years and Armenians were a minority population in the provinces.

Yes more double standards and hypocrisy, if this had been done by the other side it would have been called genocide however, when its done by Armenia its a laughing matter and cause for celebration.

This is the prime reason I stopped being duped by the Armenian thesis, from a Non-Turk/Non-Armenian viewpoint it was clearly a war both side's suffered claiming a systematic genocide occured as response to war-time defeat is shamefull and ridiculous.

Hundreds of thousands of Brittish troops were killed by Turks fighting in WW1, just because we lost that particular part of the war it doesn't give me any right what-so-ever to then later claim that the only reason we lost is because the Turks miraculously comitted a genocide against us.

Nothing of the sort, face it, these Turks were very brave and died protecting their homelands ie they were on the defensive fighting against the Brittish, French, Russians 3 super powers and then the Greeks and Armenians, now to battle against all at the same time take's real courage and heroism so I'm sorry but these guys deserve respect for this.

Its like German's blaming us for defending Britain and fighting for our homeland in the war, are we meant to feel sorry for the Germans who decided Britain would be a nice extenstion of their land? PLEASE.........



-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 15:01
"This is know secret, the Turkic rulers governed the area for over 1000 years and Armenians were a minority population in the provinces."

which 1000 years were these?

with regards to the rest of article.

Even though I would love to go in detail about the Genocide, I cant because of the forum rules...but I see the rules don't apply to you.



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


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 15:06
So who ruled in the region for past 1000 years huh? or is this an Armenian version of history which we never got to hear Sleepy
 
Everyone's heard your thesis for 90 years, were still not convinced, now it would be good if we could hear the Turkish thesis and argument which has been supressed in the West.
 
I only found out a few years ago and from an objective viewpoint its very clear about what happened ie what you claim happened the G word canot be applied, ofcourse as your an Armenian you'll refuse to accept this till the cows come home but that's your problem, deal with it.


-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 19-May-2006 at 17:23
again...I am not going to discuss the genocide, because its against the forum rules.

And once again, your post is noting but opinions.

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


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 20-May-2006 at 10:56

Its all it ever is "opinions" and their's so many and not many hardcore facts so................

About the main topic, where did all these people of Yerevan go? there seems to have been a very large population, will there be any move's towards a re-location to rebuild friendship and ties?



-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 20-May-2006 at 19:01
Originally posted by Bulldog

This is know secret, the Turkic rulers governed the area for over 1000 years and Armenians were a minority population in the provinces.






     Also, Turks didn't rule eastern Armenia for a significant period of time (which is what comprises the modern Republic of Armenia).

Originally posted by Bulldog

About the main topic, where did all these people of Yerevan go? there seems to have been a very large population, will there be any move's towards a re-location to rebuild friendship and ties?


     The Azeris fled Armenia during the 1988-1994 conflict with Azerbaijan (similar numbers of Armenians left Azerbaijan prior to the conflict because of government pogroms, which is what started the conflict).

     Also, Yerevan prior to Soviet rule was a town of tens of thousands. It wasn't even industrialized prior to Soviet occupation. Hardly a major city even for its time.


-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 20-May-2006 at 19:19

Survival,

can you please provide a source for your map? and which year it is? boundaries which it shows on the Balkans are wrong - in 1915 I believe Western Thrace was Bulgarian, and there were a few Armenians in Dedeagac too whcih is not shown on the map (I know that from a BulgaroArmenian refugee who was deported in the population exchange between Greece and Bulgaria). Western Thrace was not Greek until after the end of WW1.
 
Also I think the only population counts of the time were those of the Ottomans and as far as I know they divided the people into Muslims and Non-muslims and usually counted families rather than individuals, since that was the only information needed for the tax collection purpose.  
Is that map based on such a census? If so how does it distinguish between Armenian and the other christians in the region - Assyrians and Pontians?
 
If it is just some kind of a "projection" I would say it is highly uncertain, especially since it comes from a French source (judging from the writing) since during WW1 the French were at war with the Ottomans and they had an interest to carve out an Armenian state from the empire.
 
I will try to dig out  more sources on the ottoman population data for the Erivan province and Eastern Turkey.  


-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 20-May-2006 at 19:41
Also if you compare with your previous map which shows the distribution of the Armenians before the Azeri-Armenian war, you will see that areas in Georgia and Azerbaijan which are shown with  Armenian majority on this one are not shown as such on the previous one - notably the region to the North-West of Nagorno-Karabakh and the region around Akhaltska - unless Georgia and Azerbaijan also performed ethnic cleansing prior to the collapse of the Soviets I do not know how would you explain this discrepancy? Wouldn't you expect actually the areas populated by armenians after 1920 to increase, and not decrease as your maps show, since quite a few Armenians were expelled from the West and had to settle in territories under Russian control?

-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 00:52
Originally posted by bg_turk

Survival,

can you please provide a source for your map? and which year it is? boundaries which it shows on the Balkans are wrong - in 1915 I believe Western Thrace was Bulgarian, and there were a few Armenians in Dedeagac too whcih is not shown on the map (I know that from a BulgaroArmenian refugee who was deported in the population exchange between Greece and Bulgaria). Western Thrace was not Greek until after the end of WW1.


     I actually got the source from one of your posts (it was a map of the Treaty of Sevres). Here is the bibliography for the information on the site (it doesn't specify what that particular map is based on): http://www.imprescriptible.fr/bibliographie2.htm

Originally posted by bg_turk

Also if you compare with your previous map which shows the distribution of the Armenians before the Azeri-Armenian war, you will see that areas in Georgia and Azerbaijan which are shown with  Armenian majority on this one are not shown as such on the previous one - notably the region to the North-West of Nagorno-Karabakh and the region around Akhaltska - unless Georgia and Azerbaijan also performed ethnic cleansing prior to the collapse of the Soviets I do not know how would you explain this discrepancy? Wouldn't you expect actually the areas populated by armenians after 1920 to increase, and not decrease as your maps show, since quite a few Armenians were expelled from the West and had to settle in territories under Russian control?


     The Ottoman army marched all the way to Baku. They killed Armenians in Baku and many parts of Azerbaijan, and eradicated the Armenian population of Nakhichevan (which is precisely why there are 0 Armenians remaining in Nakhichevan today, even though it was not part of the Ottoman Empire). The Ottoman army even penetrated Persia, killing the Armenians around Lake Urmia, and also Chaldean Christians.

     Also another thing that might be throwing you off is that the map doesn't show population density. The city of Yerevan, in the period that the map shows, was a town of tens of thousands (with an absolute Armenian majority). Under Soviet rule it became industrialized and it is now a city of over 1 million people (with an absolute Armenian majority...so it would look the same on the map when in actuality there was a huge change in population). Also if you look closely many Georgian urban centers have relative or absolute Armenian majorities. Many of them went to Yerevan after the first Armenian republic was established (1918), and after the Soviets took over, they moved Armenians from many parts of the USSR back to Armenia. So in a nutshell part of the Armenian population in Azerbaijan shown on this map were either killed or driven out by the Ottoman army, and the ones in Georgia were moved to Armenia by the Soviets after 1920.

-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: Bashibozuk
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 06:49
Armenians were never a majority in Northeastern Cilicia (Kozan/Sis, Kadirli, Dortyol) and never a majority in Marash (today Kahraman Marash, gifted the title "hero" after Turkish War of Independence). Actually, Kahramanmarash was one of the most nationalistic cities of Turkey ever, the local liberation gangs, just by themselves, kicked the French out. Artvin (in the northeast) was also not mainly inhabited by Armenians.
 
killing the Armenians around Lake Urmia, and also Chaldean Christians.
 
Chaldeans weren't slaughtered by Ottomans.


-------------
Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar,
Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar.
Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar,
Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben.


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 15:16
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival

      The Ottoman army marched all the way to Baku.
 
Really? I thought the Ottoman army was halted at Yerevan?
 
According to armenica.org
 
During the months of September and October the Armenian army in the north held off the advance of the Turks. On October 14, the Armenian army in Novoslibili began a counteroffensive which would determine the outcome of the war. After an initial victory, the Armenian army could no longer immobilise the progress of the enemy. Over the following days, the Turkish army approached Kars and on October 30, following a swift manoeuvre of its right flank, took the fortress of the city.

The remaining Armenian forces in the north retreated towards javascript:top.Show%28%27mapDiv%27,%27Alexandrapol, 1920%27%29; - - Gharakilisa (Vanadzor). The eighth regiment of the Armenian army put up a heroic defence in the mountainous passage at Jarjour, the last glimmer of Armenian heroism along with the victorious defence of southern javascript:top.Show%28%27mapDiv%27,%27Yerevan, 1920%27%29; -


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 15:49
With his credibility battered at home Enver nevertheless recovered ground with the defeat of the Allied expedition to the http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/overview_gf.htm - Dardanelles in 1915-16.  Russia's withdrawal from the war, and the February Revolution of 1917, presented Enver with the opportunity to lead the Ottoman forces that occupied Baku in 1918.


http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/enver.htm

In http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?dsid=2222&dekey=1916 - 1916 the fighting between Russian and Ottoman forces to the north of the country had spilt down into Iran; Russia gained the advantage until most of her armies collapsed in the wake of the http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?dsid=2222&dekey=Russian+Revolution+of+1917 - Russian Revolution of 1917 . This left the http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?dsid=2222&dekey=Caucasus+%28geographic+region%29 - Caucasus unprotected, and the Caucasian and Persian civilians starving after years of war and deprivation.


http://www.answers.com/topic/persia


-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 15:49
" Armenians were never a majority in Northeastern Cilicia"

Even when there was an Armenian Kingdom in Cilicia?

" Let's just think about it before claiming this, who'd have the purpose to erase Assyrians, and more importantly, why?"

What was the purpose of killing Jews in Nazi Germany?

"Really? I thought the Ottoman army was halted at Yerevan?"

Nope, they went through Georgia, reached Baku. They also entered Karabakh and northern Iran. The army was headed by Enver Pasha (once again) and was called the Army of Islam.

Only one of the Ottoman regiments that headed straight for Yereven were halted...






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


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 17:56

So Enver occupied Baku in 1918?

This was just around the time when the Russian advance into Eastern Turkey had halted and major cities such as Van, Erzurum, Erzinjan,Trabzon, Kars etc, were under Armenian control. It is really surprising that Enver was all the way to Baku at a time when half of Anatolia was under Armenian control. 
What happened to Enver's units then? Did he try to advance on Armenian units from the East?


-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 18:46
Originally posted by bg_turk

So Enver occupied Baku in 1918? This was just around the time when the Russian advance into Eastern Turkey had halted...


     In 1918 the Russian army was long gone, retreated all the way back into Russia in 1917 because of the Russian Revolution. Thats how Enver was able to march to Baku.


Originally posted by bg_turk

...and major cities such as Van, Erzurum, Erzinjan,Trabzon, Kars etc, were under Armenian control. It is really surprising that Enver was all the way to Baku at a time when half of Anatolia was under Armenian control.


     It is more surprising how half of Anatolia could be under Armenian control when in 1918 there were no Armenians there and the Russian army was nowhere in sight for a good year by then.

Originally posted by bg_turk

What happened to Enver's units then? Did he try to advance on Armenian units from the East?


     He went to Central Asia and fought in wars there to get the central Asian Turkic republics their independence. He even died in a battle which took place in Central Asia.

-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 19:08
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival

 
     It is more surprising how half of Anatolia could be under Armenian control when in 1918 there were no Armenians there and the Russian army was nowhere in sight for a good year by then.
 
 
Please Survival stop denying that! Eastern Turkey was under Armenian control until the early months of 1918. The map below shows  how far the Russians had reached before they had haulted, when they left due to the Bolshevik Revolution. Armenians were in control of the territories for 2 whole years between 1916-1918.  
 
 
Armenian forced mounted a stiff defense of the territories but left alone they were defeated by Ottoman forces , and by March the Ottoman Army had captured Trebizond, Erzurum, Kars, Van and Batumi. Enver reached Baku on September 1918, but he had never entered Yerevan because Armenian forces defeated him at Sarikamish. 


-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 19:55
Originally posted by bg_turk

Please Survival stop denying that! Eastern Turkey was under Armenian control until the early months of 1918. The map below shows  how far the Russians had reached before they had haulted, when they left due to the Bolshevik Revolution. Armenians were in control of the territories for 2 whole years between 1916-1918. Armenian forced mounted a stiff defense of the territories but left alone they were defeated by Ottoman forces , and by March the Ottoman Army had captured Trebizond, Erzurum, Kars, Van and Batumi.


     It was under Russian control. There was no independent Armenia until the First Republic of Armenia was established in 1918 (territories of the Russian province of Erivan, created only due to the Russian retreat and a failed invasion of Yerevan by Enver's troops). While the Russians were there, there was no independent-anything. It was all part of the Russian Empire. It was only after the Russian army left in 1917 that a power vaccuum was created in the region, with the remaining Armenian deportees left in the middle, forced to take up whatever arms they could find, in order to hold off Ottoman troops whom they knew were out to "deport" them. The Ottomans used these acts of self-defense (as well as other instances) as propaganda to say "look, the Armenians are resisting our rule" (just like how the Nazis called the Warsaw ghetto uprisings "revolts"). The Armenians who held off the Ottomans near Yerevan in 1918 barely carried the day. It was only after this victory in 1918 that an independent Armenia was created out of the former Russian province of Erivan (which, as I said, Enver tried to take but failed).

Originally posted by bg_turk

Enver reached Baku on September 1918, but he had never entered Yerevan because Armenian forces defeated him at Sarikamish.


     He sent a force to take Yerevan, but they were defeated (barely). Also, I have only heard the Young Turks say that the Armenians were to blame for their defeat at Sarikamish. They used this as justification to carry out their plans for deportation. In reality the Ottomans lost at Sarikamish because of the Russian army (which had Armenian units from Russian Armenia in it, but if we're using this logic, we might as well blame the Ukranians for the Ottoman defeat at Sarikamish). After the Russians left I don't think Enver feared the Armenians so much, especially when he attacked them everywhere else, and then went all the way to Central Asia to fight.

-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 21:58
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival



     It was under Russian control. There was no independent Armenia until the First Republic of Armenia was established in 1918 (territories of the Russian province of Erivan, created only due to the Russian retreat and a failed invasion of Yerevan by Enver's troops). While the Russians were there, there was no independent-anything. It was all part of the Russian Empire. It was only after the Russian army left in 1917 that a power vaccuum was created in the region, with the remaining Armenian deportees left in the middle, forced to take up whatever arms they could find, in order to hold off Ottoman troops whom they knew were out to "deport" them. The Ottomans used these acts of self-defense (as well as other instances) as propaganda to say "look, the Armenians are resisting our rule" (just like how the Nazis called the Warsaw ghetto uprisings "revolts").
 
Please, please, stop looking for excuses for the autrocities comitted by Armenians. I try to be honest with you and never deny the autrocities comitted by the Turks.
 
Even if the Armenian Republic was not proclaimed until 1918, a semi-organized Armenian entity existed on the territories under Russ-Armenian occupation.
 
Russians advanced in 1916 on a territory which had muslim majority even according to the map that you provide. Where were these muslims in 1917? And how did they fail to get armed and fill in the "power vacuum", when even Armenians - "deportees left in the middle, forced to take up whatever arms they could find" - that were significantly weakened managed to mobilize and fight and face the Turks to the West with a force of 35,000 men? This power vacuum theory (for a region with muslim majority) is impossible unless the muslims were massacred and ethnically cleansed.
 
The "self-defense" claim would have been valid if the territories were entirely Armenian. You can't just kill or force most Turks and Muslims out of there, and then when they try to come back claim that you were only fighting in "self-defense" - that is utter rubbish. I try to be honest and I never deny the suffering of Armenians during the period and the massive massacres that have occurred against them, please stop denying the massacres against the muslims with these "power vacuum" and "self-defense" theories! There was no power-vacuum, if there was a vacuum of anything - it was a vacuum of muslims in the region; and Armenians were defending themselves against those same people that they forced out and killed just a year ago - this is no "self-defense".
 
 


-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 22:14
Note to the moderators: Plese do not lock this thread, since it is not a discussion of the Armenian Genocide but a discussion of the muslim casualties during the same time period so it is not part of the blacklisted topics.

-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 22:20
"At midmorning on August 26, 1918, a small contingent of British soldiers from D Company of the North Staffordshire Regiment lay dug in along a defensive line at the crest of a dubious geological formation known locally as the Mud Volcano. It was the key in a defense plan protecting the vital oil town of Baku on the Caspian Sea -- and the target of Ottoman forces seeking to take advantage of the internal chaos created by Russia's ongoing revolution"
http://www.historynet.com/mh/blbaku/ -
http://www.historynet.com/mh/blbaku/

"Besides these two issues, there is the third issue, which addresses the case of Muslim leaders who flirted with Marxism in its early days after the end of the First World War. We are told by historians of the period that some Muslim leaders who wanted to liberate their societies from the yoke of foreign rule briefly flirted with the idea of working with the communists. Two examples can be cited here. The first was Enver Pasha, who had in 1918 launched the "Army of Islam," ostensibly to help liberate the Muslims from the Russian Empire"

http://www.coloradocollege.edu/Academics/Anniversary/Transcripts/NyangTXT.htm - http://www.coloradocollege.edu/Academics/Anniversary/Transcripts/NyangTXT.htm

The objective of the British expedition, headed by Major General Wilfred Malleson of the Military Intelligence branch of the Indian Army, was to seize the great oil fields in Baku (Azerbaijan) ahead of Enver Pasha's advancing Turkish troops (Army of Islam) or the Kaiser's German troops - and to block a Bolshevik consolidation in the Caucasus and Central Asia.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GF02Ag01.html - http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GF02Ag01.html


page 21
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/F/firstworldwar/pdf/p09-script.pdf - http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/F/firstworldwar/pdf/p09-script.pdf

Russians started withdrawing in 1917, the Armenians started to withdraw with them. If you say that the area was under Armenian control then how did Enver reach Baku in the may of 1918, while a part of his army was about to finish off the 500,000 Armenians confined in the Arax valley?




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


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 22:29
     Maybe I didn't make myself clear. The self-defenses that I mentioned were in regards to Armenians fighting against the advancing Ottoman army, not the other instances of revenge acts and whatnot. I probably should have specified.

     And how was there not a power vacuum...if Russian troops controlled the Caucasus and eastern Anatolia and they suddenly leave, I'd say thats a pretty significant and sudden absence of power in the region.


Originally posted by bg_turk

Even if the Armenian Republic was not proclaimed until 1918, a semi-organized Armenian entity existed on the territories under Russ-Armenian occupation.


     If you find me some real historians who back this up then we can talk about it.

Originally posted by bg_turk

Russians advanced in 1916 on a territory which had muslim majority even according to the map that you provide. Where were these muslims in 1917? And how did they fail to get armed and fill in the "power vacuum", when even Armenians - "deportees left in the middle, forced to take up whatever arms they could find" - that were significantly weakened managed to mobilize and fight and face the Turks to the West with a force of 35,000 men?


     The number 35,000 I believe was an estimate by Winston Churchill, and he said those were the maximum number of troops which Armenians could muster. 35,000 men to protect all of modern-day Armenia and all of eastern Anatolia...that is a very small number. Also they were poorly equipped. Its not like the Russians left their guns with the Armenians, they had a revolution to fight at home.

     You seem to forget that the vast majority of Armenians had been "deported" from 1915-1917, so the population map which I posted is completely irrelevant for post-1915 (I only posted it to show Bulldog that Armenians were in fact a majority population in areas of eastern Anatolia).

-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 22:32
We are talking about the period before March 1918 here, mamikon. Enver reclaimed Eastern Turkey by March 1918 and continued with this army of Islam towards Baku, which he reached in Septermber. There is no doubt that Armenians were brutally crushed, massacred and deported in this period. What I want to know is what happened to the muslim population before that, in 1916-1917 and why was there a power vacuum in a predominanlty muslim region?! Clearly the muslims were missing. What had happened to them?

-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 22:35
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival

   
     You seem to forget that the vast majority of Armenians had been "deported" from 1915-1917, so the population map which I posted is completely irrelevant for post-1915 (I only posted it to show Bulldog that Armenians were in fact a majority population in areas of eastern Anatolia).
but this is precisely the point, and it goes on to show that there were even less Armenians in the region in 1917. How is it then possible that there was a "power vacuum" if the muslims were not somehow "removed" beforehand?


-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 22:40
     Okay let me explain what I meant by "power vacuum".

     The Russians controlled Caucasia, and during WW1 advanced into eastern Anatolia. They suddenly left in 1917. Just like that. That means all those provinces that they controlled are now leaderless, hence there is a power vacuum. I don't see what the Muslims have to do with this, especially when the power vacuum was filled by the advancing Ottoman army.


-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 23:17
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival

     Okay let me explain what I meant by "power vacuum".

     The Russians controlled Caucasia, and during WW1 advanced into eastern Anatolia. They suddenly left in 1917. Just like that. That means all those provinces that they controlled are now leaderless, hence there is a power vacuum. I don't see what the Muslims have to do with this, especially when the power vacuum was filled by the advancing Ottoman army.
 
leaderless? Nazarbekian, Adranik (who is even famos here in the Balkans for his pillages during the 1878 war) and Morel were not leaders?
 
Ok we agree there was this power vacuum when the Russians left. But still you haven't answered my question of what the muslims were doing in this power vacuum. It took until January 1918 for Trabzon to be retaken by Enver's army, if there was a power vacuum why didn't its muslims liberate it by themselves? Were they prevented from doing so by the Armenians, or did the muslims simply not exist in Trabzon at all? Your maps certainly show that they did before the war started.
 
Why do you refuse to see the obvious that the muslims were simply "removed", that they were "missing"?
 
We always talk about Armenians and the Ottoman Army but we never mention the Muslim civilians which formed the majority in the area before the war started. Since you deny that Genocide against the muslims in the area occurred in 1916-1917, I simply want to know where according to your opinion were the Muslim civilians doing 1917? Were they massacred and killed, were they deported to other parts of the Empire, or were they simply impartial bystandarders to the whole drama? 
 
All of the main protagonists in 1917 have an allibi except the muslims. The Ottoman Army was busy in the Southern frontline and the next year was about to fill in the "power vacuum", the Armenians were mobilizng for their self-defense against the Ottoman Army. But where were the Muslim civilians during that time if they existed at all?


-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 23:36
Power Vacuum doesnt mean that no one lived in those lands. Muslims were still there. I think the most similar term to a power vacuum would be an accidental demiliteralized zone (containing a civilian population), there was no army present there until Enver quickly engulfed the region. Using the 35000 figure, there is no way such a small force would hold an area so large, and in the meantime annahilate the muslim population. Moreover I doubt its was 35000 together, but fragmented...it is of course possible that atrocities against muslims took place, but at a scale of 500,000 deaths? (as given by Turkish historians, and only backed by Turkish historians and the 4 western "denialists")

"why do you refuse to see the obvious that the muslims were simply removed", that they were "missing"?"

because they were not removed or missing, after the war they were still there no? while the Armenians werent


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


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 00:10
Using the 35000 figure, there is no way such a small force would hold an area so large, and in the meantime annahilate the muslim population.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus_Campaign - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus_Campaign
 
Gives the size of the Army of Islam as 25,000 soldiers- an underestimate? I think I cam accross a different figure somewhere else (armenica?) which metnioned around 80,000 soldiers, but in any case it is not much bigger than the Armenian army of 35,000.
 
Originally posted by mamikon

Power Vacuum doesnt mean that no one lived in those lands. Muslims were still there. I think the most similar term to a power vacuum would be an accidental demiliteralized zone (containing a civilian population), there was no army present there until Enver quickly engulfed the region.
 
It wasn't "quickly" at all. The vacuum lasted for a whole year, and the region was under Armenian control for two yeas  (since 1916)- it was not until March 1918 that the region was reclaimed by the Ottoman forces.
 
Moreover I doubt its was 35000 together, but fragmented...it is of course possible that atrocities against muslims took place, but at a scale of 500,000 deaths?
1917 was quiet and there were by then too few muslims to disturb the "vacuum". Most of the Muslim were massacred earlier in 1916 when Russians and Armenians were victorius. There were 500,000 Russians + 160,000 Armenian soldiers - perfectly capable of killing as many civilians. Besides as in the case of the Armenians, the muslim death toll was not only due to massacres, but also due to disease and starvation during their exile and "evacuation".
 
 
because they were not removed or missing, after the war they were still there no? while the Armenians werent
I ask again: if there were no Armenians and only muslims in the region in 1917 in this so-called "political vacuum", why didn't these muslims restore control like in Gumuljine, Western Thrace in 1912 when a similar vacuum lead to the proclamation of a Turkish state in Gumuljine?
 
You can deny the Genocide against the Muslims all you want, but without it your theory about Genocide against Armenians simply does not make sense. For it to make sense you have to find a satisfactory answer about the Muslims in 1917


-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 00:39
"It wasn't "quickly" at all. The vacuum lasted for a whole year, and the region was under Armenian control for two yeas  (since 1916)- it was not until March 1918 that the region was reclaimed by the Ottoman forces."

The Russian Revolution (October Revolution) took place in October of 1917, and the Russian army started to withdraw. By the May of next year the Turkish army had recovered all the territory, were invading Eastern Armenia and had almost reached Baku.

"
1917 was quiet and there were by then too few muslims to disturb the "vacuum". Most of the Muslim were massacred earlier in 1916 when Russians and Armenians were victorius. There were 500,000 Russians + 160,000 Armenian soldiers - perfectly capable of killing as many civilians. Besides as in the case of the Armenians, the muslim death toll was not only due to massacres, but also due to disease and starvation during their exile and "evacuation"

you are just speaking hypothetically...just because the Russian Army  (with an Armenian contigent) pushed the Ottomans back it doesnt mean it killed off the whole muslim population of Eastern Anatolia. And 160,000 Armenians? so how did that number plump to 35,000 Armenians at the end of that year? I have no clue where you are getting your numbers from. Except for McCarthy and some Turkish historians there is no proof that the Russian army killed more than 500,000 Turkish civilians.

"
if there were no Armenians and only muslims in the region in 1917 in this so-called "political vacuum", why didn't these muslims restore control like in Gumuljine, Western Thrace in 1912 when a similar vacuum lead to the proclamation of a Turkish state in Gumuljine?"

I dont know what happened in Gumuljine but doesnt it strike you odd that Enver got the lands back so fast?

"
You can deny the Genocide against the Muslims all you want, but without it your theory about Genocide against Armenians simply does not make sense. For it to make sense you have to find a satisfactory answer about the Muslims in 1917"

Genocides of the muslims???? We have reached the same point that we stopped at one month ago, with you having no other proof than McCarthy's book...and the notion that everyone is against the Turks so their civilians massacres were not recorded. This discussion is going in circles.


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


Posted By: kotumeyil
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 03:51
What happened to the Muslims in the occupied region? I can't speak for everyone but at least my ancestors in Erzurum escaped from the Armenian gangs and took refuge to Yozgat in Central Anatolia. My grandfather tells that his elders could take nothing with them during the exile and had to eat barleys they found in horse sh*t. The father of my grandmom was an orphaned child, whose father was killed by Armenian gangs, etc. Not a happy story...  

-------------
[IMG]http://www.maksimum.com/yemeicme/images/haber/raki.jpg">


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 05:44
Originally posted by mamikon

And 160,000 Armenians?
It is from the same Churchil quote.
 

This discussion is going in circles.
We are going in circles because of your unsatisfactory answers about what happened to the muslims in 1917 and why they failed to fill in the power vacuum if Armenians what were victims of Genocide were so weak. So far I have heard nothing but petty excuses for the massacres against the Muslims and about how Armenians were weak and unable to do anything like that, even though a great majority of Turks claim to the contrary.
 
I will say no more on the subject.
 
 
Kotumeyil,
 
thans for sharing your family story.


-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 06:17
Note to the moderators: Plese do not lock this thread, since it is not a discussion of the Armenian Genocide but a discussion of the muslim casualties during the same time period so it is not part of the blacklisted topics.
 
If we dont discuss Armenians killed  by Turks, we  should not discuss Turk  killed by armenians too.No need to double standard. This topic should be locked or, blacklisted topic  should unban  too.
 
Also all  type of provocative topic  should be banned or unbanned.
 


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 06:49
fair enough, but it is unnecessary because I have nothing more to say on this topic.

-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 18:03
"We are going in circles because of your unsatisfactory answers about what happened to the muslims in 1917 and why they failed to fill in the power vacuum if Armenians what were victims of Genocide were so weak. So far I have heard nothing but petty excuses for the massacres against the Muslims and about how Armenians were weak and unable to do anything like that, even though a great majority of Turks claim to the contrary."

you are so sure that Armenians somehow orchestrated Turkish Genocide that anything I say is unsatisfactory.

Just because the Russians got territory in the beginning of the war does not mean they killed every muslim, and this is your whole argument....that the presence of a Russian Army (with an Armenian contigent) means that Turks were genocided, thats just ridiculous. This is the same thing as saying that when the Greeks advanced in western Anatolia they also killed all the Turks (which you probably believe) So Greeks killed all the Turks in Western Anatolia, and Armenians killed all the Turks in Eastern Anatolia? So who the hell are the 80 million people living in Turkey?

And once again, no show no evidence to prove your claims, except from one book, which you have presented in every genoocide discussion you have been in AE.

by the way, if 500,000 Turks really were massacred why is it no westerners, arabs, Russians or anyone not Turkish has witnessed this? I mean Germans would have loved to report Russian atrocities against Turks wouldnt they? Or is everyone against Turks again...

And why do you keep saying Armenia this and Armenia that. Armenia wasnt a state until 1918, it was part of the Russian Empire.

No one is denying that there were massacres against Turks, but Genocide? this is nothing but blame a victim game...good luck convincing others with your argument.

And can I see the link where according to Churchill there were 160,000 Armenians in the Russian Army (please, please no Wiki)

I have a feeling you know that the Armenian Genocide really was Genocide, but the pre-requisite to you actually saying that is Armenians on this board saying that Armenians orchestrated a Turkish Genocide

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


Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 18:26
The Churchil quote:
 
http://www.armenica.org/cgi-bin/history/en/getHistory.cgi?7=1=305=K-151==9=3=A - http://www.armenica.org/cgi-bin/history/en/getHistory.cgi?7=1=305=K-151==9=3=A


-------------
http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com


Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 19:02
thanks

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



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com