Newpaper reports from 1914

This topic will inevitably lead to the blacklisted topic of the Armenian Genocide. And if it won't, let me make it so: bg_turk do you think, then, that the Genocide was justified so Turkey could get "even" for the invasion?

Originally posted by konstantinius This topic will inevitably lead to the blacklisted topic of the Armenian Genocide. And if it won't, let me make it so: bg_turk do you think, then, that the Genocide was justified so Turkey could get "even" for the invasion?

Of course the killing of innocent people, whether Turkish or Armenian, whether recognized as genocide or not, is never justified. Your question is thus rhetorical.

The more interesting question that I would ask in this thread is whether  and to what extent Armenians collaborated with the Russian invadors, and whether this is what provoked the Turkish retaliation?

I think the two newspaper articles above illustrate quite clearly that the great majority of Armenians did indeed side with the Russians and fought the Turks, something that some forumers have denied in the past. The articles provide a context for the events and clarify what provoked the Turkish retaliation. The motive for the what its proponents refer to as an Armenian Genocide, has not so far been satisfactorily explained by them.


Edited by bg_turk - 04-Dec-2006 at 23:37

Originally posted by bg_turk In several towns occupied by the Russians, the Armenian students have shown themselves ready to join the invading army, and explained that they had prepared themselves for the Russian approach by constant drilling and by gathering arms secretly. All along the line of march, according to these dispatches, the Armenian peasants are receiving Russian troops with enthusiasm and giving them provisions freely.

Notice how it says in several towns captured by the Russians...not every town. Also, no one has said there wasn'd a minimal colloboration with the Russians...in fact I and others have stated that that type of colloboration is normal when a nation has been occupied, there always are rebels in an occupied territory.

It is no different from Ukrainians siding with Germans during WWII...

With respect to the farmers...they can either give up shelter and food willingly...or it can be forced upon them. The Russian soldiers were no angels.

Also, dont you find it conspicuous that the article is from Petrograd and could be a propaganda ploy?

Also, if there really was such a strong Armenian force at Van...what happened to it?

I have access to New York Times archives dating back to 1867 and I cant find anything on the 20,000 Armenian army...

Also, why does the article keep mentioning Turkish-Armenia...I thought there was no Turkey back then

I will dwelve deeper into the articles; but now I have a research paper to attend to...sadly its 4 AM here.


Edited by mamikon - 05-Dec-2006 at 00:48

err, I see how this articles are neutral.

Originally posted by Leonidas No why is it that armenians or any one else cant talk about this part of history their way, but others can?

Interesting article.Note, how the articles never use the word genocide. The Armenian massacres were never called genocide then and for the 30 years that immediately followed them. Using the word genocide for something that at the time was not in my opinion constitutes an instance of anachronism, but this is the subject of another discussion.

The last article touches upon the Ottoman excesses in Trabzon. The Ottomans were particularly nervous about the city, because it was a strategic city that Russians would have needed to capture to ensure their domination on the Black See. Reports such as the above served to prepare the public opinion for the war against the Turks and was used by the Russians as a justification for their invasion of Turkey.

The Russian army aided by Armenian rebells reached the city of Trabzon a few months later on 4th March 1916. The city fell on the 18th April 1916. Russians and revenge seeking Armenians did not spare any of the Moslems that were stupid enough to not have fled. The city remained under joint Russo-Armenian control until 24th April 1918, when it was recaptured by the Turkish nationalists.
 




Edited by bg_turk - 05-Dec-2006 at 07:03

Just a quick note. It was not only the Armenians that were massacred . There were 750000 or so Assyrian victims in that genoside (or what ever it is called). Many Assyrians had to leave their homeland (present day northern-Iraq, northwest-Iran) in order to survive. Many of them fled to eastern Europe. In fact many Assyrians that live in Iran or Iraq now are the descendants of the ones who fled to Europe at the time of the genocide and later came back. My Assyrian neighbour's family was one of the ones who returned. He had distant families all over eastern Europe who had not come back and whom he had never met. This fact should not be forgotten.
    
    
    
    
    
    

Edited by omshanti - 05-Dec-2006 at 14:19

Let us not forget also the genocide against the Kurds as well. The Kurdish people were the first victim of weapons of mass destructions in 1919. 

In this book, �Deterring Democracy�, Noam Chomsky describes British rule in Iraqi Kurdistan as follows:

As Secretary of State at the War Office in 1919, Churchill was approached by the RAF Middle East Command for permission to use chemical weapons �against recalcitrant Arabs as experiment.� Churchill authorized the experiment, dismissing objections: I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases; gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected. Churchill added: �we cannot in any circumstances acquiesce in the non utilization of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier.' Chemical weapons were merely �the application of Western science to modern warfare.� Churchill was in favour of using air power and poison gas against �uncivilized tribes� and �recalcitrant Arabs� i.e. Kurds and Afghans.

God knows how many died.


Edited by bg_turk - 05-Dec-2006 at 07:55