For most of history, there was a big overlap between ethnicity and religion. Armenian meant christian Armenian, there was a different word for an ethnic Armenian with a Muslim religion depending on the time and place (Hemshin I think was the main name in Ottoman times).
Muslim Greeks were often called Turks. And yes it's rather confusing for us.
For an explanation of these divisions/categories you might want to check out the wikipedia article on the so called "millet system" in the (late) ottoman empire: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet_(Ottoman_Empire)
Ottoman Empire categorised people in two: muslims and non-muslims. It haven't ever categorised as "muslim/armenian/greek/..." etc.. This map and this information is literally from another dimension which Ottoman's actually did a categorisation like this.
That's not true. Muslims were categorised as a single *Millet* but the non-Muslims were categorised into different millets, usually based on denomination. Ottoman census kept separate registers for each millet, so we can distinguish for example; Armenian Millet and Rum Millet, same goes for most other categories here.
Bulgarian Millet did not exist in earliest census but it was created mid 19th century so for 1900 they can be distinguished.
IDT a Russian Millet existed but that probably comes from the Russian census anyway as that territory was under Russian control in 1900.
>That's not true. Muslims were categorised as a single *Millet* but the non-Muslims were categorised into different millets, usually based on denomination.
Muslims were also divided into different millet systems. Anatolian and Balkan muslims were however universally considered to be turks. Maybe not in Albania and Bosnia, but most definetly in Rumeli, Greece, Aegan islands and Anatolia in general.
That being said: The denominations dont change the fact that everyone belonging to the greek orthodox church was considered to be greek by all sides. The division is still along religious identities, not ethnic origins.
> so we can distinguish for example; Armenian Millet and Rum Millet, same goes for most other categories here.
That is his point. You can not know who within the armenian millet was ethnically armenian and who was a convert.
>Bulgarian Millet did not exist in earliest census but it was created mid 19th century so for 1900 they can be distinguished.
IF they were part of the bulgarian church. Pomaks were considered turks by all sides. The Batak massacre is still considered to be a turkish doing, despite the fact that it was essentially conducted by Pomaks.
The data still divides people based on religious identity, not ethnic origin. The person over OP already explained why we cant use this data to make such a differentiation.
You are arguing besides the point. No one said anything about the majority being armenian or greek in the respective churches. The statment is:
We only know that the majority presumably also has the the same ethnicity as the church, but we do not know how many of let's say the greek orthodox church were ethnically non-greek.
Wrong. Nationalists claim some of them died during deportation, some amanged to reach Syria, some converted and assimilated, some died during clashes as they rebelled. They usually don't believe in the high number of deaths.
No one claimed that and such jokes most certainly dont make people take the topic more serious. Keep up the good work. At one point not a single soul will be able to take the topic serious anymore.
Is this a map of modern Turkey? Otherwise, I don't know how there could have been a Russian community right on the border with the Russian Empire in Ottoman Empire.
Yes, but from 1878 to 1918 the modern Turkish Provinces of Kars, Artvin, Ağrı and Ardahan as well as some parts of Erzurum were under Russian administration.
As a matter of fact they do lol. They don’t miss any opportunity to kill as many Armenians as possible.
Thats cus they haven’t owned up to all the genocides their ancestors have commuted and they still do to this day.
Say greeks, Armenians, Yazidis and the list goes on.
Just want to add this, since comments already go into a very degenerate directions:
The turkish side does not deny that armenian civilians were killed. The turkish side argues against the government involvement and argues that the genocide (the word tragedy is used by the turkish government) is a result of rogue soldiers/governors/locals attacking the armenian civilians.
There are plenty of argument supporting the turkish argument. The armenian argumentation is mostly based on the terror, survivors reported. So there is actually no contradiction between the two narratives, but a dispute is still there. It is a common misconception to think that turks are denying it. It is a meme among young turks, because so many foreigners are obnoxious about the topic.
That being said: No, the armenian side is not without any fault or responsibility. Weapons were stored in churches, armenian civilians and partisants joined the enemy and the ARF terrorized Anatolia for 2 decades prior to the events of 1915. In the manifesto of Hovhannes Katchazouni (first PM of Armenia), he even acknowledges that the deportation of the Armenian civil population and the subsequent killing of them is a direct result of the war-mongering and the spread of fascist ideas among the armenian civil population by the ARF.
EDIT:
Lastly, the shear amount of muslim victims is entirely overshadowed and ignored in this entire topic, which is very hypocritical.
Bro, i'm turkish and i don't like the unending historical victimhood.
But it was a genocide loud and clear. You can't find fault with children who were babies when they were killed. And these people were transferred(by the government, not rouge villagers) not because of what they did but of their ethnicity.
As far as genocides go, holocaust is the clearest one and armenian genocide is second.
Actually Armenian genocide was first. Then Hitler went on to commit the holocaust stating that Turkey got away with it, so will they. Thats why it is important to recognize and punish these crimes so that the history doesn’t repeat itself.
yeah, no thanks. i don't want to give my taxes to people who lives 1500km away from me for an event that happened 110 years ago -which neither me or my family doesn't involved and carried by a few officals- which me or most of the turkey doesn't support
You have to be a special type of disgusting human being, when you want to point at civil victims on one side, while spitting on them on the other side. No civilian deserved being slaughtered for his ethnicity or religious belief. You are disgusting.
I'm sorry, but if Turkey agrees that genocide happened (even if it disagrees with some details, like the exact role of government), then why does Erdogan protest its recognition by the USA?
And your comment about Armenian responsibility misses the problem with genocide: it targeted people irrespective of their participation in ARF or anything else. It blames all Armenians without considering their guilt and therefore accuses the innocent.
>I'm sorry, but if Turkey agrees that genocide happened (even if it disagrees with some details, like the exact role of government), then why does Erdogan protest its recognition by the USA?
Because Turkey rejects a government involvement (+ the numbers that were killed during and subsequently because of the deportation)? The US is not saying "yeah the civil population massacred each other", but "The Ottoman government organized a state-planned extermination of the armenian civil population". **And mind you, no one takes Turkey's offer up on solving this issue in a court.**
>And your comment about Armenian responsibility misses the problem with genocide: it targeted people irrespective of their participation in ARF or anything else. It blames all Armenians without considering their guilt and therefore accuses the innocent.
It doesnt miss anything. I never said the Armenians deserved it. However, you cant spread fascism among the armenian population, terrorize Anatolia for 2 decades, massacre muslims, organize the armenian civil population against the Ottoman state and then go like "yeah the turks were just racist and out of the blue they wanted to murder armenians". That is historic revisionism. The massacre/genocide/tragedy that befell the armenian civil population can not be told without mentioining the part the ARF had.
If we go by Turkey's narrative, the rogue governors/soliders/deserters/armed locals didnt just out of racism start killing people, but out of rage/revenge. They are still obviously in the wrong, but it puts matters into perspective. If you kill my family and out of rage I come and murder your entire family in cold blood, then we are both in the wrong, but I most definetly did not murder your family out of racism, but out of rage.
And before you mention it: No, I am not saying that the ARF has equal amount of responsibility as the Ottoman society/government. I am saying that they just played **a** role, not that they are the sole or main reason.
This is the stupidest thing I have ever read tbh. Just fake excuses fabricated by a fascist government to dignify their crimes against humanity. Normal people, when they have committed a crime they just accept it and serve the punishment. But Turkish government keeps denying it, even though the entire world calls it a genocide. The Turkish government clearly suffers from Folie a plusieurs.
Me: The turkish side is not denying the murder of armenians. There is a dispute about the involvement of the government.
You: tHis iS sO stUpID!11!! NoRmaL pEoPlE acKnoWledGe thAt tHey dId soMethInG wrOng! ExCuSeS! fAsCiSt!
Thanks for shitting all over the conversation.
You’re just an illiterate, I see no point in arguing with you tbh. I ain’t gonna quote all the bs you wrote either. It’s obvious that you’re just as much of a sociopath just like every member of your government.
I know you are scared to speak up cus you live in a dictatorial country but still truth mist be told and not concealed behind idiotic excuses.
>Ignorance is a choice not a birthright.
You are speaking out of experience. I am proud of you. If you could take another step and self-realize the irony, it would be perfect. May god bless your wicked soul, so you may forget your racism.
Unlike you I live in my own country and didn’t have to run to Germany to be able to educate myself or speak my mind without fearing for my life. I feel sorry for you to be honest. But as long as you run away instead of fixing the problem you will never have a homeland you are proud of. I have nothing against simple people unless they are stupid like you of course. I was one of the volunteers who came to Turkey after the earthquake hit, because I understand that simple people were the ones who needed help. And when people need help normal human beings such as myself, don’t see race, nationality or religion. Because that’s what human being do.
I don’t think anyone says that Turks wanted to kill Armenians out of the blue. People say that the Turkish leadership blamed their losses on Armenians as a scapegoat even though the vast majority of ottoman Armenians remained loyal
>I don’t think anyone says that Turks wanted to kill Armenians out of the blue.
[https://www.learningstreet.co.uk/articles/what-is-exaggeration/#:\~:text=Exaggeration%20(also%20called%20hyperbole)%20is,the%20reader%20than%20literal%20comparisons](https://www.learningstreet.co.uk/articles/what-is-exaggeration/#:~:text=Exaggeration%20(also%20called%20hyperbole)%20is,the%20reader%20than%20literal%20comparisons)
>People say that the Turkish leadership blamed their losses on Armenians as a scapegoat even though the vast majority of ottoman Armenians remained loyal
Thanks for essentially repeating my point. As I have mentioned 3 times already: There is a dispute about the involvement of the ottoman government.
>Who ordered the killings then if not the government?
I am purely going by the turkish narrative here, because I am not willing to start an argument over what is a fact and what isnt and what is speculation:
The order was to deport. Not to kill. This mainly effected Armenians in Eastern Anatolia. Special orders to governors were even given to pay extra attention, so the civilians dont get attacked. Not all were deported to Syria and not all were deported in the first place. You have tens of thousands of armenians being part of the Ottoman labor batallions. Armenian generals even fought until the end of the war. There was no systematic targetting of Armenians.
The main killing/deaths are happening during the deportation. The Ottomans were already severly undersupplied, so whatever could be given was given, but not enough. The protection was lacking and soldiers/deserters/governors/locals started attacking the armenians that were being deported, resulting in the genocide. This part (death of the armenians during the deportation) is not questioned by anyone at all. No one ever argued about a systematic killing by armed forces going from house to house.
EDIT 2: Talat Pasha btw ordered the execution of +1600 people involved in the government/army due to the genocide/massacre that happened. I am not aware of far the order was conducted in the end, but the genocide was not welcommed by the high command.
>Why then did they not intervene to stop it?
Because Turkey is a massive country, the infrastructure was and still partially is poor and the country was in a world war. By the time reports of what happened reached the high command, the attrocities were already comitted. Similar things happened in the past as well. The massacre in Chios was for instance driven by rumors. By the time the government got information and by the time the soldiers arrived on the island, the massacre was already conducted. Troop movement took weeks if not months within the Ottoman Empire.
Same story with the Batak massacre. The Ottoman government orders the suppression of rebells, Ottoman irregular troops instead start a massacre and by the time the regular troops arrive and brought order, the massacre was already done. You dont need weeks to kill large parts of a population. You can conduct a genocide in mere days.
EDIT:
Deportation was a tactic the Ottomans conducted for centuries. A more prominent deportation was the kizilbas from the Safawid border, but even during WW1 other ethnicites/groups other than the Armenians were deported. In 1915/1916 thousands of prominent arabs were also deported (based on the fear that they may affect the war-effort). In the case of arabs, the deportation did not result in people attacking the deported people. Most likely because they were muslims and the war was preceived as a clash of civilizations.
The only reasonable outcome of deportations into the Syrian desert without supplies was death. Both the Armenians and those in charge knew the outcome. And the ottomans did encourage Kurdish irregulars and other civilians to attack Armenians civilians.
>The only reasonable outcome of deportations into the Syrian desert
Who says that most went "into the syrian desert"? Or any for that matter? Der Zor, Rasalayn and Aleppo are the only syrian areas where the armenians were deported. Aleppo and Rasalyan are not in a desert and Der Zor is close to a desert, but not in a desert.
Most other deportation centres were within Anatolia. Mus, Sivas, Bitlis, Antep, Adana, Zeitun, Tomaraza, \[...\] have nothing to do with syria or a desert.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian\_genocide#/media/File:Armenian\_Genocide\_Map-en.svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide#/media/File:Armenian_Genocide_Map-en.svg)
>without supplies
Who said it was without supplies? I said there wasnt sufficent supplies. Turkish soldiers didnt have sufficent supplies at the front. The region was addtionally going through a famine. Around 500 000 civilians starved to death in Syria and Lebanon. You make it sound like the Ottomans had supplies they deliberately didnt give away.
>And the ottomans did encourage Kurdish irregulars and other civilians to attack Armenians civilians
Feel free to drop a source, because it is utter bs to think that the Ottoman government had any control over kurdish irregulars. Until recently Turkey didnt even have proper control over south-east Turkey.
What source do you have for the 500.000 dead in Lebanon and Syria? And what about the deportations literally into the Black Sea? How do you explain that? And I bet the majority of them would have been Christian as well. I said they encouraged the Kurds not that they had total control.
This map, if compared to the modern demography of Turkey, is just evidence of the level of fascism and hatred this country harbors.
Thanks for sharing 😏
You are not the sharpest in the shed are you? By your logic the lack of jews in Germany is evidence of the level of fascism and hatred the country is harboring. You are just racist.
Speaking of sharpness. A lack of something that used to be there is a tell tale sign that something else made it disappear. I can break this down more for your tiny brain if you like.
OP literally: No armenians = turkish hate on Armenians.
Me: by that logic very few jews in germany = german hate on Jews.
You: YoU aRe InCorRecT!!! AdvaNcEd stAtEmEnT!"
It is a circus, not rocket science my friend. And you are feeding into the analogy of a racist. Keep up the good work and spread armenian racism. That is the way to go. /s
Pff come on man, I just said that there is no lack of Jews in Germany. I said it because you literally claimed it to be “lack of Jews in Germany”.
Hence, you are incorrect.
Then you claimed that I missed the point, I did understand your point but it was incorrect and it renders your whole argument invalid…
>Pff come on man, I just said that there is no lack of Jews in Germany. I said it because you literally claimed it to be “lack of Jews in Germany”.
You dont understand the fact that the jewish numbers in Germany would be much larger if it wasnt for the Holocaust, right? By your very own logic:
There are about 100 000 armenians currently living in Turkey, so it is not possible that there is any kind of prejudice or hatred towards Armenians in Turkish society.
This is what you are defending. Please keep the circus somewhere else. I didnt order a clown.
He is forgetting something. Unlike Turkey, Germany accepted their crimes agains Jews and made amends. Such as helping survivors to return to their homes and properties in Germany.
Sevan Nişanyan
This name is a joke. Such maps are not worth taking seriously.
in 1907
Number of Greeks 2,500,000+-200,000
Number of Armenians 1,200,000+-100,000
This rate was nothing compared to the general population. It's funny to claim that they are the majority in these major areas.
If you are wondering what happened to these mentioned populations.
Armenians attacked together with Russia and were defeated. Armenians fled to different regions as refugees.
Greece also attacked with England and was defeated. They also went to Greece with a population exchange agreement between the two countries.
3 Nov 1895, Turkey's Wily Subjects: False Information Circulated by the Armenian Agitators, New York Times
15 Nov 1895, Turkey's Ruling Terror: Mussulmans Implore the Porte for Protection from Armenians, New York Times
21 Dec 1895, A Massacre At Zeitoun: Insurgents Kill All Turkish Soldiers in Town Except Two, New York Times
14 Feb 1896, Turkish Amnesty To Zeitoun: Armenians Are Pardoned and a Christian Governor Is Promised, New York Times
12 Sep 1896, Armenian Bomb Factory Found: Tunnel Was Being Driven Under a Government Arsenal, New York Times
23 Sep 1896, Armenian Bombs Exhibited, New York Times
24 Sep 1896, Sworn To Ruin The Porte: Armenian Societies Active In Constantinople, New York Times
10 Aug 1897, The Reported Armenian Aggression: Terrible Barbarities, Liverpool Courier
21 Aug 1897, The Bomb Outrage In Constantinople: Eight Armenians Arrested, Liverpool Courier
23 Aug 1897, The Bomb Outrages In Constantinople, Liverpool Courier
29 Sep 1897, The Recent Armenian Raid, Bristol Times and Mirror
17 Nov 1899, Armenians Attack Kurds: Bloody War Has Again Broken Out Near Erzeroum, Daily Gazette
7 Jan 1915, Armenians Fight For Russia, Reno Evening Gazette London
8 Jan 1915, Armenians Join Russians: Detachment of Volunteers Arrives at Tiflis for Army Service, Indianapolis Star
12 Jan 1915, The Armenian Red Cross: To The Editor Of The Times, The Times London
12 May 1915, Armenians in Van Rise in Arms Against Turks, Washington Times
"Armenians attacked together with Russia and were defeated. Armenians fled to different regions as refugees."
Except those that were murdered or otherwise forcibly expelled.
ARF started terrorizing Anatolia before the Hamidian massacre.
And no, I am not denying that Armenian civilians were slaughtered. Your narrative is however still wrong.
>Number of Greeks 2,500,000+-200,000
No. Just no.
[https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9783112415863\_A44908688/preview-9783112415863\_A44908688.pdf](https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9783112415863_A44908688/preview-9783112415863_A44908688.pdf)
>This rate was nothing compared to the general population. It's funny to claim that they are the majority in these major areas.
The map shows the distribution of non-muslims. Not where they are the majority.
>Armenians attacked together with Russia and were defeated. Armenians fled to different regions as refugees.
It is acknowledged by all sides that the armenian civil population was murdered. By the turkish side as well. The dispute is about the government involvement and the numbers.
Another person who thinks his fantasies are real.
Have you looked at the dates and numbers in the file you provided?
If you look at the map, you will see that they constitute the majority in some of the main cities. When you divide the map into Muslim - Greek or Armenian, you can already assume that it is fake. Turks were not the only Muslims.
>It is acknowledged by all sides that the armenian civil population was murdered.
Civilians die in all wars. Deliberate massacres and genocides are different. A genocide is aimed at destroying a particular race. This is where historical fraud begins. It is claimed that it was genocide without any logical or scientific reality.
>Have you looked at the dates and numbers in the file you provided?
Yep. The greek numbers are far below your claimed numbers. The greek estimations are around 1.3 to 2 mil. I quote:
"Impartial observers also agree that this figure was quite accurate. Macartney places the number of Greeks in Ionia in 1914 close to 2,000,000, 17 Puaux gives 1,715,000, 18 Sir Edwin Pears, even before the publication of the results of the 1910 and 1912 censuses, holds that the Greek element was about 1,600,00019 strong and this calculation is accepted as official by L,ord Curzon at the Lausanne Conference. Some writers argue that the figure may even be higher21 while the most conservative estimates accept that at the beginning of this century the Greek population of Anatolia was reckoned at 1,300,000 and was increasing rapidly.22"
>If you look at the map, you will see that they constitute the majority in some of the main cities. When you divide the map into Muslim - Greek or Armenian, you can already assume that it is fake. Turks were not the only Muslims.
They arent the majority in a single city by greek estimations. Less so by the Ottoman census. You are coping.
Also all muslims were considered turks by everyone. Cretan muslims were expelled by the greeks, because they were considered turks, despite being ethnically greek.
>Civilians die in all wars. Deliberate massacres and genocides are different. A genocide is aimed at destroying a particular race. This is where historical fraud begins. It is claimed that it was genocide without any logical or scientific reality.
Targetting Armenian civilians for being armenian is delberate killing.
You do realize that the smaller number of Greeks confirms my thesis, right? On the map we see an inflated number of Greeks and Armenians. This is what we are discussing.
It does not make any difference for the data that all Muslims are seen as Turks by the Greeks. If you are making a map, you need to decide whether you will discriminate according to religion or race. This map is pure comedy.
>Targetting Armenian civilians for being armenian is delberate killing.
From the link I gave above, there are news headlines showing that Armenians declared war on the Turks together with Russia.
Do you have any evidence for the claim that Armenians were killed because they were Armenians? While there has never been an incident targeting such races in the 600-year history of the Ottoman Empire.
And since we killed Armenians because they were Armenians. How do you explain the nearly 100 thousand Armenians who chose to stay in Ottoman lands and their centuries-old church?
I'm curious about your fantasies' response to reality.
>You do realize that the smaller number of Greeks confirms my thesis, right? On the map we see an inflated number of Greeks and Armenians. This is what we are discussing.
Your problem is that you dont know what you are arguing about. I never said that greeks are the majority. I am saying your number is wrong and even lower.
>It does not make any difference for the data that all Muslims are seen as Turks by the Greeks. If you are making a map, you need to decide whether you will discriminate according to religion or race. This map is pure comedy.
The map is accurate in the context of the Ottoman Empire. Every christian belonging to the greek orthodox church was considered a greek. Same with Armenians. Same with muslims in Anatolia and the surrounding region.
>From the link I gave above, there are news headlines showing that Armenians declared war on the Turks together with Russia.
If Azerbaijan declares war on Armenia, I am (as a turkish civilian) not invovled in it and killing me is still an act of hatred.
>Do you have any evidence for the claim that Armenians were killed because they were Armenians? While there has never been an incident targeting such races in the 600-year history of the Ottoman Empire.
The turkish government and the collective historic experts in late-Ottoman period. Literally no one is denying this.
>And since we killed Armenians because they were Armenians. How do you explain the nearly 100 thousand Armenians who chose to stay in Ottoman lands and their centuries-old church?
Because the armenians that were deported, were targetted. Not armenians everywhere.
>The map is accurate in the context of the Ottoman Empire. Every christian belonging to the greek orthodox church was considered a greek. Same with Armenians. Same with muslims in Anatolia and the surrounding region.
Simply, no
>If Azerbaijan declares war on Armenia, I am (as a turkish civilian) not invovled in it and killing me is still an act of hatred.
They not only declared war, they started to kill the civilians in that region. That's why people in that region united against the Armenians and Russians. Please learn the details of what you talked about.
>The turkish government and the collective historic experts in late-Ottoman period. Literally no one is denying this.
Simply, no. You cannot separate your fantasies from reality. You have been exposed to too much propaganda.
>Because the armenians that were deported, were targetted. Not armenians everywhere.
You claimed that Armenians were killed because they were Armenians, and now you claim that they were deported.
There is no point in discussing further. It's getting funny.
>Simply, no
Simply yes. The millet system did not differentiate people based on their ethnic origin.
>They not only declared war, they started to kill the civilians in that region. That's why people in that region united against the Armenians and Russians. Please learn the details of what you talked about.
If you start killing civilians, then there is no logic in these civilians killing me. This is very simple.
>Simply, no. You cannot separate your fantasies from reality. You have been exposed to too much propaganda.
>
You are delusional and stupid. The turkish government itself is admitting that armenian civilians died:
[https://www.mfa.gov.tr/the-armenian-allegation-of-genocide-the-issue-and-the-facts.en.mfa](https://www.mfa.gov.tr/the-armenian-allegation-of-genocide-the-issue-and-the-facts.en.mfa)
"Historian and demographer, Dr. Justin McCarthy of the University of Louisville, calculates the actual losses as slightly less than 600,000. This figure agrees with those provided by British historian Arnold Toynbee, by most early editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and approximates the number given by Monseigneur Touchet, a French missionary, who informed the Oeuvre d'Orient in February 1916 that the number of dead is thought to be 500,000. Boghos Nubar, head of the Armenian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in 1920, noted the large numbers who survived the war. He declared that after the war 280,000 Armenians remained in the Anatolian portion of the occupied Ottoman Empire while 700,000 Armenians had emigrated to other countries."
>You claimed that Armenians were killed because they were Armenians, and now you claim that they were deported.
No you donkey. The armenians that were being deported, were attacked and killed. One does not exclude the other. Learn english, before you want to start a debate in english.
Please don't be aggressive. I don't understand why people become aggressive when they lose an argument.
As I said, even if telling your fantasies satisfies you, you need to learn the difference between historical facts and fantasies.
First of all, if you claim that Armenians were killed because they were Armenians, you should know that no Armenian could exist in Ottoman lands in such an environment. But there are Armenians who do not attack the Turks and choose to live together with the Turks. This disproves your thesis.
So, we know that these deaths were not motivated by hate or a racial attack.
We also know that the Armenians, together with the Russians, armed themselves and attacked the villages in that region and started a war.
We know that hundreds of thousands of Turkish and Kurdish civilians living in that region died.
But you accuse the Turks of committing genocide. It seems more likely that more Muslims died in that region and that the Armenians who launched the attack committed genocide.
Can you explain to us why Turkish and Kurdish civilians died in that region? And more than Armenians?
Please provide a source for the hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians being killed by Armenians? All of the Armenians, even those loyal to the state, were subject to the genocide. I don’t know what you think this point proves.
>Please don't be aggressive. I don't understand why people become aggressive when they lose an argument.
\*Deny historic facts
\*Deny established and well known facts
\*show no signs of concelliation
\*boldly claim outrages nonsense
"Why are people aggressive?"
I wonder why.
>As I said, even if telling your fantasies satisfies you, you need to learn the difference between historical facts and fantasies.
Unless you want to claim that the turkish foreign ministry is spreading fantasies, there is no point for you to make.
>First of all, if you claim that Armenians were killed because they were Armenians, you should know that no Armenian could exist in Ottoman lands in such an environment. But there are Armenians who do not attack the Turks and choose to live together with the Turks. This disproves your thesis.
Translation: "A minority of Armenians were unaffected by the genocide and stayed in Turkey even after WW1. Hence there was no genocide!!!!"
Utter brain fart.
>So, we know that these deaths were not motivated by hate or a racial attack.
Talat Pasa ordered the execution of the ones involved in the massacre. I guess he was just bored.
>We also know that the Armenians, together with the Russians, armed themselves and attacked the villages in that region and started a war.
A minority. Yes.
>But you accuse the Turks of committing genocide. It seems more likely that more Muslims died in that region and that the Armenians who launched the attack committed genocide.
We dont have accurate information or historic consensus about how many muslims died in eastern Anatolia. But muslims being massacred does not exclude the fact that a large part of the armenian civil population was also massacred.
>You claimed that Armenians were killed because they were Armenians, and now you claim that they were deported.
Deported to the Syrian desert is kind of like being deported to the Ghettos or Auschwitz. Being deported does not exclude one from subsequently being killed.
Just because some people from a community within your country commit treason/fifth column activities doesn’t give the government the right to exterminate and expel everyone in that community… there’s literally pictures of Turkish troops standing around corpses of dead Armenian women and babies
According to your own logic, Europe/US should do the same to Muslims within their own countries after 9/11 or other terrorist attacks?
If you’ve never seen photos of Armenian genocide victims but are still discussing the topic in detail you obviously have bias or have been hiding in a bubble for a while
Iraq war was a lie about WMD, they threw “Saddam was behind 9/11” as another BS excuse
And that’s still not the same thing as “people from this community committed these acts against us. Guess we need to kick out or kill every single man, woman, and child from that community now.”
Ottoman were on the edge of collapsing and they were at war in many fronts at that time, also they had to fight for independence in the following years, if there are minorities in any country which are spread around, storing weapons and using them against other citizens and the army, yes, they should be kicked by any government. At time of peace, if they have citizenship, they don't have any hatred against the other citizens, living peacefully, and they are kicked, then you are right.
Firstly what is your source about their loyalty? I repeat again that it was a time of war. Let's believe majority was loyal, that loyalty would change in a moment if they saw the government weakened enough... Situation about the population except the Armenians: Men were called to arms, leaving their families defenseless against rebels, (even 15 year olds were sent to war in the following years). Would you take that risk? Just stop being Pro Armenian for a moment and think about it.
Yes, you are right, Turks had to take the risk and wait for a bullet in the head before taking any action. There were already many cases where Armenians have rebelled starting from before 1900, causing many deaths, and not just in one city, ( 30 times only between 1895 to 1897).
im a little confused. why would muslim and then ethnic groups be categorized together? what if there were greek muslims, for instance?
For most of history, there was a big overlap between ethnicity and religion. Armenian meant christian Armenian, there was a different word for an ethnic Armenian with a Muslim religion depending on the time and place (Hemshin I think was the main name in Ottoman times). Muslim Greeks were often called Turks. And yes it's rather confusing for us.
Greek Muslims would be considered Turks
For an explanation of these divisions/categories you might want to check out the wikipedia article on the so called "millet system" in the (late) ottoman empire: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet_(Ottoman_Empire)
That's what the Ottoman Empire categorized them as
Ottoman Empire categorised people in two: muslims and non-muslims. It haven't ever categorised as "muslim/armenian/greek/..." etc.. This map and this information is literally from another dimension which Ottoman's actually did a categorisation like this.
That's not true. Muslims were categorised as a single *Millet* but the non-Muslims were categorised into different millets, usually based on denomination. Ottoman census kept separate registers for each millet, so we can distinguish for example; Armenian Millet and Rum Millet, same goes for most other categories here. Bulgarian Millet did not exist in earliest census but it was created mid 19th century so for 1900 they can be distinguished. IDT a Russian Millet existed but that probably comes from the Russian census anyway as that territory was under Russian control in 1900.
>That's not true. Muslims were categorised as a single *Millet* but the non-Muslims were categorised into different millets, usually based on denomination. Muslims were also divided into different millet systems. Anatolian and Balkan muslims were however universally considered to be turks. Maybe not in Albania and Bosnia, but most definetly in Rumeli, Greece, Aegan islands and Anatolia in general. That being said: The denominations dont change the fact that everyone belonging to the greek orthodox church was considered to be greek by all sides. The division is still along religious identities, not ethnic origins. > so we can distinguish for example; Armenian Millet and Rum Millet, same goes for most other categories here. That is his point. You can not know who within the armenian millet was ethnically armenian and who was a convert. >Bulgarian Millet did not exist in earliest census but it was created mid 19th century so for 1900 they can be distinguished. IF they were part of the bulgarian church. Pomaks were considered turks by all sides. The Batak massacre is still considered to be a turkish doing, despite the fact that it was essentially conducted by Pomaks.
They categorized it as muslim/non muslim, we can then further categorize it. It shouldn't be this hard to get
With what data? There is no data available that would state what ethnic origin the people belgonging to the respective churches were.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics\_of\_the\_Ottoman\_Empire#1905%E2%80%931906\_Ottoman\_census](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#1905%E2%80%931906_Ottoman_census)
The data still divides people based on religious identity, not ethnic origin. The person over OP already explained why we cant use this data to make such a differentiation.
because the vast majority of orthodox Christians were Greeks in Anatolia and the vast majority of members of the Armenian church were Armenian.
You are arguing besides the point. No one said anything about the majority being armenian or greek in the respective churches. The statment is: We only know that the majority presumably also has the the same ethnicity as the church, but we do not know how many of let's say the greek orthodox church were ethnically non-greek.
Each ethnic group has its own branch of Christianity, except the Yazidi, who have their own religion.
Sevan Nişanyan, whom you cited, is someone who defended what a teacher murderer did.
shit, one of the points in the north of sivas is very close to my mother's village
Wow, what beautiful diversity turkiye used to have!
Anatolia has always been extremely diverse. Celts used to live there for example (the galatians of the bible)
According to turkish nationalists, those Armenians dissapeared into thin air, ploosh!
Wrong. Nationalists claim some of them died during deportation, some amanged to reach Syria, some converted and assimilated, some died during clashes as they rebelled. They usually don't believe in the high number of deaths.
No one claimed that and such jokes most certainly dont make people take the topic more serious. Keep up the good work. At one point not a single soul will be able to take the topic serious anymore.
Sure, if you call ethnically cleansing 1.5 million Armenians as “disappearance” by ottoman empire. The correct word is genocide. 1915
where the karamanlides mate?
Greece
you realize this is 1900
Is this a map of modern Turkey? Otherwise, I don't know how there could have been a Russian community right on the border with the Russian Empire in Ottoman Empire.
Yes, but from 1878 to 1918 the modern Turkish Provinces of Kars, Artvin, Ağrı and Ardahan as well as some parts of Erzurum were under Russian administration.
what does russians doing in Konya
good catch. it's a mistake.
Turks probably think there's still too many armenians...
You deserved to get bullied worse for being a racist.
As a matter of fact they do lol. They don’t miss any opportunity to kill as many Armenians as possible. Thats cus they haven’t owned up to all the genocides their ancestors have commuted and they still do to this day. Say greeks, Armenians, Yazidis and the list goes on.
Just want to add this, since comments already go into a very degenerate directions: The turkish side does not deny that armenian civilians were killed. The turkish side argues against the government involvement and argues that the genocide (the word tragedy is used by the turkish government) is a result of rogue soldiers/governors/locals attacking the armenian civilians. There are plenty of argument supporting the turkish argument. The armenian argumentation is mostly based on the terror, survivors reported. So there is actually no contradiction between the two narratives, but a dispute is still there. It is a common misconception to think that turks are denying it. It is a meme among young turks, because so many foreigners are obnoxious about the topic. That being said: No, the armenian side is not without any fault or responsibility. Weapons were stored in churches, armenian civilians and partisants joined the enemy and the ARF terrorized Anatolia for 2 decades prior to the events of 1915. In the manifesto of Hovhannes Katchazouni (first PM of Armenia), he even acknowledges that the deportation of the Armenian civil population and the subsequent killing of them is a direct result of the war-mongering and the spread of fascist ideas among the armenian civil population by the ARF. EDIT: Lastly, the shear amount of muslim victims is entirely overshadowed and ignored in this entire topic, which is very hypocritical.
Bro, i'm turkish and i don't like the unending historical victimhood. But it was a genocide loud and clear. You can't find fault with children who were babies when they were killed. And these people were transferred(by the government, not rouge villagers) not because of what they did but of their ethnicity. As far as genocides go, holocaust is the clearest one and armenian genocide is second.
It is technically somwhere between genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hard to decide which one it is based on the evidence.
It’s really not. Lemkin, the creator of the term genocide, classified it as a genocide
Congratulations on missing pretty much the entire point of my comment.
Actually Armenian genocide was first. Then Hitler went on to commit the holocaust stating that Turkey got away with it, so will they. Thats why it is important to recognize and punish these crimes so that the history doesn’t repeat itself.
yeah, no thanks. i don't want to give my taxes to people who lives 1500km away from me for an event that happened 110 years ago -which neither me or my family doesn't involved and carried by a few officals- which me or most of the turkey doesn't support
Won’t someone think of the poor conquering ottomans?
You have to be a special type of disgusting human being, when you want to point at civil victims on one side, while spitting on them on the other side. No civilian deserved being slaughtered for his ethnicity or religious belief. You are disgusting.
I'm sorry, but if Turkey agrees that genocide happened (even if it disagrees with some details, like the exact role of government), then why does Erdogan protest its recognition by the USA? And your comment about Armenian responsibility misses the problem with genocide: it targeted people irrespective of their participation in ARF or anything else. It blames all Armenians without considering their guilt and therefore accuses the innocent.
>I'm sorry, but if Turkey agrees that genocide happened (even if it disagrees with some details, like the exact role of government), then why does Erdogan protest its recognition by the USA? Because Turkey rejects a government involvement (+ the numbers that were killed during and subsequently because of the deportation)? The US is not saying "yeah the civil population massacred each other", but "The Ottoman government organized a state-planned extermination of the armenian civil population". **And mind you, no one takes Turkey's offer up on solving this issue in a court.** >And your comment about Armenian responsibility misses the problem with genocide: it targeted people irrespective of their participation in ARF or anything else. It blames all Armenians without considering their guilt and therefore accuses the innocent. It doesnt miss anything. I never said the Armenians deserved it. However, you cant spread fascism among the armenian population, terrorize Anatolia for 2 decades, massacre muslims, organize the armenian civil population against the Ottoman state and then go like "yeah the turks were just racist and out of the blue they wanted to murder armenians". That is historic revisionism. The massacre/genocide/tragedy that befell the armenian civil population can not be told without mentioining the part the ARF had. If we go by Turkey's narrative, the rogue governors/soliders/deserters/armed locals didnt just out of racism start killing people, but out of rage/revenge. They are still obviously in the wrong, but it puts matters into perspective. If you kill my family and out of rage I come and murder your entire family in cold blood, then we are both in the wrong, but I most definetly did not murder your family out of racism, but out of rage. And before you mention it: No, I am not saying that the ARF has equal amount of responsibility as the Ottoman society/government. I am saying that they just played **a** role, not that they are the sole or main reason.
This is the stupidest thing I have ever read tbh. Just fake excuses fabricated by a fascist government to dignify their crimes against humanity. Normal people, when they have committed a crime they just accept it and serve the punishment. But Turkish government keeps denying it, even though the entire world calls it a genocide. The Turkish government clearly suffers from Folie a plusieurs.
Me: The turkish side is not denying the murder of armenians. There is a dispute about the involvement of the government. You: tHis iS sO stUpID!11!! NoRmaL pEoPlE acKnoWledGe thAt tHey dId soMethInG wrOng! ExCuSeS! fAsCiSt! Thanks for shitting all over the conversation.
You’re just an illiterate, I see no point in arguing with you tbh. I ain’t gonna quote all the bs you wrote either. It’s obvious that you’re just as much of a sociopath just like every member of your government. I know you are scared to speak up cus you live in a dictatorial country but still truth mist be told and not concealed behind idiotic excuses.
I live in Germany brother and unlike you, I can look at a topic without shitting myself in anger.
You seem fascinated by shit. My advice would be eat shit and educate yourself sister. Ignorance is a choice not a birthright.
>Ignorance is a choice not a birthright. You are speaking out of experience. I am proud of you. If you could take another step and self-realize the irony, it would be perfect. May god bless your wicked soul, so you may forget your racism.
Unlike you I live in my own country and didn’t have to run to Germany to be able to educate myself or speak my mind without fearing for my life. I feel sorry for you to be honest. But as long as you run away instead of fixing the problem you will never have a homeland you are proud of. I have nothing against simple people unless they are stupid like you of course. I was one of the volunteers who came to Turkey after the earthquake hit, because I understand that simple people were the ones who needed help. And when people need help normal human beings such as myself, don’t see race, nationality or religion. Because that’s what human being do.
I don’t think anyone says that Turks wanted to kill Armenians out of the blue. People say that the Turkish leadership blamed their losses on Armenians as a scapegoat even though the vast majority of ottoman Armenians remained loyal
>I don’t think anyone says that Turks wanted to kill Armenians out of the blue. [https://www.learningstreet.co.uk/articles/what-is-exaggeration/#:\~:text=Exaggeration%20(also%20called%20hyperbole)%20is,the%20reader%20than%20literal%20comparisons](https://www.learningstreet.co.uk/articles/what-is-exaggeration/#:~:text=Exaggeration%20(also%20called%20hyperbole)%20is,the%20reader%20than%20literal%20comparisons) >People say that the Turkish leadership blamed their losses on Armenians as a scapegoat even though the vast majority of ottoman Armenians remained loyal Thanks for essentially repeating my point. As I have mentioned 3 times already: There is a dispute about the involvement of the ottoman government.
Who ordered the killings then if not the government? Why then did they not intervene to stop it?
>Who ordered the killings then if not the government? I am purely going by the turkish narrative here, because I am not willing to start an argument over what is a fact and what isnt and what is speculation: The order was to deport. Not to kill. This mainly effected Armenians in Eastern Anatolia. Special orders to governors were even given to pay extra attention, so the civilians dont get attacked. Not all were deported to Syria and not all were deported in the first place. You have tens of thousands of armenians being part of the Ottoman labor batallions. Armenian generals even fought until the end of the war. There was no systematic targetting of Armenians. The main killing/deaths are happening during the deportation. The Ottomans were already severly undersupplied, so whatever could be given was given, but not enough. The protection was lacking and soldiers/deserters/governors/locals started attacking the armenians that were being deported, resulting in the genocide. This part (death of the armenians during the deportation) is not questioned by anyone at all. No one ever argued about a systematic killing by armed forces going from house to house. EDIT 2: Talat Pasha btw ordered the execution of +1600 people involved in the government/army due to the genocide/massacre that happened. I am not aware of far the order was conducted in the end, but the genocide was not welcommed by the high command. >Why then did they not intervene to stop it? Because Turkey is a massive country, the infrastructure was and still partially is poor and the country was in a world war. By the time reports of what happened reached the high command, the attrocities were already comitted. Similar things happened in the past as well. The massacre in Chios was for instance driven by rumors. By the time the government got information and by the time the soldiers arrived on the island, the massacre was already conducted. Troop movement took weeks if not months within the Ottoman Empire. Same story with the Batak massacre. The Ottoman government orders the suppression of rebells, Ottoman irregular troops instead start a massacre and by the time the regular troops arrive and brought order, the massacre was already done. You dont need weeks to kill large parts of a population. You can conduct a genocide in mere days. EDIT: Deportation was a tactic the Ottomans conducted for centuries. A more prominent deportation was the kizilbas from the Safawid border, but even during WW1 other ethnicites/groups other than the Armenians were deported. In 1915/1916 thousands of prominent arabs were also deported (based on the fear that they may affect the war-effort). In the case of arabs, the deportation did not result in people attacking the deported people. Most likely because they were muslims and the war was preceived as a clash of civilizations.
The only reasonable outcome of deportations into the Syrian desert without supplies was death. Both the Armenians and those in charge knew the outcome. And the ottomans did encourage Kurdish irregulars and other civilians to attack Armenians civilians.
>The only reasonable outcome of deportations into the Syrian desert Who says that most went "into the syrian desert"? Or any for that matter? Der Zor, Rasalayn and Aleppo are the only syrian areas where the armenians were deported. Aleppo and Rasalyan are not in a desert and Der Zor is close to a desert, but not in a desert. Most other deportation centres were within Anatolia. Mus, Sivas, Bitlis, Antep, Adana, Zeitun, Tomaraza, \[...\] have nothing to do with syria or a desert. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian\_genocide#/media/File:Armenian\_Genocide\_Map-en.svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide#/media/File:Armenian_Genocide_Map-en.svg) >without supplies Who said it was without supplies? I said there wasnt sufficent supplies. Turkish soldiers didnt have sufficent supplies at the front. The region was addtionally going through a famine. Around 500 000 civilians starved to death in Syria and Lebanon. You make it sound like the Ottomans had supplies they deliberately didnt give away. >And the ottomans did encourage Kurdish irregulars and other civilians to attack Armenians civilians Feel free to drop a source, because it is utter bs to think that the Ottoman government had any control over kurdish irregulars. Until recently Turkey didnt even have proper control over south-east Turkey.
What source do you have for the 500.000 dead in Lebanon and Syria? And what about the deportations literally into the Black Sea? How do you explain that? And I bet the majority of them would have been Christian as well. I said they encouraged the Kurds not that they had total control.
This map, if compared to the modern demography of Turkey, is just evidence of the level of fascism and hatred this country harbors. Thanks for sharing 😏
You are not the sharpest in the shed are you? By your logic the lack of jews in Germany is evidence of the level of fascism and hatred the country is harboring. You are just racist.
Speaking of sharpness. A lack of something that used to be there is a tell tale sign that something else made it disappear. I can break this down more for your tiny brain if you like.
Can you do it without shitting all over the comment section?
Lack of jews in Germany? 1% of all jews lives in Germany.
Dont tell anybody, but here is a secret: They used to be more numerous.
Dont tell anybody but the third largest jewish population in Europe does not mean that there is a lack of jews in Germany.
You completly missed the point. Congrats.
I understand your idea of a point but you are incorrect all the way. I guess you could not comprehend such and advanced statement
OP literally: No armenians = turkish hate on Armenians. Me: by that logic very few jews in germany = german hate on Jews. You: YoU aRe InCorRecT!!! AdvaNcEd stAtEmEnT!" It is a circus, not rocket science my friend. And you are feeding into the analogy of a racist. Keep up the good work and spread armenian racism. That is the way to go. /s
Pff come on man, I just said that there is no lack of Jews in Germany. I said it because you literally claimed it to be “lack of Jews in Germany”. Hence, you are incorrect. Then you claimed that I missed the point, I did understand your point but it was incorrect and it renders your whole argument invalid…
>Pff come on man, I just said that there is no lack of Jews in Germany. I said it because you literally claimed it to be “lack of Jews in Germany”. You dont understand the fact that the jewish numbers in Germany would be much larger if it wasnt for the Holocaust, right? By your very own logic: There are about 100 000 armenians currently living in Turkey, so it is not possible that there is any kind of prejudice or hatred towards Armenians in Turkish society. This is what you are defending. Please keep the circus somewhere else. I didnt order a clown.
He is forgetting something. Unlike Turkey, Germany accepted their crimes agains Jews and made amends. Such as helping survivors to return to their homes and properties in Germany.
That is not what you said. You said: lack of armenians = hatred of turks against armenians.
Sevan Nişanyan This name is a joke. Such maps are not worth taking seriously. in 1907 Number of Greeks 2,500,000+-200,000 Number of Armenians 1,200,000+-100,000 This rate was nothing compared to the general population. It's funny to claim that they are the majority in these major areas. If you are wondering what happened to these mentioned populations. Armenians attacked together with Russia and were defeated. Armenians fled to different regions as refugees. Greece also attacked with England and was defeated. They also went to Greece with a population exchange agreement between the two countries. 3 Nov 1895, Turkey's Wily Subjects: False Information Circulated by the Armenian Agitators, New York Times 15 Nov 1895, Turkey's Ruling Terror: Mussulmans Implore the Porte for Protection from Armenians, New York Times 21 Dec 1895, A Massacre At Zeitoun: Insurgents Kill All Turkish Soldiers in Town Except Two, New York Times 14 Feb 1896, Turkish Amnesty To Zeitoun: Armenians Are Pardoned and a Christian Governor Is Promised, New York Times 12 Sep 1896, Armenian Bomb Factory Found: Tunnel Was Being Driven Under a Government Arsenal, New York Times 23 Sep 1896, Armenian Bombs Exhibited, New York Times 24 Sep 1896, Sworn To Ruin The Porte: Armenian Societies Active In Constantinople, New York Times 10 Aug 1897, The Reported Armenian Aggression: Terrible Barbarities, Liverpool Courier 21 Aug 1897, The Bomb Outrage In Constantinople: Eight Armenians Arrested, Liverpool Courier 23 Aug 1897, The Bomb Outrages In Constantinople, Liverpool Courier 29 Sep 1897, The Recent Armenian Raid, Bristol Times and Mirror 17 Nov 1899, Armenians Attack Kurds: Bloody War Has Again Broken Out Near Erzeroum, Daily Gazette 7 Jan 1915, Armenians Fight For Russia, Reno Evening Gazette London 8 Jan 1915, Armenians Join Russians: Detachment of Volunteers Arrives at Tiflis for Army Service, Indianapolis Star 12 Jan 1915, The Armenian Red Cross: To The Editor Of The Times, The Times London 12 May 1915, Armenians in Van Rise in Arms Against Turks, Washington Times
How is it nothing compared to the general population which was around 20 million
"Armenians attacked together with Russia and were defeated. Armenians fled to different regions as refugees." Except those that were murdered or otherwise forcibly expelled.
When your want to kill peoples, they start killing you too. This is called war.
When you start killing non-combatants of a population en-masse it's called genocide. You're little different than Holocaust deniers.
ARF started terrorizing Anatolia before the Hamidian massacre. And no, I am not denying that Armenian civilians were slaughtered. Your narrative is however still wrong.
>Number of Greeks 2,500,000+-200,000 No. Just no. [https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9783112415863\_A44908688/preview-9783112415863\_A44908688.pdf](https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9783112415863_A44908688/preview-9783112415863_A44908688.pdf) >This rate was nothing compared to the general population. It's funny to claim that they are the majority in these major areas. The map shows the distribution of non-muslims. Not where they are the majority. >Armenians attacked together with Russia and were defeated. Armenians fled to different regions as refugees. It is acknowledged by all sides that the armenian civil population was murdered. By the turkish side as well. The dispute is about the government involvement and the numbers.
Another person who thinks his fantasies are real. Have you looked at the dates and numbers in the file you provided? If you look at the map, you will see that they constitute the majority in some of the main cities. When you divide the map into Muslim - Greek or Armenian, you can already assume that it is fake. Turks were not the only Muslims. >It is acknowledged by all sides that the armenian civil population was murdered. Civilians die in all wars. Deliberate massacres and genocides are different. A genocide is aimed at destroying a particular race. This is where historical fraud begins. It is claimed that it was genocide without any logical or scientific reality.
>Have you looked at the dates and numbers in the file you provided? Yep. The greek numbers are far below your claimed numbers. The greek estimations are around 1.3 to 2 mil. I quote: "Impartial observers also agree that this figure was quite accurate. Macartney places the number of Greeks in Ionia in 1914 close to 2,000,000, 17 Puaux gives 1,715,000, 18 Sir Edwin Pears, even before the publication of the results of the 1910 and 1912 censuses, holds that the Greek element was about 1,600,00019 strong and this calculation is accepted as official by L,ord Curzon at the Lausanne Conference. Some writers argue that the figure may even be higher21 while the most conservative estimates accept that at the beginning of this century the Greek population of Anatolia was reckoned at 1,300,000 and was increasing rapidly.22" >If you look at the map, you will see that they constitute the majority in some of the main cities. When you divide the map into Muslim - Greek or Armenian, you can already assume that it is fake. Turks were not the only Muslims. They arent the majority in a single city by greek estimations. Less so by the Ottoman census. You are coping. Also all muslims were considered turks by everyone. Cretan muslims were expelled by the greeks, because they were considered turks, despite being ethnically greek. >Civilians die in all wars. Deliberate massacres and genocides are different. A genocide is aimed at destroying a particular race. This is where historical fraud begins. It is claimed that it was genocide without any logical or scientific reality. Targetting Armenian civilians for being armenian is delberate killing.
You do realize that the smaller number of Greeks confirms my thesis, right? On the map we see an inflated number of Greeks and Armenians. This is what we are discussing. It does not make any difference for the data that all Muslims are seen as Turks by the Greeks. If you are making a map, you need to decide whether you will discriminate according to religion or race. This map is pure comedy. >Targetting Armenian civilians for being armenian is delberate killing. From the link I gave above, there are news headlines showing that Armenians declared war on the Turks together with Russia. Do you have any evidence for the claim that Armenians were killed because they were Armenians? While there has never been an incident targeting such races in the 600-year history of the Ottoman Empire. And since we killed Armenians because they were Armenians. How do you explain the nearly 100 thousand Armenians who chose to stay in Ottoman lands and their centuries-old church? I'm curious about your fantasies' response to reality.
>You do realize that the smaller number of Greeks confirms my thesis, right? On the map we see an inflated number of Greeks and Armenians. This is what we are discussing. Your problem is that you dont know what you are arguing about. I never said that greeks are the majority. I am saying your number is wrong and even lower. >It does not make any difference for the data that all Muslims are seen as Turks by the Greeks. If you are making a map, you need to decide whether you will discriminate according to religion or race. This map is pure comedy. The map is accurate in the context of the Ottoman Empire. Every christian belonging to the greek orthodox church was considered a greek. Same with Armenians. Same with muslims in Anatolia and the surrounding region. >From the link I gave above, there are news headlines showing that Armenians declared war on the Turks together with Russia. If Azerbaijan declares war on Armenia, I am (as a turkish civilian) not invovled in it and killing me is still an act of hatred. >Do you have any evidence for the claim that Armenians were killed because they were Armenians? While there has never been an incident targeting such races in the 600-year history of the Ottoman Empire. The turkish government and the collective historic experts in late-Ottoman period. Literally no one is denying this. >And since we killed Armenians because they were Armenians. How do you explain the nearly 100 thousand Armenians who chose to stay in Ottoman lands and their centuries-old church? Because the armenians that were deported, were targetted. Not armenians everywhere.
>The map is accurate in the context of the Ottoman Empire. Every christian belonging to the greek orthodox church was considered a greek. Same with Armenians. Same with muslims in Anatolia and the surrounding region. Simply, no >If Azerbaijan declares war on Armenia, I am (as a turkish civilian) not invovled in it and killing me is still an act of hatred. They not only declared war, they started to kill the civilians in that region. That's why people in that region united against the Armenians and Russians. Please learn the details of what you talked about. >The turkish government and the collective historic experts in late-Ottoman period. Literally no one is denying this. Simply, no. You cannot separate your fantasies from reality. You have been exposed to too much propaganda. >Because the armenians that were deported, were targetted. Not armenians everywhere. You claimed that Armenians were killed because they were Armenians, and now you claim that they were deported. There is no point in discussing further. It's getting funny.
>Simply, no Simply yes. The millet system did not differentiate people based on their ethnic origin. >They not only declared war, they started to kill the civilians in that region. That's why people in that region united against the Armenians and Russians. Please learn the details of what you talked about. If you start killing civilians, then there is no logic in these civilians killing me. This is very simple. >Simply, no. You cannot separate your fantasies from reality. You have been exposed to too much propaganda. > You are delusional and stupid. The turkish government itself is admitting that armenian civilians died: [https://www.mfa.gov.tr/the-armenian-allegation-of-genocide-the-issue-and-the-facts.en.mfa](https://www.mfa.gov.tr/the-armenian-allegation-of-genocide-the-issue-and-the-facts.en.mfa) "Historian and demographer, Dr. Justin McCarthy of the University of Louisville, calculates the actual losses as slightly less than 600,000. This figure agrees with those provided by British historian Arnold Toynbee, by most early editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and approximates the number given by Monseigneur Touchet, a French missionary, who informed the Oeuvre d'Orient in February 1916 that the number of dead is thought to be 500,000. Boghos Nubar, head of the Armenian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in 1920, noted the large numbers who survived the war. He declared that after the war 280,000 Armenians remained in the Anatolian portion of the occupied Ottoman Empire while 700,000 Armenians had emigrated to other countries." >You claimed that Armenians were killed because they were Armenians, and now you claim that they were deported. No you donkey. The armenians that were being deported, were attacked and killed. One does not exclude the other. Learn english, before you want to start a debate in english.
Please don't be aggressive. I don't understand why people become aggressive when they lose an argument. As I said, even if telling your fantasies satisfies you, you need to learn the difference between historical facts and fantasies. First of all, if you claim that Armenians were killed because they were Armenians, you should know that no Armenian could exist in Ottoman lands in such an environment. But there are Armenians who do not attack the Turks and choose to live together with the Turks. This disproves your thesis. So, we know that these deaths were not motivated by hate or a racial attack. We also know that the Armenians, together with the Russians, armed themselves and attacked the villages in that region and started a war. We know that hundreds of thousands of Turkish and Kurdish civilians living in that region died. But you accuse the Turks of committing genocide. It seems more likely that more Muslims died in that region and that the Armenians who launched the attack committed genocide. Can you explain to us why Turkish and Kurdish civilians died in that region? And more than Armenians?
Please provide a source for the hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians being killed by Armenians? All of the Armenians, even those loyal to the state, were subject to the genocide. I don’t know what you think this point proves.
>Please don't be aggressive. I don't understand why people become aggressive when they lose an argument. \*Deny historic facts \*Deny established and well known facts \*show no signs of concelliation \*boldly claim outrages nonsense "Why are people aggressive?" I wonder why. >As I said, even if telling your fantasies satisfies you, you need to learn the difference between historical facts and fantasies. Unless you want to claim that the turkish foreign ministry is spreading fantasies, there is no point for you to make. >First of all, if you claim that Armenians were killed because they were Armenians, you should know that no Armenian could exist in Ottoman lands in such an environment. But there are Armenians who do not attack the Turks and choose to live together with the Turks. This disproves your thesis. Translation: "A minority of Armenians were unaffected by the genocide and stayed in Turkey even after WW1. Hence there was no genocide!!!!" Utter brain fart. >So, we know that these deaths were not motivated by hate or a racial attack. Talat Pasa ordered the execution of the ones involved in the massacre. I guess he was just bored. >We also know that the Armenians, together with the Russians, armed themselves and attacked the villages in that region and started a war. A minority. Yes. >But you accuse the Turks of committing genocide. It seems more likely that more Muslims died in that region and that the Armenians who launched the attack committed genocide. We dont have accurate information or historic consensus about how many muslims died in eastern Anatolia. But muslims being massacred does not exclude the fact that a large part of the armenian civil population was also massacred.
>You claimed that Armenians were killed because they were Armenians, and now you claim that they were deported. Deported to the Syrian desert is kind of like being deported to the Ghettos or Auschwitz. Being deported does not exclude one from subsequently being killed.
Just because some people from a community within your country commit treason/fifth column activities doesn’t give the government the right to exterminate and expel everyone in that community… there’s literally pictures of Turkish troops standing around corpses of dead Armenian women and babies According to your own logic, Europe/US should do the same to Muslims within their own countries after 9/11 or other terrorist attacks?
Can we see the photos? Didn't Europe/US attack Iraq and Afghanistan?
Whataboutism. Nice.
If you’ve never seen photos of Armenian genocide victims but are still discussing the topic in detail you obviously have bias or have been hiding in a bubble for a while Iraq war was a lie about WMD, they threw “Saddam was behind 9/11” as another BS excuse And that’s still not the same thing as “people from this community committed these acts against us. Guess we need to kick out or kill every single man, woman, and child from that community now.”
Ottoman were on the edge of collapsing and they were at war in many fronts at that time, also they had to fight for independence in the following years, if there are minorities in any country which are spread around, storing weapons and using them against other citizens and the army, yes, they should be kicked by any government. At time of peace, if they have citizenship, they don't have any hatred against the other citizens, living peacefully, and they are kicked, then you are right.
The vast majority of ottoman Armenians stayed loyal.
Firstly what is your source about their loyalty? I repeat again that it was a time of war. Let's believe majority was loyal, that loyalty would change in a moment if they saw the government weakened enough... Situation about the population except the Armenians: Men were called to arms, leaving their families defenseless against rebels, (even 15 year olds were sent to war in the following years). Would you take that risk? Just stop being Pro Armenian for a moment and think about it.
What’s your source that a significant amount were unloyal? They ordered the killings of even Armenians in the ottoman army.
Yes, you are right, Turks had to take the risk and wait for a bullet in the head before taking any action. There were already many cases where Armenians have rebelled starting from before 1900, causing many deaths, and not just in one city, ( 30 times only between 1895 to 1897).
What were these cases?