Let's take a look at a few
views regarding the "ancient Armenian Homeland" in Turkey...
beginning with a charming Armenian site (the contents of which were borrowed
January of 2003.)
Kingdom of Western Armenia's Official Site
The Kingdom of Western Armenia in exile has
started a new web site dedicated to the creation of a constitutional feudal monarchy in
turkish occupied Armenia. Please visit us at http://home.earthlink.net/~sasoonaj. We are
still under construction. Send email if you wish to be on mailing list to be informed of
updates to the site and how you can participate in the final removal of the barbarian
heathen hordes that now defile the territory of western Greater Armenia.
"The Kingdom of
Greeks have an awfully hard time in accepting the
Sevres Treaty's stillborn status... and recognizing the legitimacy of
the Lausanne Treaty. (I like the way the artist depicted Woodrow
Wilson with a clenched fist, as if Sevres was ever enforced.)
This Armenian site illustrates perfectly what is on the mind
of many Armenians (although hopefully not to the extreme level as this... but we all
know better). Supposedly, most of Eastern Anatolia (what is now present-day Turkey)
was once part of the ancient Armenian homeland. An ancient homeland that was
comprised of scattered tribes and vassal-state kingdoms often at odds with one
another, and rarely an actual sovereign nation before the 20th Century. So all this
talk about the Armenian "Genocide" ... not withstanding the genuine rage
many Armenians feel, since many accept at face value all the distortions they've
been fed... leads to the possibility of reparations and land. (Never mind the Treaty of Leninakan (Gümrü)
signed December 3, 1920 by the Armenians and Turks, which closed the book on past
ills, foregoing the issue of reparations; Armenians have a way of going back on
their word, like the fifty
million dollar loan from America they reneged on, when they threw their lot in
with the Soviets... while happily accepting the $100 million a year, on average,
American "gift" their well-oiled lobby in America manages to get for them.
For which America gets nothing in return... not even a few chunks of shish kebab.)
Once they firmly convince the West there has been a "Genocide," the
Western nation Turkey (never fully accepted by the West, as French President Giscard
D'Estaing honestly reminded everyone, not long ago... saying Turkey is not a part of
Europe, even though the one-time "Sick Man of Europe" had been a part of
Europe for only, what, six or seven centuries?) will be squeezed even more into a
corner. With all the pressure, the Armenians hope Turkey will admit to a genocide,
irrespective of the actual truth; then the stage will be set for the second cycle of
putting on the squeeze, for free money and free land. This acquisition of new land
will follow in the same manner as other land grabs by Armenia, with the removal of
the "barbarian heathen hordes."
The example from above is fairly new, but the sentiments are certainly not. Below
are opinions published in an Armenian ethnic newspaper back in 1985, complaining
that the period's terror tactics are failing in having the desired effect, and
therefore the faithful need be directed as to what the true crux of the issue really
|THE LIBERATION OF OUR HOMELAND
‘Opinion’ signed by Garen Yeghparian and Ara Khanjian
The Armenian Weekly
May 11, 1985, p. 2.
On March 12, 1985, three Armenian freedom fighters took over and held for 4½ hours the
Turkish embassy in Ottawa, Canada. By telephone they expressed their demands which are:
Turkey must give up Armenian lands and acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.
The media gave substantial coverage. However, despite the clearly stated demands the media
continues to insist on portraying the aims of the Armenian cause (at least in part) as
Two weeks later, a threat was received that if the three were not released, a bomb would
be placed in the Toronto subway system. Again the media responded with substantial
coverage. Again the goal of the Armenian cause was misrepresented as revenge.
If we portray our goal as recognition of the Genocide then it is quite natural for
non-Armenian public opinion to assume that Armenians are simply seeking revenge. However,
if we clearly and emphatically state that our main goal is the liberation of our homeland,
then public opinion will not view our cause as one of revenge.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon all Armenians, be they lobbyists in Congress,
demonstrators in the streets, freedom fighters in military operations or spokespersons in
media offices to state again and again that our goals are the liberation of Turkish
occupied Armenia, recognition of Genocide by Turkey and not revenge.
Holdwater: Soon afterwards, the worldwide terrorist acts
magically came to a halt, when the Armenian Monolith realized the campaign was becoming
counterproductive to the "Con Job," and the all important sympathy vote was
becoming endangered... since "Armenian" fast was being viewed as a synonym for
"terrorist." The regular, less murderous tactics would keep continuing, such as
lies, death threats, the attempted ruining of reputations, and the frivolous efforts of
enacting meaningless resolutions and taking people to court for expressing different
viewpoints on the life-sustaining "Genocide."
more recent times, the well respected National Geographic magazine in its June
1978 issue, published an article entitled "The Proud Armenians" which
included a map of Turkey showing almost all of Eastern Anatolia as the "Armenian
Homeland." The same magazine, unbelievably, in its August 1992 issue published an
article entitled" Struggle of the Kurds" which included a map of Eastern
Anatolia, showing virtually the same territory as "Kurdistan"! It is as if
Turks never existed in Anatolia.
The Effect of the Image of the
on the Armenian - Turkish Conflict
In Britain it takes 5 years to gain citizenship.
Turks have been in Anatolia over 1000 — of course the rules of Absurdistan — sorry
Armenia — say that you have to have a written lease agreement from God. Maybe you
would like to post said document so that we can all read the small print. Then when
the Turks have left you can argue with the Kurds over how much land you will sublet to
them — squatters are really hard to get rid of these days!
Guestbook writer, 7/27/99
The Armenians the Greeks etc, in
Asia Minor (it be became Turkey in the 20th century) did not come from afar lands and
conquered, and tried to change the religion of the natives there. They were the
natives, and the Turks from Turkestan, who joined the Arabs in conquering and
expanding the Ottoman Empire, were always seen as the conquerors and the oppressors.
The fact that they were forced to fight with the Ottoman armies, does not mean they
submitted to their conquerors. They were freedom seekers in the eyes of their own
people, and traitors to the Turks’ eyes.
Yes but isn't 1000 years long enough to be accepted as a
local in Asia Minor? The Turks may be seen as settlers/foreigners/occupiers to some
but they did grant the minorities under their rule the highest levels of religous and
cultural freedoms found anywhere at their time. The Armenian Patriarchiate in Istanbul
was formed by Mehmet the Conquerer who granted them autonomy. The Greek Patriarchiate
in Istanbul was also given similar autonomy and both churches have still survived to
this day. If the Turks had been so keen on changing the religions of their subjects,
do you think that you yourself would have been a Christian. It is a well known fact
that the Orthodox Greeks preferred to remain under Ottoman rule even during a brief
period of Catholic Venetian rule in Morea. They actually pledged to the Sultan to
return and liberate them from Catholic oppression. Treachery and freedom fighting are
two different things. In WWI at the same time that Ottoman soldiers of all races were
giving 250,000 lives to protect the Empire at Gallipoli, the Armenians, fooled by
their Church and Russian promises for independence, were siding with Russian invading
Armies in the East. When the country was invaded by
Greek/British/Italian/French/Russian/Armenian Armies after the war, the Greek and
Armenians (not all of them of course) were the first to greet them. It should,
however, be noted that the 'Empire' had effectively gone bankrupt several decades
before that time and life as an Ottoman citizen must have been very harsh as the State
had very little control over its territories and the people were left at mercy of
local officials. However, I believe that after hundreds of years of coexistence, we
deserved much better than a stab in the back from the Greeks and Armenians.
The one to whom the response was directed
to, described by another forum participant as "another passionate Turk hater, in
sheep's clothing, however," also raised the following interesting issue:
Now the Jews in the Ottoman
Empire did not have any land to claim as their own, except Palestine, and they were as
strangers to these lands as the conquerors. Therefore siding with the strong party was
to their advantage at the time. As their friends the Ottomans begun to be kicked out
of the conquered lands, their friends the Jews, guilty by association, were not
welcomed with open arms either.
not as simple as that. Some nations still possessed the notions of gratitude and
loyalty at that time.
To support his argument, the Turkish writer
presented the article from a Jewish organization, entitled Loyalty to the Ottoman Empire.
Holdwater finds this issue particularly interesting, because a key Armenian contention
is that the Armenians got "exterminated" because the Young Turks wanted to
purify the nation, in their racist policy of "Turkey for the Turks." Then
why was the remaining loyal "ethnic" citizenry, the Jews, also not subject
to this extermination policy? Professor Hovannisian was caught off guard with this question,
back in 1988.
Response to pkpjamestown from Turk2, forum
|How long were the Armenians
in this "Homeland," anyway?
This is a huge, 'nother topic, and I'll leave
that for others to discuss in detail. However, certain facts are clear.
1) Who wrote Armenian history?
Paul Henze tells us, in his THE ROOTS OF ARMENIAN VIOLENCE:
Armenian history is not easy to study. It is long, complex, sometimes obscure and
often controversial. There are rich records to draw upon, but texts and traditions
have not been as meticulously and critically examined by independent scholars as
those of many other old nations. The history of Egypt, or Greece and Rome, for
example, has been written primarily by people who are not directly descended from
the ancient civilizations. Texts and inscriptions bearing on the history of these
societies have been studied from all possible directions by scholars who have no
emotional interest in using them as a basis for glorifying the distant past of the
peoples involved—though some, of course, have done so. Armenian history has been
studied and written almost entirely by Armenians.
2) Have Armenians had a tendency to... ehhh... "exaggerate" the facts?
If you've spent more than two minutes on this site, you already know the answer to
3) Is it possible the Armenians, a wandering people, could not lay stake to the
Anatolia region, after all?
Even Armenians cannot agree on the origins of their "ancient homeland."
One striking example of this confusion among Armenians that I have encountered is
the Armenian writer Ruppen Courian's claim (from Promartyrs de la Civilization,
1964, p. 27) of the following: "The Armenians are the former
inhabitants of today's Switzerland"
Evidently, there are a good several theories as to where Armenians originated. These
include the Biblical Noah, Urartu, Thracian-Phyrigian, Southern Caucasus and
Turanian Theories. Some say the Armenians are cousins of the Albanians. Do the
details of these theories clearly tell us the Armenians originated in Anatolia, and
do they tell us Armenians have lived there for three to four thousand years, as they
claim? I have not studied these details, so I cannot say. I have read the Armenians
could not have existed in Anatolia before roughly 560 B.C.; since human history goes
back thousands of years before that time, and since Anatolia is a particularly rich
historic region, I would presume there were others living in Anatolia before the
Armenians showed their faces.
It's also known that Russia had a
vested interest in populating lands conquered from the Ottomans with Christians, who
were thought to be more loyal than Muslims. (That's why five million Turks/Muslims
were expelled from their lands in the century up to and including W.W.I, and another
five-and-one-half-million were killed; "Death and Exile," Prof. Justin
McCarthy.) The Armenians were scattered all about, and the Russians were deciding
where to place them. Here is what Russian diplomat and
playwright Aleksandr Sergeyevich Griboyedov, who organized the transmigration
of Armenians from Iran, as Russian minister to Iran in the early 19th century; wrote
in a letter to the Czar:
"Majesty, I would like to ask you not
to allow the location of Armenians in the central Russian regions. Because they are
such filthy and shameless clans, they would soon shout throughout the world and
claim those lands as their 'ancient motherland'."
4) Do Armenian activists put these ideas forward only to support the claims that
the Turks drove them out of their homeland?
Do elephants poop a little more than microscopically in the jungle?
V- Admit or
deny the truth that Armenia has never been more than a vassal state controlled
by someone else throughout history. You claim an "ancient homeland" as
your matter of right provided some foreign government (like the Russians) come
in and give you someone else's lands. If we Americans listen to you and do what
you are asking us to do in the Near East we will have to give Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona, California and parts of several other states to the Mexico because
those are their "ancient homelands" too! That wasn't that long ago as
compared to the three thousand years you want to go back and claim for your
lands in the Near East. But that isn't the worst part for you Armenians is it?
The rest of us
Americans will have to give up all our lands and give them to the Native
Americans who were here before us because that is their "ancient
homeland", right? That means even you small but loud gaggle off Armenians
living here will have to return to your less than 200-year old "ancient
homeland" in Armenia. You know and I know that you will never support lands
in America for Native Americans or Mexicans for their "ancient
homeland" so why should anyone listen to your counterfeit claim for ancient
homelands of three thousand years ago?
You know and I
know that the United States government isn't about to give Mexico one inch of
land and neither is our government going to give Native Americans one inch of
land either. The same logic applies to Turkey and they aren't going to give
Armenia one inch of their lands. I suggest you take a look at the Lausanne Peace
Treaty that took place in July 24, 1923 (See "Ataturk" by Andrew Mango
page 387). It is past time for you Armenians to get a life and love your fellow
man as your Bible teaches you to do.
responding to Armenian
Not Regarding Anatolia… but
- Armenians have not lived in Transcaucasia for the centuries. It is a myth. The first
massive Armenian immigration to the Erivan, Nakhichevan and Karabakh Khanates started in
1828 and it was encouraged by the Russian Tsarist government. The Russian Ambassador to
Iran, Alexander Griboedov, had described the resettlement of the Iranian Armenians in the
above mentioned lands in his memoirs. Even after the first massive arrival of the
Armenians to Transcaucasia, the original Muslim population (mainly Azeris) remained the
majority in Erivan, Karabakh and Nakhichevan.
- There still exists the monument in Nagorno Karabakh which comemorates the arrival of the
first immigrants to Nagorno Karabakh. It was erected in 1978 in Leninavan (Mardakert
region of Nagorno Karabakh) to mark the 150th anniversary of the Armenian immigration.
Until recently, there was a script on the monument, but after the outbreak of the
conflict, Armenians had erased the script.
- All pre-1828 Christian buildings in Nagorno Karabakh are Albanian (don't confuse the
Caucasian Albanians with the European Albanians). Albanians were the only indigineous
population of Nagorno Karabakh, and they were assimilated into the Azeri ethnos in the
Middle Ages, long before the Armenian immigration. Therefore, only the modern Azeris can
be considered to be the descendants of the Caucasian Albanians (the fact accepted by the
world historical scholarship).
- Only after the Crimean War, 1853-55, when the second massive immigration of the
Armenians from Turkey took place, did the Armenians outnumber the Azeris in Transcaucasia.
The purpose of Russia's promotion of the Armenian immigration was to create a Christian
province in the South which was to serve as a stronghold for further Russian penetration
of Iran and the Ottoman Empire.
- Armenian immigration continued in the 1890s after the disastrous rebellion of the
Armenians in Anatolia in 1894-95.
- Stalin never "granted" Karabakh to Azerbaijan. In 1921, the decision was made
to "leave" Karabakh within, and not to "transfer" to, Azerbaijan. If
you look at the Protocol of the Kavbuero Meeting of 5th July, 1921, (every historian
nowadays can order the document from the former Party Archive in Moscow) you will read
exactly the word "leave". So, when you "leave" something somewhere, it
obviously implies that it was there before. Masterly manipulating with the words,
Armenians pursue the aim to justify their territorial claims to Azerbaijan. In addition,
in 1921 Stalin did not have enough power to "grant" territories or to take such
kind of important decisions. He was an ordinary minister (narkom), and his power was very
limited. Contemporary advocates of the Armenian Cause use Stalin's name, known for his
brutal dictatorship, to justify their territorial intentions.
- More than 400 geographical names in modern Armenia were renamed from Turkic to Armenian.
- The first violence in the 1980s took place in late 1987, when the Armenians expelled
4.000 Azeris from Kafan, Masis and Goris. Azeri refugees were the first in the conflict.
They were sent to Sumgait, where only 3 months later the tragedy broke out. It is the
undisputable fact that two ethnic Armenians (Grigorian and Oganov) were arrested in
Sumgait for killing at least 6 Armenians. Armenians are responsible for the first violence
in the conflict, which is the expulsion of the Azeris in 1987.
- The first victims in the conflict were Azeris - two men killed by Armenians a few days
before the Sumgait tragedy in Askeran.
- No single bullet had fallen on the Armenian soil since the beginning of the conflict.
The war took place only on the territory of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is the victim, Armenia
is the aggressor.
Holdwater: I have lost the source for the above, so the
reader is on his or her own to ascertain the truthfulness. There are some bits and pieces
I had never run into, and I found them fascinating. The one bit that struck my eye regards
a point I have come across numerous times in Armenian sites… that Nagorno Karabakh is
not really a part of Azerbaijan, as Stalin artificially designated this naturally Armenian
region to Azerbaijan. (Not unlike the British/French in 1916’s secret Sykes-Picot
agreement, arbitrarily drawing national borders in the Middle East.) However, the
explanation above is very thought-provoking… I never considered Stalin’s relative lack
of power in 1921.