••• The Big Brother's, oops, i mean Apple's Gazette ••• A Sophisticated Periodical with Panache and a Sense of Humor
I’ve always preferred to hear both sides of a story when it comes to conflicts of any kind. But when it comes to wars, regardless of which wars, we’re most likely to hear the side of the victors, with the side of the story of the losers of any war, never heard.
I would like to hear, for example, more from the Ottoman side of story regarding the Armenian Genocide. Not the Turkish side of the story, the former having been accused of the Genocide of the Armenians, even though Turkey as a country as we know it today didn’t exist in those days, it having been part of the Ottoman Empire, which was in charge of Turkey, aka Anatolia.
Thus if anyone to accuse of Genocide against Armenians living in Anatolia, it would have been the Ottoman Empire responsible for such. But, …. the Ottomans don’t exist anymore, appearing to’ve disappeared with the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
The time when the Genocide is said to’ve taken place was a horrific time in history, with the entire middle east eventually divided amongst the victors and colonized. The aggressor, as we now know, were not the Ottomans, rather the British and the French, whose aim it was to take hold of the middle east for several reasons.
1. In the mid-1800’s the British Israelites movement began in Britain, whose agenda it was to create a State of Israel, a homeland for the Jewish people, in what was then Ottoman Syria.
2. The British Petroleum Company found Oil in Iran in 1909.
3. Britain wanted to take control of the rail-ways with full access of the Silk route.
4. Germany had become a thorn in the eye to Great Britain due to various factors:
a) The former disapproved of the new China-pig hybrids, created in Britain, which was supposed to become a major profitable business. See How pigs started World War 1
b) The former was allied with the Ottoman Empire.
c) Britain feared Germany would soon overpower it military wise, Protectorate wise, and technologically/economically.
Thus the only way for the Brits and the French, to conquer the middle east, i.e., the Ottoman Empire, was to conquer the Germans and Austro-Hungaria, too. It was also necessary to cause a rift between the Russian Empire and the German / Austro Hungarian Empire, both sides having enjoyed friendly diplomatic and economic relations prior to the first world war.
Back to Anatolia ( Turkey):
Russia, which was allied with Britain, tried to advance into Anatolia, entering via eastern Anatolia. Eastern Anatolia was by 70% inhabited by ethnic Armenians, who’d lived in the territory for thousands of years and enjoyed friendly relations with the Ottoman Empire.
The Armenians are said to’ve sided with the Russians, which is odd because why would they bite the hand that fed them ? With Armenians always having enjoyed friendly relations with Ottomans and Turks for hundreds of years, with many given Government positions, aside from everyone in the Ottoman empire having enjoyed Religious freedom by which all could worship as they pleased – Christians, Jewry, and Muslims all living peacefully side by side.
Thus the natural question to be asked is, who was to gain from creating a rift between Armenians and Turks ? Who was to benefit by accusing the Ottomans of “Genocide” = the attempt of wiping out an entire race of people ? Why would the Ottomans, suddenly after hundreds of years, feel animosity toward Armenians ?
Millions of people died during the first world war, and with Russia advancing into Anatolia from the east, fighting its way to the north, unaccountable people died on all sides; Turks, Armenians, and of course Russians.
But let’s assume the historical accounts are true and Armenians did indeed create militias to fight the Turks alongside the Russians, and the Ottomans felt animosity toward the Armenians for doing so. Why did they put thousands upon thousands of Armenians on trains, forcing them to leave eastern Anatolia, instead of killing them, if so they’d planned a Genocide against them ?
Most importantly, however, why were the great majority, thousands of Armenians, brought to southern Ottoman Syria, which was still governed by the Ottoman Empire ? Southern Syria became the British Mandate of Palestine after the first world war, and eventually modern day Israel. Why would the Ottomans “relocate” Armenians to another part of their empire, if their intent was to eradicate them as a people ?
Pontic Greeks, on the other hand, who also lived in Anatolia, specifically north eastern, and eastern Anatolia, were positively known to’ve formed militias to fight alongside Russian forces, with photos of Pontian militias circulating during that time, which were often interpreted as being photos of Armenians militias. Pontics were often confused with Armenians, because of their sharing the same Religion, Christianity. Many Pontic and eastern European Greeks traced their roots back to Hellenic Judaea, thus referred to as Greek Judaeans ( or Greek Jews, by the English ) who considered southern Syria ( modern day Israel) their ancestral homeland, to which they’d wished to return, especially after having been unable to establish an independent Pontic state, something they’d pursued many times, though in vain.
But regardless of Armenians or Pontic Greeks, or both, fighting alongside Russia against the Ottomans – why would the Turks “relocate” the Christians – Pontic and Armenians, both having accused the Ottomans of attempted Genocide – to southern Syria ? It doesn’t seem unlikely, though, that the Allies tried to turn the Armenians, or Christians in general, against the Ottomans, because they’d enjoyed friendly relations for hundred of years prior to the war. After all, to cause rifts between people is a well known strategy during times of war – specifically a British war strategy, as in ” Divide and Conquer”.
Here a photo said to depict Pontic Greeks forced on trains by Turkish soldiers. The similarity of the photo quality of this picture in comparison to photos said to depict Jewish people forced on trains during the second world war is quite striking.
What’s most astonishing is that prior, during and shortly after the first world war, there was no mention in the papers of any attempted genocide of Turks against Armenians or Pontics having taken place. What the papers did report, however, was of attempted Genocide against 6 Million Jewish people by the hands of Russians in eastern Europe.
For example, from the archive of http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov
On Monday September 8, 1919 the New York Times headline on page 6 reads,
“Ukrainian Jews aim to stop Pogroms”
It further reads:
“Commission to visit Europe and prepare a Memorandum for President Wilson.
Mass meeting hears that 127.000 Jews have been killed and 6.000.000 are in peril.
We come out now before the world with the determined slogan, ” Those pogroms must stop”, said the President in his annual message. “It is only a question of holding these facts continually before the civilized world; we must not permit the world to slumber. This fact that the population of 6.000.000 souls in Ukrainia, and in Poland, have received notice that they are going to be completely exterminated – this fact stands before the whole world as the paramount issue of the present day”.
There is just so much about the wars that doesn’t add up, leaving but a final question; What ever happened to the Ottomans ? What happened to those in Government positions of the Ottoman empire ? What happened to the Sultans, their Governors, Judges and their families ?
Though we’ve been told of some Sultans having been exiled. Some Sultans are said to’ve lived in exile in Paris, ” France” ; why would they choose to live in France, move to France after the first World war, a country having fought “against” the Ottomans ? Wouldn’t it seem more logical that they’d move to Germany, their ally ?
But what about all the other Ottoman officials ? Where did they go, or disappear to, after the first world war ?
They would have been the people with the answers, possibly having safeguarded government documents, records, and signed orders from the time, providing evidence in reference to the accusations.
Many of the records that did indeed survive, including authentic “negatives” of photos, have safely been locked away, and could be opened in ways Britain released it’s files from the second world war in 2008, which put a very different perspective on what actually took place.
The question is, need the world be shaken up again, with everyone having to experience yet another shock of learning who their forefathers in actuality were, perpetrators and victims alike ? Need descendants of victims be traumatized by facing the suffering of their forefathers, while descendants of perpetrators face shame ?
If we can’t close the doors to the past and move on, there will not be a future.