Azerbaijani-Armenian Conflict

[Brisketexan 105,079]

1 hour ago, MillerEP said:

And it looks like it’s finally over officially. A 30-year war in the making went out not with a bang but a whimper. Russia wasn’t there to play their mind games/both sides. The 2020 conflict and subsequent blockade reduced the separatists from any meaningful way of mounting a military response so they had to capitulate.
 

 

 

 

 

An interesting (and mostly foolish) chapter in history.  That said, the boy is big into vexillology, so when we visited Armenia, he also picked up a small flag of the "breakaway Atrsakh Republic" (they were available at many kiosks in Yerevan).

So, there's a piece of history now.

[Macanudo 12,975]

Does your son have a "Fun with Flags" podcast?

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

An interesting (and mostly foolish) chapter in history.  That said, the boy is big into vexillology, so when we visited Armenia, he also picked up a small flag of the "breakaway Atrsakh Republic" (they were available at many kiosks in Yerevan).

So, there's a piece of history now.

Dude, I love a good flag.  

But more than that, I love a bad flag.  And this is a bad flag.  It's just wretched. 

It looks like the defender ship from Space Invaders is coming in to dock, . . . and now the more I think about it, maybe it's a fucking fantastic flag.

[Gatorubet 30,185]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

Dude, I love a good flag.  

But more than that, I love a bad flag.  And this is a bad flag.  It's just wretched. 

It looks like the defender ship from Space Invaders is coming in to dock, . . . and now the more I think about it, maybe it's a fucking fantastic flag.

Anything channeling Space Invaders and Tetris has my vote of confidence. 

[Sawbonz 27,542]

5 hours ago, MillerEP said:

And it looks like it’s finally over officially. A 30-year war in the making went out not with a bang but a whimper. Russia wasn’t there to play their mind games/both sides. The 2020 conflict and subsequent blockade reduced the separatists from any meaningful way of mounting a military response so they had to capitulate.
 

 

 

 

 

[0xdeadbeef 1,645]

Any chance someone with a better grasp of this conflict add some color commentary to this.

As an American, I'm not sure if there is a 'good guy' or 'bad guy' in this conflict.  

• I get they really don't like each other going back a long time, and that one is predominantly Christian and the other predominately Muslim. 
• I know Armenian is an allied with Russia and is part of CSTO, but supposedly the protests a few days ago were against the pro-Russians government? 
• Azerbaijan has been supposedly leaning pro-western, and is not an ally of Iran. 
• Talking-heads online describe the American-Armenian lobby as very strong?  Is this right? why? 
• I scanned the Wikipedia page for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and it feels like the same shit as the Balkans. 

 

System of a Down are Armenian, so that's cool, but so are the Kardashians, and that's very not cool.

 

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

2 hours ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

Any chance someone with a better grasp of this conflict add some color commentary to this.

As an American, I'm not sure if there is a 'good guy' or 'bad guy' in this conflict.  

• I get they really don't like each other going back a long time, and that one is predominantly Christian and the other predominately Muslim. 
• I know Armenian is an allied with Russia and is part of CSTO, but supposedly the protests a few days ago were against the pro-Russians government? 
• Azerbaijan has been supposedly leaning pro-western, and is not an ally of Iran. 
• Talking-heads online describe the American-Armenian lobby as very strong?  Is this right? why? 
• I scanned the Wikipedia page for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and it feels like the same shit as the Balkans. 

 

System of a Down are Armenian, so that's cool, but so are the Kardashians, and that's very not cool.

 

I'll just trace it back to World War I.  Prior to World War I, the Armenians were scattered throughout the Ottoman Empire, but were heavily in Constantinople and Armenia.  Those were two pretty important places.  First, Armenia straddled the border between the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, which were at war with one another during World War I.  Second, Constantinople was the capital of the Ottoman Empire, and Russia had the longstanding ambition of seizing Constantinople (which they called Tsargrad) from the Ottomans.  

The Armenians were sympathetic to the Russians, as the Russians were also Christians and purported to protect Armenian interests.  And so when the Russians advanced into the Ottoman Empire in 1915, the Armenians largely supported them.  

The Ottoman Turks consequently saw the Armenians as a nascent fifth column, which happened to reside in two strategic places.  So the Turks rounded up the Armenians and genocided them.  Not cool.  But so anyway, the Armenians super-hate the Turks.  And, well, the Turks pretty much hate the Armenians, too.

The Azeris are a Turkic people who happen to be Muslim.  So they have a close ethnic and religious bond with the Azerbaijanis.  And Turkey has traditionally supported Azerbaijan.  Since the first war, Turkey has closed its border with Armenia and has supplied Azerbaijan with weapons.

On top of that is Turkey's--which is to say Recap Erdogan's--ambition to position Turkey as the leader of the Turkic peoples stretching from the Anatolian Peninsula to western China.  Not just in Azerbaijan, but all the people in the -stans are all some flavor of Turkic.  And Erdogan sees it as a historic Turkish mission to lead those people while also setting Turkey up strategically to be a real modern player in the global energy market.

And then there's Israel, which has some weird historic . . . I don't know that I would say "alliance," but I would definitely say "friendliness" with Turkey.  The Jews were largely tolerated in Palestine under the Ottoman Empire.  And as a democracy and Nato member that is not Arab, Turkey has kind of shared America's affinity for Israel.  And Israel and Turkey share interests in Syria and elsewhere.  So Israel has also been selling Azerbaijan weapons.

Oh, and of course, Israel hates Iran.  And Iran hates Azerbaijan because there is a large Azeri population in northern Iran that has some asperations of seceding and joining up with Azerbaijan.  It's kind of like Iraq and the Kurds--there are times when Tehran's writ doesn't run in the north of the country.

So the Iranians are interested in helping Armenia.  

But Armenia's real protector . . . or at least the country that purports to be Armenia's protector . . . is Russia.  But the thing is, Russia does a shitty job of actually protecting Armenia.  It couldn't protect the Armenians in 1916.  It can't protect them now.  

So really what this boils down to is Armenia picks shitty friends.

And the Azerbaijanis, Turks, and Israelis know it.

So there's this territory inside Azerbaijan--Nagorno-Karabakh.  Its population is overwhelmingly Armenian.  But it is inside Azerbaijan's internationally recognized borders.  In the early 1990s, Armenia invaded and basically set up a state akin to what Russia did with Transnistria or South Ossetia.  And Azerbaijan has kind of had to eat shit for thirty years because Russia would could to the aid of Armenia if it came down to it.

But now Russia can't do shit; it's too busy losing a war against Ukraine.  And nobody else is going to come help.  So they're going to have to bend over and take it.

And that's why there are protests in Yerevan against the government.  The government is heavily pro-Russian.  And that's always been the rule for Armenia: it is a Russian vassal.  If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?

There is a reasonably strong pro-Armenia group in America owing to the fact that there are a fair number of Armenians here.  Well, I mean . . . "strong" is a relative term.  It's not going to push policy like AIPAC can.  But it's probably stronger than the pro-Bangladeshi lobby.

But it's nothing compared to the energy lobby.  And Azerbaijan has oil.  And Turkey is a highway for oil and gas transportation.  So yeah--Armenia is going to get some nice words from us, but it's not getting any real support.  It's certainly not going to get any help keeping territory that it's running inside Azerbaijan's internationally recognized borders.

[KCMasterpieceof 24]

11 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'll just trace it back to World War I.  Prior to World War I, the Armenians were scattered throughout the Ottoman Empire, but were heavily in Constantinople and Armenia.  Those were two pretty important places.  First, Armenia straddled the border between the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, which were at war with one another during World War I.  Second, Constantinople was the capital of the Ottoman Empire, and Russia had the longstanding ambition of seizing Constantinople (which they called Tsargrad) from the Ottomans.  

The Armenians were sympathetic to the Russians, as the Russians were also Christians and purported to protect Armenian interests.  And so when the Russians advanced into the Ottoman Empire in 1915, the Armenians largely supported them.  

The Ottoman Turks consequently saw the Armenians as a nascent fifth column, which happened to reside in two strategic places.  So the Turks rounded up the Armenians and genocided them.  Not cool.  But so anyway, the Armenians super-hate the Turks.  And, well, the Turks pretty much hate the Armenians, too.

The Azeris are a Turkic people who happen to be Muslim.  So they have a close ethnic and religious bond with the Azerbaijanis.  And Turkey has traditionally supported Azerbaijan.  Since the first war, Turkey has closed its border with Armenia and has supplied Azerbaijan with weapons.

On top of that is Turkey's--which is to say Recap Erdogan's--ambition to position Turkey as the leader of the Turkic peoples stretching from the Anatolian Peninsula to western China.  Not just in Azerbaijan, but all the people in the -stans are all some flavor of Turkic.  And Erdogan sees it as a historic Turkish mission to lead those people while also setting Turkey up strategically to be a real modern player in the global energy market.

And then there's Israel, which has some weird historic . . . I don't know that I would say "alliance," but I would definitely say "friendliness" with Turkey.  The Jews were largely tolerated in Palestine under the Ottoman Empire.  And as a democracy and Nato member that is not Arab, Turkey has kind of shared America's affinity for Israel.  And Israel and Turkey share interests in Syria and elsewhere.  So Israel has also been selling Azerbaijan weapons.

Oh, and of course, Israel hates Iran.  And Iran hates Azerbaijan because there is a large Azeri population in northern Iran that has some asperations of seceding and joining up with Azerbaijan.  It's kind of like Iraq and the Kurds--there are times when Tehran's writ doesn't run in the north of the country.

So the Iranians are interested in helping Armenia.  

But Armenia's real protector . . . or at least the country that purports to be Armenia's protector . . . is Russia.  But the thing is, Russia does a shitty job of actually protecting Armenia.  It couldn't protect the Armenians in 1916.  It can't protect them now.  

So really what this boils down to is Armenia picks shitty friends.

And the Azerbaijanis, Turks, and Israelis know it.

So there's this territory inside Azerbaijan--Nagorno-Karabakh.  Its population is overwhelmingly Armenian.  But it is inside Azerbaijan's internationally recognized borders.  In the early 1990s, Armenia invaded and basically set up a state akin to what Russia did with Transnistria or South Ossetia.  And Azerbaijan has kind of had to eat shit for thirty years because Russia would could to the aid of Armenia if it came down to it.

But now Russia can't do shit; it's too busy losing a war against Ukraine.  And nobody else is going to come help.  So they're going to have to bend over and take it.

And that's why there are protests in Yerevan against the government.  The government is heavily pro-Russian.  And that's always been the rule for Armenia: it is a Russian vassal.  If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?

There is a reasonably strong pro-Armenia group in America owing to the fact that there are a fair number of Armenians here.  Well, I mean . . . "strong" is a relative term.  It's not going to push policy like AIPAC can.  But it's probably stronger than the pro-Bangladeshi lobby.

But it's nothing compared to the energy lobby.  And Azerbaijan has oil.  And Turkey is a highway for oil and gas transportation.  So yeah--Armenia is going to get some nice words from us, but it's not getting any real support.  It's certainly not going to get any help keeping territory that it's running inside Azerbaijan's internationally recognized borders.

Two questions for you (marvelous and thoughtful write up, by the way):

1) Why don't you use the name Turkiye? As far as I can tell UN agreed over the summer this is the preferred nomenclature (dude) and Associated Press style guide for message boards demands the formality. Just kidding.

2) Seriously, why do the Turks deny the Armenian genocide? I mean, it's as you described pretty factually and easy to prove, right? And they can even have a nationalistic bent to defend it or own it or whatever, but what's the purpose of the denial?

 

[Post Oak 20,208]

 

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

 

[Homercles 10,205]

On 10/8/2020 at 9:30 PM, Somnio said:

Israeli Suicide Drones

https://www.newsweek.com/how-azerbaijans-drones-show-what-future-war-looks-like-opinion-1536487

Oh man I’d forgotten about this guy…got all aggressive over vaccine conspiracies, then neg bombed and hasn’t posted in almost two years.  
 

Chrispy could learn a thing or two from this dude

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

11 hours ago, KCMasterpieceof said:

Two questions for you (marvelous and thoughtful write up, by the way):

1) Why don't you use the name Turkiye? As far as I can tell UN agreed over the summer this is the preferred nomenclature (dude) and Associated Press style guide for message boards demands the formality. Just kidding.

2) Seriously, why do the Turks deny the Armenian genocide? I mean, it's as you described pretty factually and easy to prove, right? And they can even have a nationalistic bent to defend it or own it or whatever, but what's the purpose of the denial?

 

1) I don't use "Turkiye" because I'm of a sufficiently advanced age that it takes me time to adjust to new things.  But yes--that is the preferred spelling, and I ought to adopt it.

Getting used to "Czechia" is also taking a bit of time.

2) The Turks deny the Armenian genocide for much the same reason Americans deny the genocide of the American Indians.  I mean, it's not a pleasant thought to think about your ancestors committing genocide.  And beyond that, once you acknowledge that your country committed a genocide, unpleasant ancillary questions arise.  Like reparations.  It's nice that you acknowledge this historical crime, but what are you going to do to remedy the injury?

And there is something . . . I don't know exactly the right word, and I distinctly don't want to use the word "justifiable," so let's just say "unusual" . . . about the Armenian genocide.  It came in the course of a war fought by the Ottoman Empire for its very survival, and it was motivated in large part by the exigencies of that war.  Without World War I, the Armenian genocide doesn't happen.

The Ottomans thought the Armenians were a potential fifth column at the heart of the country.  And in some instances, Armenians did engage in acts of resistance against the Ottomans and gave aid and comfort to invading Russian forces.  With a lot less basis, the United States interned its citizens of Japanese extraction based on their ancestry just a quarter-century later.

The difference is that the United States sent the Japanese-Americans by train to camps, where they were fed, sheltered, and clothed.  I mean, still really bad.  But they weren't sent on a death march through the desert, raped and murdered in their thousands along the way, and then ditched at a random spot in the desert to fend for themselves and likely die.

Now, at Turkish nationalist would point out that the United States handled it a bit better because it wasn't in mid-collapse as a result of a failing war effort.  The Turkish nationalist might also point out that the American desert isn't populated by a people like the Kurds, who have an ancestral and bloody hatred of the people being transported.  And the Turkish nationalist might argue that the murderous intent of a small number of governmental functionaries shouldn't be imputed to the state, which was governed and administered by people who had no intent to commit genocide (though they may have been consciously indifferent to the fate of the Armenians at the hands of the Kurds, their fellow Turks, and the desert).

So the entire circumstance is murky, shrouded by the confusion of wartime secrecy and regime collapse.  And ultimately, there is no Auschwitz; there are no gas chambers.  Many of the incriminating documents were destroyed (though that act itself reflects the Turkish knowledge and complicity in the crime).  What documents remained were left unexamined; there was no Nuremberg prosecution.

And at the end of it, Turkiye--see, I'm learning--emerged as a secular Turkish ethno-state.  And that couldn't happen if it were still populated by millions of Armenians.  And the Turks are very proud of their country's founding from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire and the occupation of large parts of the Anatolian Peninsula by the Allied powers.  And it really is a kick in the balls to point out that the bedrock on which that foundation is laid is the genocide of one of the Peninsula's nations.

. . . so yeah--kind of exactly how Americans deny the genocide of the American Indians.

[atomheartbevo 89,629]

People celebrating something on Mount Kardashia:

People think the Russians can help them

 

[atomheartbevo 89,629]

OFFICIAL: The Armenian government is in constant contact with its partners on the issue of transferring those who wish to from Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia. The government representatives are also in constant contact with the Nagorno-Karabakh partners regarding the humanitarian problems in Nagorno-Karabakh, including the issue of transferring those who wish to the Republic of Armenia.

Necessary decisions will be made in collaboration with Nagorno-Karabakh based on the situation and the results of discussions between the representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan, and peacekeepers.

The Armenian government has not raised the issue of deporting Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians and believes that the rights of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians to live safely and with dignity in their homes should be guaranteed. However, if it is deemed impossible for Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians or a part of them to stay, necessary decisions will be made. Preparations are being made for such a scenario, and various scenarios have been developed.

----

Edit: I think it's more of a shitshow than he's letting on, but from reading elsewhere,  it sounds like Armenia kind of expected this, given their bitching about the lack of Russian support.  Azerbaijani's wouldn't have done it if they thought Russia would/could respond in kind.

Edited September 21, 2023 by atomheartbevo

[KCMasterpieceof 24]

2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

And at the end of it, Turkiye--see, I'm learning--emerged as a secular Turkish ethno-state.  And that couldn't happen if it were still populated by millions of Armenians.  And the Turks are very proud of their country's founding from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire and the occupation of large parts of the Anatolian Peninsula by the Allied powers.  And it really is a kick in the balls to point out that the bedrock on which that foundation is laid is the genocide of one of the Peninsula's nations.

. . . so yeah--kind of exactly how Americans deny the genocide of the American Indians.

Amazing insight. Did you do your History PhD thesis on this part of the world or what? 

What's been interesting to me, as a global traveler who has been all around the world including Turkiye (Ankara recently and of course Istanbul), I've met and talked to all types. Liberals to the "Wolves" of the MHP.

What is interesting over time that I've observed is the wide swing from what you describe above (bold,) is the move from this and the idolized worship of Ataturk and secularizing and trying to become more "European" for a lack of better characterization, to a pendulum swing the last...decade(s)?... by Erdogan to erode democracy and move into a more fundamentalist/islamic embrace.

Do I perceive that wrong?

Best I can tell, the inflection point seemed to be the tacit rejection of Turkiye into the EU in the mid 2010's (the formal rejection was much later), but it seemed Turkiye took the spurning as a racist Europe saying you dirty muslims will never be our equal and we don't want your kind, which I've come to think of as Turkiye/Erdogan's villainous origin story.

And yes Czechia I don't like, but we are already starting to call India "Bharat" around the house to get used to it before it takes effect.

Edited September 21, 2023 by KCMasterpieceof

[SimonBolivar 10,957]

5 minutes ago, KCMasterpieceof said:

Amazing insight. Did you do your History PhD thesis on this part of the world or what? 

He's a law bird and it's hard for Americans to get their PhD in Ottoman/Turkish studies in the early 20th century as their script has changed so you have to learn a whole new way of writing on top of a new language. I tried to do a master's paper on day-to-day life in the Ottoman Navy in WW1 but couldn't handle translating the script in primary documents without years of studying.

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

15 minutes ago, KCMasterpieceof said:

Amazing insight. Did you do your History PhD thesis on this part of the world or what? 

What's been interesting to me, as a global traveler who has been all around the world including Turkiye (Ankara recently and of course Istanbul), I've met and talked to all types. Liberals to the "Wolves" of the MHP.

What is interesting over time that I've observed is the wide swing from what you describe above (bold,) is the move from this and the idolized worship of Ataturk and secularizing and trying to become more "European" for a lack of better characterization, to a pendulum swing the last...decade(s)?... by Erdogan to erode democracy and move into a more fundamentalist/islamic embrace.

Do I perceive that wrong?

Best I can tell, the inflection point seemed to be the tacit rejection of Turkiye into the EU in the mid 2010's (the formal rejection was much later), but it seemed Turkiye took the spurning as a racist Europe saying you dirty muslims will never be our equal and we don't want your kind, which I've come to think of as Turkiye/Erdogan's villainous origin story.

And yes Czechia I don't like, but we are already starting to call India "Bharat" around the house to get used to it before it takes effect.

I'm a lawyer, which makes me an expert on every subject matter.  Just ask me.

I think your read on the rise of Erdogan is dead right.  The hope of admission into the EU kept Turkiye close to the Ataturk vision.  Once that was gone, the secularists became very demoralized.  Coupled with the fundamentalists' infiltration into the army, and the AK Party was able to seize and hold on to power.

And I'm not calling India "Bharat" anymore than I am calling it Burma "Myanmar."  Calling the country "Myanmar" indicates a tacit acceptance of the illegitimate military dictatorship governing that country.  And calling India "Bharat" would adopt the BJP's vision of India as a Hindu ethno-state.

I ain't doin' it.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Ghost of LL

[KCMasterpieceof 24]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm a lawyer, which makes me an expert on every subject matter.  Just ask me.

I think your read on the rise of Erdogan is dead right.  The hope of admission into the EU kept Turkiye close to the Ataturk vision.  Once that was gone, the secularists became very demoralized.  Coupled with the fundamentalists' infiltration into the army, and the AK Party was able to seize and hold on to power.

And I'm not calling India "Bharat" anymore than I am calling it "Burma."  Calling the country "Myanmar" indicates a tacit acceptance of the illegitimate military dictatorship governing that country.  And calling India "Bharat" would adopt the BJP's vision of India as a Hindu ethno-state.

I ain't doin' it.

Thanks for the insight, again.

And fair enough on India, but it's coming. Modi is a 56 inch chest leader who is assassinating people half the world away-- he's gonna go the distance. But that's the other India geopolitical thread talk.

[Kyrie Eleison 9,312]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

And I'm not calling India "Bharat" anymore than I am calling it "Burma."  Calling the country "Myanmar" indicates a tacit acceptance of the illegitimate military dictatorship governing that country.  And calling India "Bharat" would adopt the BJP's vision of India as a Hindu ethno-state.

I ain't doin' it.

he just wants to keep calling them "dots"....

[Samson's Wig 3,191]

9 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

. . . so yeah--kind of exactly how Americans deny the genocide of the American Indians.

Are there significant numbers of Americans who deny this? I thought it was widely accepted. Perhaps I live in a bubble.

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

1 hour ago, Samson's Wig said:

Are there significant numbers of Americans who deny this? I thought it was widely accepted. Perhaps I live in a bubble.

My Brother in Christ--what do you think would happen to a teacher in this state (or about two dozen others) who characterized the treatment of the American Indians by the United States Government as "genocide" in a lesson?  Do you think there's any chance that teacher isn't fired?

[Samson's Wig 3,191]

34 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

My Brother in Christ--what do you think would happen to a teacher in this state (or about two dozen others) who characterized the treatment of the American Indians by the United States Government as "genocide" in a lesson?  Do you think there's any chance that teacher isn't fired?

I grew up in Texas public school (a rural one to boot), and no teacher held back on the genocidal aspect of our history, but that was many moons ago.  We also had proper sex ed back then. I know Texas whitewashes the shit out of things these days under the direction of our theocratic overlord Mike Morath, but I didn't know that was part of it.  My kids are just getting to the age where they will cover these subjects. Looks like I'll be supplementing.  I also will be really surprised if the teachers in AISD hold back, to be honest.  We're not in the suburbs, and they don't tend to keep their opinions to themselves.  You might be more likely to get angry parents around here if you taught some version of history that made it seem like wine and roses.  It's one reason we send them to schools with no air conditioning and rat infestations rather than move to the suburbs. 

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

2 hours ago, Samson's Wig said:

I grew up in Texas public school (a rural one to boot), and no teacher held back on the genocidal aspect of our history, but that was many moons ago.  We also had proper sex ed back then. I know Texas whitewashes the shit out of things these days under the direction of our theocratic overlord Mike Morath, but I didn't know that was part of it.  My kids are just getting to the age where they will cover these subjects. Looks like I'll be supplementing.  I also will be really surprised if the teachers in AISD hold back, to be honest.  We're not in the suburbs, and they don't tend to keep their opinions to themselves.  You might be more likely to get angry parents around here if you taught some version of history that made it seem like wine and roses.  It's one reason we send them to schools with no air conditioning and rat infestations rather than move to the suburbs. 

That sounds like some CRT to me.

[956 Worldwide 34,704]

It’s important not to externalize Erdogan’s autocratic tendencies onto the European Union, this ascribes entirely too much power and agency to them and ignores a lot about Erdogan himself.  Erdogan had a long history of getting himself in trouble and joining Islamist political parties that were either suppressed or banned by pre-Erdogan judges and military figures.  His founding of the AKP shouldn’t really be seen as a legitimate attempt to create a European Christian Democrat party but for Muslims. It was an attempt to take advantage of a brief moment of genuine liberalization to create a tool that could later be redirected to serve his autocratic aims. Whiles we can admit that sending him to jail for reciting fairly mild allegorical Islamist poetry was not super liberal or democratic, we can also admit that the authorities at the time correctly identified him and his project as one that was aimed at exploiting Turkish freedoms and democracy with the aim of undermining.
 

And he’s not really a fundamentalist so much as an authoritarian who was left with few options for an organizing principle since others (the Army, secular ethno-nationionalism) were already taken by other quasi-authoritarians who hated him and had him pegged for what he’d become.  

[956 Worldwide 34,704]

I feel like @Ghost of LL is letting the Turks off the hook just a bit.  The fact is that the Armenian Genocide has eery parallels to the Holocaust that would come later on both the side of the victims and the perpetrator.  The Ottoman Empire in 1914 was an entity that had been steadily reduced in a series of humiliating defeats. It’s important not to look at World War I as “happening” to Turkey— some very foolish advisors allowed the Germans to walk them into a poorly chosen war of choice.
 

There were also plenty of signals that a humiliated Ottoman Empire that could no longer count on the institution of the Sultan to hold together its imperial core had decided to seek enemies within. It is also entirely fair to talk about a genocide of Ottoman Greeks, with the first pogroms against them (a newly suspect element that shared a religion with the Christian powers that had been slicing up the empire) beginning well before the outbreak of global war and continuing concurrently with the Armenians. 
 

In many ways, you can say that the convulsions that rocked the Ottoman Empire and the need to rebrand along the lines of an ethno-religio-national entity foreshadowed the recreation of Germany from an imperial power with multiple ethnicities into a Blood and Soil totalitarian aggrieved aggressor after their own “humiliation” in World War I and following. 
 

And the victim mirrors the Jews— the Armenians (and Greeks) are an ancient people, distinctly “different,” partially integrated while in some ways outpacing the majority thanks to networks and discipline, loyal to the temporal power but maintaining a deeper loyalty to the broader community that carried memories of ancient glory while scattered across powers much younger that they had seen come and go.  Byzantine, Ottoman, Persian, Arab, Roman, Russian even Mughal imperial history is chock full of talented Armenian advisors, soldiers, merchants, scholars, and confidants of the throne.  Close to the heights of power even as their compatriots eked out subsistence in their villages. Just like Jews in Europe from the court to the shtetl. 
 

And of course sometimes they rebelled. And some Jews really were Communists. But that does not justify either the Nazi or the ardent Turkish nationalist. 
 

Long story short— the best defense the Turks have against the crime of genocide remains the fact that the word hadn’t been invented and codified yet. But we should not wander down their twisting alleys of justification, the Turkish state identified the Armenians as a contaminant in the state they wanted to build and decided to cut out the people identified as the cancer. 

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

6 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I feel like @Ghost of LL is letting the Turks off the hook just a bit.  The fact is that the Armenian Genocide has eery parallels to the Holocaust that would come later on both the side of the victims and the perpetrator.  The Ottoman Empire in 1914 was an entity that had been steadily reduced in a series of humiliating defeats. It’s important not to look at World War I as “happening” to Turkey— some very foolish advisors allowed the Germans to walk them into a poorly chosen war of choice.

Oh, hey, look--I'm not at all trying to justify the genocide.  First, I specifically called it a genocide.  And second, I specifically said I would use the word "justify."  So don't put me in that camp, brother.

But I think it's materially different from the Nazi genocide of the Jews.  The Holocaust was the set and overt policy of the de jure government of the Third Reich.  From the head of state and head of government right down through his ministers, there was a set governmental policy of destroying European Jewry.  

The Armenian genocide was much less set as government policy, if for no other reason than the government of the Ottoman Empire was incapable of setting policy.  And I think that is reflected by your initial paragraph, includes one characterization of the Ottoman entry into World War I as certain advisors allowing the Germans to walk them into a war of choice.  It's a lot messier than that.

Shortly after the outbreak of war, the Allies pursued the German battlecruiser Goeben and light cruiser Breslau across the Mediterranean.  The pursuit is brilliantly retold by Barbara Tuchman at the beginning of The Guns of August.  The Breslau and Goeben made it into the then-neutral port of Constantinople, where they . . . kind of fake sold themselves to the Ottoman Empire.  Which is to say the Breslau and Goeben were reflagged and renamed.  But they stayed under the same command and were crewed by the same crews (albeit with new uniforms).

So a couple weeks later, the Breslau and Goeben went into the Black Sea with orders from the War Minister, Enver Pasha, to attack the Russian fleet, which it did.  But that order went out without the knowledge of the Navy Minister or the Grand Vizier (i.e., prime minister).  So where Enver got the authority for that is unclear.  By which I mean he didn't have the authority.  It was absolute piracy.

So that's how the Ottomans got into World War I in very short form.  It's actually quite a lot messier and more complicated than I'm really describing.  Exactly who did what and why continues to be a matter of significant historical dispute. 

And it's not like their governmental decisionmaking got less dysfunctional l over the course of the War.  Throughout the War, the Ottomans continued to have ministers, generals, and provincial governors taking unilateral and unsanctioned actions that in any functional government would have been decided upon by the head of the central government.

And all this is not to in any way absolve the Ottoman Empire of the genocide of the Armenians.  I'm not saying that it was the work of some rogue forces within the government.  That's not right.  It was the government that carried out the genocide, but it was a government that was by that point so dysfunctional and chaotic that it hardly merits being described as a "government."  But, at the end of the day, that's the government the Ottoman Empire had.

[Hank Scorpio 17,729]

Here’s a question I haven’t seen asked but is a valid one: Did the Armenians deserve to be genocided? Many people are saying yes. 
 

Also differentiating between genocides is an important point of research. We certainly don’t want all genocides to be considered equal. Perhaps we call it the Armenian kinda-genocide or genocide-lite. 

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

34 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Here’s a question I haven’t seen asked but is a valid one: Did the Armenians deserve to be genocided? Many people are saying yes. 
 

Also differentiating between genocides is an important point of research. We certainly don’t want all genocides to be considered equal. Perhaps we call it the Armenian kinda-genocide or genocide-lite. 

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

 

[956 Worldwide 34,704]

I have the “controversial” take that even if Azerbaijan has a right to territorial integrity (it does), ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh have the right not to be ethnically cleansed. And if pressed, the latter right should take precedence over the former. 
 

That’s why it’s so important not to let this thing get twisted into a proxy for Russia-Ukraine. Russian speakers in Ukraine never have been, never were going to be, and never will be the target of a brutal ethnic cleansing campaign and it’s absurd to even suggest otherwise. On the flip side, Azerbaijani control of NK was never going to end in a different way— the extermination of a 2000 year old civilization in NK. The means were and are malleable and we should all hope the process is less rather than more bloody. But Baku was never going to accept the presence of actual Armenian communities, not in 1992 and not in 2023. 

[956 Worldwide 34,704]

I also want to say that you can’t boil the whole thing down to pre-WWI ethnic grievances because there is a very real difference in government and society between Azerbaijan and Armenia and has been since the beginning of their modern political formation. The two are not at all interchangeable former Soviet Republics with little to distinguish them save obscure ethnic grievances. 
 

Armenia is astonishingly corrupt and economically struggling while at the same time host to a relatively thriving arena for political competition, active civil society, wide-ranging respect for freedom of expression, and a decent track record of human rights. They’ve had turbulent, imperfect, but genuine elections, protests, and a full-fledged transition from a presidential to the parliamentary system and actual transitions of power. 
 

Azerbaijan is a fully consolidated autocracy that has been in the hands of the Aliyev family since independence. It has a well-earned thuggish reputation on human rights, the government brooks no dissent, and civil society basically does not exist.  Corruption exists on a different scale there— a comparison of Ukraine-Russia is apt because in Azerbaijan, like Russia, there is simply no way to place a marker between state activity and corruption, it’s one and the same. 
 

Azerbaijan is an oil-rich petro state and has invested in lots of glamour projects for the Aliyev family and cronies which is why it gets a Grand Prix. But it is basically run as the personal fiefdom of the family and that glitter and glamour does not trickle down; most Azerbaijanis want to leave and the real standard of living difference is not so much greater for the average Armenian and average Azerbaijani.

So what this means is that on top of the ethnic tensions and concern, Azerbaijan never offered a positive vision of incorporation for the Armenian enclave of NK, the best it could offer was a sort of multiethnic authoritarianism along the lines of the old USSR. Even offering citizenship and equal rights to the Armenians of NK would leave those people with significantly less liberty and self-determination than they had in the semi-independent NK enclave or in Armenia proper. 
 

People in NK didn’t want that, they preferred the somewhat messy values and freedom of Yerevan to the polished, stifling facades of Baku.  Given a choice, most of us would, too, if we were not connected to the regime or on an expat contract and instead just had to figure out a future with what we had, where we were. 

[Schulz2.0 28,951]

 

[SimonBolivar 10,957]

On 9/22/2023 at 5:52 PM, Ghost of LL said:

 

Shortly after the outbreak of war, the Allies pursued the German battlecruiser Goeben and light cruiser Breslau across the Mediterranean.  The pursuit is brilliantly retold by Barbara Tuchman at the beginning of The Guns of August. 

 

 

Probably because she was "there" as a small child when it happened, which she omits from her book like the proper mid-century historian that she was. One of the recent editions has a good forward that gets into it quite a bit. David Blight always complains that nobody reads Tuchman anymore, but I still like Guns of August even if it is out of style historiographically today. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by SimonBolivar

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

2 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

Probably because she was "there" as a small child when it happened, which she omits from her book like the proper mid-century historian that she was. One of the recent editions has a good forward that gets into it quite a bit. David Blight always complains that nobody reads Tuchman anymore, but I still like Guns of August even if it is out of style historiographically today. 

I may be misremembering, but I thought she did write about seeing the chase from a passenger liner.  Perhaps that was in one of the subsequently added forwards that you mention.  But I really thought it was in that chapter.

[InkaUtexas 25,874]

2 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

Probably because she was "there" as a small child when it happened, which she omits from her book like the proper mid-century historian that she was. One of the recent editions has a good forward that gets into it quite a bit. David Blight always complains that nobody reads Tuchman anymore, but I still like Guns of August even if it is out of style historiographically today. 

She is one of the best. A Distant Mirror is a fun book if you have the time to read it. 

8 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I may be misremembering, but I thought she did write about seeing the chase from a passenger liner.  Perhaps that was in one of the subsequently added forwards that you mention.  But I really thought it was in that chapter.

What edition? I need a new copy. Daughter stole mine. 

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

1 minute ago, InkaUtexas said:

She is one of the best. A Distant Mirror is a fun book if you have the time to read it. 

What edition? I need a new copy. Daughter stole mine. 

I don't remember which edition.  It's been a very long time since I read it.

And I have A Distant Mirror on my Kindle.  I've been meaning to get to it.

[InkaUtexas 25,874]

Add March of Folly to the list. 

[InkaUtexas 25,874]

Reminds me of Bosnia. Most will never go home. 

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89,629]

24 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Reminds me of Bosnia. Most will never go home. 

 

It was never going to end well, and the Russians being impotent simply sped things up.

[SimonBolivar 10,957]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

I may be misremembering, but I thought she did write about seeing the chase from a passenger liner.  Perhaps that was in one of the subsequently added forwards that you mention.  But I really thought it was in that chapter.

Might be a different version. My Dell paperback from 1968 just mentions "Among the passengers were the daughter, son-in-law, and three grandchildren of the American ambassador Mr. Henry Morgenthau". (p.183)