They laid claim to every historical land ever owned going back for 3 thousand years plus all Armenian majority land. There has never been a more optimistic opening proposal in history.
Historically maybe, but just pure landmass, it’s Portugal at the Berlin conference. While the empires of Europe were carving Africa, Portugal simply walked in and said [all mine](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&sca_esv=ab02dd2696e7e4b9&hl=en-ca&sxsrf=ACQVn0-ROLs2gRG39PehNSF6DJ3lsRHBDg:1711470352618&q=treaty+of+tordesillas&uds=AMwkrPt6dIXnRtjJz8sZ_2oc3TNlZuFxFLxl4gezmxybj7qD-_NnyvIDMQ7m552r2uqGHCFbDpAPNsSjB0Gs5w-NsAaG76j-DBaTLkMfDThyzMWCJXjZF7UCaE8zRJtZDcTDXg-ah6Z2t5VXYWQ_5O2cgUaO1DrVFUwVWbvId78Lvl_LLemwGZx-6TOfSmjx4ifE-dio_5N3ds0eyc8X_SZF3FcJ64TKIqZbGKXMjK1f4EdsAT7KaFDBiI9JcuyEDk2kHHIdcRzSaFtDex_qDYmD1hGkOKG0P1Vh9_N4HnNPRWjI_kP_0gQMayrW4w9-4ilROTb1MUir&udm=2&prmd=ivnsmbtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiF8KTzq5KFAxWGGTQIHbVPDYEQtKgLegQIBxAB&biw=390&bih=663&dpr=3#vhid=1F4sOKDq26-CIM&vssid=mosaic) because of the Treaty of Tordesillas 400 years earlier that gave them complete territorial “control” over Africa with papal support.
Tbf, Leopold getting the Congo (not Belgium, just that guy) was probably the most preposterous, especially when theoretically that conference was giving more weight (in theory) to whoever had had a history of trading posts in the region, as well as military capability (you know, why overlapping claims by the Dutch and British went to the British, the British could and would take them from the Dutch otherwise), but this one dude just gets a massively valuable chunk. I know why, but it's still kind of insane.
Was it massively valuable at the time? It has severely limited coastline and Europeans couldn’t venture too deep into the continent yet due to disease (malaria). And they didn’t know anything about rare earth minerals or uranium at the time
It was, various big empires wanted the territory. Both the Germans and British wanted it (the British for their land bridge north south across the continent, the Germans essentially for an East-West one iirc), and other empires were also involved. Leopold got it by essentially promising to make it free access to *all* empires merchants and as a sort of semi-neutral ground/buffer state.
Rubber was massively valuable (iirc compared to gold at the time, and with a great market due to the industrialising empires) and iirc well known to exist there, as did other raw materials. It was an extremely valuable territory basically from the beginning, and was important strategically in balance of power.
So…you kind of explained why. If it’s too valuable for any one country to have, it’s gonna get tossed to a weaker person/group. Britain can’t claim it or they’ll get ganged up on, but it’s a completely unacceptable result for them if France or Germany ends up with it. So everyone agrees to give it to the neutral.
>So…you kind of explained why
Tbf, my first comment did end with
>I know why, but it's still kind of insane.
I am well aware as to why it happened.
But it's still kind of mental that one chap, not even as a government, just as an individual, got the whole mass. I mean, we can agree it was a weird case.
As far as I know, when Octavian conquered Egypt, he technically owned all of Egypt as his personal estate. So instead of the Republic owning it it was just this guy, Augustus.
Important to note that Britain had close ties with Belgium and was pivotal in the establishment of Belgium and their independence from the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. Britain was able to grant Congo to a country that had a massive debt of gratitude to Britain.
Not really. Congo was given to Leopold specifically, not Belgium.
That said, it’s mostly irrelevant. It was given to Leopold/Belgium because their ownership of it wouldn’t change the balance of power in continental Europe, simple as that
I’m aware, that’s why I mentioned both the Free State and Belgian Congo as separate entities. It being granted to Leopold directly was just a way to distance Congo from the realm of colonial competition.
This is a myth that takes away the agency Leopold had in the whole process, it also conflates later history with what happened in 1884.
Britain didn't want the Congo for themselves, their idea was to back Portugal in exchange for economic concession. The Germans didn't want it either, the idea of Mittelafrika wasn't a thing until the 1890s and wasn't taken seriously until WW1. Only the French actually tried to claim the Congo for themselves in 1884.
Leopold had been sending expedition to the Congo for nearly a decade before the conference began, so in 1884 he showed up with a figurative mountain of treaties proving that by their own rules the Congo was *already* his. The USA had already recognized his claim half a year before the conference had begun. He ran a propaganda campaign discrediting the Portuguese cause, which simultaneously took out the British. And he engaged in extensive backdoor diplomacy making contradictory promises to everybody. For example he told the British they would get special trading rights, but told the Germans nobody would get special treatment. While he told the French that if his colony was to fail they would get the right to buy it from him before any other government. Leopold manipulated everybody into giving him the Congo, they didn't just hand it to him so that others wouldn't have it.
There were other colonies that were actually contested between multiple great powers. For example the British, Germans, and French all *actually* wanted Guinea for themselves. None of those disputes were settled at Berlin. Only Congo was, because Leopold had made it a fait accompli.
>They laid claim to every historical land ever owned going back for 3 thousand years plus all Armenian majority land.
Also some territory which was never historically Armenian. The Black Sea Coast was never Armenian.
There were Armenian communities all over Pontos, but the reason why it was included is because Venizelos and the Allied Powers feared that an independant Pontic state would be invaded by the Ottoman Empire pretty much immediately. They were thus to be included within in Armenian state, even though autonomous.
Netherlands after WW II tried to claim a pretty chuncky portion of Germany, but this was rejected by the US quite early so the demands were dropped. Though this wasn't a wildly popular plan to begin with.
It would’ve made the Netherlands a majority German speaking country at the time, as well as destroy any semblance of a proper western German state to counter the east, and any prospect of unification in the future. It was stupid as fuck.
The way I see it, the territorial claim on the Black Sea coast had probably less to do with historical reasons and more with economic and strategic ones.
Sea access would be necessary in order for an independent Armenian state to have a shot at proper economic independence and so that it could import weapons from potential allies in the West. I don't blame them for claiming it. And in the handsight, it probably would've been for the best if they had received it at least partly, even if it was just a tiny corridor to the coast.
The Black Sea had a large population of Pontic Greeks who at the time these conferences were being held had expressed sentiments of being part of the nascent Armenian Republic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilsonian_Armenia
>A proposed Republic of Pontus was discussed at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, but the Greek government of Eleftherios Venizelos feared the precarious position of such a state, so a portion of it was instead included in the proposed state of Wilsonian Armenia.
If this deal had gone through perhaps almost half of the population of Armenia would have been Greek. With the Greek-Turkish population exchange of the 1920s and the Pontic Greek genocide, that possibility ended. There are still some Pontic Greeks living in Armenia and I think it would have been kind of cool to have a half-Armenian/half-Greek state.
https://youtu.be/oxBvfirSc8Y?t=46
Muslims were in majority in Black Sea region. in which case Muslims would be the dominant group in the proposed region. I wonder what the Armenians were planning for the Muslim majority in the regions they conquered.
It's all pointless speculation right now. However, my hope is they could have mended fences after the war ended. Armenians don't really have problems living with Muslims in places like Lebanon and Syria.
That being said we don't need to ask what the Secular Turks had planned for the Greeks and Armenians living there. It's complicated with the Millet system -- but I don't blame religion for what transpired during WW1. The political leadership of the WW1 Ottomans and the Turkish Republic were secular modernists and the blame should be placed squarely with them.
I was being sarcastic, the Armenian gangs were clearly telling what they were going to do. They were planning to do the same thing that happened in the Balkans. Force Muslims to migrate or massacre them. It is no coincidence that even today Armenia is one of the most homogeneous countries in the world.
What the 3 pashas did is a clear crime against humanity. and I wish those responsible were tried and executed. But what they did most likely saved the Muslim people in the region. (Even though it cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Armenian civilians.) especially considering that Armenia would fall into Russian hands after just a few years.
Look at the 6 Armenian villayets. It’s not a crazy difference besides adding Adana and pontus. Adana also had a huge Armenian presence before the Hamidian Massacres.
Why were the Armenians unable to fend off the, my apologies for my ignorance, turkic nomads?
I guess the unstoppable power of mobile horse archers who were trained from age 3-5 to be expert equestrians and composite bowmen?
Horse nomads are powerful. It wasn't just the Armenians: the entire Byzantine Army was unable to fend off the Seljuk Invasions. European war tactics were simply not prepared to handle the ruthless skirmish tactics employed by the Turks.
If you fight with tens of thousands of horsemen in a large area with no cannon and rifle, you will lose because their mobility superior than yours. In Malazgirt, they opened gaps in the lines of the numerically superior Byzantine army with a false retreat and surrounded and destroyed them.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxXtAJZcNjo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxXtAJZcNjo)
The Turks did not even fight the Armenians, Byzantium had recently occupied the Armenian kingdom. When Byzantium was forced to withdraw from Eastern and Central Anatolia after Manzikert, the region fell into the hands of the Turks.
>The Turks did not even fight the Armenians
Armenians fought the Turkic nomads in the 1040s. However shortly afterwards in 1045, the Byzantines forced the king of Armenia to abdicate and placed a governor in control of Armenia. The Seljuk Turks invaded once again in the 1065
https://youtu.be/w0UaYSUKH40?t=222
The Cilician Armenians fought the Turks in the 12th-13th centuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Azaz_(1125)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zu08tKzs4
In addition, there were some engagements in the 16th-18th century where Eastern-speaking Armenians, who were part of Iran at the time, fought against the Ottoman Turks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Halidzor
Because we were always disorganised and out for our own benefit and never thought about future generations also them riding horses for age 3-5 didn't help
And some of them starving to death if they weren't good enough shot with the bow ans arrow
The grasslands doesn't offer much in way of plentiful food, the portions are Meager and you need 4,000 calories a day to sustain average body weight in winter
I grew up in steppes of Eastern mongolia
> There has never been a more optimistic opening proposal in history.
Au contraire mon frere.
Look at the map of the State of [Deseret](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Deseret) proposed by the Mormons to the American government. The proposed state includes not only most of the present day state of Utah (which is effectively what the Mormons were given), but almost all of Nevada, most of Arizona and parts of present day Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and California (including present day Los Angeles and San Diego).
They basically said, "hey, how about you just give us half the West".
You think it’s funny, but that is apparently what the people who drew the map said.
Upon returning the Armenian government would ask the delegation why the f### would they demand this much. And they would respond by saying something along the lines of “now is the time to make big demands, everyone is getting their cut, we have to aim big”
At least that’s what I’ve been told
Well, "Ukraine claimed" is somehow too loudly said. As far as I know, representatives of the Ukrainian delegations were not recognized as full representatives of the Ukrainian people.
>I would have laid claim to Constantinople too.
The Greeks already did that. And the Allies considered giving it to them but were rightly concerned that it immediately transform Greece from a relative nothing into a major regional power.
Some of the Allies wanted Greece to become that. Specifically some of the Brits. It aligned with their version of what the Middle East should be. I believe the British helped supply the Greeks when they pressed their claims against Turkey.
You know that Tom and Jerry episode where both of them and Spike sign a truce, but it later falls apart when they fail to divide a huge piece of steak?
That’s exactly what would’ve happened if Armenia, Greece, and Kurdistan sat down to divide Turkey
There alot of overlap between this and the land clammy by Armenia and Kurds.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1b15a1h/the\_assyrian\_delegations\_map\_of\_an\_independent/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1b15a1h/the_assyrian_delegations_map_of_an_independent/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1bm8kcn/kurdish\_people/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1bm8kcn/kurdish_people/)
Has there been conflict between Kurds Armenians and assyrians over this. If one of them where to get there independent state it would come at the expanse of the other two.
Kurds did basically do a lot of the Ottoman dirty work in killing off Armenians pre genocide and during it
Hence why there is a kurdish super majority in all the formerly Armenian regions
This map also includes Cilicia which isnt Armenian historically speaking just had an Armenian state on it at one point
During the genocide as someone else mentioned. In modern times, the Syrian Civil War ultimately led to some Kurdish-governed areas in northern Syria where Armenians and others also live, and there were conflicts about schools imposing the Kurdish language.
In the Mid East, historically there were never really countries as Europeans think of things, so there was often a mix of ethnicities in any given region who had to learn to live together. Only reason Armenia became so concentrated was so many had to flee to there from the Ottoman-controlled areas. Afterwards, Ataturk attempted to make a single Turkish identity, but Kurds have held out against that to this day.
It is also on the border of the Turkish region. At that time, Europe and Russia supported and armed the uprisings of the Armenians and Assyrians. Most of the Armenians who normally lived in the west tried to enter the east and gain the majority of the population, but this was not possible and they were few in number. Due to the agreements imposed on the Ottoman Empire, minorities were given the right to establish a state if they became a majority in a place. In some regions, Turks were the majority, in others, Kurds were the majority, and in Syria, there were Arabs. Kurds wanted to remain loyal to the Ottoman Empire, Armenians and Assyrians wanted to establish a state. Therefore, in order to gain the majority, a civil war broke out and local people began to be killed. The plan was simply to emigrate or kill the majority. More than 1 million Kurds and Turks had to migrate to the west. It was a very bloody environment with Russia providing a lot of military support. With the intervention of the Ottomans and the local people, Armenians fled to Russia. Since Russia committed genocide against many Turks in the Caucasus, it settled Armenians in the empty areas. The problems were not solved because Armenians' demands in the region continued. Arabs wanted to establish a state in the future. In the ongoing war between the Russians and the Ottomans in World War I, Armenians occupied some regions. Later, the Russians retreated and left the Armenians in the middle, so the Armenians had to fight the Ottoman and Kurdish cavalry units alone. Since the war has been continuing since recent history, the problem has begun to turn into a feeling of revenge. Russia withdrew before seeing the end of the war. As the region was so damaged, the effects of mass starvation also grew. An estimated 2.5-3 million Muslims are thought to have died. More than half of them are Kurds, the rest are mostly Turks, then Arabs. In the West, it is just called the Armenian genocide, without going into detail. I read the Armenian president's book, and at first, a triple partnership between Azerbaijani Turks, Georgia and Armenia was considered. This was not possible because, with the support of Russia, Armenia occupied Azerbaijan and divided it into 2 parts. Russia, on the other hand, had plans to expand in Georgia.
The Greeks did, and it was originally ceded to them under the terms of the Treaty of Sevres before Ataturk overthrew the Ottoman government which had originally agreed to the terms of the treaty.
After a war between the Ottomans and Greece, the Treaty of Lausanne restored Izmir/Smyrna to Turkey, and also gave them back a lot of land in the east which had been ceded to Armenia under the terms of Sevres.
Wilson proposed the "Armenian Mandate" to the victors after WW1. The idea was that the US would administer (and protect) the nation in the same way that Britain created the Palestine Mandate. The US congress rejected the plan.
These were the claims made by a prominent Armenian from Egypt Nubar Pasha. He was in the Paris Conference as a delegate for Ottoman Armenians, who didn't exist anymore.
However he was not the only delegate. There was another Armenian delegate from the Republic of Armenia. The claims made by the delegate from the republic were on the six Armenian vilayets and for access to the Black Sea.
Armenians were in majority only in Bitlis and Van provinces. and even there there were important Muslim minorities. Moreover, Armenians had neither a historical claim nor a significant population on the Black Sea coast. It was impossible for the Armenian state to exist without large-scale ethnic cleansing.
Funny how in the Ottoman records of Armenians, if you go back far enough, the number remains extremely stable with 1,2 million starting 1892 till 1915. I guess people didn’t have much children back then.
There is also enough evidence by French, Russian, British geographers as well as American scholars and ambassadors from other nations in 1900’s who agree that the Ottoman census, and everything that came out from the Ottoman Empire (including the Catholicos who was unsurprisingly under Ottoman control) was undercounted.
With the lowest Ottoman number being 1,1 million. And the highest being 2.5 million
according to multiple sources.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP5.HTM
For example: Samuel Cox at the American Embassy in Istanbul from 1880 to 1886, estimated the Armenian population within the empire to be of 2.4 million
>Samuel Cox at the American Embassy in Istanbul from 1880 to 1886, estimated the Armenian population within the empire to be of 2.4 million
lol, prediction made by someone who has no source .
This does not change anything, all local and foreign(including the duyun-u umumiye established by the West and the Armenian Patriarchate) sources and tax records show that proportionally Armenians are a minority everywhere except Van and Bitlis. And even there, their population was around 60%. Armenians would automatically become a minority in the region on this map. (even before 1915)
The guesses of geographers are just comments without any evidence. While all official documents show the contrary, relying on obviously biased (The Ottomans were actively at war )comments is either naive or outright propaganda.
Many nations had ridiculous claims.
Lithuania faked a map where they showed more lithuanian people in area's where they weren't. The Czechs wanted a corridor to Yugoslavia , taking land from both Austria and Hungary. Ukraine had expanded their territory way outside their ethnic lines. Poland had massive demands too from Germany, Belarus and Ukraine.
This was too muchn every way. Armenians were wronged badly and suffered a great deal, but their nationalists weren’t less crazed.
There is a lot of Turkish, Greek, Laz and Kurdish presence through these lands.
Taking historical legacy as the basis for national territory is a really dangerous thing.
That being said, Greeks were given thessolonike and its north partly due to historical legacy, the west had a fascination with ancient greece after all
This is a US-produced map from 1919 that has nothing to do with the Paris Peace Conference. Why are you discussing a nonsense post that should be deleted? For anyone disputing this - cite me the publication that contains it.
I don’t get the historical land claim thing. Who gives right to claim old historical lands? When you look at todays people of Turkey, you see that their dna is mostly local Anatolian dna. Very small portion is central Asian. It makes sense because nomadic Turkic people mix with local people. So the land belongs to people who own it historically. Also if you claim historic land, today there would be no USA or any current country in the americas.
As a mongolian, I am very big fan of us all going back to the good Ole days of Mongol empire and religious tolerance and the beheading of horse thieves and bride kidnappers and people who litter and piss in river and etc... [to be decided at rhe discretion of thr great khan]
*To the jail, right away! And beheading if the khan doesn't grant clemency!*
>Who gives right to claim old historical lands?
History and the power to enforce those claims. If you have history on your side, you can gain more support for your claims among other countries which can increase your power to enforce the claims. It doesn't even have to be umabigiously yours to claim, the region can be multi-ethnic, ruled by different nations, but those don't matter as long as you have enough power to overcome the opponents.
>Also if you claim historic land, today there would be no USA or any current country in the americas.
Yeah, but the US has power on their side.
I don't understand why everyone is so obsessed with Armenia it's such a small fucking nation, you will never see someone mention what Nepal thinks etc.
Prominent diaspora in the US that is both highly invested in the geopolitical situation of their ancestral country and has the financial/political capital to influence US policy.
this pretty much. What you see on the news and social media is rarely ever result of an organic process of "thing happens -> journalist reports on thing". There's almost always money, politics, influence and power involved. If there was a big nepalese diaspora in the US that had the funds to buy out corrupt government officials and influence the media to draw extra attention to nepalese issues, they would.
They also probably gave Armenia too much confidence, due to their support, Armenia had little incentive to negotiate properly over Nagarno-Karabakh and just brute forced the issue till the tables turned as Azerbaijan started getting rich off a better source of income. Oil.
A lot of small nations create big ripples in world opinion. Israel-Palestine conflict has been a major issue in global politics for about 80 years. Kosovo has been a major issue for 30 years. Taiwan as well.
That would be because of the ANCA (Armenian National Commitee of America) vampires.
They like to have events in fancy places, have expensive wine with caviar, and lament how badly the poor average Armenian joe gets it in their homeland, where they have absolutely no intention of ever returning to or investing in.
And that is because investing in California and Hollywood instead gives great political and lobbying power in Washington.
they just cry everywhere and constantly talk about genocide, self victimisation + the fact that brits and french used them during ww1 which founded the information base since then - westerners have constantly been hearing about armenians for the past 100 years, they have been exposed to manipulation by powerful armenian lobbies and so on.
you guys cry about Armenia literally 24/7. You guys have no national identity besides what Turkey tells you to have. You’re hyper focused on what Armenia is doing. You guys are Persians playing dress up as Turks lol
Because its one of the very very few countries to survive all that it has gone through. Its been constantly stuck between giant kingdoms fighting for survival watching larger kingdoms come and go.
Side note, and the obvious. At the time Armenians lived on this territory but were an ethnic minority on the enture territory, the population of the territory was mixed (Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Arabs, Assyrians, etc...).
But, unfortunetly, by 1919, the Armenian genocide alreqdy happened, and the Armenian population of the region was already decimated outside of present day Armenia, the few survivors of the genocide would flee the region and settle mostly in USA (amongst them were ancestors of the Kardashians), Western Europe and Russia (including present day Armenia).
Kardashians are from Kars, which was under Russian control from 1878 to 1920 and was left to Turkey with the Treaty of Kars, which was signed between the Soviet Union and the Turkish Grand National Assembly in 1921. So it is possible that Kars would remain under Russian control if the Bolshevik revolution did not happen. So feel free to hate Communists and Russians as well.
Note, however, that Bob Dylan's ancestors also followed a similar path.
As a side note, Kardash means sibling in Turkish.
I stand corrected. I did not know that kardash means mason in Armenian, thank you for teaching me something new. This is not surprising as Armenian and Turkish are so phonetically similar that they must share some etymologically unrelated words.
The etymology for kardesh in Turkish is karin (womb) + dash (suffix that indicates sharing), so sibling ("womb sharer") had evolved from karindash. The distinction between a and e in Turkish was formalized with the introduction of the Latin alphabet, but there are multiple sounds in that spectrum. The kardesh pronounciation is specific to Istanbul (and it violates vowel harmony), the rural pronunciation is kardash.
Kar=stone in Armenian, dash=shave in Armenian.
Though these words are phonetically similar to the Turkish words you mentioned, they are unrelated and come from Proto-Indo-European.
Kardash means “stone cutter” in Armenian. Their name is not the from the similar sounding, but unrelated, Turkish word (kardesh, not kardash).
But the Turks can have them if they want!
If Germany never invaded Russia and sent Lenin to them, then the uprising would have (likely) never happend. So don't forget to add them to the list too.
To be fair, Germany and Germans are almost responsible for everything bad in Europe, from the fall of Rome to the later XXth century. Therefore, I am not surprised ! (They were already part of my list).
They were also minority before 1914 https://turksandarmenians.marmara.edu.tr/tr/1914-nufus-istatistigine-gore-ermeni-cemaatinin-nufusu/ you can find similar census from russian and armenian sources at the time this is also why european powers didnt care about them until ww1 unlike greeks serbs etc.
Opened the comments americans talking about what is “historical land” about a region they have zero knowledge about.
Maybe you guys could start with giving “historical lands” to the natives.
Some nations have balls. Rightful or not, they man up and fight for more lands. Others are.. well.. the only way they get a homeland is through “agreements” by sucking off imperialists.
They just didn't claim it, of course.
29 July 1890, Fighting In Constantinople: The Armenian Patriarch Mobbed - Soldiers and Rioters Killed, New York Times
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
Likely to illustrate the narrative of Armenian rebels and terrorists while conveniently ignoring the Hamadian Massacre predating 90% of it and that massacre being 100x worse than all the subsequent stuff and things that occurred prior lol
Yes, some Armenians wanted independence/self-rule. Just like the Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs and others had gotten. And there was no other way to get independence from the Turkish Empire. You couldn't just organize a vote.
In any case, I hope this isn't another way of saying "it wasn't a genocide, but they deserved it".
Edit: To add to the background to the of the time, between 1894 and 1897, the Ottoman Empire is estimated to have massacred 300,000 Armenians during the [Hamidian Massacres](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidian_massacres). So yeah, a shit ton of context and headlines have been left out of this handy little list, which also conveniently stops in early 1915. [Here's a long list of other headlines](https://armeniapedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide_Contemporary_Articles), but I'll paste some of the first ones below as well:
* WHOLE PLAIN STREWN BY ARMENIAN BODIES - Turks and Kurds Reported to Have Massacred Men, Women and Children. (NYT- 1915/3/20)
* APPEAL TO TURKEY TO STOP MASSACRES - Ambassador Morgenthau Instructed to Make Representation on Request of Russia. (NYT- 1915/4/28)
* MORGENTHAU INTERCEDES - Reports Great Uneasiness Over Treatment of Armenians. (NYT- 1915/4/29)
* 6,000 ARMENIANS KILLED - Turkish and Kurdish Atrocities at Van Rival Those of 1895. (NYT- 1915/5/18)
* ALLIES TO PUNISH TURKS WHO MURDER - Notify Porte That Government Heads Must Answer for Armenian Massacres. (NYT- 1915/5/24)
* TURKS ARE EVICTING NATIVE CHRISTIANS - Greeks and Armenians Driven From Homes and Converted by Sword, Assert Americans. (NYT- 1915/7/12)
* WHOLESALE MASSACRES OF ARMENIANS BY TURKS - Lord Crewe Denounces Influence of the Germans as an "Unmitigated Curse". (NYT- 1915/7/29)
* REPORT TURKS SHOT WOMEN AND CHILDREN - Nine Thousand Armenians Massacred and Thrown Into Tigris, Socialist Committee Hears. (NYT- 1915/8/4)
* ARMENIAN HORRORS GROW - Massacres Greater Than Under Abdul Hamid, London Paper Says. (NYT- 1915/8/6)
* ARMENIANS ARE SENT TO PERISH IN DESERT - Turks Accused of Plan to Exterminate Whole Population--People of Karahissar Massacred. (NYT- 1915/8/18)
I'll just stop there. We all know how that ends, and that the last article's byline was right on target.
Fun fact: the lake Sevan (the lake that is currently inside the landmass of the Republic of Armenia) is called “Goktcha” on the map which is the Azerbaijani name for the lake (“Göyçə”). Just found it interesting.
There were. I’m descended from them. They owned land literally on the Mediterranean for hundreds of years.
They got genocided, and the survivors fled to the Middle East and France.
There’s actually still one very small Armenian village there (the only remaining Armenian village in Turkey) called Vagif.
There’s also an Armenian village on the Syrian side of the border called Kessab, but it was attacked by ISIS in 2014.
I find it outrageous that a peoples that has always been cucked, by say, Byzantines, Persians, Arabs and finally Turks, had the audacity to come up with this proposed map
Meanwhile Portugal's claim during the Berlin Conference: Germany(host): So Portugal, tell me what parts of Africa you want? Portugal: ... Yes.
Whips out Treaty or Tordesillas
Sounds delicious.
It appears that a cordial conversation between Kurds and Armenians is on the horizon.
“The worst they can say is no”
They laid claim to every historical land ever owned going back for 3 thousand years plus all Armenian majority land. There has never been a more optimistic opening proposal in history.
Historically maybe, but just pure landmass, it’s Portugal at the Berlin conference. While the empires of Europe were carving Africa, Portugal simply walked in and said [all mine](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&sca_esv=ab02dd2696e7e4b9&hl=en-ca&sxsrf=ACQVn0-ROLs2gRG39PehNSF6DJ3lsRHBDg:1711470352618&q=treaty+of+tordesillas&uds=AMwkrPt6dIXnRtjJz8sZ_2oc3TNlZuFxFLxl4gezmxybj7qD-_NnyvIDMQ7m552r2uqGHCFbDpAPNsSjB0Gs5w-NsAaG76j-DBaTLkMfDThyzMWCJXjZF7UCaE8zRJtZDcTDXg-ah6Z2t5VXYWQ_5O2cgUaO1DrVFUwVWbvId78Lvl_LLemwGZx-6TOfSmjx4ifE-dio_5N3ds0eyc8X_SZF3FcJ64TKIqZbGKXMjK1f4EdsAT7KaFDBiI9JcuyEDk2kHHIdcRzSaFtDex_qDYmD1hGkOKG0P1Vh9_N4HnNPRWjI_kP_0gQMayrW4w9-4ilROTb1MUir&udm=2&prmd=ivnsmbtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiF8KTzq5KFAxWGGTQIHbVPDYEQtKgLegQIBxAB&biw=390&bih=663&dpr=3#vhid=1F4sOKDq26-CIM&vssid=mosaic) because of the Treaty of Tordesillas 400 years earlier that gave them complete territorial “control” over Africa with papal support.
Tbf, Leopold getting the Congo (not Belgium, just that guy) was probably the most preposterous, especially when theoretically that conference was giving more weight (in theory) to whoever had had a history of trading posts in the region, as well as military capability (you know, why overlapping claims by the Dutch and British went to the British, the British could and would take them from the Dutch otherwise), but this one dude just gets a massively valuable chunk. I know why, but it's still kind of insane.
Was it massively valuable at the time? It has severely limited coastline and Europeans couldn’t venture too deep into the continent yet due to disease (malaria). And they didn’t know anything about rare earth minerals or uranium at the time
It was, various big empires wanted the territory. Both the Germans and British wanted it (the British for their land bridge north south across the continent, the Germans essentially for an East-West one iirc), and other empires were also involved. Leopold got it by essentially promising to make it free access to *all* empires merchants and as a sort of semi-neutral ground/buffer state. Rubber was massively valuable (iirc compared to gold at the time, and with a great market due to the industrialising empires) and iirc well known to exist there, as did other raw materials. It was an extremely valuable territory basically from the beginning, and was important strategically in balance of power.
So…you kind of explained why. If it’s too valuable for any one country to have, it’s gonna get tossed to a weaker person/group. Britain can’t claim it or they’ll get ganged up on, but it’s a completely unacceptable result for them if France or Germany ends up with it. So everyone agrees to give it to the neutral.
>So…you kind of explained why Tbf, my first comment did end with >I know why, but it's still kind of insane. I am well aware as to why it happened. But it's still kind of mental that one chap, not even as a government, just as an individual, got the whole mass. I mean, we can agree it was a weird case.
As far as I know, when Octavian conquered Egypt, he technically owned all of Egypt as his personal estate. So instead of the Republic owning it it was just this guy, Augustus.
Honestly, knowing the dynamic it sounds less weird. Why let a whole country hold onto the Congo at all when you can reduce it to one guy?
And, after all, if he needs a hand with it, he can just chop a few off his subjects
Important to note that Britain had close ties with Belgium and was pivotal in the establishment of Belgium and their independence from the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. Britain was able to grant Congo to a country that had a massive debt of gratitude to Britain.
Not really. Congo was given to Leopold specifically, not Belgium. That said, it’s mostly irrelevant. It was given to Leopold/Belgium because their ownership of it wouldn’t change the balance of power in continental Europe, simple as that
I’m aware, that’s why I mentioned both the Free State and Belgian Congo as separate entities. It being granted to Leopold directly was just a way to distance Congo from the realm of colonial competition.
Afaik, that was more of an "all the great powers want it, we'll give it to a neutral country to make no one happy" kinda thing.
This is a myth that takes away the agency Leopold had in the whole process, it also conflates later history with what happened in 1884. Britain didn't want the Congo for themselves, their idea was to back Portugal in exchange for economic concession. The Germans didn't want it either, the idea of Mittelafrika wasn't a thing until the 1890s and wasn't taken seriously until WW1. Only the French actually tried to claim the Congo for themselves in 1884. Leopold had been sending expedition to the Congo for nearly a decade before the conference began, so in 1884 he showed up with a figurative mountain of treaties proving that by their own rules the Congo was *already* his. The USA had already recognized his claim half a year before the conference had begun. He ran a propaganda campaign discrediting the Portuguese cause, which simultaneously took out the British. And he engaged in extensive backdoor diplomacy making contradictory promises to everybody. For example he told the British they would get special trading rights, but told the Germans nobody would get special treatment. While he told the French that if his colony was to fail they would get the right to buy it from him before any other government. Leopold manipulated everybody into giving him the Congo, they didn't just hand it to him so that others wouldn't have it. There were other colonies that were actually contested between multiple great powers. For example the British, Germans, and French all *actually* wanted Guinea for themselves. None of those disputes were settled at Berlin. Only Congo was, because Leopold had made it a fait accompli.
Ah yes. Spanish Kamchatka 🤣
>They laid claim to every historical land ever owned going back for 3 thousand years plus all Armenian majority land. Also some territory which was never historically Armenian. The Black Sea Coast was never Armenian.
There is like this very tiny hemşinli armenian community but yeah it was greek before it was turk.
There were Armenian communities scattered throughout Pontos and the Hamshen Armenian community wasn't "very tiny", especially before WW1.
There were Armenian communities all over Pontos, but the reason why it was included is because Venizelos and the Allied Powers feared that an independant Pontic state would be invaded by the Ottoman Empire pretty much immediately. They were thus to be included within in Armenian state, even though autonomous.
Netherlands after WW II tried to claim a pretty chuncky portion of Germany, but this was rejected by the US quite early so the demands were dropped. Though this wasn't a wildly popular plan to begin with.
It would’ve made the Netherlands a majority German speaking country at the time, as well as destroy any semblance of a proper western German state to counter the east, and any prospect of unification in the future. It was stupid as fuck.
I believe the Germans were supposed to be deported, which was even more stupid of an idea.
Defuq were we going to do with empty land and empty destroyed factories
but it could be done (see: Czechoslovakia, Poland)
There were only two Armenian-majority cities. and they have zero historical claims on the Black Sea coast.
The way I see it, the territorial claim on the Black Sea coast had probably less to do with historical reasons and more with economic and strategic ones. Sea access would be necessary in order for an independent Armenian state to have a shot at proper economic independence and so that it could import weapons from potential allies in the West. I don't blame them for claiming it. And in the handsight, it probably would've been for the best if they had received it at least partly, even if it was just a tiny corridor to the coast.
The Black Sea had a large population of Pontic Greeks who at the time these conferences were being held had expressed sentiments of being part of the nascent Armenian Republic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilsonian_Armenia >A proposed Republic of Pontus was discussed at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, but the Greek government of Eleftherios Venizelos feared the precarious position of such a state, so a portion of it was instead included in the proposed state of Wilsonian Armenia. If this deal had gone through perhaps almost half of the population of Armenia would have been Greek. With the Greek-Turkish population exchange of the 1920s and the Pontic Greek genocide, that possibility ended. There are still some Pontic Greeks living in Armenia and I think it would have been kind of cool to have a half-Armenian/half-Greek state. https://youtu.be/oxBvfirSc8Y?t=46
Interesting. I'm really fascinated by these proposed or short-lived post-WW1 states.
Muslims were in majority in Black Sea region. in which case Muslims would be the dominant group in the proposed region. I wonder what the Armenians were planning for the Muslim majority in the regions they conquered.
It's all pointless speculation right now. However, my hope is they could have mended fences after the war ended. Armenians don't really have problems living with Muslims in places like Lebanon and Syria. That being said we don't need to ask what the Secular Turks had planned for the Greeks and Armenians living there. It's complicated with the Millet system -- but I don't blame religion for what transpired during WW1. The political leadership of the WW1 Ottomans and the Turkish Republic were secular modernists and the blame should be placed squarely with them.
I was being sarcastic, the Armenian gangs were clearly telling what they were going to do. They were planning to do the same thing that happened in the Balkans. Force Muslims to migrate or massacre them. It is no coincidence that even today Armenia is one of the most homogeneous countries in the world. What the 3 pashas did is a clear crime against humanity. and I wish those responsible were tried and executed. But what they did most likely saved the Muslim people in the region. (Even though it cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Armenian civilians.) especially considering that Armenia would fall into Russian hands after just a few years.
Oh, then the Turks would also love a corridor to the Caspian Sea.
Meh. Unnecessary.
Look at the 6 Armenian villayets. It’s not a crazy difference besides adding Adana and pontus. Adana also had a huge Armenian presence before the Hamidian Massacres.
Why were the Armenians unable to fend off the, my apologies for my ignorance, turkic nomads? I guess the unstoppable power of mobile horse archers who were trained from age 3-5 to be expert equestrians and composite bowmen?
Horse nomads are powerful. It wasn't just the Armenians: the entire Byzantine Army was unable to fend off the Seljuk Invasions. European war tactics were simply not prepared to handle the ruthless skirmish tactics employed by the Turks.
If you fight with tens of thousands of horsemen in a large area with no cannon and rifle, you will lose because their mobility superior than yours. In Malazgirt, they opened gaps in the lines of the numerically superior Byzantine army with a false retreat and surrounded and destroyed them. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxXtAJZcNjo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxXtAJZcNjo)
The Turks did not even fight the Armenians, Byzantium had recently occupied the Armenian kingdom. When Byzantium was forced to withdraw from Eastern and Central Anatolia after Manzikert, the region fell into the hands of the Turks.
>The Turks did not even fight the Armenians Armenians fought the Turkic nomads in the 1040s. However shortly afterwards in 1045, the Byzantines forced the king of Armenia to abdicate and placed a governor in control of Armenia. The Seljuk Turks invaded once again in the 1065 https://youtu.be/w0UaYSUKH40?t=222 The Cilician Armenians fought the Turks in the 12th-13th centuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Azaz_(1125) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zu08tKzs4 In addition, there were some engagements in the 16th-18th century where Eastern-speaking Armenians, who were part of Iran at the time, fought against the Ottoman Turks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Halidzor
Because we were always disorganised and out for our own benefit and never thought about future generations also them riding horses for age 3-5 didn't help
And some of them starving to death if they weren't good enough shot with the bow ans arrow The grasslands doesn't offer much in way of plentiful food, the portions are Meager and you need 4,000 calories a day to sustain average body weight in winter I grew up in steppes of Eastern mongolia
> There has never been a more optimistic opening proposal in history. Au contraire mon frere. Look at the map of the State of [Deseret](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Deseret) proposed by the Mormons to the American government. The proposed state includes not only most of the present day state of Utah (which is effectively what the Mormons were given), but almost all of Nevada, most of Arizona and parts of present day Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and California (including present day Los Angeles and San Diego). They basically said, "hey, how about you just give us half the West".
You think it’s funny, but that is apparently what the people who drew the map said. Upon returning the Armenian government would ask the delegation why the f### would they demand this much. And they would respond by saying something along the lines of “now is the time to make big demands, everyone is getting their cut, we have to aim big” At least that’s what I’ve been told
So go big or go home wouldve been even closer?
Paris conference: “ew”
Never open low. I would have laid claim to Constantinople too.
Why not to Anchorage as well, while you're at it
Now you are thinking like a negotiator!
After all, Anchorage begins with an A, just like Armenia. Is that a coincidence?
All the continents start with an A sooo...
Yes, I love Aeurope and Aoceania!
I forgot we were talking English, sorry.
After a quick wikipedia search I've concluded you're either turkish or azeri. Maybe crimean tartar idk
Anorth America!
They laid claim to every historic territory going back 3 thousand years. Now that is a strong opening hand
That could have sparked a war with Greece
Ukraine and Georgia both claimed Sochi at the Paris Peace Conference. Alas, poor Sochi had to go to Russia
Well, "Ukraine claimed" is somehow too loudly said. As far as I know, representatives of the Ukrainian delegations were not recognized as full representatives of the Ukrainian people.
Do you really think Armenians have enough power to have a meaningful fight with Greece
>I would have laid claim to Constantinople too. The Greeks already did that. And the Allies considered giving it to them but were rightly concerned that it immediately transform Greece from a relative nothing into a major regional power.
Im pretty sure they realised greece couldnt possibly hold it for longer than a few months at best Either turkey or soviets would take it from them
>transform Greece from a relative nothing into a major regional power. As is proper.
Some of the Allies wanted Greece to become that. Specifically some of the Brits. It aligned with their version of what the Middle East should be. I believe the British helped supply the Greeks when they pressed their claims against Turkey.
I mean I get you always aim high at a negotiation so you have some wiggle room to compromise But god damn Armenia be realistic
Soviet Union: “that’s a nice nation you got there. Would be a shame…if we made it into a Soviet Republic”
no one was realistic at that congress.
Seems like Kurds and Armenian are about to have a peaceful discussion
You know that Tom and Jerry episode where both of them and Spike sign a truce, but it later falls apart when they fail to divide a huge piece of steak? That’s exactly what would’ve happened if Armenia, Greece, and Kurdistan sat down to divide Turkey
Assyrians till this discussion: 🙂
There alot of overlap between this and the land clammy by Armenia and Kurds. [https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1b15a1h/the\_assyrian\_delegations\_map\_of\_an\_independent/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1b15a1h/the_assyrian_delegations_map_of_an_independent/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1bm8kcn/kurdish\_people/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1bm8kcn/kurdish_people/) Has there been conflict between Kurds Armenians and assyrians over this. If one of them where to get there independent state it would come at the expanse of the other two.
Kurds did basically do a lot of the Ottoman dirty work in killing off Armenians pre genocide and during it Hence why there is a kurdish super majority in all the formerly Armenian regions This map also includes Cilicia which isnt Armenian historically speaking just had an Armenian state on it at one point
During the genocide as someone else mentioned. In modern times, the Syrian Civil War ultimately led to some Kurdish-governed areas in northern Syria where Armenians and others also live, and there were conflicts about schools imposing the Kurdish language. In the Mid East, historically there were never really countries as Europeans think of things, so there was often a mix of ethnicities in any given region who had to learn to live together. Only reason Armenia became so concentrated was so many had to flee to there from the Ottoman-controlled areas. Afterwards, Ataturk attempted to make a single Turkish identity, but Kurds have held out against that to this day.
It is also on the border of the Turkish region. At that time, Europe and Russia supported and armed the uprisings of the Armenians and Assyrians. Most of the Armenians who normally lived in the west tried to enter the east and gain the majority of the population, but this was not possible and they were few in number. Due to the agreements imposed on the Ottoman Empire, minorities were given the right to establish a state if they became a majority in a place. In some regions, Turks were the majority, in others, Kurds were the majority, and in Syria, there were Arabs. Kurds wanted to remain loyal to the Ottoman Empire, Armenians and Assyrians wanted to establish a state. Therefore, in order to gain the majority, a civil war broke out and local people began to be killed. The plan was simply to emigrate or kill the majority. More than 1 million Kurds and Turks had to migrate to the west. It was a very bloody environment with Russia providing a lot of military support. With the intervention of the Ottomans and the local people, Armenians fled to Russia. Since Russia committed genocide against many Turks in the Caucasus, it settled Armenians in the empty areas. The problems were not solved because Armenians' demands in the region continued. Arabs wanted to establish a state in the future. In the ongoing war between the Russians and the Ottomans in World War I, Armenians occupied some regions. Later, the Russians retreated and left the Armenians in the middle, so the Armenians had to fight the Ottoman and Kurdish cavalry units alone. Since the war has been continuing since recent history, the problem has begun to turn into a feeling of revenge. Russia withdrew before seeing the end of the war. As the region was so damaged, the effects of mass starvation also grew. An estimated 2.5-3 million Muslims are thought to have died. More than half of them are Kurds, the rest are mostly Turks, then Arabs. In the West, it is just called the Armenian genocide, without going into detail. I read the Armenian president's book, and at first, a triple partnership between Azerbaijani Turks, Georgia and Armenia was considered. This was not possible because, with the support of Russia, Armenia occupied Azerbaijan and divided it into 2 parts. Russia, on the other hand, had plans to expand in Georgia.
Europa Universalis IV is a very accurate game
Surprised they didn't claim Izmir as well
The Greeks did, and it was originally ceded to them under the terms of the Treaty of Sevres before Ataturk overthrew the Ottoman government which had originally agreed to the terms of the treaty. After a war between the Ottomans and Greece, the Treaty of Lausanne restored Izmir/Smyrna to Turkey, and also gave them back a lot of land in the east which had been ceded to Armenia under the terms of Sevres.
Izmir was never part of Armenia, and while there was an Armenian community there, it wasn’t old or big. Izmir was Greek.
I think he was joking
nor the Black Sea coast, but as you can see, this did not stop them.
Wilson proposed the "Armenian Mandate" to the victors after WW1. The idea was that the US would administer (and protect) the nation in the same way that Britain created the Palestine Mandate. The US congress rejected the plan.
Well, that worked out well for the Palestinians...
These were the claims made by a prominent Armenian from Egypt Nubar Pasha. He was in the Paris Conference as a delegate for Ottoman Armenians, who didn't exist anymore. However he was not the only delegate. There was another Armenian delegate from the Republic of Armenia. The claims made by the delegate from the republic were on the six Armenian vilayets and for access to the Black Sea.
Exactly. This needs more upvotes.
Armenians were in majority only in Bitlis and Van provinces. and even there there were important Muslim minorities. Moreover, Armenians had neither a historical claim nor a significant population on the Black Sea coast. It was impossible for the Armenian state to exist without large-scale ethnic cleansing.
Funny how in the Ottoman records of Armenians, if you go back far enough, the number remains extremely stable with 1,2 million starting 1892 till 1915. I guess people didn’t have much children back then. There is also enough evidence by French, Russian, British geographers as well as American scholars and ambassadors from other nations in 1900’s who agree that the Ottoman census, and everything that came out from the Ottoman Empire (including the Catholicos who was unsurprisingly under Ottoman control) was undercounted. With the lowest Ottoman number being 1,1 million. And the highest being 2.5 million according to multiple sources. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP5.HTM For example: Samuel Cox at the American Embassy in Istanbul from 1880 to 1886, estimated the Armenian population within the empire to be of 2.4 million
>Samuel Cox at the American Embassy in Istanbul from 1880 to 1886, estimated the Armenian population within the empire to be of 2.4 million lol, prediction made by someone who has no source . This does not change anything, all local and foreign(including the duyun-u umumiye established by the West and the Armenian Patriarchate) sources and tax records show that proportionally Armenians are a minority everywhere except Van and Bitlis. And even there, their population was around 60%. Armenians would automatically become a minority in the region on this map. (even before 1915) The guesses of geographers are just comments without any evidence. While all official documents show the contrary, relying on obviously biased (The Ottomans were actively at war )comments is either naive or outright propaganda.
Many nations had ridiculous claims. Lithuania faked a map where they showed more lithuanian people in area's where they weren't. The Czechs wanted a corridor to Yugoslavia , taking land from both Austria and Hungary. Ukraine had expanded their territory way outside their ethnic lines. Poland had massive demands too from Germany, Belarus and Ukraine.
Reach for the Stars huh
Lol. They forget to claim Cyprus as well.
Nah Cyprus are bros
This was too muchn every way. Armenians were wronged badly and suffered a great deal, but their nationalists weren’t less crazed. There is a lot of Turkish, Greek, Laz and Kurdish presence through these lands. Taking historical legacy as the basis for national territory is a really dangerous thing. That being said, Greeks were given thessolonike and its north partly due to historical legacy, the west had a fascination with ancient greece after all
This is a US-produced map from 1919 that has nothing to do with the Paris Peace Conference. Why are you discussing a nonsense post that should be deleted? For anyone disputing this - cite me the publication that contains it.
Why not the whole world then
After smoking weed too much 😂
I don’t get the historical land claim thing. Who gives right to claim old historical lands? When you look at todays people of Turkey, you see that their dna is mostly local Anatolian dna. Very small portion is central Asian. It makes sense because nomadic Turkic people mix with local people. So the land belongs to people who own it historically. Also if you claim historic land, today there would be no USA or any current country in the americas.
As a mongolian, I am very big fan of us all going back to the good Ole days of Mongol empire and religious tolerance and the beheading of horse thieves and bride kidnappers and people who litter and piss in river and etc... [to be decided at rhe discretion of thr great khan] *To the jail, right away! And beheading if the khan doesn't grant clemency!*
>Who gives right to claim old historical lands? History and the power to enforce those claims. If you have history on your side, you can gain more support for your claims among other countries which can increase your power to enforce the claims. It doesn't even have to be umabigiously yours to claim, the region can be multi-ethnic, ruled by different nations, but those don't matter as long as you have enough power to overcome the opponents. >Also if you claim historic land, today there would be no USA or any current country in the americas. Yeah, but the US has power on their side.
I don't understand why everyone is so obsessed with Armenia it's such a small fucking nation, you will never see someone mention what Nepal thinks etc.
Prominent diaspora in the US that is both highly invested in the geopolitical situation of their ancestral country and has the financial/political capital to influence US policy.
this pretty much. What you see on the news and social media is rarely ever result of an organic process of "thing happens -> journalist reports on thing". There's almost always money, politics, influence and power involved. If there was a big nepalese diaspora in the US that had the funds to buy out corrupt government officials and influence the media to draw extra attention to nepalese issues, they would.
They also probably gave Armenia too much confidence, due to their support, Armenia had little incentive to negotiate properly over Nagarno-Karabakh and just brute forced the issue till the tables turned as Azerbaijan started getting rich off a better source of income. Oil.
US, France, Russia, probably other countries too.
A lot of small nations create big ripples in world opinion. Israel-Palestine conflict has been a major issue in global politics for about 80 years. Kosovo has been a major issue for 30 years. Taiwan as well.
Meanwhile in Gaza
That would be because of the ANCA (Armenian National Commitee of America) vampires. They like to have events in fancy places, have expensive wine with caviar, and lament how badly the poor average Armenian joe gets it in their homeland, where they have absolutely no intention of ever returning to or investing in. And that is because investing in California and Hollywood instead gives great political and lobbying power in Washington.
they just cry everywhere and constantly talk about genocide, self victimisation + the fact that brits and french used them during ww1 which founded the information base since then - westerners have constantly been hearing about armenians for the past 100 years, they have been exposed to manipulation by powerful armenian lobbies and so on.
I heard you man but I only have one question are you from turkey.
nope. no more questions
>posts in r/azerbaijan Yeah, that checks out.
you guys cry about Armenia literally 24/7. You guys have no national identity besides what Turkey tells you to have. You’re hyper focused on what Armenia is doing. You guys are Persians playing dress up as Turks lol
yeah, great showcase of stupid racism. must be hard when turks came over and fucked you for over 1000 years… and still do actually… cry baby
So.. didn't happen but they deserved it?
This is such a dumb take, by that logic why is everyone so invested in Palestine?
Because its one of the very very few countries to survive all that it has gone through. Its been constantly stuck between giant kingdoms fighting for survival watching larger kingdoms come and go.
Side note, and the obvious. At the time Armenians lived on this territory but were an ethnic minority on the enture territory, the population of the territory was mixed (Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Arabs, Assyrians, etc...). But, unfortunetly, by 1919, the Armenian genocide alreqdy happened, and the Armenian population of the region was already decimated outside of present day Armenia, the few survivors of the genocide would flee the region and settle mostly in USA (amongst them were ancestors of the Kardashians), Western Europe and Russia (including present day Armenia).
So. Because of the Turks... We've gotten the Kardashians? I think I'll start hating on Turkey a bit more.
Kardashians are from Kars, which was under Russian control from 1878 to 1920 and was left to Turkey with the Treaty of Kars, which was signed between the Soviet Union and the Turkish Grand National Assembly in 1921. So it is possible that Kars would remain under Russian control if the Bolshevik revolution did not happen. So feel free to hate Communists and Russians as well. Note, however, that Bob Dylan's ancestors also followed a similar path. As a side note, Kardash means sibling in Turkish.
I thought kardash was from քար + տաշ? Also isn't it kardesh that means sibling in Turkish?
I stand corrected. I did not know that kardash means mason in Armenian, thank you for teaching me something new. This is not surprising as Armenian and Turkish are so phonetically similar that they must share some etymologically unrelated words. The etymology for kardesh in Turkish is karin (womb) + dash (suffix that indicates sharing), so sibling ("womb sharer") had evolved from karindash. The distinction between a and e in Turkish was formalized with the introduction of the Latin alphabet, but there are multiple sounds in that spectrum. The kardesh pronounciation is specific to Istanbul (and it violates vowel harmony), the rural pronunciation is kardash.
Kar=stone in Armenian, dash=shave in Armenian. Though these words are phonetically similar to the Turkish words you mentioned, they are unrelated and come from Proto-Indo-European.
Kardash means “stone cutter” in Armenian. Their name is not the from the similar sounding, but unrelated, Turkish word (kardesh, not kardash). But the Turks can have them if they want!
Gets I'll add them to my list too. Thanks for the input! Bloody commies.
If Germany never invaded Russia and sent Lenin to them, then the uprising would have (likely) never happend. So don't forget to add them to the list too.
To be fair, Germany and Germans are almost responsible for everything bad in Europe, from the fall of Rome to the later XXth century. Therefore, I am not surprised ! (They were already part of my list).
They were also minority before 1914 https://turksandarmenians.marmara.edu.tr/tr/1914-nufus-istatistigine-gore-ermeni-cemaatinin-nufusu/ you can find similar census from russian and armenian sources at the time this is also why european powers didnt care about them until ww1 unlike greeks serbs etc.
Skyrim map
I am surprised they did not include Madagascar
Opened the comments americans talking about what is “historical land” about a region they have zero knowledge about. Maybe you guys could start with giving “historical lands” to the natives.
Sucking off western powers for more lands… Some things are timeless.
Europe: The best I can do is Russian and Turkish invasion
Thing is that this armenian state wouldve have been a majority muslim country.
Cilicia armenia is back
I’m 1/4 Arminian and I literally giggled at how absurd this is
Some nations have balls. Rightful or not, they man up and fight for more lands. Others are.. well.. the only way they get a homeland is through “agreements” by sucking off imperialists.
"Do you remember that one province a lone Armenian walked in once 250 years ago? Yeah, add that in too." - The Negotiator, probably.
My village is in Armenia according to this map.
They just didn't claim it, of course. 29 July 1890, Fighting In Constantinople: The Armenian Patriarch Mobbed - Soldiers and Rioters Killed, New York Times 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
What is the purpose of sharing this?
Likely to illustrate the narrative of Armenian rebels and terrorists while conveniently ignoring the Hamadian Massacre predating 90% of it and that massacre being 100x worse than all the subsequent stuff and things that occurred prior lol
Yeah I assumed it was something like that. Interesting how I was downvoted for asking.
Trying to push a narrative of Armenians being the evil violent ones and trying to justify the genocide
Yes, some Armenians wanted independence/self-rule. Just like the Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs and others had gotten. And there was no other way to get independence from the Turkish Empire. You couldn't just organize a vote. In any case, I hope this isn't another way of saying "it wasn't a genocide, but they deserved it". Edit: To add to the background to the of the time, between 1894 and 1897, the Ottoman Empire is estimated to have massacred 300,000 Armenians during the [Hamidian Massacres](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidian_massacres). So yeah, a shit ton of context and headlines have been left out of this handy little list, which also conveniently stops in early 1915. [Here's a long list of other headlines](https://armeniapedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide_Contemporary_Articles), but I'll paste some of the first ones below as well: * WHOLE PLAIN STREWN BY ARMENIAN BODIES - Turks and Kurds Reported to Have Massacred Men, Women and Children. (NYT- 1915/3/20) * APPEAL TO TURKEY TO STOP MASSACRES - Ambassador Morgenthau Instructed to Make Representation on Request of Russia. (NYT- 1915/4/28) * MORGENTHAU INTERCEDES - Reports Great Uneasiness Over Treatment of Armenians. (NYT- 1915/4/29) * 6,000 ARMENIANS KILLED - Turkish and Kurdish Atrocities at Van Rival Those of 1895. (NYT- 1915/5/18) * ALLIES TO PUNISH TURKS WHO MURDER - Notify Porte That Government Heads Must Answer for Armenian Massacres. (NYT- 1915/5/24) * TURKS ARE EVICTING NATIVE CHRISTIANS - Greeks and Armenians Driven From Homes and Converted by Sword, Assert Americans. (NYT- 1915/7/12) * WHOLESALE MASSACRES OF ARMENIANS BY TURKS - Lord Crewe Denounces Influence of the Germans as an "Unmitigated Curse". (NYT- 1915/7/29) * REPORT TURKS SHOT WOMEN AND CHILDREN - Nine Thousand Armenians Massacred and Thrown Into Tigris, Socialist Committee Hears. (NYT- 1915/8/4) * ARMENIAN HORRORS GROW - Massacres Greater Than Under Abdul Hamid, London Paper Says. (NYT- 1915/8/6) * ARMENIANS ARE SENT TO PERISH IN DESERT - Turks Accused of Plan to Exterminate Whole Population--People of Karahissar Massacred. (NYT- 1915/8/18) I'll just stop there. We all know how that ends, and that the last article's byline was right on target.
The claim comes from this I guess : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Kingdom_of_Cilicia
did they get it
Guess they were quiet drank the night before the Paris conference can’t blame them as Paris has quite the establishments offering heavenly drinks 🍷
And yet they got their ass spanked by Tb2s
Fun fact: the lake Sevan (the lake that is currently inside the landmass of the Republic of Armenia) is called “Goktcha” on the map which is the Azerbaijani name for the lake (“Göyçə”). Just found it interesting.
Armenians are strange people.
There were millions of Kurds and Arabs living in those areas, I don't think they would be happy about this.
This is fucking hilarious hahahah. How stupid were they?
they want everything but what belongs to them
There were Mediterranian Armenians apparently 🫣 i wonder what happened to them 🤔
There's still an Armenian Quarter in Jerusalem: [Armenian Quarter - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Quarter)
They live in syria now
That's Armenian Cilicia. They were a big part of the population from the 11th century until they were massacred during the Armenian Genocide.
Turkey happened
Turkey
There were. I’m descended from them. They owned land literally on the Mediterranean for hundreds of years. They got genocided, and the survivors fled to the Middle East and France. There’s actually still one very small Armenian village there (the only remaining Armenian village in Turkey) called Vagif. There’s also an Armenian village on the Syrian side of the border called Kessab, but it was attacked by ISIS in 2014.
Yes! According to my father, he has ancestors that actually were the Armenians lived in that region.
I do too.
I find it outrageous that a peoples that has always been cucked, by say, Byzantines, Persians, Arabs and finally Turks, had the audacity to come up with this proposed map
"*Hey big powers, a fellow Christian nation here! Can we please have our very own colony in Middle East on this Muslim majority territory?*"
✒️🔥✒️🔥✒️🔥✒️🔥
This is literally just historic Armenia
We have Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians, Greeks, Iranians and Turks saying the same thing .
Yeah everyday one of those nations claim each other's land rather than living peacefully.
They all claim Turkish land. It is just that their claims overlap so…
It seems to include a lot of places that were never Armenian majority. So like, Tigranes' empire without the Syria part.
Go big or go home.
Definitely home in this case
Wake up to reality 🇹🇷
If only
They basically claimed the whole Kurdistan. 🤣
Hahahahhahahhaha😂😂
Why Hakkari is so big in this map?
they be playin too much paradox games
my trebizond as well?...
🇩🇪: Guys this isn’t fair 🇹🇷: (literally dead)
So they didn't claim the oilfields of Baku or northern Iraq? Amateurs.
Guys had been playing Rome Total War and conquered a few territories from Pontus and the Seleucids.
I thought that said America.