Well….well……wonders of Internet.
Apparently….even Serbs themselves agree that there were around 3500 killed Muslims AFTER the collapse of the defense there.
Now…..apparently again….of those, around 1000 were killed in Srebrenica itself and those 2500 were those trying to flee towards Tuzla region.
They also agree on 4 primary and 32 secondary mass graves in Srebrenica where those killed were buried.
What they don’t agree on is that was a planned genocide.
They insist it was a (mass, admittedly) revenge killing done by local Serbs who had lost their own family members in previous fighting from ’92 to ’95.
”The ICTY Tribunal in Hague serves 3 purposes as a propaganda tool firstly, to demonise and discredit the Yugoslav government and its leaders, secondly to justify the Nato aggression against Yugoslavia and thirdly to cover up the war crimes committed by Nato leaders and military officers. Russia must use the residual mechanism to replace the Nato supported prosecutor, appoint a truly independent prosecutor, review all the cases “tried” under Nato agents Arbour, Del Ponte and Brammertz, and lay charges against Nato for the war crimes it committed in the wars to break up Yugoslavia. The ICTY and ICTR are fascist tribunals because they serve western corporate-military interests and they operate outside all civilized norms of law. No one can get a fair trial at these kangaroo courts. Defence lawyers can only try to use them to show the truth of the wars and disrupt the attempt by Nato to stage these show trials. Russia and China must use their influence to stop the abuses that take place on a daily basis at these tribunals and try to establish a real international justice serving the interests of the people of all the world not just the USA and its puppets. ”
Christopher Black
International Criminal Lawyer
NEVER forget: Serbs dismembered and burned alive, the corporation (MPRI, now Engilitycorp) used to train mercenaries against the Serbs. Never.
Srebernica was supposedly a safe zone in which it sent Dutchbat, consisting of basically unarmed troops.
Not unarmed of course, but, definitely not with a full complement of weaponry.
Makes no difference really.
Even if they had been fully manned with the full weapon complement (including CAMOUFLAGED, not white APCs) they wouldn’t have been any match for Serb forces.
UNPROFOR wasn’t there to enforce anything; they were there to, effectively, monitor. Weapons and equipment were for mobility and self-protection from local marauders, not even from local militia.
In essence from stray fire and a group of drugged/drunken/out of control locals. Anything above that…NO.
as
their task was to keep the peace.
Peacekeepers, not peace enforcers. People do like to forget that.
So WHO exactly directed this whole operation Hmm?
The highest authority, at the time and place, was Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
He, ultimately, had the power.
But, still, I wouldn’t be too hard on him.
The situation on the ground wasn’t that simple and even more complicated it was on a political level.
The ultimate responsibility for the war crime there was/is with the Serb military leadership.
Even Serbs admit that.
They just dispute the number of victims and WHO was, exactly, responsible for it.
1. Srebernica was supposedly a safe zone in which it sent Dutchbat, consisting of basically unarmed troops. They landed in a warzone, were subsequently they hijacked and imprisoned by the Serbs.
2. One member of Dutchbat died – Upon their return to the Netherlands 2 others being confronted with lies that THEY handed over 8000 Muslims to the Serbd who supposedly killed them committed suicide
3. Very intense PUBLIC hearings live on Dutch television produced contradictory statements. The intention was to charge the leadership of Dutchbat with war crimes. Dutchbat was sued by Srebernica women for the deaths of their husbands/brothers/sons.
4. When eventually a few members of Dutchbat decided to seek legal assistance in an effort to sue the U.N as well as the Dutch Government this whole story died down.
It is my opinion based on the evidence I heard presented live on public tv that the Dutch Government knew the whole sordid story and that the whole televised hearing while an extremely painful hoax for the members of Dutchbat served some other purpose and that it was in response to foreign pressure. Anything to point the finger to someone else in order to cover up a war crime.
Kiz’s notion that Dutchbat was supposed to demilitarize the area is arrant nonsense.
They were sent to a demilitarized zone, were unarmed, and their task was to keep the peace.
None of that was so. Unarmed Dutchbat entered a war zone and became its victim. The U.N knew it, the Dutch Government knew it.
One thing stands out in my mind, Dutchbat’s leader called in for assistance and a number of French Aircraft took off but were called back. So WHO exactly directed this whole operation Hmm? And who wrote the script in which suddenly unarmed Dutchbat became the scapegoat. and stood accused of having killed 8000 Muslim men.
This was a proxy war between the U.S and Russia….foreign paid/trained/armed mercenaries were there to create the havoc and kill indiscriminately. It’s purpose was to Balkanize Yugoslavia
Not unarmed of course, but, definitely not with a full complement of weaponry.
Srebernica was supposedly a safe zone in which it sent Dutchbat, consisting of basically unarmed troops.
Peacekeepers, not peace enforcers. People do like to forget that.
their task was to keep the peace.
The highest authority, at the time and place, was Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
So WHO exactly directed this whole operation Hmm?
It is important to step back and see the big picture concerning the Balkan wars
Dr. Bob Allen of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has demonstrated in his report “Why Kosovo? The Anatomy of a Needless War”, that the IMF “shock and awe” neoliberal “reforms” were the main cause of the ethnic conflicts in Yugoslavia. The economic collapse resulted widespread economic hardship and elimination of transfer payments to the Yugoslavia republics which created condition for the succession movements:
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/why-kosovo
The goals of the banker driven economic collapse of Yugoslavia was to definlandize it and buy up the remaining assets at fire sale prices.
You will also recall that the US believed that there were about 200 billion barrels of light sweet crude in the Caspian Sea and the US deep state needed to control the oil export pipelines via Yugoslavia and the Danube waterway. Turns out that the USGS overestimated Caspian Sea oil reserves by a factor of 10x and much of the oil was corrosive high sulfur oil…
See also “Wagons East—NATO oil trade route war”. It can be read at: http://intsse.com/wswspdf/en/articles/1999/06/comm-j23.pdf
How about Nam and its body counts?
Yes, and not just “real” Orthodox or “real” Christians or “real” Catholics, either. An atheist or anyone else would be foolish to ever trust or try to “ally with” Muslims, for any purpose.
@plenty of Orthodox Christians who believe that
There might be plenty of nominal Orthodox Christians who believe that.
Not the real Orthodox Christians for whom such an idea is the sign of apostasy, of denial of Christ, but indeed how many real Orthodox Christians are in the whole world? “When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Lk 18:8).
I am very, very sorry. But this time I do have to disagree with Saker.
If forensic on corpses did prove that some of Muslims were executed and did not die in combat, than it was a war crime. Regardless even if opposition did the same thing.
It absolutely does not make a difference who issued the order. The commanders of the units that did the executions were responsible.
Kremlin’s agenda is a political one and its aim is to neutralize the jihad against Russia. Its policy is to ‘keep your friends close and your enemies closer’. It has to reckon with the restive Muslim population of Russia, ready to act as the fifth column of the other implacable enemy, the ‘Zionists’ and their vassals the Anglo-Americans.
Well…I agree.
Not quite sure that would work, though.
Or, to be honest, it will work for the current team in Kremlin (their hold on power) but it will not, most likely, work for Russia.
Saker’s meme is an ideological one, based on the fanciful Duginist ‘Evrasian’ kabbalistic National-Bolshevism. One cannot be but puzzled by the relentless promotion of such a pathetic figure like Imran Hosein, an advocate of the most anti-Christian ‘eschatological prophecies’ of Islam, deceptively sugar coated in the pseudo ‘quranic prophecy’ of a ‘Muslim-Orthodox’ alliance (in which the Orthodox are the admirers of Islam and they would do its bidding!).
Muslim-Orthodox alliance. What an expression.
I actually believe that there are plenty of Orthodox Christians who believe that. Funny people. What a belief.
Pretty much so indeed. I would nevertheless make a distinction.
Kremlin’s agenda is a political one and its aim is to neutralize the jihad against Russia. Its policy is to ‘keep your friends close and your enemies closer’. It has to reckon with the restive Muslim population of Russia, ready to act as the fifth column of the other implacable enemy, the ‘Zionists’ and their vassals the Anglo-Americans.
Saker’s meme is an ideological one, based on the fanciful Duginist ‘Evrasian’ kabbalistic National-Bolshevism. One cannot be but puzzled by the relentless promotion of such a pathetic figure like Imran Hosein, an advocate of the most anti-Christian ‘eschatological prophecies’ of Islam, deceptively sugar coated in the pseudo ‘quranic prophecy’ of a ‘Muslim-Orthodox’ alliance (in which the Orthodox are the admirers of Islam and they would do its bidding!).
Well...I agree.
Kremlin’s agenda is a political one and its aim is to neutralize the jihad against Russia. Its policy is to ‘keep your friends close and your enemies closer’. It has to reckon with the restive Muslim population of Russia, ready to act as the fifth column of the other implacable enemy, the ‘Zionists’ and their vassals the Anglo-Americans.
Muslim-Orthodox alliance. What an expression.
Saker’s meme is an ideological one, based on the fanciful Duginist ‘Evrasian’ kabbalistic National-Bolshevism. One cannot be but puzzled by the relentless promotion of such a pathetic figure like Imran Hosein, an advocate of the most anti-Christian ‘eschatological prophecies’ of Islam, deceptively sugar coated in the pseudo ‘quranic prophecy’ of a ‘Muslim-Orthodox’ alliance (in which the Orthodox are the admirers of Islam and they would do its bidding!).
Pretending to say “Politburo” instead of “the Kremlin” isn’t humorous, and such snark is no substitute for evidence and reasoning.
As for the Saker, I greatly enjoy and learn from his material, but I find any notion of alliance with Muslims to be terminally naïve.
If it were the US that had some conflict somewhere then the typical response would be to just bomb and level the place, killing everyone. Then they’d claim the bombing was a surgical one and that only terrorists died with perhaps some collateral damage. We’d never hear about how many were killed since the US doesn’t do body counts when it’s the actor. If they do it from the air then it doesn’t count. Anybody care to tally how many people have been killed by US bombings?
Pretty much.
But that would go against Polit…..I mean Kremlin, current agenda of being cozy with Iran and Turkey.
And Saker’s “Russians and Muslims together against Zionazis” meme too.
You gotta keep with the program here.
A question left somehow out is the massive support of the Islamic world (Sunni and Shia alike) for the Bosnian Muslims, abetted underhand by the US, which was by all accounts an act of aggression by foreign countries against Orthodox Serbia which happened concomitantly with the Islamic aggressions in Chechnya and Tajikistan.
A good question.
If I understand it properly you mean,sort of , what is the common understanding, by an average person in West, of the event.
In plain: a mass murder of 8000 civilians/POWs done by Serb forces in the UN Safe Haven.
Definitely FALSE.
Having said that, there was an organized murder, just on a much smaller scale.
West had to close the “Balkan’s case”. Dragged too much.
The only way to do it was to push certain parties in a certain way using certain means.
The only way to create a public support for that and, sort of, legal cover, was to have a proper story.
The best story was “preventing genocide”.
Srebrenica was that case.
Muslims played that very well and Serbs walked into it.
Not that local Muslims liked it and the Serbs had any problem with that at the time, of course.
Puppet masters played Balkans tribes, Serbs in particular, well.
Muslim leadership knew that the attack was coming. They intentionally weakened the defense by pulling out the core military leadership from the enclave a couple of weeks before Serb attack.
They knew that the defense, in a case of Serb push, would collapse fast.
Now….to be honest, they didn’t actually want enclave to collapse altogether; they wanted it weak enough to start collapsing and then force West/UN to engage with airstrikes.
In essence get West on their side on the ground.
I’d call that plan A.
Should plan A fail plan B.
They knew that as soon as people there realize that no West support was coming the defense and enclave would collapse and people would flee.
Knowing Serbs too, they knew that a certain level of mass murder would happen.
Fleeing mass of civilians with murder/execution of a group here and there……perfect to construct the story. Especially when fleeing would be done by unfit mass of noncombatants over difficult mountainous terrain pursued by motorized Serb forces.
What people fail (or refuse) to acknowledge today is that total disdain for West by Serbs at the time.
That level of killings was, essentially a message to West: “I know you don’t like this, so what? You do not make rules here.”
Serb leadership on the ground (Mladic) could’ve prevented a lot of that; not all of course.
In Srebrenica proper it could’ve been less than, say, 50 murders (you can’t prevent all local Serbs of shooting a person here and there).
In pursuing the fleeing mass, probably a couple of hundreds tops.
The thing is, Mladic and the rest didn’t care.
That’s why numbers, IMHO, got to around, most likely, several hundreds. Definitely not several thousands.
But, then, you can’t make a story with several hundreds. You need thousands. A nice number. That made 7000/8000.
BTW, when Germans pulled a mass execution of Serb civilians in WW2 once, the number of shot Serb civilians was 7000. Some people tried to dispute that. Makes you think, eh?
Funny thing those numbers and their use in practical politics.
Retired Canadian general, Lewis MacKenzie:
“It didn’t take long for the Bosnian Muslims to realize that the UN was in no position to live up to its promise to “protect” Srebrenica. With some help from outsiders, they began to infiltrate thousands of fighters and weapons into the safe haven. As the Bosnian Muslim fighters became better equipped and trained, they started to venture outside Srebrenica, burning Serb villages and killing their occupants before quickly withdrawing to the security provided by the UN’s safe haven. These attacks reached a crescendo in 1994 and carried on into early 1995 after the Canadian infantry company that had been there for a year was replaced by a larger Dutch contingent.”
Canadian soldiers remember the horrors of MEDAK pocket, Serbs burned alive, the corporation (MPRI, now Engilitycorp) used to train mercenaries against the Serbs:
”Ghosts of Medak Pocket”:
The European Union has been created to establish a peace and prosperous area for ALL EU members, not just for an elite, and to permit reconciliation between France and Germany, and essentially, to promote womens’ and workers’ rights for all EU members.
The EU was not created to support the independence of a narco-human trafficking state, Kosovo, and to support NAZISM.
”Kosovo demonstration in Toronto ”:
Canada, the US and UK MUST REVOKE Kosovo’s independence.
”Media reports have revealed that as early as 1998, the central intelligence agency assisted by the British Special Armed Services were arming and training Kosovo Liberation Army members in Albania to foment armed rebellion in Kosovo. The KLA terrorists were sent back into Kosovo to assassinate Serbian mayors, ambush Serbian policemen and do everything possible to incite murder and chaos. The hope was that with Kosovo in flames NATO could intervene and in so doing, not only overthrow Slobodan Milosevic the Serbian strong man, but more importantly, provide the aging and increasingly irrelevant military organization [NATO] with a reason for its continued existence. ”
From James Bisset, former Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria
We Created a Monster:
Not...........quite............
There is no doubt that the chaotic events in the Balkans in the 1990s involved some ad-hoc, extrajudicial, noncombat killings by probably all parties.
In your view, is the Srebrenica narrative essentially true or false?
There are two relatively minor problems here: firstly, Nazi Abwehr was working in the Danzig Corridor and Silesia in conjunction with some of the German population in such areas, and thus the Polish government and military became legitimately involved in counter-infiltration in those areas, (but not really involving mass "butchering" of the German population), and, secondly, it was hardly Stalin alone who "carved up Poland."But the major problem with Heros' attack on Saker is the real history of the lead-up to WWII. It's phony history to make out that Hitler could in any way have misunderstood the clear intent of the Munich Agreement. Following is from the article ("World War II: Munich Agreement") at ThoughtCo -
"He [Saker] never stops trying to smear Germans as somehow being more culpable for WWII even though Stalin carved up Poland without any justification, yet Hitler had tried in vain to work with the allies to get the Poles to stop butchering and ethnically cleansing Germans from the Polish Corridor and Silesia." -- Heros
That's the real history, and Germans who try to present it differently and make out that Germany was the victim are as ridiculous and unworthy of serious consideration as are Zionists who present their version of the formation of Israel, the Six Day War, etc.
Having moved towards an expansionist policy in late 1937, Hitler began assessing the situation to the south and ordered his generals to begin making plans for an invasion of the Sudetenland. Additionally, he instructed Henlein to cause trouble. It was Hitler's hope that Henlein's supporters would foment enough unrest that it would show that the Czechoslovakians were unable to control the region and provide an excuse for the German Army to cross the border. Politically, Henlein's followers called for the Sudeten Germans to be recognized as an autonomous ethnic group, given self-government, and be permitted to join Nazi Germany if they so desired. In response to the actions of Henlein's party, the Czechoslovak government was forced to declare martial law in the region. Following this decision, Hitler began demanding that the Sudetenland immediately be turned over to Germany.As the crisis grew, a war scare spread across Europe, leading Britain and France to take an active interest in the situation, as both nations were eager to avoid a war for which they were not prepared.As such, the French government followed the path set by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who believed that the Sudeten Germans' grievances had merit. Chamberlain also thought that Hitler's broader intentions were limited in scope and could be contained. In May, both nations recommended to Czechoslovakian President Edvard Beneš that he give in to Germany's demands. Resisting this advice, Beneš instead ordered a partial mobilization of the army. As tensions grew through the summer, Beneš accepted a British mediator, Lord Runciman, in early August. Meeting with both sides, Runciman and his team were able to convince Beneš to grant the Sudeten Germans autonomy. Despite this breakthrough, the SdP were under strict orders from Germany not to accept any compromise settlements. In an attempt to calm the situation, Chamberlain sent a telegram to Hitler requesting a meeting with the goal of finding a peaceful solution.Traveling to Berchtesgaden on September 15, Chamberlain met with the German leader. Controlling the conversation, Hitler lamented the Czechoslovak persecution of Sudeten Germans and boldly requested that the region be turned over. Unable to make such a concession, Chamberlain departed, stating that he would have to consult with the Cabinet in London and requested that Hitler refrain from military action in the meantime. Though he agreed to this, Hitler continued military planning. As part of this, the Polish and Hungarian governments were offered part of Czechoslovakia in return for allowing the Germans to take the Sudetenland.Meeting with the Cabinet, Chamberlain was authorized to concede the Sudetenland and received support from the French for such a move. On September 19, the British and French ambassadors met with the Czechoslovak government and recommended ceding those areas of the Sudetenland where Germans formed more than 50% of the population. Largely abandoned by its allies, the Czechoslovakians were forced to agree. Having secured this concession, Chamberlain returned to Germany on the 22nd and met with Hitler at Bad Godesberg. Optimistic that a solution had been reached, Chamberlain was stunned when Hitler made new demands.Not happy with the Anglo-French solution, Hitler demanded that German troops be permitted to occupy the entirety of the Sudetenland, that non-Germans be expelled, and that Poland and Hungary be given territorial concessions. After stating that such demands were unacceptable, Chamberlain was told that the terms were to be met or military action would result.Having risked his career and British prestige on the deal, Chamberlain was crushed as he returned home. In response to the German ultimatum, both Britain and France began mobilizing their forces.Though Hitler was willing to risk war, he soon found that the German people were not. As a result, he stepped back from the brink and sent Chamberlain a letter guaranteeing the safety of Czechoslovakia if the Sudetenland were ceded to Germany. Eager to prevent war, Chamberlain replied that he was willing to continue talks and asked Italian leader Benito Mussolini to aid in persuading Hitler. In response, Mussolini proposed a four-power summit between Germany, Britain, France, and Italy to discuss the situation. The Czechoslovakians were not invited to take part.Gathering in Munich on September 29, Chamberlain, Hitler, and Mussolini were joined by French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier. Talks progressed through the day and into the night, with a Czechoslovakian delegation forced to wait outside. In the negotiations, Mussolini presented a plan which called for the Sudetenland to be ceded to Germany in exchange for guarantees that it would mark the end of German territorial expansion. Though presented by the Italian leader, the plan had been produced by the German government and its terms were similar to Hitler's latest ultimatum.Desiring to avoid war, Chamberlain and Daladier were willing to agree to this "Italian plan." As a result, the Munich Agreement was signed shortly after 1:00 a.m. on September 30.This called for German troops to enter the Sudetenland on October 1 with the movement to be completed by the 10th. Around 1:30 a.m., the Czechoslovak delegation was informed of the terms by Chamberlain and Daladier. Though initially unwilling to agree, the Czechoslovakians were forced to submit when informed that should a war occur they would be held responsible.As a result of the agreement, German forces crossed the border on October 1 and were warmly received by the Sudeten Germans while many Czechoslovakians fled the region. Returning to London, Chamberlain proclaimed that he had secured "peace for our time." While many in the British government were pleased with the result, others were not. Commenting on the meeting, Winston Churchill proclaimed the Munich Agreement "a total, unmitigated defeat." Having believed that he would have to fight to claim the Sudetenland, Hitler was surprised that Czechoslovakia's erstwhile allies readily abandoned the country in order to appease him.Quickly coming to contempt Britain and France's fear of war, Hitler encouraged Poland and Hungary to take parts of Czechoslovakia. Unconcerned about retaliation from the western nations, Hitler moved to take the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. This was met with no significant response from either Britain or France. Concerned that Poland would be Germany's next target for expansion, both nations pledged their support in guaranteeing Polish independence. Going further, Britain concluded an Anglo-Polish military alliance on August 25. This was quickly activated when Germany invaded Poland on September 1, starting World War II.
“That’s the real KOSHER history”
The foundation for WWII was laid at Versailles where Germany, against all allied promises when the Armistice was signed, was stripped of vital farmland in West Prussia and virtually starved to death in a horrendous series of war crimes and crimes against humanity. 1919 was called the Turnip winter and millions were deliberately starved to death by illegal blockades, but it was no where close to what the Zio-allies would do the next time.
Chechoslovakia was in reality 4 separate groups of people in Sutenland, Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia. It was an artificial construct created to guarantee another war and to reward Benes and other traitors to Austria. The fact that the “Chechs” had to ethnically cleanse and genocide the Sudeten Germans, and that Slovakia broke away the first chance she had is proof enough of the war crimes of the allies.
Western Poland, likewise, was carved out of land occupied for centuries by German speaking majorities and was a deliberate and successful attempt to punish and starve Germany. After the second world war even more critical land was stolen from Germany and given to Poland, who promptly committed war crimes against Germans on a scale that would make Attila the Hun blush, and it is ironic that the Germans were ones called “Huns”.
America is guilty of so much genocide, one does not even know where to start. Yet Americans love soaking up their yid-propaganda movies about “just war”, and when an American parks his ass in front of the TV he turns his brain off.
This is what the Zio-allies did to Germany after the war. Russia, the US and England really lost all rights to exist among civilized nations afterwards, but of course in reality we are living on planet Israel.
There are two relatively minor problems here: firstly, Nazi Abwehr was working in the Danzig Corridor and Silesia in conjunction with some of the German population in such areas, and thus the Polish government and military became legitimately involved in counter-infiltration in those areas, (but not really involving mass "butchering" of the German population), and, secondly, it was hardly Stalin alone who "carved up Poland."But the major problem with Heros' attack on Saker is the real history of the lead-up to WWII. It's phony history to make out that Hitler could in any way have misunderstood the clear intent of the Munich Agreement. Following is from the article ("World War II: Munich Agreement") at ThoughtCo -
"He [Saker] never stops trying to smear Germans as somehow being more culpable for WWII even though Stalin carved up Poland without any justification, yet Hitler had tried in vain to work with the allies to get the Poles to stop butchering and ethnically cleansing Germans from the Polish Corridor and Silesia." -- Heros
That's the real history, and Germans who try to present it differently and make out that Germany was the victim are as ridiculous and unworthy of serious consideration as are Zionists who present their version of the formation of Israel, the Six Day War, etc.
Having moved towards an expansionist policy in late 1937, Hitler began assessing the situation to the south and ordered his generals to begin making plans for an invasion of the Sudetenland. Additionally, he instructed Henlein to cause trouble. It was Hitler's hope that Henlein's supporters would foment enough unrest that it would show that the Czechoslovakians were unable to control the region and provide an excuse for the German Army to cross the border. Politically, Henlein's followers called for the Sudeten Germans to be recognized as an autonomous ethnic group, given self-government, and be permitted to join Nazi Germany if they so desired. In response to the actions of Henlein's party, the Czechoslovak government was forced to declare martial law in the region. Following this decision, Hitler began demanding that the Sudetenland immediately be turned over to Germany.As the crisis grew, a war scare spread across Europe, leading Britain and France to take an active interest in the situation, as both nations were eager to avoid a war for which they were not prepared.As such, the French government followed the path set by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who believed that the Sudeten Germans' grievances had merit. Chamberlain also thought that Hitler's broader intentions were limited in scope and could be contained. In May, both nations recommended to Czechoslovakian President Edvard Beneš that he give in to Germany's demands. Resisting this advice, Beneš instead ordered a partial mobilization of the army. As tensions grew through the summer, Beneš accepted a British mediator, Lord Runciman, in early August. Meeting with both sides, Runciman and his team were able to convince Beneš to grant the Sudeten Germans autonomy. Despite this breakthrough, the SdP were under strict orders from Germany not to accept any compromise settlements. In an attempt to calm the situation, Chamberlain sent a telegram to Hitler requesting a meeting with the goal of finding a peaceful solution.Traveling to Berchtesgaden on September 15, Chamberlain met with the German leader. Controlling the conversation, Hitler lamented the Czechoslovak persecution of Sudeten Germans and boldly requested that the region be turned over. Unable to make such a concession, Chamberlain departed, stating that he would have to consult with the Cabinet in London and requested that Hitler refrain from military action in the meantime. Though he agreed to this, Hitler continued military planning. As part of this, the Polish and Hungarian governments were offered part of Czechoslovakia in return for allowing the Germans to take the Sudetenland.Meeting with the Cabinet, Chamberlain was authorized to concede the Sudetenland and received support from the French for such a move. On September 19, the British and French ambassadors met with the Czechoslovak government and recommended ceding those areas of the Sudetenland where Germans formed more than 50% of the population. Largely abandoned by its allies, the Czechoslovakians were forced to agree. Having secured this concession, Chamberlain returned to Germany on the 22nd and met with Hitler at Bad Godesberg. Optimistic that a solution had been reached, Chamberlain was stunned when Hitler made new demands.Not happy with the Anglo-French solution, Hitler demanded that German troops be permitted to occupy the entirety of the Sudetenland, that non-Germans be expelled, and that Poland and Hungary be given territorial concessions. After stating that such demands were unacceptable, Chamberlain was told that the terms were to be met or military action would result.Having risked his career and British prestige on the deal, Chamberlain was crushed as he returned home. In response to the German ultimatum, both Britain and France began mobilizing their forces.Though Hitler was willing to risk war, he soon found that the German people were not. As a result, he stepped back from the brink and sent Chamberlain a letter guaranteeing the safety of Czechoslovakia if the Sudetenland were ceded to Germany. Eager to prevent war, Chamberlain replied that he was willing to continue talks and asked Italian leader Benito Mussolini to aid in persuading Hitler. In response, Mussolini proposed a four-power summit between Germany, Britain, France, and Italy to discuss the situation. The Czechoslovakians were not invited to take part.Gathering in Munich on September 29, Chamberlain, Hitler, and Mussolini were joined by French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier. Talks progressed through the day and into the night, with a Czechoslovakian delegation forced to wait outside. In the negotiations, Mussolini presented a plan which called for the Sudetenland to be ceded to Germany in exchange for guarantees that it would mark the end of German territorial expansion. Though presented by the Italian leader, the plan had been produced by the German government and its terms were similar to Hitler's latest ultimatum.Desiring to avoid war, Chamberlain and Daladier were willing to agree to this "Italian plan." As a result, the Munich Agreement was signed shortly after 1:00 a.m. on September 30.This called for German troops to enter the Sudetenland on October 1 with the movement to be completed by the 10th. Around 1:30 a.m., the Czechoslovak delegation was informed of the terms by Chamberlain and Daladier. Though initially unwilling to agree, the Czechoslovakians were forced to submit when informed that should a war occur they would be held responsible.As a result of the agreement, German forces crossed the border on October 1 and were warmly received by the Sudeten Germans while many Czechoslovakians fled the region. Returning to London, Chamberlain proclaimed that he had secured "peace for our time." While many in the British government were pleased with the result, others were not. Commenting on the meeting, Winston Churchill proclaimed the Munich Agreement "a total, unmitigated defeat." Having believed that he would have to fight to claim the Sudetenland, Hitler was surprised that Czechoslovakia's erstwhile allies readily abandoned the country in order to appease him.Quickly coming to contempt Britain and France's fear of war, Hitler encouraged Poland and Hungary to take parts of Czechoslovakia. Unconcerned about retaliation from the western nations, Hitler moved to take the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. This was met with no significant response from either Britain or France. Concerned that Poland would be Germany's next target for expansion, both nations pledged their support in guaranteeing Polish independence. Going further, Britain concluded an Anglo-Polish military alliance on August 25. This was quickly activated when Germany invaded Poland on September 1, starting World War II.
A war between Germany and Poland is not a World War. World War II began when Britain declared war on Germany.
Blech, I stopped paying attention after the umpteenth “zio” and “AngloZion” reference. What was the point of the article? Jewbaiting? Yawn. Talking about what really happened? Allegedly, though it seemed like half a platform for potshots at the mainstream media; but you’re already writing for Unz…so was the point to test the echo chamber? Having to wade through all the derogatory crap detracts from what is an already interesting subject.
Take note: Jew doesn’t give a shit about the “Anglo” part of the “AngloZionist” reference. He only objects to the “Zionist” part. Even though the Anglo part is worse, as it refers to an entire ethnicity, not just a certain ideological subset.
I don’t believe in this God and Devil stuff, but there is so much evil being done to our fellow human beings it makes me question my doubting of the Devil.
Around 15 ‘suspects’ from that time that were either on trial in the Hague or being detained died before or during trial, from either suicides or heart attacks.
Dead men tell no tales and they sure won’t be telling tales about the NATO and Bill Clinton war crimes from that era.
Leave off with the “unnecessary” “quotation marks” “all over the fucking place.” “You” are misusing them, and the “English” “language.”
There is no doubt that the chaotic events in the Balkans in the 1990s involved some ad-hoc, extrajudicial, noncombat killings by probably all parties.
Not………..quite…………
1. There was plenty of deep ideological groundwork before all that.
2. There was quite a lot of careful planning, preparation and organizational/logistical effort in all that. Including training of paramilitaries and (re)deployment of regular military.
3. There was a lot of chaos, too….BUT…underneath all that chaos was that 1. and 2. Chaos was in execution on the ground on a low level, NOT in the high places of power.
Say, chaos was from a battalion militia down, NEVER up.
Ethnic cleansing was planned well, and well done on a large scale. Including concentration camps.
Ad-hoc, extrajudicial, noncombat killings were part of all that setup. Part, mind you. Integral part.
“We want your people to leave this region”->they don’t; shell them, push with regular forces, break their local militia type defense->do some “ad-hoc extrajudicial, noncombat killings” to encourage all civilians to flee->consolidate->rinse and repeat.
Serebrenica was done by the same principle.
Additional element was a long history of hatred there reinforced by tit for tat killings since ’92.
Perfect storm of ethic warfare.
That the storm was carefully and skillfully used by the puppet masters then and there is a different story.
Oh, BTW, Oric and his main henchmen were pulled out of Srebenica a couple of weeks before the Serb attack for a…..training….exercise in Sarajevo. Pure coincidence, of course…………
And all that above definitely done by all parties all over that region, just different in scale.
anything about a Bosnian Muslim Mountain Division.
Pure nonsense.
Now, that was/is a mountainous region and there was enough personnel there to form such a division (plenty of Muslims inside the enclave).
A lot of those people had basic infantry weapons (an AK with a couple of magazines etc).
For an average person that’s enough and The Message is always about an average person.
That a Mountain Division is something totally different than, say, 5000 men with AKs and such doesn’t register with average person. Including an average media person; most of them hate military and have no clue how all that works.
BTW, the local warlord was Naser Oric, a capable police special forces officer from former Yugoslavia. Capable to organize that bunch of civilians in some sort of local militia and lead a couple of hundreds of those Muslims every now and then in raids on similar Serb settlements around the enclave.
Medieval Balkans warfare with AKs, hand grenades, a couple of hand held rocket launchers and GPMG here and there.
The idea with Dutch politicians, and some of the military, was that just the presence of Dutch soldiers would be protection.
As a ground force; a part of overall military capability in the region.
The more clever military have warned, that 80.000 men with heavy weapons would be needed to defend the enclave, a town at the bottom of a valley, surrounded by hills, hills not held by our Dutch.
Nonsense.
Blue helmets weren’t there to fight an organized Balkans armed force. They were there to repel some local warlord and even in that case it was about air strikes, not ground combat.
Dutch relied on airforce support which didn’t come in time and force.
POLITICS at the time.
Dutch battalion there was just a little pawn in a big game of geopolitics being played then and there.
They couldn’t have done anything more.
The all blame is on…..ah, well…that is a bit COMPLICATED.
” In reality, however, the Bosnian-Muslims kept and entire Mountain Division in Srebrenica and they continued to reinforce it both by land and by air. To make things even worse, the Bosnian-Muslims constantly used Srebrenica as a safe base to attack the Bosnian-Serb positions around the town. At the beginning of the war, the Bosnian-Muslims had already burned down all the Bosnian-Serb villages around Srebrenica and massacred most of the civilians living they found in them (we are talking about several thousand civilians). The local Bosnian-Serbs had promised that one day they would take revenge for these massacres and some of them, indeed, do that when the Bosnian-Serbs entered Srebrenica. Needless to say, none of that was ever reported by the western corporate Ziomedia]. ”
I’m Dutch, since it happened of course a lot was said in the Netherlands about Szrebreniza.
One investigation after another, lawsuits against the Dutch state, some with success.
It is difficult for me to imagine that none of the Dutch soldiers who were there, a very inadequate number, with no more weapons than jeeps, rifles, side arms and some machine guns, never would have said anything about a Bosnian Muslim Mountain Division.
Never saw any picture of such a Mountain Division.
Then there is the question of why this Mountain Division did nothing whan the Serb tanks came, I do suppose such a division does have anti tank weapons.
The idea with Dutch politicians, and some of the military, was that just the presence of Dutch soldiers would be protection.
The more clever military have warned, that 80.000 men with heavy weapons would be needed to defend the enclave, a town at the bottom of a valley, surrounded by hills, hills not held by our Dutch.
What was not reported in western media that in September or so last year Milosevitch posthumously was declared innocent of all accusations.
If he died in the The Hague prison because heart surgery was deliberately denied to him ?
Pure nonsense.
anything about a Bosnian Muslim Mountain Division.
As a ground force; a part of overall military capability in the region.
The idea with Dutch politicians, and some of the military, was that just the presence of Dutch soldiers would be protection.
Nonsense.
The more clever military have warned, that 80.000 men with heavy weapons would be needed to defend the enclave, a town at the bottom of a valley, surrounded by hills, hills not held by our Dutch.
That is some imagination you have there. Perfectly in line with the paranoid Balkans conspiracy mentality. (Ask this fellow what really happened to former president Trajkovski. I’m sure he knows.)
Господи какви фантазии ваѓаат некој луѓе, скрос влезени во некое холивудско филмче…
“War is a Racket;” Major General Smedley Butler, USMC (twice awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor).
“All Wars are Bankers’ Wars”; Michael Rivero.
With this introduction, my understanding of what happened to Yugoslavia actually comes from research and postings at an old website; polyconomics.com run be the late political economist Jude Wanniski, and also from Antiwar.com in the 1990′s.
Basically Wanniski showed that the bankers, through the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and World Bank did a deliberate Perkins type of economic hit on the Yugoslav economy because they apparently did not like Yugoslavia’s “Market Socialism” – not capitalist enough. All the various nationalities and ethnicities were apparently willing to co-operate when times were good even if they did not like each other, but when their economies were deliberately destroyed, all their resentments over past conflicts and genocides came to the fore in violent conflict.
Later events seem to show that one thing the internationl bankers were after was Kosovo’s mineral wealth, especially gold, that they could not exploit as long as Market Socialism policy insisted on mineral wealth of the country being for Yugoslavia’s people and government and not for the foreign international bankers. Thus the need to destroy the prosperity and peace of Yugoslavia to get control of Kosovo’s minerals.
Perhaps the real losers were all of the different groups of the former Yugoslavia; Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Kosovians, Orthodox, Catholic, Muslim, whatever; and the winners are the Bankers of the west who, in deliberately destroying the peace and prosperity of Yugoslavia, got control their natural resources, such as the Gold of Kosovo.
Hmmm, maybe much like how these bankers now try to use economic war and ethnic conflict to dismember and destroy the countries of the former Soviet Union and to get control of their resources (stirring up conflict between Russians, Ukrainians, Chechens, Baltic States, etc.).
Thanks for reposting these important reconsiderations of Srebrenica.
The Srebrenica Narrative is now pushing towards the 25-year mark. It is strong and has an ‘official state religion’ aspect to it.
What is the Srebrenica Narrative? It is this: “In the 1990s, White-Christian fascistic Bosnian Serbs, with the backing of Serbia’s White-Christian fascist regime, carried out a crazed racist genocide campaign, executed 8,000 innocent Muslims, for no objective but race-hatred; thankfully, the USA and NATO saved the Muslims from genocide.”
The Balkan interventions, it has turned out, were a blueprint for the past twenty years of U.S. and NATO or quasi-NATO interventions. So far no sign of any Trump moves towards any kind of humanitarian bombing campaign against racists or Islamophobes (Serbs) or anyone else except the inherited campaign against ISIS.
So was Srebrenica a hoax? The long answer: There is no doubt that the chaotic events in the Balkans in the 1990s involved some ad-hoc, extrajudicial, noncombat killings by probably all parties. This tends to happen with insurgents and paramilitaries fighting ethnic civil wars, but the Srebrenica Narrative as I’ve tried to sketch it out above is mainly false, with the central claims definitely false, but all lucrative politically for each the Bosniaks, the Clinton Machine, NATO, and the EU. (Short answer: Yes, hoax or something near to it.)
Not...........quite............
There is no doubt that the chaotic events in the Balkans in the 1990s involved some ad-hoc, extrajudicial, noncombat killings by probably all parties.
The truth about Oradur-sur-Glane is that it was another yid rinse/repeat operation used as justification to deny the Wehrmacht of their Geneva Conventions rights. The church caught fire and burned so fast because Jewish terrorists had hidden weapons in the church rafters. When Churchil sent weapons to these terrorists to help fight for the allies during d-day, they kept them to use in a commie revolution.I ask myself why Saker has this massive genocidal hate for Germany and Germans. He will leave no stone unturned trying to find justice for his beloved commit-no-evil Slavs, even though he was raised and educated in Switzerland. He never stops trying to smear Germans as somehow being more culpable for WWII even though Stalin carved up Poland without any justification, yet Hitler had tried in vain to work with the allies to get the Poles to stop butchering and ethnically cleansing Germans from the Polish Corridor and Silesia.
"Nuremberg style, internationalist, legalistic mumble-jumbo."
“He [Saker] never stops trying to smear Germans as somehow being more culpable for WWII even though Stalin carved up Poland without any justification, yet Hitler had tried in vain to work with the allies to get the Poles to stop butchering and ethnically cleansing Germans from the Polish Corridor and Silesia.” — Heros
There are two relatively minor problems here: firstly, Nazi Abwehr was working in the Danzig Corridor and Silesia in conjunction with some of the German population in such areas, and thus the Polish government and military became legitimately involved in counter-infiltration in those areas, (but not really involving mass “butchering” of the German population), and, secondly, it was hardly Stalin alone who “carved up Poland.”
But the major problem with Heros’ attack on Saker is the real history of the lead-up to WWII. It’s phony history to make out that Hitler could in any way have misunderstood the clear intent of the Munich Agreement. Following is from the article (“World War II: Munich Agreement”) at ThoughtCo -
https://www.thoughtco.com/world-war-ii-munich-agreement-2361475
Having moved towards an expansionist policy in late 1937, Hitler began assessing the situation to the south and ordered his generals to begin making plans for an invasion of the Sudetenland. Additionally, he instructed Henlein to cause trouble. It was Hitler’s hope that Henlein’s supporters would foment enough unrest that it would show that the Czechoslovakians were unable to control the region and provide an excuse for the German Army to cross the border. Politically, Henlein’s followers called for the Sudeten Germans to be recognized as an autonomous ethnic group, given self-government, and be permitted to join Nazi Germany if they so desired. In response to the actions of Henlein’s party, the Czechoslovak government was forced to declare martial law in the region. Following this decision, Hitler began demanding that the Sudetenland immediately be turned over to Germany.
As the crisis grew, a war scare spread across Europe, leading Britain and France to take an active interest in the situation, as both nations were eager to avoid a war for which they were not prepared.
As such, the French government followed the path set by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who believed that the Sudeten Germans’ grievances had merit. Chamberlain also thought that Hitler’s broader intentions were limited in scope and could be contained. In May, both nations recommended to Czechoslovakian President Edvard Beneš that he give in to Germany’s demands. Resisting this advice, Beneš instead ordered a partial mobilization of the army. As tensions grew through the summer, Beneš accepted a British mediator, Lord Runciman, in early August. Meeting with both sides, Runciman and his team were able to convince Beneš to grant the Sudeten Germans autonomy. Despite this breakthrough, the SdP were under strict orders from Germany not to accept any compromise settlements.
In an attempt to calm the situation, Chamberlain sent a telegram to Hitler requesting a meeting with the goal of finding a peaceful solution.
Traveling to Berchtesgaden on September 15, Chamberlain met with the German leader. Controlling the conversation, Hitler lamented the Czechoslovak persecution of Sudeten Germans and boldly requested that the region be turned over. Unable to make such a concession, Chamberlain departed, stating that he would have to consult with the Cabinet in London and requested that Hitler refrain from military action in the meantime. Though he agreed to this, Hitler continued military planning. As part of this, the Polish and Hungarian governments were offered part of Czechoslovakia in return for allowing the Germans to take the Sudetenland.
Meeting with the Cabinet, Chamberlain was authorized to concede the Sudetenland and received support from the French for such a move. On September 19, the British and French ambassadors met with the Czechoslovak government and recommended ceding those areas of the Sudetenland where Germans formed more than 50% of the population. Largely abandoned by its allies, the Czechoslovakians were forced to agree. Having secured this concession, Chamberlain returned to Germany on the 22nd and met with Hitler at Bad Godesberg. Optimistic that a solution had been reached, Chamberlain was stunned when Hitler made new demands.
Not happy with the Anglo-French solution, Hitler demanded that German troops be permitted to occupy the entirety of the Sudetenland, that non-Germans be expelled, and that Poland and Hungary be given territorial concessions. After stating that such demands were unacceptable, Chamberlain was told that the terms were to be met or military action would result.
Having risked his career and British prestige on the deal, Chamberlain was crushed as he returned home. In response to the German ultimatum, both Britain and France began mobilizing their forces.
Though Hitler was willing to risk war, he soon found that the German people were not. As a result, he stepped back from the brink and sent Chamberlain a letter guaranteeing the safety of Czechoslovakia if the Sudetenland were ceded to Germany. Eager to prevent war, Chamberlain replied that he was willing to continue talks and asked Italian leader Benito Mussolini to aid in persuading Hitler. In response, Mussolini proposed a four-power summit between Germany, Britain, France, and Italy to discuss the situation. The Czechoslovakians were not invited to take part.
Gathering in Munich on September 29, Chamberlain, Hitler, and Mussolini were joined by French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier. Talks progressed through the day and into the night, with a Czechoslovakian delegation forced to wait outside. In the negotiations, Mussolini presented a plan which called for the Sudetenland to be ceded to Germany in exchange for guarantees that it would mark the end of German territorial expansion. Though presented by the Italian leader, the plan had been produced by the German government and its terms were similar to Hitler’s latest ultimatum.
Desiring to avoid war, Chamberlain and Daladier were willing to agree to this “Italian plan.” As a result, the Munich Agreement was signed shortly after 1:00 a.m. on September 30.
This called for German troops to enter the Sudetenland on October 1 with the movement to be completed by the 10th. Around 1:30 a.m., the Czechoslovak delegation was informed of the terms by Chamberlain and Daladier. Though initially unwilling to agree, the Czechoslovakians were forced to submit when informed that should a war occur they would be held responsible.
As a result of the agreement, German forces crossed the border on October 1 and were warmly received by the Sudeten Germans while many Czechoslovakians fled the region. Returning to London, Chamberlain proclaimed that he had secured “peace for our time.” While many in the British government were pleased with the result, others were not. Commenting on the meeting, Winston Churchill proclaimed the Munich Agreement “a total, unmitigated defeat.” Having believed that he would have to fight to claim the Sudetenland, Hitler was surprised that Czechoslovakia’s erstwhile allies readily abandoned the country in order to appease him.
Quickly coming to contempt Britain and France’s fear of war, Hitler encouraged Poland and Hungary to take parts of Czechoslovakia. Unconcerned about retaliation from the western nations, Hitler moved to take the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. This was met with no significant response from either Britain or France. Concerned that Poland would be Germany’s next target for expansion, both nations pledged their support in guaranteeing Polish independence. Going further, Britain concluded an Anglo-Polish military alliance on August 25. This was quickly activated when Germany invaded Poland on September 1, starting World War II.
That’s the real history, and Germans who try to present it differently and make out that Germany was the victim are as ridiculous and unworthy of serious consideration as are Zionists who present their version of the formation of Israel, the Six Day War, etc.
The foundation for WWII was laid at Versailles where Germany, against all allied promises when the Armistice was signed, was stripped of vital farmland in West Prussia and virtually starved to death in a horrendous series of war crimes and crimes against humanity. 1919 was called the Turnip winter and millions were deliberately starved to death by illegal blockades, but it was no where close to what the Zio-allies would do the next time.Chechoslovakia was in reality 4 separate groups of people in Sutenland, Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia. It was an artificial construct created to guarantee another war and to reward Benes and other traitors to Austria. The fact that the "Chechs" had to ethnically cleanse and genocide the Sudeten Germans, and that Slovakia broke away the first chance she had is proof enough of the war crimes of the allies.Western Poland, likewise, was carved out of land occupied for centuries by German speaking majorities and was a deliberate and successful attempt to punish and starve Germany. After the second world war even more critical land was stolen from Germany and given to Poland, who promptly committed war crimes against Germans on a scale that would make Attila the Hun blush, and it is ironic that the Germans were ones called "Huns".America is guilty of so much genocide, one does not even know where to start. Yet Americans love soaking up their yid-propaganda movies about "just war", and when an American parks his ass in front of the TV he turns his brain off.This is what the Zio-allies did to Germany after the war. Russia, the US and England really lost all rights to exist among civilized nations afterwards, but of course in reality we are living on planet Israel.https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/09/16/histories-most-terrifying-peace-allied-run-concentration-camps/
"That’s the real KOSHER history"
I’m acquainted with a woman who was a resident of Sarajevo when the warfare broke out. Product of a mixed marriage, she had a Yugo self-identification rather than with a particular group. She told me that one day a CNN truck parked in back of her building and the video crew set up shop near the local mosque just down the street and waited. Sometime later some shells hit the mosque and the crew took it all in. It was then reported as a wanton Serbian attack against a house of worship. It was all scripted. She’s stated that she saw many false flag events and that they had a local saying, something to the effect of ‘hoping you don’t get visited by CNN’ since bad things were sure to follow.
Most of what the West has been fed about the Bosnian conflict is crap. Muslim political leader Alija Izetbegović and his hardliners controlled the narrative and fed Western journos a very one sided version of the war while concealing their own atrocities against innocent Serbs. The numbers of Muslims killed at Srebenica was always hyped for propaganda effect and almost all were male combatants and not helpless women and children as reported.
Slobodan Milosevic, maligned by the (((Western))) press corps as “another Hitler”, was exonerated for the war crimes he was charged with:
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/354362-slobodan-milosevic-exonerated-us-nato/
This isn’t to say the Serbs were necessarily angels, but there were two sides to the story and their side was never told.
To The Saker: I volunteer to proofread and offer suggested edits on your columns — at no cost except that it would be great to meet you someday and maybe get a signed copy of your next book. I have extensive experience writing and editing. Feel free to contact me by e-mail, and I’ll be glad to provide my name, phone number, and resume.
Um, ya might wanna start using an EDITOR. The whole article is shot through with stupid typos. The typos, besides constantly breaking the reader’s consumption of the content, SERIOUSLY degrade any possible confidence in the content.
Interesting.
Serbs are, obviously, the big losers in the latest round in Balkans.
Albanians, Bosnian Muslims and Croats, not necessarily in that order, are winners.
If so, then, Mladic for example, working for the “company” was actually actively working against his people?
That, I guess, makes him a BIG traitor.
So…are you saying that Mladic is a traitor?
One can really read……. something……. on this site for sure.
“Nuremberg style, internationalist, legalistic mumble-jumbo.”
The truth about Oradur-sur-Glane is that it was another yid rinse/repeat operation used as justification to deny the Wehrmacht of their Geneva Conventions rights. The church caught fire and burned so fast because Jewish terrorists had hidden weapons in the church rafters. When Churchil sent weapons to these terrorists to help fight for the allies during d-day, they kept them to use in a commie revolution.
I ask myself why Saker has this massive genocidal hate for Germany and Germans. He will leave no stone unturned trying to find justice for his beloved commit-no-evil Slavs, even though he was raised and educated in Switzerland. He never stops trying to smear Germans as somehow being more culpable for WWII even though Stalin carved up Poland without any justification, yet Hitler had tried in vain to work with the allies to get the Poles to stop butchering and ethnically cleansing Germans from the Polish Corridor and Silesia.
There are two relatively minor problems here: firstly, Nazi Abwehr was working in the Danzig Corridor and Silesia in conjunction with some of the German population in such areas, and thus the Polish government and military became legitimately involved in counter-infiltration in those areas, (but not really involving mass "butchering" of the German population), and, secondly, it was hardly Stalin alone who "carved up Poland."But the major problem with Heros' attack on Saker is the real history of the lead-up to WWII. It's phony history to make out that Hitler could in any way have misunderstood the clear intent of the Munich Agreement. Following is from the article ("World War II: Munich Agreement") at ThoughtCo -
"He [Saker] never stops trying to smear Germans as somehow being more culpable for WWII even though Stalin carved up Poland without any justification, yet Hitler had tried in vain to work with the allies to get the Poles to stop butchering and ethnically cleansing Germans from the Polish Corridor and Silesia." -- Heros
That's the real history, and Germans who try to present it differently and make out that Germany was the victim are as ridiculous and unworthy of serious consideration as are Zionists who present their version of the formation of Israel, the Six Day War, etc.
Having moved towards an expansionist policy in late 1937, Hitler began assessing the situation to the south and ordered his generals to begin making plans for an invasion of the Sudetenland. Additionally, he instructed Henlein to cause trouble. It was Hitler's hope that Henlein's supporters would foment enough unrest that it would show that the Czechoslovakians were unable to control the region and provide an excuse for the German Army to cross the border. Politically, Henlein's followers called for the Sudeten Germans to be recognized as an autonomous ethnic group, given self-government, and be permitted to join Nazi Germany if they so desired. In response to the actions of Henlein's party, the Czechoslovak government was forced to declare martial law in the region. Following this decision, Hitler began demanding that the Sudetenland immediately be turned over to Germany.As the crisis grew, a war scare spread across Europe, leading Britain and France to take an active interest in the situation, as both nations were eager to avoid a war for which they were not prepared.As such, the French government followed the path set by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who believed that the Sudeten Germans' grievances had merit. Chamberlain also thought that Hitler's broader intentions were limited in scope and could be contained. In May, both nations recommended to Czechoslovakian President Edvard Beneš that he give in to Germany's demands. Resisting this advice, Beneš instead ordered a partial mobilization of the army. As tensions grew through the summer, Beneš accepted a British mediator, Lord Runciman, in early August. Meeting with both sides, Runciman and his team were able to convince Beneš to grant the Sudeten Germans autonomy. Despite this breakthrough, the SdP were under strict orders from Germany not to accept any compromise settlements. In an attempt to calm the situation, Chamberlain sent a telegram to Hitler requesting a meeting with the goal of finding a peaceful solution.Traveling to Berchtesgaden on September 15, Chamberlain met with the German leader. Controlling the conversation, Hitler lamented the Czechoslovak persecution of Sudeten Germans and boldly requested that the region be turned over. Unable to make such a concession, Chamberlain departed, stating that he would have to consult with the Cabinet in London and requested that Hitler refrain from military action in the meantime. Though he agreed to this, Hitler continued military planning. As part of this, the Polish and Hungarian governments were offered part of Czechoslovakia in return for allowing the Germans to take the Sudetenland.Meeting with the Cabinet, Chamberlain was authorized to concede the Sudetenland and received support from the French for such a move. On September 19, the British and French ambassadors met with the Czechoslovak government and recommended ceding those areas of the Sudetenland where Germans formed more than 50% of the population. Largely abandoned by its allies, the Czechoslovakians were forced to agree. Having secured this concession, Chamberlain returned to Germany on the 22nd and met with Hitler at Bad Godesberg. Optimistic that a solution had been reached, Chamberlain was stunned when Hitler made new demands.Not happy with the Anglo-French solution, Hitler demanded that German troops be permitted to occupy the entirety of the Sudetenland, that non-Germans be expelled, and that Poland and Hungary be given territorial concessions. After stating that such demands were unacceptable, Chamberlain was told that the terms were to be met or military action would result.Having risked his career and British prestige on the deal, Chamberlain was crushed as he returned home. In response to the German ultimatum, both Britain and France began mobilizing their forces.Though Hitler was willing to risk war, he soon found that the German people were not. As a result, he stepped back from the brink and sent Chamberlain a letter guaranteeing the safety of Czechoslovakia if the Sudetenland were ceded to Germany. Eager to prevent war, Chamberlain replied that he was willing to continue talks and asked Italian leader Benito Mussolini to aid in persuading Hitler. In response, Mussolini proposed a four-power summit between Germany, Britain, France, and Italy to discuss the situation. The Czechoslovakians were not invited to take part.Gathering in Munich on September 29, Chamberlain, Hitler, and Mussolini were joined by French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier. Talks progressed through the day and into the night, with a Czechoslovakian delegation forced to wait outside. In the negotiations, Mussolini presented a plan which called for the Sudetenland to be ceded to Germany in exchange for guarantees that it would mark the end of German territorial expansion. Though presented by the Italian leader, the plan had been produced by the German government and its terms were similar to Hitler's latest ultimatum.Desiring to avoid war, Chamberlain and Daladier were willing to agree to this "Italian plan." As a result, the Munich Agreement was signed shortly after 1:00 a.m. on September 30.This called for German troops to enter the Sudetenland on October 1 with the movement to be completed by the 10th. Around 1:30 a.m., the Czechoslovak delegation was informed of the terms by Chamberlain and Daladier. Though initially unwilling to agree, the Czechoslovakians were forced to submit when informed that should a war occur they would be held responsible.As a result of the agreement, German forces crossed the border on October 1 and were warmly received by the Sudeten Germans while many Czechoslovakians fled the region. Returning to London, Chamberlain proclaimed that he had secured "peace for our time." While many in the British government were pleased with the result, others were not. Commenting on the meeting, Winston Churchill proclaimed the Munich Agreement "a total, unmitigated defeat." Having believed that he would have to fight to claim the Sudetenland, Hitler was surprised that Czechoslovakia's erstwhile allies readily abandoned the country in order to appease him.Quickly coming to contempt Britain and France's fear of war, Hitler encouraged Poland and Hungary to take parts of Czechoslovakia. Unconcerned about retaliation from the western nations, Hitler moved to take the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. This was met with no significant response from either Britain or France. Concerned that Poland would be Germany's next target for expansion, both nations pledged their support in guaranteeing Polish independence. Going further, Britain concluded an Anglo-Polish military alliance on August 25. This was quickly activated when Germany invaded Poland on September 1, starting World War II.
What’s this nonsense of trying to bridge muslim and Christian communities together? Don’t these people understand the more you try to bring people together the more they’ll realize that they are all better off living separately.
http://www.ebritic.com/?p=213256 This article is quite interesting. Bob Baer, a CIA agent, said he is sorry what the CIA did to Yugoslavia. He wrote a book about it. He says the CIA stirred up the ethnic conflicts to destroy Yugoslavia. It worked sadly.
Every muslim’s sacred.
Every muslim’s great.
If a muslim’s wasted,
UN gets quite irate.
h/t to Eric Idle and Monty Python
wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_Sperm_Is_Sacred
People can formulate their own conclusions on my first hand experience in Macedonia after the war. I have no political ax to grind nor conspiratorial view, all I can do is report. I am an American with roots and family in the ex-jugoslavia and was there many times visiting friends and family. A family member from Serbia in a very high military position left Serbia before the start of the war and took up residence in Skopje because he knew what was coming. He personally knew Milosovic and Mladic and said both were bought and paid men. More on that at the end. Here’s was I saw first hand. Sitting in a cafe in the center of Skpoje enjoying a nice pizza for lunch I was introduced to Radko Mladic…while he was one of the most wanted men in Europe. He was not hiding, was not alone, was not disguised and was sitting two tables away from a table of American embassy staff that included the US Ambassador to Macedonia, who I happen to have had the pleasure of meeting a few days before at an embassy event. I then met Mladic about 9 months after that in the entrance lobby of the apartment building that my ex-military Serbian relative lived in. It seems he also had an apartment in the same building. Again, no disguise, and most people in the building knew him. Over the week that I was in Skopje visiting I saw him several times having discussion on the balcony with a few guys in suits who did not look Balkan. Twice I noticed a black SUV parked near by that did not fit in with all the local cars that people drove. I learned a few months after that from my relative that Mladic freely moved about in Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia. When I asked how that was possible, how someone supposedly so wanted could be out in the open, my well informed and connected relative said that both Mladic and Milosvic were “company men”, which was the first time I had ever heard that expression, and that they would both be taken down after they no longer served their purpose.
The famous photo showing the “refugees” behind fences was a farce. Actually, it was the news media reporters and photographers that were behind fences.
This “farce” is in the same mold as the famous Saigon, Vietnam photo showing the South Vietnamese general “executing” the “poor VC”. Of course, the news media failed to mention that this VC was responsible for the murder of the general’s family…an inconvenient fact…
Never EVER trust the “mainstream media”…
Related to Srebenica, article on Bosnian Croat General Slobodan Praljak who just sacrificed his life, to show that the corrupt ‘war crimes’ trials in the Hague were a fraud to hide the crimes of Western governments … Hague ‘courts’ where no less than 15 defendants have wound up dead (!) during proceedings … A court where crimes by Nato and Muslim militias were overlooked, whilst Balkan Christian leaders were convicted for ‘conspiring’ & ‘allowing’ atrocities … So why aren’t many Western leaders in the dock on these grounds?
https://www.henrymakow.com/2017/12/War-Crimes-Tribunal.html
Praljak had already served most of his prison term and would have been released soon, underscoring the brave intentions of his dramatic public suicide, Praljak drinking a dram of poison on live video in the Hague ‘Yugoslavia war crimes’ courtroom … as it says in the photo caption, whatever his past crimes, General Praljak died a brave warrior, sacrificing his existence to try to let the world know there are other sides to this story
[…] revenge for earlier atrocities carried out by the the Bosnian Muslim commander Naser Oric in the area, those of other groups were often […]
ROFL: what IslamoFascist rock did you crawl from under ?
I guess you also deny the massacres, murders, kidnappings, persecutions of Christians by Ottoman Muslims ????
So who invaded whose lands? You tell us………..
Or maybe we can ask a Turk:
[Ahmet Davutoglu, who has become the first Turkish foreign minister ever to visit Uighur Autonomous Region in China, toured historical sites in Kashgar city. Davutoglu and an accompanying Turkish delegation arrived early Thursday in Kashgar in the extreme west of China and the extreme southwest of Uighur region. Davutoglu first visited the tomb of Mahmud Kashgari and then they toured the tomb of Yusuf Has Hajib as well the 500-year-old Id Khah Mosque, the largest mosque in China.
"We are visiting the land of our ancestors," Davutoglu said.] (October 2010)
Will you or Muslims pay for the mass murders, ethnic cleansing, massacres, forcible Islamizations, mass kidnappings of Christian children, mass kidnappings of Christian girls and young women, and genocides of Christians by Ottoman Muslims??????
We have several, several, several million!!!!!!!!!
Christianity is about 600 years older than Islam.
Asia Minor had no Muslims before Muslim Turks invaded and wiped out the indigenous Christian populations: Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontic Greeks.
The Balkans had no Muslims before Muslim Turks invaded and forcibly Islamized the local Christian populations.
Christian Armenians did not invade Arabia or Uyguristan.
Turkic tribes from Uyguristan invaded our lands.
Got that ?
Armenians had been living as Armenians on our own lands in Armenian Highlands for about 5,000 years (…as of most recent evidence: could be longer).
Armenians adopted Christianity centuries before the birth of Islam in Mecca.
Muslims invaded our lands.
Muslim Turks initiated the violence.
Got that ?
Middle East was almost entirely Christian: there were no Muslims.
Now it is almost entirely Muslim: hardly any Christians left.
How did that happen ?
Are Christians also responsible for Muslim ISIS cutting off the heads of other Muslims?
Christian Armenians are not responsible for the alleged “persecution” of Muslims by other Christians, any more than all Muslims are responsible for the massacres of Shia Muslims by Sunni Muslims, for example.
You have a specific issue with particular Christians, bring it up to them.
btw: putting in links from Wiki means that you have nothing.
Wiki is full of misinformation and disinformation.
Anybody can put in any “fact” they want.
[It's not good practice to write numerous, short comments. Instead, it's much preferable to combine them into one or two much longer and more substantive responses. Also, adopting the handle "Moderator" might tend to confuse or mislead other commenters.]
The ottomans were one people mixed with all cultures and religions one large family, ottomans embraced and included these sectors into the Ottoman family. it did not divide and exclude or oppress these areas you called taken, others were added into the administration of the Empires affairs and even married into the Ottoman family. This was revolt against unity as a one people..
a miss conception is that areas were taken over and that is wrong they were integrated into the Ottoman family by even Marriage and important this is how the ottoman Empire stood for over 600 years you do not do that by taking over people.
Will you or Christians pay for Persecution of Ottoman Muslims??? We have several million!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ottoman_Muslims
LOL what Zionist rock did you crawl out from?
I guess you also deny the Persecution of Ottoman Muslims??
so which is it Genocide or not Genocide? You tell us…..
Just like terrorism is only used as a exclusive Muslim labeled
This genocide and holocaust grave train is only applicable to Jews.
This is the hypocrisy of Zionism.
Israel is not a nation, it is a sophisticated Terrorist organization.
If the Middle Eastern was a democracy Israel would not exist.
Israel is a Autocracy.
[…] has let his anger at the misuse of the term genocide obliterate his mental faculties. He recently wrote that Lemkin coined the word genocide “in order to stress the difference between murdering Jews […]
One very simple question: how much turks paid you for this article ?
You wrote the following, not me:
{“ There is nothing “indispensable” for Russia in Dashnaks or some parts of foreign Armenian diaspora which are anything but friendly towards Russia.”}
Since Independence, RoA leadership, all 3 administrations, has been very close to Russia strategically, for obvious reasons.
ARF Dashnaks have never gained traction in Armenia: if you were born in Yerevan and spent early childhood there, like I was, instead of Baku, you’d know why.
ARF-RoA Dashnaks garner only about 5% in RoA Parliamentary elections. In every election.
ARF (Western) Armenian Diaspora Dashnaks have a different agenda and rarely see eye-to-eye with their RoA counterparts.
And what does foreign Armenian diaspora have to do with Republic of Armenia, in Caucasus, being indispensable for Russia ?
Where did I say Armenian Diaspora – whether in Russia, or in US, or in France, or in Syria,… – is indispensable for Russia ?
I specifically wrote: “Armenia is an indispensible ally and vice-versa”.
About your issue with “artzah” “brethren”: since you supposedly know so much more than I can possibly know, maybe you can explain to me about Russian troops supporting Azerbaijani OMON in the Operation “Koltso” (1991), when the local Armenian population of NK Shaumyan district was ethnically cleansed, with all the usual Turkic atrocities meted out to Armenians.
While Russian troops watched.
Yes, our Orthodox Christian Russian “brethren” assisting Muslim Turkic invaders in ethnically cleansing Russians’ Orthodox Christian Armenian “brethren” in that particular time period.
Explain that to me Христиан земляк.
And you can live in Baku amongst Armenians, have Armenian relatives, and still have no clue.
You too can try to blow rainbows out of someone else’s ass: {“ You never have been at operational orientations (nobody would allow you there),”}. Wow: that is some rainbow.
{“Probably you do not even understand that your reasoning is not acceptable to modern people, whether of the West or of the East.”}
Remember what Rhett Butler said ? “Frankly, my dear,….”
When it comes to the existential threat posed to my people by Turks and their collaborators, I don’t give a hoot what is or is not allegedly acceptable to modern people.
{“Some Armenians are too nationalist and chauvinist even for a Jew.”}
Coming from an Armenian Genocide denying Jew, I will take that as a complement.
Thank you, thank you very much.
Perhaps you should employ a translator who will explain that "marching behind" is the same as "one after another".
Total nonsense: Armenian and Azerbaijani soldiers did not march “together”.
The Armenian contingent was marching behind the Azerbaijani contingent.
{“The Armenians and the Azeri soldiers marched together, one after another, on the Red Square on May 9 this year, approving the Russian position of the mediator and protector in the area.”}
“…approving the Russian position…” ?
As I demonstrated with the example of photoshopped-out Armenian flag, your analysis of Armenia vis-a-vis Azerbaijan is based on nothing but your own biased conjecture.
I also specified exactly why contingents from Azerbaijan and Armenia were marching in that order, which had absolutely nothing to do with “…approving the Russian position of the mediator and protector in the area.”
Nothing.
That was just one concrete, verifiable example to demonstrate that your assertions about Armenia and Armenians have no basis in reality.
Perhaps you, Sir, need to stop spreading misinformation and disinformation about Armenia and Armenians, including the Armenian Genocide.
Okay. However, “Syon” also happens to be a fanatic racialist, endlessly denouncing the obvious inferiority of Hispanics, blacks, and (to some extent) all non-Anglo-Saxons, a perspective widely suggested as being due to mental illness…according to Wikipedia and (the very liberal) The New York Review of Books. Would KKK activists regularly cite SPLC reports as their top authority?
“Syon” has also said that he’s half-Jewish. He comes across as the kid in school desperately trying hard to fit in with the in crowd, the in crowd in this case being the more hardcore racialist commentors on this site.
If you thought that only Russians and Serbians are in the cross-hairs of the G-men, pursuing the Big-G perpetrators, it appears that Mr G (George Clooney) is pursuing all your private financial information just because you may have taken part in the Big-G: http://www.sovereignman.com/trends/meet-the-newest-enemy-of-your-financial-privacy-george-clooney-17274/
You did not really think that the G-men would stop at one misly UN G-resolution, did you now?
“As western governments have slid further into bankruptcy, they’ve made coordinated efforts to interdict privacy across the world through tax information exchange agreements, black lists, and turning bankers into unpaid spies. At first, their propaganda suggested that only people interested in financial privacy were guilty of tax evasion. Then organized crime. Then terrorist financing. Now it’s genocide.
Ominously, [Clooney's] THE SENTRY has been among the first that I’ve seen which specifically mentions gold as a means of illicit finance. And governments have already taken dramatic steps to criminalize the holding of physical cash. Apparently they want to ensure that your only financial option is to deposit your money with a shaky bank in a bankrupt country earning a rate of interest that fails to keep up with inflation.”
That statement clearly shows you have no clue about Republic of Armenia.
No clue who people of RoA have been electing Presidents, to the parliament,…
No clue what the role of the Armenian Diaspora is in support of RoA, or NKR.
No clue whatsoever friend.
1. I am not your friend.
2. I am from Baku and am pure bred Russian.
3. I also took part in evacuating Armenians from Azerbaijan. Across Caspian Sea. I know what Gara Janvar is, not from the books.
4. I have Armenian relatives in my family by marriage.
5. I have a very good clue, in fact, I know way more than you can possibly know. Why? It is a separate issue. You never have been at operational orientations (nobody would allow you there), I attended many between 1988 and 1990.
6. You can try blow rainbows out of someone else’s ass.
Among my naval academy’s class-mates and close friends still are a number of Armenians. Wonderful, exemplary people. I also know some Armenians from Syria. I will omit here the issue of Russian officers and their families being taken hostages by their christian “artzah” “brethren”–same POSs as were many from Azeri side too. The lowlifes like Kaputikyan or Balayan are altogether–beyond redemption.
As per geopolitical implications–I recognize a typical hot air balloon from any Caucasus Bazar (I visited many). No knowledge, no background–a lot of wishful thinking, though, and a lot of flare.
P.S. I was “born” (obviously I was born in maternity ward) in the Armenian yard (двор) in Baku and spent early childhood there–3 Russian families and other 15–Armenians. Yes, no clue.
Avery,
I wrote “marched together, one after another”
You replied
Total nonsense: Armenian and Azerbaijani soldiers did not march “together”.
The Armenian contingent was marching behind the Azerbaijani contingent.
Perhaps you should employ a translator who will explain that “marching behind” is the same as “one after another”.
Probably you do not even understand that your reasoning is not acceptable to modern people, whether of the West or of the East. Who cares whether ancestors of Turks moved to the area one thousand or one hundred years ago? My neighbour in Jerusalem is an Armenian, he moved there some fifty years ago. A house I stay in Moscow belongs to an Armenian, too. Neither Moscow, nor Jerusalem were Armenian. Does it mean that these people are “Invaders, foreigners, uninvited guests” in your words?
Some Armenians are too nationalist and chauvinist even for a Jew.
Syon,
after fifty years at peace.
Not quite accurate:
You write hundred words to two of mine. Let us stop the flood. I said “after fifty years at peace” – you denied that. I gave you exact dates. Now I wait for your apology or at least correction on this point, before you’ll continue to flood the site on all other topics.
About the plot to poison Germans – no, it was not “a few crazy people”. A president of Israel was involved, first-class scientists from Weizmann Institute, many journalists including Michael Elkins of the BBC. The plot got derailed, so apparently it had no great support – true.
[since the elimination and absorption of the Huron by the Iroquois appears to have done just that, there shouldn’t be any dispute that it constituted genocide]
The problem is, what is the maximum ratio of absorption to elimination for which one can still speak of genocide?
Maybe Mr. Ron Unz can invite Mr. Harout Sassounian (an Armenian-American community leader and an excellent scribe) to debunk the many Anti-Armenian false statements in Mr. Shamir’s article.
There is no other side to the Armenian Genocide.
You can put in a hundred links to denialist web sites or denialist books.
Makes no difference.
have seen the denialist song & dance.
Have seen it all and all its permutations.
Now then, the one and only side: the truth.
First, let’s hear it from the horse’s mouth:
[Ahmet Davutoglu, who has become the first Turkish foreign minister ever to visit Uighur Autonomous Region in China, toured historical sites in Kashgar city. Davutoglu and an accompanying Turkish delegation arrived early Thursday in Kashgar in the extreme west of China and the extreme southwest of Uighur region. Davutoglu first visited the tomb of Mahmud Kashgari and then they toured the tomb of Yusuf Has Hajib as well the 500-year-old Id Khah Mosque, the largest mosque in China.
"We are visiting the land of our ancestors," Davutoglu said.] (October 2010)
And here is the one and only side of the Armenian Genocide:
1. Armenians are indigenous to Armenian Highlands (and South Caucasus) for about 5,000 years or so.
2. People who inhabit Asia Minor now and who call themselves ‘Turks’ are descendants of Turkic tribes (e.g. Uygurs) from East and Central Asia.
3. Invaders, foreigners, uninvited guests.
4. Turks started invading Asia Minor around 1000AD.
5. They proceeded to massacre, forcibly Turkify and forcibly Islamize the indigenous Christian peoples – Armenians, Assyrians – and Pontic Greeks.
6. This went on for centuries.
7. Fast forward to 1895: Turks massacre up to 300,000 Armenians.
8. 1909: Turks massacre up to 30,000 Armenians.
9. Circa 1915: Ottoman Turkey is 25% Christian and 75% Muslim.
10. 1915: Genocide of Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontic Greeks is launched. First victims are Armenian intellectuals and civil leaders in occupied Constantinople (Istanbul). On April 24, 1915, around 250 Armenian community leaders are rounded up and murdered.
11. Then the murders expand to the rest of the population.
12. Today Turkey is 99.8% Muslim.
You denialists are losing.
We are adding more and more countries, states, municipalities,…who officially recognize the AG.
We will keep at it as long as we have to.
We’ll gradually tighten the noose around denialist, genocidal Turkey.
And when the time is right, there will be righteous retribution for the approx 2 million of our murdered defenseless civilians – women, children, babies : murdered by Turks (1894-1923).
Have no doubt.
You are overstating the case here somewhat. There is definitely a cultural and historic connection (plus massively influential Armenian lobby in Russia) between Russia and Armenia but Armenia's indispensability for Russia is a matter of debate. There is nothing "indispensable" for Russia in Dashnaks or some parts of foreign Armenian diaspora which are anything but friendly towards Russia.
Armenia is an indispensible ally
{“ but Armenia’s indispensability for Russia is a matter of debate.”}
You can debate it if you like.
But facts say otherwise.
By 1993, Artsakh/NKR military had rolled back the Azerbaijani invaders and were handing them defeat after defeat. (full war started in Fall of 1991)
Alarmed that their Turkic ally was about to fold, Turkey massed an invasion army at the border of RoA.
The idea was to cut through Southern RoA, race to Baku and possibly attack North into Artsakh.
CIS head Shaposhnikov famously warned Turkey’s PM Tancu Ciller that if Turks crossed he border of RoA, WW3 will start.
Turks beat a hasty retreat back to their barracks.
Armenians of Artsakh continued chasing and cutting up Azerbaijani military all the way to Arax River.
A ceasefire was signed in 1994.
In 1993 Russia was on her knees.
Moscow was in turmoil.
Yet Russia was willing to go to a nuclear war with NATO to prevent Armenia’s loss.
{“ There is nothing “indispensable” for Russia in Dashnaks or some parts of foreign Armenian diaspora which are anything but friendly towards Russia.”}
That statement clearly shows you have no clue about Republic of Armenia.
No clue who people of RoA have been electing Presidents, to the parliament,…
No clue what the role of the Armenian Diaspora is in support of RoA, or NKR.
No clue whatsoever friend.
Never trust a Serb. They’ve been causing problems from their mountains since roman times
“It is not true that to commit genocide one needs to wipe out every single member of a particular group. The UN definition of genocide clearly refers to “in whole or in part.” ”
I never argued that the whole group had to be wiped out to constitute genocide, but, since the elimination and absorption of the Huron by the Iroquois appears to have done just that, there shouldn’t be any dispute that it constituted genocide under the UN treaty, so I don’t know what you are complaining about.
“Also, the U.S. IS a signatory of the Genocide Convention.”
That’s true, but, as the author points out, the U.S.’s adoption of the treaty is hedged about with so many conditions, many nations argue that it is as if the U.S. did not adopt the treaty, although it is always ready to apply the treaty against other unfavored nations when it suits its purposes. Please pardon my loose use of language since my post was made in half jest.
It’s embarrassing to see the concerted campaign of a dozen or so Israeli/Jewish commentators, like the author of this article, against Armenia and Armenians. These “pundits” do so in the service of the corrupt and undemocratic Azerbaijan of Ilham Aliyev. Truth be damned as far as these commentators are concerned.
For years Israeli/Jewish commentators have condemned the West for “selling Jewish blood for Arab oil.” Now I see Armenian blood is being sold for Azeri oil.
Choose your own numbers. When facts are few, propaganda and conspiracy theory is a many.
A good example is provided by Greeks. They suffered probably more than Armenians during the WWI, but as nobody applied the term G to “their” atrocities, they are not obsessed with revenge and live rather peaceably with their Turkish neighbours.
Not sure if the Greeks suffered more*.To be sure, the Greeks did experience some hellish atrocities during the period**:
Rummel (civilian democide)
Greeks killed by Turks: 264,000
Turks killed by Greeks: 15,000Housepian, Marjorie, The Smyrna Affair (1966)
The 1922 Burning of Smyrna by the Turks: According to Adm. Bristol’s report, 2,000 Greeks killed by fire, execution, etc. According to George Horton, over 100,000 were killed. Housepian assesses Bristol’s number as “the historical verdict to date”, but says that Horton’s “makes more sense” in light of the 190,000 residents and refugees unaccounted for.AIHGS: 353,000 Pontian Greeks k. by Turks
Eckhardt: 20,000 civ. + 50,000 mil. = 70,000
http://necrometrics.com/20c300k.htm#GrTk
But the estimates that I have seen are typically lower than what I have seen for the Armenians.Most estimates these days for the Armenian Massacres run around 1- 1.5 million (An alleged Turkish report estimates 972,000 for 1915-16 alone).
As for why the Greeks are not “obsessed” with revenge, well, I might note the not altogether incidental fact that Greece was an independent state.Armenia was absorbed into the USSR for the bulk of the 20th century.Indeed, the ASALA assassinations that Shamir cites had a lot to do with Armenian nationalism.
*The extinction of Greek Anatolia was especially tragic.Greek communities in Asia Minor dated back to the Iron Age, yet they were swept clean from the land.
**There they are, Ron, the ultimate horror: quoted statistics
I convinced that the Hasbros have at least an alpha and delta team (not in the “game” sense, but the video game PvP sense). Alpha will say, for example, Jews invented the polio vaccine, Delta will counter with they own Hollywood, Gamma will add that Poroshenko is half-Jew, and so on, all on a thread about Syrian foreign relations. If you have a three-digit IQ, you need to see past this, or the internet will become as useless as the MSM. Up your skillz, my peeps.
It is not true that to commit genocide one needs to wipe out every single member of a particular group. The UN definition of genocide clearly refers to “in whole or in part.”
Also, the U.S. IS a signatory of the Genocide Convention.
[The Armenian lobby contends that these independent and highly esteemed historians are simply “Ottomanists” — a ridiculously arrogant dismissal.]
But, but, the Zionists have for many years been denouncing any scholar who disagrees with them as an “Arabist”, and that is considered an incredibly acute and cutting argument.
Armenia is an indispensible ally
You are overstating the case here somewhat. There is definitely a cultural and historic connection (plus massively influential Armenian lobby in Russia) between Russia and Armenia but Armenia’s indispensability for Russia is a matter of debate. There is nothing “indispensable” for Russia in Dashnaks or some parts of foreign Armenian diaspora which are anything but friendly towards Russia.
Complete bullsh*t. Since I’m a Croat & sometimes oppose anti-Semitic nonsense posted on Disqus, I may be accused of being partial. But, this stuff is a complete rubbish- when I saw Srđa Trifković’s name & AngloZionist paranoid tag, I knew it was worthless.
Virtually the only correct info is that Naser Orić is a war criminal (whatever the verdict of the Haguaroo tribunal) and that he is guilty of murder of a number of Serb civilians. The most realistic assessment is ~ 350 people. As for Srebrenica, the current number of victims will probably stay, and there are confirmed over 4000 killings.
This all is just sickening……
“Armenian story has another side
October 16, 2007|By Norman Stone, a historian and the author of “World War I: A Short History”
-n 1914, when World War I began in earnest, Armenians living in what is now Turkey attempted to set up a national state. Armenians revolted against the Ottoman government, began what we would now call “ethnic cleansing” of the local Turks. Their effort failed and caused the government to deport most Armenians from the area of the revolt for security reasons. Their sufferings en route are well-known.
First, allegedly critical evidence of the crime consists of forgeries. The British were in occupation of Istanbul for four years after the war and examined all of the files of the Ottoman government. They found nothing, and therefore could not try the 100-odd supposed Turkish war criminals that they were holding. Then, documents turned up, allegedly telegrams from the interior ministry to the effect that all Armenians should be wiped out. The signatures turned out to be wrong, there were no back-up copies in the archives and the dating system was misunderstood.
There are many other arguments against a supposed genocide of the Armenians. Their leader was offered a post in the Turkish Cabinet in 1914, and turned it down. When the deportations were under way, the populations of the big cities were exempted — Istanbul, Izmir, Aleppo, where there were huge concentrations of Armenians. There were indeed well-documented and horrible massacres of the deportee columns, and the Turks themselves tried more than 1,300 men for these crimes in 1916, convicted many and executed several. None of this squares with genocide, as we classically understand it. Finally, it is just not true that historians as a whole support the genocide thesis. The people who know the background and the language (Ottoman Turkish is terribly difficult) are divided, and those who do not accept the genocide thesis are weightier. The Armenian lobby contends that these independent and highly esteemed historians are simply “Ottomanists” — a ridiculously arrogant dismissal.
Unfortunately, the issue has never reached a properly constituted court. If the Armenians were convinced of their own case, they would have taken it to one. Instead, they lobby bewildered or bored parliamentary assemblies to “recognize the genocide.”
Let historians decide. The Turkish government has been saying this for years. It is the Armenians who refuse to take part in a joint historical review, even when organized by impeccably neutral academics. This review is the logical and most sensible path forward.
REPLY
"Unquestionable," Ron? Hardly.They do, however, offer information.Now, if you wish to argue against any of the figures/ info offered here, please do so.
“Syon,” for example, tends to spam threads with very long excerpts from Wikipedia or The New York Review of Books, which are apparently treated as absolutely unquestionable authorities.
Ron, does this mean that we're not friends?
Okay. However, “Syon” also happens to be a fanatic racialist,
More like letting the facts speak for themselves, Ron...
endlessly denouncing the obvious inferiority of Hispanics, blacks,
Hey, Ron, us Anglos have Shakespeare, Newton, and Darwin.
and (to some extent) all non-Anglo-Saxons,
Actually, Ron, arguing in favor of Hispanic Amerind/Mestizo superiority strikes me as being rather more indicative of mental illness....
a perspective widely suggested as being due to mental illness
I tend to try to stay clear of the "KKK," Ron.Low class of people.
…according to Wikipedia and (the very liberal) The New York Review of Books. Would KKK activists regularly cite SPLC reports as their top authority?
Do you have counter-estimates to offer, Ron?
I also noticed that when “Syon” quoted the varied estimates of supposed Afghan War deaths upthread
Not my median, Ron.As you've noted, Ron, the figures come from elsewhere.In this case, Matthew White's site:http://necrometrics.com/warstatx.htmIt's useful for getting quick access to a range of numbers for various atrocities, massacres, etc.
most of them came in at 1M or under, with only a single estimate being as high as 1.5M. Yet “Syon” quoted the “median” of all those numbers as being 1.5M. Although “Syon” claims to be a junior faculty member in English literature, either his critical reading skills, his definition of the term “median,” or his ability to do simple arithmetic is lacking.
Shall I define the utility of the quote, Ron? Why not.This way, people know that I am not just making stuff up.
Still, I’d hate to see “Syon” leave. If I ever start charging commenters by the quoted word, he’d singlehandedly make my webzine immensely profitable…
Ron, does this mean that we’re not friends?
An important general principle which gets less attention than it should: authorities which copy each other do not count as independent authorities.
What counts as copying? What if a consensus has been reached on certain numbers? Take, say, military deaths in The Great War.Approx 8,500,000 deaths is the “standard” figure. Few historians deviate from it.
On the other hand, some figures are more contentious.Take, say, deaths in the Thirty Years War (1618-48).For a very long time, 7-8 million dead was the standard figure.More recent demographic studies favor 3- 4 million dead*.If someone asked me to give an estimate, I would hedge my bets and say somewhere between a low of 3 million and a high of 8.
Then there’s German deaths resulting from “ethnic cleansing” in Eastern Europe during/immediately after WWII.Did approx 2 million plus Germans die? Or was the true figure more like 400,000-600,000**?
*http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#30YrW
**https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%9350)#Casualties
Now, let's use Shamir as a counter-example.He tosses out quite a few numbers, but provides no supporting evidence for them.Not even links:
Yes, I’d gathered that a critical attitude to sources wasn’t really your thing.
OK, Shamir says that "a million" died at Verdun.Now, since Ron has been complaining about me quoting stuff, I'll merely offer a link:
The best flower of Europe, a million of the youngest and brightest were killed at Verdun
The unfair way to take this would be to assume that Shamir literally means that millions died during the bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, and Hiroshima.That's obviously untrue:
– sad, but that’s not G. Young and old, women and men were incinerated in millions in the fiery furnaces of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima
http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Blame
Bombing of Germany:
1945 US Strategic Bombing Survey: >305,000
Hammond: 400,000
Rummel: 410,000, 100%
Clodfelter: 499,750
Keegan: 593,000
Grenville: 593,000 (citing "official Germany")
P. Johnson: 600,000
http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Blame
1945 US Strategic Bombing Survey: 330,000
Keegan: 363,000, not including post-war radiation sickness
Rummel: 374,000
P. Johnson: 435,000
Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 500,000
Large, Showa Japan: [393,637]
Siege of Leningrad, brutal bit of business, that.But what are the figures?Well, the "official" civilian death-toll is 632,000 (Atrocities, 405), but estimates run as high as one million (405). But that's not "millions."Even if we add in military deaths, we still only get around 1.5 million deaths, which is only half-way to two million and that elusive plural.
sorry, old chum, that’s not G. Millions starved to death in the brutal siege of Leningrad
Interestingly, Snyder, in Bloodlands, does count the siege of Leningrad as one component in Hitler's plans for the East (cf The Hunger Plan and Generalplan Ost), which were quite genocidal in character.
– well, you understand by now, that’s not G.
I'm guessing that Shamir is saying that the Americans killed 5 million Vietnamese during the course of the war.Well, the official Vietnamese figures are: 1.1 Viet Cong and NVA soldiers plus 2 million Vietnamese civilians* (Atrocities, 473). That gives us 3.1 million deaths, not 5 million.
It goes without saying that killing of five million Vietnamese
It would be really useful if he told us what he was counting here.Is he bundling together Gulf War I, Sanctions (1990-2003), Gulf War II, and the occupation? Here are some figures (I would quote them, but that really seems to bother Ron):
or a million Iraqis were just “war is hell” business as usual.
An important general principle which gets less attention than it should: authorities which copy each other do not count as independent authorities.
What counts as copying? What if a consensus has been reached on certain numbers? Take, say, military deaths in The Great War.Approx 8,500,000 deaths is the "standard" figure. Few historians deviate from it.
An important general principle which gets less attention than it should: authorities which copy each other do not count as independent authorities.
[…] published in The Unz Review | Traduction : Maria Poumier […]
Dear Bill,
Having spent much time with the British, I have concluded that there is no nation of individuals of better character and of worse tribal behavior. Similar for the Jews. I always cringe whenever I make generalizations, but it is impossible to express yourself without putting (generalization) labels on things.
@The passing of the mantle from decaying power to rising one was pretty obvious in historical terms, so why not the spiritual focus?
Absolutely correct. But the fact that the Russian Church might ask to have a voice commensurate to her real size and importance in the chorus of Orthodox Churches is not reducible to the dreams of the “Third Rome” which haunted for a very short while the overheated apocalyptic minds of the Old Believers three centuries ago. It is more of what you say, “(the) view of many of those Orthodox brethren in Eastern Europe, some of their clergy in the Patriarchate system and of Russians I have met”, but not of all. Yes, many Orthodox brethren that I met in Romania explained to me that Russians are not really Orthodox, but “pravoslavnici” (they were, I assure you, educated people). And they would assert with the greatest conviction that the Russian Church is just the propaganda arm of “the Kremlin” which sugar coat in Orthodox verbiage the malignant aims of her neo-Stalin master, the remaking of the Soviet Union, when the Russian boots would trample again our soil, demanding, like in 1944, our watches. But there are also many people who see clearly through that smoke screen.
As an Englishman, I have to agree about your views of the British.
Mr. SHAMIR:
Your article contains many unsubstantiated assertions and patently false statements.
In general.
However, I will point out some of the errors in regards to Armenia and Armenian history, of which I know a little more than others.
1. {“ The Armenians and the Azeri soldiers marched together, one after another, on the Red Square on May 9 this year, approving the Russian position of the mediator and protector in the area.”}
Total nonsense: Armenian and Azerbaijani soldiers did not march “together”.
The Armenian contingent was marching behind the Azerbaijani contingent.
Guess why: the honor guards from different countries marched in alphabetical order of the Russian/Cyrillic alphabet.
Азербайджан. (Azerbaijan)
Армения. (Armenia)
“з” comes before “р”.
Constituent republics of former USSR were marching in honor of USSR’s victory against Nazi Germany. Nothing more significant than that.
You read too much into it, because you are only superficially familiar with Armenia and our history.
btw: hateful Azerbaijanis, who supposedly were marching “together” with Armenians photoshopped Armenia’s flag from their own publications:
[Azerbaijan Photoshops Armenia Out Of Victory Day]
http://www.eurasianet.org/node/73386
so much for marching “together”.
2. { A good example is provided by Greeks. They suffered probably more than Armenians during the WWI, but as nobody applied the term G to “their” atrocities, they are not obsessed with revenge and live rather peaceably with their Turkish neighbours.”}
Hard to tell who suffered more from the genocidal Turks: Armenians, Pontic Greeks, or Assyrians.
I am biased, so I will say Armenians.
Armenians lost about 70%-80% of our population in Western Armenia.
Western Armenia was completely emptied of indigenous Armenians.
Eastern Armenia barely escaped wipeout: Armenians defeated the invading Turks at the famous battle of Sardarabad, and managed to save that part which eventually became today’s Armenia.
And in 1920 Bolsheviks showed up in Caucasus, and the rest is history, as they say.
Pontic Greeks were also subjected to genocide.
But not mother Greece.
And RoA has officially recognized both Pontic Greek and Assyrian genocides.
And Greeks do not live peaceably with Turks: I guess you have not heard of the invasion of Cyprus by Turks ?
3. {“ Visit to Armenia jeopardised this achievement”}
Putin jeopardized nothing.
Turkey is a dispensable trading partner for Russia.
Armenia is an indispensible ally and vice-versa.
To know why that is so, study the 200 year history of the Orthodox Christian Russian Empire vs the Islamic Ottoman Empire and their mortal rivalry, particularly in the Caucasus.
When Turks loudly complained about Pres Putin’s Armenian Genocide speech in Yerevan on April 24, 2015, PM Medvedev published the same speech containing the “dreaded” word Genocide on his official web page on April 28, 2015: just to let Turks know not to mess with Russia.
4. {“ A new generation of Armenians was poisoned by victimhood and revenge feelings, thanks to Lemkin and his followers.”}
Armenians did not and do not need Dr Lemkin’s coining the word Genocide to know who and what Turks are.
Long before 1915, invading Turks were massacring the indigenous peoples of Asia Minor, including Armenians.
1894-1896: Hamidian massacres of Armenians: up to 300,000 murdered.
1909: Adana Massacre of Armenians: up to 30,000 murdered.
1918: Mustafa Kemal Attaturk orders General Karabekir to invade newly independent Armenia and “physically and politically destroy her”. The attempt to completely wipe out Armenians from the face of the Earth fails, because Armenians, outnumbered 2-to-1 defeat the professional Turk army a The Battle of Sardarabad and set them running.
More later maybe….
You are overstating the case here somewhat. There is definitely a cultural and historic connection (plus massively influential Armenian lobby in Russia) between Russia and Armenia but Armenia's indispensability for Russia is a matter of debate. There is nothing "indispensable" for Russia in Dashnaks or some parts of foreign Armenian diaspora which are anything but friendly towards Russia.
Armenia is an indispensible ally
Perhaps you should employ a translator who will explain that "marching behind" is the same as "one after another".
Total nonsense: Armenian and Azerbaijani soldiers did not march “together”.
The Armenian contingent was marching behind the Azerbaijani contingent.
“It was the center of the Eastern Roman Empire until 1453…but had long since ceased to be the center of anything significant by the time it fell.”
You could probably more accurately date the demise of Byzantium to 1204, the date of the Fourth Crusade, when the Christians of the West, led by the Venetians, took a wrong turn and sacked Byzantium instead of going to the Holy Land, vastly enriching Venice in the process (where do you think those marvelous horses which guard St. Marks came from?) and placing a Roman Catholic at the head of Byzantium for the next 60 years. After 1204, emigrants from Byzantium vastly enriched the culture of the West and planted the seeds of the Renaissance. By weakening Byzantium, the West destroyed the main bulwark against the Ottoman Turks and opened up Europe to the incursions of the Ottoman Turks. Vienna repelled the last Ottoman invasion as late as 1683. The famous Aghia Sophia in Byzantium, a marvel of architecture, remained the largest building in the world for almost a thousand years.
I am not sure I get your point.
I did not say that all crusades were rape, murder, destruction and pillaging of Eastern Christians. Is your issue about the frequency?
Is it not an extreme level of betrayal if your Western Christian co-believers ostensibly come to help you against some Muslim conqueror but instead end up doing what the Muslim conqueror did not do? One such occurrence is too many.
Besides, you got caught up by my single sentence about distant history, a side issue.
As Israel and Biff point out:
“A Genocide is not about past. It is about future. That’s all you need to know.”
Just recall that the British diplomats claimed that their G-resolution was to make peace in the present and the future, completely opposite to the real intention. This is why I wrote: “The same old British.”
The critical date is 1204 when it was captured by Western European and Venetian Crusaders, during the Fourth Crusade:
… the weakened Byzantine state would never manage to restore its former territories, wealth, or imperial status. For this reason, the events of 1204 are sometimes considered to herald the irreversible decline of the Byzantine Empire, ultimately leading to its final demise in the Ottoman siege of 1453 and the arrival of a new Islamic empire on European soil.
So let’s revise it to 330 – 1204.
“There’s no instance recorded in history when anyone actually committed the crime of genocide as thus described. ”
I believe I remember reading that the Iroquois (the “Five Nations” according to the Brits) waged war against the Huron and other tribes, defeated them and absorbed them into their tribe. I hope this PC-incorrect statement does not bring down the wrath of Google on my head. I would argue that Iroquois qualify, as native Americans, to the U.S.’s exemption from the genocide treaty, despite the fact that the U.S. is not a signatory to that treaty. In the same way, Israel attempts to enforce the NPT against Iran despite the fact that it is not a signatory to the NPT and possesses in excess of 200 nuclear warheads.
Not quite accurate:
As the idea of G took its place in the law of the nations, the Armenian fighters began to seek and extract revenge from Turks – after fifty years at peace.
Operation Nemesis (Armenian: "Նեմեսիս" գործողութիւն Nemesis gortsoghut'iun) was a covert operation by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) carried out from 1920 to 1922, during which a number of former Ottoman and Azerbaijani political and military figures were assassinated respectively for their roles in the Armenian Genocide killings and the 1918 massacre of Baku Armenians. Shahan Natalie and Armen Garo are considered its masterminds.[4] It was named after the Greek goddess of divine retribution, Nemesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nemesis
Soghomon Tehlirian (classical Armenian: Սողոմոն Թեհլիրեան; April 2, 1896–May 23, 1960) was an Ottoman Armenian who assassinated the former Ottoman Grand Vizier Talât Pasha in the presence of many witnesses on March 15, 1921 in Berlin as revenge for his role in orchestrating the Armenian Genocide during World War I. It was a part of Operation Nemesis planned by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. Talaat Pasha had been convicted and sentenced to death in absentia in the Turkish Courts-Martial of 1919–1920 and was viewed as the main individual responsible for orchestrating the Armenian Genocide. After a two-day trial Tehlirian was found not guilty by the German court and freed. Tehlirian is considered a national hero by Armenians.
Tehlirian's main target was Talât Pasha, who was a member of the military triumvirate known as the "Three Pashas" who controlled the Ottoman Empire. He was the former Minister of the Interior and Grand Vizier (an office equivalent to that of a prime minister), and was noted for his prominent role in the Armenian Genocide. As soon as he found Talât Pasha's address on 4 Hardenbergstraße, in the Charlottenburg district of Berlin, Tehlirian rented an apartment near his house so that he could study his everyday routine.[3][9]
Tehlirian shadowed Talât as he left his house on Hardenbergstraße on the morning of March 15, 1921. He crossed the street to view him from the opposite sidewalk, then crossed it once more to walk past him to confirm his identity. He then turned around and pointed his gun to shoot him in the nape of the neck.[10][11] Talât was felled with a single 9mm parabellum round from a Luger P08 pistol.[12] The assassination took place in broad daylight and led to Tehlirian's immediate arrest by German police, who in any case had been told by his handlers, Armen Garo and Shahan Natalie, not to run from the crime scene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soghomon_Tehlirian
Tehlirian was tried for murder, but was eventually acquitted by the twelve-man jury. His trial was a rather sensationalized event at the time, taking place shortly after the establishment of the Weimar Republic, with Tehlirian being represented by three German defense attorneys, including Dr. Theodor Niemeyer, professor of law at Kiel University. Priest and Armenian Genocide survivor Grigoris Balakian, German activist Johannes Lepsius, and German commander of the Ottoman armed forces during the war General Liman von Sanders were among several of the prominent individuals called as witnesses to the trial.
The trial examined not only Tehlirian’s actions but also Tehlirian's conviction that Talât was the main author of the Armenian deportation and mass killings. The defense attorneys made no attempt to deny the fact that Tehlirian had killed a man, and instead focused on the influence of the Armenian Genocide on Tehlirian's mental state. Tehlirian claimed during the trial that he had been present in Erzincan in 1915 and had been deported along with his family and personally witnessed their murder. When asked by the judge if he felt any sort of guilt, Tehlirian remarked, "I do not consider myself guilty because my conscience is clear…I have killed a man. But I am not a murderer."[1][....]
It took the jury slightly over an hour to render a verdict of "not guilty."
Armenians did not massacre thousands of Azeris, it is quite the opposite. Armenians were massacred on the streets of Baku while the world yawned.
The author is wrong, we Armenians do call the massacre of Greeks in Asia Minor as Genocide. Also the massacre of the Assyrians.
I can count These Nemesis killings took place in early twenties, and the next batch (assassination of diplomats) occurred in mid-seventies.
Just pointing out that the Armenians didn’t meekly turn the other cheek in the 1920s….
and the next batch (assassination of diplomats) occurred in mid-seventies. Fifty year lull. This was not revenge, this was a result of G-propaganda.
Not to mention a little dash of nationalism…..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Secret_Army_for_the_Liberation_of_Armenia
Interesting to note how the ASALA trained at PLO camps….