Hallo an alle Armenier aus einer Franzosen, die ein bisschen Geschichte kennt. Ich habe kürzlich das Buch gelesen "Geschichte der Türken" (1985) vom französischen Historiker "Jean-Paul Roux" Das ist spezialisiert auf die türkische Geschichte. Als ich am Ende des Buches ankomme, erwartete ich, Fakten und Details über den Völkermord zu lesen. Es stellte sich heraus, dass der Autor die Armenier für das, was ihnen passiert ist, verantwortlich gemacht hat, was heutzutage genau wie die türkische Propaganda klingt. Es überrascht mich, dass ein Mann, der so viele Jahre damit verbracht hat, Geschichte zu studieren, sich so blenden würde. Vielleicht konnte er nicht mit der Tatsache umgehen, dass sein geliebtes Studienfach eine so dunkle Seite hatte.
Hier ist die Übersetzung des Textes:
"Truthahn? War es existiert, da es in Anatolien selbst von einem griechischen Königreich, einem armenischen Reich, einem kurdischen Königreich, die Rede gab? Das Osmanische Reich? Nationen waren daraus entstanden. In dreihundert, vierhundert, fünfhundert Jahren, in einem halben Jahrtausend, hatte es weder islamisiert noch türkifiziert. Mehr oder weniger tauchte die Welt wieder auf, wie es vor ihrer Gründung war. Der Shiismus, der im Islam sein Feind gewesen war, hatte überlebt. Das Christentum war intakt. Die Fremdsprachen und Kulturen waren so gut bewahrt worden, dass ein Ungarn, ein Griechenland, eine Bulgarien, ein Rumänien, ein Jugoslawien, arabische Staaten mit all ihrer Individualität hätte gebildet werden können, und ein Kurdistan hätte sich gebildet haben können. Nur die Armenier waren enttäuscht. Sie verschwanden nicht, da eine sowjetische Armenien geboren wurde und auf der ganzen Welt eine riesige, aktive, begabte und virulente Diaspora gebildet wurde. Aber die Mehrheit ihres alten Landes, in dem sie so großes Genie gezeigt hatten, wurde von ihnen nicht mehr besiedelt. Wir verstehen, dass ihre Bitterkeit die einzigen war, die nicht von einer so großen Katastrophe profitieren konnten. Wir würden vielleicht über ihre utopischen Träume lächeln, wenn sie nicht so traurig und blutig wären; Und es muss zugegeben werden, wenn sie den Scheiterhaufen nicht aufgebracht hätten, auf dem sie brannten, insbesondere indem sie mit all ihrer Macht und ohne Mitleid geholfen haben, die Russen im Krieg gegen die Türken, mit denen sie jahrhundertelang in Harmonie gelebt hatten, ohne immense Gewinne davon zu erzielen."
https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1kfi78m
Von Weak_Repeat_8067
14 Kommentare
>It surprises me that a man who spent so many years studying history would blind himself like this.
Well, maybe he opened his eyes to the facts after spending so many years on the topic.
Historians are human. Some are bribed, others are ignorant. But the problem underneath them is idolization. Generally speaking people go into Turkish studies because they like Turkish culture or in the case of this guy, Islamic culture. And then when they are faced with atrocities that mar the beautiful image of their beloved Osmanlı empire, some double down as a form of denialism, lest their beautiful idol be shamed and ruined.
„We would perhaps smile at their utopian dreams if they were not so sad and so bloody; and, it must be admitted, if they had not raised the pyre on which they burned, notably by helping, with all their might and without pity, the Russians in the war against the Turks, with whom they had lived in harmony for centuries, not without deriving immense profits from it.“
We would perhaps smile? This historian sounds like a bloody psychopath who takes pleasure at Armenians wanting to return to a state (Tanzimat) where they had legal rights and weren’t at the mercy of state appointed brigands and butchers.
And he conveniently ignores the fact that more Ottoman Armenians served in the Ottoman military than who volunteered with and joined up with the Russian forces, and ignores the fact that almost all Armenian villagers were just farmers who were minding their own business, most of whom had no martial capacity or interest.
Like it never ceases to amaze me that such morons genuinely believe think every single Armenian in the empire woke up one morning, taught themselves how to fight and armed themselves out of thin air, and simultaneously rebelled as if they were some hivemind borg.
‚There are a couple thousand freedom fighters or irregulars in the eastern vilayets. Guess the whole race of 1+ million people deserves die now.‘ – that’s literally how these dips#its think.
They say they’ll give a phd to anyone nowadays but it was true back then too.
Hellonfrom France and descendants from Armenian of the diaspora.
I agree with you that the point of view is really turkish propaganda like.
I guess that, of course, elite from armenia were able to have some kind advantage in the otoman empire, as Greek, Bulgarian, and other.
But those were slaughter in the genocide as well as peasants and all armenian.
What makes me sad is that according to that author, the armenian could have something, but they were bad, and so they were slaughter for their own mistakes, but neither the Greek, nor the Kurdes were…
I’m pretty sure we can make something about this false history interpretation.
>the Turks, with whom they had lived in harmony for centuries
This is a classic trope by Turk-loving „scholars“. They will say- with a straight face- the exact same crap also for Greeks „living in harmony and peace under Ottoman rule“ when in reality it was the exact opposite. There is a reason the name Turk is synonymous with blood-thirsty barbarians. The specific „scholar“ was a clown and known Turk-lover. Don’t waste your time
> specialized on turkish history
You can’t trust a turkophile
One Frenchman being a sellout Turkophile isn’t so bad, considering how much the French nation and her people have done for us – something we’ll always be grateful for.
Money, it’ll make people do anything
Did he not study Literature , Art and Language? I am not sure if he studied History though he wrote about it.
He was a deep advocate and lover of Islamic and Turkish culture, mythology and art. He popularised this to the French public. A lot of his books have been translated to Turkish as well.
It’s a bit weird to gloss over the genocides and massacres, if the book is to be a broad history of Turks. Even the position, as repugnant as it is, seems awfully shallow, and with weasel phrases („no longer populated by them“ in instead of killed or sent on death marches as though even mentioning death let alone genocide is taboo to his worldview)
The Genocides and massacres were neither his area of study or interest, and were at ends with his actual interests and advocacy.
Elsewhere he describes himself as biased on this topic, but justified that as the enemies of Turkey are also biased.
>had such a dark side.
Probably not. He likely saw the Armenians from the Turkish perspective, which was “Armenians were terrorists supported by Russia”. Which therefore justifies the genocide.
This is quite common in genocide denial tactics. He simply has a skewed perspective, as say Americanophiles have on say the Iraq war. “Yh it was bad, but we had to do it”.
This is the common perspective that people don’t realize. Armenians were considered Terrorists in the eyes of the Ottoman Empire.
Terrorism itself is a contentious word already.. and depending on which side of the political spectrum you fall under it can change the meaning.
Siding with Russians is a silly excuse for the genocide but Russia’s role in it should be studied and it has never been, is not mainstream at least. They did the same shit those days as what they did in Karabakh.
I think we got fooled and played. By Russians and by Turks. They all benefitted from it.
It’s fine, perhaps even laudatory, until the very end, where he not only slanders the Armenian people, but performs badly as an historian. Has he not heard of Sarikamish? If the Tsar’s Armenian subjects fought against the Turks, what of it? He fails to grasp the distinction of citizensip, and it may have been his intention, given his need for access to research material in his chosen specialty.
Being French doesn’t mean being objective. There are French antisemites and there are French armenophobes. Please don’t make a mistake: armenophobia comes along with antisemitism, it is just not so widely talked about (most likely due to our silence). Well, one French idiot said something pleasant to turkish ears, so what? We shouldn’t really focus on those! We should propagate with the full force our truth!
[deleted]
Today in the world basically the only nation speaking up for us is France! Our last king is buried in France. Up to a million Armenians are proud French Citizens and we love you! Don’t worry about this Jean-Paul Roux who is a known genocide denier, that’s all he will ever be.