I only ask because the vast majority of Turkey speaks an Altaic language, but they look completely different from Turkic-language speakers in Central Asia, i.e. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Altai Republic, Tuva, etc.
It has been said that the marauding Turkish invaders were few in numbers, so it is suspected that they could have looked like the Central Asians of today, but were too few to make any genetic impact, although powerful enough to replace the local language and religion.
First of all, the name of the Muslim-Turkish state that defeated Byzantine army in the 11th century at Manzikert was Great Seljuk Empire. As its name mentioned, though a relatively short lived one, it was indeed a great empire that extends from Central Asia to Egypt. Their Sultans, most governors and a significant part of their population were Oghuz Turks, also called as Turkmens-same people who founded Ottoman Empire.
Secondly, The Empire represented an advanced civilization of its time and its army was not a mere raiding force that only seeks plunder. They were trying to find a new land to settle, and to serve Islam while doing so. For these reasons they wisely chose Anatolia and achieved their goal by implementing a sound grand strategy after years of struggle. That's the main reason behind migration of many tribes of Oghuz Turks, which were not too few in numbers, to Anatolia. As experienced by all other empires, Seljuks eventually had been mixed up with many other people they conquered, though generally in small numbers, including other Turkic people, Arabs, Byzantines, Kurds… and especially Persians. This might had been caused a shift in internal power balance as we know that in their last years the langauge that was spoken among the elite was Persian. Returning to the point, most of them were still considering themselves as Oghuz Turks and were slightly slanted eyed like Asian people. Also there was a population boom in Anatolia following the Mongol invasion of 13th century, bringing many (millions?) people to Anatolia and many of them were Oghuz Turks. There were also other Turkish and smaller number of non Turkish tribes and eventually they were all merged together in one pot.
About genetics, I am not an expert but as far as I know, some genes that cause someone having Asian appearance are not of dominant type. Additionally, environmental factors have some effects over genes (depression for example) to some extent, but I cannot prove whether these factors played a major role on the issue we are discussing or not. Also, until today (especially in Ottoman era) there have been many more mixings with other nations' gene pools including European ones. As a last note, no single race has just one fenotype-it is true both for today and for the past. Even in small portions, there are people in a race that express a different fenotype than remaining majority. This internal differences might also have contributed in appearance of the today's Turks. So, there is little wonder about the appearance of modern day Turkish people.
Genetic studies tell us that the Anatolian Turks (those Turks who live in the Republic of Turkey) are a mix of West Asian, Central Asian, and Northeast Asian ancestral elements, but primarily West Asian. This means most Turks have deep roots in Turkey and are descended from peoples like the Armenians and the Hittites who once lived in large numbers in that land. Some "Turks" in Turkey also have recent ancestry from the Balkans (e.g., Albanians, Bosnians) and Caucasus (e.g., Circassians) but have fully assimilated into Turkish culture. Some "Turks" have some recent Jewish (Israelite) ancestors.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (1881-1938), the founder of the modern nation of Turkey, emphasized a unified "Turkish" identity. The modern Turkish language was purged of many Arabic and Persian words that had existed in the Ottoman Turkish language. The remaining elements of Turkish are largely related to other Turkic languages like Azeri and Turkmen.
The Seljuk Turks had begun to invade eastern, and then central, Anatolia in the second half of the 11th century, and by the 12th century Anatolia was called "Turchia" in some chronicles.
Combined results from multiple studies show the following Y-DNA haplogroup distributions among Anatolian Turks:
E1b1b = 11%
G = 11%
I1 = 1%
I2* + I2a = 4%
I2b = 0.5%
J2 = 24%
J* + J1 = 9%
N = 4%
Q = 2%
R1a = 7.5%
R1b = 16%
T = 2.5%
Family Tree DNA's MyOrigins 1.0's "Asia Minor" category was drawn entirely from Armenian samples, and some "Turks" from northeastern Turkey scored 100 percent in that category, indicating no Turkic admixture for them.
The Turk Burak Danişmend wrote to GEDmatch's forum the claim that he has seen evidence that the Caucasoid elements in Anatolian Turks are genetically closer to Anatolian Greeks than to Armenians. I hope to come across confirmations of this, because it's possible.
The Epic Story of How the Turks Migrated From Central Asia to Turkey
How did modern Anatolia come to be occupied by the Turks? The historical story may surprise you.
Lovers of antiquity and the classical world know very well that Asia Minor–modern Turkey–was formerly inhabited by a variety of non-Turkic peoples. Most of these people spoke Indo-European languages and included the Hittites, Phrygians, and Luwians (Troy was probably a Luwian city). After the conquests of Alexander the Great, Asia Minor was mostly Hellenized and remained solidly Greek until the 11th century, with Armenians forming the majority in the eastern parts of the region, as they had since antiquity.
In the second half of the first millennium CE, Turkic peoples were gradually streaming into most of Central Asia from their original homeland in the Altai mountains of western Mongolia. They gradually displaced or assimilated both the settled and nomadic Iranian-speaking people. But how did they get all the way to Turkey, which has the largest concentration of Turkic peoples today?
In the 11th century, Turks began appearing at the edges of Asia Minor (Anatolia), which was then controlled by the Greeks. Many of the Turks were mercenaries in the employ of local Arab and Persian rulers to the east of the Byzantine Empire and Armenia, the dominant states in Asia Minor. In 1037, the Seljuk Empire, a Turkic state, was founded northeast of Iran in Central Asia and quickly overran much of Persia, Iraq, and the Levant. By the 1060s, the Seljuk Empire bordered Byzantine Asia Minor. It should be noted that the Turks were a minority, ruling a Persian, Arab, and Kurdish majority.
The main strategic threat to the Turks was the Fatimid Caliphate based in Egypt. The Fatimids were Ismaili Shia and ruled over Jerusalem and Mecca at that time while the Turks upheld Sunni Islam. The Sunni Caliph in Baghdad was their puppet. By this time, the Caliph had ceased to exercise any political role while the Seljuk sultans held the reigns of power. As was the case of many empires, many problems arose due to the conflicts between nomadic rulers and a sedentary population. Thus, many of the Turkic tribes under Seljuk rule actually posed a problem for the Seljuks since they were restless and sometimes raided settled populations ruled by the Seljuks. As a result, many of the Turkic tribes and families were placed on the frontiers of the Seljuk Empire, including on the frontier of the Byzantine Empire. Turkish raids into Asia Minor commenced, greatly annoying the Byzantines.
In 1045, the Byzantines conquered Armenia. Their frontier with the Seljuks was not particularly strong or pacified as a result of the intermittent warfare there. Additionally, many Armenians did not like the Byzantines and did not help them resist the Turkish raids. Eventually, by 1071, the Byzantines, exasperated at constant Turkish raiding, decided to move a large army to their borders to eliminate the Turkish threat once and for all. Unfortunately, this was not a particularly good idea, because their strength lay in manning border forts against lightly armed tribal warriors. By attempting to fight a pitched battle, they also risked total defeat.
Furthermore, the Seljuk Turks did not want to antagonize the Byzantines. Their state apparatus was directed against Egypt it was only tribes that were barely under central Seljuk control that were raiding the Byzantines. Romanus IV Diogenes, the Byzantine Emperor, created a previously non-existent threat for the Seljuks by moving some 40,000 troops to his eastern border, thus alerting the Seljuk Sultan Alp Arslan to the threat from Asia Minor. Thus, the Byzantines, by diverting the Turks’ attention from Egypt, brought a Turkic army to Asia Minor from Persia and Central Asia.
The Seljuk and Byzantine armies met at Manzikert in eastern Turkey, where the Byzantines were crushed. This is arguably one of the most decisive battles in history, as it resulted in the eventual establishment of Turkish power in Asia Minor. It was likely that the battle was lost by the Byzantines due to treachery, because units commanded by generals belonging to alternative court factions in Constantinople simply never showed up for the battle, despite being in the vicinity, and returned home afterwards.
Get briefed on the story of the week, and developing stories to watch across the Asia-Pacific.
Sultan Alp Arslan captured Emperor Diogenes and and offered him generous terms before sending him home. However shortly afterwards, the Byzantine empire suffered a civil war between Diogenes and other contenders for the throne and several generals broke his treaty with the Turks. This left Asia Minor devoid of soldiers and gave the Turks good reason to occupy it. By 1081, they were across the Bosphorus Straits from Constantinople. Although the Byzantines and Crusaders later recovered some territory in Asia Minor, from then on, the majority of the region remained under Turkish control.
But groups of Turks ruled over many states in the Middle East and South Asia at this point in time. Why did they become the majority in Turkey? After the Seljuk victory, many Turks poured into Asia Minor, establishing little statelets, and ruling over the native population. Following the subsequent Mongol invasions, even more poured in, fleeing from their former lands in Persia and Central Asia. Unlike in many other cases, where a dominant minority eventually became assimilated into the majority population, because of the unstable, chaotic frontier situation, the Turks did not assimilate into the population. Indeed, many locals (ethnic Greeks and Armenians) attached themselves to Turkish warlords for protection as clients. This client-patron relationship spread out over many bands and tribes across Asia Minor and ensured that the majority of the population assimilated into the Turkish religion (Islam), language, and culture instead of vice versa.
This is a cultural process known as elite dominance, wherein a minority imposes its culture on the majority. The Turkification of Asia Minor is evident in the fact that genetically, the majority of today’s Turks are most closely related to Greeks and Armenians rather than Central Asian Turkic peoples, like the Uzbeks and Kazakhs. Thus, while the Turkic culture dominated in Asia Minor, the Turks themselves quickly merged genetically into the native population. This is not to say that there is no actual Central Asian genetic component among today’s Anatolian Turkish population. Genetic studies show that some 9 to 15 percent of the Turkish genetic mixture derives from Central Asia.
Asia Minor was the most populous part of the Byzantine Empire, its heartland. Without it, the empire simply didn’t have enough resources to compete in the long run. Turkification was also helped by the fact that the Greeks were of a different religion than the Turks. Greeks converting to Islam would often do so by “going Turk,” a phenomenon not possible in already Muslim Arab and Persian regions. Furthermore, in the later Ottoman Empire, the Turkish language prevailed at the official level, and not local languages. As a result of all these factors, densely populated Asia Minor became the region of the world with the largest concentration of Turkic-speaking peoples, far away from their original homeland in Central Asia. This event had a major impact on global geopolitics for centuries to come.
Ottoman Egypt, Palestine, and Syria c. 1880s
(Before Albino and Mulatto media decided to hide Blacks)
More pictures of this type are on this page: < Click>>
Caucasian Myth Making
During the late 1800's, archaeologists discovered artifacts in Anatolia that were of such poor artistic quality, that it was assumed that they could not possibly have been made by native Anatolians. Ever on the lookout for opportunities to inject a Caucasian presence into a history, where there was none. They combined the occurrence in the "Kültepe tablets" of supposedly Indo-European personal names ( in correspondence between Assyrian merchants and local rulers of central Anatolia - the Hatti), with what was assumed to be, ancient Caucasian artifacts. They then identified them with those King James Bible "Hittites". How the connection was made is a mystery, but it is assumed that since these Biblical Hittites were an obscure people - no one would know the difference.
The Hittites were supposedly a great Empire and civilization. But yet, there is precious little archaeological evidence of their existence, and even that meager bit, seems bogus. To further debunk the Hittite myth: There were several tablets found at Bogazköy Turkey, some of these can be dated earlier than the 17th century B.C. One of these tablets concerns two semi-legendary kings of Kussara, they are named Pitkhanas and his son Anittas. The city called Kussara has yet to be found, but the tablet text gives an impressive list of cities that king Pitkhanas had conquered. And among them appears the name of Nesa, which his son Anittas, subsequently adopted as his capital.
Also included in the list, is the city named Hattusas, this is known to be the ancient name of the supposedly later Hittite capital called Bogazköy, which Anittas was said to have destroyed. The fact that no direct connection could be found between these two kings, and the history of the Hittites, has been explained by later archaeological discoveries. These new discoveries demonstrated that Pitkhanas and Anittas were in fact Native Anatolian (Hattian) rulers of the 18th century B.C. NOT Hittites. Indeed, a dagger bearing the name Anittas has also been found at Kültepe.
Historically: After settling in Anatolia, the Hittites are "supposedly" to have pursued wars of expansion and created a great Empire. But this Europeanized history, just never seemed creditable. How could it be that the Hittites, with an Empire so vast, that it supposedly covered all of Anatolia and parts of Canaan, which is far to the south. And an army so powerful, that it could stand toe to toe with the mighty Egyptian army, and fight it to a standstill - at the battle of Kadesh.
How could it be, that this great Empire could have been totally and utterly destroyed by the Sea People in 1193 B.C. The very same Sea People, who were stopped dead in their tracks at Egypt's border, when they tried to enter Egypt. Then there is the supposed willingness of snobbish Egyptian Pharaohs, to conclude dynastic marriages with what would undoubtedly have been, illiterate barbarian newcomers - that just wouldn't happen.
Because of the insurmountable problems associated with trying to prove the existence of this mythical Hittite Empire: Many researchers have now come to the conclusion that there never really was a Caucasian Empire in Anatolia at all - just wishful thinking on the part of some. They speculate that the so-called Hittite empire, is really a confusion with that of the Hattians, Phrygians, Chaldeans, Babylonians, or some other ancient Empire. And that this is why: Neither ancient Greek, or any other ancient historians, ever mentioned it.
But the problem is: Caucasians write the history books. So references to the Hittites and the bogus Hittite Empire, abound throughout history, as written by Caucasians.
Accordingly: In this work, translations such as The Amarna Letters where the translator incorrectly substituted "Hittite" for the Egyptian word we have corrected it by using "Hattian" instead. The Hattie were much more likely to be the involved people. Other areas are left uncorrected, so as to avoid confusion.
As to the Amarna letters about one fifth of these correspondences are from the Hattian royal family itself. The oldest letter, in Akkadian, is that of Tutankhamun's widow Ankhesenamen, to the Hattian king Suppiluliuma proposing an alliance by marriage between the two kingdoms. Seve ral of these letters are in the Ankara Museum of Anatolian Civilizations.
|Click here for the Amarna Letters <<Click>>|
Click here for pictures of Artifacts supposedly indicating a Hittite Empire, and a further explanation of what started this Hittite Empire nonsense in the first place.
Once again we have gotten ahead of ourselves, but sometimes it's necessary in order to maintain the logical flow of our presentation. In this case, it is because the Hittites are supposedly an important element in upcoming history, and it should be understood that their identification as the involved party, is not accurate.
MORE FAKE SURPRISE ABOUT IPSWICH MAN
How Turks Came To Anatolia: The Battle Of Manzikert
(TRT World and Agencies)
The battle for Anatolia
The Battle of Manzikert was fought in Turkey&rsquos eastern province of Mus, on August 26, 1071 between the Byzantine Empire and the Great Seljuk Empire.
At the time, the Seljuks governed a medieval Turko-Persian Sunni Muslim empire founded by Tughril Beg in 1037.
It controlled a vast territory stretching from the Hindu Kush to eastern Anatolia and from Central Asia to the Arabian Gulf.
The battle started after Seljuk leader Alp Arslan learned that the Byzantine emperor Romanos IV Diogenes, with a large army of 30,000, was planning to attack his rear army along what is today's border with Armenia.
Arslan marched quickly with around 15,000 soldiers and reached Manzikert.
He first proposed terms of peace. But Romanos rejected the offer and the two forces went on to wage the Battle of Manzikert.
Seljuks controlled a vast territory stretching from the Hindu Kush to eastern Anatolia and from Central Asia to the Arabian Gulf. (TRTWorld)
The Byzantine empire ruled Anatolia for hundreds of years. This peninsula was strategically the most important region to the Byzantine Empire as it was the commercial center.
The Manzikert battle led to the opening of Anatolia to Turkish penetration and the gradual Turkification and Islamisation of the peninsula.
The decisive defeat of a Byzantine field army and capture of the Eastern Roman emperor sent shockwaves across the Christian and Islamic worlds.
A decade of civil war further weakened the Roman Empire, forcing emperor Alexius I Comnenus to ask for military assistance from Pope Urban II.
Manzikert is widely seen as the beginning of a series of events that eventually led to the origins of the First Crusade and the Catholic occupation of the Levant.
The birth of the Ottoman Empire
The Great Seljuk Empire declined as decades passed and a new administration was founded.
This new administration consisted of a number of Anatolian beyliks, small principalities governed by Beys.
Bey is equivalent to a &ldquoLord&rdquo in some European societies.
The beylik of Osmanogullari, or the &ldquoSons of Osman&rdquo was founded in Bursa, Turkey&rsquos northwestern province.
It conquered the other Anatolian beyliks by the late 15th century, and this evolved into the Ottoman Empire.
Nearly four centuries after the Manzikert battle, the Ottoman Empire conquered Constantinople and led the demise of the Byzantine empire the longest lasting empire in recorded history. (TRTWorld)
Turkey commemorates the battle's anniversary
The battle is commemorated every year in Malazgirt. But this year, the occasion was marked by the attendance of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Prime Minister Binali Yildirim.
"The Manzikert victory for a long time was unacknowledged. The Battle of Manzikert is the most concrete manifestation of unity and pluralism in Anatolia. As 80 million people, we stand as one. One flag,&rdquo Erdogan said during his speech.
Along with Erdogan and Yildirim, the ceremony was also attended by Chief of Staff Hulusi Akar, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu and Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu. (AA)
Atilla Ulas, a 28-year-old man from Mus, told TRT World that these kind of commemorative ceremonies are important because they remind people where their ancestors came from.
&ldquoThese events symbolise the sacrifices our grandfathers made in the past to leave us a homeland. I think the new generation doesn&rsquot really know about it. If these events commemorating our history continue to take place, today&rsquos generation would learn their values,&rdquo he said.
Neslihan Ciplak, 14-year-old student from the Malazgirt district said: &ldquoIn the past, we [locals] used to come here to celebrate it, we were alone as the Malazgirt locals here. We are happy today, because people from around Turkey came here and have acknowledged that Manzikert battle is also important for Turkey.&rdquo
When Turkey Destroyed Its Christians
Armenian and Syrian refugees at a Red Cross camp outside Jerusalem, circa 1917-19.
Between 1894 and 1924, the number of Christians in Asia Minor fell from some 3-4 million to just tens of thousands—from 20% of the area’s population to under 2%. Turkey has long attributed this decline to wars and the general chaos of the period, which claimed many Muslim lives as well. But the descendants of Turkey’s Christians, many of them dispersed around the world since the 1920s, maintain that the Turks murdered about half of their forebears and expelled the rest.
The Christians are correct. Our research verifies their claims: Turkey’s Armenian, Greek and Assyrian (or Syriac) communities disappeared as a result of a staggered campaign of genocide beginning in 1894, perpetrated against them by their Muslim neighbors. By 1924, the Christian communities of Turkey and its adjacent territories had been destroyed.
Over the past decade, we have sifted through the Turkish, U.S., British and French archives, as well as some Greek materials and the papers of the German and Austro-Hungarian foreign ministries. This research has made it possible to document a strikingly consistent pattern of ethno-religious atrocity over three decades, perpetrated by the Turkish government, army, police and populace.
The concentrated slaughter of Turkey’s Armenians in 1915-16, commonly known as the Armenian genocide, is well documented and acknowledged (outside of Turkey, which still bitterly objects to the charge). But the Armenian genocide was only a part, albeit the centerpiece, of a larger span of elimination that lasted some 30 years. Our work provides the first detailed description and analysis of the 1894-96 massacres and the destruction of the region’s Greek and remaining Armenian communities in 1919-24 by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Turkish republic.
The bloodshed was importantly fueled throughout by religious animus. Muslim Turks—aided by fellow Muslims, including Kurds, Circassians, Chechens and Arabs—murdered about two million Christians in bouts of slaughter immediately before, during and after World War I. These massacres were organized by three successive governments, those of the Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid II, the Young Turks and, finally, Atatürk. These governments also expelled between 1.5 and 2 million Christians, mostly to Greece.
Definition of Terms from above:
Note You were instructed to read carefully because Franklins essay reveals things about the past that today's Whites keep carefully hidden.
From Franklin's essay we know that in the very recent past, Europeans were much darker than today, (especially the Germans - the Black Holy Roman Empire). The date of Franklins essay was the year 1751: so we know that as of that date, European Blacks and Browns and not yet been killed off, with the survivors shipped off to the Americas as Indentures and outright Slaves.
Also from Franklin's essay we also know that Whites did not consider Europe "Their" land: but yearned to have a land that was just for them, one that would be made up purely of Albinos, or as Franklin put it: "The lovely White and Red", in Franklins mind the Americas could be it. Even he did not envision the Holocaust that would later befall Europe's Blacks.
Now back to the Roma/Romani, also known as Gypsy&rsquos:
The Romani are widely dispersed, with their largest concentrated populations in Europe, especially the Roma of Central and Eastern Europe and Anatolia, followed by the Kale of Iberia and Southern France. They originated from India and arrived in the Middle East first, and then in Europe by the 14th century, either separating from the Dom people or, at least, having a similar history the ancestors of both the Romani and the Dom left North India sometime between the 6th and 11th century.
Turks Died Too
The column of Armen Vartanian ’96 [“The Armenian Genocide,” April 27] is not historically accurate with regard to the sufferings of Armenians during the First World War or the historical research surrounding the issue. We would like to begin by outlining what happened in Anatolia during the years of 1915-1924.
The Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic, multi-religious empire that at its height spanned from the Danube River in Europe, to North Africa, to as far as the Caucasus and Iraq. In accordance with the laws of the Koran, the rights of all minorities were respected. The Ottomans were the most lenient of all empires concerning its religious minorities. The Ottomans expected the payment of taxes, but otherwise left the religion and cultures of its conquered territories intact. This was, in fact, what made it so easy for minority groups to succeed when the Ottomans became weak. Furthermore, many Christians and Jews achieved high government posts, and during the Spanish persecution of the Jews, the Ottoman Empire became a safe haven for them. Armenians and Turks have lived together peacefully for over 600 years. To quote Voltaire, “The great Turk is governing in peace twenty nations of different religions. Turks have taught to Christians how to be moderate in peace and gentle in victory.”
In the years leading up to World War I, however, the Ottoman Empire grew increasingly weak, and provinces began to secede. When World War I began, the Ottomans sided with the Germans, and the German defeat left the Ottomans in shambles. Under the Treaty of Sevres, the Allies conspired to use the nationalist tendencies within the Ottoman Empire to destroy it. Under Sevres, the Turkish people would have no nation, and Anatolia would be colonized by Europe. Thus, the Christian minorities of the Ottoman Empire, including the Armenians, were encourage to rebel, and were given ample support to do so. Vartanian’s assertion that Armenians were unarmed is a joke.
Armenians joined with the Russian forces, and grouped into guerrilla bands. They began attacking the Turkish Army in the rear, and even before the Russo-Armenian forces arrived, they succeeded in capturing Van, massacred its entire Muslim population, and razed the entire city. They then proceeded to “soften up” the area, and in the process killed thousands of Turks and Kurds. There was a massive flow of refugees into Central Anatolia, who survived under extremely harsh conditions.
At this point, the Ottoman Government faced severe problems. The Army was being attacked by Russo-Armenian forces in the North and Armenian guerrillas in the South. On the other hand, there were the many Armenian communities who appeared uninvolved in the fighting, but in fact were providing food, shelter and new recruits to the guerrillas. The Muslim populations were beginning to react in kind, and the region was rapidly falling into full-fledged inter-communal warfare.
After much hesitation, the Ottomans decided to relocate the Armenian communities to Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, which at that time were still Ottoman provinces. Ottoman archives chronicling this decision show that this decision was not punitive, and that Ottoman soldiers were ordered to escort the Armenians and protect them from any vigilantes. As it turned out, though, this decree had tragic consequences, not just due to the warfare in the region, but due to disease, harsh weather, exposure and hunger. However, a few facts should be noted. First, most Armenian casualties occurred in regions where Ottoman control was the weakest. Secondly, a great many Turks and other Muslims also died from the same causes.
When the Ottoman Army returned to the north, the onset of the Russian Revolution forced the retreat of the Russo-Armenian forces to what is currently Armenia. During this retreat, many atrocities were committed against Turks and Kurds, including the burning of mosques full of women, children, and old men, gouging eyes, and burying people alive.
At the close of World War I, the Ottoman Empire was no more. The Ottoman Sultan fled Istanbul on a British ship, and Turkish people were left to fend for themselves against the invasion of the British, French, Australian, Italian, Russian, Greek, and Armenian forces. The Turks fight for independence raged on for several years under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Many more Turkish people died in this struggle, not just from war, but from hunger and disease. There is not one single Turk alive today who did not lose relatives during the Independence War. The Independence War ended with the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, in which the modern day borders of Turkey were recognized, and the Allies abandoned all claims on Anatolia.
Thus, there was neither any planned execution of Armenians, nor such an intention.
Demographic studies by Professor Justin McCarthy show that roughly 600,000 Armenians died during the struggles as compared to almost 3 million Muslim deaths. Vartanian claims that 1.5 million Armenians were killed -- however, according to census figures of the British as well as the Ottomans, there were never more than 1.3 million Armenians in Anatolia. Additionally, Vartanian refers to U.S. Ambassador Morgenthau. It should be noted though that Morgenthau was a racist, who believed that Turks were an inferior race and openly printed that Turks had “inferior blood.” One cannot expect accurate reporting from such a biased man, yet it is his reports on which much of the Armenian accounts are based on. Vartanian also refers to a remark by Adolf Hitler, as though somehow the psychotic ravings of a man known for exterminating the Jews can be relied on for accurate history.
He also asserts that “claims against the Armenians are purely anecdotal.” I highly doubt that the mass of evidence can be referred to as anecdotal: there are eyewitness accounts of Russian soldiers, demographic evidence, reports from Allied soldiers, photographic evidence, as well as testimonies from the Turkish refugees. Seventy American scholars -- including Prof. McCarthy of the University of Louisville, Prof. Bernard Lewis of Princeton, and Prof. Sandford Shaw of the University of California at Los Angeles -- testified in 1988 in front of the House International Committee that there was no genocide of Armenians. The Clinton Administration continues to back the Turkish people on this issue, because it knows the truth: there was no Armenian genocide.
Sevgi Ertan is a graduate student in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. Cagri A. Savran is a graduate student in the Department of Mechanical Engineering.