Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd like to see more about the Armenian genocide too. It was around 1915, if I recall correctly, so it was more or less upstaged by WW1. But over a million people were killed simply because the were Armenian.
I'd like to see more about the Armenian genocide too. It was around 1915, if I recall correctly, so it was more or less upstaged by WW1. But over a million people were killed simply because the were Armenian.
Certainly one of the more forgotten atrocities of the last 150 years.
Pol Pot already had the Killing Fields, Rwanda had Hotel Rwanda, there's been many films on the Holocaust, but I've yet to see a mainstream (or major arthouse) film that tackled the issue of the Armenian genocide.
I have many Armenian friends and they are all quite affected by the genocide, most of them lost grandparents/great-grandparents in the horrors of the genocide.
Then again, it would be really cool to see a movie that's about any nation's history. Like a film about Bhutan or Brunei, I'd totally love to see that.
Certainly one of the more forgotten atrocities of the last 150 years.
Pol Pot already had the Killing Fields, Rwanda had Hotel Rwanda, there's been many films on the Holocaust, but I've yet to see a mainstream (or major arthouse) film that tackled the issue of the Armenian genocide.
I have many Armenian friends and they are all quite affected by the genocide, most of them lost grandparents/great-grandparents in the horrors of the genocide.
Then again, it would be really cool to see a movie that's about any nation's history. Like a film about Bhutan or Brunei, I'd totally love to see that.
It's actually about a present-day Armenian-Canadian attempting to make a film about the Armenian genocide. Although it is a work of fiction, it does deal with alot of the historical details of the period. While not an outstanding film, it is proabably the only feature length film I can think of to deal with this subject.
I'd like to see more about the Armenian genocide too. It was around 1915, if I recall correctly, so it was more or less upstaged by WW1. But over a million people were killed simply because the were Armenian.
I don't think it's accurate to describe the Armenian Genocide as being "upstaged" by World War I, mostly because it was a part of and intristically linked to WWI. The mass killings of Armenian civilians was committed for strategic purposes on the part of the Ottoman military, rather than racial or religious reasons. Rather, the Armenians, followers of the Armenian Orthodox Church and Eastern religion, which was naturally bound to the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian government, favored separatism from the Ottoman Empire and thus committed acts of sabotage, espionage, and guerrilla warfare from within to benefit the Russian Empire's position. Constantinople/Istanbul was not about to let this go unchallenged when they were in the midst of fighting a war for the survival of their empire on two fronts (against the Russians in the Caucasus and against the British/French/ANZAC in Gallipoli and the Middle East), and thus, plans to "deal" with the local Armenian population were formulated.
Yes, it was linked to WW1, of course. What I mean is that the events on the Western Front were more publicized in the the USA. I certainly didn't mean to say that it was unimportant in any way, nor do I pretend to understand the workings of why it happened. That simply reinforces the point I was making: I've read a lot about WW1, but the Armenian genocide is mentioned only in passing most of the time. I would potulate that even if a considerable number of Armenians were involved in sabotage, etc, that hardly justifies killing 1½ million or so of them.
Yes, it was linked to WW1, of course. What I mean is that the events on the Western Front were more publicized in the the USA. I certainly didn't mean to say that it was unimportant in any way, nor do I pretend to understand the workings of why it happened. That simply reinforces the point I was making: I've read a lot about WW1, but the Armenian genocide is mentioned only in passing most of the time. I would potulate that even if a considerable number of Armenians were involved in sabotage, etc, that hardly justifies killing 1½ million or so of them.
This is similar to a debate I was having with another poster about German actions in WWII. Now, I am not of Turkish descent, I have never been to Turkey, and thus I have no dog in this fight. However, for the sake of objectivity:
You say "I would potulate that even if a considerable number of Armenians were involved in sabotage, etc, that hardly justifies killing 1½ million or so of them"
The Japanese occupation of the Aleutian Islands during WWII.
Only came across this mentioned in a travel book recently. Were American citizens captured by the Japanese? What happened to them? Did the US take a deliberate decision not to defend them the same way the British allowed the Germans to occupy the Channel Islands i.e. because they were considered to be undefendable?
And did the Japanese make much play of their having occupied US territory?
The Battle of Blue Licks, one of the last major engagement of the Revolutionary War fought ten months after Cornwallis' surrender, in which 50 British troops and 300 Indians routed 182 Kentuckians, 72 of them killed including a son of Daniel Boone's. It was probably the last British victory of the war.
Actually, to expand this a bit, I think the history of the Frontier West prior to the end of the Civil War (with the exception of the California Gold Rush) has not been covered all that much. A book I really enjoyed on this was "The Civil War in the American West" by Alvin M. Josephy.
The Japanese occupation of the Aleutian Islands during WWII.
Only came across this mentioned in a travel book recently. Were American citizens captured by the Japanese? What happened to them? Did the US take a deliberate decision not to defend them the same way the British allowed the Germans to occupy the Channel Islands i.e. because they were considered to be undefendable?
And did the Japanese make much play of their having occupied US territory?
Agreed, very little is out there about it. We had a very tough time due to the terrain and the lack of preparedness to fight in such an inhospitable area. In fact, more Americans were put out of action by frostbite and extreme cold then by the Japanese.
Another forgotten campaign of WWII is the fighting by the British 14th Army in China/Burma/India ... there were some American forces involved as well (Merrill's Mauraders, the pilots who flew flights over "the Hump" of the Himalayas to resupply the Chinese, etc). It seems that the fighting in the Southwest Pacific region (ex. in New Guinea) is also not that well known either ... probably because like the CBI campaign it was primarily fought by Australians, Dutch, and British/British Empire troops and not Americans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
