Talk:Battle of Sarikamish/Archive 1

Archive 1

Inappropriate Phrase

I think the phrase 'mopping up' is inappropriate. It damages the neutrality of the article. So I suggest changing it. OnurtheAgha (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the term that's used in military textbooks. Meowy 18:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My recent edits

Firstly in order for there to be a rethreat there has to be an attack, although as unsucessfull it is Turkish troops did attack russians. So there is no reason to remove that.

Turkish troops were too weak to fight. After all they marched through snow (blizzard) and extreme cold in summer clothes.

"Armenian Genocide" is not relevant to this battle. Weather this campaign let to that is a matter of debate as well as is an opinion and hence is not encyclopedic. Its political as far as I care. The incident had taken place months after the conclusion of this battle. See Armenian Genocide which reflects the incidents beginging as "24 April 1915". Sarikamis operation had taken place roughly between 21 December 1914 - 5 January 1915. Hence is not relevant.

I am also removing the Battle of Erzurum (1916) Battle of Erzincan as it is in the infobox and is redundent.

I do not see the relevance here either. I am not aware of any record of Enver Pasa making such public statements. If they are public, where are they? I did not see it in the references, one of which is an Armenian web site. I would like to see "genocide" written/uttered by him somewhere. Intention seems to be more POV insertion. I will remove it till convinced otherwise.--Murat (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

About the War

1-) Yes, Enver Pasha blamed Armenians because Armenians were really guilty because of their geurilla attacks on Turkish troops but that, of course, didn't play a critical role in the battle.

2-)Actually the Sarıkamış operation wasn't a military failure. It had to be done because if we would wait until the summer comes, Russians would finish their preparations and they could easily conquer the whole eastern territory of the empire. Sacrafices of Turksih troops made it possible to keep much of our territories(still with losing many important places).

3-)Enver Pasha was a Turkish nationalist and of course he would want to capture the Central Asia where our fathers came from and where our brothers still live but at the time of Sarıkamıs this wasn't his goal. He tried to keep Russians where they are. If the Russian threat could be stopped, Ottoman forces would be transferred to Middle East and Balkans.

With respect, Deliogul 12:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Yes, Enver Pasha blamed Armenians because Armenians were really guilty because of their geurilla attacks on Turkish troops but that, of course, didn't play a critical role in the battle." This charge has been made before - and has never been proved. It also does not explain why women and children were included... unless the Armenian Genocide actually happened. Which it did. Darkmind1970 16:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about a battle not about a genocide here. I don't understand why people try to put this genocide thing in every article. At least, first check if the issue is relevant to your "claims". Deliogul 13:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Still, no reference to the fact that Sarikamis somehow motivated Enver to contemplate to act on Armenians. He was never closely involved with such decisions in the first place. There is no such public record. Vast literature on this topic, including his memoirs does not mention or imply anything close. There were many other reasons later that motivated Ottomans to take strong action against their rebelling Armenians, Van Rebellion especially. The references included does not include what is supposed to be referenced. Crude POV push and more ethnic propaganda.--Murat (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated/Unverifiable References

I would like to see a direct reference/proof that Enver Pasa made such a public statement about Sarikamis, blaming the defeat in part or whole to Armenians. I would like to see a statement such as, "aha... here is why we should physically eliminate whole Armenian race!". I would like to see the actual statement, not a series of unrelated references. Given the kind of public figure he was, this should be simple. This entry is about Sarikamis, not alleged and mythical genocides.--Murat (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Argument is not weak if the actual statement can not be traced or produced. As we know, a ploy way too common with Armenian nationalist extremists, substitution of myth and fabrication for facts. I am waiting for the actual reference.--Murat (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The argument is weak if the accuser has not checked the references listed!

"...Enver blamed the defeat on the Armenians, and he supported a program of genocdie that diverted resources and eventually led to the death of more than a million Armenians." -- World War I, page 394, by Spencer Tucker.

"...Enver Pasas and Talat Bey, members of the Ottoman Empire's ruling triumvirate at that time, decided to blame the Armenian traitors for the debacle. Historically, the Armenians had served as the whipping boys for anything that went wrong in the Ottoman Empire....Now they would pay by being deported by foot or boat or rail to death camps in the Syrian desert." -- Encyclopedia of Religion and War, page 139, by Gabriel Palmer-Fernandez.

After Enver's humiliating defeat by the Russians at Sarikamish in December 1914 - January 1915, Enver and his ruling elite, looking for a scapegoat, blamed the Armenians, claiming they were in sympathy with the Russians. Within a month, by February 25, 1915, all Armenian men in the Ottoman army were officially disarmed and thrown into labor battalions. Alsomost immediately thereafter, the army began an organized plan of massacring the Armenian men in the labor battalions." -- The Burning Tigris, page 184-185, by Peter Balakian.

Enver Pasa himself attempted to attribute the defeat to Armenian treachery, and referred to Armenians as a "threat". -- A Shameful Act, p143, by Taner Akçam.

FYI, I'm not Armenian. So spare me your racial bigotry.

It would, however, be good if some specific detail about Enver Pasha's accusations were given (dates, specific speech or pronouncement or decision). The vagueness within Balakian's dismal book is typical of these generalistic third party-sources. Here is something more detailed "..the Young Turk leadership met on February 14th and, with the excuse that the Armenians were engaged in pro-Russian military and anti-Turkish revolutionary activities and therefore were responsible for the calamitious Turkish military campagn on the Caucasian front, issued a general order to arrest Armenian leaders followed by mass deportations from the Cilician towns...." p346, Armenian Karin/Erzurum, R. G. Hovanissian (ed), 2003. Meowy 21:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked in vein to see a quote, a "public statement" from Enver Pasa, where he specifically blamed Armenian--Murat (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)s for the defeat at Sarikamis as claimed in this article. Of course there was none. Only general statements about Armenians being a threat and hostile. Of course they were! But where is this "public statement"? Only clippings from well known Armenian propagandists! Even they contain no such "public statement". The real begining of the end for the Anatolian Armenians was the Rebellion at Van, not Sarikamis. Right in the middle of the Gallipoli Campaign, they rebel with Russian arms, then hand the keys of this Ottoman city to a Russian general (no treachery here!), and then Bitlis and Mus also fall in addition to Erzurum. That is when the triumvarite decided they have to do somethng drastic. And they do. Get your facts straight, at least once.--Murat (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's repeat again. These bogus and at best irrelevant references do not in any way contain any shred of evidence that Enver publically and/or otherwise blamed Sarikamis disaster on Armenians or anyone else. In fact, as anyone least bit familiar with his biography knows that he never opened this topic with anyone, not even in private. Van rebellion is the event that finally sealed the fate of Armenians in Asia minor as we all know and Enver was not even directly involved with that either. So the bogus statements added here are just that, another attempt to draw any wiki topic into Armenian nationalistic propaganda. There is no support for the assertion, and no concensus certainly. Why not respect facts?--Murat (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the above. One more time and carefully. Facts remain no matter how many "analysis", many irrelvant and bogus, inserted as reference.--Murat (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I Corps

On January 3, I Corps were driven out again back to the Choruk Valley
What is supposed to be this I Corps? It is not on the order of battle of 3rd Army. --Schickaneder (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Questionable, possible propagandistic, content

The background section has the following claims "Another Turkish — or rather German — strategic goal was to cut Russian access to its hydrocarbon resources around the Caspian Sea. This long term goal made Britain vary. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company was in the proposed path which had the exclusive rights to work petroleum deposits throughout the Persian Empire except in the provinces of Azerbaijan, Ghilan, Mazendaran, Asdrabad and Khorasan. In 1914, before the war, the British government had contracts with the company for the supply of oil-fuel for the navy." I've just fixed the worst of the gramatical and spelling errors in it. However, I question its whole veracity. A warning flag was those spelling errors - is its information actually derived from a modern Turkish (thus, inevitably, a propagadistic) source? Turkey still refuses to admit to actively engaging in aggressive warfare during WW1, considering itself as a sort of innocent victim of a capitalist and Christian plot. The reference given is "The Encyclopedia Americana, 1920" - an ancient encyclopedia is not a valid source, and if the claims are true there will be plenty of modern sources that can be used instead. It should also be pointed out that a 1920 American source is just as liable to be as propagandistic and deceptive as, say, a 1990s Turkish one. Meowy 00:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

By chance I discovered the probable origin of that questionable claim. It was produced by Bolshevik Russia after they were not given control of the Transcaucasus at the end of WW1. They needed to invent reasons for their subsequent invasions of the three transcaucasian republics and this was one of the reasons they fabricated. Meowy 19:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Arithmetic does not add up

"...The Turkish official history states 32,000 KIA, 15,000 died of sickness, 7,000 prisoners, 10,000 wounded, for some 50,000 total casualties". That adds up to 64,000, not 50,000 for me. ?? Rcbutcher (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

turkish casualties

Estimated 80 thousand turkish soldiers died by freezing. Less than 15 thousand Turkish soldiers died by fighting. Everyone knows that but wikipedia doesn't accept again. Wikipedia did some things like that several times. It has no respect against Turks. TURKISH SOLDIERS TRIED TO RESIST AGAINST COLD BY WEARING SUMMER CLOTHES FOR WEEKS AND MONTHS. You cant find this information in wikipedia. If it(wiki) is a real honest, it wont erase my writings before a real search.

According to Erickson, Ordered to Die, page 59-60, casualties ranged from 90,000 - 30,000 dead, 50,000 - 7,000 captured, 10,000 wounded. There are, however, no mention of casualties for the Russian army at Sarikamish. The Erickson source currently referencing Russian casualty figures is taken from Ottoman casualty figures.

Also, I was unable to verify the source "TAF". Therefore, I will be removing "TAF" and "Marshall Cavendish Illustrated Encyclopedia, since both are unverifiable, and the associated figures and adding the figures from Erickson's book. I will also be searching for casualty figures for the Russian army. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Figures and Casualties

Inanna and Khoikhoi, please stop edit warring and let's discuss this calmly and in a civil manner. The numbers of both initial army strengths and casualties seem to be very ambiguous. A bit of googling got me these two references:

1. An article by prof Jere W. Roberson University of Central Oklahoma, College of Liberal Arts.
2. from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

I think both of them can be considered neutral, third party, reliable sources. Since Khoikhoi objects to Turkish language sources, I suggest we restrict ourselves to these.

According to the first article we have the following figures:

Russians: 100,000 before, ?? casualties

Turkish: "slightly fewer than the Russians" before, 30,000 casualties in battle and "thousands more froze to death in the retreat".

According to the second article we have:

Ruassians: ?? before, ?? casualties

Turkish: 190,000 before, 12,400 survived, 30,000 battle casualties and the rest (that would make 147,600 people) died in the retreat.

Now, the figure 190,000 sounds bloated to me. It contradicts the other source that says that Turkish forces were slightly fewer than 100,000. But, if we guess that it is a typographic mistake and assume that the initial number of Turkish forces were 90,000 that would make more sense and not contradict the first source. I am making a wild guess here, so if anyone disagrees I withdraw that proposal!!

In the light of the above I ask you to share opinions, calmly. --Michalis Famelis 01:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Your assessment sounds reasonable to me, at first glance here anyway. CNN puts the Turkish death toll somewhat higher: In 1914, the battle of Sarikamis began between Turkey and Russia. Although superior in numbers, the Turks were defeated in five days of fighting, losing 77,000 men. At any rate, there are some good books on the subject that really resolve this issue. Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War by Edward J Erickson and The First World War: The War to End All Wars by Geoffrey Jukes, Peter Simkins, Michael Hickey would probably answer all of our questions better than anything on the web. Tombseye 02:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why I go with the 100,000 figure

In Fromkin's book "A Peace to End all Peace" he references the 12th edition of the E.B. article on the battle which was writen by one of the German staff officers who was there on the campaign (Major Franz Carl Endres). This officer (who had the location and reason to know the facts) provided the figure of 90,000 effectives with just 12,500 returning to the Ottoman base at Erzurum. This is a source who was thought good enough by the E.B. back in 1924 and was in a position to know the actual figures. Perhaps part of the confusion is related to the idea of "soldiers" vs "everyone". The everyone category can include a great many people who are driving animals, pushing artillery, etc. Porters. I've seen figures for the British army in Mesopotamia where they had about 100,000 soliders and 400,000 total men.

Also, I absolutely see the connection between this battle and the Armenian Genocide. Enver - thinks he is the greatest general - has his army shattered by a weaker force. He needs someone to blame because it surely isn't HIS fault that he lost. Who does he pick? We know who he picked - those traitorous Armenians, that's who. He's got some reason, some Armenians did fight for the Russians, perhaps some Armenians living on the Ottoman side of the frontier actually did help the Russians (they had good reason, see the Hamidian_massacres from 20 years earlier). In any event, Enver then orders the removal of all Armenians from the Ottoman army (and they likely all subsequently died, look how well the Ottomans treated the 8,000 POWs from Townshend's division). So, Enver doesn't trust the Armenians, thinks they screwed up his lovely war plan and then, when the Russians launch their offensive into Ottoman Armenia, and the Armenians at Van revolt in Russia's favor... time for the hammer to come down.

How is this battle NOT related to the Armenian Genocide? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cglassey (talk • contribs) .

The 90,000 minus the 12,500 gives us approximately 77,500 so that figure seems to back the CNN history link I found. As for the relation to the Armenian Genocide, well sure the connection between the conflict between Russia and the Ottomans is the main reason for the Armenian Genocide, but I'm not sure what point it would serve to put that in this article. It'd probably be better served, written in a manner that isn't POV as with the sarcasm regarding Enver, to mention it in the Armenian Genocide article. Tombseye 18:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye, what is the CNN history link you refer to? Could you please place it here? --Michalis Famelis 19:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah sorry, I forgot to add the link.[1] It's that CNN Almanac thing that talks about major events in history. It seems to back the unsigned guy's figures so I'm in favor of the 77,500 figure or thereabouts. Tombseye 19:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, so far it seems we have gathered these horrid pieces of evidence:

Ottoman Forces before the battle: 90-100,000 plus possibly another 100,000 as "auxilliary population"

Ottoman Forces casualties due to the battle: 30,000

Ottoman Forces casualties due to the retreat: 47,500

Ottoman Forces survived: 12,500

(a note: I feel sick, I'm counting thousands of human lives as if they were Euros, or crackers...)
There is still the issue of the Russian forces. So far we have

One source stating 100,000 men (which is more than the Ottomans).

Another source stating they were less than the Ottomans.

And we have no numbers with regard to casualties.

Remarks?? Sources mentioned so far:

1. Jere W. Roberson University of Central Oklahoma, College of Liberal Arts
2. Encyclopædia Britannica Online
3. CNN Almanac

--Michalis Famelis 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, someone's going to have to hit the library to get the info. as neither my encyclopedia or my other book 'A History of Russia' by Riasanovsky goes over the war casualties and barely alludes to the battle itself. The internet sources are pretty weak, nationalistic, or outwardly biased, so we'd be better off is someone looked up some of the books I've mentioned or other books about the battle or World War I to get exact figures on the Russian casualties and troop strength. Tombseye 23:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I had a very long edit war with Inanna because she refused to cite sources, and after like a week when she finally did, they weren't even in English. I don't trust her sources because they don't seem to be very neutral. --Khoikhoi 23:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I supposed "svenska" is not english.But you put it.

Battle of Sarikamis is a important battle in our history.We usually call it "Sarıkmış Tragedy".Enver Pasha's party(who became leader by revolution) had done very bad things about Ottoman Empire.Then he escaped to russia...etc.

They sent the Turkish Army there by simply uniforms.And then, 90,000 soliders freezed in -40c at the battle area...Inanna 00:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Inanna, what do you think of the casualties figures? It seems from the above sources that we have collected that Ottoman casualties were approximately 77,000 which is different from the figure you give. And in your recent edits you give a magnitude of Enver Pasha's troops before the tragedy as 160,000. Would you care to comment on these numbers? Also, I do not by any means want to sound offencive, but do you think we could have the Turkish language phrase for "Sarikamis Tragedy" at the top of the article, right after the initial statement? I think it would be informative. -- Michalis Famelis 00:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Russians had 160,000 troops.Turkish troops were 120,000.I have always heard and read as 90,000 casualties.I think both name should be used for this article...Inanna 01:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to provide some source on these figures? The figures as are presented before come from in my opinion reliable, third party sources, such as Encyclopedia Brittanica and the CNN. Also, since you speak Turkish could you please say how "Sarikamis Tragedy" is told in the Turkish language? Is it "Sarıkmış Trajedi" (a wild guess here, just because Tragedy interlinks to tr:Trajedi). --Michalis Famelis 01:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's "Sarıkamış Faciası".I showed a source about that.But's in Turkish.However, you can see the numbers here...Inanna 01:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I put it in the article. Apart form that, I understad you cite this link from karsardahanigdir.net as your source for the figures you provided, correct me if I am wrong. Again, correct me if I am wrong but karsardahanigdir.net does not seem as a historical research website, rather a tourist one? Are you sure this is a reliable source, reliable enough to compete with, say Encyclopedia Brittanica? -- Michalis Famelis 14:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem, some tourist source can't be held to the same standard as Encyclopedia Brittanica. I say we go with the Brittanica source for the figures on the Turks we do know. Reliable sources are needed and unfortunately everything can't be found on the web regarding this particular battle. Tombseye 19:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it really is a tourist information site, I can't read Turkish. I'm only saying it looks like one. Maybe Inanna could help clarify this. Innana, what is this website? --Michalis Famelis 21:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the web-site of Kars municipality.You can ask anyone from Turkey about "Sarıkamış Tragedy".The casualites were 90,000.I think the all numbers of brittanica are not true...Inanna 18:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that Brittanica, as a neutral party in the matter and given the fact that its numbers are based on a third party observer (the German officer mentioned by Cglassey above), is a reliable source in this. The 90,000 figure you say that everyone in Turkey would report could be bloated, as such matters often get into "folk history" which tends to exaggerate. After all, don't you agree that a report made by an eye-witness is more credible than a filtered-through-tradition version of the story held by a people 90 years after the events? -- Michalis Famelis 20:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. Of the two sources, Britannica has less reason to be 'biased' as opposed to the Kars principality which may, for whatever reason, seek to increase the numbers. I say go with the Britannica figures backed by the German officer. Tombseye 20:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So here is a proposal based on numbers given by Encyclopædia Britannica Online for Ottoman figures and on numbers given by Jere W. Roberson for Imperial Russians:

• strength Russians: 100,000
• strength Ottomans: 90,000 (plus aprox. 100,000 auxilliary non-combatant personell)
• casualties Russians: unknown
• casualties Ottomans: 77,500

--Michalis Famelis 13:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Russian forces: The Russian forces are estimated at 100,000 by John Keegan in his WWI book (as well as other sources, such as DuPuy). I haven't found any sources that contradict this but it doesn't make much sense. The Russians were quite seriously worried about Enver's attack and their urgent appeal for aid from the British and French was the cause of the Gallipoli campaign. Why, if the Russians had 100,000 would they be worried by an Ottoman attack with an army of just 90,000? Why would the commander of the Russian army want to withdraw to Kars (an action which Yudenich did not, in fact, carry out)? The numbers which we have don't make sense. I personally think Enver's army is larger than 90,000 and the Russian army is smaller than 100,000 but I can't offer sources.

2nd point: I can't figure out who Yudenich was taking orders from. Was it Vorontsov, the Governor General of the Cacasus? Or was it this mysterious General Mishlaevski? Perhaps Yudenich took orders from both? Vorontsov was dead within a few months (1915) and the Grand Duke comes in as his replacement in September. -- cglassey 15 February 2006

What good are 100 000 soldiers to the Russians if they are days, or weeks, away from Sarikamish? The Caucasus is a big place, even if they were all stationed in border regions (which is doubtful) it would take weeks to get from a position, say, along the Persian border to the front line in Sarikamish. Surely the figures should be limited to how many soldiers were actually engaged in the battle. 89.242.178.222 (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The cold made a deal in Russia again

I believe if Russia had won battle in africa some sources would tell it won it because of cold weather. But i wont to say else. It is obvious that the Ottoman 3rd Army failed the attack. Enver Pasha was discharged impartially, incapable to lead attack nor retreat bringing surrender of 9th corpse with its full complement losing practically entire 3rd army that had advantage about 3:2 before. Owing victory of Sarıkamış Russia advanced on Anatolia. What we see in conclusion of this article?
- As a result of the battle, both sides suffered heavy casualties.
It is the frank underestimation of Russian success or Ottoman failure any way one likes. Sources of this article are cold war written so i'm not surprised. We have lack of objectivity here, no manoeuvers and just low-quality.

Sarikamish or Sarıkamış?

Google scholar since 2017:

• Sarıkamış 51 results
• Sarikamish 43 results

Sarıkamış would also be WP:CONSISTENT with how we spell the article about the place, Sarıkamış. (t · c) buidhe 19:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Need For Reference For Enver Statement About Armenians

I noticed here that there is still the claim about Enver publicly blaming Armenians for the defeat. I can not find a reference for this public statement. The book by an Armenian author is hardly a reference. If it is a public statement, there should be a public record. I am waiting.

While reference to Enver's statement is missing, from the Van Rebellion page: "For their role in this success, the Armenian volunteers received credit as natives of the region, well adjusted to the climate, familiar with every road and mountain path, and motivated to wage fierce and resolute combat" ... it seems local Armenians deeply collaborated with the invading enemy, explaining the Ottoman actions against the insurgents.

There is no "Van Rebellion" page, the text you quote is a tertiary source - an encyclopedia from 1922 which should not be used as a source. As for the supposed Enver statement here, which has Balakian as a source: There is nothing on page 23 that mentions it, nothing also on page 445 (which is actually part of the book's index). The claim is made on page 178 - but it has no citation or indication of its original source. Balakian is not a trained historian who can read Ottoman documents, so he must have got the info from elsewhere. Without knowing what that elsewhere is we cannot assess it and, against a background of the abundance of propaganda texts in this subject area, I think this Enver statement is unproven and imo should be removed until a proper source for it is found. The other source is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source and not suitable for contentious material, and again the claim has no citation or indication of its original source. If Enver really made the assertion it will be found in specialist academic literature. 89.242.178.222 (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been bold and deleted the entire "Armenians" section. The entire first paragraph of it is off-topic for here: this article is not about the oppression or massacre of Ottoman Armenians, or about Armenian political movements, or about Turkish propaganda seeking to excuse genocide by implying rebellion in its victims. That is what is in that first paragraph and there is no reason for any of that text to be here. There are, as I pointed out above, serious problems with sources for the assertion that Enver blamed Armenians for the defeat. The rest is synthesis since there is no source presented that actually connects this alleged statement with a reason for the Armenian Genocide. And the final deleted part, which mentions Greeks, has no source. 89.242.178.222 (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at past comments, I see a quote "..the Young Turk leadership met on February 14th and, with the excuse that the Armenians were engaged in pro-Russian military and anti-Turkish revolutionary activities and therefore were responsible for the calamitious Turkish military campagn on the Caucasian front, issued a general order to arrest Armenian leaders followed by mass deportations from the Cilician towns...." p346, Armenian Karin/Erzurum, R. G. Hovanissian (ed), 2003. What is needed is an "Aftermath" section. It would include content like this quote, and the Enver content if a source is found, plus content on what the defeat did to the Ottoman empire militarily, what response were made to the defeat, etc. No separate "Armenians" section is needed, imo. 89.242.178.222 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

After all this time and discussion, not a single direct quote has been referenced that substantiates the claims that "Enver blamed Armenians publicly for the defeat". Please include a reference for this claim that has been given prominence in the lede. As he was a very public figure, this should be possible. Please, objective and credible sources and references only, not the well known propagandists. I will give some more time and then I will boldly remove the relevant sentence. If need be, such topics can be discussed in an "aftermath" section.Murat (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

“In spite of bad conditions for the Armenian soldiers in the army they did their duty with great responsibility. Armenian soldiers saved War minister Enver Pasha from being taken as war prisoner in the Sarikamish front, who on that occasion sent a letter of gratitude to Zaven Ter-Yeghiayan, Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople. The defeat at Sarikamish became a pretext to blame Armenian soldiers for treachery. On February 12, 1915 by the order of the same Enver pasha, the disarmament of the Armenian soldiers of Ottoman army started, then amele taburi-es (labor battalions) and hamal taburi-es (cargo transportation battalions) were formed with the involvement of disarmed Armenian soldiers. At the same time the isolation and arrest of Armenian officers started. This was followed by the order of Enver about the annihilation of Armenian soldiers serving in the Ottoman army. Thousands of Armenian soldiers and army suppliers were cruelly killed by their Turkish companions-in-arms.” 98.231.157.169 (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Davidian

References

Article needs to be re-written

I propose edits based on empirical evidence from sources other than Erickson, whose works have been criticized every so often as being heavily biased in favor of the Turkish view of history. Let me know.98.231.157.169 (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Davidian

Casualties

Russian losses were up to 30,000: 16,000 killed and wounded and 12,000 sick/injured, mostly due to frostbite.

Although Hafız Hakkı Pasha and German Lieutenant Colonel Guse, who were commanders during the battles that took place December 22 - January 18, write down amount of loss in their memories as low (Hafız Hakkı Pasha gives 30,000 death, Lieutenant Colonel Guse gives 2 numbers: 11,000 death, 3,500 prisoners and 30,000 death, 27,000 prisoners). If we look at number of the Turkish army before and after battles, it turns out that total casualties were 109,108. 10 thousand reinforcement soldiers sent from Erzurum should be added to this number of casualties.

It seems that casualties in every winter campaign are not due deaths in first days of battles, but due to increase in epidemic disease cases that increase in following days. Hunger and combat fatigue resulting from inability to provide food due to the snow-covered roads further increase death rate as a result of epidemic. Number of deaths from typhus epidemic in Turkish army was higher than number of deaths in battles.

-

Unit	Men (22 December)	Soldiers (22 December)	Soldiers (18 January 1915)	Casualties	Rifle
9th Corps	36.784	28.000	-	36.784
10th Corps	48.943	40.000	2.200	37.800
11th Corps	27.019	?	5.200	21.819	22.819
2nd Cavalry Division	5.428	?	1.500	3928
Total	118.174	90.000	8.900	109.108

References

the grammar errors are stupendous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.34.142 (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Explanation of My Last Strengths Change

Turkish sources are unanimous about initial strength of Turkish Army which is 90,000 and reinforced 10,000 soldiers by Erzurum Garrison until end of the battles on January 22, 1915. Chief of Staff of IX Corps Şerif İlden, commander of 29th Division Arif Baytın gave 90,000 number in their books. Edward J. Erickson in "Ordered to Die. p. 84 (in Turkish)" put a list of Turkish Army showing 118.660 men and 75,600 rifles. Some deduced from that this table shows Turkish Army had 75.600 soldiers in Battle of Sarikamish. As a mater of fact, Turkish army had 50-90% rifle per soldier in their army just like other belligerent in WW1, Russians, Germans, French etc.. 75,600 rifle per 90,000 soldiers is equal to 84% ratio which was normal for beginning of the WW1. Knowledge of 10,000 soldiers sent as a reinforcement from Erzurum was written on January 8, 1915 telegram from Enver Pasha to Hafız Hakkı Pasha . Enver Pasha wrote 5,000 soldiers were sent from Erzurum in his telegram and we knew that 800 soldiers per day contiuned to be sent to XI Corps from Erzurum based on Hakkı Pasha's diary . dated January 16, 1915. Hafız Hakkı said that "XI Corps was reinforced 800 soldiers everyday". In conclusion, Turkish Army in Battle of Sarikamish was 100,000 soldiers in total.

I wrote 78,000 Russian Army number solely based on "P. Muratoff, W. E. D. Allen's "Caucasian Battlefield. p. 252." book. People with more reliable Russian sources can change the number 78,000. But the information that the Turkish army had 100,000 soldiers in Battle of Sarikamish is certain. Tartridrad (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

References