Should Turkey compensate-your thoughts?

[nairi]

Everyone now knows that material produced by diaspora ethnic groups is intrinsically untrustworthy. Because, whether it be from Albanians terrorists in Kossovo, or from quizling Iraqi political groups in America, or from individual rent-a-mouth "experts" from exiled ethnic minorities everywhere, the world has been badly affected by their propaganda in recent decades.

You mean people like Dadrian are untrustworthy?

As for politicians vs. historians, though I agree essentially, we also know that historians don't have the same influence that politicians have. Historians have unanimously recognized the Armenian genocide as fact on numerous occasions. Does anyone care? But every time a government recognizes the Armenian genocide, Turkey's balls shrink further.

[shasa]

hummm call me selfish, but I don't really care much about Turks or Kurds living on the lands, as long as we don't harm them, I could care less if they're deported or gain Armenian citizenship (though I prefer deporting). I rather think about what's best for my nation than turkish population. When was the last time they gave a damn about us?

It's unbelievable how some Armenians are saying (voting) Turkey doesn't owe us anything but an apology, no land, no money, it makes me sad ... I think they're getting closer to their goal. Mission accomplished Turkey. Now you can admit to it all without having to pay us a penny for their blood. Good job you guys!

OK,
1. We have to invade Turkey
2. We have to deport Turks and Kurds
3. We have to clean them from the area and from the earth if possible
4. We have to establish our cities again and restore our monuments
5. We have to grow up our population again

[ArmoBarbi]

OK,
1. We have to invade Turkey
2. We have to deport Turks and Kurds
3. We have to clean them from the area and from the earth if possible
4. We have to establish our cities again and restore our monuments
5. We have to grow up our population again

Now THAT does sound eerily familiar.

[bell-the-cat]

You mean people like Dadrian are untrustworthy?

As for politicians vs. historians, though I agree essentially, we also know that historians don't have the same influence that politicians have. Historians have unanimously recognized the Armenian genocide as fact on numerous occasions. Does anyone care? But every time a government recognizes the Armenian genocide, Turkey's balls shrink further.

I don't know about people like Dadrian. But, as for Dadrian himself, last month, having attended a lecture by him for the first time, I found him deeply unimpressive, and full of hidden agendas, and rather full of himself. He talked for over 90 minutes without notes, which was impressive for someone in their 70s. But nothing much he said was memorable, except the stuff that was factually wrong. And he knew that some of things he was saying were factually wrong.

(Also, rumours abound about his private life, which I won't repeat, in case they're not true. Though if the rumours about Hilmar Kaiser are true, he would make even winoman appear safe to be around women and young girls!).

[winoman]

I find it funny that bell the cat believes he knows better then Dadrian - etc. (and everyone else). And also speaks of agendas and such. His jealousy and (literal) impotence manifests itself on several fronts as we can see he has nothing better to add then to post slanderously and petulantly here to somehow feed his little (like everything else) ego - poor sorry soul...no discussion of his own professional failures and as a person - no - he seeks to (incorrectly) place blame and continue with his bitterness - most sad.

[nairi]

Who really cares Steve? He wrote a pretty damn good book.

[bell-the-cat]

Who really cares Steve? He wrote a pretty damn good book.

I think your verdict on his book "The History of the Armenian Genocide" is correct. But he is more than his book, Nairi. He is a public figure, by choice. He goes on numerous lecture tours. So the content of what he says is as important as what he writes.

The title of the Dadrian lecture I attended was "The Armenian Genocide, as Documented in Various Archives". Before I went to the lecture, I heard comments from a lot of people that went something along the lines of "Dadrian, Dadrian, Dadrian, it’s always Dadrian, I’ve heard everything he has to say, and heard it many times. He never says anything new, so what is the point of continually inviting this person to speak?" Since I hadn't heard him before, I did attend - and had high expectations.

I have to confess that I did not make anything in the way of proper notes, since at the start of his lecture I did not expect that, by the end of his lecture, I would want to produce a critique of Dadrian's style and aims. But a few things he said did stay stuck in my mind, and I will elaborate on them below.

In his lecture he said that the "main instruments" (his words) of the Armenian Genocide were released convicts, members of the so-called Special Organisation. This was a factually incorrect statement to have made, and he must have known it was wrong. (Even Fadi, xxxxxxxx's genocide geek and Dadrian worshiper, admitted it was incorrect.) Yet Dadrian repeated the same point several times in his lecture. What were his motives in stressing this point, I wonder? In reality, these specially released criminals did only a small amount of the overall killing. The "main instruments" were particular ethnic groups such as Kurds, or the ordinary Muslim neighbours of the Christian victims, or, most importantly, consciously engineered conditions like thirst, exhaustion, disease, and starvation.

By putting this stress on "convicted criminals", Dadrian is actually helping to unjustly absolve the wider Turkish nation from blame. It was in the interests of the post-war Turkish regime to put the blame for the numerous wartime atrocities that the nation had committed onto "criminals", onto people who, by definition, would be seen to be on the fringes of normal Turkish society and predisposed to committing vile acts. One can see a contemporary parallel to this in Russia, where those who commit violence against ethnic minorities are always described as “hooligan and criminal elements”, thus absolving the wider Russian national psyche from blame.

An important part of Dadrian’s lecture was on the trials, and resulting records, of Turkish government officials held within Turkey, by Turkish judiciary, in the immediate post-war period. He characterised them as a place for "confessions and atonement" (his words). Some may prefer to characterise them as a defeated Turkey turning on itself and seeking CUP scapegoats to blame for its present condition and past activities. And what was the official purpose of these trials? Were they concerned only (or even primarily) with punishing the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide? Of this, Dadrian said nothing at all about this in his lecture. However, in his book he does makes it clear that punishing those responsible for the Genocide was only a minor part of the aims of the trials. Dadrian also writes that the trials were held primarily to placate the victorious Allies and were intended to stop those victors inflicting a wider punishment on all of Turkey. He even admits that the Constantinople government used the trials as a way to punish the Kemalist rebels operating beyond the reach of the Constantinople’s control.

In his lecture, given to a mostly Armenian audience (this is important) Dadrian displayed an obsession about "punishing" modern Turkey that, I believe, is not appropriate from someone who should want to be seen as a dispassionate historian. For example, he said that Turkey would never apologise from a "position of strength" (his words). And that Turkey should be "made weak" in order for it to be "forced" to apologise (again his words). What value would any decent person put on a forced apology? An apology made by someone in a strong position is far more valuable and far more sincere than one when the apologist is made weak. His attitude in this matter does place a serious question mark on the character and the aims of Dadrian. I wonder, when he was young, was he the school bully who went around twisting the arms of his fellow pupils to force them to say things?

Dadrian’s forthcoming publication of German wartime documents on the Armenian Genocide was covered in his lecture. During a brief question and answer session at the end of the lecture, one of the questioners ask why, since these documents had been known about and available for at least 85 years, had it taken so long for them to be published. To which Dadrian replied something like "Well, I’ve been busy with a lot of other things, it takes time". The questioner seemed a bit startled by this reply, and repeated his question, which, in essence was "if these documents are so important for the study of the Armenian Genocide then why have they been ignored by academics and by the Armenian community for so long?" But still Dadrian still not understand the question, and gave almost the same answer as before. Maybe he couldn’t accept the concept that there might be someone else who would have been capable of doing it, and doing it a long time ago.

To summarise, my high expectations were not fulfilled.

[winoman]

Steve - actually from very good points and well stated on your part. I think your getting overly worked up against Dadrian however and may be hearing his emphasis of Special Organization incorrectly (it was certainly the primary official [though clandestine] instrument of Genocide enactment - though the party aparatus attached to and directing the local governments and the use and mobilization of local Moslem hatred and greed were all significant tools used - etc ). Understand your point regarding the trials - all of them -so true - however - regardless they yield facinating detials to us and their treatment of evidence was exempalary - so a great deal of very good incriminating data is contained in the transcripts - and even if politically motivated (and with the intent of the greater number of Truks and the Sultanate attempting to pass blame...) - the evidence cannot be dodged and it is good for making the case (against charges of bias and propaganda - however spurios - concerning Morganthau and the Blue Book - etc. And I agree with Dadrian regarding Turkey but also hear your point regarding his role to say such - but you fail to understand how Armenians see us - how this genocide binds us in some very specific ways - and he is one of of - first and foremost - he shares our loss...

[Ashuri62]

OK,
1. We have to invade Turkey
2. We have to deport Turks and Kurds
3. We have to clean them from the area and from the earth if possible
4. We have to establish our cities again and restore our monuments
5. We have to grow up our population again

I think we're better than them to not repeat what they did to us!

[Ashuri62]

I don't want compensation from Turkey. Money doesnt change anything. It would be as if they were trying to buy 1.5 million Armenian lives.