Turkey's challenge to the Armenians

[abian]

Comparison

This mentality is not different from that of the Nazi Germany.

Here you are claiming that the mentality of those who acknowledge that Armenian Genocide indeed took place is similar to the mentality of Nazi Germany. Well, it's easy to throw unsupported comparisons around, but let's examine the facts: Let's see, recognition of amptly documented Armenian genocide would be like Nazi Germany because... hmm.... Because Nazis in Germany reviewed a large numbers of written and verbal evidence and made a considered conclusion that an event did indeed take place? Well, no, no, that doesn't seem right: Nazis really made no studies of a historical event that I know of. No - weight a minute - they were too busy annihilating a small ethnic and religious minority. Hm, well, that sounds familiar. That's what Turkey did at the turn of the century. Nazi Germany committed genocide against Jews (and attempted genocide against Poles, Ukrainians, Belorussians and Russian - but they were too numerous) and Turkey committed genocide against Armenians (and attempted genocide against Greeks, Serbs, Bolgarians and Kurds - but those too were too numerous). Well, thank you for supplying that comparison. The mentality you are referring to in this sentence undoubtedly is Turkish nationalist mentality.

To quote Adolf Hitler: "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians", 1939. And: "Think of biblical deportations and the massacres of the Middle Ages and remember the extermination of the Armenians", 1931. Turkey's genocide of Armenians showed Hitler he could do the same with Jews with the same impunity. That is why Turkey has to recognize the Armenian genocide - to ensure that is does not happen again in Turkey or anywhere else.

I heard an interesting report on the radio recently - apparently Main Campf is a best seller in Turkey. Disturbing, isn't it?

[abian]

Does the quote "If you tell a lie... especially a big lie... enough times, people will believe it" sound familiar to you? - It should. This is what you've been doing for years... The owner of the quote is the Nazi minister of Propoganda.

Man, you just keep stepping into it, don't you? I advise you to never become a lawyer or attempt any profession having to do with opposing arguments. Frankly, I've never seen that quote before, but it's obvious that you have. Let's see now: at first we have an element of a lie. Massacres and ethnic cleansing of Armenians certainly took place, we know this from a multitude of sources including Turkish, American, German, English as well as from personal knowledge of a number of families. You yourself don't deny it, you simply say it was justified. That couldn't be the lie. However, the official Turkish position on Armenian genocide is either that it never happened or it was justified despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Hey, we found our lie, didn't we? Let's see, then there's the matter of repetition of the lie. Well, that certainly occurs every time someone like you spouts off the party line without any review of the source because, of course, you claim that any Turkish source is unimpeachable. Well, thank you once again! How appropriate of you to describe an official Turkish position with such an appropriate quote.

[abian]

Abian,

See? Even the books & sources you mention in support of your thesis are not what they seem. I don't know if you listed them on purpose (assuming that no one else had read them), or if you acted out of ignorance, I cannot judge.
But I can hope that, if you are acting with goodwill, do your best filter fact from fiction even if the result is disappointing for you.

Matteo

Ah, at last someone who's read the same material. I assure you I am careful about my sources. Those references you've quoted also contain rather directly applicable materials to the Armenian Genocide, although you choose not to quote the passages that are directly applicable. Gotta run now, but stand by...

[matteo]

QUOTE=abian]Ah, at last someone who's read the same material. I assure you I am careful about my sources. Those references you've quoted also contain rather directly applicable materials to the Armenian Genocide, although you choose not to quote the passages that are directly applicable. Gotta run now, but stand by...[/QUOTE]

No problem, I am standing by. In the meantime, here is some quote from Lord Kinross' book 'The Ottoman Centuries', published by Quill, p.560

"Cruellest and most ruinous of all were the massacres at Urfa, where the Armenians numbered a third of the population. Here in December, 1895, after a two-months siege of their quarter, the leading Armenians assembled in their cathedral, where they drew up a statement demanding TUrkish official protection. Promising this, the Turkish officer in cahrege surrounded the cathedral with troops. Then a large body of them, with a mob in their wake, rushed through the Armenian quarter, where they slaughtered all adult males above a certain age.....the total casualties in town, including those slaughtered in the cathedral, amounted to eight thousand dead"

Why am I quoting this? Two reasons:

1) Because I am ashamed, as a Turk, that helpless Armenians were murdered by people who could be relatives of my great-grandparents. I pray to God that my blood is free from the evil genes of these Ottoman (and probably Turkish) officers who had committed these honourless acts.

2) To distinguish barbarous acts and massacres from genocide. In the index of the book I mention above, I looked for the word Armenia. Under Armenia, I chose the subsection called 'Armenian massacres', which were listed between pages 558-562. And from that section, I especially quoted the massacre which had cost most Armenian lives (Otherwise our Armenian forum mates would think that I was trying to deflate the number of casualties, huh?) In these indexed pages where anything about Armenians were mentioned, there was no mention of GENOCIDE, and there were mentions of BRUTAL ACTS OF OTTOMAN OFFICERS and MASSACRES.

So these facts leaves us with 3 options

1) Lord Kinross, who is mentioned by Abian, does not know the difference between massacres and genocide. He is undisputedly one of the best known historians of the 20th century (and definitely not the most Turcophile!), whose books are reference material in British, Greek, German, and Turkish high school curricula, but hey, he can't tell massacre from genocide. Although he is impartial and courageous to list and condemn Ottoman attrocities and brutalities against Armenians, he is partial and coward when it comes to name these 'events'.

2) Abian is lying. Even the sources he mentions to support his claims are supporting what the Turks are trying to explain to the world. YES Ottomans committed shameful attrocities, YES several high ranking officers tolerated, even endorsed, the killing of thousands of Armenians in several Eastern Turkish cities.

3) I am lying. The pages which I quoted and the contents of the quotes are not real. I made them up in order to convince you that there is no such a thing as 'Armenian Genocide'

Abian and myself I talking about the same book,same author, same section, and same subject. Because he says "Those references you've quoted also contain rather directly applicable materials to the Armenian Genocide, although you choose not to quote the passages that are directly applicable. ". I say that I do choose to quote passages that are directly applicable, but the author does not relate it to genocide, he relates it to mistreatment, brutality, and massacres.

This is one clear case where either abian or myself are definitely and bluntly lying. Those who are interested feel free to do your best to find out who.....

[imported_Hellektor]

It Was Definitely Genocide

...several high ranking officers tolerated, even endorsed, the killing of thousands of Armenians in several Eastern Turkish cities.
Matteo

One thing Turks don't want to understand is that Armenians according to all historic facts, maps, monuments (being destroyed until this very day), etc. were living in the region Turks so willingly avoid calling by it's real name: Armenia. Then the Turks came and after centuries of tyranny and abuse, decided to eliminate the indigenous people, the Armenians, to realize their sick dream of pan-Turkism.
To reiterate the whole thing:
Armenians were living in their homeland for thousands of years then the Turks came and removed them (whether they served them soft drinks and barbecue or drank their blood and barbecued them in the desert is another question), now the Armenians do not live in their homeland anymore. By any definition, this means GENOCIDE. If it's hurting the Turks, they may call it ediconeg if they please, by presenting events upside down, the truth does not change.

...There he writes about how Christian subjects of Ottoman Empire in general. Mostly he praises the Ottoman authorities because of their religious tolerance.
Matteo

Another thing that's been repeated ad nauseam, is the self-righteous nauseating rubbish that "Turks and Armenians lived like brothers for centuries and suddenly the Armenians revolted and got punished for their acts of treason". I'm stupefied by this illogical "reasoning" and the sad reality that the Turk hasn't evolved in the past thousand years. Have you ever reflected for a moment that you were NOT WELCOME and that you were INVADERS and that the "subjects" LOATHED YOU right from the moment you arrived UNINVITED and razed everything to cinders, burned thousands of priceless manuscripts, killed and raped every living thing in sight and that for a thousand years....

In his "Risale" (report) presented to sultan Murad IV in 1631-1632, among others Koçi Bey writes:

"In the beginning 40 to 50 akce was imposed on each household as "avaris". Today 240 akce per capita as "cizye", another 300 per household as "avaris" and an akce for every sheep as sheep tax is being imposed...How can the "raya" tolerate such oppression..."

"Devsirme", the collecting and conversion of Christians, mainly for janissary purposes, that went on from 15th to 17th centuries, expressed itself as legitimized oppression. According to Selaniki the Turkish annals writer: "The rulers of the time were ruthless in recruiting children... Like wolves attacking sheep, they mercilessly assaulted the "raya" in the land."

There's endless evidence that the Ottoman tyranny was not as "tolerant" and "friendly" as Turks want us to believe. One needs to research this abysmally cruel period that halted the normal cultural, social, economic, etc. development of Armenians. Just think of all the poets, writers, intellectuals and politicians that were arrested on 24 April 1915 and brutally murdered soon afterwards.

The Armenian Genocide did not begin in 1915 and has not stopped yet.

[abian]

Abian,

So you say you knew NOTHING of this matter, and then you started reading academic material. Are you sure you read all the books which you listed in a previous posting of yours? Are you also sure that you were not brainwashed by friends & family before you read one single line about the Turco-Armenian issues?


Matteo

Why is it that I find it necessary to teach English on this site? "Brainwashing" implies that I've formerly held the belief that Turks were innocent. That is in fact incorrect. Since you know nothing about me and my background your questioning of it is baseless and is pure conjecture... But lets move on to the issues.

[abian]

Andrew Wheatcroft: I read 'Infidels' too. There he writes about how Christian subjects of Ottoman Empire in general. Mostly he praises the Ottoman authorities because of their religious tolerance. On several occasions, however, he criticizes Ottomans because they were discriminated against Christians in the army and other state institutions. He also mentions about the 1895 massacre of 2000 Armenian intellectuals in Istanbul. However, nowhere does he term these shameful events as 'genocide'.

Andrew Wheatcroft would not be amused at your utter and, I suspect, intentional misrepresentation of his book. If fact, the theme of "infidels" is the mutual "Maledicta" - by which he means "bad words", "bad feelings", "evil stereotypes" between mostly Christian Europe and mostly Moslem Middle East and partially the plight of both Christian and Muslem minorities having the misfortune of residing at the interface of the two. In fact, nowhere in the book does he talk about "1895 massacre of 2000 Armenian intellectuals in Istanbul" in those words. Rather here's a far more relevant and direct quote which you will find on pages 323 (last paragraph) and page 324 (first paragraph):

"The killing of Ottoman Christians in the 1890's and the mass murder of 1915, both events profusely and horrifically documented, had a long-lasting effect on American perceptions of the Middle East. This modern savagery reinforced the older and more remote memories that have appeared in earlier pages. The Armenian slaughter stimulated a galvanic reflex, similar to the Bulgarian atrocities of 1875-76, described in the chapter 11. Henry Morgenthau, U.S. ambassador at Istanbul from 1913 to 1916, told the engineer of atrocity Mehmet Talaat Pasha:

""... Our people will never forget these massacres. They will look upon it as nothing but willful murder and will seriously condemn all the men responsible for it... You are defying all ideas of justice as we understand the term in our country""".

You challenged my having read these books and willfully misrepresented the subject matter of the books probably in hopes that I was simply quoting the titles without having read the books. Your bluff was called. I think it's plain to see who is being cavalier with the truth.

[abian]

Here's a quote from your earlier post:

"Lord Kinross: I have the book in front of me now. He writes about the attacks of Kurdish tribes on Armenian people on their route to Syria, and accuses the Ottoman officers of 'not taking sufficient measures in order to protect the marching Armenians'. However he makes no mention of deliberate actions of Ottoman authorities."

Maybe you didn't expect for me to call you out on your words, maybe, as I mentioned before, you were hoping I never read the book. Then, there's the below quote.

QUOTE=abian]No problem, I am standing by. In the meantime, here is some quote from Lord Kinross' book 'The Ottoman Centuries', published by Quill, p.560

"Cruellest and most ruinous of all were the massacres at Urfa, where the Armenians numbered a third of the population. Here in December, 1895, after a two-months siege of their quarter, the leading Armenians assembled in their cathedral, where they drew up a statement demanding TUrkish official protection. Promising this, the Turkish officer in cahrege surrounded the cathedral with troops. Then a large body of them, with a mob in their wake, rushed through the Armenian quarter, where they slaughtered all adult males above a certain age.....the total casualties in town, including those slaughtered in the cathedral, amounted to eight thousand dead"

.....

I would say this second quote talks exactly about a deliberate action of an Ottoman official in ordering Ottoman troops in murdering defenseless and completely cowered people in the very sanctuary of their church. So, Matteo, it is pretty clear that your first statement is a clear attempt to disinform the readers of this debate.

I am glad you have such a high regard for Lord Kinross for here are some more quotes:

page 557: "... Abdul Hamid (the last sultan) responded with the sly policy of exploiting the differences between Moslem and Christian. Using the Kurds as deliberate instrument of division and rule, he sanctioned their attacks on Armenians by starting, in 1891, to recruit an armed force of irregulars from among the Kurdish tribesmen. Named the Hamidiye, the "men of the Sultan".... In Armenia, they spread fear through the open avowal that their official task was to surpress the Armenians and that they were assured of legal immunity for any acts of oppression against the Christian population."

Want more? pg. 557: "In the region of Sasun...Turkish troops were called into the area... indiscriminately slaughtering the helpless Armenians. The soldiers pursued them throughout the length the length and breadth of the region, hunting men "like wild beasts" up the valleys and into the mountains... bayoneting the men to death, raping the women, dashing their children against the rocks, burning to ashes the villages from which they had fled. For this operations the Turkish commander, Zeki Pasha, was awarded an appropriate gratuity by the Sultan."

Looks like pretty much like "deliberate actions" to me. So, care to modify your statements further? ... But, why stop here, let's hammer home the point, shall we?

[abian]

Boghosian and Balakian: Come on Abian, if I listed here 50 books written by Turkish authors rejecting genocide claims, would you be impressed? I assume not. So at least give me that in reciprocity.

Well, Matteo, are you saying that as long as a man's (or a woman's for that matter) name ends in "ian" they are automatically to be distrusted or disregarded? Are those shades of discrimination? No, I would say that statement is fairly clearly discriminatory. Are these the echoes of the same disregard, disdain and distrust that pushed ordinary, human and humane Turks to turn on their neighbors egged on by vicious lies and fabrications of a cruel government? Yes, it certainly seems that way. Come on, bring on the "50 Turkish authors rejecting genocide claims". I would love to peruse them and emasculate them, intellectually speaking, of course. I won't spend my time on any books not quoting direct sources, however. And, of course, I can't read Turkish, so only English please.

[abian]

See? Even the books & sources you mention in support of your thesis are not what they seem. I don't know if you listed them on purpose (assuming that no one else had read them), or if you acted out of ignorance, I cannot judge.
But I can hope that, if you are acting with goodwill, do your best filter fact from fiction even if the result is disappointing for you.

Au contraire, as you saw from my previous posts, they are indeed exactly what I represented they were, which are works by reputable second sources relying on quoted first sources. I listed them having read them. The sources all describe premeditated, planned genocide carried out against ethnic and religious minority in Turkey. You, however, for probably nefarious reasons made entirely unsupportable claims about these books in your first e-mail, then attempted to backtrack in your following e-mail and were subsequently proven to have been practicing maledicta. Come better armed and more thoroughly prepared next time.