Questions for Turks

[maral_m79]

I can see why Turkey will not admit anything. Thats Standard Armenian "shut up, listen and accept everything overwise your a Holocaust denier". Armenians still deny that armed Armenians were killing Turks and destroying the Ottoman war effort. Armenians also reject the idea that during ASALA's reign of terror across the world, Armenia's biggest export was Terrorism and Armenia's biggest import was Foreign Aid right now Armenia's biggest import is Foreign Aid and Armenia's biggest export is immigrants. Armenians also deny that General Dro joined their fellow Aryan's the Nazi's and killed loads of Jews therefore giving Armenia a role in the Holocaust(who is the Holocaust denier now).

What you mentioned above is totally irrelevant to the fact that there was an Armenian Genocide in 1915 ...

And EVEN IF it was true, which most of it is not, it all happened years after the Genocide of the Armenian , it was only a "reaction" to the Armenian Genocide of 1915, not a "Reason" to justify the Genocide ...

Armenians probably deny my signature which says the Kurds were in Asia Minor before the Armenians

Don't make me laugh , please !!!
Your signature is full of Historical mistakes ....


It is well known Historical fact that Kurds are nomadic tribes offshot from Persians , and until today Kurds speak one of two dialects of Kurdish, a West Iranian language related to Modern Persian (according to Encyclopedia Britannica).

Where as Armenians "Originated" in the Armenian Plateau, around mount Ararat, Armenians had a Kingdom that fought against the Akkadians of Mesopotamia. This war was recorded in the Triumph Obelisk of Sargon of Akkad , recorded his long war against the "Armani" people of the Ararat, followed by Sargon's grandson's war with the Armenians too , one can estemate the dates of these early mention of Armenians when it's well known that the Kingdom of the Akkadians had demolished 2900 BC.
And I can proudely tell you that the First EVER known map of the world which was a Babylonian clay tablet world map dated 600 B.C. mentioned Armenia as a country .

So, of course Armenians were in region long time before the Kurds ... And no offense but If you are so ignorant about history, it would be your problem... Just don't say something that you are not sure it's true or you'll look really ridiculous !!


I guess you see where you made the mistakes ... I suggest you change your signature or correct the mistakes in it. And I won't comment on the Armeian Export and Import thing... because it's too ridiculous to consider.

[ScythianVizier]

SythianVizer - I understand your points and they are reasonable ones for discussion. However I need to point out a few things - it is not just Armenians who consider that they experienced Genocide - it is a whole gamet of scholars and historians and it is pretty much an accepted thing - its prettymuch only Turks and those directly funded by Turks that deny that it was a Genocide.

Well most of those scholars also say that the "Armenian Genocide is the first Genocide of the 20th Century inspiring Hitler for the Jewish one".

Well, that is false analogy. First of all, the first Genocide of the 20th Cenutry was commited by Belgium in the Congo Free State, prior to its being taken over by Belgium to form the Belgian Congo. Under the rule of King Léopold II, the Congo Free State suffered a great loss of life due to criminal indifference to its native inhabitants in the pursuit of increased rubber production, which was during 1880-1920, and caused the lives of some 10 million Africans. Do the EU countries recognize that? Unfortunately, no. Do you guys associate your ordeal with any other crimes in history?, Unfortunately, no. Thus, when some people and scholars come up with some biased remarks, do you correct them? Unfortunately, no. Do the Europeans correct? Unfortunately, no...

Also - the deliberate CUP attempt to ethnically cleanse Armenians from Anatolia meets all definitions of genocide and in fact was the basis for the term/concept of Genocide in the first place. Again too - you are making/inventing/reiterating rationale and excuses that the CUP was only doing what it had to do etc - well I strongly reject this. CUP got Turkey into the war - CUP renegged on promisses to Armenians and destroyed the goodwhill atmosphere that had developed between Armenains and Turks - CUP is responsible for this mess just as Nazis were responsible for the Holocaust - and who - but extremely politically suspect motivated people are apologists for Nazis?

In my opininon, this assertation would not be correct. I believe that the Armenians were victimized by the West, not because of the reason that their ordeal was the first of its kind, but just because, they were accepted (seen) as a part of the European cultural, and racial sphere which should never be subjected to harsh policies by the "others" (who are non-Europeans).

If you look through the European history, then you would see harsher policies and larger scale crimes which are still not considered as "Genocide of any kind", such as the Irish Famine, the Ukranian Famine, Dutch Crimes in Indonesia, Belgian Crimes in Congo, German Crimes in South-West Africa, and many others that are the parts of a very long list of crimes commited by the Europeans.

Furthermore, neither do I support the activities of CUP, nor do I try to justify the crimes commited against the Armenians. However, I dont name these events as a "Genocide" but a part of greater tragedy experienced by many others. Please note that I am a Turkish with Circassian origin, and whose parents (both side of the families) were emigrated to the Ottoman Empire from Caucasus during the 1860s. It is generally accepted that some 1.000.000-1.500.000 Circassians died on their way whilst another 1.000.000-1.500.000 did make it to the Ottoman lines. Now, tell me, how do you name those events? and how do you see our presence in Turkey (of some 4-5 million Circassian descendants)?

You can say what you will about the mistreatment of Turks/Muslims wher Christians were able to rise up and free themselves and you can damn Russia and Russians all you want - I sympathise - believe me I do - however there are additional dynamics to these situations that when applied to the Armenain Genocide argument here become overly simplified with much lost (and the fact of Otoman persecution of Christians during/before this time needs to be understood/accepted as well....in addition to mismanagement and collapse of Empire...).

My Grandmothers used to tell me their stories about WWI, which also included the Armenian and Greek crimes committed, not only against the Turkish administration, but also against the Muslim peasants living in the lands that those claimed to be a part of "Armenia" or "Greece". So, it was not one way unrest.

What is relevant is the role in these struggles and in the collapse of Ottoman Empire in forming attitudes where such extreme inhumane measures could even be considered in terms of dealing with a group of people. Yes - we need to understand this environment and why a group such as the CUP could take the positions and act as they did and why the Muslims in the Empire could so easily be convinced to join in etc (even much more so then the German civilians did in WWII - though many - even in occupied nations assisted against Jews..) - but the point is that there is no rational justification for such barbaric acts - and you must accpet that the "solution" to the Armenian issue was barbaric and inhumane and could have no rational (or military) justification.

It was not only the Armenians who were subjected to deprotation and slaughter. Greeks and Assyrians were also subjected, just like it did happen in Balkans, at where Turks, Pomaks, Albanians, Romas, and Bosniaks were also subjected to identical tools utilized.

Jewish Genocide is quite different in many aspects. First of all, Jews were subjected to discrimination and hatred since the rise of Christianity. They were deported by Spain and Portugal in 1492, and later from other countries in Europe including Russia. They respectfully migrated to the Ottoman Empire. Furthermore, please also note that similar stereotypes and discriminitive policies against the Roma people also existed long before the WWII, and in fact, there still exists despite the Jewish and Roma Genocides.

Furthremore, I must also tell you that I read the Armenian resources on the net, and I am astonished to see that most Armenians hate the Jews as much as they hate the Turks and Azeris (since they are muslim and speak a turkic dialect). Do you think that those people gets these stereotypes out of the air? I dont think so. In fact, I wouldnt want to meet these sort of people during the "hard times" since there seems so much hatred and discrimination involved.

Hence, look at the "Destruction of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Nobody seems to interpret these events as "Genocide" though those directly involved destruction of cultural heritage of those nations, and mass-slaughter of civilians including eldery people, children, women, and hospitilized people. Some two million Germans were disappeared when they were forced to migrate from East Europe to Germany after WWII, and nobody sees these losses as a part of a genocide either. So, there seems no logical agreement as far as the boundries of a typical genocide is concerned. Do you think that there is (I am not refering to the narrow terminology accepted by the UN Convention)?

It was a political move - but not just any type - one that was a henious crime against humanity and against the Armenians - and there is nothing that anyone can bring to this debate to justify it - nothing at all. And most of what is brought up - blaming Armenian "gangs" and claiming that Armenians were seditious and in league with the Russians is so overblown and ultimatly false even if some instance of such occured - in no way can the violent and inhumane solution be justified (annhilation - not "deportation" as it was the former - planned and enacted and resulting). The result: Genocide - there can be no question concerning this verdict.

I dont justify any crimes against humanity, however, I think I could differentiate the crimes based upon several other factors involved.

Finally, let me provide you with some figures. As you might agree, there were hardly any Armenians in the Middle East before the WWI. Let us have a look the numbers applicable at present:

Argentina=>129591
Armenia=>2950955
Australia=>35428
Azerbaijan=>150734
Belarus=>24754
Brazil=>41278
Bulgaria=>9097
Canada=>29563
Chile=>784
Cyprus=>20834
Egypt=>102924
Estonia=>1707
Ethiopia=>4597
France=>271575
Georgia=>357882
Germany=>31585
Greece=>20260
Honduras=>1451
Indi=>531
Iran=>172280
Iraq=>97264
Israel=>3137
Italy=>1317
Jordan=>8333
Kazakhsta=>13450
Kuwait=>22491
Kyrgyzstan=>3386
Latvia=>1998
Lebanon=>166597
Lithuania=>1694
Moldova=>2960
Netherlands=>1015
Palestine=>1356
Poland=>9984
Qatar=>1996
Romania=>14198
Russia=>574327
Saudi Arabia=>1016
Singapore=>301
Spain=>3362
Sudan=>1077
Syria=>171176
Tajikistan=>3129
Turkey=>46175
Turkmenistan=>19857
Ukraine=>54606
United Kingdom=>29410
United States=>1115586
Uruguay=>1118
Uzbekistan=>54019
Venezuela=>1032

All together, it makes up some 6,785,000 people.

Please also note that there are still significant number of Armenians living in Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt (not to mention the ones who did emigrate to the western coutries) despite the analogy trying to be drawn with the "Jewish Genocide". Please also note that the most Armenians living in France and in other European countries are those Armenians emigrated from the Ottoman Empire. For sure, the Ottomans applied harsh policies and commited crimes against Armenians, which might represent "inhumane tendencies" you mention, but please also note that there was no deportation process in Germany or elsewhere as far as the Jewish Genocide is concerned. Thus, there was not a policy of avoiding deportation when a jew agreed to convert to Christianity. There was not mass owens and gas chambers prepared by companies like Krups, or Volkswagen, and there was not a secret account of the gold (extracted from the golden tooth of the dead) saved in Swiss Banks for bad days...

[ScythianVizier]

Vezir I prefer to use the word "perception" instead of "view". I personally think the Oral history should be studied(which is very poor in Turkey) on this issue. I believe it will help a lot for us to fill some gaps.

I do believe so. I did have family members who told us the "local events" of the WWI just like the stories that I heard when many others spoke of the subject.

In my opinion it is pretty much very simplistic to explain this with CUP's nationalistic views. I cant discount the effect of CUP policies, but to explain everything with CUP is not realistic.

I agree, CUP was a nationalistic movement like Dashnak and they both did have similar perceptions against their enemies.

Just a simple example, this is from my great grand dad. HE was soldier fighting against the Russians(this is 1914). He says in the army there were Armenian officers(Yedek Subay, I dont know how you would translate this into English). At one certain time in those units they used to find scores of Ottoman soldiers killed in their tents during the night, either poisoned or stabed to death. He describes these horror scenes happening each morning.

Elder members of my family also told me what they encountered locally, and they never talked of any sort of genocide, but a ruthless war.

PS: Yedek Subay= Reserve Officer.

They were sure that this has something to do with those Armenian officers, at least some of them were tipping the Russians or Fedayins, kill those soldiers. Claiming that there was no relation with Caucusian Armenians and Russians with the local Armenians is simply not true. I am not saying this for ordinary Armenians, I am saying this for revolutionaries/rebels. After all Erzurum born Antranik Pasha(Ozanyan) was appointed as a Russian General to Armenian rebel groups formed by Eastern Anatlian Armeians. He fought against Ottomans not only in Eastern Anatolia but during the Balkan wars in Edirne killing driving Turkish villagers(1912-13).

Armenians had significant arm power provided by the Russians, and they did commit crimes against the Muslim people of Anatolia in various regions throughout the WWI.

But my Great grand dad/granddad had very close Armenian friend which he calls him friends as family. And this is late 1940s, early 50s. My dad remembers him as "Kalayji Dayi" or the "Ermeni Dayi", the Kalayji uncle or the Armenian Uncle(this is used a word to show respect to the elderly,in this context it is not used to show a family relation). My great grand dad had only one intention to save his family and the muslim villages from Russian aggression, after the Sarikamis tragedy(he was among few thousands survived the deadly winter night) and desrted the army to get back his home town and joined the local groups to defend towns/villages.

Our family had some Armenian friends, and they were nice people. However, I dont recall them discussing the "war with Armenians", perhaps parents and elder people did, but I dont recall since I was a small child.

We can speak about historical facts on and on, but it boils down to the fact that how those people fighting in the field or decision makers percieved the threat. What were the drivers, only racism is the explanation? What about those local people. I know friendly relationships of Armeians and Turks in Sivas in 1920s, so these local Turks and Kurds turned into Armenian hater in 1914-15 and become friends again after 1918?

I dont think that people suddenly hate each other in a war. In order to survive, they probably kill each other without thinking too much about the consequences of their actions .

Once the war is over, then they might be starting to think about it.

[1.5 million]

Sythian - its aparent to me that you are not fully familiar with the crimes commited against the Armenians by the CUP/Ottoman Turks and that in fact many of these things you claimed happend to Jews in the Holocaust but not Armenians in the Genocide did indeed happen. Furthermore - of course each episode was unique and of course Nazi obsession with the Jews was beyond anything the world has ever seen racially - however - in fact there were many plans that involved deporting Jews prior to this notion of extermination - this concept evolved over time. Also the experiences (sucess) of the Armenian Genocide were well known to Hitler and his advisor swho followed the concept of such a thing as a guide in regards to the Jews (and other "undesireables"). Additionally - while I understand the animosity towards Jews exhibited by many Christians since forever - eternal hatred is not a necessary pre-copndition for genocide. In fact if you had ever really studied genocide (as I have) you would understand the dynamics that lead to such a thing and know that this pre-condition is irrelevant. Besides the Jewish history in Germany was one of reletive acceptance and integration - Germany was a refuge for Jews form other areas where they had been persecuted and Germany had no real history of such. In fact Jews were far more integrated into German culture then anywhere else in Europe - and in fact this is partly why the backlash. Like Armenians in the Ottoman EMpire Jews in Germany were experiancing a cultural and economic reniassance - and likewise with each group this acsendency occured at a time when the majority society at large was experienceing extremely hard time. In each case the catlyst of revolution and war brought about conditions where the minority group came to be seen as other - and as being against the interests of the majority black - they became an object of great resentment and became a group for which scapegoating of problems acted as a unifying and rallying force for the majority that was used by the revolutionary party. Both the Nazis and the CUP shared a great many characteristics and the dynamics of each nations social, political and economic situation as well as the motivators and postions (and racial hatred and standrad post-revolutionary dynamics of turning on former supporters and such...) within each of the revoltionary parties are what set the stage for genocide in each case. It is interesting that in each case the CUP and the Nazis came to identify themselves with the traditional peasents and came to identify the persecuted minority elements as representing foreign urban forces who were forcing the dominant society to accept forign non-native ways and who were prospering while the majority groups were suffering. All of these dynmamics were key (common) elements which led to Genocide. Your failure to understand these dynmaics obviously limits your ability to properly understand this history....and cause you to reach overly simplisitc and false conclusions...and just think - you are somewhat educated - imagine how easy it is for your Government to manipulate the perspectives of most Turks who are even unaware of the basic history (outside of what the very restrictive Kemalist filter allows through...)

Well most of those scholars also say that the "Armenian Genocide is the first Genocide of the 20th Century inspiring Hitler for the Jewish one".

The later part of the statement is certainly true...and the first part is true enough - if not alltogether accurate.

Well, that is false analogy. First of all, the first Genocide of the 20th Cenutry was commited by Belgium in the Congo Free State, prior to its being taken over by Belgium to form the Belgian Congo. Under the rule of King Léopold II, the Congo Free State suffered a great loss of life due to criminal indifference to its native inhabitants in the pursuit of increased rubber production, which was during 1880-1920, and caused the lives of some 10 million Africans. Do the EU countries recognize that? Unfortunately, no. Do you guys associate your ordeal with any other crimes in history?, Unfortunately, no. Thus, when some people and scholars come up with some biased remarks, do you correct them? Unfortunately, no. Do the Europeans correct? Unfortunately, no...

I am familiar with these events as well as the genocide of the Herero people of Africa by the Germans in 1904 - both of which are technically the frist two genocides of the 20th Century with that of the Armenains by the Turks being #3. So there - are you happy? Germany has formerly apologized and the issue of compensation is currently being negotiated. Both of these series of barbaric incidents were outgrowths of European colonialism and slavery and they were only the last of a long line of similar atrocities and decimations of indigeonous cultures coimmited by the Europeans since the advent of colonialism. Yes I agree a most horrible legacy (and even to some extent the Russian Empires southward andeastward expansion can be seen as part of the same pattern. I don't think (Western) scholars deny these things - thoguh perhaps not all are aware of all of these events...but they are not denied - so what really is yoru point? You are somehow blaming the Armenians? That we think only of our tragedy? Well this might be so for some - scholars tend to concentrate research and sometimes too narowly I agree...and Armenains as a whole...well - with Trukey and Truks denying our Genocide so vigorously - who can blame us that we don;t have the time to fight other's fights etc...



[QUOTE=ScythianVizier]In my opininon, this assertation would not be correct. I believe that the Armenians were victimized by the West, not because of the reason that their ordeal was the first of its kind, but just because, they were accepted (seen) as a part of the European cultural, and racial sphere which should never be subjected to harsh policies by the "others" (who are non-Europeans).

If you look through the European history, then you would see harsher policies and larger scale crimes which are still not considered as "Genocide of any kind", such as the Irish Famine, the Ukranian Famine, Dutch Crimes in Indonesia, Belgian Crimes in Congo, German Crimes in South-West Africa, and many others that are the parts of a very long list of crimes commited by the Europeans.

In fact I do think that many of these incidents would be considered as genocide if the concept were extended to them. Remember however that this word - this concept is recent - and look at what difficulty we are having even applying it to recent tragedies that are deserving. In any event - I'm sorry but you cannot really blame the Armenain Genocide on any but the Turks really - even though it is apparent that you and other Turks are desperate to do so and desperate to bring up evey other crime commited in history - as if the existance of murder commited by some other ethnicity besides a Turk means that when a Turk commits a murder it didn't happen because others have commited murder and perhaps gotten away without punishment as well...sorry does not fly...

Furthermore, neither do I support the activities of CUP, nor do I try to justify the crimes commited against the Armenians. However, I dont name these events as a "Genocide" but a part of greater tragedy experienced by many others. Please note that I am a Turkish with Circassian origin, and whose parents (both side of the families) were emigrated to the Ottoman Empire from Caucasus during the 1860s. It is generally accepted that some 1.000.000-1.500.000 Circassians died on their way whilst another 1.000.000-1.500.000 did make it to the Ottoman lines. Now, tell me, how do you name those events? and how do you see our presence in Turkey (of some 4-5 million Circassian descendants)?

Sources I have seen suggest that the number of Circassians killed might have been about 300,000 (still a ghastly number) and with about 1 million or more varioulsy exiled (with many crossing over the Black Sea in boats if I am not mistaken). I really don't see any point in quibbling about numbers however. I fully accept this tragedy as a genocide. Can the Armenian Genocide be seen as a continuation of such practices. Yes in a sense it can be - but only in part. The fact that Armenians had a long and extremely peaceful co-exsitance within the Ottoman Empire and were in fact citizens and at least junior partners with the Turks - and who were largely an unarmed population - not at all in open warfare with the Ottoman Empire (in fact they were overwhelmingly loyal and working within the stritures of such) - as Cicassians had been with the Russians - and that entrusted their safety and security and well being to the governing EMpire - an Empire which had signed international treaties to the effect that it would ensure the well being and not harm these people - then such an Empire conducted a deliberate and deceptive campaign of annihilation of these people - well - the Armenian situation has a unique history and the harshness of the measures and overwhelming destructiveness and the specific history (incl;uding earlier persecutions and massacres) are entirely worthy of being considered seperatly in addition to understanding it within the context of other related event sof the times and preceeding. The fact that it became a cause celeb among citizens of Western nations and their governments and the fact that justice was called for but never fully enacted and the fact that the Governemnt of Turksy and the Turks to this day so vehemently deny and teach their children to deny etc - makes it an event that deserves its spotlight and that needs to be understood - on its own - agaoin - in addition to understanding the other similar events and trials and tribulations expereicned by other peoples (including Turks, Circassians, Greeks, Kurds, Assyrians etc) - as well as these events need to be understood within the larger context of Genocide and Democide and along with such clash of culture and state sponsored destructions of native cultures of the Americas and Africa - such as the incredible destructiveness of ther slave trade itself and how it decimated West African culture and socites and whose effects are profound even to this day. So OK - I agree - lets not be ignorant.

And in fact by your vigorous denials of our pain and of the truth you are being an apolgist for the CUP - so stop it already - OK.

My Grandmothers used to tell me their stories about WWI, which also included the Armenian and Greek crimes committed, not only against the Turkish administration, but also against the Muslim peasants living in the lands that those claimed to be a part of "Armenia" or "Greece". So, it was not one way unrest.

No it was not - but how did these things start - who were the real instigators and why...let me tell you the blame lies not with the Western powers nor with the indigenous Christian groups. Aditionally the type of government sponsored mass round up and killing of people occured to the Ottoman Armenians only...and this is what constitutes the crimes of genocide that you are denying - not that there might have been massacres and counter massacres in some locations. Also much of these stories such as your grandmothers - as they concern Armenians - in fact concern revenge killings that occured after the Genocide. And these are of course very sad and unfortunate - and I offer no excuse to say that murder is not murder and such - but these were desperate people who had seen atrocities and murders and all of their family killed etc - by Turks....

It was not only the Armenians who were subjected to deprotation and slaughter. Greeks and Assyrians were also subjected, just like it did happen in Balkans, at where Turks, Pomaks, Albanians, Romas, and Bosniaks were also subjected to identical tools utilized.

Not identical - though in regards to Greeks and Assyrians on the part of the Turks pretty much the same. While Muslims of the Balkans did experience massacre and were driven out - this was done more by former subjects rising up against old masters then the case of the government that was responsible for their safety suddenly deciding to round up and kill them en mass and eliminate them entirely from the landscape - you can see for instance that even today there are substansial populations of Turkics/Muslims in the Balkans...but Ok these poeple suffered too...still does not free Turks of the obligation to admit their crimes...

Jewish Genocide is quite different in many aspects. First of all, Jews were subjected to discrimination and hatred since the rise of Christianity. They were deported by Spain and Portugal in 1492, and later from other countries in Europe including Russia. They respectfully migrated to the Ottoman Empire. Furthermore, please also note that similar stereotypes and discriminitive policies against the Roma people also existed long before the WWII, and in fact, there still exists despite the Jewish and Roma Genocides.

I already addressed this sufficienty (in opening remarks) I think.

Furthremore, I must also tell you that I read the Armenian resources on the net, and I am astonished to see that most Armenians hate the Jews as much as they hate the Turks and Azeris (since they are muslim and speak a turkic dialect). Do you think that those people gets these stereotypes out of the air? I dont think so. In fact, I wouldnt want to meet these sort of people during the "hard times" since there seems so much hatred and discrimination involved.

Should I judge all Turks based on the Special Ed type of Turks we often see comming to these forums? There are haters and racist amongst all peoples. You cannot say "most Armenians" are this or are that - because of a few kids on the internet who don't know so much...please...lets talk as adults eh and quit it with the excuses and I for one am often telling these sick racist Armos or whoever to F off. Believe me you don't know the half of it...And I challenge you to find on a serious (scholarly) Armenian website connected with the genocide - or with Armenain culture or whatever - racsism against the Jews (or racism in general) - give it a break...this is a/(another) non-argument...

Hence, look at the "Destruction of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Nobody seems to interpret these events as "Genocide" though those directly involved destruction of cultural heritage of those nations, and mass-slaughter of civilians including eldery people, children, women, and hospitilized people. Some two million Germans were disappeared when they were forced to migrate from East Europe to Germany after WWII, and nobody sees these losses as a part of a genocide either. So, there seems no logical agreement as far as the boundries of a typical genocide is concerned. Do you think that there is (I am not refering to the narrow terminology accepted by the UN Convention)?

UN definition is not ideal I will agree - however with it and other definitions I think we can agree on the basic concept of what is meant by genocide. And though tragic and arguably unecesary or at least debatable - I don't think that htese wartime city bombings in fact meets any real definition of a genocide. Perhaps some of the Soviet post war cleansing activities would indeed met the criteria. You should research the concepts of "Total genocide" or "Total Domestic Genocide" as opposed to "just" genocide or genocidal actions. Some very useful distinctions. The Association of Genocide scholars I think only recognizes two genocides as "Total Domestic Genocide" - that of the Jews and Armenians - though many dozen other genocides of a lesser (destructiveness) scale are also recognized.

I dont justify any crimes against humanity, however, I think I could differentiate the crimes based upon several other factors involved.

Finally, let me provide you with some figures. As you might agree, there were hardly any Armenians in the Middle East before the WWI. Let us have a look the numbers applicable at present:

...

All together, it makes up some 6,785,000 people.

Please also note that there are still significant number of Armenians living in Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt (not to mention the ones who did emigrate to the western coutries) despite the analogy trying to be drawn with the "Jewish Genocide". Please also note that the most Armenians living in France and in other European countries are those Armenians emigrated from the Ottoman Empire.

I'm not at all sure I get your point here. Are you saying that for something to be considered a Genocide it needs to mean that all persons are killed? No deffinition meets or requires this criteria. You are talking about the term "extinction" here - not genocide Anyway I totally fail to get yourpoint here. And are you not aware of the large numbers of Armenains who fled the Ottoman Empire prior to the Genocide. A great many left after the Hamadian massacres in the late 1900s...more still after the masscres of 1909...and in fact a number of Armenians had left much earlyier - like hundreds of years earlier - with various points in the Middle East being desitinations (where there have been communities of Armenians for centuries) and a number even fled to France believe it or not....

For sure, the Ottomans applied harsh policies and commited crimes against Armenians, which might represent "inhumane tendencies" you mention, but please also note that there was no deportation process in Germany or elsewhere as far as the Jewish Genocide is concerned. Thus, there was not a policy of avoiding deportation when a jew agreed to convert to Christianity. There was not mass owens and gas chambers prepared by companies like Krups, or Volkswagen, and there was not a secret account of the gold (extracted from the golden tooth of the dead) saved in Swiss Banks for bad days...

Already addressed this, In fact Nazis did "deport" Jews intitially (many were initially sent to urban "ghettos" are you at all familar with this?) Also - just because the germans were fanatical about Jews in a way beyond CUP racial fanatasicsm in regards to Armenian (though you would be surprsed at the exceptions made for Jews as well - more then you know...) - this only speaks to the role of the religious orientation/identification of people in the ottoman Empire/social structure...however just as the Germans evolved to cleaning out and killing Jews from the Ghettos and concentration camps and elsewhere where they had been allowed to live - the Ottomans evolved their policy to disallow Armenians being saved by converting and it has been documented how they went back and "deported" (to death) a great number of Armenains who had converted and intitially been left to live. In 1916/17? (not sure of exact date) Talat issued an order specifically prohibiting conversions to be allowed to save Armenians...

So please learn some of your facts before jumping to erroneous conclusions and before discounting Armenians (and the truth) yet again...

[maral_m79]

As you might agree, there were hardly any Armenians in the Middle East before the WWI. Let us have a look the numbers applicable at present:

Argentina=>129591
Armenia=>2950955
Australia=>35428
Azerbaijan=>150734
Belarus=>24754
Brazil=>41278
Bulgaria=>9097
Canada=>29563
Chile=>784
Cyprus=>20834
Egypt=>102924
Estonia=>1707
Ethiopia=>4597
France=>271575
Georgia=>357882
Germany=>31585
Greece=>20260
Honduras=>1451
Indi=>531
Iran=>172280
Iraq=>97264
Israel=>3137
Italy=>1317
Jordan=>8333
Kazakhsta=>13450
Kuwait=>22491
Kyrgyzstan=>3386
Latvia=>1998
Lebanon=>166597
Lithuania=>1694
Moldova=>2960
Netherlands=>1015
Palestine=>1356
Poland=>9984
Qatar=>1996
Romania=>14198
Russia=>574327
Saudi Arabia=>1016
Singapore=>301
Spain=>3362
Sudan=>1077
Syria=>171176
Tajikistan=>3129
Turkey=>46175
Turkmenistan=>19857
Ukraine=>54606
United Kingdom=>29410
United States=>1115586
Uruguay=>1118
Uzbekistan=>54019
Venezuela=>1032

All together, it makes up some 6,785,000 people.

Please also note that there are still significant number of Armenians living in Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt ...

Where from did you get this list of numbers ?
For example : It is soo silly to claim that numbers ... Specially for Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, they are so so so so so so so so so so exagerrated and wrong. The real numbers are much much much much LESS than that ...

And don't let me start on Lebanon Armenians 16,000 you say !!!!!!
for your info there are almost 250.000 Armenians in Lebanon ... just to show you how wrong your numbers are.

[ScythianVizier]

Where from did you get this list of numbers ?
For example : It is soo silly to claim that numbers ... Specially for Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, they are so so so so so so so so so so exagerrated and wrong. The real numbers are much much much much LESS than that ...

And don't let me start on Lebanon Armenians 16,000 you say !!!!!!
for your info there are almost 250.000 Armenians in Lebanon ... just to show you how wrong your numbers are.

I got that figure from www.joshuaproject.org


Check it out if you like to...

[ScythianVizier]

The figure for Lebanon says 166.597, and CIA site says 4% of Lebanon population is Armenian. Lebanon Population: 3,826,018 * 0.04 = 153.040 Armenians.

Source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/le.html

[maral_m79]

Yes the numbers of Armenians abroad is of great interest to me. Maral, Scythian said 166,000 not 16,000 Armenians live in Lebanon. I wonder what the Armenian population in Ethiopia is since the Armenians were offered a homeland there by the Emporer.

UKTurk, I want to ask you this .... And please answer.

Do you lend your account on this forum to Crazy T to use it ?!
I mean does he write the posts and send them with your name ?!


Because as I see it, it's either that, or you are schizophrenic, or at the best maybe having some sort of "Multiple personality disorder" !!!

[maral_m79]

I got that figure from www.joshuaproject.org


Check it out if you like to...

Thanks for the website, I send them a letter questioning their sources, when they answer me , I'll let you know. There statistics are almost all wrong.

[ScythianVizier]

Sythian - its aparent to me that you are not fully familiar with the crimes commited against the Armenians by the CUP/Ottoman Turks and that in fact many of these things you claimed happend to Jews in the Holocaust but not Armenians in the Genocide did indeed happen. Furthermore - of course each episode was unique and of course Nazi obsession with the Jews was beyond anything the world has ever seen racially

Not really, Russians lost some 20 million people, and almost every city , every town, every school, and every factory, as all of those were destroyed by the Germans. As the Germans considered Russians as "subhuman", they did not worry about what they had done in Russia. Thus, they did not even bother feeding the Russian soldiers when they were imprisoned, so millions of imprisoned soldiers (not to mention the civilians) did die at the hands of Germans.

- however - in fact there were many plans that involved deporting Jews prior to this notion of extermination - this concept evolved over time. Also the experiences (sucess) of the Armenian Genocide were well known to Hitler and his advisor swho followed the concept of such a thing as a guide in regards to the Jews (and other "undesireables"). Additionally - while I understand the animosity towards Jews exhibited by many Christians since forever - eternal hatred is not a necessary pre-copndition for genocide.

I dont think that Hitler and his advisors followed the Armenian case since I think western countries have far stronger and large scale examples to follow as far as "extermination of a group of people" is concerned, and you should be aware of this fact very well indeed.

Moreover, perhaps you might like to interpret "eternal hatred" as a factor that can not be considered as a pre-condition for Genocide. However, I believe that it is the binding energy to establish general tendency within a society towards executing a genocide against a certain group of people when the time is due to do so.

In fact if you had ever really studied genocide (as I have) you would understand the dynamics that lead to such a thing and know that this pre-condition is irrelevant.

I did not study genocide, but that does not necessaly mean that I have no ideas about it. One does not have to be an engineer to define that a car is a car. So, I dont think that I would agree on the pre-condition issue. I think genocide just like any other crime requiring pre-conditions. Hatred is one of main reasons why people end up killing the others. If "hatred" is excluded, then what are you going to include? Some people who only executes the killings as if they are working in a chicken factory? Thus, I dont know how you could exclude the Christian hatred against the Native North and South Americans, Native Australians and New Zealanders, Indonesians, and other Asians, Africans, Arabs, Turks, Muslims, Jews, Indians, Japanese, Chinese, in short, against any culture that does not have European and Christian roots?

Do the Americans seem as if they like the people of Iraq? Are those scenes of crimes in Iraq results from automatic man-killing-machines? or do they stem from "hatred" against "Muslims and Arabs" who dare to blow some skyscrappers in NY City? Do you think that the Arabs or Muslims would behave the Americans decently if the tables are turned against the Americans?

Honestly speaking, I dont think so. I believe that each event leads to another one, and "eternal hatred" is not something that could be built in a day or not a concept that could waived.

Besides the Jewish history in Germany was one of reletive acceptance and integration - Germany was a refuge for Jews form other areas where they had been persecuted and Germany had no real history of such. In fact Jews were far more integrated into German culture then anywhere else in Europe - and in fact this is partly why the backlash.

It seems as if their integration to German culture was an illussion as far as the Jews concerned. I dont want to comment of ordinary steretypes of the Germans, but I believe that strong evidence supports the eternal hatred before the "Jewish Genocide", which ultimately revealed that there was no integration at all.

Like Armenians in the Ottoman EMpire Jews in Germany were experiancing a cultural and economic reniassance - and likewise with each group this acsendency occured at a time when the majority society at large was experienceing extremely hard time. In each case the catlyst of revolution and war brought about conditions where the minority group came to be seen as other - and as being against the interests of the majority black - they became an object of great resentment and became a group for which scapegoating of problems acted as a unifying and rallying force for the majority that was used by the revolutionary party.

Not necessarily. I believe that the Ottomans havent been less cruel towards the Greeks or Assyrians. Armenian situation had nothing to do with the racist ideals of the NAZIs which involved in scientific studies (if one could call it scentific) on the Jews (attempting to prove how sub-human they were), CUP was a Nationalistic movement, and I dont approve nationalistic movements or try to attempt to justify them. However, the hatred was not between Armenians and the Turks, but Muslims and Christians. This is rather true since the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic Empire, and the Ottomans did not have any tendency to kill the muslim Armenians, or did they?

Both the Nazis and the CUP shared a great many characteristics and the dynamics of each nations social, political and economic situation as well as the motivators and postions (and racial hatred and standrad post-revolutionary dynamics of turning on former supporters and such...) within each of the revoltionary parties are what set the stage for genocide in each case. It is interesting that in each case the CUP and the Nazis came to identify themselves with the traditional peasents and came to identify the persecuted minority elements as representing foreign urban forces who were forcing the dominant society to accept forign non-native ways and who were prospering while the majority groups were suffering. All of these dynmamics were key (common) elements which led to Genocide.

NAZI Party and CUP, of course have similar elements that could be subject to analogies. If you consider most of the backward movements appeared throughout history, then you would see similarities of such. However, these similarities are not conclusive to determine whether those are the major reasons for a genocide or not. If one considers the policies established in Balkans and Caucaus, then one could also see similarities amongst CUP and other nationalistic movements (arisen from Balkan nations) resulted in deportation and extremination of the Ottoman Muslims prior to 1915.

Your failure to understand these dynmaics obviously limits your ability to properly understand this history....and cause you to reach overly simplisitc and false conclusions...and just think - you are somewhat educated - imagine how easy it is for your Government to manipulate the perspectives of most Turks who are even unaware of the basic history (outside of what the very restrictive Kemalist filter allows through...)

Well, I dont divide and try to analyse history based upon the outcome of a specific event. I rather see events as a part of human dialectics that emobodies struggle amongst forces over time. When someone kills another, it is called murder, and the action taken usually determines the verdict. When a war is broken out, and if a man kills some millions, then he could be hero if his nation prevails, but could be in real trouble, if his nation loses it.

I do understand the dynamics of "Armenian Slaughter" and as I told you in the beginning, I find it rather "Eastern Style Vantetta" executed against the Christians (not necessarly the Armenians). Perhaps, one could see these events as a genocide, and I respect his/her point of view. However, I dont see these as such and I have my own reasons, such as the first account stories of Armenian soldiers inpaling the peasants of my grandmothers' towns. I dont think that any CUP activity could also justify the crimes committed by the Armenians Soldiers either. You might think that these events are irrelevant to the issue, but I dont think they were, just like the similar events resulted in millions of dead and homeless Muslim people as a consequence of the policies established by Russia and some other European states.

Armenians was the last Christian community of the empire, and I could clearly see the relationship between the emigration of muslims from Balkan and Caucasus, and the emigration of Armenians as a consequence of the interrelated dynamics. Perhaps, CUP's false ideologies resulted in harsher tragedies for Armenians as CUP sought revenge for the crumbling empire, and I am sorry for that personally. However, as you might also know those CUP members consisted of mostly the Balkan Muslims (and even some Jewish Converts, Donmes). So, they had seen the consequences of nationalistic policies (deportation, plunder and slaughter of muslims) established by the Europeans, and they did wish to follow the same path, as by definition, they were a nationalistic movement like their counterparts. In that regards, it could be deemed that it was CUP, which resembled (and copied) the nationalistic movements in Balkans, not vice versa (or not the NAZI movement that did not exist back in time).

The later part of the statement is certainly true...and the first part is true enough - if not alltogether accurate.

That statement could be either true or false since it promotes a notion about the Turks in general. Since you also agree (reluctantly) that the first genocide of the 20th Century was commited by Belgium, we might conclude that the statement is false.

However, it is not only why I consider this stement as false, it is because that I believe that it was not the first of its kind as genocides of many other ethnicites (and peoples) all across this planet occurred long before that particular event in time.

If it is false, then one should wonder what is would the right one to say?

I would tell you since I feel that I have to. Genocides deliberately executed by the Europeans all throughout the 18th and 19th Centuries. The methods used were perfected in line with the rise of European Powers. As the Europeans extracted stable weath through their colonies, they started to rely more on harsher policies to extract more wealth. Since the policies established was inhumane, those encountered resistance all across this planet, and eventually barbaric methods were utilized to streamline those people who were colonized. Respectfully, scentific theories proving the inferiority of those people (colonized) were also established and well accepted in order to justify the crimes. Relatively, mass-slaughter of people who did not wish to continue with the process were executed in tandem. In the meantime, similar policies were established against the "Sick Man of Europe" as the Ottomans were seen as the decaying power of "the others" who would be abolished sooner, if not later, together with the rest of inferior cultures and peoples.

So, the notion of genocide is a notion that is entirely an European (Christian) creation (invention), which is based upon so called scentific proofs and historical facts about the inferiority of "others" (barbarians). Respectfully, the examples that far exceeds the limits of "Armenian Slaughter" are evident where ever you look at this planet. Thus, such statements attributing the invention of genocide to the Turks is far than misleading, but in fact, it is a statement which reflect the state of denial that you even use to accuse the crimes of your own religion and culture (which is European I suppose), nothing more.

I am familiar with these events as well as the genocide of the Herero people of Africa by the Germans in 1904 - both of which are technically the frist two genocides of the 20th Century with that of the Armenains by the Turks being #3. So there - are you happy? Germany has formerly apologized and the issue of compensation is currently being negotiated. Both of these series of barbaric incidents were outgrowths of European colonialism and slavery and they were only the last of a long line of similar atrocities and decimations of indigeonous cultures coimmited by the Europeans since the advent of colonialism. Yes I agree a most horrible legacy (and even to some extent the Russian Empires southward andeastward expansion can be seen as part of the same pattern. I don't think (Western) scholars deny these things - thoguh perhaps not all are aware of all of these events...but they are not denied - so what really is yoru point? You are somehow blaming the Armenians? That we think only of our tragedy? Well this might be so for some - scholars tend to concentrate research and sometimes too narowly I agree...and Armenains as a whole...well - with Trukey and Truks denying our Genocide so vigorously - who can blame us that we don;t have the time to fight other's fights etc...

I wont be happy as long as all Genocides of the West will be named and accepted by the Europeans (Western Powers) as articulated in the statement attributed to the Turks. Germany did not accept compensation, but just said "sorry", and that was the end of it. Italy did do the same for their crimes in Africa, In Belgium, they dont even mention Congo, and what would be changing if a few historians tell the truth?

The Dutch did not accept any crimes in Indonesia, British did not recognize the crimes in India, Australia, New Zealand, and in the North America. France still waives the Algerian one (it was after 1948), and refuses the genocides involvements in her other colonies, such as Vietnam and Rwanda. Spain does not make any peace with South American Crimes, and not to mention the USA, which deliberately tortures and bombs innocent people in Iraq on a daily basis, just like they did in Korea, Vietnam, and else where in the world.

In fact I do think that many of these incidents would be considered as genocide if the concept were extended to them. Remember however that this word - this concept is recent - and look at what difficulty we are having even applying it to recent tragedies that are deserving. In any event - I'm sorry but you cannot really blame the Armenain Genocide on any but the Turks really - even though it is apparent that you and other Turks are desperate to do so and desperate to bring up evey other crime commited in history - as if the existance of murder commited by some other ethnicity besides a Turk means that when a Turk commits a murder it didn't happen because others have commited murder and perhaps gotten away without punishment as well...sorry does not fly...

Well, your perception is yours and, as I explained above, our perception is ours, and genocide is not something new as you like to see it through your "western eyes". As I have already explained, genocides are very common elements of Western Culture, and have been occuring for centuries. Perhaps, you have your rights to blame the Turks for acting like their western counterparts, but that does not change the facts about the source of the problematic perceptions. So, as long as those western states waive to face their own crimes and past (and still contiune to act like they do in Iraq or in France), I dont think that Turkey would be admiting any crimes at all, including a genocide.

Sources I have seen suggest that the number of Circassians killed might have been about 300,000 (still a ghastly number) and with about 1 million or more varioulsy exiled (with many crossing over the Black Sea in boats if I am not mistaken). I really don't see any point in quibbling about numbers however. I fully accept this tragedy as a genocide. Can the Armenian Genocide be seen as a continuation of such practices. Yes in a sense it can be - but only in part.

Yes, as a Circassian, I dont recall any Russian apology or any compensation package, though I see how they continue to oppress the Circassians as they have been doing in Chechnia. So, tell me about it...

PS: To be contiuned with the rest of the debate.