Greek Genocide of Asia Minor

[ScythianVizier]

Another one of the oldest strategies is to fight for liberty, freedom and independence from your oppressors. That is really what happened in Karabagh! What would Karabagh be today if the Azeris still controlled it. Look to Nakcivan for your answer, where not only have all of the indigenous Armenians been eliminated, but even their headstones dating back over 1000 years are being systematically destroyed and thrown into the river.

Usually the concept of oppressor is a varible notion that changes from one point in time to another.

During the medieval ages, the Catholic Church was the oppressor for many Orthodox Chirstians of Anatolia while the Sufi Turks like Yunus Emre were the liberators.

Similarly, that Catholic Church was also the oppressor for the mentally ill people in Europe whilst Islam was the liberator of their counterparts in the Ottoman Empire (which provided special institutions, food, music, and shelter for those instead of burning them in public).

For many poor Christian peasants of the Ottoman Empire, the Janissary Establishment was the liberator, when it was the oppressor for the one who did not need social benefits of such.

For a black slave boarded on a ship to America, a whiteman was the oppressor whilst the Ottomans were the liberator as they provided freedom and money if one did choose to declare his/her willingless to convert to Islam publically.

For Balkan Christians, The Russian Empire was the liberator when she was the oppressor which even banned Islam until the end of 18th Century.

For Indians, for native Americans, for native Australians, for Black Africans, for Indonesians, for Malesians, for Pakis, for Koreans, and for Arabs, the Colonist Europeans were the barbaric oppressor while for the Christians of the Ottoman Empire, they were the great civilized liberators.

While the NAZIs were the liberators for Laval and Petain, most French Christians and French Jews thought that they were the brutal oppressors. While the Romanians and Bulgarians loved to welcome the NAZIs, for Greeks and Russians, they were the barbaric oppressors.

When the Russians were in Caucasus in early 1800s, for the minority of the population (who were Christians), the Russians were the liberators, however, for the most who were muslim Persians, Turks, and other Cacuasians tribes, they were the oppressors.

When Microsoft was the liberator for many business circles, it was the oppressor for many computer users who had to buy another version within a few yyears time.

When "Fordism" was the oppressor for the poor factory workers, it was the liberator for the capitalist business circles.

When the Turkish Army was the liberator for the Turkish Cypriots, it was the oppressor for the Greek Cypriots.

In conclusion, the concept of oppressor and the concept of liberator are varibles that could change from one point of view to another. In that regard, the point of view one stands for, also determines the side that he/she fights for, and obviously such varible concept is no good for proving and disproving as whether one is oppressor or not since usually the ones which had the power, resources, or the opportunity to boost their advantage turn out to be the liberator whilst the others are placed in dusty pages of human history after having labeled as the oppressors.

Sorry, but I dont buy such ancestal land stuff. These concepts are only good for some European mindset. As you could recall, we were the nomads, and perhaps, that is why, our sense in "owning the propery of this world for ourselves and for our children" is not as developed as yours.

[1.5 million]

I dont think that the Third Reich was breaking up when the NAZIs decided to exterminate the Jews, Roma people and the communists. They rather considered this process as a necessity to eliminate the "sicknesses" and "viruses" confisticating their "pure society and race".

You are obviously ignorant (or in denial) of significant aspects of your own history that you would suggest that CUP and Turkish attitudes concerning their minorities were any different then those held the Nazis towards theirs. Additionally – you are the one who claims that the issue is strictly one of machinations brought upon due to the break up of a nation. I see this as an aspect – with the more important/fundamental issues driving these events as arising from a variety of factors (that indeed are quite similar between Gemrany of 1930s and Ottoman Empire of 1910s)

You and other Turks seem to think that to enact and carry out policies that embody mass murder with the intent to completely annihilate a nation of people is just a common thing – a normal activity of a people and a nation. Sure – many other societies (or elements of such – military or otherwise) have acted cruelly and inhumanely towards other peoples (usually outsiders who were seen as substantially different) – however what is unique about the Turkish and German cases is how and to the degree that the dominant society took up this cause of utter dehumanization and hatred of an internal minority group with which it had long relations and how the entire society was transformed with this hatred toward actions bent on complete destruction of the minority group(s). For this it takes more then a break up of a nation or such (though in the Ottoman’s case this was a prime driver – in Germany’s case the driver was similar fallen fortunes brought about by loss of incredible power, prestige and wealth/standard of living after the loss of the prior war, harsh terms imposed by the victors and the economic collapse caused by worldwide depression) – that likewise led to scapegoating and vilianization of its minorities. In both cases the issue was rapid societal change with the old being tossed out by the new – and in each case political parties with radical and extreme agendas arose which hoped to regain former glories and which focused on violent racial solutions to perceived problems. In each case these entities manipulated their respective nation’s into war and in each case they used the cover of war to justify and carry out their hateful programs against internal minorities who had become the “other” for whatever (irrational) reasons. The CUP party ideologues were no different then the Nazis in this regard – and in fact used the very same terminology (first I might add) in describing their minorities (Armenians) as “tubercular” elements sickening the majority society – your “viruses” and “sicknesses” etc No different. Also no different was their militarism, their racism and their concept and enactment of a “Final Soution” to their minority problems.

Gokalp – Yeni Hayat: “The genuine civilization is the Turkish civilization which will start only with the development of the New Life. The Turkish race, unlike other races, has not been corrupted by alcohol and dissipation. The Turkish blood has been steeled, rejuvenated in glorious battles.”

[phantom]

Usually the concept of oppressor is a varible notion that changes from one point in time to another.

During the medieval ages, the Catholic Church was the oppressor for many Orthodox Chirstians of Anatolia while the Sufi Turks like Yunus Emre were the liberators.

Similarly, that Catholic Church was also the oppressor for the mentally ill people in Europe whilst Islam was the liberator of their counterparts in the Ottoman Empire (which provided special institutions, food, music, and shelter for those instead of burning them in public).

For many poor Christian peasants of the Ottoman Empire, the Janissary Establishment was the liberator, when it was the oppressor for the one who did not need social benefits of such.

For a black slave boarded on a ship to America, a whiteman was the oppressor whilst the Ottomans were the liberator as they provided freedom and money if one did choose to declare his/her willingless to convert to Islam publically.

For Balkan Christians, The Russian Empire was the liberator when she was the oppressor which even banned Islam until the end of 18th Century.

For Indians, for native Americans, for native Australians, for Black Africans, for Indonesians, for Malesians, for Pakis, for Koreans, and for Arabs, the Colonist Europeans were the barbaric oppressor while for the Christians of the Ottoman Empire, they were the great civilized liberators.

While the NAZIs were the liberators for Laval and Petain, most French Christians and French Jews thought that they were the brutal oppressors. While the Romanians and Bulgarians loved to welcome the NAZIs, for Greeks and Russians, they were the barbaric oppressors.

When the Russians were in Caucasus in early 1800s, for the minority of the population (who were Christians), the Russians were the liberators, however, for the most who were muslim Persians, Turks, and other Cacuasians tribes, they were the oppressors.

When Microsoft was the liberator for many business circles, it was the oppressor for many computer users who had to buy another version within a few yyears time.

When "Fordism" was the oppressor for the poor factory workers, it was the liberator for the capitalist business circles.

When the Turkish Army was the liberator for the Turkish Cypriots, it was the oppressor for the Greek Cypriots.

In conclusion, the concept of oppressor and the concept of liberator are varibles that could change from one point of view to another. In that regard, the point of view one stands for, also determines the side that he/she fights for, and obviously such varible concept is no good for proving and disproving as whether one is oppressor or not since usually the ones which had the power, resources, or the opportunity to boost their advantage turn out to be the liberator whilst the others are placed in dusty pages of human history after having labeled as the oppressors.

Sorry, but I dont buy such ancestal land stuff. These concepts are only good for some European mindset. As you could recall, we were the nomads, and perhaps, that is why, our sense in "owning the propery of this world for ourselves and for our children" is not as developed as yours.

You're trying way too hard to be an intellectual. Next you'll be telling us that there is no difference between good and evil, right and wrong, up and down, blobbidie blah, bloobidee bloo, etc.! These concepts all exist and have existed for millenia. There are oppressors and oppressed, and they can be objectively identified by rational people. Your examples of Microsoft, Ford, etc. really miss the mark. If Microsoft were an oppressor, which it has been found to be on occassion, then objective, and rational people (a jury of 12 usually) will decide so and will order that MS break up a portion of its business, because it is anticompetitive and oppressive. If Ford is deemed to oppress its workers, it will be slapped with a lawsuit and if it is really oppressing its workers a jury of 12 rational and objective people will decide if that is the case. So despite what the biased members of a group may think when they are in the middle of it all, an objective, impartial and rational group can look at the facts and come to a rational conclusion as to who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor. That's why historians are able to tell us who were the aggressors and who were the victims. That's why we can learn today that the Turks were the oppressors and the Armenians were the victims. That's why we can also look to the facts as they happened in Karabagh 14 years ago and determine that the Azeris were the oppressors and the Armenians were the oppressed. If you were right, then nobody could ever judge the actions of anyone else, and we would all be free to call ourselves the victims without sufficient justification.

[ScythianVizier]

You are obviously ignorant (or in denial) of significant aspects of your own history that you would suggest that CUP and Turkish attitudes concerning their minorities were any different then those held the Nazis towards theirs. Additionally – you are the one who claims that the issue is strictly one of machinations brought upon due to the break up of a nation. I see this as an aspect – with the more important/fundamental issues driving these events as arising from a variety of factors (that indeed are quite similar between Gemrany of 1930s and Ottoman Empire of 1910s)

You and other Turks seem to think that to enact and carry out policies that embody mass murder with the intent to completely annihilate a nation of people is just a common thing – a normal activity of a people and a nation. Sure – many other societies (or elements of such – military or otherwise) have acted cruelly and inhumanely towards other peoples (usually outsiders who were seen as substantially different) – however what is unique about the Turkish and German cases is how and to the degree that the dominant society took up this cause of utter dehumanization and hatred of an internal minority group with which it had long relations and how the entire society was transformed with this hatred toward actions bent on complete destruction of the minority group(s). For this it takes more then a break up of a nation or such (though in the Ottoman’s case this was a prime driver – in Germany’s case the driver was similar fallen fortunes brought about by loss of incredible power, prestige and wealth/standard of living after the loss of the prior war, harsh terms imposed by the victors and the economic collapse caused by worldwide depression) – that likewise led to scapegoating and vilianization of its minorities. In both cases the issue was rapid societal change with the old being tossed out by the new – and in each case political parties with radical and extreme agendas arose which hoped to regain former glories and which focused on violent racial solutions to perceived problems. In each case these entities manipulated their respective nation’s into war and in each case they used the cover of war to justify and carry out their hateful programs against internal minorities who had become the “other” for whatever (irrational) reasons. The CUP party ideologues were no different then the Nazis in this regard – and in fact used the very same terminology (first I might add) in describing their minorities (Armenians) as “tubercular” elements sickening the majority society – your “viruses” and “sicknesses” etc No different. Also no different was their militarism, their racism and their concept and enactment of a “Final Soution” to their minority problems.

Gokalp – Yeni Hayat: “The genuine civilization is the Turkish civilization which will start only with the development of the New Life. The Turkish race, unlike other races, has not been corrupted by alcohol and dissipation. The Turkish blood has been steeled, rejuvenated in glorious battles.”

I think you are obsessed with the idea of the "Turkish Denial". In the statement I provided, there is no connection that one could establish between the NAZI Empire and the Ottoman one. As you know, I did point out the historical mistake you asserted. The NAZI Empire was not breaking up when they decided to exterminate the "unnecessary elements" of their society. Thus, NAZIs got almost 52% of Germany's votes when they seized power, and most importantly, bulk of Germans actively supported the "concept of extermination" and "elimination" process, which resulted pro-active expansionist policies that caused the lives of some 50 million people.

Thus, almost all countries experienced the "Great Depression" before the WWII, and as an example, let me state that some 10 million Ukranians (as well as hundreds thousands of Crimean Tatars) were killed as a consequence of the Stalin's agricultural policies in Ukraine. Furthermore, as you could also recall very well, the Vichy Government of France (handed out some 300.000 French Jews to NAZIs), Hungary, Romania, Norway and many other European Governments under the NAZI occupation actively participated in the genocide process. Later after that war, countries like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, ROmania, Yugoslavia actively participated in deportation process of the ethnic Germans which killed some 2-3 millions on their way to Germany. As you could also agree, this happened with the full protection of the "liberating allied armies" who turned out to be the oppressors (this part is also related to the issue raised by Phantom), of course from the perspective of the ethnic Germans.

Finally, the air assult on Dresden that took just before the end of WWII is a good example of how Genocides should be assessed (which might clarify my point of view related to the concept of genocide). The German city of Dresden was a historical one (a gothic city decorated with beautiful pieces of art), and it was an open city (an international assertation acceptedby all enemies), there was no military or industrial bases (a city which was full of German migrants fleeing from the East), and most of the German people residing in the city were the refugees consisted of eldery, women, and childern. So, what did the allied air forces do there? They burned down all the city, destoyed almost all of those aged people, women, and childen, and leaving a death toll more than 100.000 . So, please tell me? Do you think it was a genocide or was an act of war? Thus, do you think what the ethic Germans experienced after the WWII was just an ordeal, or could it be also named as Genocide?

[ScythianVizier]

You're trying way too hard to be an intellectual. Next you'll be telling us that there is no difference between good and evil, right and wrong, up and down, blobbidie blah, bloobidee bloo, etc.! These concepts all exist and have existed for millenia. There are oppressors and oppressed, and they can be objectively identified by rational people. Your examples of Microsoft, Ford, etc. really miss the mark. If Microsoft were an oppressor, which it has been found to be on occassion, then objective, and rational people (a jury of 12 usually) will decide so and will order that MS break up a portion of its business, because it is anticompetitive and oppressive. If Ford is deemed to oppress its workers, it will be slapped with a lawsuit and if it is really oppressing its workers a jury of 12 rational and objective people will decide if that is the case. So despite what the biased members of a group may think when they are in the middle of it all, an objective, impartial and rational group can look at the facts and come to a rational conclusion as to who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor. That's why historians are able to tell us who were the aggressors and who were the victims. That's why we can learn today that the Turks were the oppressors and the Armenians were the victims. That's why we can also look to the facts as they happened in Karabagh 14 years ago and determine that the Azeris were the oppressors and the Armenians were the oppressed. If you were right, then nobody could ever judge the actions of anyone else, and we would all be free to call ourselves the victims without sufficient justification.

First of all, I am not an intellectual but an ordinary person, however, I could clearly differentiate the good and bad, rationale, irrationale, logical, unlogical, benficial, and non-benficial. In that sense, I see no problem in terms of defining these concepts accordingly.

Second, I think you are kind of obsessed with the idea of American Interpretation of Common Law. There are plenty of leakages in the court system of the US. I dont want to go through it, but I just want to point out that justice and rightousness(fairness) could not be assured by the decision of some 12 people who were selected via some process controled by the American State Institutions. The MS were not seperated apart due to the fear stemming from the fact that partition of MS could have been a huge blow for the competitiveness of the US IT Industry in terms of global competition existed. However, MS were found guilty later on, for oppressing an open source technology of the Sun Corporation, namely its Java technology in MS products. That is why, MS did pay quite a compensation package for the damage caused to the people who wished to use Java technology (a technology that is platform independent) on the PCs that they bought. Same applies to Ford, particularly after the recent announcement, which would involve sacking some 30.000 Ford Workers in the US, in order to open room to move production from the US to some developing countries offering some low production and labour costs.

Finally, historians are not seperate entities overriding a society's point of views related to an issue. Usually, historians reflects the perception of the society since the historians themselves are part of these formations. Just envisaging how history could have been written if the NAZI Germany had won the war, would explain what I precisely mean.

[1.5 million]

Sythian - you were the one who proposed this breaking up criteria not I - an I think I fully expalined my position.

If you refuse to see the great similarities not only in the aspect of "fallen Empire" (not necessarily "breaking up" between the Ottoman And Iperial Germany - and the rise of the two revolutionary hyper-nationalisitc parties - each with intense racist elements - and furthermore the paralles between Armenains and Jews - socially and economically and as despised second class ethno-religious minorities - and the incredible circumstances - and again parallels - that led to their being subject to Genocide - and that indeed this was a very specail - unique thing (regardless of other massacres/genocides that yes too should be acknowledged) - well then - I consider this to be your problem. It is clear that you and TurQ and other Turks like you will grasp at anything to avoid the truth and the proper responsibility. It used to just be: "It never happened" Then it was "No your wrong - Armenians Genocided the Turks - this should be obvious" and now its: "Other people did bad things - so we are not responsible - everyone was doing it" - Sorry - we are not talking about everyone here - we are talking about Turkey.

[1.5 million]

2 summers ao I got in an argument with some Germans - in Germany - because they were insinuatiing blame on Americans for the destructiveness of WWII against Germany/Germans. I don't think any additional commentary should be required.

[ScythianVizier]

2 summers ao I got in an argument with some Germans - in Germany - because they were insinuatiing blame on Americans for the destructiveness of WWII against Germany/Germans. I don't think any additional commentary should be required.

The US bombed the German cities in a strange fashion. The air assults initially targeted the industrial bases, however despite all allied efforts, the German output of arms and equipment drastically increased in later stages of the war, and that is why, the US decided to shift her air assults on the worker suburbs, which was eventually quite effective in terms of inflicting high death tolls on enemy's population.

[Sion]

Everyone knows that at least 500,000 German civilians were killed by allied bombings.

No matter what the Nazi's did the amount of German civilians that lost their lives can not be justified the Americans are partially responsible to blame for the deaths of German civilians although that wasn't the only incident of American destruction of civilians remember Nagasaki and Hiroshima?


You can say the sultan of Turkey lost power before the war whereas in Germany the kaiser lost power after the war. The young Turks were the successors of the sultans whereas in Germany you had the weimar republic as the kaisers succesors. The young Turks were responsible for the Armenian Genocide whereas the weimar republic were not responsible for the Holocaust. Hitler gained power from the weimar republic whereas the young Turks seized power from the sultans. Hitler didn't seize power he was voted by the people he was also politically ingenious.

You can only really compare Nazi Germany to Turkey in that they both killed substantial amounts of civilians but if you do that why dont you mention Pol Pot in Cambodia, Pakistiani millitary in Bangladesh (1971) and Bosnia? 1.5 million your trying to link the young Turks to the Nazis due to the reputation of the Nazis. This is wrong and only serves to undermine us.

Thats my view of it.

[Kharpert]

What the hell are the both of you talking about?

World War II was the result of Hitler's attempt to conquer the world. You'll remember that Hitler signed an ALLIANCE with Stalin during the first half of the war, and then only broke that treaty when he felt that he had destroyed the Allies enough.

Hitler had come to power by claiming that the Weimar Republic had led Germany to go into decline, and he demanded that Germany turn to fascism to take power from the rest of the world. On September 1, 1931 Nazi Germany invaded Poland, AGAINST treaties signed with England and France. At first the West ignored the action, but after Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and caused the Nazification of Austria, the Western Powers firmly decided that his expansionism would have to come to an end. It was HITLER that started World War II. Hitler kept asking people to support his fascist policies, but only two nations came to his aid: Italy and Japan. Had Hitler incurred the support of other nations, fascism may have won over the World, and today we'd be living under governments of terror. I would not want to live in that world; needless to say I'm glad the allies won the war.

Hitler gained power by DESTROYING the Weimar Republic, not by supporting it.