Armenian genocide from a Turk's point of view

[ardakilic]

You reproduced here a falsehood (your claim that the population exchange was part of the Lausanne treaty) that you had read somewhere else: to reproduce something is to propagate it.

Population Exchange Convention wasnot a part of Lausanne Treaty but signed in Lausanne Peace Conference, at Lausanne city, in 30th January 1923.

Article 19

The present Convention shall have the same force and effect as between the High Contracting Parties as if it formed part of the Treaty of Peace to be concluded with Turkey. It shall come into force immediately after the ratification of the said Treaty by the two High Contracting Parties.

[bell-the-cat]

Population Exchange Convention wasnot a part of Lausanne Treaty but signed in Lausanne Peace Conference, at Lausanne city, in 30th January 1923.

Article 19

The present Convention shall have the same force and effect as between the High Contracting Parties as if it formed part of the Treaty of Peace to be concluded with Turkey. It shall come into force immediately after the ratification of the said Treaty by the two High Contracting Parties.

The convention was not "signed at the Lausanne Peace Conference" - it was unconnected to the actual conference but was signed in Lausanne because that was where those representing Greece and Turkey were at the time. The text of the Lausanne Treaty specifically says that the population exchange was a result of a separate agreement/convention between Greece and Turkey. Quote from article 119 "The exchange of prisoners of war and interned civilians detained by Greece and Turkey respectively forms the subject of a separate agreement between those Powers signed at Lausanne on the 30th January, 1923", and from article 142 "the separate Convention concluded on the 30th January, 1923, between Greece and Turkey".

[bell-the-cat]

The convention was not "signed at the Lausanne Peace Conference" - it was unconnected to the actual conference but was signed in Lausanne because that was where those representing Greece and Turkey were at the time. The text of the Lausanne Treaty specifically says that the population exchange was a result of a separate agreement/convention between Greece and Turkey. Quote from article 119 "The exchange of prisoners of war and interned civilians detained by Greece and Turkey respectively forms the subject of a separate agreement between those Powers signed at Lausanne on the 30th January, 1923", and from article 142 "the separate Convention concluded on the 30th January, 1923, between Greece and Turkey".

BTW, it is important to stress this distinction between the Population Exchange Agreement and the Lausanne Treaty because Turkey uses an assumed connection to avoid accusations of committing genocide againt the Greeks of Anatolia. "It was actually the victorious allies, through their Lausanne treaty, who decided on the population expulsions" is the line Turkish sources peddle. In reality, Turkey, and Turkey alone, had decided to get rid of all Greeks in Anatolia months earlier.

[bell-the-cat]

BTW, it is important to stress this distinction between the Population Exchange Agreement and the Lausanne Treaty because Turkey uses an assumed connection to avoid accusations of committing genocide againt the Greeks of Anatolia. "It was actually the victorious allies, through their Lausanne treaty, who decided on the population expulsions" is the line Turkish sources peddle. In reality, Turkey, and Turkey alone, had decided to get rid of all Greeks in Anatolia months earlier.

And, if this newspaper article is true, it was also Turkey who suggested expelling all Turks from Greece! See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...B4678389639EDE

[ardakilic]

If you were careful enough and didnt have prejudice, you could understand that i didnt repeat official Turkish State 'thesis'. As indicted below, you could see i seperate the problem into three stages: 1912 Greek expulsion (Turkish Republic doesnt exist at that time), 1914-1923 Greek Genocide and Population Exchange.

The only mistake i did is to remember wrong and this doesnot affect the principle of the subject.

Lal, i donot mention 1923-24 Population Exchange in the frame of Lausanne Treaty between Greece and Turkey. What i ask is, when nothing happened, in 1912-13, why Ittihadists exile West Anatolian Greek population by force which is known as "Rum Kaçırtması" in Turkey (Also Greek Genocide in WWI can be stated here but i skip it for now).

Important key figure of this ethnical cleansing is a staff continuity. The Ittihadist staff had experience in 1912 Greek exile and they used that experience in Armenian Genocide.

[Joseph]

Interesting

THE COMING STORM WITH WASHINGTON
by Omer Taspinar

Today's Zaman
Dec 15 2008
Turkey

Last year, shortly after the US Congress decided at the last minute
not to push forward with the Armenian genocide recognition I wrote
in this column that this was a "pyrrhic victory" for Turkey. There
was indeed no reason to celebrate.

Of course, I had no idea that the next US president would be a firm
supporter of recognizing the genocide. Instead, my gloomy article had
much more to do with the fact no one in Washington - except those with
a vested financial or political interest to the Turkish government -
believed Turkey's side of the story. Whether "the events of 1915"
amounted to "genocide" was not even debated in America.

So why didn't the US Congress pass the resolution? Charles Krauthammer,
a Washington columnist, summarized it best last year in his Washington
Post column. With characteristic poignancy, he wrote: "There are
three relevant questions concerning the Armenian genocide. (a) Did it
happen? (b) Should the House of Representatives be expressing itself
on this now? (c) Was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's determination
to bring this to a vote, knowing that it risked provoking Turkey
into withdrawing crucial assistance to American soldiers in Iraq,
a conscious or unconscious attempt to sabotage the US war effort?"

And here is how Krauthammer answered these questions: "(a) Yes,
unequivocally. (b) No, unequivocally. (c) God only knows." He went on:
"That between 1 million and 1.5 million Armenians were brutally and
systematically massacred starting in 1915 in a deliberate genocidal
campaign is a matter of simple historical record. If you really want
to deepen and broaden awareness of that historical record, you should
support the establishment of the Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial
in Washington. But to pass a declarative resolution in the House of
Representatives in the middle of a war in which we are inordinately
dependent on Turkey would be the height of irresponsibility."

Now do you understand why last year was a pyrrhic victory? The reason
Ankara won the battle was because important newspapers such as The
Washington Post and The New York Times picked up the "genocide"
story and humiliated the House of Representatives with columns and
editorials such as the one written by Krauthammer. Yet, this was not
a sight any believer in Turkey's version enjoyed. Yes, these articles
opposed the Armenian resolution. But none of them believed Turkey's
version of history about "the events of 1915."

Turkey won an important battle but ended up losing the war. Just like
Krauthammer's, most of these articles argued that what happened in
1915 was genocide. But Turkey was geo-strategically too important an
ally to offend in the middle of mayhem in the Middle East. In other
words, the opposition to the genocide resolution had nothing to do
with the sudden discovery of new historical facts proving correct the
Turkish version of history. The discussion was only about Turkey's
geo-strategic importance and bad timing.

This year we will probably witness the same charade with more
intensity. President-elect Barack Obama, Vice President-elect Joe
Biden, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton and, of course, a large majority of Congress are all in favour
of Armenian genocide recognition. The first critical test will be the
US president's annual letter of April 24, which traditionally defines
what happened to Ottoman Armenians as "massacres." Will this year's
letter refer to "genocide"?

This first and very critical test in Turkish-American relations
comes within the early months of the Obama administration. There
are only four months between the inauguration in late January and
April 24. And Obama's presidential agenda will be overloaded with the
global financial crisis and all the very crucial foreign policy issues,
ranging from Iraq to Afghanistan and Iran to a possible India-Pakistan
war. Relations with Turkey will not be an urgent issue.

In such a busy agenda, it is also highly unlikely that the American
media will pick up the story of a potential crisis with Turkey. This is
why even a pyrrhic victory may not be in the cards this time. There is
still a chance Obama will opt for realism in relations with Turkey. But
this means he will have to break his campaign promises. Surely, this
will not be a first for a politician. But what if Obama is really
committed to "change"? Soon, perhaps too soon, we will know.

[VaheTheGreat(e)]

But what if Obama is really
committed to "change"? Soon, perhaps too soon, we will know.

No comments...

[UrTurkishFriend]

I am a Turkish but its worry to say this our nation is full of racists fascist very very much

[Edoman]

I am a Turkish but its worry to say this our nation is full of racists fascist very very much

As long as we know there are good Turks like yourself and your family we will never loose hope that one day we as people will raise our glasses together in a toast to our reconciliation and our newfound friendship.

Until that glorious day sir, I salute you.

[Joseph]

I am a Turkish but its worry to say this our nation is full of racists fascist very very much

It is painful to watch because I really do fear for the liberals who are showing bravery and fortitude. It may take a few more decades but slowly things are changing. Ever over-reaction by the ultra-nationalists/facists is adding to the numbers of free-thinkers.