Genocide

[Mukuch]

Re: Genocide??..

You vote for MHP and Devlet Bahceli, lol...that explains a lot

Devlet Bahceli is a fascist/gray-wolf, far more worser than Tayip Erdogan.

He is a typical turkish fascist. But he is so stupid that he came to this forum to teach us history

[Alevigirl88]

Re: Genocide??..

I for myself vote for MHP and Devlet Bahceli..

You vote for MHP and Devlet Bahceli, lol...that explains a lot

Devlet Bahceli is a fascist/gray-wolf, far more worser than Tayip Erdogan.

[Mukuch]

Re: Genocide

Ataturk helped Turks get back their own land dont mind if there was a war once..

Turks are nomads, and everyone knows nomads do not own land They just conquer it destroy everything on it and create a desert.

How do you know about how we think about the genocide..

From your kind.

Anatolia was the land of lots of people if everybody wanted their lands back how anybody would own Anatolia..Its ours and nobody will get it..

See my first comment

I am not lying about the genocide I just dont like being in examples..
I'm sorry but I wont get killed so you can get your lands back..

No one cares to kill you...

How can you just say it Turkish propaganda how do you know its not an Armenian propaganda...

Don’t show your ignorance, it is shame, all world says that turks lie. It is a fact of common knowledge.

For not asking questions isnt argument is the best way to learn?..

yes, but smart people try to get answers themselves before bothering others. You are not interested in answers you just want to make your point.

Dont be offenced but we dont want your little country and if we take it..It wont cause a WWIII because nobody gives a crap to your little country..

Of course you don’t care; you took enough from us it is time to give it back! Now time to think who gives a xxxx about turkey?

As for why Germany pays for their ancestors crime..Well they are just xxxxing stupid..

Yah sure they are stupid.... that why 2 million turks clean toilets for "stupid" Germans, including your family most probably.... Think maybe if turks were as "stupid" as Germans are, maybe turkey wouldn’t be so miserable country?

[Mukuch]

Re: Genocide

God damnit for the last and very last time I agree there was a genocide OK?And dont make us into freaking stereotypes if some ignorant villagers showed some idiotic panes...And China government was killing Turkish people and nothing but Turkish people..That was the beginning of a small Genocide until we put a stop to it..

You are real funny turk, what does mean "last time"? First you deny Genocide completely, and try to make some traditional turkish propaganda on an Armenian Forum. Than when facts put you to the wall and you have no choice but to admit the facts you get angry.

What do you mean you stopped Chines government? My personal opinion is that China wouldn’t even piss on turkey let alone be presured by it. And I heard another side of story I think it was uygur turks who rebelled against chines and begun massacring chines (check the numbers I think more chines were killed than uygurs).

And by the way on the photo are not "some villagers" it is Istambul and those are some of your fascist leaders.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Genocide

Don’t you see any contradiction with what you’ve stated. Without the validity and legality of the Sevres Treaty it doesn’t matter what Woodrow Wilson signed off. Because his authority is solely dependent on clause 89 of the Sevre Treaty that gives him the right to draw a border between Armenia and the Ottoman Empire. Conveniently you’ve decoupled the two when in fact they are very much linked.

That’s incorrect, Wilson’s authority is not dependent whatsoever on the Treaty of Sevres. Just because it was mentioned in Sevres doesn’t mean its legally binding to Sevres. Lets look at article 89:

Turkey and Armenia as well as the other High Contracting Parties agree to submit to the arbitration of the President of the United States of America the question of the frontier to be fixed between Turkey and Armenia in the vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van and Bitlis, and to accept his decision thereupon, as well as any stipulations he may prescribe as to access for Armenia to the sea, and as to the demilitarisation of any portion of Turkish territory adjacent to the said frontier.

Even the Treaty of Sevres recognizes that Wilson's arbitration has no bearing with the ratification of the treaty. Look at the area I highlighted which reads, "and to accept his decision thereupon"-- thereupon Wilson's decision, not upon the ratification of the treaty. The fact that the arbitral award was mentioned in the Treaty of Sevres is merely a formality, as the legal decision to delineate the border was awarded to Wilson by the Entente victors of WWI. It is included in Sevres simply because it is just one facet of the Armeno-Turkish post-WWI settlements discussed in the treaty, but this facet, even according to Sevres, is independent of Sevres.

Legally speaking, once the parties of the post-war settlement (Entente powers, Ottomans, and others) decided to submit the territorial dispute to arbitration by the US President, the process is irreversible and all parties must follow the decision of the arbiter upon the moment of his decision. All parties involved in the post-WWI settlement agreed to make Woodrow Wilson the arbiter of the Armeno-Turkish border, and he prepared in a few months an 89-page report in which he outlined the territory of Armenia. He signed the decision and stamped it with an official government seal. This is an irrevocable and irreversible decision under international law. More importantly, there is no subsequent agreement that overrides it.


Lets say for the sake of argument that the Wilson arbitration was binded to the Treaty of Sevres. Even then, this treaty is the only one which has all of these characteristics:

1. Defines in detail the Armenian-Turkish border
2. Is signed by delegates of all parties involved
3. All parties involved were legal governments

Try applying this legal standard to Lausanne or Kars, and you will quickly see how they are worthless and invalid compared to Sevres.

[Anoush]

Re: Genocide

Don’t you see any contradiction with what you’ve stated. Without the validity and legality of the Sevres Treaty it doesn’t matter what Woodrow Wilson signed off. Because his authority is solely dependent on clause 89 of the Sevre Treaty that gives him the right to draw a border between Armenia and the Ottoman Empire. Conveniently you’ve decoupled the two when in fact they are very much linked. It’s much like a chicken an egg question.

The Sevres Treaty was signed by dignified world powers and it is a Legal Treaty. There is nothing contradictory what ArmSurvival mentioned above. The Wilson Arbitration is a legal Document and shall be implemented when the right opportunity arrives.

[Jos]

Re: Genocide

And even if you reject the entire Treaty of Sevres, I already mentioned to you that Armenia's claim to its western lands is not dependent on the ratification of Sevres-- It is solely dependent on Woodrow Wilson's arbitration award, which was granted to him after Allied nations and the legal Ottoman government discussed the terms of the Ottoman defeat, and decided that Armenia's western border would be fixed by the US President. The lands, legally speaking, belonged to Armenia as soon as Woodrow Wilson signed the arbitration, and was not legally binded to the ratification of the Treaty of Sevres.

Don’t you see any contradiction with what you’ve stated. Without the validity and legality of the Sevres Treaty it doesn’t matter what Woodrow Wilson signed off. Because his authority is solely dependent on clause 89 of the Sevre Treaty that gives him the right to draw a border between Armenia and the Ottoman Empire. Conveniently you’ve decoupled the two when in fact they are very much linked. It’s much like a chicken an egg question.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Genocide

I looked it up, I believe your referring to the legal term: Duress: defined "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would].

Then could it not also be argued that the Sevres Treaty was invalid because it was signed under Allied Occupation and never ratified by the Ottoman parliament because the Occupation powers had forcibly abolished it? Added to that, the Sultans own survival was threatened if the document wasn't signed. All fine examples of duress I would have thought, making the Sevres Treaty invalid and illegal.

The conditions for the Treaty of Sevres was different. The Ottomans were not occupied for no reason-- they not only mistreated their minorities for decades (pogroms, genocide, forceful assimilation, Janissary slavery, harem victims, etc.), but, above all else, they attacked Russia and entered WWI on their own volition, and made public their aim of "liberating Turkic lands" in Central Asia. They were occupied by the Allied Powers (all legal entities by the way) because they committed criminal acts on a massive scale, and started a conflict in which they were the losers. Also, everyone who signed the Treaty of Sevres was a legal entity, including the Ottomans. Armenia on the other hand, did not enter any conflict on their own accord, and was attacked and forced to sign a bogus treaty (Kars) by two unrecognized (illegal) entities. So the very nature of these two states is different, and the context of the Treaty of Sevres is markedly different than that of the Treaty of Kars.

And even if you reject the entire Treaty of Sevres, I already mentioned to you that Armenia's claim to its western lands is not dependent on the ratification of Sevres-- It is solely dependent on Woodrow Wilson's arbitration award, which was granted to him after Allied nations and the legal Ottoman government discussed the terms of the Ottoman defeat, and decided that Armenia's western border would be fixed by the US President. The lands, legally speaking, belonged to Armenia as soon as Woodrow Wilson signed the arbitration, and was not legally binded to the ratification of the Treaty of Sevres.

[Jos]

Re: Genocide

The fact that the Soviets strong-armed Armenia to sign the Treaty of Kars in Turkish-occupied Kars (which was legally part of Armenia at the time) is another point that makes the treaty invalid. An unrecognized Turkey cannot occupy a legally-recognized country, and have a 3rd party (the Soviets, who were likewise unrecognized in 1921) strong-arm the occupied country to the negotiation table and force them to sign away land. Look it up, its illegal.

I looked it up, I believe your referring to the legal term: Duress: defined "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would].

Then could it not also be argued that the Sevres Treaty was invalid because it was signed under Allied Occupation and never ratified by the Ottoman parliament because the Occupation powers had forcibly abolished it? Added to that, the Sultans own survival was threatened if the document wasn't signed. All fine examples of duress I would have thought, making the Sevres Treaty invalid and illegal.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Genocide

The Treaty of Kars has even more holes in it than the Treaty of Lausanne. At the time of the signing in 1921, neither the Turkish revolutionaries nor the Bolsheviks were legally recognized governments. Both parties were outlaws in their respective countries. Turkish revolutionaries at the time were condemned to death by the legal Ottoman government, ditto for the Bolsheviks in Russia. This automatically makes the treaty invalid.

The fact that the Soviets strong-armed Armenia to sign the Treaty of Kars in Turkish-occupied Kars (which was legally part of Armenia at the time) is another point that makes the treaty invalid. An unrecognized Turkey cannot occupy a legally-recognized country, and have a 3rd party (the Soviets, who were likewise unrecognized in 1921) strong-arm the occupied country to the negotiation table and force them to sign away land. Look it up, its illegal.

And nice try with the Oskanian quote, taking it completely out of context. He has said on many occasions that the Treaty of Kars is in doubt because (among other things) Turkey fails to meet many criteria outlined in the treaty, and that we must ask ourselves if the treaty is even valid. Even the Bolsheviks, during WWII, raised the issue of the lack of validity of the Treaty of Kars.