Armenia: the end of the debate?

[Catharsis]

Re: Armenia: the end of the debate?

I've no doubt about your sharp claws and bite to match but do you have anything of substance other than belittling the writers professional credentials. Please offer your insight and help me to understand why you believe a extensively published historian/journalist that is seemingly independent and without an obvious agenda holds a contrary opinion even after he has:

If the Turkish government has nothing to fear about the historical truth coming out then why all the suppression and state denial undertaken by the fascist junta? Why are courageous scholars who are inside Turkey who have spoken out about the Armenian Genocide have been persecuted, jailed and killed?

[Diranakir]

Re: Armenia: the end of the debate?

"Claws and bite" have nothing to do with it. More to the point is the kind of credulity and deference you are willing to offer a writer solely on the basis of an impressive resumé, extensive publication, and unsubstantiated claims of having at some point in the past read this or that, let alone whether the right conclusions were drawn from what he read. And did you ever wonder whether his grasp of Ottoman Turkish was that good as a "budding" historian? Why does he not name one date, place or historic leader of the Armenian revolts he mentions? Yes, he is 'seemingly' independent. Well said. Is that good enough for you? It's not good enough for me; not good enough to justify his disseminating a blatant and cruel falsehood in his far flung media markets, namely that Syria was a salvation point for Armenian deportees, when in fact it was the place they were disposed of in the deserts of Der Zor like so much refuse. Despite his impressive resumé, all his perspicacity seems to vanish when it comes to the Armenians in 1915. Maybe you can explain that to me.

[Jos]

Re: Armenia: the end of the debate?

I'm sharpening my scissors.

I've no doubt about your sharp claws and bite to match but do you have anything of substance other than belittling the writers professional credentials. Please offer your insight and help me to understand why you believe a extensively published historian/journalist that is seemingly independent and without an obvious agenda holds a contrary opinion even after he has:

I read the archival reports on British and Russian negotiations with Armenian revolutionaries after the Ottoman empire entered the First World War on the other side in early 1915. I even read the documents in the Turkish General Staff archives ordering the deportation of the Armenian population from eastern Anatolia later that year.

[Anoush]

Re: Armenia: the end of the debate?

Here is the whole article by Ambassador Ara Papian:

The First Fruits of the Protocols

BY ARA PAPIAN

Apologists for the Armenia-Turkey protocols denied all the warnings that there would be negative effects on the Armenian Genocide recognition process, while I, alongwith many others, foresaw that negative consequences would manifest themselves even in those countries that have already recognized the Armenian Genocide. Unfortunately, that turned out to be the case.

Example:
Canada is one of those few countries where both the parliament (in 2002 and 2004), as well as the cabinet (in 2006) have recognized the Armenian Genocide. Consequently, since 2004, no self-respecting member of the media would ever publish or broadcast any article or program denying the Armenian Genocide. Moreover, when, in February of 2006, as a reaction to my mentioning the Armenian Genocide as part of a farewell interview to the influential Embassy magazine, the ambassadors of Turkey and Azerbaijan complained, the editor of that periodical responded, without any intervention on my part, that, “the fact of the genocide cannot be disputed, as it is not subject to any doubts”. Clear and precise.

And what do we have now? Only ten days after signing the protocols, the very same Embassy magazine (on the 21st of October, 2009) published an article by Gwynne Dyer, where it is said that, “the Armenians back home have made a deal … [which] create a joint historical commission to determine what actually happened in 1915”. The author’s concluding remarks of the article state that, “It was not a genocide…”. And this in Canada, which has recognised the Armenian Genocide. As people on the streets say, we have messed with Canada, and she will not forgive us. People don’t forgive those who mess around with them, even in international relations.

And now for yet another prediction. After the protocols get ratified (God forbid), it would mean legally doubting the Armenian Genocide (please save your arguments for the Canadian courts), upon which the Canadian courts will be filled with applications against the prior governmental declarations for having “insulted honour and dignity”, seeing as we have insulted the Turkish state – and, of course, Canadian citizens of Turkish descent – in a yet-to-be-proven crime (genocide), subject to discussion by some sub-commission.
Since the Canadian court system provides for monetary compensation with regards to moral damages, I would therefore like to call for an extra line in next year’s state budget of the Republic of Armenia, of a few hundred million dollars (nothing less), to pay for moral damages. Ultimately, we are the ones who are going to billed for these complaints.

Huh... now let both the geniuses Sarkissian and Nalbandyan to be billed and pay up the Millions of dollars to pay to the Canadian government that the Armenian nation insulted the turkishness of the turkish nation that they used the G word. Very good job Serge and Edward now go and get paid by the turkish nation the mega dollars that you expected. Good job - NOT. Big huge mistake Serge and Edward - you are anything but politicians... kissing the asses of the turks; big idiots, unpatriotic "esheks" donkeys.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Armenia: the end of the debate?

You make it sound as if he were random pimply faced kid with a blog. To the contrary, his resume looks quite impressive:

"GWYNNE DYER has worked as a freelance journalist, columnist, broadcaster and lecturer on international affairs for more than 20 years, but he was originally trained as an historian. Born in Newfoundland, he received degrees from Canadian, American and British universities, finishing with a Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History from the University of London. He served in three navies and held academic appointments at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and Oxford University before launching his twice-weekly column on international affairs, which is published by over 175 papers in some 45 countries."

http://www.gwynnedyer.com/

"Isn't actually employed as a journalist"???? Are you serious? He's been published in over 175 papers newspapers globally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Dyer

I'm sharpening my scissors.

[Diranakir]

Re: Armenia: the end of the debate?

One fallacy implicit in Mr. Dyer's argument deserves further attention: that the Armenian Genocide, while a "crime", was a rational response to perceived dangers.
This is false. While it was carefully planned, it's effect was to impoverish and economically weaken Anatolia for the duration of the war. Bridges and other buildings and infrastructure were destroyed simply because they had been built by Armenian hands; the skilled working class -- carpenters, tool makers, farmers, bakers, etc. -- were sent away to their deaths while the Turkish population that remained didn't know where to get bread and had to go miles away in search of it, sometimes having to go the long way because they had just destroyed Armenian-built bridges. The genocide stopped the huge grain harvest that was waiting to be taken and the crops rotted in the field, leading to very short rations for the entire populace that remained. In almost every practical respect the genocide was a disaster for Turkey, not to mention its ultimate defeat in the war. The genocide was motivated by the irrational need to destroy Armenian and Christian life in Anatolia in the false belief that this would make the country a better place. It was sustained by holding out the possibility of short-term enrichment for miserable peasants and officials both great and small. Its roots go back to the "Hamidian' massacres where hatred of Armenians combined with the prospect of filthy lucre began to form the genocidal logic that came to fruition in 1915. Its goal was both irrational and abysmally immoral, like the Shoah.

[Catharsis]

Re: Armenia: the end of the debate?

Speaking of 'end of debate'

PanARMENIAN.Net/ The influential Swedish newspaper Metro refuses to publish any article which may have a reference to the Armenian Genocide , Ara Papyan , historian, diplomat and currently the head of the Modus Vivendi center told a PanARMENIAN.Net reporter...

Here is the whole article by Ambassador Ara Papian:

The First Fruits of the Protocols

BY ARA PAPIAN

Apologists for the Armenia-Turkey protocols denied all the warnings that there would be negative effects on the Armenian Genocide recognition process, while I, alongwith many others, foresaw that negative consequences would manifest themselves even in those countries that have already recognized the Armenian Genocide. Unfortunately, that turned out to be the case.

Example:
Canada is one of those few countries where both the parliament (in 2002 and 2004), as well as the cabinet (in 2006) have recognized the Armenian Genocide. Consequently, since 2004, no self-respecting member of the media would ever publish or broadcast any article or program denying the Armenian Genocide. Moreover, when, in February of 2006, as a reaction to my mentioning the Armenian Genocide as part of a farewell interview to the influential Embassy magazine, the ambassadors of Turkey and Azerbaijan complained, the editor of that periodical responded, without any intervention on my part, that, “the fact of the genocide cannot be disputed, as it is not subject to any doubts”. Clear and precise.

And what do we have now? Only ten days after signing the protocols, the very same Embassy magazine (on the 21st of October, 2009) published an article by Gwynne Dyer, where it is said that, “the Armenians back home have made a deal … [which] create a joint historical commission to determine what actually happened in 1915”. The author’s concluding remarks of the article state that, “It was not a genocide…”. And this in Canada, which has recognised the Armenian Genocide. As people on the streets say, we have messed with Canada, and she will not forgive us. People don’t forgive those who mess around with them, even in international relations.

And now for yet another prediction. After the protocols get ratified (God forbid), it would mean legally doubting the Armenian Genocide (please save your arguments for the Canadian courts), upon which the Canadian courts will be filled with applications against the prior governmental declarations for having “insulted honour and dignity”, seeing as we have insulted the Turkish state – and, of course, Canadian citizens of Turkish descent – in a yet-to-be-proven crime (genocide), subject to discussion by some sub-commission.
Since the Canadian court system provides for monetary compensation with regards to moral damages, I would therefore like to call for an extra line in next year’s state budget of the Republic of Armenia, of a few hundred million dollars (nothing less), to pay for moral damages. Ultimately, we are the ones who are going to billed for these complaints.

[Diranakir]

Re: Armenia: the end of the debate?

Thank you very much. This thread is a very big deal to me. I may not comment on a lot of other things, but I'm glad to have the place to post my
thoughts if I feel the need. I will be sticking around one way or the other.

Best, Diranakir

[Armanen]

Re: Armenia: the end of the debate?

I like your posts so far Diranakir. I hope you stick around!

[Diranakir]

Re: Armenia: the end of the debate?

The whole thrust of the current stage of denialism is to prevent, at ANY cost, the labeling as genocide of the Armenian Genocide, even if that means reluctantly admitting there was massive slaughter or massacres of even hundreds of thousands of Armenians. One of the prime arguments employed for defeating the idea that there was a deliberate, state planned genocide of Armenians is to hold up the Shoah as, in effect, the only true genocide in modern history and then point out all the differences between it and what happened to the Armenians, as if there aren't differences between every genocide that arise from different locations, times, conditions. This accomplishes two things: it denies that the Armenians suffered genocide (one wonders what the denialists would say about Rwanda, Cambodia, East Timor, Darfur, etc, but they do not say. . . .) and it severs the oft cited link between the Armenian genocide and the Shoah, as embodied in Hitler's famous words. In addition, if one looks into what Mr. Dyer has written on the Armenian Genocide (though he does not call it that) one is struck by the generous, compassionate allowance he makes for the mental and emotional distress suffered by the perpetrators of the genocide and which he presents as making the "crime" ( his own term) perfectly understandable. He tells us they were running scared and didn't quite know what to do. They were in "panic" at imminent victories of the allies with a southern assault, all aided by Armenians (who were fighting for their life and had no state institutions they could fully rely on). Gripped with this "panic" they methodically went through every Armenian town, village and hamlet in Anatolia over a period of at least two years and coolly told everyone to get out and march for the deserts of Der Zor, all to prepare for an assault that never happened! Ridiculous! And does he show a shred of sympathy for the distress of these innocents torn from their homes to be tortured in death marches and sent to their death? He does not. All his sympathy is for those in Ottoman uniforms. This is the measure of the man, this high paid and very successful "historian".