The whole thing is indeed a question of information sources and how reliable they are. Concerning these aspects first it has to be noted, that the Turkish official argumentation to a large extent relies on pretty much prorpietary sources they have in their archives (interestingly, there have been Turkish legal investigations about that time). Now, there are official documents that certainly do not contain any explicit instruction for "destruction of Armenian population", especially not the early directives of 1915. These are often cited to document that there was no clear intent - but objective was to relocate/deport Armenian population (massacres during that time by auxiliary troops, military and police forces are thus said to have happened "accidentally"). Now, the objective of these early directives really were a relocation, however it becomes pretty much clear, that these relocations really had the obejctive of a "concentration" of people in certain areas. After that people were systematically sent onto "death marches" ... were the effects of such directives were clear to everybody (even without explicitely stating the objective to kill people). Although I do not want to compare this with Nazi Germany in all aspects, the Concentration Camps ha a similar objective. Many detainees were not really executed there (by gas .. )- they were forced to hard physically work under totally inhuman conditions, left without food, etc. and (even more brutal) died by starvation or exhaustion. However the intent was to keep them as long as they were able to work ... and here is the similarity to the death march.

  

Now, there are documents in Turkish archive (mainly from the later legal trial) documenting the intent to destroy. However, these documents are claimed to be non objective and biased by the "victorious countries" (conqueror's type of justice) by Turkish officials.

 

There are other documents available written by e.g. foreign ambassadors at that time (which are not in Turkish archives). But these are deemed to be non-objective or racist as well by Turkish officials.

 

To conclude, there is one party who is somehow involved (the Turkish official side), whose argumentation is basically that in the official documents/directives/decrees the "intent to destroy" is not explicitely written (by the way international law knows the concept of implied/concludent behavior). Those documents in their archive, which explicitely mention the "intent to destroy" are said to be biased by conquerer's type of justice, and those documents of other sources / witnesses are said to be "racist" or not relevant.

 

Not very convincing in my opinion ...

 

What makes the thing even more suspect is, that the Turkish state even nowadays obviously has a real problem with the subject and is not at willing to even discuss the subject. If you even mentioned the Armenian Problem in Turkey (and cite the wrong sources) you will be imprisoned for 6 months to 3 years because you insulted Turk culture (Law passed in 2005 !). Some former Armenian sacral buildings have been given back to armenians, but they are only allowed to use it as a "museum" and not as a church, what it was before.

 

So this (official) behvaior of supressing discussions, accusing everybody who has a different opinion of racism, being "Western" biased or simply of being insulting is not really helpful to come to an objetive conclusion. What do you think ?

 

 

 

It seems hard to separate this situation from the greater conflicts happening during that time.

 

"What good would it do for Turkey to call it a genocide?"  Reparations, of course.  It is interesting to see that the same congressmen that bring this issue up are the same ones that want the US to pay (more) reparations for slavery. 

 

It seems that some people are looking for 'levels of genocide'. 

The Jewish extermination was worse because several governments were involved in a systematic approach on a high percentage of populaiton.

Next might be the English against the Irish, because Ireland is the only country with less people in 1900 than 1800 with laws prohibiting the Irish from breeding.  (Should the Welsh also be on the list?)

Arab systematic attacks on Blacks.  Still continuing.  Not really an extermination since the Blacks have had value as Slaves.

American actions against the Aboriginals is more a genocide of culture since there are far more descendants of American Indians than were before the Europeans came.  The US is still practicing cultural imperialism.

It is hard to add conquering Spanish armies to this list when large numbers of their population were trying to save aboriginal lives and improve their livelihood.  Spanish missionaries would travel to distant communities unarmed and vastly outnumbered still occaissionally creating converts.

 

So how do you judge a genocide?  What percentage of target group is purposefully killed?  Is the target group choosen for racial, religious, or behavioural qualities?  Was target group conquered or did they grow up as subjects?  How many are involved in the atrocity, is it government sanctioned, or an extreme reaction by the military?  Did the target group fight back?

 

The more you think about it, the more morbid the judgers of genocide appear.   The only real reason certain attrocities are more important is that there is politcal capital to be made. 

 

 

Again - please don't treat it as comparison - but also Nazi concentration camps had doctors and clinical complexes (doing everything else in brutal experiments than taking care of detainees), as wella as soldiers for "protection". Interstingly official publications of the eaerly phase was telling people that concentration camps have been created to "protect" e.g. Jewish population from what was called "Volkszorn" (people's anger) - which was total deception. All I say is that these citations are not really evidence.

 

The whole problem would probably be not so heavily ^discussed if the nowadays behavior of Turkish officials was a bit more relaxed, signalling that they are willing to contribute to an international discussion. However, in their opinion they say, they know enough about it, it was not a genocide and everybody else has to accept that. As I said ... not really helpful. 

 

...

a) nobody expects Turkey to call it a Genocide. However an open discussion about the past (instead of imprisoning people because of insulting Turk culture if you just mention it) would do good for Turkey and Armenians. An open discussion did good for Germany and Jewish population, because both sides at a certain point can perhaps make their piece on the past. Supressing discussion becasue of a broad ego (or call it "insulting" culture)

 

b) There is nothing "morbid". If you go to conflict areas you find that this can be an important process for both parties. By far better as heating up the conflict because one insults the other again - none of the parties even knows the old original conflict , however they heat up minds again - is this good ? 

 

c) There is a clear definition on "Genocide" which does not have anything to do with "importance" or "severity" of attrocities.

 

 

Roman wrote: "Most countries have some dark chapters, of varying degrees of darkness, in their respective histories. That is an unfortunate but unchangeable fact. Countries and nations, however, can change over time and in any case generations definitely change. Hence, past events can be forgiven. I personally, however, have great difficulty respecting countries that do not acknowledge their past. It is my belief that these countries are inherently dangerous, as they are apparently incapable of self-reflection and self-criticism, prefering instead to idolize themselves and blame foreigners."

 

This sums up my sentiment on the matter rather well.  It's also the reason I don't trust Russia, with its wistful looking back to the glories of the communist age, and its greatest hero, the "Man of Steel."

What was happened in Anatolia during 1915-1921 period was simply an ethnical war. Not much diiferent than what happened at Yugoslavia recently.

1. Ottoman Empire opened a 2nd front against Russia at 1915. Russia needed a diversion and they had aleady organised a rebel Armenian faction in Ottoman Empire.

2. Russia supplied weapons to rebel Armenians and they started an ethnical war. This is a fact no historians are disagreeing.

3. Armenians destroyed enitre Turkish and Kurdish villages. My grandfather lived in one of the destroyed Kurdish villages.

4. Kurdish and Turkish civilians armed themselves with whatever they could finf and started reteliation.

5. Turkish government transported the Armenian population of East Anatolia to Syria. No Armenian at Western Anatolia forced to move. In fact there were no Armenian casulaties from West Anatolia.

6. During transportation Armenian convoys were given inadequate military protection. Irregular Hamidiye regiments attacked this convoys.

7. Hamidiye regiments were all founded as Kurdish tribesman from a single tribe and they listened their tribal leaders before anybody else.

8. All Armenian eye-witness of the attacks to the convoys told that the attackers were Kurds and were not wearing regular uniforms.

9. The Ottoman archive is open to everyone. In fact this archives are published in Turkish and English and I have some of them.

10. In the official 1914 population records of the Ottoman Empire there were 14.155.755 muslims and 1.219.323 Armenians living in the empire. I do not have the 1918-1922 numbers right now. But if you want I can  find. As you can see 1.000.000 Armenian casulaties during the war is very absurd as they were still more than 1.000.000 Armenians after the war.

11. By all means much more civilian Turks were killed during the war under the Russian occupation.

 

Any questions so far.

I think other factors (official French attitudes to the Armenian question) would prove more decisive in whether or not Sarkozy would be perceived as an unbiased arbiter.