Turks and Armenians: Kane

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Turkey Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Turks and Armenians: Kane
Godofgamblers 8/3/2006 4:28:41 AM

This thread concerns the question of whether the Genocide of Armenians took place in the Ottoman Empire after WWI. The idea for this thread came from a discussion i had with Kane on the ARMED FORCES OF THE WORLD board. Please be advised that : (1) I have no personal stake in this argument as I am neither Turkish nor Armenian. (2) I have no negative feelings toward Turkey. (3) My own country is guilty of acts of genocide and outright genocide that make the Armenian situation pale in comparison. Thus, I am taking no position of superiority over Turks or Turkey. Since I know little about Turkish history, I would like to conduct the discussion via a series of questions, which I will ask Kane. Others are free to chime in, of course, as they wish. Let's start!

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

VelocityVector GoG 10/16/2006 11:17:17 PM

What about the Hamidian massacres? This throws a different light on things, doesn't it? It DOES look like a dry run for what happened in later years.... doesn't it?

FWIW, 1915 is merely a historical reference point insofar as significant government-promoted massacres had occurred routinely prior to 1915 going back many decades. (Heck, even my grandfather had arrived in the states by 1915.) That's one reason why the very recent World War I "bad stuff happens during war/political disintegration" justifications now attempted by the Turks has never held any water with credible academics. In the case of my grandfather's family, the entire locality was decimated because my family, through diligent commerce, had purchased and installed the first Western-style stove in the area and the local governing Turks wanted it for their own purposes. I'm not kidding, the Turks murdered entire families for a stove. No discernible difference from Pograms against Jews in Eastern Europe prior to the Holocaust. Remain the subordinate or perish. Sadly, this pattern is alive and well today, and it isn't limited to any particular ethnic group, the Turks simply present humanity with an eternal example from which to learn and prevent. Then there is Darfur etc . . .

v^2

Quote Reply

kane 10/17/2006 10:10:28 AM

You guys do not get the point(or do not want to)!
I never said "Turks didn't kill Armenians"Did I??This slaughter does not fit in the terms of GENOCIDE!!!!
VV said Turks killed Armenians for stove(Well anything is possible in Anatolia)I do not know whether it's true or not BUT
do you know who killed them fro stove??Were they soldiers or civillians.You can not accuse a country because of an angry mob.Armenians were disloyal,Turks had a right to hate them because Armenians weren't angels.Actually they killed 500 000 Turks and Kurds.

If this is a genocide(it's not,genocide is not a simple term)
Russians did the same to
Chinese did the same
Americans did the same
Spanish definetly did more

And look at France.Lol,they killed a million Algerians but NO GENOCIDE.WHY??
+The killers were French troops

But in Armenians situations,killers were the angry mob.
ANd what about 530 000 dead Turks??
Turkish soldiers died when defending Armenians.+Armenians had better food than Turkish troops while moving to Syria.

And Armenians numbers!!Totally lie they say 1 million but it's much more lower than that.Ottomans were taking more taxes from non-Muslims.Why the hell would they lie about numbers?!??!

And why didn't anyone said anything about genocide untill 1970s???

Armenian conflict was not a GENOCIDE.Agreed,a lot of them were killed brutally but genocide is a different thing.After all no one likes us,so go on.Ottomans did not commit any genocide thats the truth.If you're saying these because of emotions it's ok.I mean hundred of thousand Armenians were killed.You have to accuse someone,you need revenge and you have to seperate Turkey.You want what you lost so you say we commited a genocide.Thats what I think because only proof Armenians got are some witnesses and unknown pictures.

Armenians were the most loyal and friendly nation in Ottoman Empire.Everyone know who turned everything into hell*cough*France-Russia*cough*

Quote Reply

Godofgamblers 10/17/2006 8:26:39 PM

I appreciate your feelings, kane. I think one of the writers I came across (a Turk) said that the killings DID happen but that genocide was an unfortunate term since it is too politically charged: it is greatly impeding the investigation of what happened.

Many non-Armenians were killed, no one is denying that. But because the Armenians were a minority, I think the ruling powers had a special responsibility to protect them and failed in this.

You're right too when you say that Turkey is not the only country to have been involved in mass killing: the French, the Spanish, the British, the Americans were all involved in one of the world's greatest genocides: the slaughter of the AmerIndians in N and S AMerica. It is said that 50million died....! No one can deny this.

However, that is not the topic of this thread....

Quote Reply

Godofgamblers 10/18/2006 5:42:08 AM

Many non-Armenians were killed, no one is denying that. But because the Armenians were a minority, I think the ruling powers had a special responsibility to protect them and failed in this.

However, that is not the topic of this thread....

Perhaps this is another piece to the puzzle. Note the quotes of contemporary diplomats at the bottom of the page too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontian_Greek_Genocide

How can this be explained?

I am not one to pass judgment. In the process of nation building many are slaughtered. Look at the New World, or Mao's China, or Indonesia in the 40s or 60s. But it does seem merely a matter of semantics whether you call what happened a 'massacre' or 'mass killing' or 'genocide'. In the end, it amounts to hundreds of thousands of innocents dying.

What do you gentlemen think?

Quote Reply

Godofgamblers 10/18/2006 6:08:43 AM

Many non-Armenians were killed, no one is denying that. But because the Armenians were a minority, I think the ruling powers had a special responsibility to protect them and failed in this.

However, that is not the topic of this thread....

Perhaps this is another piece to the puzzle. Note the quotes of contemporary diplomats at the bottom of the page too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontian_Greek_Genocide

How can this be explained?

What do you gentlemen think?

Quote Reply

RockyMTNClimber Interesting thread 10/24/2007 2:02:45 PM

Quote Reply

le_corsaire 10/25/2007 8:37:54 AM

You guys do not get the point(or do not want to)!
...
This slaughter does not fit in the terms of GENOCIDE!!!!

If this is a genocide(it's not,genocide is not a simple term)
...
And look at France.Lol,they killed a million Algerians but NO GENOCIDE.WHY??
+The killers were French troops

But in Armenians situations,killers were the angry mob.
ANd what about 530 000 dead Turks??
Turkish soldiers died when defending Armenians.+Armenians had better food than Turkish troops while moving to Syria.

And Armenians numbers!!Totally lie they say 1 million but it's much more lower than that.

Ottomans were taking more taxes from non-Muslims.Why the hell would they lie about numbers?!??!

And why didn't anyone said anything about genocide untill 1970s???

Armenian conflict was not a GENOCIDE.Agreed,a lot of them were killed brutally but genocide is a different thing.After all no one likes us,so go on.Ottomans did not commit any genocide thats the truth.

Kane, I think you are the one who doesn't get the point. Let me explain why and where I think the problem is:

Your definition of Genocide is not a common one so it is not commonly agreed upon. A widely agreed upon definiton is that given by the United Nations, as cited above. If we look at this definition there is one very important element what makes a genocide an genocide, which is the "intention" to destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group (plus the actions happened).

So the thing comes down to whether there was some point in time where there was clear "intention to destroy Armenian population". This is different than counter and supress rebellion (which can also be a brutal act) or go after terrorists. Frechn in Algeria was an extremly brutal suppression - however there was never the intent to destroy Algerian population (because of ethnical, religios, racial reasons). Nazi-German attacks against partisans (producing large numbers of civil casualties) were also brutal actions, but again not intended to destroy a population because of the listed criteria. However, Nazi-Germany's actions against Jews, Sinti, Roma and also many slavonic groups clearly were and thus were Genocide.

In the case of Armenians, Talat (as "minister of the interior" in a pretty much dictatoric/nationalistic government, they had created after their 1908 coup) issued official directives to deport the ethnic group of Armenians (by the way without any documentation of a plan for alternative stllement of deprted people - so the intent was pretty clear).

Moreover he supported his party-internal militia and curdish "auxiliary forces" ( realistically say "curdish gangs") to act upon these documents as directive to "destroy" an ethnic group, and even ordered execution and killing of district governors who tried to keep violance of militias under control.

Other evidence is available from documents (even from turkish military commanders as given e.g. in Mazhar Commission, which assert the clear intention to destroy the ethnic group).

So there is clear evidence for an "intent to destroy an ethnical group" (plus well documented activity) - and thus a Genocide according to the definition ... so you don't even need the heavily discussed Andonian Documents here.

Quote Reply

le_corsaire 10/25/2007 8:56:52 AM

What do you gentlemen think?

In principle you are right - it does not really matter how you call it. However the term "Genocide" is not used for all the violence (on both sides) before 1915/16, but only for the "organized destruction of an ethnical group", which happened at that time. Maybe Armenian numbers are wrong - the "bodycount" does not really matter for the classification, nor the brutality; Maybe in the whole discussion, casualties caused by Armenian rebellion and terrorist groups are not adequately represented. However, what concerns the activity around 1915 it is what it is ... an organized and intentional destruction of an ethnic group - and thus a genocide. Once can discuss about how to treat this and what the historical context was ..

But there is reason for outrage.

Quote Reply

le_corsaire 10/25/2007 10:10:32 AM

54 critical Questions aroused in an Armenian Propoganda Lecture in El Camino College in Torrance (near Los Angeles,
California) ....

Without digging into the lengthy text of this viewpoints in detail, just some aspects:

Ad Q4. Is 70 western students of ottoman history really an "awe-inspiring array of learned opinion" ? Besides the fact, that the listed histoians represent a neglectable minority in opinion about the subject, it might be interesting to know that e.g. cited historian Guenter Lewy in his publication in certain aspects rejects the "genocide" definition as provided by the U.N. (so his classification concerning the subject is nice to read but pointless - because there is no sense to discuss about a classification if one party does not even agree to a common definition). Also it is disputable (in my opinion), if a professor for history whose former "chair of turkology" was partially financed by the Turkisch government is a really objective source. Without any negative attitude concerning their opinions, it is highly questionable whether 70 students and 5 (always) cited professors are really such an "enormous body of evidence" compared with the majority of historians on the planet.

Ad Q5: This is a misleading and clearly tendential question, because it intentionally mixes the activity around the former nationalist government's deportation directives (which is usually meant when referring to the genocide question) with the civil war events events before 1915. Also primary/contemporary sources (some of the "almost none" ... where almost is a matter of interpretation), describing the killings are attributed as reporting in a "biased" and "racist" way. I am sorry - if the author of this question was on a battlefield, witnessing such actions - isn't it natural for a human being to be somewhat "biased" toward the party executing the killings ?

Without being a "partisan" - when reading this question - it is certainly an interesting question whether the author here intentionally tries to politically obfuscate the dicussion, or whether he really lacks a scientifically sound set of methods, or just might be a bit "biased" by all the books and papers (maybe also the financing party) he is dealing with every day.

Ad Q6: I can objectively compare whatever I want to whatever (in a honest way). Maybe sometimes a comparsion with other things helps to clarify things and to detect, which aspects are similar and which are not.

Ad Q8: This formulation reveals an interesting mindset in the first part of the sentence: "If Armenians wish to believe that ..." All Armenians ? Is there no reason for complaint for people who lost their families ? In some parts of the world trying to link a certain intention to an ethnic group without any differenciation is already interpreted as (hidden) racism (and there is some evidence to it). Why does the author think that "Armenians wish to believe ..." ?

But it becomes even better: the material which is available in archives is not enough, the material which contains evidence of the killings (e.g. investigation protocols of military officials) is regarded to be "not reliable" (and never cross-examined) and anyhow everything was "tuned" by the victorious foreign allies. All what remains is "hearsay". What a great collection of arguments ! But certainly the author is right : how can one accuse if there are no eyewitnesses (and if there were - they were certainly non trustable).

Nobody can be convicted just by hearsay ? Oh, in Turkey this obviously works very well, when keeping a 16 year old boy accused of raping a 13 year old (after they met in a disco ??), just based on an accusation of the girl's mother, without any cross-examination or even hearing of the girl for over 6 months now. Congratulations ...

Quote Reply

Godofgamblers le corsaire 10/26/2007 2:59:04 AM

This in my mind is the pivotal question: namely, whether gov't officials santioned/ordered the actions, which would make the event a genocide or acts of genocide. If the acts were of rogue soldiers, area officials, then obviously, the effort was not systematic and thus part of the general societal breakdown that our Turkish posters refer to and there was no intention to commit genocide.

However, if it was gov't sanctioned, then the balance would tip the other way.

You mention the MoI, but the Turks cite officials who provide directives on guaranteeing safe passage for Armenians, attaching doctors and soldiers to Armenian columns. How do you reconcile these differences?

Do you think it is part of a conspiracy? Was the gov't winking at the acts and giving a silent blessing by its inaction?

Or were they in fact, as the Turks themselves say, spontaneous, unrelated acts of anarchy, to which Turks were subject to, during the upheaval and chaos of the final days of the empire?

Interested to hear you view.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT