The Armenian genocide or Hayoc cejaspanut'iwn is often used when talking about an event in which about 1 million Armenians are said to have been killed by the Ottoman Turks. But in the Turkish view, the Armenian deaths were a result of inter-ethnic strife, involving people on both the Ottoman and Armenian side.
A video presenting the Turkish version of events: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55dk_0H6w-o
Wikipedia summarizes the Armenian version of the events pretty well:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
Full Version: The Armenian Genocide
I've seen that wikipedia article many times in the past - there've been huge fights over it. Hopefully it's more stable now. It's also not just the pro-Armenian viewpoint. A lot of work went into it in the past to make it more balanced. If Turkish nationalists still complain it doesn't give as much time to their viewpoint, they're asking for too much.
I think it's a shame so many Turks are defensive over it. After all, whatever problems the Turks may have had with Armenian partisans and the like doesn't justify what they did to civilians. Charges previously brought against historians for supporting the Armenian claims show how ludicrous the situation is.
I think more Turks just have to accept what happened and move on. Also, the government needs to take a tougher line against extremist nationalists, rather than maybe sympathise with them. Orhan Pamuk should have never had charges brought against him, for example. Really, "insulting Turkishness" - what a ridiculous law! What happened to Hrant Dink is an example, I believe, of how the denialist/ultra-nationalist bandwagon has been allowed to grow out of control.
EDIT
Here's the full link to the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
I think it's a shame so many Turks are defensive over it. After all, whatever problems the Turks may have had with Armenian partisans and the like doesn't justify what they did to civilians. Charges previously brought against historians for supporting the Armenian claims show how ludicrous the situation is.
I think more Turks just have to accept what happened and move on. Also, the government needs to take a tougher line against extremist nationalists, rather than maybe sympathise with them. Orhan Pamuk should have never had charges brought against him, for example. Really, "insulting Turkishness" - what a ridiculous law! What happened to Hrant Dink is an example, I believe, of how the denialist/ultra-nationalist bandwagon has been allowed to grow out of control.
EDIT
Here's the full link to the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
The so-called Armenian Genocide is a purely fictious lie.
Yihesan: I'm not going to take sides since I know far too little about this issue (although I attended a seminar on it by an Armenian historian in Berkeley four years ago). But could you tell us more about why you do not consider the high civilian death toll to have been the result of a genocidal Ottoman policy?
Its the truth!
QUOTE(Yihesan @ Feb 25 2007, 07:08 PM) [snapback]4878029[/snapback]
The so-called Armenian Genocide is a purely fictious lie.
If that's the case, can you explain why the International Association of Genocide Scholars has labelled it genocide?
I keep coming to check this thread. I am actually very interested in this topic. I have both Turkish and Armenian friends but I have to admit I do get more impression from the genocide side. Thus I am very interested in hearing the other side of the story.
Heard from a BBC broadcast lately during driving, the situation is so bad that after the murder of Hrant Dink, other writers who wrote about this issue have received death threats via phone, email and letters. They are given 24/7 police protection, there is even a check point outside of their residence.
I was watching the videos and some of the tone set in the videos is just too absurd for me.
Obviously it's pro-Turkey but sometimes logic seems to be lost in a nationalistic view.
For example it stressed the religious freedom in the Turkish state, however talked of the European mission schools and hospitals as an invasion. Just sounds very dubious.
And then they justify the military massacre of civilians by Armenian terrorist actions.
It sounds like if most Armenians were royal, it was the Turks undiscriminatory retaliations that forced most Armenians to rebel in the first place.
Some of their reasoning just sound too forced.
Were the terrorists wrong? yes.
Was the state's response justified? The over reactions of Ottoman sounds like there is some bad blood between them in the first place.
Ironically, years later the Kurds themselves were also oppressed.
Part of it sounds like the reverse of democracy and failing of government is the ultimate cause for the Armenians wanting autonomy.
The rest is just 2 factions of people set on retaliation and revenge.
The deportation sounded like what the Americans did deporting Native Americans. And today no excuses is made in the US today for causing death.
It sounds obvious from the beginning Armenians is a small minority. Most wars took place during and after WWI, where it was the Russians' invasion that resulted in most Muslim loses. Once the Russians left, Armenians were left to face the consequences of years of bad blood and mindless retaliations.
I have watched other such pro-Turkish videos online, yet they show a bunch of Turkish soldiers killed by the Armenians. While that is horrible, but it was a war, soldiers die in wars.
The most this video can say is that while there was a Armenian genocide going on, the Armenians were also committing Turkish genocides in what they believe is their region.
Doesn't really show that there wasn't a genocide.
Obviously it's pro-Turkey but sometimes logic seems to be lost in a nationalistic view.
For example it stressed the religious freedom in the Turkish state, however talked of the European mission schools and hospitals as an invasion. Just sounds very dubious.
And then they justify the military massacre of civilians by Armenian terrorist actions.
It sounds like if most Armenians were royal, it was the Turks undiscriminatory retaliations that forced most Armenians to rebel in the first place.
Some of their reasoning just sound too forced.
Were the terrorists wrong? yes.
Was the state's response justified? The over reactions of Ottoman sounds like there is some bad blood between them in the first place.
Ironically, years later the Kurds themselves were also oppressed.
Part of it sounds like the reverse of democracy and failing of government is the ultimate cause for the Armenians wanting autonomy.
The rest is just 2 factions of people set on retaliation and revenge.
The deportation sounded like what the Americans did deporting Native Americans. And today no excuses is made in the US today for causing death.
It sounds obvious from the beginning Armenians is a small minority. Most wars took place during and after WWI, where it was the Russians' invasion that resulted in most Muslim loses. Once the Russians left, Armenians were left to face the consequences of years of bad blood and mindless retaliations.
I have watched other such pro-Turkish videos online, yet they show a bunch of Turkish soldiers killed by the Armenians. While that is horrible, but it was a war, soldiers die in wars.
The most this video can say is that while there was a Armenian genocide going on, the Armenians were also committing Turkish genocides in what they believe is their region.
Doesn't really show that there wasn't a genocide.
The Turks and their supporters may claim that all are just lies and fabrication. However the best proof that something bad happened in Asia Minor somewhere around 1916 is that Armenians who lived there disappeared. They did not move, nor fled, they were simply gone.
In reality, the Armenian Genocide was not only ethnic cleasing that happened in that region at that time. Similar fate, though not on such scale happened to the other Christian groups that inhabitted the region. An ethnic group known as Assyrians was almost entirely wiped out from the face of Earth. Also Greeks suffered terribly. Especially harmed were the Cappadocian Greeks and Pontiac Greeks. The invasion of Cyprus in 1970s is another bloody chapter.
Turkey has really a dark past regarding these issues. The long-lived myth of tolerant Ottoman Empire and later the Turkish Republic is now gone. What is most shocking is that Turkey refuses to accept historic facts and Turkish nationalists are capable of killing of those who speak loudly about these facts.
In reality, the Armenian Genocide was not only ethnic cleasing that happened in that region at that time. Similar fate, though not on such scale happened to the other Christian groups that inhabitted the region. An ethnic group known as Assyrians was almost entirely wiped out from the face of Earth. Also Greeks suffered terribly. Especially harmed were the Cappadocian Greeks and Pontiac Greeks. The invasion of Cyprus in 1970s is another bloody chapter.
Turkey has really a dark past regarding these issues. The long-lived myth of tolerant Ottoman Empire and later the Turkish Republic is now gone. What is most shocking is that Turkey refuses to accept historic facts and Turkish nationalists are capable of killing of those who speak loudly about these facts.
Lies, lies, lies and all dirty propaganda.
People claiming that the Ottoman government systematicially genocided the Armenian people are completely unaware that a Nazi-like fascist-racist ideology did not exist among the Turks until Hüseyin Nihâl Atsız laid down the foundations of racist Turkist ideology in the 1930s. The number of Armenians who died during the deportation was indeed high, because of several factors: 1) poor health conditions and the lack of medicines (which also caused the death of thousands of Turkish soldiers during WWI), 2) attacks from Kurdish bands, 3) individual actions such as some officers executing the Armenians under their command (which was against the orders given by the central govenrment regarding the fact that the people being deported could not be harmed by any means). And then of course there were some areas where the local Muslim people murdered large numbers of Armenian civillians for the revenge of Muslim civillians massacred by Armenian gangs (such examples happened in Qayserî [Kayseri] and Diyâr-ï Bäkr [Diyarbakır]).
I'm very sure the people here supporting the view of the existence of the so-called "Armenian Genocide" are quiet unaware about the internal social, ideological, religious, economic and ethnic structures of early 20th century Southwestern Asia.
I wonder why no one talks about the half million Muslims (most being Turks) brutally killed by the Armenians between late 19th century and 1921. I wonder why no one talks about around 5 million Balkan Turks who were killed or who died on the way to Anatolia while fleeing massacre (starting from the late 18th century, lasting until the year 1913). I wonder why no one talks about why no traces of Turkish culture have been left in the Balkans which were under Turkish rule for several centuries (cultural genocide by the Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians and Greeks). I wonder why no one talks about Kurds murdering Christians, but everyone thinks that it was the Turks who did it. I wonder why no one talks about what the Greeks did in Western and Northern Turkey between the years 1919 and 1922. I wonder why no one talks about what the Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians did to the Turks in the Balkans and in Cyprus in the last century. I wonder why no one cares to read and learn about the ideological-social history of the late Ottoman Empire, and tries to talk bullshit about us without having any ideas of what they are talking about.
As to what happened to the Armenians and Greeks of Anatolia between 1915 and 1923: some were killed but the rest were sent or migrated to Syria, Lebanon, the USA, South America (especially Argentina) and France. And remember the 1923 Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey: 800,000 Turks in Greece were sent to Turkey while around 1,2 million people (of whom an important amount were Christian Turks who were called Greeks because they were a part of the Rûm [Roman/Anatolian/Greek] Church of Ä°stanbul) in Turkey were sent to Greece. Plus, there are still Assyrians living in Turkey, especially in Mardin, so stop talking about this bullshit regarding the false fact that there are no Assyrians left in Turkey (and don't forget that the massacre made to the Assyrians was committed by the Kurds of the Bedr-Khân clan, not by ethnic Turks).
There are two reasons why this so-called "Armenian Genocide" wild-theory gets so many support:
1) The Armenians want Turkey to make an admittion of this fake event (which did not happen in the way it's been claimed) so that they will try to grab huge amounts of money, and will try to grab our lands using international law courts.
2) Many Europeans voluntarily joined and/or supported the Jewish Holocaust during WWII and after the war ended, they decided just to bury it in the past and not pay attention to it. Genocide is a very heavy crime of humanity and they are trying to lift the weight of joining/supporting the Holocaust by throwing the weight of genocides on other nations, like the Turks shown in this example. They want to have as many genocide-submitters in the World as possible because they do not want to be the only genocide-supporters of the World.
People claiming that the Ottoman government systematicially genocided the Armenian people are completely unaware that a Nazi-like fascist-racist ideology did not exist among the Turks until Hüseyin Nihâl Atsız laid down the foundations of racist Turkist ideology in the 1930s. The number of Armenians who died during the deportation was indeed high, because of several factors: 1) poor health conditions and the lack of medicines (which also caused the death of thousands of Turkish soldiers during WWI), 2) attacks from Kurdish bands, 3) individual actions such as some officers executing the Armenians under their command (which was against the orders given by the central govenrment regarding the fact that the people being deported could not be harmed by any means). And then of course there were some areas where the local Muslim people murdered large numbers of Armenian civillians for the revenge of Muslim civillians massacred by Armenian gangs (such examples happened in Qayserî [Kayseri] and Diyâr-ï Bäkr [Diyarbakır]).
I'm very sure the people here supporting the view of the existence of the so-called "Armenian Genocide" are quiet unaware about the internal social, ideological, religious, economic and ethnic structures of early 20th century Southwestern Asia.
I wonder why no one talks about the half million Muslims (most being Turks) brutally killed by the Armenians between late 19th century and 1921. I wonder why no one talks about around 5 million Balkan Turks who were killed or who died on the way to Anatolia while fleeing massacre (starting from the late 18th century, lasting until the year 1913). I wonder why no one talks about why no traces of Turkish culture have been left in the Balkans which were under Turkish rule for several centuries (cultural genocide by the Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians and Greeks). I wonder why no one talks about Kurds murdering Christians, but everyone thinks that it was the Turks who did it. I wonder why no one talks about what the Greeks did in Western and Northern Turkey between the years 1919 and 1922. I wonder why no one talks about what the Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians did to the Turks in the Balkans and in Cyprus in the last century. I wonder why no one cares to read and learn about the ideological-social history of the late Ottoman Empire, and tries to talk bullshit about us without having any ideas of what they are talking about.
As to what happened to the Armenians and Greeks of Anatolia between 1915 and 1923: some were killed but the rest were sent or migrated to Syria, Lebanon, the USA, South America (especially Argentina) and France. And remember the 1923 Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey: 800,000 Turks in Greece were sent to Turkey while around 1,2 million people (of whom an important amount were Christian Turks who were called Greeks because they were a part of the Rûm [Roman/Anatolian/Greek] Church of Ä°stanbul) in Turkey were sent to Greece. Plus, there are still Assyrians living in Turkey, especially in Mardin, so stop talking about this bullshit regarding the false fact that there are no Assyrians left in Turkey (and don't forget that the massacre made to the Assyrians was committed by the Kurds of the Bedr-Khân clan, not by ethnic Turks).
There are two reasons why this so-called "Armenian Genocide" wild-theory gets so many support:
1) The Armenians want Turkey to make an admittion of this fake event (which did not happen in the way it's been claimed) so that they will try to grab huge amounts of money, and will try to grab our lands using international law courts.
2) Many Europeans voluntarily joined and/or supported the Jewish Holocaust during WWII and after the war ended, they decided just to bury it in the past and not pay attention to it. Genocide is a very heavy crime of humanity and they are trying to lift the weight of joining/supporting the Holocaust by throwing the weight of genocides on other nations, like the Turks shown in this example. They want to have as many genocide-submitters in the World as possible because they do not want to be the only genocide-supporters of the World.
I haven't read through yet, but I just wanna say I am extremely glad that you are back to voice your view to this issue. nice to see you Yihesan, now back to reading 
QUOTE(Yihesan @ Mar 18 2007, 12:17 PM) [snapback]4880427[/snapback]
Lies, lies, lies and all dirty propaganda.
People claiming that the Ottoman government systematicially genocided the Armenian people are completely unaware that a Nazi-like fascist-racist ideology did not exist among the Turks until Hüseyin Nihâl Atsız laid down the foundations of racist Turkist ideology in the 1930s. The number of Armenians who died during the deportation was indeed high, because of several factors: 1) poor health conditions and the lack of medicines (which also caused the death of thousands of Turkish soldiers during WWI), 2) attacks from Kurdish bands, 3) individual actions such as some officers executing the Armenians under their command (which was against the orders given by the central govenrment regarding the fact that the people being deported could not be harmed by any means). And then of course there were some areas where the local Muslim people murdered large numbers of Armenian civillians for the revenge of Muslim civillians massacred by Armenian gangs (such examples happened in Qayserî [Kayseri] and Diyâr-ï Bäkr [Diyarbakır]).
I'm very sure the people here supporting the view of the existence of the so-called "Armenian Genocide" are quiet unaware about the internal social, ideological, religious, economic and ethnic structures of early 20th century Southwestern Asia.
I wonder why no one talks about the half million Muslims (most being Turks) brutally killed by the Armenians between late 19th century and 1921. I wonder why no one talks about around 5 million Balkan Turks who were killed or who died on the way to Anatolia while fleeing massacre (starting from the late 18th century, lasting until the year 1913). I wonder why no one talks about why no traces of Turkish culture have been left in the Balkans which were under Turkish rule for several centuries (cultural genocide by the Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians and Greeks). I wonder why no one talks about Kurds murdering Christians, but everyone thinks that it was the Turks who did it. I wonder why no one talks about what the Greeks did in Western and Northern Turkey between the years 1919 and 1922. I wonder why no one talks about what the Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians did to the Turks in the Balkans and in Cyprus in the last century. I wonder why no one cares to read and learn about the ideological-social history of the late Ottoman Empire, and tries to talk bullshit about us without having any ideas of what they are talking about.
As to what happened to the Armenians and Greeks of Anatolia between 1915 and 1923: some were killed but the rest were sent or migrated to Syria, Lebanon, the USA, South America (especially Argentina) and France. And remember the 1923 Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey: 800,000 Turks in Greece were sent to Turkey while around 1,2 million people (of whom an important amount were Christian Turks who were called Greeks because they were a part of the Rûm [Roman/Anatolian/Greek] Church of Ä°stanbul) in Turkey were sent to Greece. Plus, there are still Assyrians living in Turkey, especially in Mardin, so stop talking about this bullshit regarding the false fact that there are no Assyrians left in Turkey (and don't forget that the massacre made to the Assyrians was committed by the Kurds of the Bedr-Khân clan, not by ethnic Turks).
There are two reasons why this so-called "Armenian Genocide" wild-theory gets so many support:
1) The Armenians want Turkey to make an admittion of this fake event (which did not happen in the way it's been claimed) so that they will try to grab huge amounts of money, and will try to grab our lands using international law courts.
2) Many Europeans voluntarily joined and/or supported the Jewish Holocaust during WWII and after the war ended, they decided just to bury it in the past and not pay attention to it. Genocide is a very heavy crime of humanity and they are trying to lift the weight of joining/supporting the Holocaust by throwing the weight of genocides on other nations, like the Turks shown in this example. They want to have as many genocide-submitters in the World as possible because they do not want to be the only genocide-supporters of the World.
People claiming that the Ottoman government systematicially genocided the Armenian people are completely unaware that a Nazi-like fascist-racist ideology did not exist among the Turks until Hüseyin Nihâl Atsız laid down the foundations of racist Turkist ideology in the 1930s. The number of Armenians who died during the deportation was indeed high, because of several factors: 1) poor health conditions and the lack of medicines (which also caused the death of thousands of Turkish soldiers during WWI), 2) attacks from Kurdish bands, 3) individual actions such as some officers executing the Armenians under their command (which was against the orders given by the central govenrment regarding the fact that the people being deported could not be harmed by any means). And then of course there were some areas where the local Muslim people murdered large numbers of Armenian civillians for the revenge of Muslim civillians massacred by Armenian gangs (such examples happened in Qayserî [Kayseri] and Diyâr-ï Bäkr [Diyarbakır]).
I'm very sure the people here supporting the view of the existence of the so-called "Armenian Genocide" are quiet unaware about the internal social, ideological, religious, economic and ethnic structures of early 20th century Southwestern Asia.
I wonder why no one talks about the half million Muslims (most being Turks) brutally killed by the Armenians between late 19th century and 1921. I wonder why no one talks about around 5 million Balkan Turks who were killed or who died on the way to Anatolia while fleeing massacre (starting from the late 18th century, lasting until the year 1913). I wonder why no one talks about why no traces of Turkish culture have been left in the Balkans which were under Turkish rule for several centuries (cultural genocide by the Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians and Greeks). I wonder why no one talks about Kurds murdering Christians, but everyone thinks that it was the Turks who did it. I wonder why no one talks about what the Greeks did in Western and Northern Turkey between the years 1919 and 1922. I wonder why no one talks about what the Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians did to the Turks in the Balkans and in Cyprus in the last century. I wonder why no one cares to read and learn about the ideological-social history of the late Ottoman Empire, and tries to talk bullshit about us without having any ideas of what they are talking about.
As to what happened to the Armenians and Greeks of Anatolia between 1915 and 1923: some were killed but the rest were sent or migrated to Syria, Lebanon, the USA, South America (especially Argentina) and France. And remember the 1923 Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey: 800,000 Turks in Greece were sent to Turkey while around 1,2 million people (of whom an important amount were Christian Turks who were called Greeks because they were a part of the Rûm [Roman/Anatolian/Greek] Church of Ä°stanbul) in Turkey were sent to Greece. Plus, there are still Assyrians living in Turkey, especially in Mardin, so stop talking about this bullshit regarding the false fact that there are no Assyrians left in Turkey (and don't forget that the massacre made to the Assyrians was committed by the Kurds of the Bedr-Khân clan, not by ethnic Turks).
There are two reasons why this so-called "Armenian Genocide" wild-theory gets so many support:
1) The Armenians want Turkey to make an admittion of this fake event (which did not happen in the way it's been claimed) so that they will try to grab huge amounts of money, and will try to grab our lands using international law courts.
2) Many Europeans voluntarily joined and/or supported the Jewish Holocaust during WWII and after the war ended, they decided just to bury it in the past and not pay attention to it. Genocide is a very heavy crime of humanity and they are trying to lift the weight of joining/supporting the Holocaust by throwing the weight of genocides on other nations, like the Turks shown in this example. They want to have as many genocide-submitters in the World as possible because they do not want to be the only genocide-supporters of the World.
good, i read through it.
first, i still want to make clear what genocide is before we go on.
from wiki
QUOTE
Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Why no one talks about Turks on the receiving end of genocide? Good question. But if people like you can speak up about the events and provide evidence, people will be made more aware. And yes, those horrible events the Turkish people went through through out the 19th century being used as pawns between European nations should be mentioned and remembered. And it would be great if you address these in threads or point us to these information.
Having said that, there are still issues I have with your statement.
You said the the Armenians deaths during those periods was not an intended plan by the Turkish government. While the Japanese would say Nanjing massacre wasn't condoned by the Japanese Imperial Government, it was also actions taken by minorities in the Imperial Japanese Army and individual officers. But that doesn't make it less of a massacre.
Kurdish was considered to be working with (if not working under) the Turkish during that time period.
And sometime retaliation just won't do. If Chinese decided to retaliate the Nanjing Massacre today because of the Nanjing massacre, if the Israelis decided to retaliate the holocaust , if every genocide justifies another genocide, let me know. Because I am going to kill myself than to live in this hell hole. Surely there is a better way to deal with things.
Otherwise I am sure all the Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians can all back track to their loses when Turkish invaded their homeland to justify the lost of Turkish life during those horrible periods.
The only way to move on, is the truth be known. Everyone (in this case, Turkish, Armenians and the Kurds) recognize that death was caused based on ethnic or religious prejudice. Then there can be forgiveness.
I know, easier said then done. But just my 2 cents anyway.
QUOTE
Lies, lies, lies and all dirty propaganda.
Nationalists of all lands are the same. To them everything that does not suit their vision of their own "ubernation" are lies and propaganda.
Why so many states, organizations and historians have recognized this as genocide?
QUOTE
People claiming that the Ottoman government systematicially genocided the Armenian people are completely unaware that a Nazi-like fascist-racist ideology did not exist among the Turks until Hüseyin Nihâl Atsız laid down the foundations of racist Turkist ideology in the 1930s.
So what? The genocide was engineered by the Young Turks, who were 19th century-style nationalists.
QUOTE
The number of Armenians who died during the deportation was indeed high, because of several factors: 1) poor health conditions and the lack of medicines (which also caused the death of thousands of Turkish soldiers during WWI), 2) attacks from Kurdish bands, 3) individual actions such as some officers executing the Armenians under their command (which was against the orders given by the central govenrment regarding the fact that the people being deported could not be harmed by any means).
And you want me to believe that these factors caused deaths of circa 1,5 million people, of whom absolute majority were civilians?
QUOTE
And then of course there were some areas where the local Muslim people murdered large numbers of Armenian civillians for the revenge of Muslim civillians massacred by Armenian gangs (such examples happened in Qayserî [Kayseri] and Diyâr-ï Bäkr [Diyarbakır]).
Great. Then provide reliable sources about it.
Even if these things really happen, this does not explain nor excuse the massacres conducted by Turks on Armenian civilians. Civilized states do not use the group responsibility rule and protect minorities from mob justice.
QUOTE
I'm very sure the people here supporting the view of the existence of the so-called "Armenian Genocide" are quiet unaware about the internal social, ideological, religious, economic and ethnic structures of early 20th century Southwestern Asia.
I do not claim to be an expert, but actually always the cultural, political and religious situation in the Middle East and especially Anatolia was one of my main points of interest.
QUOTE
I wonder why no one talks about the half million Muslims (most being Turks) brutally killed by the Armenians between late 19th century and 1921.
Once again - if you pop up with such unbelievable claims, provide sources for them. And it would be nice if these sources are not nonsense produced by some nationalists.
I would like to explain to those who are not familiar with the topic is that pre-kemalist Turkey (or, more specifically, the Ottoman Empire) was a Muslim state, ruled by Sharia. And its ruler held the title of Caliph, the spiritual leader of Sunni Muslims. Under Sharia law, non-Muslims are not allowed to bear arms and all of their forms of organization are restricted. And now you pop up with the idea of some bands of Armenians massacring Muslims. Never heard about such massacres, but heard about massacres of Armenians conducted by Turks. Anyway, what you claim would require not bands but entire army of armed Armenians, operating unopposed for long time inside the Ottoman state. Quite unbelievable.
QUOTE
I wonder why no one talks about around 5 million Balkan Turks who were killed or who died on the way to Anatolia while fleeing massacre (starting from the late 18th century, lasting until the year 1913). I wonder why no one talks about why no traces of Turkish culture have been left in the Balkans which were under Turkish rule for several centuries (cultural genocide by the Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians and Greeks). I wonder why no one talks about Kurds murdering Christians, but everyone thinks that it was the Turks who did it. I wonder why no one talks about what the Greeks did in Western and Northern Turkey between the years 1919 and 1922.
Once again I must ask you to provide some reliable source that would give some credibility to such unbelievable number.
Actually it is quite funny that you call "cultural genocide" the liberation of the Balkan nations. Most of our readers are Chinese, so I will use a comparison. It is as nonsensical as calling the destruction of the legacy of Japanese occupation "a genocide".
In 1918, when Poland regained its independence, Poles blew up Russian orthodox church that was bult there by the Czar in the very center of Warsaw. The church was one of largest in Europe and was said to be really valuable in cultural sense. However it was destroyed because it was a symbol of foreign, unwanted rule.
QUOTE
I wonder why no one talks about what the Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians did to the Turks in the Balkans and in Cyprus in the last century.
It is talked. Don't lie. I even had this at history lessons in my high school.
QUOTE
I wonder why no one cares to read and learn about the ideological-social history of the late Ottoman Empire, and tries to talk bullshit about us without having any ideas of what they are talking about.
I actually dared to read some things about this topic.
Please stop uning vulgar language. Don't think that someone will believe you more just because you use it.
QUOTE
As to what happened to the Armenians and Greeks of Anatolia between 1915 and 1923: some were killed but the rest were sent or migrated to Syria, Lebanon, the USA, South America (especially Argentina) and France. And remember the 1923 Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey: 800,000 Turks in Greece were sent to Turkey while around 1,2 million people (of whom an important amount were Christian Turks who were called Greeks because they were a part of the Rûm [Roman/Anatolian/Greek] Church of Ä°stanbul) in Turkey were sent to Greece. Plus, there are still Assyrians living in Turkey, especially in Mardin, so stop talking about this bullshit regarding the false fact that there are no Assyrians left in Turkey (and don't forget that the massacre made to the Assyrians was committed by the Kurds of the Bedr-Khân clan, not by ethnic Turks).
Right. 5000 out of 250000 Turkish Assyrians did survive.
QUOTE
There are two reasons why this so-called "Armenian Genocide" wild-theory gets so many support:
1) The Armenians want Turkey to make an admittion of this fake event (which did not happen in the way it's been claimed) so that they will try to grab huge amounts of money, and will try to grab our lands using international law courts.
2) Many Europeans voluntarily joined and/or supported the Jewish Holocaust during WWII and after the war ended, they decided just to bury it in the past and not pay attention to it. Genocide is a very heavy crime of humanity and they are trying to lift the weight of joining/supporting the Holocaust by throwing the weight of genocides on other nations, like the Turks shown in this example. They want to have as many genocide-submitters in the World as possible because they do not want to be the only genocide-supporters of the World.
1) The Armenians want Turkey to make an admittion of this fake event (which did not happen in the way it's been claimed) so that they will try to grab huge amounts of money, and will try to grab our lands using international law courts.
2) Many Europeans voluntarily joined and/or supported the Jewish Holocaust during WWII and after the war ended, they decided just to bury it in the past and not pay attention to it. Genocide is a very heavy crime of humanity and they are trying to lift the weight of joining/supporting the Holocaust by throwing the weight of genocides on other nations, like the Turks shown in this example. They want to have as many genocide-submitters in the World as possible because they do not want to be the only genocide-supporters of the World.
This is what you, genocide-denial folks think. The true reason is that Turkey is a member of a number of international organizations (and aspires to be a member of the EU) that aim to protect HR. Therefore its Turkish duty to protect theses rights as well as to acknowledge current and past wrongdoings. This includes facing the dark cards of own history. No one is trying to turn the world attention on Turkey. No one also blames Turkey more than any other country. All nations have dark past. It is however only Turks who behave like babies that try to deny everything despite overwhelming evidence. No one also blames Turks that live today. All perpetrators of events that took place in 1916 are long dead. All that the world wants is the acknowledgment of historical facts. There wre numerous genocides commited in the past, but most of them were recognized by states that perpetrated them.
In contrast to what you say, no one in Europe is denying what was happening during the holocaust. German state admits its responsibility, and a number of individuals from numerous countries were severely punished. Holocaust deniers are persecuted. Ever heard what was happening to David Irwing recently?
I've done my research in the summer and I've even made a presentation on it. I believe it is true.
Thank you dear Naruwan for your more reasonable reply.
Thanks again
Yes, the government sent orders to the commanders leading the deportation not to cause any harm on the Armenians. The officials who did not obey this order were executed.
There were irregular Kurdish units in the army (the Hamîdiye) but since the central government had very loose control over Eastern Turkey, gangs acting independently and belonging to different groups popped up very easily. This included the Armenians, Kurds and Turks.
The difference is that, when the Ottomans conquered the Balkans in the 14th-16th centuries, they intented to rule over these people (the main mission of Ghazâ [Holy War] was to bring the Ehl-i Kitâb ["People of the Book", Christians and Jews] under the rule of Muslims while completely destroying other religions and beliefs apart from Christianity and Judaism, thus turning the Dârü'l-harb ["War Zone"] into the Dârü'l-islâm ["Peace Zone"]), not to massacre, loot or send them all away completely. What the Balkan nations did during the course of their independence was to completely destroy or send away the Turkish presence, including both the people and the landmarks. In order to achieve this, they killed or made flee millions of ethnic Turks in decades while thousands of Ottoman buildings were systematicially destroyed (which lasted until two years ago). Comparing the Ottoman expansion of 14th-16th centuries and the indepedence movements of Balkan nations in the 19th-20th centuries would be wrong.
Yes, all three sides lost hundreds of thousands of their own people while many more were forced to leave their ancestral lands. But this doesn't mean that there was a systemathic genocide conducted by the Ottoman goverment to completely erase the Armenian people.
I do not believe the existence of any "ubernations" (including mine) and I do not believe the superiority of any ethnic groups or nations. I am not an extreme nationalist like you think. Bad assumbtion. Tsk tsk tsk...
And why so many states, organizations and historians have not recognized this as genocide?
The thing is that, the Ittihâd-Terâkkî Government nor any top officials did not have intentions to destroy the Armenian people (whereas such a Nazi-type ideology did not exist among ethnic Turks until the 1930s, as I pointed above). The Armenians killed in the Ottoman Empire were victims of personal or reactional acts conducted by individuals, not of the government or of the entire people.
There were around one and a quarter Armenians living inside the Ottoman Empire in total in the early 1910s, according to the population censuses.
I do not claim nor think that the loss of Armenian civillian lives were justified. Plus, the weakness of the state and the lack of enough centralised control over the Eastern districts caused individual or group terror acts to spread.
But you have prooven yourself that you haven't read enough and what you read already are mostly biased works. You are thinking Middle Eastern history according to European forms and views. You have some basic information but you lack important details which cause you not to understand the situation completely, thus causing you to make baseless and inaccurate assumptions.
The Ottoman and Turkish State Archives are full of documents and reports about what the Armenians did to the Turks. According to archive documents, the total number of Muslims who were killed by the Armenians between the late 1870s and the early 1920s is around half a million. Plus, there are hundreds of Russian military reports giving information about the brutal massacres conducted by Armenian gangs. I myself have seen hundreds and hundreds of such archive documents and military reports from the Turks and Russians. In order to reach the documents and reports, you have to know Modern Turkish, Ottoman Turkish and Russian. Our archives are open to all, so you are free to come to Turkey and make a research in our archives.
And plus, my grand-grand parents were personal victims of Armenian terror in that region, especially after my grand-grand-father (who was the government of Pervârî-Bitlis) was murdered by the Armenians in a minor-scaled battle.
Wrong. There were many different law systems in the Ottoman Empire. Every Millet (Religious Community) was ruled by their own set of laws. Plus, there were two different law systems for the Muslims: the Sher'î (religious) and the Örfî (non-religious).
Nonsense! There were many Christian soldiers serving in the Balkan provinces, plus in the navy! And ever heard about the Tanzîmât reforms?
Oh and you haven't heard about the Armenian terrorist groups like Khinchaq and Tashnaq-sutyun.
I'm not supposed to be discussing with an ignorant like you.
It's your own ignorance not to have heard about these. Of course, it would be hard and misleading to read something about the Middle East from a far-away place like Belgium. You have to come here and see things yourself in order to discuss with me. Otherwise, you would speaking nonsense.
Again, you should go the state archives of Turkey, Russia, France and Britain to see the documents reporting the acts of Armenian gangs. Remember that the Armenian gangs attacking Muslim villages were organized in Russian-occupied Armenia from where they went to attack the Muslim settlements across the Russo-Ottoman Border. Plus, the Armenian terrorist organizations were logisticially and morally supported by Russia, France and Britain.
Boy, you got lot's of more to read and learn.
Read Justin McCarthy's books.
What happened in the Balkans until the recent years was a real cultural genocide. The Turkish landmarks (thousand of mosques, bathrooms, bazaars, houses, schools, even graveyards) in Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Serbia, Vojvodina, Novibazar, Kosovo, Macedonia, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria were completely and entirely destroyed. Today, only 5% or so of all the Ottoman buildings built in the Balkans in six centuries have been left standing.
Destroying key landmarks is something, destroying the entire cultural heritage is something. This is a crime of humanity.
QUOTE
I haven't read through yet, but I just wanna say I am extremely glad that you are back to voice your view to this issue. nice to see you Yihesan, now back to reading
Thanks again
QUOTE
You said the the Armenians deaths during those periods was not an intended plan by the Turkish government.
Yes, the government sent orders to the commanders leading the deportation not to cause any harm on the Armenians. The officials who did not obey this order were executed.
QUOTE
Kurdish was considered to be working with (if not working under) the Turkish during that time period.
There were irregular Kurdish units in the army (the Hamîdiye) but since the central government had very loose control over Eastern Turkey, gangs acting independently and belonging to different groups popped up very easily. This included the Armenians, Kurds and Turks.
QUOTE
Otherwise I am sure all the Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians can all back track to their loses when Turkish invaded their homeland to justify the lost of Turkish life during those horrible periods.
The difference is that, when the Ottomans conquered the Balkans in the 14th-16th centuries, they intented to rule over these people (the main mission of Ghazâ [Holy War] was to bring the Ehl-i Kitâb ["People of the Book", Christians and Jews] under the rule of Muslims while completely destroying other religions and beliefs apart from Christianity and Judaism, thus turning the Dârü'l-harb ["War Zone"] into the Dârü'l-islâm ["Peace Zone"]), not to massacre, loot or send them all away completely. What the Balkan nations did during the course of their independence was to completely destroy or send away the Turkish presence, including both the people and the landmarks. In order to achieve this, they killed or made flee millions of ethnic Turks in decades while thousands of Ottoman buildings were systematicially destroyed (which lasted until two years ago). Comparing the Ottoman expansion of 14th-16th centuries and the indepedence movements of Balkan nations in the 19th-20th centuries would be wrong.
QUOTE
The only way to move on, is the truth be known. Everyone (in this case, Turkish, Armenians and the Kurds) recognize that death was caused based on ethnic or religious prejudice. Then there can be forgiveness.
Yes, all three sides lost hundreds of thousands of their own people while many more were forced to leave their ancestral lands. But this doesn't mean that there was a systemathic genocide conducted by the Ottoman goverment to completely erase the Armenian people.
QUOTE
Nationalists of all lands are the same. To them everything that does not suit their vision of their own "ubernation" are lies and propaganda.
I do not believe the existence of any "ubernations" (including mine) and I do not believe the superiority of any ethnic groups or nations. I am not an extreme nationalist like you think. Bad assumbtion. Tsk tsk tsk...
QUOTE
Why so many states, organizations and historians have recognized this as genocide?
And why so many states, organizations and historians have not recognized this as genocide?
QUOTE
So what? The genocide was engineered by the Young Turks, who were 19th century-style nationalists.
The thing is that, the Ittihâd-Terâkkî Government nor any top officials did not have intentions to destroy the Armenian people (whereas such a Nazi-type ideology did not exist among ethnic Turks until the 1930s, as I pointed above). The Armenians killed in the Ottoman Empire were victims of personal or reactional acts conducted by individuals, not of the government or of the entire people.
QUOTE
And you want me to believe that these factors caused deaths of circa 1,5 million people, of whom absolute majority were civilians?
There were around one and a quarter Armenians living inside the Ottoman Empire in total in the early 1910s, according to the population censuses.
QUOTE
Even if these things really happen, this does not explain nor excuse the massacres conducted by Turks on Armenian civilians. Civilized states do not use the group responsibility rule and protect minorities from mob justice.
I do not claim nor think that the loss of Armenian civillian lives were justified. Plus, the weakness of the state and the lack of enough centralised control over the Eastern districts caused individual or group terror acts to spread.
QUOTE
I do not claim to be an expert, but actually always the cultural, political and religious situation in the Middle East and especially Anatolia was one of my main points of interest.
But you have prooven yourself that you haven't read enough and what you read already are mostly biased works. You are thinking Middle Eastern history according to European forms and views. You have some basic information but you lack important details which cause you not to understand the situation completely, thus causing you to make baseless and inaccurate assumptions.
QUOTE
Once again - if you pop up with such unbelievable claims, provide sources for them. And it would be nice if these sources are not nonsense produced by some nationalists.
The Ottoman and Turkish State Archives are full of documents and reports about what the Armenians did to the Turks. According to archive documents, the total number of Muslims who were killed by the Armenians between the late 1870s and the early 1920s is around half a million. Plus, there are hundreds of Russian military reports giving information about the brutal massacres conducted by Armenian gangs. I myself have seen hundreds and hundreds of such archive documents and military reports from the Turks and Russians. In order to reach the documents and reports, you have to know Modern Turkish, Ottoman Turkish and Russian. Our archives are open to all, so you are free to come to Turkey and make a research in our archives.
And plus, my grand-grand parents were personal victims of Armenian terror in that region, especially after my grand-grand-father (who was the government of Pervârî-Bitlis) was murdered by the Armenians in a minor-scaled battle.
QUOTE
I would like to explain to those who are not familiar with the topic is that pre-kemalist Turkey (or, more specifically, the Ottoman Empire) was a Muslim state, ruled by Sharia.
Wrong. There were many different law systems in the Ottoman Empire. Every Millet (Religious Community) was ruled by their own set of laws. Plus, there were two different law systems for the Muslims: the Sher'î (religious) and the Örfî (non-religious).
QUOTE
Under Sharia law, non-Muslims are not allowed to bear arms and all of their forms of organization are restricted. And now you pop up with the idea of some bands of Armenians massacring Muslims.
Nonsense! There were many Christian soldiers serving in the Balkan provinces, plus in the navy! And ever heard about the Tanzîmât reforms?
Oh and you haven't heard about the Armenian terrorist groups like Khinchaq and Tashnaq-sutyun.
I'm not supposed to be discussing with an ignorant like you.
QUOTE
Never heard about such massacres, but heard about massacres of Armenians conducted by Turks. Anyway, what you claim would require not bands but entire army of armed Armenians, operating unopposed for long time inside the Ottoman state. Quite unbelievable.
It's your own ignorance not to have heard about these. Of course, it would be hard and misleading to read something about the Middle East from a far-away place like Belgium. You have to come here and see things yourself in order to discuss with me. Otherwise, you would speaking nonsense.
Again, you should go the state archives of Turkey, Russia, France and Britain to see the documents reporting the acts of Armenian gangs. Remember that the Armenian gangs attacking Muslim villages were organized in Russian-occupied Armenia from where they went to attack the Muslim settlements across the Russo-Ottoman Border. Plus, the Armenian terrorist organizations were logisticially and morally supported by Russia, France and Britain.
Boy, you got lot's of more to read and learn.
QUOTE
Once again I must ask you to provide some reliable source that would give some credibility to such unbelievable number.
Read Justin McCarthy's books.
QUOTE
Actually it is quite funny that you call "cultural genocide" the liberation of the Balkan nations.
What happened in the Balkans until the recent years was a real cultural genocide. The Turkish landmarks (thousand of mosques, bathrooms, bazaars, houses, schools, even graveyards) in Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Serbia, Vojvodina, Novibazar, Kosovo, Macedonia, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria were completely and entirely destroyed. Today, only 5% or so of all the Ottoman buildings built in the Balkans in six centuries have been left standing.
Destroying key landmarks is something, destroying the entire cultural heritage is something. This is a crime of humanity.
Like Naruwan I am also interested in this subject. I have heard it said before that there have been attempts by the Turkey side to form a committee of some sort between Turkish historians/scholars, Armenian historian/scholars, and I believe involve 3rd party scholars in an in-depth research so they can establish once and for all what actually occurred during that time frame. And from what I remember the Armenian side turned down this offer. I was told that the most likely reason the Armenians turned down this offer was because they do not want their ugly past exposed either. You sound like you know quite a lot of details about these events, Yihesan, so I ask is this true?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
QUOTE
The difference is that, when the Ottomans conquered the Balkans in the 14th-16th centuries, they intented to rule over these people (the main mission of Ghazâ [Holy War] was to bring the Ehl-i Kitâb ["People of the Book", Christians and Jews] under the rule of Muslims while completely destroying other religions and beliefs apart from Christianity and Judaism, thus turning the Dârü'l-harb ["War Zone"] into the Dârü'l-islâm ["Peace Zone"]), not to massacre, loot or send them all away completely. What the Balkan nations did during the course of their independence was to completely destroy or send away the Turkish presence, including both the people and the landmarks. In order to achieve this, they killed or made flee millions of ethnic Turks in decades while thousands of Ottoman buildings were systematicially destroyed (which lasted until two years ago). Comparing the Ottoman expansion of 14th-16th centuries and the indepedence movements of Balkan nations in the 19th-20th centuries would be wrong.
well, whether Turkish destroyed any culture landmarks or historical buildings in the Balkans or not, I personally am not sure. I remember reading about ancient greek buildings were being shot at during a few wars, I'll have to go and find just which war that this took place. It is actually a little sad that religions other than Christianity and Judaism were destroyed. I suppose that would include ancient greek religions and their buildings?
QUOTE
I'm not supposed to be discussing with an ignorant like you.
Yihesan: No need to flame
It is a big subjekt, and is very informative in general and if there is an interest in duing so i would be willing to use some time on it because the subjekt is enormous.
First of all you simply CAN'T take the Amenian Dispora as a singular event, it was made inevitable by many factors many of which were outside both Turkish and Armenian control, so you have to take it from the beginning in 1850 (more about that later).
Also there was numerous groups that were the target of massacres, epidemics, bad weather and hunger usually in combination in this period,(1910-1926) and these incl's but are not limitet too.
Armenians. (one of the bigger groups but not the biggest)
Anatolian Greeks.
Balkan Turks.
Assyrians.
Druze.
Turcomen.
Kurds. (Ironically the were at the beginning one of the main perpetrators off the massacres on both Armenians, Assyrians and Turcomen, but were at the receving end when Kemal Ataturk crushed their notion of independence, not least coursed by their inabillity to leave well enough alone something for which Kemal had littel or no patience fore)
Koptic christians or Arab christiáns if you want.
The period of genocide (An overused word for a very serius event) can be cut up in 4 different periods.
The Crimerian war period (This extents far outside the time of the war proper 1849-53, to around 1870)
Balkan wars. ( 1870 - 1913)
WW1. (1914-1919)
Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of Modern Turkey + the colonial landgrap of France and Britain in the middeleast which we suffer the consequences of today.(1917-1926)
Theres an overlab in the last two period but that is intentional since the period were a time off general upheavals were several factors made their marks that were otherwise mainly independent off each other in the sense that there was no real control over them but they only influenced each other indirectly.
But before i uses time on this i have to know if there is any real interest in the subjekt...
First of all you simply CAN'T take the Amenian Dispora as a singular event, it was made inevitable by many factors many of which were outside both Turkish and Armenian control, so you have to take it from the beginning in 1850 (more about that later).
Also there was numerous groups that were the target of massacres, epidemics, bad weather and hunger usually in combination in this period,(1910-1926) and these incl's but are not limitet too.
Armenians. (one of the bigger groups but not the biggest)
Anatolian Greeks.
Balkan Turks.
Assyrians.
Druze.
Turcomen.
Kurds. (Ironically the were at the beginning one of the main perpetrators off the massacres on both Armenians, Assyrians and Turcomen, but were at the receving end when Kemal Ataturk crushed their notion of independence, not least coursed by their inabillity to leave well enough alone something for which Kemal had littel or no patience fore)
Koptic christians or Arab christiáns if you want.
The period of genocide (An overused word for a very serius event) can be cut up in 4 different periods.
The Crimerian war period (This extents far outside the time of the war proper 1849-53, to around 1870)
Balkan wars. ( 1870 - 1913)
WW1. (1914-1919)
Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of Modern Turkey + the colonial landgrap of France and Britain in the middeleast which we suffer the consequences of today.(1917-1926)
Theres an overlab in the last two period but that is intentional since the period were a time off general upheavals were several factors made their marks that were otherwise mainly independent off each other in the sense that there was no real control over them but they only influenced each other indirectly.
But before i uses time on this i have to know if there is any real interest in the subjekt...
I am interested.
The issue seems to go back and forth. The fact that the Armenians want to avoid a scholarly investigation into the issue makes me even more interested. What do the Armenians have to hide?
The issue seems to go back and forth. The fact that the Armenians want to avoid a scholarly investigation into the issue makes me even more interested. What do the Armenians have to hide?
QUOTE(One time poster @ Apr 4 2007, 09:33 PM) [snapback]4882860[/snapback]
I am interested.
The issue seems to go back and forth. The fact that the Armenians want to avoid a scholarly investigation into the issue makes me even more interested. What do the Armenians have to hide?
The issue seems to go back and forth. The fact that the Armenians want to avoid a scholarly investigation into the issue makes me even more interested. What do the Armenians have to hide?
Not much, except that taking the other forgotten stories up off ethic cleansing could take out much of the thunder from their own plight during this period.
The mutual Diaspora between Balkan Turks and Anatolian Greeks as an example involved more people (+ 3millions) over a shorter period, and by some estimates cost as many lives as the Armenian Diaspora (Around 250 000 + at the very least), but also over a shorter timespan, the reason why neither the Turks nor the Greeks take this up as a causus belli between them is because neither side had anything to hear, they both behaved whit indifference at best, and let local authorities do what they want whit the refugees as long as they were thrown out in a hurry, this also happen on a smaller scale in almost all of the Balkan nations that still had a substantial Turkish minority whit the exception of Bulgaria which had a nominal Muslim majority at this time.
The other story is how the beginning of the troubles for the Armenians in WW1 came about because the Turks got beaten severely by the Russians in the winter of 1914 around Batumi. they (The Russians) were lead by what was arguably one of the best generals off WW1 General Burosov, he was a clever fellow and somewhat of a genius in the field, unfortunately for the Russian empire he was also blunt and fairly inept in the political sense.
But a long story short he was a master of fighting on most levels worth mentioning incl inciting rebellions and recruiting people that could be of help for him and his soldiers, this of course incl the Christian Armenians which were always a reluctant part of the Ottoman empire anyway. unfortunantly for the Armenians, Russians and possible the allies in general, he (Burosov) got on the wrong side of an argument whit his superiors just after he had crushed the Turkish armies in the Caucasus, in short he was left high and dry whit NO reinenforcement comming, and had to bring his winter campaign to a hold and *just* let himself be content whit having conquerd Batumi and Georgia for good for the Russian empire.
In the early summer off 1915 the turks in expectation of a renewed offensive into Caucasus began forcible removing anybody they saw as untrustworthy, were the Armenians were by far the greatest single group. this operation were done in haste but escalatet out off control due to local muslim priest and wise men + old clans vendettas.
The offensive never came due to Burosovs political problems and the poor to non existing infra structure in the area that made it into a nighmare for all concerned, but especially for women, children and the old and infirm which sufferd from the weather, lack of food and diseases´and the overall general lack of redourses the Ottoman empire had.
ADD.: It should mention that it was not because the Turks were that badly lead, trained or equppied, it was just their bad luck that they fought against a millitary genius.
Finally, it's good to see more reasonable people
Yes you are very right. That happened last year, in 2006. The Turkish Foundation of History asked Armenian historians to form a committee to discuss this issue but the Armenians refused it, even despite the fact that we declared that our archives are open freely for everyone. The Armenians know and fear the fact that they will not be able to proove the so-called "Armenian Genocide" and more of the Armenian atrocities will come to light.
Thank you, but actually I don't know many details because my area of study is Central Asian-Steppe History, not Late Ottoman But I can find details if needed.
The vast majority of Greco-Roman pagan establishments (academies, temples, oracles and libraries) were either shut down, destroyed or turned to churchs by the Christians of the Roman Empire in the 6th century, especially during the reign of the emperor Iustinianus. So when the Turks came, there were already no pagan temples left; they were either lost, either in ruins or were alerady converted to churchs. Some of these once-pagan-temples-in-the-past churchs were later converted to mosques or religious schools (two examples: the Temple of Augustus in Ankara and the Parthenon in Athens - they were both pagan temples, later turned to Christian churchs, and later converted to mosques [the Augustian temple became the religious school part of the mosque and tomb complex of the Khajï Bayram sect]).
But I do remember reading that Ämîr Tämür (Tîmûrlank or Tamer the Lame) destroyed Hellenistic and Roman statues wherever he saw. Another contradictory thing is that Sultān Mehmed II (Mehmed the Conqueror) did the reverse and collected Greko-Romano-Byzantine statues, bringing the ones around the Marmara Sea to his new capital İstanbul (Konstantinopolis) and enriching it with classical artworks (he was an admirer of classical history too). Of course, all these statues were destroyed or removed by his successor, Sultān Bâyezîd II.
QUOTE
I have heard it said before that there have been attempts by the Turkey side to form a committee of some sort between Turkish historians/scholars, Armenian historian/scholars, and I believe involve 3rd party scholars in an in-depth research so they can establish once and for all what actually occurred during that time frame. And from what I remember the Armenian side turned down this offer. I was told that the most likely reason the Armenians turned down this offer was because they do not want their ugly past exposed either.
Yes you are very right. That happened last year, in 2006. The Turkish Foundation of History asked Armenian historians to form a committee to discuss this issue but the Armenians refused it, even despite the fact that we declared that our archives are open freely for everyone. The Armenians know and fear the fact that they will not be able to proove the so-called "Armenian Genocide" and more of the Armenian atrocities will come to light.
QUOTE
You sound like you know quite a lot of details about these events, Yihesan, so I ask is this true?
Thank you, but actually I don't know many details because my area of study is Central Asian-Steppe History, not Late Ottoman
But I can find details if needed.QUOTE
well, whether Turkish destroyed any culture landmarks or historical buildings in the Balkans or not, I personally am not sure. I remember reading about ancient greek buildings were being shot at during a few wars, I'll have to go and find just which war that this took place. It is actually a little sad that religions other than Christianity and Judaism were destroyed. I suppose that would include ancient greek religions and their buildings?
The vast majority of Greco-Roman pagan establishments (academies, temples, oracles and libraries) were either shut down, destroyed or turned to churchs by the Christians of the Roman Empire in the 6th century, especially during the reign of the emperor Iustinianus. So when the Turks came, there were already no pagan temples left; they were either lost, either in ruins or were alerady converted to churchs. Some of these once-pagan-temples-in-the-past churchs were later converted to mosques or religious schools (two examples: the Temple of Augustus in Ankara and the Parthenon in Athens - they were both pagan temples, later turned to Christian churchs, and later converted to mosques [the Augustian temple became the religious school part of the mosque and tomb complex of the Khajï Bayram sect]).
But I do remember reading that Ämîr Tämür (Tîmûrlank or Tamer the Lame) destroyed Hellenistic and Roman statues wherever he saw. Another contradictory thing is that Sultān Mehmed II (Mehmed the Conqueror) did the reverse and collected Greko-Romano-Byzantine statues, bringing the ones around the Marmara Sea to his new capital İstanbul (Konstantinopolis) and enriching it with classical artworks (he was an admirer of classical history too). Of course, all these statues were destroyed or removed by his successor, Sultān Bâyezîd II.
I have a question to Yihesan.
With so many conflicting sources and claims, how are we supposed to know what is right and what is wrong?
What would you consider a solid basis about the genocide?
The official stance of the US seems to be that the Armenian genocide did occur.
With so many conflicting sources and claims, how are we supposed to know what is right and what is wrong?
What would you consider a solid basis about the genocide?
The official stance of the US seems to be that the Armenian genocide did occur.
From the sounds of it, it seems as though the situation is much more complicated than a simple innocent group of people being targetted for extermination in the same vein as Hitler's programs against the Jews in World War 2. But, who knows? The Armenians don't want the situation to be clarified through historical research so I don't think we'll get to know more about the truth. From what I've been told there's tremendous amount of research material within Russian archives, among other foreign places.
QUOTE(Sephodwyrm @ May 7 2007, 04:51 AM) [snapback]4887579[/snapback]
I have a question to Yihesan.
With so many conflicting sources and claims, how are we supposed to know what is right and what is wrong?
What would you consider a solid basis about the genocide?
The official stance of the US seems to be that the Armenian genocide did occur.
With so many conflicting sources and claims, how are we supposed to know what is right and what is wrong?
What would you consider a solid basis about the genocide?
The official stance of the US seems to be that the Armenian genocide did occur.
I'm not Yihesan but i will try to answer you quistion as well as i can Sephodwyrm.
1) Theres no question or doubt whatsoever that the Armenians were the victim of ethnic cleansing, mainly in the form of trying to remove them from their ancestral territories.
2) The Genocide mentioned were for the most part unintentional, BY THE STATE AND AUTHORITIES. This is an important point, since by far most of the killings were done on the local levels by mobs incited by Imams, and by clans (Mainly but NOT exclusively Kurds) out for some blood either for ancient feuds or outright plunder.
3) Most of the untimely deaths were coursed by Diseases and exposure, NOT killings. but since they were nominally under the auspice of the Ottoman Empire which had ordered their removal, the Ottomans must carry the blame for these.
4) The decision to remove the Armenians were not based on religious or cultural grounds, it was based on the fact that the Ottomans saw them as unreliable at best in their main stomping grounds in the Caucasus.
And after having being dealt a severe defeat by Burosov's armies there, it was seen as both prudent as well as necessary to remove Armenians as well as Georgians (Most of them lived on Russian turf, but several tens of thousands were in side the Ottoman boarders). The problem was that the Armenians wouldn't let them self be relocated voluntarily (understandble) And the infrastruture were (and for the most part are) atrocious in that area, so any relocating would be hard to do in the best of times duing peace, but outright impossible duing War and under less than perfect circumstances.
5) Neither side is wrong Sephodwyrm, wierd as that might sound, it is just that they have a hard time listining to one another. Also as i have mentioned before and which is easily verifiable the Armenian Diaspora were *just* one of several doing this time, most we just don't hear much about, and does are many not interested in hearing about, or even better (I mean that) is placed in the drawer of best been forgotten (The mutual exodus of Balkan Turks and Anatolian Greeks is the main one here)
6) The Turcoman (Which were active them self in much of the mutual killings) and Assyrian minorities suffered far worse losses comparatively to their population than any other, incl the Armenians. But there has been little or no hue and cry about their losses and attempted Genocide, which in the case of the Assyrians very nearly succeeded (Theres only around 200000 Assyrians alive today, vs 250000 80 years ago, and their population has otherwise expanded steadily since that time).
7) Genocide is not just the effects of killing of a population, it can also be a case of were the future of a nation is taken away from them by removing the historical and cultural ties that makes that nation unique and different.
In the case of the smaller minorities this also took place in the kidnapping and forceful conversion by the young and children (Assyrians were the biggest losers here).
8) This is a case were both sides can be equally right as well as wrong about the same things, it is literaly only a quistion of the eyes that see, and from our point of wiew both sides can have equal claim and rights which neither side is interestet in.
Thanks Alex.
I wonder when this would actually be settled with.
Sounds like a diplomatic blackmail that appeared to be somewhat successful.
I wonder when this would actually be settled with.
Sounds like a diplomatic blackmail that appeared to be somewhat successful.
QUOTE(Yihesan @ Mar 18 2007, 08:17 PM) [snapback]4880427[/snapback]
Lies, lies, lies and all dirty propaganda.
You ignored my points about the International Association of Genocide Scholars. These are the people that know most about matters of genocide - surely their view must count for something!
QUOTE(Yihesan @ Feb 25 2007, 09:08 PM) [snapback]4878029[/snapback]
The so-called Armenian Genocide is a purely fictious lie.
Not so Yihesan, but conterary to the Jewish Holocaust, it was not planned by the state itself but a fraction of it (The three Pasha's), also it was a consequense of the war and political need to keep power
QUOTE(Yihesancontraryconsequence @ Mar 18 2007, 09:17 PM) [snapback]4880427[/snapback]
Lies, lies, lies and all dirty propaganda.
Nope again, while some of the claims of the Armenians survivors might seem harsh and over the top by you, it is in fact not Lies, only propaganda, and you should note that the best forms of propaganda has at core truth as it main strength.
QUOTE
People claiming that the Ottoman government systematically genocided the Armenian people are completely unaware that a Nazi-like fascist-racist ideology did not exist among the Turks until Hüseyin Nihâl Atsız laid down the foundations of racist Turkish ideology in the 1930s. The number of Armenians who died during the deportation was indeed high, because of several factors: 1) poor health conditions and the lack of medicines (which also caused the death of thousands of Turkish soldiers during WWI), 2) attacks from Kurdish bands, 3) individual actions such as some officers executing the Armenians under their command (which was against the orders given by the central govenrment regarding the fact that the people being deported could not be harmed by any means).
This is true insofar that the massacres and killings in general were NOT accepted as official policy, it was a consequence of one part of the Young Turks being able to use the lack of centralized power to further their own goals which were for the most part keeping them self in power and influence after their leaderships Catastrophic defeat in the Caucasus. (Less than 6000 Turkish soldiers survived the war out of 90000 by far the heaviest defeat of the Ottomans in WW1)
QUOTE
And then of course there were some areas where the local Muslim people murdered large numbers of Armenian civilians for the revenge of Muslim civilians massacred by Armenian gangs (such examples happened in Qayserî [Kayseri] and Diyâr-ï Bäkr [Diyarbakır]).
This is a case of which came first, the egg or the hen, there is no doubt (And foreign observes mainly German advisor's and Russian officers confirms this) That the Armenians didn't want to enter the grave willingly or without company, helped by the fact that the Caucasian Armenians were generally armed due to the intransigent and constant vendettas between families, clans and nations in the Caucasus area.
The Armenians outside Caucasus proper on the other hand were unarmed when they were herded away and in the end killed off by diseases, hunger and outright massacres.
QUOTE
I'm very sure the people here supporting the view of the existence of the so-called "Armenian Genocide" are quiet unaware about the internal social, ideological, religious, economic and ethnic structures of early 20th century Southwestern Asia.
I'm not unaware, myself and my family in general has good personal reasons to be interested in this subject in general, and i myself has read what i could and traveled to in many of the areas in Question.
QUOTE
I wonder why no one talks about the half million Muslims (most being Turks) brutally killed by the Armenians between late 19th century and 1921.
Blatantly wrong, while i support many of your viewpoints about this tragedy, the idea that Armenians stood for the main part of the Turkish losses in the Caucasus in the time from 1878 (Start of the Russian/Ottoman war 1878-79) to the end in 1923 (Not 21' Yehisan) is blatantly wrong, while it is true that revenge killings (And they had good reason to feel that way) by the Armenians killed tens off thousand of Turks and Kurds, this happened mainly from 1916 to 23', and for good reasons as you might expect, the sad part of it that only a minuscule part of does killed by the Armenians had anything to do whit the massacres and deportations in general.
QUOTE
I wonder why no one talks about around 5 million Balkan Turks who were killed or who died on the way to Anatolia while fleeing massacre (starting from the late 18th century, lasting until the year 1913).
I guess you mixed things up here, from the time of the Crimean war in 1850 to 1914 and the outbreak of the Great War, it is true that around 5 million Balkan AND Caucasus Turks were Displaced, assimilate, chased off, killed and in general forced to move in one way or another, but they were NOT all killed.
QUOTE
I wonder why no one talks about why no traces of Turkish culture have been left in the Balkans which were under Turkish rule for several centuries (cultural genocide by the Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians and Greeks).
It is a common habit of former subject people to destroy or remove things and eddifices that reminds them of their conquest, and this is a universal habit all throu the millenia, it has little to do whit being anti Turkish/Muslim
QUOTE
I wonder why no one talks about Kurds murdering Christians, but everyone thinks that it was the Turks who did it.
They did whit the aproval of the three Pashas otherwise they wouldn't have been able to do it in the degree they did it, also it is not political correct to blame the Kurds for anything these days since they are relativly good guys compared to what they were once upon a time.
QUOTE
I wonder why no one talks about what the Greeks did in Western and Northern Turkey between the years 1919 and 1922.
This was duing the war between Turkey and Greece, a war which Kemal won desisivly not least due to the fact that the Greek troops behaved like locust and rapists, so even throu the Turks were exhaustet to the point of collapse, Kemal could gather enough men and give them a do or die attitude just pointing to the way the Greek troops behaved.
In the end he beat them desisivly outside Ankara in the biggest battle of the war, and literaly saved Turkey as a nation.
QUOTE
I wonder why no one talks about what the Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians did to the Turks in the Balkans and in Cyprus in the last century. I wonder why no one cares to read and learn about the ideological-social history of the late Ottoman Empire, and tries to talk bullshit about us without having any ideas of what they are talking about.
All of the nations you have mentioned Turks incl has A LOT to be ashamed about duing this mutual Diaspora, and t is because of this that the govements of ALL of these nations never really mentions it.
None of them did anything they should be proud off, and for each calamity and outrage one side perpetrate against another side, the other side reciprocatet in spades.
QUOTE
As to what happened to the Armenians and Greeks of Anatolia between 1915 and 1923: some were killed but the rest were sent or migrated to Syria, Lebanon, the USA, South America (especially Argentina) and France.
While it is true that many migrate abroad, this is not the fact for the majority, most were either dead or had retreatet into Russian/Soviet territories
QUOTE
And remember the 1923 Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey: 800,000 Turks in Greece were sent to Turkey while around 1,2 million people (of whom an important amount were Christian Turks who were called Greeks because they were a part of the Rûm [Roman/Anatolian/Greek] Church of Ä°stanbul) in Turkey were sent to Greece.
Not in dispute, and both sides but especially the greeks behaved atrociously bad against the refugees.
QUOTE
Plus, there are still Assyrians living in Turkey, especially in Mardin, so stop talking about this bullshit regarding the false fact that there are no Assyrians left in Turkey (and don't forget that the massacre made to the Assyrians was committed by the Kurds of the Bedr-Khân clan, not by ethnic Turks).
The fact is that there live far more Assyrians in Iraq today than there does in Turkey, and as a nation they are pecariously close to being extinct whitin a couple off generations since they are pressured from all sides, and the Turkish Assyrians are so low in number (30000) that their abillity to be a viable nationality is doubtful at best.
As to the Kurds culabillity in the massacres and kidnappings that virtually made the Assyrians extinct as a culture, this is no a politcal correct observatione even if it is historical correct.
QUOTE
There are two reasons why this so-called "Armenian Genocide" wild-theory gets so many support:
1) The Armenians want Turkey to make an admission of this fake event (which did not happen in the way it's been claimed) so that they will try to grab huge amounts of money, and will try to grab our lands using international law courts.
1) The Armenians want Turkey to make an admission of this fake event (which did not happen in the way it's been claimed) so that they will try to grab huge amounts of money, and will try to grab our lands using international law courts.
It is not about money, it is about politics, a far more dangerous game in all aspects, also since it was not the modern Turkish state that condonned this or the old state that supportet it (They didn't, the nominal head off the Ottoman empire the Sultan and the other fraction off the Young Turks loudly and vehemently fought and condemmed the massacres and forced removals) So the Armenians wont get a penny out of the Turkish State from the International Court
QUOTE
2) Many Europeans voluntarily joined and/or supported the Jewish Holocaust during WWII and after the war ended, they decided just to bury it in the past and not pay attention to it. Genocide is a very heavy crime of humanity and they are trying to lift the weight of joining/supporting the Holocaust by throwing the weight of genocides on other nations, like the Turks shown in this example. They want to have as many genocide-submitters in the World as possible because they do not want to be the only genocide-supporters of the World.
Very true Yihesan, but the main reason why the Turkish nation and goverment wont admit to genocide is all about politics, since it would place them weaker against the Kurds in the international arena, which is rather ironic since the Kurds as a nation were one of the main reasons for the slaughter of Armenians, Assyrians and Turcomans.
Well you got many true points Alexander39, I congratulate you Except for a few minor details, such as the fact that the three leaders (Enver, Talât and Cemâl Pashas) planned or approved the killings of Armenians (at least, as far as I could see in Cemâl Pasha'a memoirs).
Except for a few minor details, such as the fact that the three leaders (Enver, Talât and Cemâl Pashas) planned or approved the killings of Armenians (at least, as far as I could see in Cemâl Pasha'a memoirs).
QUOTE(ralphrepo @ May 26 2007, 09:18 AM) [snapback]4890333[/snapback]
I think that many of these events can be best explained, by example, from looking at the present day occurences in places like the Sudan. The Janjaweed, non-government militia that supposedly no one controlls, quite obviously works for the Khartoum goverment but can be officially denied. I think much of what happened then in Turkey was of a similar nature. Another similar scenario was the Kosovo Serbs in the Balkans. Much of what was done can be officially denied, but quite obviously occurred with a wink and nod from the Serbian gov. Present day telecommunications would make such large scale denials implausible, and indeed the world court is currently prosecuting several that they felt responsible. But back then, the only reports in Turkey were from foreigners (like US embassy personnel) that detailed the massive killings and btw, much like the foreign reporting that highlighted the incident at NanKing 1937.
So, do I think it's true? Yes. There is very little doubt in my mind that the Turkish government engineered it so that thousands of Armenians would either be killed by roving racist gangs, faced starvation, or simply marched on the road until they were either picked off or dropped from exhaustion. So should the Turkish government be held responsible? Of course. We hold Mao to the coals for much of what happened in the Cultural Revolution in pretty much the same way because he was the man in charge.
So, do I think it's true? Yes. There is very little doubt in my mind that the Turkish government engineered it so that thousands of Armenians would either be killed by roving racist gangs, faced starvation, or simply marched on the road until they were either picked off or dropped from exhaustion. So should the Turkish government be held responsible? Of course. We hold Mao to the coals for much of what happened in the Cultural Revolution in pretty much the same way because he was the man in charge.
Theres an important differences compared to the examples given Ralph, the fact that it was the three Pashas that startet this and controled it to a large degree throu the effective dictatorship they had at the time whit the help of the right wing Young Turks, but all throu the war both the left of the Young Turks and the Sultan himself protestet publicly against the deportations
QUOTE
When racist gangs roamed the streets in Malaysia, chopping Chinese heads off, was the government responsible? Of course they were. One, two incidents... maybe not. But a sustained event, that takes place over a prolonged duration? A government that quite obviously chooses to ignore it's responsibilties and obligations to a portion of their less liked minority population, that by their acquiescence, and knowingly allows "others" within the community to administer a solution using criminal methods, is absolutely complicit in the resultant deaths.
It's undeniable that the Turkish government ordered the mass deportations. Much like what the Bataan Death March did in weaning even the ranks of combat hardened veterans; an enforced relocation of people from their homes, circa 1900's, can be as much a death sentence as a bullet in the head. Imagine if a government did this now, that is, forced a community to uproot itself, with no supplies of food or water, and no one to sell them any, and made it hit the road today in 2007; how many do you think would survive? Would such a government be guilty? Of course it would. To say otherwise is what I personally would term denialist.
The idea of "I too, have suffered..." does not give one the license or the right to cause the suffering of others. Were the Turks, in fact, victims in many of the various state orchestrated expansions and contractions of European history? Of course. Did they also kill off a whole lot of Armenians? It would seem so.
Ralph
It's undeniable that the Turkish government ordered the mass deportations. Much like what the Bataan Death March did in weaning even the ranks of combat hardened veterans; an enforced relocation of people from their homes, circa 1900's, can be as much a death sentence as a bullet in the head. Imagine if a government did this now, that is, forced a community to uproot itself, with no supplies of food or water, and no one to sell them any, and made it hit the road today in 2007; how many do you think would survive? Would such a government be guilty? Of course it would. To say otherwise is what I personally would term denialist.
The idea of "I too, have suffered..." does not give one the license or the right to cause the suffering of others. Were the Turks, in fact, victims in many of the various state orchestrated expansions and contractions of European history? Of course. Did they also kill off a whole lot of Armenians? It would seem so.
Ralph
All in all it is quite true, but as i have tried to tell does who read this thread it was NOT the Turkish goverment that startet this, and it was preceisly because the central goverment were so weak that the massacres could happen as they did.
Also it is not inconsequential to see who else have sufferd in this time period since many of the problems that evolved into the Armenian Dispora startet already in 1878-79 duing and after the Ottoman-Russian war were tens off thousands Turks were forcible removed from the Caucasus area and left to fend for themself as well as they could, which meant that a large part of them died from exposure, diseases and murder. this also made sure that there were a large group of turks to be recruitet to get even on their fathers behalf.
All in all by common law the Turkish goverment CANNOT legaly be taken to court anymore than France can be for the actions of the Vichy goverment, which ALSO countet genocide in its rapsheet IE they activlly helped gathering as many french jews as possible to send to Sobidor and Chelmo, simply because the goverment were not effetive at that point.
The Armenian Genocide, Truth or Fiction?
Answer = Lies And Black Propaganda
Answer = Lies And Black Propaganda
Ralph, it's not that easy-looking as you describe the events. It's far more complicated than how you describe. First of all, I could not see any racist ideology among the three pashas because racism did not exist among the Turks until the 1930s (an example: the private doctor of Enver Pasha was an Armenian) 
QUOTE(G3-X @ Jun 4 2007, 06:14 PM) 
The Armenian Genocide, Truth or Fiction?
Answer = Lies And Black Propaganda
Answer = Lies And Black Propaganda
you may not like the fact, but it's consensus among historians around the world that what happened back then has to be classified as genocide. I'm too tired to explain the details, since I just recently argued with a young turk who threatened me for my claim and wouldn't listen to any argument. And that's quite usual amongst turks.
It doesn't amaze me that mentioning the genocide is prohibited by law in turkey.
And it's not out of arbitrariness that the EU wants turkey to acknowledge the genocie on the armenians as one prerequisite for turkey to join the EU.
A bit late, but hey: better late than never, right?...
We have now updated the history section of our site with a new book describing the detailed events during 1915-1918 (www.armenica.org). If you need more scientific reading from a number of known historians and experts on the subject then I can recommend the following books:
Genocide in general, but the Armenian Genocide as well
============================================================
- Chalk, Frank and Jonassohn, Kurt, The History and Sociology of Genocide, Analyses and Case Studies, London, 1990
- Charny, Israel W., Encyclopedia of Genocide, Vol. 1, Oxford, 2000
- Charny, Israel W., Toward a Generic Definition of Genocide, in Andreopoulos, G. (ed.), The Conceptual and Historical Dimensions of Genocide, Philadelphia, 1994
- Dadrian, Vahakn N., The Comparative Aspects of the Armenian and Jewish Cases of Genocide: A Sociohistorical Perspective, in Rosenbaum, Alan S. (ed.), Is the Holocaust Unique?, Colorado, 1996
- Destexhe, Alain, Rwanda and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, London, 1995
- Fein, Helen, Genocide Watch, New York, 1992
- Huttenbach, Henry, From the Editor: Towards a Conceptual Definition of Genocide, Journal of Genocide Research, 4, No. 2, 2002
- Jones, Adam, Genocide, A Comprehensive Introduction, New York, 2006
- Katz, Steven T., The Uniqueness of the Holocaust; The Historical Dimension, in Rosenbaum, Alan S. (ed.), Is the Holocaust Unique?, Colorado, 1996
- Mace, James E., Facts and Values: A Personal Intellectual Exploration, in Totten, Samuel and Jacobs, Steven Leonard (ed.), Pioneers of Genocide Studies, New Jersey, 2002
- Magnusson, Kjell, Holocaust and Genocide Studies: Survey of Previous Research, Research Agenda, The Uppsala Programme for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 8-54. Uppsala, 1999
- Melson, Robert F., Revolution and Genocide, On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust, Chicago, 1992
- Novick, Peter, The Holocaust in the American Life, New York, 1999
- Shaw, Martin, War and genocide : organized killing in modern society, Cambridge, 2003
- Shermer, Michael and Grobman, Alex, Denying history: Who says the Holocaust never happened and why do they say it?, Berkeley, 2000
- Stannard, David E., Uniqueness as Denial: The Politics of Genocide Scholarship, in Rosenbaum, Alan S. (ed.), Is the Holocaust Unique?, Colorado, 1996
- Staub, Ervin, The Psychology of Bystanders, Perpetrators, and Heroic Helpers, in Erber, Ralph and Newman, Leonard S., Understanding Genocide, The Social Psychology of the Holocaust, Oxford, 2002
- Steinman, Lionel B., Paths to genocide: Antisemitism in Western history, New York, 2000
- Tatz, Colin, With Intent to Destroy, London, 2003
- Taylor, Alan John Percivale, The struggle for mastery in Europe 1848-1918, Oxford, 1971
- Valentino, Benjamin A., Final Solutions, Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century, New York, 2004
- Várdy, Steven Béla and Tooley, T. Hunt, Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe, New York, 2003
The Armenian Genocide in particular
====================================================================
- Adalian, Rouben Paul, Remembering and Understanding the Armenian Genocide, Yerevan, 1995
- Akçam, Taner, A Shameful Act, The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility, New York, 2006
- Alvarez, Alex, Governments, Citizens, and Genocide, A Comparative and Interdisciplinary Approach, Indiana, 2001
- Astourian, Stephan H., Genocidal Process : Reflections on the Armeno-Turkish Polarization, in Hovannisian, Richard G. (ed.), The Armenian Genocide, History, Politics, Ethics, London, 1992
- Auron, Yair, The Banality of Indifference, Zionism and the Armenian Genocide, New Jersey, 2002
- Bauer, Yehuda, Rethinking the Holocaust, Virginia, 2001
- Bevan, Robert, The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War, Chicago, 2006; http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/1861892055.html
- Dadrian, Vahakn N., The Key Elements in the Turkish Denial of the Armenian Genocide: A Case Study of Distortion and Falsification, Toronto, 1999
- Dadrian, Vahakn N., The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus, Berghahn, 2004
- Foss, Clive, The Turkish View of Armenian History: A Vanishing Nation, in Hovannisian, Richard G. (ed.), The Armenian Genocide, History, Politics, Ethics, London, 1992
- Gaunt, David, Massacres, Resistance, Protectors: Muslim-Christian Relations in Eastern Anatolia During World War I, New Jersey, 2006
- Gerner, Kristian och Karlsson, Klas-Göran, Folkmordens historia, Perspektiv på det moderna samhällets skuggsida, Stockholm, 2005
- Graber, G. S., Caravans to Oblivion, The Armenian Genocide, 1915, New York, 1996
- Hovannisian, Richard G., Armenia on the Road to Independence, Los Angeles, 1967
- Hovannisian, Richard G., The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, Vol. II, Basingstoke, 1997
- Miller, Donald E. and Miller Touryan, Lorna, Women and Children of the Armenian Genocide, in Hovannisian, Richard G. (ed.), The Armenian Genocide, History, Politics, Ethics, London, 1992
- Moranian, Suzanne Elizabeth, Bearing Witness : The Missionary Archives as Evidence of the Armenian Genocide, in Hovannisian, Richard G. (ed.), The Armenian Genocide, History, Politics, Ethics, London, 1992
- Pasdermadjian, Hrant, Histoire de l'Arménie depuis les origines jusqu'au traité de Lausanne, Paris, 1949
- Schabas, William A., Genocide in International Law, Cambridge, 2000
- Weitz, Eric D., A Century of Genocide, Utopia of Race and Nation, Princeton, 2003
- Zayas, Alfred de, The Twentieth Century’s First Genocide: International Law, Impunity, the Right to Reparations, and the Ethnic Cleansing Against the Armenians, 1915-16, in Várdy, Steven Béla and Tooley, T. Hunt (ed.), Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe, New York, 2003
We have now updated the history section of our site with a new book describing the detailed events during 1915-1918 (www.armenica.org). If you need more scientific reading from a number of known historians and experts on the subject then I can recommend the following books:
Genocide in general, but the Armenian Genocide as well
============================================================
- Chalk, Frank and Jonassohn, Kurt, The History and Sociology of Genocide, Analyses and Case Studies, London, 1990
- Charny, Israel W., Encyclopedia of Genocide, Vol. 1, Oxford, 2000
- Charny, Israel W., Toward a Generic Definition of Genocide, in Andreopoulos, G. (ed.), The Conceptual and Historical Dimensions of Genocide, Philadelphia, 1994
- Dadrian, Vahakn N., The Comparative Aspects of the Armenian and Jewish Cases of Genocide: A Sociohistorical Perspective, in Rosenbaum, Alan S. (ed.), Is the Holocaust Unique?, Colorado, 1996
- Destexhe, Alain, Rwanda and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, London, 1995
- Fein, Helen, Genocide Watch, New York, 1992
- Huttenbach, Henry, From the Editor: Towards a Conceptual Definition of Genocide, Journal of Genocide Research, 4, No. 2, 2002
- Jones, Adam, Genocide, A Comprehensive Introduction, New York, 2006
- Katz, Steven T., The Uniqueness of the Holocaust; The Historical Dimension, in Rosenbaum, Alan S. (ed.), Is the Holocaust Unique?, Colorado, 1996
- Mace, James E., Facts and Values: A Personal Intellectual Exploration, in Totten, Samuel and Jacobs, Steven Leonard (ed.), Pioneers of Genocide Studies, New Jersey, 2002
- Magnusson, Kjell, Holocaust and Genocide Studies: Survey of Previous Research, Research Agenda, The Uppsala Programme for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 8-54. Uppsala, 1999
- Melson, Robert F., Revolution and Genocide, On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust, Chicago, 1992
- Novick, Peter, The Holocaust in the American Life, New York, 1999
- Shaw, Martin, War and genocide : organized killing in modern society, Cambridge, 2003
- Shermer, Michael and Grobman, Alex, Denying history: Who says the Holocaust never happened and why do they say it?, Berkeley, 2000
- Stannard, David E., Uniqueness as Denial: The Politics of Genocide Scholarship, in Rosenbaum, Alan S. (ed.), Is the Holocaust Unique?, Colorado, 1996
- Staub, Ervin, The Psychology of Bystanders, Perpetrators, and Heroic Helpers, in Erber, Ralph and Newman, Leonard S., Understanding Genocide, The Social Psychology of the Holocaust, Oxford, 2002
- Steinman, Lionel B., Paths to genocide: Antisemitism in Western history, New York, 2000
- Tatz, Colin, With Intent to Destroy, London, 2003
- Taylor, Alan John Percivale, The struggle for mastery in Europe 1848-1918, Oxford, 1971
- Valentino, Benjamin A., Final Solutions, Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century, New York, 2004
- Várdy, Steven Béla and Tooley, T. Hunt, Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe, New York, 2003
The Armenian Genocide in particular
====================================================================
- Adalian, Rouben Paul, Remembering and Understanding the Armenian Genocide, Yerevan, 1995
- Akçam, Taner, A Shameful Act, The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility, New York, 2006
- Alvarez, Alex, Governments, Citizens, and Genocide, A Comparative and Interdisciplinary Approach, Indiana, 2001
- Astourian, Stephan H., Genocidal Process : Reflections on the Armeno-Turkish Polarization, in Hovannisian, Richard G. (ed.), The Armenian Genocide, History, Politics, Ethics, London, 1992
- Auron, Yair, The Banality of Indifference, Zionism and the Armenian Genocide, New Jersey, 2002
- Bauer, Yehuda, Rethinking the Holocaust, Virginia, 2001
- Bevan, Robert, The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War, Chicago, 2006; http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/1861892055.html
- Dadrian, Vahakn N., The Key Elements in the Turkish Denial of the Armenian Genocide: A Case Study of Distortion and Falsification, Toronto, 1999
- Dadrian, Vahakn N., The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus, Berghahn, 2004
- Foss, Clive, The Turkish View of Armenian History: A Vanishing Nation, in Hovannisian, Richard G. (ed.), The Armenian Genocide, History, Politics, Ethics, London, 1992
- Gaunt, David, Massacres, Resistance, Protectors: Muslim-Christian Relations in Eastern Anatolia During World War I, New Jersey, 2006
- Gerner, Kristian och Karlsson, Klas-Göran, Folkmordens historia, Perspektiv på det moderna samhällets skuggsida, Stockholm, 2005
- Graber, G. S., Caravans to Oblivion, The Armenian Genocide, 1915, New York, 1996
- Hovannisian, Richard G., Armenia on the Road to Independence, Los Angeles, 1967
- Hovannisian, Richard G., The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, Vol. II, Basingstoke, 1997
- Miller, Donald E. and Miller Touryan, Lorna, Women and Children of the Armenian Genocide, in Hovannisian, Richard G. (ed.), The Armenian Genocide, History, Politics, Ethics, London, 1992
- Moranian, Suzanne Elizabeth, Bearing Witness : The Missionary Archives as Evidence of the Armenian Genocide, in Hovannisian, Richard G. (ed.), The Armenian Genocide, History, Politics, Ethics, London, 1992
- Pasdermadjian, Hrant, Histoire de l'Arménie depuis les origines jusqu'au traité de Lausanne, Paris, 1949
- Schabas, William A., Genocide in International Law, Cambridge, 2000
- Weitz, Eric D., A Century of Genocide, Utopia of Race and Nation, Princeton, 2003
- Zayas, Alfred de, The Twentieth Century’s First Genocide: International Law, Impunity, the Right to Reparations, and the Ethnic Cleansing Against the Armenians, 1915-16, in Várdy, Steven Béla and Tooley, T. Hunt (ed.), Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe, New York, 2003
'funny' thing is the Ottoman archive is open
is the Armenian, English or russian archive open?
is the Armenian, English or russian archive open?
The English archive is open, I believe. But how is that relevant?
QUOTE (Tujue @ Dec 6 2007, 11:18 AM)
'funny' thing is the Ottoman archive is open
is the Armenian, English or russian archive open?
is the Armenian, English or russian archive open?
The Russian and Armenian archives have never been closed to be opened now. How that is relevant beats me, but the Turkish archives being open is merely a myth:
The archives have been closed to the general public and despite request from the international community, Turkey had refused to make them available to academics conducting research into the events which had taken place during the period of 1914-1922. In 1989, the Turkish government announced that the archives would be opened for "academic studies in the archives related to the Armenians". The archives, however, proved far from "open". Ara Sarafian, a scholar within the field and specialist in late Ottoman and modern Armenian history, had the opportunity to investigate a number of documents in the Ottoman archives before he was declared persona non grata (together with his German colleague Hilmar Kaiser) for accessing them. In an article, he describes his experience during this "personal odyssey": "The Turkish archive authorities reserve the right to hold on to all documents and only grant access to some. The contents of the documents are read in advance before they are handed out to the researcher and the archive authorities can decide not to deliver the material. The researcher can be denied access simply because 1) the document in question is outside the field of the researcher's declared field of study; 2) the documents cannot be found; 3) the material that they have found is too fragile or 4) the material is under special treatment (whatever that means)." However, he was able to find encrypted messages proving that the Ottoman government had total control over its subjects; that the Armenians were being systematically deported and annihilated during 1915-1916; and that Talaat Pasha led the deportations through a telegraph network and an obedient government bureaucracy. Soon after he had left Turkey and begun to discuss his results, he was notified that he was no longer welcome in Turkey and was refused access to the Ottoman archives.
http://www.armenica.org/cgi-bin/armenica.c...999=kaiser=1==A
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.