Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 168

Thread: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

  1. #41

    Default Re: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanatos View Post
    "Guaranteed" means that, under the status quo, said XYZ people being forced to relocate and dying off/starving/what-have-you is a guarantee, not that the entirety of the people must die. The definition never required that everyone, or even an overwhelming majority, die off. Said treatment of the definition is found in other articles of the same convention/has been defined as such in later international conventions. I had to study all this stuff recently, so it's why I'm able to recount this basic summary off the top of my head. I may be able to find the specific part later.

    Secondly, I was just talking about the definition of genocide in general, not specifically about the Armenian genocide, although I can see why you thought that. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
    I was making a point based on your point, not necessarily argued against it. I understand very well that it's not supposed to cover the entire race which is why I mentioned the 500 thousand Armenians that reached their destination as part of the relocation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Admiral Piett View Post
    The US government did the same thing to the Indians by forceful eviction to Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Arizona. Even though there was not an active campaign of exterimination via violent deaths, it is still very much classifiable as ethnic cleansing at the least and genocide at the most. The US accepted what they've done to the Natives as crimes against humanity so I don't see any reason Turkish government should not as well.
    There is mountains between ethnic cleansing and genocide. No one ever denies that an ethnic cleansing occurred. Neither Ottomans back then nor the Turks today deny that Armenians were relocated.


    Quote Originally Posted by Admiral Piett View Post
    I'll ask you again, does Armenian resistance to Turkish rule justify their ethnic cleansing?
    From WWI military standpoint, yes. I would go as far as saying that if the decision to relocate was not given much more blood would be shed.

    The Armenian Relocations and Ottoman National Security: Military Necessity or Excuse for Genocide? by Edward J. Erickson:
    How can we understand and how might we explain the Ottoman decision to shift its counterinsurgency policy to one that was based on the relocation of the Armenians from the eastern provinces of Bitlis, Dyarbekir, Erzurum, Harput, Sivas and Van. First, let’s look at the historical context. Counterinsurgency campaigns as practiced by the Ottoman state from 1890 to 1914 were characterized by large-scale military operations and large numbers of soldiers, often exceeding 100,000 regulars. The campaigns were kinetic and involved the hunting to destruction of insurgent bands. In smaller expeditions against the Kurds and Arabs, the Ottomans employed well-trained regular forces to destroy the enemy. As long as the Ottomans had military forces available, they were never forced to use strategies of population removal, as had the Spanish, Americans and the British in contemporary counterinsurgency operations. The Ottomans also knew that the Armenian revolutionary committees were well armed and that they had significant levels of external support. Second, we should then look at how the war drove changes in Ottoman counterinsurgency practices. There was a genuine and existential threat to the national security of the Ottoman Empire in the late spring of 1915. This was the result of the unfortunate demographic fact that large concentrations of Armenian people happened to live in cities such as Erzurum, Harput and Urfa which lay astride lines of communications vital to the armies fighting on three fronts. While it is true that the Armenian revolutionary committees did not represent the majority of Armenians, they were powerful enough to take cities and large enough to choke and obstruct the flow of supplies.

    Unfortunately, the Ottoman state and its leaders were ill equipped by their experiences to deal with the Armenian insurrection. This was because in their own immediate past the empire had solved the problem of insurgency by sending in large armies of up to 100,000 regular soldiers and paramilitary cavalrymen. Such a response was impossible in 1915, as the interior of the empire had been stripped of regular forces and the gendarmerie. The traditional tools necessary for the suppression of an insurrection were nonexistent and this forced the government into an alternative counterinsurgency strategy based on relocation, which could be accommodated with minimal amounts of military effort.Moreover, unlike the Spanish,the Americans andthe British, who dealt with hostile and uncooperative colonial populations,the Ottomans were dealing with their own citizens, the majority of whom did not resist their own relocation. This further reduced the requirements for combat-capable military forces in the relocation and much of the actual movement was conducted by local paramilitary elements.

    The decision to relocate the Armenians was an evolving response that started with localized population removal but which, by late May 1915, escalated to a region-wide relocation policy involving six provinces. The Ottoman leaders believed this policy was their only option, given the wartime situation. A large-scale kinetic military response as they had employed from 1890 to 1914—the application of force—was impossible. The Western model of population relocation had worked for the Spanish, the Americans and the British. It is understandable therefore that the Ottoman government turned to this viable and low-cost counterinsurgency policy in order to deal effectively with the Armenian insurrection. As the relocations progressed into the summer and fall of 1915, it became progressively easier for the Ottoman military forces committed to eradicating the insurgency to mop up the battered surviving rebels. In 1915, for the Ottoman state, relocation was an effective strategy borne of weakness rather than of strength.

    With respect to the question of whether the relocation was necessary for reason of Ottoman national security in the First World War, the answer is clearly yes. There was a direct threat by the small but capable Armenian revolutionary committees to the lines of communications upon which the logistics of the Ottoman armies on three fronts depended. There was a real belief by the government that the consequences of failing to supply adequately its armies that were contact with the Russians, in particular, surely would lead to the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman high command believed it could not take that chance. Pressed by the imperative of national survival to implement an immediate counterinsurgency strategy and operational solution, and in the absence of traditionally available large-scale military forces, the Ottomans chose a strategy based on relocation— itself a highly effective practice pioneered by the Great Powers. The relocation of the Armenian population and the associated destruction of the Armenian revolutionary committees ended an immediate existential threat to the Ottoman state. Although the empire survived to fight on until late 1918 unfortunately thousands of Armenians did not survive the relocation. Correlation is not causation and the existing evidence suggests that the decisions leading to the Armenian relocations in 1915 were reflexive, escalatory, and militarily necessary, rather than simply a convenient excuse for genocide.
    Last edited by PointOfViewGun; January 21, 2015 at 03:14 PM.
    The Armenian Issue

  2. #42

    Default Re: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

    Well I guess none of the Turkish Genocide Deniers are going to address the facts from history.

    Let's just post these historical facts again for context on what was happening for decades before the genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Turks

    "When the news arrived in Britain of the brutal massacre of Armenians in the Sassun region of east central Anatolia in August 1894, the Liberal government of Lord Rosebery, who had succeeded Gladstone as prime minister in the previous March, came under intense pressure to compel the Ottoman government to institute reforms that would prevent such outrages in the future."- Great Power Diplomacy 1814-1914, Norman Rich


    "1896 when Armenian revolutionaries seized the Ottoman Bank in Constantinople. This act of terrorism produced the grimmest Turkish reprisals thus far- a three day slaughter of Armenians in the capital, once again in full view of European observers. There followed a repetition of events of the previous year, as an aroused European public opinion once again put pressure on their various governments to intervene on behalf of the Armenians." - Norman Rich again, Great Power Diplomacy

    Notice the years here. The Ottoman Turks had been oppressing and massacring Armenians for a very long time before the Genocide and Armenian attempts to win freedom.

    Essentially the Ottoman Turk response in the 1890s was equivalent to if France just started slaughtering every Muslim in Paris after the Hebdo attacks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    There is mountains between ethnic cleansing and genocide. No one ever denies that an ethnic cleansing occurred. Neither Ottomans back then nor the Turks today deny that Armenians were relocated.
    :
    Like the Nazis just "relocated" the Jews right? FFS this spin is ridiculous. I actually thought you were Armenian but clearly you are a genocide denier.
    Last edited by chilon; January 21, 2015 at 09:21 PM.
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "We have a protractor."

    Under Patronage of: Captain Blackadder

  3. #43

    Default Re: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    There is mountains between ethnic cleansing and genocide. No one ever denies that an ethnic cleansing occurred. Neither Ottomans back then nor the Turks today deny that Armenians were relocated.
    Not according to any term defined specifically under any international organization, it's not that big of a difference. Ethnic cleansing and genocide are both two similar means to the same end. The removal of an entire race, ethnicity, or culture from a place on earth. They are both violent and forceful. They both entail mass death. Just the one method is not by actively massacring everything, but by forcing the people into the elements of nature to do the dirty work for them.

    From WWI military standpoint, yes. I would go as far as saying that if the decision to relocate was not given much more blood would be shed.

    The Armenian Relocations and Ottoman National Security: Military Necessity or Excuse for Genocide? by Edward J. Erickson:
    You can make the same arguments from the American situation because they were engaging in constant raids. It does not change the fact that it was avoidable and it was genocidal in nature. It's not as if the Armenian were entrenched in a perpetual war with the Ottomans. The Ottomans simply did not see them worth negotiating with or bringing to heel. They found that their ends were more suited if they were forced out or simply ceased to exist - as they did to the Greeks and the Assyrians or pretty much anyone else who dissented or were not identifying themselves as Turk.
    Last edited by Admiral Piett; January 21, 2015 at 10:42 PM.
    Heir to Noble Savage in the Imperial House of Wilpuri

  4. #44

    Default Re: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

    Quote Originally Posted by chilon View Post
    Well I guess none of the Turkish Genocide Deniers are going to address the facts from history.

    Let's just post these historical facts again for context on what was happening for decades before the genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Turks

    "When the news arrived in Britain of the brutal massacre of Armenians in the Sassun region of east central Anatolia in August 1894, the Liberal government of Lord Rosebery, who had succeeded Gladstone as prime minister in the previous March, came under intense pressure to compel the Ottoman government to institute reforms that would prevent such outrages in the future."- Great Power Diplomacy 1814-1914, Norman Rich

    "1896 when Armenian revolutionaries seized the Ottoman Bank in Constantinople. This act of terrorism produced the grimmest Turkish reprisals thus far- a three day slaughter of Armenians in the capital, once again in full view of European observers. There followed a repetition of events of the previous year, as an aroused European public opinion once again put pressure on their various governments to intervene on behalf of the Armenians." - Norman Rich again, Great Power Diplomacy

    Notice the years here. The Ottoman Turks had been oppressing and massacring Armenians for a very long time before the Genocide and Armenian attempts to win freedom.

    Essentially the Ottoman Turk response in the 1890s was equivalent to if France just started slaughtering every Muslim in Paris after the Hebdo attacks.
    Why would a single person here respond to such an event that is not part of the genocide allegations that we're talking about? Why would entertain your efforts to base an argument on simply vilification of the Ottomans? Does the genocide allegations not be able to stand by its merit? Does one atrocity validate the existence of an other? Maybe people are just not seeing any value in such arguments...


    Quote Originally Posted by chilon View Post
    Like the Nazis just "relocated" the Jews right? FFS this spin is ridiculous. I actually thought you were Armenian but clearly you are a genocide denier.
    How many Jews survived those camps as part of the extermination? How many Armenians reached their destination as part of the relocation?


    Quote Originally Posted by Admiral Piett View Post
    Not according to any term defined specifically under any international organization, it's not that big of a difference. Ethnic cleansing and genocide are both two similar means to the same end. The removal of an entire race, ethnicity, or culture from a place on earth. They are both violent and forceful. They both entail mass death. Just the one method is not by actively massacring everything, but by forcing the people into the elements of nature to do the dirty work for them.
    Not true even a little bit. Ethnic cleansing does not require a single death. Genocide is a type of ethnic cleansing but not all ethnic cleansing cases are genocides. What happened between Greece and Turkey as part of the population exchange agreement of 1923 was an ethnic cleansing. What happened to Jews was ethnic cleansing. What happened to Armenians was ethnic cleansing. Only one of those is a genocide. The legal definition of ethnic cleansing and genocide differs greatly.


    Quote Originally Posted by Admiral Piett View Post
    You can make the same arguments from the American situation because they were engaging in constant raids. It does not change the fact that it was avoidable and it was genocidal in nature. It's not as if the Armenian were entrenched in a perpetual war with the Ottomans. The Ottomans simply did not see them worth negotiating with or bringing to heel. They found that their ends were more suited if they were forced out or simply ceased to exist - as they did to the Greeks and the Assyrians or pretty much anyone else who dissented or were not identifying themselves as Turk.
    You could if you had a scholar like Edward J. Erickson who is an expert in such fields to be backing your words. I simply provided you the opinion of the expert in late Ottoman military telling you that the relocation decision was necessary. It doesn't get better or more direct to your question than that.

    How do you know whether it was avoidable or not? Do you know for a fact whether the Ottomans tried negotiations first? Or whether if it was even feasible or not. Such baseless arguments only lead to an ignorant standpoint. It's absurd to suggest that there was a way to turn the tide of violence. Perhaps if they just hugged it out... It's hard to take these seriously. Ottoman Empire was dying. Minorities were already used as weapons of divide of conquer. The European powers were already using minorities to exert more political pressure on Ottoman Empire. The Armenian Question was introduced in the Congress of Berlin in 1878.

    How were the relocations genocidal in nature? Do tell me.
    Last edited by PointOfViewGun; January 22, 2015 at 12:01 AM.
    The Armenian Issue

  5. #45
    Treize's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gelderland
    Posts
    16,093

    Default Re: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

    Quote Originally Posted by white-wolf View Post
    Oww Treize, you really do not know your history. Your white washing the violent actions of Armenians just show that. Armenians got violent because the state failed to protect them from Kurds? O, really?
    This is well known.

    Armenians were constantly murdered and robbed so they formed militias to protect themselves. Foreign support then embolded them which led to a series up local uprisings.
    Last edited by Treize; January 22, 2015 at 09:41 AM.
    Miss me yet?

  6. #46
    Thanatos's Avatar Now Is Not the Time
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,188

    Default Re: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post

    How many Jews survived those camps as part of the extermination? How many Armenians reached their destination as part of the relocation?
    Not to play devil's advocate, but the end number doesn't count where relocations are concerned. What matters more in terms of whether or not something can be called a "genocide" is dependent on what the original starting number/population was. Based on how many died along the way as a percentage, and due to what cause, is what is actually paramount here. Acting as though it could be calculated otherwise seems....... disingenuous on your part.

    The American trail of tears campaign against the various native american tribes has been widely accepted to have been genocide via the forced relocation based on the factors I mentioned above.

  7. #47

    Default Re: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanatos View Post
    Not to play devil's advocate, but the end number doesn't count where relocations are concerned. What matters more in terms of whether or not something can be called a "genocide" is dependent on what the original starting number/population was. Based on how many died along the way as a percentage, and due to what cause, is what is actually paramount here. Acting as though it could be calculated otherwise seems....... disingenuous on your part.

    The American trail of tears campaign against the various native american tribes has been widely accepted to have been genocide via the forced relocation based on the factors I mentioned above.
    You're jumping the gun here. I didn't ask for the end numbers to compare numbers alone. I asked to compare with respect to how many were sent to camps or relocated.

    With millions of Jews sent to Nazi camps with gas chambers for them only a little over 10 thousand of them survived. About 900 thousand Armenians that was selected for relocation about 500 thousand of them reached their destination and settled down. The worst case is that 400 thousand of them died on the way. The survival rate in the death camps for Jews is pretty much negligible. The worst rate for the relocation is 55%.

    The larger point is that comparing the Holocaust and the Armenian issue is a comparison doomed to fail on many aspects.
    The Armenian Issue

  8. #48

    Default Re: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

    Quote Originally Posted by Treize View Post
    This is well known.
    Well known?
    In tribute to concerned friends:
    - You know nothing Jon Snow.





    Samples from the Turkish Cuisine by white-wolf

  9. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Why would a single person here respond to such an event that is not part of the genocide allegations that we're talking about? Why would entertain your efforts to base an argument on simply vilification of the Ottomans? Does the genocide allegations not be able to stand by its merit? Does one atrocity validate the existence of an other? Maybe people are just not seeing any value in such arguments...
    Because it shows an ongoing pattern and mini-genocide massacres that the Ottoman Turks were perpetrating for DECADES before the actual genocide.

    You admit there is ethnic cleansing. You don't dispute the visicious massacres of innocent Armenian men, women and children. Yet you still deny the genocide. The Armenian genocide is proven btw, only the Turks and self-serving like Dick Cheney who profits from Turkey want to deny it still.

    The reality is the Ottoman Turks WERE massacring innocent Armenians for a long fecking time even before the genocide.

    You have provided ZERO compelling evidence that there was "no genocide". I honestly don't know why the feck the Turks are being such and denying the reality that everyone in the world can see. There is a reason Europe recognizes the genocide. Because Europe saw the Ottoman Turks massacre innocent Armenians for decades before the genocide. The Ottoman Turks have a pattern for ethnic violence designed to eliminate populations just like the Nazis. Its time for Turkey to man the feck up and admit to the atrocities they committed 100 years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    With millions of Jews sent to Nazi camps with gas chambers for them only a little over 10 thousand of them survived. About 900 thousand Armenians that was selected for relocation about 500 thousand of them reached their destination and settled down. The worst case is that 400 thousand of them died on the way. The survival rate in the death camps for Jews is pretty much negligible. The worst rate for the relocation is 55%.
    .
    You really need to stop basing your opinion on fecked up Turkish propaganda:

    http://umdearborn.edu/dept/armenian/facts/genocide.html
    Last edited by Tiberios; January 22, 2015 at 02:28 PM. Reason: Double
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "We have a protractor."

    Under Patronage of: Captain Blackadder

  10. #50
    Thanatos's Avatar Now Is Not the Time
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,188

    Default Re: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    You're jumping the gun here. I didn't ask for the end numbers to compare numbers alone. I asked to compare with respect to how many were sent to camps or relocated.

    With millions of Jews sent to Nazi camps with gas chambers for them only a little over 10 thousand of them survived. About 900 thousand Armenians that was selected for relocation about 500 thousand of them reached their destination and settled down. The worst case is that 400 thousand of them died on the way. The survival rate in the death camps for Jews is pretty much negligible. The worst rate for the relocation is 55%.

    The larger point is that comparing the Holocaust and the Armenian issue is a comparison doomed to fail on many aspects.
    Assuming said statistics for this argument.... 400,000 people from X ethnic grouping dying along a forced relocation is not a genocide? 55% of an entire group that is being moved winding up dead is not enough? Where is the line drawn then, where something magically becomes genocide? 60%? 65%? 70%?

    Regardless, this whole side argument concerning your personal requirements for when something becomes a genocide that we've been having is moot. UN definitions for genocide do not require that a single person die. All that is required is that conditions are there that would guarantee for the whole-scale/en-masse death or destruction of a people or of its culture. Forcibly moving XYZ people from point A to point B, with a whole bunch dying along the way counts as genocide, barring things like freak acts of God.
    Last edited by Thanatos; January 22, 2015 at 01:09 PM.

  11. #51

    Default Re: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

    Quote Originally Posted by chilon View Post
    Because it shows an ongoing pattern and mini-genocide massacres that the Ottoman Turks were perpetrating for DECADES before the actual genocide.

    You admit there is ethnic cleansing. You don't dispute the visicious massacres of innocent Armenian men, women and children. Yet you still deny the genocide. The Armenian genocide is proven btw, only the Turks and self-serving like Dick Cheney who profits from Turkey want to deny it still.

    The reality is the Ottoman Turks WERE massacring innocent Armenians for a long fecking time even before the genocide.

    You have provided ZERO compelling evidence that there was "no genocide". I honestly don't know why the feck the Turks are being such and denying the reality that everyone in the world can see. There is a reason Europe recognizes the genocide. Because Europe saw the Ottoman Turks massacre innocent Armenians for decades before the genocide. The Ottoman Turks have a pattern for ethnic violence designed to eliminate populations just like the Nazis. Its time for Turkey to man the feck up and admit to the atrocities they committed 100 years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by chilon View Post
    You really need to stop basing your opinion on fecked up Turkish propaganda:

    http://umdearborn.edu/dept/armenian/facts/genocide.html
    Well, I can't really provide much substance for you when all you spur is hatred. Simply posting a random fact sheet doesn't help either, especially one that claims things like 1.5 million Armenians getting killed or ignoring a mountain of actual facts like the martial courts of 1915-16. This is a historical subject, a touchy one for a lot of people. You can't really bully it into people.



    Quote Originally Posted by Thanatos View Post
    Assuming said statistics for this argument.... 400,000 people from X ethnic grouping dying along a forced relocation is not a genocide? 55% of an entire group that is being moved winding up dead is not enough? Where is the line drawn then, where something magically becomes genocide? 60%? 65%? 70%?

    Regardless, your personal requirements for when something becomes a genocide is moot. UN definitions for genocide do not require that a single person die. All that is required is that conditions are there that would guarantee for the whole-scale/en-masse death or destruction of a people or of its culture.
    You yourself mentioned:
    What matters more in terms of whether or not something can be called a "genocide" is dependent on what the original starting number/population was. Based on how many died along the way as a percentage, and due to what cause, is what is actually paramount here.
    So, it's surprising that you'd ridicule your own requirement and call it moot.

    The UN definition relies on intent. Just because conditions for death exists doesn't make it a genocide. The conditions has to exist or be utilized for the intention to kill.

    What the numbers suggest is a lack of intent. You can't claim that someone was shooting 10 people in the head at close range and have 5 out of 10 people have no head wounds. Gas chambers were used to kill Jews and others. Pretty much all the people that entered those chambers died as intended. Relocating Armenians to riverside towns either through marches or train (for those who could afford it) doesn't really paint the same picture.

    Keep it in mind that we're not talking about percentage as in percentage of Armenian population that died. We're talking about the percentage of Armenians that went through the process that is alleged to be created for death and survived, not because they ran away or any other reason but because they went through the process successfully. Perhaps a lot of people did run but those numbers would be subtracted from the remaining 400 thousand people that is missing, not from the 500 thousand number that reached their destinations. You can't talk about such a high percentage when we're talking about a process that is claimed to have the purpose to kill.

    Meanwhile, if you want to see where I'm basing this 500 thousand number, here it is the document from the Syrian consul a week after the relocation law expired:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The Armenian Issue

  12. #52

    Default Re: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Well, I can't really provide much substance for you when all you spur is hatred. Simply posting a random fact sheet doesn't help either, especially one that claims things like 1.5 million Armenians getting killed or ignoring a mountain of actual facts like the martial courts of 1915-16. This is a historical subject, a touchy one for a lot of people. You can't really bully it into people.
    You are the one that doesn't seem to be basing things off of historical facts and pure propaganda from the Turkish government.

    Your entire argument that it was "not a genocide" seems entirely based on the most ridiculous logic "well, we weren't as successful as the Nazis therefore it wasn't a genocide".

    The key is WHAT the Ottoman government was doing. They were trying to systematically eliminate all Armenians. Thats the facts. Also relevant is the fact that all the European powers saw what was happening and called it a genocide. That includes the three Ottoman enemies but ALSO the Ottoman's two allies. See I am basing my information on what the best academic historians of this time period have researched and also what the European powers were all saying at the time. The Ottomans systematically tried to eliminate all the Armenians in their empire. That is fact. Even the Ottoman's allies acknowledged that. In academia this is not even a debatable issue. You are attempting to use your own personal, arbitrary definition of the word "genocide" to make an argument for it not being it. You are trying to re-define genocide as needing some arbitrary level of success to be considered a genocide. That is not how the great powers at the time felt and it is not how all the rest of the civilized nations of the world look at the issue. Turkey doesn't get to re-define genocide for the rest of the world to suit its own interests.

    These are the basic facts that academics across the world accept.

    "First the Armenians in the army were disarmed, placed into labor battalions, and then killed.Then the Armenian political and intellectual leaders were rounded up on April 24, 1915, and then killed.
    Finally, the remaining Armenians were called from their homes, told they would be relocated, and then marched off to concentration camps in the desert between Jerablus and Deir ez-Zor where they would starve and thirst to death in the burning sun.
    On the march, often they would be denied food and water, and many were brutalized and killed by their "guards" or by "marauders." The authorities in Trebizond, on the Black Sea coast, did vary this routine: they loaded Armenians on barges and sank them out at sea.
    The Turkish government today denies that there was an Armenian genocide and claims that Armenians were only removed from the eastern "war zone." The Armenian Genocide, however, occurred all over Anatolia [present-day Turkey], and not just in the so-called "war zone." Deportations and killings occurred in the west, in and around Ismid (Izmit) and Broussa (Bursa); in the center, in and around Angora (Ankara); in the south-west, in and around Konia (Konya) and Adana (which is near the Mediterranean Sea); in the central portion of Anatolia, in and around Diyarbekir (Diyarbakir), Harpout (Harput), Marash, Sivas (Sepastia), Shabin Kara-Hissar (�ebin Karahisar), and Ourfa (Urfa); and on the Black Sea coast, in and around Trebizond (Trabzon), all of which are not part of a war zone. Only Erzeroum, Bitlis, and Van in the east were in the war zone."

    Again, your entire argument seems based around the idea that "The Turks were not quite as successful at killing as many as the Nazis". That is your argument. They weren't successful enough for you for it it to be a "genocide". That is really not a sound argument when we are talking about a huge chunk of the overall population being killed systematically.


    Just look at the public statements being at the time by ambassadors to Ottoman Empire from the US.Henry Morgenthau Sr., the neutral American ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, sent a cable to the U.S. State Department in 1915:
    "Deportation of and excesses against peaceful Armenians is increasing and from harrowing reports of eye witnesses [sic] it appears that a campaign of race extermination is in progress under a pretext of reprisal against rebellion."
    Last edited by chilon; January 22, 2015 at 02:12 PM.
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "We have a protractor."

    Under Patronage of: Captain Blackadder

  13. #53
    Thanatos's Avatar Now Is Not the Time
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,188

    Default Re: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    The UN definition relies on intent. Just because conditions for death exists doesn't make it a genocide. The conditions has to exist or be utilized for the intention to kill.

    What the numbers suggest is a lack of intent. You can't claim that someone was shooting 10 people in the head at close range and have 5 out of 10 people have no head wounds. Gas chambers were used to kill Jews and others. Pretty much all the people that entered those chambers died as intended. Relocating Armenians to riverside towns either through marches or train (for those who could afford it) doesn't really paint the same picture.
    Because people have never before been forcibly moved from point A to point B, and the dominant group enforcing said move didn't care about how many died along the way, as long as said move was completed. Never ever. None.

    As I said before, it's why the American Trail of Tears has been classified as a genocide, even though there was no intent to kill. Not every single genocide needs to be the Nazis.

  14. #54

    Default Re: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

    Quote Originally Posted by chilon View Post
    You are the one that doesn't seem to be basing things off of historical facts and pure propaganda from the Turkish government.

    Your entire argument that it was "not a genocide" seems entirely based on the most ridiculous logic "well, we weren't as successful as the Nazis therefore it wasn't a genocide".

    The key is WHAT the Ottoman government was doing. They were trying to systematically eliminate all Armenians. Thats the facts. Also relevant is the fact that all the European powers saw what was happening and called it a genocide. That includes the three Ottoman enemies but ALSO the Ottoman's two allies. See I am basing my information on what the best academic historians of this time period have researched and also what the European powers were all saying at the time. The Ottomans systematically tried to eliminate all the Armenians in their empire. That is fact. Even the Ottoman's allies acknowledged that. In academia this is not even a debatable issue. You are attempting to use your own personal, arbitrary definition of the word "genocide" to make an argument for it not being it. You are trying to re-define genocide as needing some arbitrary level of success to be considered a genocide. That is not how the great powers at the time felt and it is not how all the rest of the civilized nations of the world look at the issue. Turkey doesn't get to re-define genocide for the rest of the world to suit its own interests.

    These are the basic facts that academics across the world accept.

    "First the Armenians in the army were disarmed, placed into labor battalions, and then killed.Then the Armenian political and intellectual leaders were rounded up on April 24, 1915, and then killed.
    Finally, the remaining Armenians were called from their homes, told they would be relocated, and then marched off to concentration camps in the desert between Jerablus and Deir ez-Zor where they would starve and thirst to death in the burning sun.
    On the march, often they would be denied food and water, and many were brutalized and killed by their "guards" or by "marauders." The authorities in Trebizond, on the Black Sea coast, did vary this routine: they loaded Armenians on barges and sank them out at sea.
    The Turkish government today denies that there was an Armenian genocide and claims that Armenians were only removed from the eastern "war zone." The Armenian Genocide, however, occurred all over Anatolia [present-day Turkey], and not just in the so-called "war zone." Deportations and killings occurred in the west, in and around Ismid (Izmit) and Broussa (Bursa); in the center, in and around Angora (Ankara); in the south-west, in and around Konia (Konya) and Adana (which is near the Mediterranean Sea); in the central portion of Anatolia, in and around Diyarbekir (Diyarbakir), Harpout (Harput), Marash, Sivas (Sepastia), Shabin Kara-Hissar (�ebin Karahisar), and Ourfa (Urfa); and on the Black Sea coast, in and around Trebizond (Trabzon), all of which are not part of a war zone. Only Erzeroum, Bitlis, and Van in the east were in the war zone."

    Again, your entire argument seems based around the idea that "The Turks were not quite as successful at killing as many as the Nazis". That is your argument. They weren't successful enough for you for it it to be a "genocide". That is really not a sound argument when we are talking about a huge chunk of the overall population being killed systematically.
    Making stuff up about what I argue won't really make your propaganda more valid. Just to clarify though, care to point out what specific things I did not base on historical facts?

    Meanwhile, you need to realize that there is no academic consensus on the subject as you seemed to be implying. I almost always base all my points on what I gathered from Western scholars or sources.


    Quote Originally Posted by Thanatos View Post
    Because people have never before been forcibly moved from point A to point B, and the dominant group enforcing said move didn't care about how many died along the way, as long as said move was completed. Never ever. None.

    As I said before, it's why the American Trail of Tears has been classified as a genocide, even though there was no intent to kill. Not every single genocide needs to be the Nazis.
    I don't know much about the American Trail of Tears but UN classification of genocide specifically requires intent.
    The Armenian Issue

  15. #55
    Thanatos's Avatar Now Is Not the Time
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    33,188

    Default Re: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    I don't know much about the American Trail of Tears but UN classification of genocide specifically requires intent.
    Intent isn't exactly a binary thing, you know. Secondly, I listed the Trail of Tears because it shares much in commonality with the Armenian genocide in terms of the preceding history between the moved group and the moving group (generally speaking), and the basic underlying facts.
    Last edited by Thanatos; January 22, 2015 at 02:27 PM.

  16. #56

    Default Re: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Making stuff up about what I argue won't really make your propaganda more valid. Just to clarify though, care to point out what specific things I did not base on historical facts?
    Your argument is based on trying to redefine genocide. You are arguing that it was not a genocide because it wasn't as successful as the Nazis therefore it was not a genocide. I guess a "campaign of racial extermination" doesn't count as a genocide to you?

    The historical facts you are ignoring is the Ottoman Turks history of arbitrary massacring large numbers of Armenians as I already showed is on the historical record. Then you are ignoring what all the European powers including your allies and the US called a "campaign of racial extermination". For you to deny a campaign of racial extermination is a genocide, you are really trying to parse and argue semantics instead of facing the issue that by all accounts, what happen was a genocide. It may not have been as successful as the Ottoman Young Turks wanted but it clearly happened. The word genocide also didn't exist until 1944. So there is that. Its why Europeans and the US were calling it a "campaign of racial extermination".

    Meanwhile, you need to realize that there is no academic consensus on the subject as you seemed to be implying. I almost always base all my points on what I gathered from Western scholars or sources.
    There is a strong academic consensus. That's like claiming there is not an "academic consensus" on climate change. Sure maybe 5% or so don't agree. That's not very strong.
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "We have a protractor."

    Under Patronage of: Captain Blackadder

  17. #57

    Default Re: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanatos View Post
    Intent isn't exactly a binary thing, you know.
    It pretty much is. How is it not?

    Disregard for human safety for whatever reason does not establish intent to exterminate. The sad thing is that if Ottomans did not try to relocate Armenians probably a lot more people would die on both sides. The whole Eastern front would collapse and ethnic violence would be at maximum between villages and city districts.

    It was already happening:
    Notes by the Legation Councillor in the Foreign Office Rosenberg

    Berlin, 1 October 1915
    All of the arguments which speak for considerate treatment of the Armenian population in Turkey were presented forcefully today to the Council of the Turkish Embassy. Because of the persecution and annihilation of the Armenian element, in Turkey one of the mainstays of commerce and industry, Turkey itself was most severely injured economically. The news concerning the persecution of the Armenians caused a great stir not only in hostile, but also in neutral countries abroad and was detrimental to the Turkish government’s reputation. A lively unrest was beginning to make itself noticed in philanthropic circles in Germany.

    Edhem Bey promised to speak to the ambassador and also to report to Constantinople. He admitted that riots had taken place, even if the news that was spread abroad was grossly exaggerated. Until the spring of this year there had been quite a good relationship between the Armenians and the Turks, all the more explained by the fact that during the period of revolution the Armenians had sympathised with the Committee and together they had taken action against the old regime. A drastic change had first come about in April, when the Armenians revolted behind the Turkish army during the Turkish advance on Azerbaijan, during which no fewer than 180000 Mohammedans were killed. Thus, it was not surprising that the Mohammedans had taken their revenge for this. The removal of the Armenians into the interior was necessary for military reasons and in the interest of Turkey’s self-preservation. If attacks had been carried out during this, they were most certainly disapproved of by the central government. Unfortunately, because of the large spatial distances and the primitive conditions of the empire, the central government was not always in a position to prevent clumsiness and carelessness in the lower authorities.

    Quote Originally Posted by chilon View Post
    Your argument is based on trying to redefine genocide. You are arguing that it was not a genocide because it wasn't as successful as the Nazis therefore it was not a genocide. I guess a "campaign of racial extermination" doesn't count as a genocide to you?


    The historical facts you are ignoring is the Ottoman Turks history of arbitrary massacring large numbers of Armenians as I already showed is on the historical record. Then you are ignoring what all the European powers including your allies and the US called a "campaign of racial extermination". For you to deny a campaign of racial extermination is a genocide, you are really trying to parse and argue semantics instead of facing the issue that by all accounts, what happen was a genocide. It may not have been as successful as the Ottoman Young Turks wanted but it clearly happened. The word genocide also didn't exist until 1944. So there is that. Its why Europeans and the US were calling it a "campaign of racial extermination".


    There is a strong academic consensus. That's like claiming there is not an "academic consensus" on climate change. Sure maybe 5% or so don't agree. That's not very strong.
    Just as I expected, you can not even name a single specific point that I'm not basing on historical facts. So, you're making stuff up about what I argued. I never argued that it wasn't genocide because it wasn't as successful as the Holocaust.

    The funny part is that you spend more time on claiming that it was a genocide than trying to establish that it was a genocide. I don't really care much about what some people thought sitting in their chair thousands of miles away from the region. You're merely generalizing a lot of eggs in the same basket without much knowledge anyways.

    A huge chunk of the experts (non-Turkish ones) in Ottoman history do not really agree that it was a genocide. I'm shying away from saying most or all of them reject the genocide allegations but most of them that I know do reject it. It's no where near the situation we have with the climate exchange.
    Last edited by PointOfViewGun; January 22, 2015 at 02:48 PM.
    The Armenian Issue

  18. #58

    Default Re: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    I don't know much about the American Trail of Tears but UN classification of genocide specifically requires intent.
    Intent was there anyway.

    Graphic Images:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Last edited by chilon; January 23, 2015 at 09:14 PM.
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "We have a protractor."

    Under Patronage of: Captain Blackadder

  19. #59

    Default Re: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

    Quote Originally Posted by chilon View Post
    Intent was there anyway.

    http://imgur.com/a/WTNM2
    Are you sure to post fake images? I would be shamed if I say Russian soldiers are Ottoman soldiers.
    In tribute to concerned friends:
    - You know nothing Jon Snow.





    Samples from the Turkish Cuisine by white-wolf

  20. #60

    Default Re: ''The Gallipoli centenary is a shameful attempt to hide the Armenian Holocaust''

    Quote Originally Posted by chilon View Post
    ...
    First of all, warn people before posting such pictures. Second, you sort of shot yourself in the leg. I know, for example, at least the soldiers in the last picture are not Ottoman soldiers. They're Russian... Oh also, the dead people in that picture are circumcised.

    Then one could ask, do you have any context for these pictures? Where were they taken? When were they taken? Who are the people in the pictures? What happened? The brutality of the scene alone does not somehow support the genocide allegations.
    Last edited by PointOfViewGun; January 22, 2015 at 03:04 PM.
    The Armenian Issue

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •