Biden says Armenian mass killing was genocide- What next for Turkish - US Relations?

[PointOfViewGun]

Let’s all take a moment. We all agree the Armenian genocide happened and was propagated by the Ottomans. No one is denying such a well established historical fact.
Other atrocities in wars occur but this thread is about the systematic genocide perpetrated on the innocent Armenian people by the Turks as a mechanism of fear.

No, we don't. You are propagating a lie while ignoring countless evidence against it. I reject it with the support of that evidence.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The intentions of the Armenian groups at the time was laid out by Cyrus Hamlin, a well-known American missionary, in a letter in 1893:

Letter from Mr. Cyrus Hamlin in regard to Armenian revolutionary organizations

An Armenian "revolutionary party" is causing great evil and suffering to the missionary work and to the whole Christian population of certain parts of the Turkish Empire. It is a secret organization and is managed with a skill in deceit which is known only in the East.

In a widely distributed pamphlet the following announcement is made at the close:

"This is the only Armenian party which is leading on the revolutionary movement in Armenia. Its center is Athens, and it has branches in every village and city in Armenia; also in the colonies. Nishan Garabedian, one of the founders of the party, is in America, and those desiring to get further information may communicate with him, addressing Nishan Garabedian, No. 15 Fountain Street. Worcester, Mass., or with the center, M. Beniard, Poste Restante, Athens, Greece."

A very intelligent Armenian gentleman, who speaks fluently and correctly English as well as Armenian, and is an eloquent defender of the revolution, assured me that they have the strongest hopes of preparing the way for Russia's enhance to Asia Minor to take possession. In answer to the question as how, he replied: "These Huntchaguist bands, organized all over the empire, will watch their opportunities to kill Turks and Koords, set fire to their villages, and then make their escape into the mountains. The enraged Moslems will then rise and fall upon the defenseless Armenians and slaughter them with such barbarities that Russia will enter, in the name of humanity and Christian civilization and take possession."

When I denounced the scheme as atrocious and infernal beyond anything ever known, he calmly replied: "It appears so to you, no doubt; but we Armenians are determined to be free. Europe listened to the Bulgarian horrors and made Bulgaria flee. She will listen to our cry when it goes up in the shrieks and blood of millions of women and children." I urged in vain that this scheme would make the very name of Armenian hateful among all civilized people. He replied: "We are desperate; we shall do it."

"But your people do not want Russian protection. They prefer Turkey, bad as she is. There are hundreds of miles of conterminous territory into which emigration is easy at all times. It has been so for all the centuries of the Moslem rule. If your people preferred the Russian Government, there would not be now an Armenian family in Turkey."

"Yes," he replied, "and for such stupidity they will have to suffer."

I have had conversations with others who avow the same things, but no one acknowledges that he is a member of the party. Falsehood is, of course, justifiable where murder and arson are.

In Turkey the party aims to excite the Turks against Protestant missionaries and against Protestant Armenians. All the troubles at Marsovan originated in their movements. They are cunning, unprincipled and cruel. They terrorize their own people by demanding contributions of money under threats of assassination - a threat which has often been put in execution.

I have made the mildest possible disclosure of only a few of the abominations of this Huntchaguist revolutionary party. It is of Russian origin; Russian gold and craft govern it. Let all missionaries, home and foreign, denounce it. Let all Protestant Armenians everywhere boldly denounce it. It is trying to enter every Sunday school and deceive and pervert the innocent and ignorant into supporters of this craft. We must therefore be careful that in befriending Armenians we do nothing that can be construed into an approval of this movement which all should abhor. While yet we recognize the probability that some Armenians in this country, ignorant of the real object and cruel designs of the Huntchaguists, are led by their patriotism to join with them, and while we sympathize with the sufferings of the Armenians at home, we must stand aloof from any such desperate attempts, which contemplate the destruction of Protestant missions, churches, schools and Bible work, involving all in a common ruin that is diligently and craftily sought. Let all home and foreign missionaries beware of any alliance with or countenance of the Huntchaguists.”

The Huntchaguist he is referring to is the Social Democrat Hunchakian Party that was founded in 1887. They were one of the major groups that helped Russians behind the front lines in Ottoman empire during WWI.

[Sir Adrian]

That still does not excuse the genocide.

[Hobbes]

Yes, its government brain washing to ask students to do their research based on non-national sources. Very evil. Much denial. Amazing how low standards some people are willing to utilize to keep a false narrative alive.

You jest but one of the main missions of any self-respecting nation state schooling system is to ensure the perpetuation of nationalist ideals. Given that all national narratives are based on distortions of history, then it's not hard to believe that Turkish schools also spread this conspiracy theory which is integral to the national narrative of Turkey.

[Principe Alessandro]

I think that the whole question comes down to the fact that Turkey has really weak foundations upon which the national identity is built upon, to admit the Armenian Genocide means to admit that many of the historical events which led to the creation of the modern Turkish state has to be viewed in a completely different way but this opens many other issues in the light of the ongoing political situation.

Remember that still now there is an ongoing issue with another ethnic group which are the Kurds with separatist tendencies, paradoxically speaking if Turkey by now was a monoethnic state recognizing the Armenian Genocide would be a lot easier because there won't be any internal repercussion to the stability and unity of the Turkish state.

[Cyclops]

I think that the whole question comes down to the fact that Turkey has really weak foundations upon which the national identity is built upon, to admit the Armenian Genocide means to admit that many of the historical events which led to the creation of the modern Turkish state has to be viewed in a completely different way but this opens many other issues in the light of the ongoing political situation.

I see it a little differently, I think the republic of Turkiyye was given an extremely strong basis by strong leadership in the face of very strong colonial and Balkanising pressures in the course and aftermath of WWI. I mean Australia went there in the name of British oil interests taking over the Near and Middle Eastern wells, and incidentally so France could have Syria and Lebanon, and maybe Adana for Italy (noble goals! much justice!), and palestine for 9consults list) oh dear we promised it to everybody.

Its worth noting that Turkish nationalism does compete with emerging (eg Laz) and competing (Hellenic, Hai, Kurdish) national identities, but also with modern foreign "empires" like Russia and the US, as well as aspirant Islamic polities. Its somewhat reminiscent of Israel (where Turkiyye does get involved in clashes) in that there's a whole bunch of fat and thin fingers trying to poke into what the Turks see as their pie.

Certainly Turkiyye is sinning as well as sinned against, with adventures in Cyprus and Syria as obvious examples.

Taking a Machiavellian view, Erdogan (like all previous Presidents) refusing to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide is a sound political move. It maintains a grudge against foreign interference and a clear national enemy, and its a handy shibboleth.

I'd love a truth and reconciliation commission for the eastern end of the Ottoman fragmentation events, but its a bit late, I think everyone involved is dead now. I'd love Hayastan (sp?) and Turkiyye to have a solid relationship with its neighbours but even if they wanted it the bigger boys (US and Russia) likely have other plans.

[enoch]

What I never get is Turkey should just wipe its hands of it. Modern Turkey is as much the Ottoman Empire as Italy is the Roman one. Turkey has no real claim to the greatness of the Ottomans. Especially with the theocracy and tinpot dictatorship of Erdogan. Not even a democracy anymore.

[Derc]

There is a difference between ~2000 and a ~hundred years, with all the ethnic, religious, and cultural wipes in between. 1915 CE feels much more recent than 146 BCE, doesn't it?

[enoch]

Are you familiar with Cleon?

[Derc]

Nah. What answers does this guy have?

[enoch]

Well. Everything important that every happened and the entire progress of history all started a long time ago in Greece...

bear with me I know how silly this sounds

As long as Erdogan is able by hook or crook to maintain his tyranny US Turkish relations are just good enough to not let Russia own the would be theocracy.

[Derc]

Yeah, this saying holds a lot of truth in the wider standpoint, especially relating to the topic. Kudos for that.

Erdogan is a man of the past. Most of the issues today result from the past. Instead of acknowledging failure, and be open to conversation, what is going up there is the exact opposite of it. Everyone that s around, not even Kurds, is shut down. When ISIS brought instability, there were notable dreams of old Turkish days, "bringing stability to this troubled region". They aren't gone.

If anything Biden says about the region, and however Turkey reacts, it is just a mirror of said old days.


Edit: Ironic that my 1453th post is about Turkey, and old days.

[Sir Adrian]

What I never get is Turkey should just wipe its hands of it. Modern Turkey is as much the Ottoman Empire as Italy is the Roman one. Turkey has no real claim to the greatness of the Ottomans. Especially with the theocracy and tinpot dictatorship of Erdogan. Not even a democracy anymore.

Turkey is the legal successor of the Ottoman Empire, just like the Federal German Republic is the legal successor of Imperial Germany and the 5th French Republic is the legal successor of the 4th, etc, etc. The principle of national succession is pretty well defined in international law.

[antaeus]

Turkey is the legal successor of the Ottoman Empire, just like the Federal German Republic is the legal successor of Imperial Germany and the 5th French Republic is the legal successor of the 4th, etc, etc. The principle of national succession is pretty well defined in international law.

With respect to Turkey and the Ottoman Empire, there is extensive academic dispute amongst international relations academics as to whether it qualifies as a successor state, or a continuing state, and in international law there is a difference. The Ottoman Empire can be argued as Turkish centred, but pan-ethnic in nature, and Turkish nationalism, and the ensuing war of independence played it's part in the Ottoman dissolution alongside Greek, Bulgarian, Armenian, Arab etc etc nationalist movements.

Either way, I think you miss the point Enoch was making. Currently, the Armenian genocide is a leverage point that is used all over the place by everyone. Biden didn't acknowledge the genocide because he was sad it happened. He did it deliberately for his own reasons. Armenia drew upon it as a source of legitimacy and an emotive appeal for international sympathy in last year's conflict with Azerbaijan. Anyone who has a disagreement with Turkey can draw upon it to undermine virtually any PR position Turkey takes. It creates an almost laughable level of national insecurity, comparable in international dialogue to the Chinese treatment of Uyghurs, even though it happened a century ago in a previous iteration of the country. Moving on could even allow an honest exploration of the roles of all of the belligerents - including Russia and the Armenian population themselves.

I guess I have a different perspective, living in a former colony who's entire history was built off the back of acknowledged exploitation, ethnic cleansing, genocide etc. Where there were people who weren't legally considered people so were hunted like game. Where my own ancestors through either their own wilful ignorance or deliberate action contributed to this happening. So I grew up not feeling any sense of infallibility or superiority of ancestry. I feel like acknowledging past wrongs is an important way to render them irrelevant as future political leverage.

Turkey could easily claim moral high ground over their own ancestors, acknowledge that it happened (without apologising for the actions of a former ideologically different government), distance themselves from it, and watch as their adversaries drop it as an ongoing PR weapon.

Of course, the irony is that Erdogan has tied his flag to the Ottoman mast. So any soul searching about anything that the Ottomans did will undermine him. So I don't expect any introspection on the past any time soon.

[enoch]

Or if you prefer the type of people who have concluded owning a mistake their ancestors made is too close to weakness aren’t typically the best of us. Nor the wisest. Nor are those who follow them.

[conon394]

Are you familiar with Cleon?

Yes - to what point.

[Condottiere 40K]

Any other country whose self image is so closely linked in with their history?

Even Kazakhstan seems to have forgiven Sacha Baron Cohen.

[enoch]

Yes - to what point.

The world is full of Cleons leading nations great and small at the moment.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Is there any sort of summary post that isn't a multi-page slog against the genocide being a thing? I'd rather see that argument made all at once including supporting evidence, what I skim looks like a reactionist mess.

[PointOfViewGun]

Is there any sort of summary post that isn't a multi-page slog against the genocide being a thing? I'd rather see that argument made all at once including supporting evidence, what I skim looks like a reactionist mess.

The claim: Ottoman Empire planned and carried out systematic annihilation of the Armenian population through marching them into the desert or outright massacring them where 1.5 million Armenians were killed.

What happened: Various Armenian groups were in league with the Russians to help them advance on the eastern front in exchange for an Armenian state. While about 50 thousand of Ottoman Armenians crossed the border to fight under Russians against Ottomans, many others were conducting guerrilla warfare against Ottoman lines of communications and logistics. To combat this, Ottoman government signed the Tehcir Law that would forcefully relocate Armenians in eastern Anatolian provinces to southern Ottoman provinces. Those that could afford were allowed to use the train to travel. Those that could not were marched along the Euphrates to their destinations. Meanwhile, many perished due to famine, diseases and ethnic clashes between Armenians, Kurds and Turks. Just like many Armenians talk of great grand parents with stories of Turks or Kurds burning their villages, many Turks or Kurds talk of great grand parents with stories of Armenians burning their villages. There were also a number of rebellion attempts throughout these provinces where many number of people on both sides perished.

Intent: The most important aspect of a genocide label is intent. For this to be a genocide we need a central figure, aka the Ottoman government, to plan and execute a campaign of massacres. There was no such order. To the contrary, there was a clear attempt from Ottoman government combat any abuses of this process and Turkish courts martial were set up in 1915-1916 that tried a number of people for their crimes against the state and the Armenians. Of course, given the dwindling resources and local enmities between different ethnicities greatly undercut those efforts, though it didn't stop from having a few people hanged. There are also many military communications displaying Ottoman efforts in trying to allocate more resources to relocation process to alleviate the hardships. To counter this, now infamous Talat Pasha Telegrams were produced by an Armenian after WWI. Those telegrams were one of the pillars that carried genocide allegations for so long. They showed a direct order from Talat pasha for the massacre of Armenians. These were later proven to be forgeries that didn't meet basic requirements of authentication.

Testimonies: Much of the genocide allegations rely on testimonies of various people. Their words usually rely on hearsay and nothing more. Even then most simply painted a miserable situation that didn't necessarily support genocide allegations. One important name is Henry Morgenthau who was the USA's ambassador to Ottoman Empire between 1913 to 1916. His book "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" is one of the holy books for people that support the Armenian allegations. It is well-known that the wanted USA to enter World War I and that he was using Armenian suffering to pressure his government to act. His telegrams give depictions of the situation in Eastern Anatolia, yet he never left Constantinople. Instead, he relied on a number of Armenians to collect information. After all, he wrote that Turks and Muslims were an inferior race. Yet, his book often differs from his personal notes or reports sent to USA based on extensive research. One important example is how while in his diaries he records Talat Pasha telling him that the deportation columns of Armenians will be protected and that any mistreatment will be punishment, this does not make it into the book. While the book calls Talat Pasha "bloodthirsty and ferocious" his letter to Robert Lansing, secretary of state, that he had a very cordial and intimate relationship with Talat and Enver Pashas. Morgenthau, on many occasions quoted people saying unfavorable stuff based on claimed sources only for the sources to have no such recording of those words. In any case, he relied heavily on his secretary who was Armenian, Hagop S. Hagopian. Even well-known Armenian historian Dadrian acknowledges that Morgenthau may have "submitted to the impulses of his ghost-writer". Yet, go into any discussion on the subject of Armenian allegations and Morgenthau's words will be thrown in as the holy grail. This doesn't mean all testimonies gave the same picture. While many focused on sufferings of Armenians others were more impartial (the original in Swedish).

Population and casualties: We know for a fact that there were 1.2 million Armenians from pre-war Ottoman territories in 1922. At that time, there were still about 150 thousand in Constantinople, and 131 thousand in Anatolia that remained under Turkish control after the war. Also, based on an other document, we know about 500 thousand Armenians reached their destinations in southern Ottoman provinces. For the 1.5 million Armenian casualties number to be true there had to be over 2.5 million Armenians in overall Ottoman territories before WWI. Only the highest estimates from the Armenian patriarch reaches that number. Most sources settle on somewhere around 1.5 to 1.8 million for Ottoman Armenian population. While an internal Ottoman census from 1914 counted little over 1.2 million Armenians in the empire (adjusted to 1.5 million for inaccuracies) an other patriarch census from the same time frame found little over 1.9 million. It's next to impossible for a million Armenians to have died during that period, let alone 1.5 million. The more likely number lies somewhere around 600 thousand where many of that died from famine, diseases and basic ethnic clashes. While how many people died certainly doesn't change whether it was a genocide or not it helps to put things in perspective and the extent of allegation's credibility. The 1.5 million number does not exist to reflect historical facts but to sway people's reactions.

Academia: Armenian allegations are portrayed as a product of academic consensus. The truth could not be further from that. For this I'll copy paste what I said before:

I don't rely on what some random Turkish historian says. Primarily I rely on primary sources. After that I rely on likes of Bernard Lewis, British American historian from Princeton University who is the expert on anything Ottoman. I rely on Edward J. Erickson, American historian from Marine Corps University who is an expert on WWI era Ottoman military. I rely on Justin McCarthy, American historian from University of Louisville who is an expert on late Ottoman demographics. Given any other subject these historians would be sought out for their expertise on Ottoman Empire, yet, about the genocide allegations they're either ignored or become victims of false character assassination. The list goes on; Stanford Shaw, American historian from Stanford University, Jeremy Salt, Australian historian from Melbourne University, Norman Stone, British historian from Cambridge and Oxford Universities, Malcolm Yapp, British historian from SOAS University of London, Guenter Lewy, German American historian from University of Massachusetts-Amherst and so on and on. For a good summary of the entire debate you can read "The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide" by Guenter Lewy.

There are many other subjects in this debate. I can go on and on. Obviously, I can't explain every little detail here right away. I might even be completely forgetting very important bits. There are many other parts that needs explaining for sure. However, for starters, Guenter Lewy's book "The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide" from 2005 is a great start that brings together arguments from both sides with subsequent analysis.

[Sir Adrian]

With respect to Turkey and the Ottoman Empire, there is extensive academic dispute amongst international relations academics as to whether it qualifies as a successor state, or a continuing state, and in international law there is a difference.

The disputes between international relations academics mean diddly because they don't have a say in the matter. State succession is handled exclusively by international law following the principle of state succession, which sets out very clear criteria and precedents. Of course there is a statute of limitations, so Britain can't show up and demand repayment for a loan made in 1650, but beyond that everything you wrote there is inconsequential. As we say here in Romania, where there is law, there is no bargaining.

Whether you want believe Turkey is the successor or not, it's up to you. But legally, Turkey is the successor, and I invite anyone who says otherwise to consult a lawyer specialized in international law.