Armenian Genocide

In all the time I've been here I don't think I've ever seen a thread on this issue. I'm wondering about some of the issues to do with it. Many people who take the Turkish side say that the Armenians massacred as many Turks. I even heard the estimate half a million. In particular in the Van Uprising and the Russian invasion of Anatolia. I was wondering what the counter argument to this is because I've mostly just heard the Turkish side.

I was reading about the Kennedy assasonation yesterday ad it reminded me of reading about the Armenian genocide because it seems like in both situations instead of not having enough information there's actually too much information and its hard to sift through it and the accuracy of everything and people with ulterior motives.

NovaKart said:

Many people who take the Turkish side say that the Armenians massacred as many Turks. I even heard the estimate half a million.

Click to expand...

I'm always baffled by people who take this line of reasoning, since it would be a tacit admission that the Metz Yeghern still happened. It would only mean that there would have been a genocide of Turks as well. I'm not knowledgable enough about the Turkish casualties of WWI to give an educated answer on that, but the Armenian genocide sure as hell did happen.

On the other hand, a major disease in common historical narratives is that war crimes against the "bad guys"/by the "good guys" of a conflict tends to be chronically overlooked. You rarely hear anyone about the forced population transfer of ethnic Germans after WWII, which killed up to 3 million. Since WWI Germany and its allies (including the Turks, perhaps especially the Turks) are also popularly vilified, this is part of the problem.

Also note that genocide denial is primarily a political thing that is almost never motivated by honest observations. For example, virtually all Holocaust deniers are anti-semites and/or neo-fascists. Armenian genocide denialism may seem more legimate because unlike Holocaust denialism, it is rarely motivated by the desire of promoting anti-national sentiment (in this case, against Armenians) or rehabilitating a totalitarian ideology, but more a by a misguided Pro-Turkish nationalism/philia. Still politically motivated denialism nevertheless.

Israel hasn't recognised the Armenian genocide.

Says it all, really.

All should take the Hypocritic oath.

Since Turkey is one of the few Muslim majority states Israel is reasonably friendly with (and Azerbaijan is the other), it's quite obvious from a political standpoint. Basically illustrates my point about historical revisionism being primarily motivated by politics than anything else.

Since history is primarily motivated and shaped by politics, also historical revisionism has to be.

After all, historical revisionism is nothing more than part of history (or will be called history in the future).

Israel hasn't recognised the Armenian genocide.

Says it all, really.

Click to expand...

So what ??? The USA also hasn't recognised the Armenian genocide.

Says it all - namely that both states want to have good relations with Turkey...

And what did you think? Or maybe I should not ask this question...

===============================

PS:

When did Western democracies officially recognize that the Katyn Murder was a Soviet crime ???

As long as they wanted to have good relations with Uncle Stalin and his kind, they were not recognizing this fact.

http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/Armenia/justin.html

This is from Dr. Justin McCarthy. He's from the institute of Turkish studies in the USA and he delivered this speech at the National Assembly in Turkey, something like that. It is very long but if someone would like it would be interesting to get some feedback.

I haven't read it all but I've heard some people contradict the idea that most Armenians were wealthy.

Domen said:

Since history is primarily motivated and shaped by politics, also historical revisionism has to be.

After all, historical revisionism is nothing more than part of history (or will be called history in the future).



So what ??? The USA also hasn't recognised the Armenian genocide.

Says it all - namely that both states want to have good relations with Turkey...

And what did you think? Or maybe I should not ask this question...

===============================

PS:

When did Western democracies officially recognize that the Katyn Murder was a Soviet crime ???

As long as they wanted to have good relations with Uncle Stalin and his kind, they were not recognizing this fact.

Click to expand...

What?

Try adding 2+2. Israel is fine to insist that the jewish genocide must be remembered for all time, but does not even recognise another major genocide. Maybe try to be less knee-jerk/agenda'd next time mkay?

According to wikipedia, a certain Josef Shagal (a Jew from Israel) said:

"I find it is deeply offensive, and even blasphemous to compare the Holocaust of European Jewry during the Second World War with the mass extermination of the Armenian people during the First World War. Jews were killed because they were Jews, but Armenians provoked Turkey and should blame themselves."



So Jews were killed not because they provoked the Nazis ??? Being Jews does not involve provocation in itself, but being Armenians does?

Kyriakos said:

What?

Try adding 2+2. Israel is fine to insist that the jewish genocide must be remembered for all time, but does not even recognise another major genocide. Maybe try to be less knee-jerk/agenda'd next time mkay?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately these things are so intertwined with politics.

I got to ask about m'kay, you just don't seem like the sort of person who would watch South Park. Did you pick that up from this forum?

Mostly :/ I have watched a clip of the southpark movie and that character singing about Canada

But indeed i dislike southpark.

It think its a very funny show but I don't think the movie was good at all. It's a funny social commentary.

Kyriakos said:

What?

Try adding 2+2. Israel is fine to insist that the jewish genocide must be remembered for all time, but does not even recognise another major genocide. Maybe try to be less knee-jerk/agenda'd next time mkay?

Click to expand...

Countries are hypocritical in general about foreign policy. Israel's stance on the Armenian Genocide is hardly the only hypocritical thing about Israeli foreign policy and Israel is hardly the only hypocritical country in terms of foreign policy.

Due to matters of political survival, very few countries can actually afford to be morally upright, if any. It is perhaps better to address to political issues that are causing nations to engage in unethical behavior rather than directly dealing with the unethical behavior itself.

^I agree that Israel would be on the same level of hypocricy as virtually everyone else, IF it did not always support going on about how it is a nation formed by the offspring of victims of a major genocide.

I mean if you base who you are on demanding others to care about the genocide against you, you should at least try to show you give a crap about another major genocide such as the Armenian one.

Our world is messed-up in many ways, and the Arab-Israel situation and all it enables to perpetuate is not really the smallest of those, despite not being the only one.

Yet the world has never been messed up in only as few ways as it is today before.

What else would you like to change about the Arab-Israel situation?

So far Israel has repulsed all Arab invasions, so it is quite fine.

Israel's going on about how it is a nation of Holocaust victims, is to be admired. Their historical policy is an example to follow for other peoples who suffered at Germany's hands. Israel's harsh policy towards Germany - and Israel's memory of the Holocaust - is what prevents the German dog from barking (remember the poem: "In the nightmare of the dark, All the dogs of Europe bark..."?) and prevents it from transforming into its old, nasty form again.

Modern Germany is so polite and tolerant - harnessed, we can say - thanks to Israel and its harsh German policies.

It is a pity, that other peoples who also suffered because of Germany - for example Gypsies - are not able to suppress Germany as much as Jews can.

Domen said:

Modern Germany is so polite and tolerant - harnessed, we can say - thanks to Israel and its harsh German policies.

Click to expand...

The Armenian community is arguably a lot harsher and resentful towards Turkey than the Jewish community or Israel towards Germany. Which is kind of understandable: Imagine that the Holocaust as it was known was not committed by Nazis but by Arab nationalists and after 1948 all the Israeli-Arab wars as we know them broke out. This is basically how the Armenian situation can be likened.

Germany's überpoliteness was forced upon by the Western allies. And West Germany's wiedergutmachungs payments to Israel were mostly to gain the legitimacy of the International community and prevent it from being seen as a new Nazi state as the Soviets alleged, as East Germany was already paying wiedergutmachungs payments to the USSR even though those payments - unlike FRG's payments to Israel - was pimped out extortion money.

Kaiserguard said:

The Armenian community is arguably a lot harsher and resentful towards Turkey than the Jewish community or Israel towards Germany.

Click to expand...

That's perhaps because German chancellor already admitted that "Memory of the Holocaust will always remain part of German identity".

And Turkey is still denying its crimes.

Indeed - Germany has already paid the Jews the money they deserved. Germany has already apologized the Jews. Etc., etc.

Turkey has not did anything towards reconcilliation so far, on the other hand.

and why that would happen even if the entire run of goverments after 1938 have been or actively tried to be puppets of Western capitals ? There has been this substantial Goverment supported , media worked campaign to actually "accept" the thing after putting the blame on the "Old" Republic . Turned out there would still be all sorts of demands , a reason why this brilliantly democratic New Turkey is unfolding .

but then we won't be alive or something by the end of this year , right Uncle Sam ?

the Armenian issue is solely a design to put enough blame to get the ball rolling -don't expect the "truth" , in its many guises . The ball would have been rolling long ago , but America is veeeeeery lazy .

I haven't read it all but I've heard some people contradict the idea that most Armenians were wealthy.

Click to expand...

the democratic new Turkey is defined by everybody talking anything on TV and from that you learn Armenians were all taught the arts and artizanship by the Missionaries and they stole the jobs from the "ancestors" of those countryside bigshots . Any traveller's book about the Anatolia of 1800s mentions the Turks were starving farmers and Goverment Officials in banditry and nothing else . ı wouldn't be surprised at all to see they were richer and actually more influential on an individual basis ; doesn't refute the Armenian Community also had many paupers .

Kaiserguard said:

I'm always baffled by people who take this line of reasoning, since it would be a tacit admission that the Metz Yeghern still happened. It would only mean that there would have been a genocide of Turks as well.

Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't. All it means is that both sides took casualties in a war which dovetails with the claim that the Armenians were really only a fifth column for the Russians.

Kaiserguard said:

On the other hand, a major disease in common historical narratives is that war crimes against the "bad guys"/by the "good guys" of a conflict tends to be chronically overlooked. You rarely hear anyone about the forced population transfer of ethnic Germans after WWII, which killed up to 3 million. Since WWI Germany and its allies (including the Turks, perhaps especially the Turks) are also popularly vilified, this is part of the problem.

Click to expand...

I don't buy this view. It might apply in some limited cases, e.g. World War II. But in a lot of conflicts the "common historical narrative" (whatever that is) is quite willing to admit war-crimes by both sides. See: Vietnam.

Kyriakos said:

Israel hasn't recognised the Armenian genocide.

Says it all, really.

All should take the Hypocritic oath.

Click to expand...

100 times this. In an exhibition on "genocide" in Israel, the exhibit of the Armenian genocide was removed at the request of Turkey. Just one of the reasons why i ignore any Israeli who tries to justify their nations existence based upon what happened in the holocaust.

Thats off topic though. I think its difficult in labelling something as "genocide", because its such a politically and emotionally charged word. I certainly dont deny that Armenians died in large numbers. But if you label one thing as genocide where do you stop? You could say that the US's extermination of native American tribes, each of which should be viewed as a distinct ethnic group (the Cherokee, the Shosone etc) was genocide. Some tribes had an almost 100% mortality rate, which is something to think about.

I dont think we have evolved enough to properly understand or deal with genocide. It should be simple - killing is wrong for whatever reason. But, alas, the political and emotional baggage that it creates carries on into future generations and colors peoples minds. I guess if we could properly explain and understand it then it would be possible to stop people who were sexually abused when they were younger from abusing their own children.