Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Today is a day to remember all the Armenians, Assyrians, and Greek civilians who were slaughtered in cold blood simply because Turkey had couldn't fight a proper war.
Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Today is a day to remember all the Armenians, Assyrians, and Greek civilians who were slaughtered in cold blood simply because Turkey had couldn't fight a proper war.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
As a Greek, I must say that all the claims about a Greek-Pontic genocide are not founded on historical facts.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
Well, I doubt your objectivity on the issue. Pretty much every scholar confirms that the massacres were limited on scope, territorial extension and intent:
https://books.google.fr/books?id=xdB...page&q&f=false
p. 122-123.
https://books.google.fr/books?id=qi9...page&q&f=false
p. 342-343.
More specifically, the text you point to claims:
Originally Posted by The Young Turks' Crime Against HumanitySo in other words they did massacre Greek civilians on multiple occasions, but not to the extent seen with the Armenians.Originally Posted by The Killing Trap - Genocide in the Twentieth Century
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Yes, but there is a difference between a genocide and a massacre.
Why was there, in this case?
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Turks don't deny it was a warcrime, just not a genocide. Austra-Hungary commited simi.ar atrocities in the Balkan-area, was that also genocide or just cruelty. I don't think you can ask from the Turks to admit it was genocide, that is a plan to really kill everythone. That just didn't happen no matter how horrible, the Turks have a point if they say it wasn't a genocide. What Austria-Hungary did we call a punitive-action, what Turkey did genocide, they even admit mass-masscres. Nobody accuses Austria-Hungary of genocide and they killed a staggering amount of people
Last edited by Fragony; 04-24-2017 at 16:09.
What Sarmatian said. Of course the Muslims killed thousands of Greeks, but that still doesn't make it a genocide.
If every massacre was counted as a genocide, then the Muslims would also have been genocided by Armenians and by the mountainous Pontic Greeks. I am all for slandering them, because they collaborated massively with the Nazis in WW2, but let's keep it real.
Downgrading the definition of genocide is self-contradictory, will lead into making the term redundant and will force us into inventing a new word, only for the same circle to repeat itself. Terminology doesn't render the victim's fate less tragic and the perpetrator's decision less despicable.
Partly, I was getting at the war in the 1920s, in which far more Turkish Greeks were killed as part of the final expulsion. The terminology isn't the question here, though "democide" and "ethnic cleansing" are quite appropriate, and universal extermination isn't a defining factor in genocide.
Fragony, Hungary did indeed indulge in genocide against non-Magyars between the wars. No excuses there.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
I believe it is in the intent. If the point is to wipe out a group, it is a genocide.
If the point is to preemptively dispose of anyone who could be a threat, or to sap said group's will to fight/resist, it's not a genocide.
I'm not arguing this particular case, but if we don't agree on a distinction, practically every war in the history of mankind was a genocide.
We might call fire bombing of Tokyo a genocide, then. What was the point of it - to kill a large number of Japanese as possible, with absolutely no distinction between soldiers and civilians (one might argue the point was to kill as many civilians as possible), but it wasn't done to wipe the Japanese out, it was done to force Japan to surrender.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
I was referring to the Greco-Turkish war of the early 20s of course, and on Hungary (with neighbors) see Segal, Genocide in the Carpathians: War, Social Breakdown, and Mass Violence, 1914-1945 (2016).
(The 1920 Treaty of Triannon dismembered the Kingdom of Hungary and parceled out land to its neighbors Austria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland... The following text centers on the sub-Carpathian Rus' region of (Czecho)Slovakia and pieces of it that were annexed by Hungary during 1938, then wholly after the Czechoslovak collapse in 1939; this area also briefly formed a sovereign Carpathian state in 1939, Carpatho-Ukraine.)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
To summarize the text highlights, in the interest of removing non-Magyar races standing in the way of the Hungarian plan, the Hungarian government from March 1939 began the legal and political repression of Ruthenians, Jews, and Roma with arbitrary targeting for detention and murder, recission of citizenship, marriage, and property rights, mass deportation (especially of Jews in the direction of German death squads in Poland/Ukraine), and mass execution of Carpathian militias (and some villagers) during the March '39 annexation. Part of the rationale given for eventually eradicating the Ruthenian population was the specter of Bolshevism, Ukrainophilia, and pan-Slavism.
Importantly for the matter of how to specify genocide, I think we all agree that it isn't simply a synonym for "mass murder". But genocide in international law is treated as an individual criminal act for which individuals may be tried and convicted. We should distinguish (as international law does) between genocide the substantive crime and the modes of liability through which genocide is realized. One such mode is mass murder.
Here are what the Convention stipulates as preconditions:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
For (c), the Trial Chamber has previously stated that immediate death or destruction need not be the objective of policies, and that whether or not the perpetrator may be willing to entertain less destructive "solutions" in the hypothetical does not impinge on decisions actually made or actions undertaken with the specific intent of destruction.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
While I am positive you haven't read all the books you reference, I am impressed you can string together these bite sized little morsels of intellectualism
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
Fair point, but I actually did read the book I referenced just for this thread, as well as parts of Behrens and Henham, Elements of Genocide (2013), in particular the chapters on actus rea and mens rea. The latter is a more legalistic treatment and analysis of the Genocide Convention, the history of its codification, and interpretations given at trial court cases. Crandar and Sarmatian may appreciate it, as the authors tend to endorse a narrower interpretation of the Convention that hews toward biological destruction rather than a broad, "social" interpretation.
It's not very intellectual anyway, but you were fine when I did Arendt I guess.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I was referring to Sarmatian statement
and I kind of offered possible reasons Americans might have had in mind to justify the bombing.
As for the distinction between massacre and genocide I think that genocide is the goal and massacre is one of the means. Genocide may be performed by other means as well - like deliberately starving people to death (as it was with Ukraine in 1932-33).
One should note that there was a substantive difference between Greeks and Armenians. Specifically, there was already a Greek Homelnad beyond Ottoman reach, but there was no equivalent for Armenians, apart from the lesser part of Armenia ruled by the Russians.
It's entirely reasonable to suppose that the Ottoman government calculated that exterminating Pontic Greeks was pointless given the large number of British and American-backed Greeks in Greece. Better to spend you efforts on the more achievable goal of wiping out the Armenians, and only kill Greeks when necessary or profitable, let the rest flee to the Balkans.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
Umm, yes there is. Except for the language, Armenians were part of of the Armenian Apostolic Church and Greeks of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
The Armenians suffered more, not because they lacked foreign sponsors (Russia), but because they lived in the front, like the part of the Pontic Greeks also massacred.
The distinction is even more obvious when we compare them to the much more numerous Greeks living in Smyrna, about whom not even the Golden Dawn claims that they were genocided.
Bookmarks