First Holocaust into XX century

[KrooK]

Yesterday, 24th April there were 91st anniversary of Armenian's massacre.
It was first holocaust into XX century. Worst thing is that Turkey never said even short "sorry" for that crime.

[AntiochusIII]

Pure semantics, but is the word Holocaust really includes all genocides? Or were they specific reference to a type of genocide or just the Nazi genocide?

I'm just wondering, since the word used is not "genocide" as commonly referred to (at least as far as I'm concerned) and "Holocaust."

[Kralizec]

IMHO the Armenian massacre definitely qualifies as a crime against humanity, but not as genocide. If the Turks were really bent on wiping them out, they would have done so without significant trouble.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Well technically a Holocaust is merely a really big fire iirc. So the Holocaust is specifically the Nazi extirmination of many Jews (and other groups) during WWII.

It doesn't really matter though since everyone understands what you mean.

[LeftEyeNine]

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(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.

Since there has never been a genocide, but a great number of deaths between the sides, Armenian Genocide is a lie.

Briefly the Taşnak Sütyan and other minor Armenian gangs inflicted around 500.000 of murders in and around Eastern Anatolia. They were obliged to move to Syria because of such actions and on their way of departure they were killed in high numbers topping 1 million according to some resources.

The new Turkish government and its members had nothing to do with what had been done in that conflict of two nations -which is a civil war more than a genocide. The Turkish government founded in 1920 liberated the nation by opposing all invaders and Ottoman government.

Assuming that even if there is a crime over there, it has nothing to do with Turkey. We are here because Turkish government had opposed Ottoman government by the relevant time.

[The Wizard]

The CUP government ordered it all right, and it was undertaken by Enver Pasha as a result of a recent loss against the Russians in the Caucasus at the time (Sarikamish). The CUP triumvirate overreacted and the result was the deportation of thousands of Armenians, followed by wave after wave of thousands of Muslim (mostly Kurdish) refugees. The social fabric of the region having been ripped to shreds, intercommunal violence ensued as Kurds and locals clashed, hungry and destitute as they were. Armenian volunteers under Russian (or even Russian Armenian) command also played a role in the violence. Few Russian commanders did anything to stop it, and if they did, most of them did too little, or simply couldn't do much. There is, however, a report of an episode around Trabzon where a certain general Schwartz took harsh measures to prevent bloodshed from happening -- but he is the exception that underlines the rule.

At least, that's what we know for real. The extent of the fault of the deaths of these many thousands of refugees really depends on your point of view, although there is certainly logic to be used here, as everywhere.

However, what if the CUP was responsible? So they were Turks. And? The entire ethnic cleansing, be it by the bullet or by the train, was undertaken not by the Turkish Republic as founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk but by the Ottoman Empire, a seperate state altogether (although it was already morphing into a more homogenous state, away from the multicultural character it once possessed, in the first two decades of the 20th century).

But it remains a seperate state. From there two possibilities emerge: either the Republic of Turkey apologizes for the acts of other [dictatorial] representatives of another state -- or it doesn't. Me: I'm leaning towards the latter.

Oh, and keep your cool, guys. Don't give Tarrak a hard time now.

[KrooK]

You agreed that massacre has been done by Turks. In our history books there is being written that "with silent support of nationalist into government".
So - members of government into Ottoman Emperor silently supported massacre or not? If not, what they did to stop it?
So - murders were Turks or not? If they were Turks - anyone tries to judge them?

All in all even if massacre was not a genocide (as keep telling LeftEyeNine), which I simply don't believe - did Turks try to punish murders?
If Turkish government did nothing to punish massacre - it should be something like;

c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

Which means that massacre was a genocide.

In the end I have a question. Did Turkey apologise for massacre? Because even if Turkish Republic did not order massacre ( I agree that it was Ottoman government but massacre has been done by Turks and I think government was rather turkish than kurdish or arab), many it's citizens took part into massacre. I'm not Armenian but i think you definitely should say sorry.

[LeftEyeNine]

Armenian volunteers under Russian (or even Russian Armenian) command also played a role in the violence. Few Russian commanders did anything to stop it, and if they did, most of them did too little, or simply couldn't do much.

We hear stories how Russian commanders were shocked at what Armenian gangs did in villages. Russians never went that far.

@Krook

Not something surprising to hear from an outsider -while contradictively supporting how shameful Turkey's Foreign Affairs watched all happening.

If 500.000 of your populace (Turks that is) is tortured and killed, it's quite likely that the society will react in an outrageous way. The departure of Armenians were interrupted by the furious local people, Turks and Kurds mostly -there are records of Kurdish generals playing role in the murders as well. The so-called genocide is the one side of the medallion that you are shown off, which is used as political means, not in the name of the humanity.

So - members of government into Ottoman Emperor silently supported massacre or not? If not, what they did to stop it?

It seems they stayed indifferent to what was going on. I think their stance complies with Armenians "starting the fire"..Rightful or not, I'm trying to empathize.

So - murders were Turks or not? If they were Turks - anyone tries to judge them?

As long as the members of Taşnak Sütyan are not judged, those people are obviously not subject to any judgement.

If Turkish government did nothing to punish massacre - it should be something like;

c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

No use. Turkish government was fighting for a war of independence. It is purely insane to think that they had any deal with some massacre. They had enough enemies to fight with scarce sources.

Did Turkey apologise for massacre? Because even if Turkish Republic did not order massacre ( I agree that it was Ottoman government but massacre has been done by Turks and I think government was rather turkish than kurdish or arab), many it's citizens took part into massacre. I'm not Armenian but i think you definitely should say sorry.

If there was a genocide, I'd not hesitate to apologise for it. Under current circumstances and historical facts, I will not apologise and which pathetic government ever may it be that feels sorry for it, does not represent me and the many who think like me.

You are only shown one side of the murders, Armenians played it hard and they really "scored" so much. What may have been accepted as a general does not have to be the truth. So is the fake Armenian Genocide.

[KrooK]

OMG and Jews keep telling that we have racism into blood
BTW when Turkey fought for independence - into WW 1 - this is biggest history lol i have ever heard.

[The Wizard]

Turkey fought for independence from 1921 to 1923, IIRC. LEN, correct me if I'm wrong. This is after WWI, just like the Polish-Ukrainian and Polish-Soviet Wars were after WWI. In the wake of, perhaps, but not part of.

So - members of government into Ottoman Emperor silently supported massacre or not? If not, what they did to stop it?

If it was even a massacre with a clear design to kill Armenians (this is debatable), then still: the Ottoman Emperor had nothing to do with it. The Ottoman Emperor at the time was nothing but a figurehead, and one so unimportant that I fail to remember his proper name. The order to commence deportation was undertaken by the triumvirate of the CUP (otherwise known as the Young Turks in the West).

So - murders were Turks or not? If they were Turks - anyone tries to judge them?

Yes, they were Turks. However, I fear there is something you fail to understand here. There is a major difference between the states of the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey as we know it now (although it must be admitted that ever since the Padishah had been declared 'the Sick Man of Europe' the Empire grew progressively more Turkish; nevertheless, up until as late as 1918 the total population was probably only fifty to sixty percent Turkish, and the the farther back you go the less influence the Turks exert population-wise). The Ottoman Empire was a multicultural entity; led by a Turkish dynasty, yes, but the times are countless that Armenians, Greeks, and people of so many other nationalities took an important role in governing the Empire. In contrast, the Turkish Republic was founded as just that: a nation for Turks and by Turks. It's a big difference, although maybe superficially it may seem otherwise.

did Turks try to punish murders?

How could the culprits be tried if they were dead? By the time Mustafa Kemal had firmly established his regime, in 1926, every single important member of the CUP that had led the Ottoman state into the Great War was as dead as can be. Tough luck trying a dead man; Slobodan Milosevic can attest to that.

Regarding your point on the Convention on Genocide: please, explain to me how it is automatically genocide if the state has not taken steps to punish those responsibe? Should such a situation come to pass then, yes, it is likely that it is a genocide -- but it is not so by default. The line dividing the two is thin but important.

And then we haven't even discussed the fact that the entire event was directed by different people under an entirely different state. Did Poland apologize for Nazi Germany? Did it have to? No.

[KrooK]

State must provide safety on it's territory. State which can't provide safety and enforce is can't be count as country into international law. During war it's responsible for minorities situation even more than normal. If state do nothing to stop massacre, don't even try to stop his own citizens from murdering - it is responsible for it. Here country did hardly anything to stop massacre. You told why country must apologise for different people - weren't they Turks too?

I have nothing to Modern Turkey but Modern Turkey has not appear from the Moon - it is country established on base of Ottoman Empire. Completely different- I agree - but its descendant of it. Do you want proof?
I'm not sure but Kemal Attaturk took part into WW1 at Galipoli, he was general of Empire i think.

Judge murders - how to do it? Show their crime;
I think telling the world "Yes they were our neighours. They lived close to us and we did nothing to stop massacre, despite we could. Sorry" would be good beginning.

[LeftEyeNine]

OMG and Jews keep telling that we have racism into blood
BTW when Turkey fought for independence - into WW 1 - this is biggest history lol i have ever heard.

What The Wizard said about it exactly.

State must provide safety on it's territory. State which can't provide safety and enforce is can't be count as country into international law. During war it's responsible for minorities situation even more than normal. If state do nothing to stop massacre, don't even try to stop his own citizens from murdering - it is responsible for it. Here country did hardly anything to stop massacre. You told why country must apologise for different people - weren't they Turks too?

The country was even unable to prevent Armenians from massacring Turks. What they did was the obligatory departure of Armenians resulting in which is told as a global lie called Armenian Genocide in the modern day.

I have nothing to Modern Turkey but Modern Turkey has not appear from the Moon - it is country established on base of Ottoman Empire. Completely different- I agree - but its descendant of it. Do you want proof?
I'm not sure but Kemal Attaturk took part into WW1 at Galipoli, he was general of Empire i think.

You really need to read something about "the foundation of states" in political terms. For a more shallow answer, how do you expect M. Kemal to found a state called Turkey without growing in the related area -if not sharing some genetic characteristic? Noone is born with an idea of revolution, it takes time to evolve in your mind, right ?

Judge murders - how to do it? Show their crime;
I think telling the world "Yes they were our neighours. They lived close to us and we did nothing to stop massacre, despite we could. Sorry" would be good beginning.

Turkey takes no blame for the massacre. Armenians stopping painting this drama and started saying "It was our fault torturing and killing half a million of them. Sorry" would be a better beginning for mutual understanding.

But politics will not allow that. Who wants to miss votes the next elections ?

[Incongruous]

Uuuh to an outsider this seem highly confusing.
I have heard of a Hellenic geneocide aswell conducted by the Turks. Can somone clear this grey area for me?

[LeftEyeNine]

Uuuh to an outsider this seem highly confusing.
I have heard of a Hellenic geneocide aswell conducted by the Turks. Can somone clear this grey area for me?

I'm expecting Greek friends to talk about the matter first.

[lars573]

Uuuh to an outsider this seem highly confusing.
I have heard of a Hellenic geneocide aswell conducted by the Turks. Can somone clear this grey area for me?

You have to understand the chaos of the late Ottoman empire. Turkish colonies had sprung up around communities of Greeks, Armenians, and others during the 3 centuries of Ottoman rule. When Ottoman power began falling apart these groups went to war with each other, and there was little the sublime porte could or would do about it. Turkish villiage against Greek villiage. Turks against Armenians, Turks vs. Arabs. THe Armenians were ordered into Syria so that a Arab style revolt (and more violence against innocent Turkish civilians) under Russian stewartship couldn't happen in eastern Anatolia.

Anyway the "Hellenic genocide" (which is BS) was the resukt of the Greek kingdoms invasion of Anatolia in the early 20's. The revolutionary Turkish government expelled all the ethnic Greeks in Anatolia.

[LeftEyeNine]

You have to understand the chaos of the late Ottoman empire. Turkish colonies had sprung up around communities of Greeks, Armenians, and others during the 3 centuries of Ottoman rule. When Ottoman power began falling apart these groups went to war with each other, and there was little the sublime porte could or would do about it. Turkish villiage against Greek villiage. Turks against Armenians, Turks vs. Arabs. THe Armenians were ordered into Syria so that a Arab style revolt (and more violence against innocent Turkish civilians) under Russian stewartship couldn't happen in eastern Anatolia.

Anyway the "Hellenic genocide" (which is BS) was the resukt of the Greek kingdoms invasion of Anatolia in the early 20's. The revolutionary Turkish government expelled all the ethnic Greeks in Anatolia.

Obvious statements here lars573, thanks.

Please don't call me xenophobiac or something similar but Turks' presence in Anatolia was never favored. And it's generally been a matter of dislike when it comes something about Turks. I think before arguing about anything else, the sides should agree on this fact. So any chance is exploited in a way as political pressure on Turkey, which is a continuation longing from the Medieval times. I was simply shocked that we had even massacred Assyrians according to a website, once when Kaiser and I were debating over Armenians. The internet is a trash bin as much as it is an info source.

No, Turks are as guilty as any other nation on the planet, we're no "spoon out of the milk jar". However if you can stop for a moment and clear fogs in your mind assuming that you really want to learn about something without prejudice, I think you'll be able to judge between "war" and "genocide" more easily.

And please keep in mind that politics is the game of the powerful ones, not the rightful ones. Modern day Turks are lazy dumb***** who avoid making a sound about something they should.

[Komutan]

Uuuh to an outsider this seem highly confusing.
I have heard of a Hellenic geneocide aswell conducted by the Turks. Can somone clear this grey area for me?

This genocide is an attempt to collect everything the Greeks have suffered from the Turks during the last centuries into a single mass and call it genocide.

Did the Turks indeed commit some crimes against the Greeks, like killing civilians? Yes, but the Greeks did no less to the Turks. If we call these acts genocide then we have to blame every crime committed against some population a genocide. In fact, we have to call all wars genocides. Americans dropping atom bombs into Japan? Japanese Genocide. British killing French civilians during Hundred Years War? French Genocide. Napoleon's troops killing Russian civilians when they tried to conquer Russia? Russian Genocide. You get the picture...

All these genocide blames accomplish nothing more than turning Turks, Armenians and Greeks against each other. In my opinion, people should look into their own nations crimes instead of those of other nations.

[lars573]

Obvious statements here lars573, thanks.

Ignorance is the worst enemy. And the easiest to defeat, sadly.

Please don't call me xenophobiac or something similar but Turks' presence in Anatolia was never favored. And it's generally been a matter of dislike when it comes something about Turks. I think before arguing about anything else, the sides should agree on this fact. So any chance is exploited in a way as political pressure on Turkey, which is a continuation longing from the Medieval times. I was simply shocked that we had even massacred Assyrians according to a website, once when Kaiser and I were debating over Armenians. The internet is a trash bin as much as it is an info source.

The Turks are simply the last ethnic group to conquer and settle Anatolia. The Greeks are just as guilty of conquering and settling Greece. And of "genocide" (a gross miss-use of the term BTW) against the Lycians, Carians, Capadocians, and others in Anatolia. Turkey has just as much right to exist in Anatolia as any nation on earth has to exist where it does.

No, Turks are as guilty as any other nation on the planet, we're no "spoon out of the milk jar". However if you can stop for a moment and clear fogs in your mind assuming that you relaly want to learn about something without prejudice, I think you'll be able to judge between "war" and "genocide" more easily.

The problem with the Armeians is that they need someone to blame for 600,000-1 million dead. So with it being true that the Ottomans ordered them out and that Turks did the killing they blame you, in perpetuity through out the universe. They just leave out that they started it.

And please keep in mind that politics is the game of the powerful ones, not the rightful ones. Modern day Turks are lazy dumb***** who avoid making a sound about something they should.

Too ture, again sadly.