Thread: Did the Ottoman Empire Commit Genocide Against the Armenians?

Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist

Asking this question because recently one of my favorite bands System of a Down is starting a tour, and they are doing it in commemoration of 100th anniversary of "The Great Crime" (the Armenian Genocide) System of a Down to Commemorate Armenian Genocide | Al Jazeera America . This sparked my interest to see what DP's opinion on the manner is.

Many countries have not recognized the Armenian Genocide. Its a topic of heated debate. The US government has not recognized it, but 44 states have.

My question to you is: Did the Ottoman Empire Commit Genocide Against the Armenians?

Yes they did but since genocide wasnt a term coined during that time then the Turks might have an excuse in not calling it as one.

Originally Posted by joko104

That statistic I found was 3,000,000 Armenians.

Good grief, what statistic? Get your story straight. Either I claimed the figure, or you found it. Which is it? If you found it, post it. If not, then cut your nonsense out.

Originally Posted by JANFU

You state 100 K Armenians were left in the capital in 1921. I assume you have a link for that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman...Nations_Census

Yes it is wikipedia, but the source is sourced..

Muslims and minorities: the population of Ottoman Anatolia and the end of the empire. New York: New York University press,, by Justin McCarthy 1983

Originally Posted by celticwar17

I get what you are trying to say, but i just disagree...I am able to make the distinctions, and I am sure you are too.
Territorial disputes? No, not necessarily, Genocide usually happens internally, inside a nation. Not two nations at war with each other( it can, but not--usually). Two nations having territorial disputes is not genocide... or a nation wanting more land, or desiring land.... the MAIN motivator is what makes the distinction.
Genocide usually happens in a cultural war/revolution or a scape goat.... a lot of wars do not fall under that distinction.

Okay a bit of historical word games here then and hypothetical. The main motivator of Nazi Germany was more land... does that mean the slaughter of Jews was not genocide? The extermination of Jews started after the war had begun. The reasons for the war had absolutely nothing to do with Jews. Persecution of Jews was mainstream across the planet, with the Germans just taking it to another level before the war. The treatment of Jews pre 1940 was not much different than the treatment of blacks in the US at the same time.

So was the holocaust genocide or not?

Again we are down to definitions and facts. To me the term genocide is one of the most powerful words in the English language. It does and should mean something extra-ordinary and it should not be abused... and it is the latter that seems to be happening more and more. Yes the holocaust was a genocide, but no the Bosnian massacre or the Saddam Hussien targeting of some Kurds was not. As for the Armenian case, due to the lack of accurate population numbers and the "victors write the history" aspect, then it is hard to call it a genocide... ethnic cleansing sure, but not genocide.

Originally Posted by JANFU

No again you are in error. The fact that Shia in Saudi are 2nd class citizens does not amount to genocide.
Going into Yemen again does not constitute genocide.

But the Aremians were second class citizens. They were oppressed just like the Shia are. And they were targeted like the Shia are in Yemen.

I provided links for you that defined Genocide, legal definitions.

Yes, definitions that are highly politically motivated and can basically be used against anyone.

Yet you stray from those.

No I dont. I agree with some of the definitions but I am very warry to use those legal definitions because they can so easily be painted on any country or society. For example, the police department in Ferguson. They targeted black people... that is genocide according to the definition.

Originally Posted by PeteEU

It is a tricky question because the definition of genocide is some what tricky.

The general definition is "systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group"

The problem here is "significant" and what is significant....

....So to the question.. no, not genocide since there is not enough factual information. But yes to mass organized murder and ethnic cleansing.

I think that all makes good, logical sense. The problem I have in discussing this matter (and if you think it's tricky discussing in on DP, try having the conversation with a bunch of Turks!) is that the word Genocide has been rendered meaningless by the politics of its official use in international diplomatic circles.

You are quite right that by the definition you've given there's little doubt that the Ottoman Empire, driven by the fanatical nationalists of the CUP, did indeed commit genocide, intentionally so. But when, as you rightly point out, other equally clear acts of genocide are ignored, then the word loses its meaning.

What are we meant to do with this debate? If we say "yes, that was genocide", what should be the consequence for Turkey, Armenia or in the international sphere? If we say that the Ottomans committed genocide, shouldn't we also open up the other issues already mentioned for reassessment? If not, why not?

So, unequivocally, I think that the Ottomans committed genocide against the Armenians, whether the number of deaths involved was 400,000 at the lower estimate or 1.5 million at the upper. Should the Turkish government recognise that this 'shameful act' took place? Of course they should. As should all those deniers of genocides elsewhere in the world. If not, then why even use the word? Why insist on its use, recognise it, or prosecute its denial?