Did the Ottoman Empire Commit Genocide Against the Armenians?

PeteEU said:

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.

Click to expand...

Stop making excuses Dane. We are all well aware of Hitler, of Mein Kampf. THE MAIN MOTIVATOR OF NAZI GERMANY WAS SOCIALISM AND WHITE SUPREMACY. Never make that mistake again. Its evident in the ideology, history, and actions of the Nazi's. Dont excuse the Nazi's again, nor ethnic cleansing.

Im not trying to hear the nazi-appeasing euro view of holocausts.

As you say, history is written by the victors. Think about what that means.

Glen Contrarian said:

It happened, all right...but as so often the case (like Japan with the Rape of Nanking, what Britain did to India, and our own genocide of Native Americans), the ones who did it don't want to own up to it.

Click to expand...

I do not think you examples well chosen, really. The situations were quite different and I do not feel the native American population fared less well than those of many other popupopulations in the previous history, when they encountered a more forceful culture as they did, when the European one spread over the Americas.

Andalublue said:

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?

Click to expand...

Worry about the consequences after, first we must deal with the facts, because they matter.
And as an honest question, do you see the US as someone who has committed a holocaust, ever?

Andalublue said:

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?

Click to expand...

Yes I agree but my point is also, if there can be 800k Armenian refugees out of an estimated (official) population of 1 million, then how on earth can 400k, let alone 1.5 million have been killed?

There is so much miss-information stemming from allied propaganda and lack of real data, that the accusation of genocide is weak at best. Was there an forceful eviction of disloyal citizens? Yes, and people died during this, but was it genocide? Can we trust the widely accepted claim of 400k to 1.5 million dead, when official US and other nations estimations after the fact, clearly shows a large population of Armenian remaining in the Ottoman Empire or the areas in question. Why is this fact ignored, especially considering the population size estimates before war?

I mean there has been forceful evictions of people many times, were they genocide? Look at Diego Garcia, part of the Chagos islands. Indigenous people were forcibly moved by the British on behalf of the Americans.. was this genocide? Not many died, but a specific cultural group was targeted over land by a superior power and moved from their land by force. That is like most of the definitions of genocide. When Stalin did something similar to the Tatars of Crimea, then was that genocide?

Throwing the genocide word around on random cases of atrocities is dangerous.

US Conservative said:

Worry about the consequences after, first we must deal with the facts, because they matter.
And as an honest question, do you see the US as someone who has committed a holocaust, ever?

Click to expand...

Yes the American Indian. You will of course deny this.

But depending on the definition of genocide, then the US has been involved in several cases ranging from its colonies in the Philippines to Diego Garcia, to Greenland.

US Conservative said:

In your eyes, does that truly excuse anything?

Click to expand...

What do you propose to do about it? Many countries and people have committed genocide before and since- The Russian communists in Ukraine during the famine in Holdomor, The Isrealis in Lebanon, Henry Kissinger's meddling in Cambodia led to the Khmer Rouge taking power and the killing fields, etc. If you want to condemn the Turks for what they did then you ought to condemn them all.

PeteEU said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sometimes you let yourself get carried away.

Hatuey said:

Few nations outside of Germany have accepted that they took part in a genocide.

Click to expand...

This is so true. It makes me wonder why so many people make such efforts to shame modern Turkey into recanting and yet ignore all the others. I'd like Turkey to recognise the Armenian genocide, since I think the evidence is fairly clear, but I want to see Russia, the UK, Belgium, France, Spain, the US, Australia, China, the former members of the Balkan League, the Triple Alliance, the Austro-Hungarians, the Portuguese and the Maoris all own up to shameful acts from their collective pasts.

If anyone wants to create new threads on any of those other 'genocides', I'll be happy to contribute.

PeteEU said:

Yes I agree but my point is also, if there can be 800k Armenian refugees out of an estimated (official) population of 1 million, then how on earth can 400k, let alone 1.5 million have been killed?

Click to expand...

I completely agree. I really don't believe the 1.5 million figure at all. I've read much too much that makes it unsustainable, but that really isn't the point. I thought it was you, back at the start of this thread, that said that it's not the numbers but the intent.

There is so much miss-information stemming from allied propaganda and lack of real data, that the accusation of genocide is weak at best. Was there an forceful eviction of disloyal citizens? Yes, and people died during this, but was it genocide? Can we trust the widely accepted claim of 400k to 1.5 million dead, when official US and other nations estimations after the fact, clearly shows a large population of Armenian remaining in the Ottoman Empire or the areas in question. Why is this fact ignored, especially considering the population size estimates before war?

Click to expand...

Because population stats back then, and in a rambling, antiquated, decadent empire were impossible to obtain.

I mean there has been forceful evictions of people many times, were they genocide? Look at Diego Garcia, part of the Chagos islands. Indigenous people were forcibly moved by the British on behalf of the Americans.. was this genocide? Not many died, but a specific cultural group was targeted over land by a superior power and moved from their land by force. That is like most of the definitions of genocide. When Stalin did something similar to the Tatars of Crimea, then was that genocide?

Throwing the genocide word around on random cases of atrocities is dangerous.

Click to expand...

Except that there is plenty of documentary evidence that proves a concerted campaign against Armenians, all Armenians within the empire. It's wrong to say that Armenians in Istanbul and the west were left unmolested, they were subject to 'resettlement' too. There is also plenty of attested evidence by reliable sources that proves that 'resettlement' was to have fatal consequences. Read that Taner Akcam book that's already been cited. I was as sceptical as you, probably more so, before I read it. It's useful because it's written by a Turkish academic that had a lot of access to documentation that no Armenian or foreign academic would be able to access.

US Conservative said:

Worry about the consequences after, first we must deal with the facts, because they matter.
And as an honest question, do you see the US as someone who has committed a holocaust, ever?

Click to expand...

Of course I do. How would you describe the Indian wars, clearances and Trail of Tears?

PoS said:

What do you propose to do about it? Many countries and people have committed genocide before and since- The Russian communists in Ukraine during the famine in Holdomor, The Isrealis in Lebanon, Henry Kissinger's meddling in Cambodia led to the Khmer Rouge taking power and the killing fields, etc. If you want to condemn the Turks for what they did then you ought to condemn them all.

Click to expand...

Leave it to the most open supporter of Islamic terrorism and the murder of Western innocents in Debate Politics' history to claim that Israel's actions against Lebanese terrorists in self-defense was fitting the term "genocide" and then even go further and compare it to the Armenian genocide or the Khmer Rouge. :lol: And before you start accusing Israel for the massacres of Sabra and Shatila, these were not actions carried by Israelis but by Lebanese, but I guess that's not what they teach at howtobeagoodshiiteterrorsupporter.org. By the way these massacres carried by the Lebanese against other Lebanese are massacres, not a bloody genocide. Just a note there.

Medusa said:

smart jews always like turkey and you know why if you are good at history

Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question Medusa, I'm sincerely asking what is the Turkish education ministry's approach to the subject.
I could research it myself but I would like to hear it directly from a Turkish citizen who grew up and studied in the Turkish education system.

Apocalypse said:

Leave it to the most open supporter of Islamic terrorism and the murder of Western innocents in Debate Politics' history to claim that Israel's actions against Lebanese terrorists in self-defense was fitting the term "genocide" and then even go further and compare it to the Armenian genocide or the Khmer Rouge. :lol: And before you start accusing Israel for the massacres of Sabra and Shatila, these were not actions carried by Israelis but by Lebanese, but I guess that's not what they teach at howtobeagoodshiiteterrorsupporter.org. By the way these massacres carried by the Lebanese against other Lebanese are massacres, not a bloody genocide. Just a note there.

Click to expand...

Ah so the neo Nazi PEGIDA supporter supposedly condemns genocides but excuses Isreali actions, What else is new?

Sabra and Shatila massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The MacBride commission's report, Israel in Lebanon, concluded that the Israeli authorities or forces were responsible in the massacres and other killings that have been reported to have been carried out by Lebanese militiamen in Sabra and Shatila in the Beirut area between 16 and 18 September.

Click to expand...

On 16 December 1982, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide.

Click to expand...

PoS said:

What do you propose to do about it? Many countries and people have committed genocide before and since- The Russian communists in Ukraine during the famine in Holdomor, The Isrealis in Lebanon, Henry Kissinger's meddling in Cambodia led to the Khmer Rouge taking power and the killing fields, etc. If you want to condemn the Turks for what they did then you ought to condemn them all.

Click to expand...

I propose to administer all consequences appropriate to the crime as indicated.

WTF do you say to that? (after you make excuses?)

PoS said:

Ah so the neo Nazi PEGIDA supporter supposedly condemns genocides but excuses Isreali actions, What else is new?

Sabra and Shatila massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Yes only that I'm not a neo-Nazi and never supported Nazism (hilarious that I need to point that out) while you are a terror supporter and a very known one, supporting the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists and literally crying your heart out over the targeted killings of their high-ranking members who were responsible for the murder of countless of innocents a while back. I guess that whenever an Islamic terrorist out there who has murdered Western innocents gets what he deserves and dies something inside you dies with him eh?

Regarding Sabra and Shatila it's history revisionism to suggest that the perpetrators of the massacre were Israelis as they were Lebanese by a matter of fact. You have no issue with Lebanese murdering Lebanese as you couldn't care less for Lebanese's lives and all you care about is hating Israel which is why you decide to refer to the massacres as Israeli-perpetrated instead of Lebanese-perpetrated which they were, and it is also why you bring yourself down to the level of terror support and supporting those who would murder little children with no second thought only due to the fact they were born to Jewish parents (e.g. your support for Hezbollah) and yes, it is also why you always refuse to spell Israel's name and choose to say "Isreal" instead, because you share the insane hatred certain nations hold towards Israel for its very existence. So I find it hilariously hypocritical that you still go around here talking about morality as if you of all people have a say on moral subjects. :shrug:

The MacBride commission did not do a proper job as the Israeli Kahan commission did. Regardless it should be noted that the Wiki article notes the following:

Unlike the Israeli commission, the McBride commission did not work with the idea of separate degrees of responsibility, viz., direct and indirect.

Click to expand...

So to conclude the Kahan commission was right to state that Israel holds indirect responsibility for the massacres, not a direct one. The MacBride commission you have quoted had declared Israel was responsible but was also referring to an indirect responsibility, not to a direct responsibility, as it wasn't Israeli soldiers that were killing Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila camps but Lebanese militia men, and Israel was responsible for not intervening when it could. That the massacres were carried out by a Lebanese group of people is an historical, indisputable fact. What you're doing is called history revisionism, in your case so to serve a medieval hatred towards anything Israeli. And no the massacres are not a genocide regardless of what the oh so respected UN has to say, but are pure and simple, horrifying massacres. There were massacres committed against the people of that group of Lebanese who had committed the Sabra and Shatila massacre and the action of these Lebanese was a return action, but these massacres were not genocide either. It's clearly an obvious sign of immorality to be comparing these massacres, which are terrible on their own but are a small part of the atrocities that human history is tainted with, to the actual genocides; the reference to the biggest atrocities in human history, such as the Armenian genocide or the Khmar Rouge killings.

Andalublue said:

Except that there is plenty of documentary evidence that proves a concerted campaign against Armenians, all Armenians within the empire. It's wrong to say that Armenians in Istanbul and the west were left unmolested, they were subject to 'resettlement' too. There is also plenty of attested evidence by reliable sources that proves that 'resettlement' was to have fatal consequences. Read that Taner Akcam book that's already been cited. I was as sceptical as you, probably more so, before I read it. It's useful because it's written by a Turkish academic that had a lot of access to documentation that no Armenian or foreign academic would be able to access.

Click to expand...

But again you can say that of any empire and their treatment of their subjects, especially the minorities.

Like it or not, the Armenian's along with the Greeks chose to rise up against the Ottomans and suffered the consequences. You can call it ethnic cleansing or mass murder but genocide.. sorry but the evidence does not support a mass extermination of a minority per say. When the Indians rose up against the British empire, was that genocide? How about the Zulus? How about in Australia?

Now if we go by intent.. again a dangerous precedence, because how can we define intent of a defeated enemy, let alone that of the victors.. who write the history. Just look at how the American expansion west was treated for over a century (and still is frankly) by the history books and American public.

PeteEU said:

sorry but the evidence does not support a mass extermination of a minority per say.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does.

Now if we go by intent.. again a dangerous precedence, because how can we define intent of a defeated enemy, let alone that of the victors.. who write the history. Just look at how the American expansion west was treated for over a century (and still is frankly) by the history books and American public.

Click to expand...

Let's not stray into tu quoque arguments. It's irrelevant how the American society treats its own history of shameful acts. There's plenty of evidence that damns Andrew Jackson of the crimes of ethnic cleansing and, arguably, genocide, so there's no double-standards at play here. The evidence exists of specific plans and orders for the extermination of Armenians, the recruitment of criminals to the Special Organisation to act as extermination squads and the specific intent of Talaat Pasha and the CUP leadership to liquidate Armenians as an ethnic minority within the empire.

Andalublue said:

Yes, it does.

Click to expand...

It is at best, highly contradictory evidence.

The evidence exists of specific plans and orders for the extermination of Armenians, the recruitment of criminals to the Special Organisation to act as extermination squads and the specific intent of Talaat Pasha and the CUP leadership to liquidate Armenians as an ethnic minority within the empire.

Click to expand...

Yes I know but having plans and giving orders does not mean that a genocide is committed. And if it was the intent of CUP to kill all Armenians, then frankly they did a piss poor job of it depending on the what population numbers we believe in.

I dont disagree with the nationalistic aspects of an Ottoman Empire in decline and it trying to keep the Empire together at any cost. They were brutal and killed people all across the empire from Egypt, Arabia to Iraq to Greece and so on. Were they all genocides too?

But I think we can agree on the fact that the Ottoman Empire was brutal in its last days against all people who tried to overthrow the status quo... much like other empires in decline.

US Conservative said:

In your eyes, does that truly excuse anything?

Click to expand...

Just as much of what the US conducted during WW2 wasn't classified as war crimes until 1975. So I guess war crimes weren't committed then.

The history of the wars that region from the Crimean Wars, the Balkins and the entire M.E. of the 19th century thru WWI as the British, French and Russian Empire along with lesser empires, countries and ethnic groups competing with each other over the territory of the declining Ottoman Empire is complex and reflects the realities of the new weapons of modern war - specifically artillery firing high explosives and the machine gun. The response to these weapons was to increase the numbers of troops in wars all over the region.

Essentially, it was Christians against Muslims and Western Christians against Eastern Christians. Killing Muslims and specifically Turks became the game. In the end, the Christian West - specifically the UK, France and later involving the USA won - meaning taking Ottoman-Turk lands for themselves. Russia was less successful but did capture some Ottoman territory. These wars also lead to widespread famine and disease.

The numbers of dead reaches into the 10s of millions, about a 6-1 ratio of civilian deaths to military deaths, and disease and famine killed far more than military action, even among troops. In a sense, the wars became everyone killing Ottoman Turks including ethnic Turks where were defined by the West as both heathen and racially inferior, who came to increasingly also engaged in atrocities.

By the time WWI actually occurred warring had been going on over half a century. While people tend to see WWI in European battle terms, it was primarily over who would take over the lands of the Ottoman Empire. The UK seriously under-estimated the fighting ability of Germany nor recognized that Ottoman Muslims would more oppose Christian conquest of their territory even more than they hated Turks controlling their territory, so Ottoman resistance also was greater. Adding the collapse of Russia due to the Russian Revolution, it became necessary for the British Empire and French Empire cutting the USA into the deal to divide up the Ottoman Empire for themselves.

In a sense, these wars have never ended and much of the fighting in the ME directly traces back thru that history.

To point at the Turks (ie Muslims) and fixate solely on atrocities against Armenians, who were at war on a mass military and civil scale, is not just simplistic, but is the age-old Christian West claiming Muslims are so evil that the Western Christian countries just had to attack and take control of all Muslim countries. To this day, this claim that these Muslims here and those Muslims there are so murderously evil that the UK, USA and France much militarily dictate and control their countries - and of course their oil.

Muslim Iraq is so evil we must invade. Libyan Muslim government so evil we must attack. Syrian Government so evil we must attack. Ottoman Empire Muslims so evil we must attack. Algerian Muslims so evil we must attack. Etc. For now over 150 years, the morally superior Christian Western nations must attack the evil Muslim countries. However, it is no long claimed this is because they are racially inferior and heathens.

A 1000% more Ottoman civilians were killed that Armenians, but then those Ottomans were racially inferior evil Muslims so their deaths don't count. Only the civilian deaths of their Armenian military adversary count.

Accuse the Muslims of making it necessary to attack them and take over their land and people - more of the same, still doing it to this day. If we kill their civilians it is regrettable collateral damage. If they kill civilians it is atrocities and genocide. All in their countries.

I wonder how many people who answered this poll realize that there were around 200,000 Armenian Christians at war with the Ottoman Muslims and tens of thousands of those didn't wear uniforms as insurgent/terrorists?

Or how many realize the greatest causes of death was disease and starvation across the entire region on a massive scale - resulting from relentless empire building wars by the Western powers in that region?

Or that the greatest number of civilian deaths, by a factor of ten, were Ottoman Muslims, not Christians such as the Armenian Christians?

So buying the pro-empire building wars Muslims-are-evil PR, American members effectively vote that ONLY Muslims committed atrocities against Christians attacking them in their own country - but certainly no Christians such as the Armenians did - though the "ethnic cleansing" of Muslims still continued in the region after the break up the USSR.

The West just MUST continue to rule and invade Muslims because if we don't they will commit more atrocities. How many wars against Muslims have been justified for 150+ years by the Christian West on that claim? While far more Muslim civilians die in these wars than by atrocities, but that's just how war is so those don't civilian deaths don't count. Everyone knows that Christians never committed atrocities against civilians because Christians are good and Muslims are evil. And inferior. :roll:

TheDemSocialist said:

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?

Click to expand...

Ethnic cleansing; Yes, even Ataturk admitted that massacres had taken place and condemed them,

Genocide (insofar as a premeditated attempt to elimiate an entire group); probably not.

Why it should have any bearing on contempory international relations; **** knows

US Conservative said:

Joko, Im disappointed in the hoops you are jumping though. The Armenians were violently subjugated by the Turks-not just as a conquered nation, but as Christians as well. They did the same thing to the Greeks and nobody pretends it wasn't a genocide.

Click to expand...

right wingers are never reliable while they are comdemning other countries for war crimes

PeteEU said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think the war and the genocide was two different things in WW2. The war and territorial disputes was not genocide... the internal regulation and gathering of jews, then killing/experimenting on them was....

Medusa said:

right wingers are never reliable while they are comdemning other countries for war crimes

Click to expand...

I agree, other than I don't think it is just rightwingers. War drums stir up nationalism and at least in the USA liberals call for wars as often and conservatives, though sometimes not the same wars.

What is a constant everywhere is that generally the true reasons for war a land, resources, power - but the reason given to the public is that the other side is evil to define it as good versus evil - rather than our country against their country for the real reasons.

Civil wars and atrocities regularly rage across African, but there is nothing in those matters that other countries want, so no one intervenes to stop the atrocities. There's a lot (a lot of oil and natural resources and now also wealth) in the Middle East, so the foreign interventions remain there.

For example, today the news is a white American officer shooting a black man in the back multiple times and then planting evidence on him to try to justify it. We see that as just a bad cop.

But if this has been a video of a Muslim cop shooting a fleeing Christian in a Muslim country that we have interest in the oil there? OMG! We MUST ATTACK to stop the atrocities and it will be all over our media - us good people MUST attack those evil people.

For 150 years that is the story of the West's invasions and attacks in the Middle East and Muslim countries. Are some inventions justified? I say yes. But most were just to take the resources and wealth of the Middle East.