• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did the Ottoman Empire Commit Genocide Against the Armenians?

Did the Ottoman Empire Commit Genocide Against the Armenians?


  • Total voters
    37
Lol, the victorious British? You mean a British scholar of Armenian origin whose academic career has revolved around studying exactly what happened during the genocide.

Ah, a British Armenian is your sourcee! You would REALLY have to try hard to find a more bias source. What is the bias of the SEVENTY American academic scholars from multiple universities who swore under oath their research showed there was NO Armenian genocide?

NOR do you respond that the largest cause of Armenian deaths was disease and starvation - but far more Turks died of the same thing? You don't respond. You just repeat.
 
70 scholars with NO interest in the findings or prejudice claim there was no Armenian genocide. Asserted policies do not make a genocide. There was no genocide. There were atrocities and on a large scale. But not just against Armenians.

Armenian Genocide denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On May 19, 1985, The New York Times and The Washington Post ran an advertisement in which a group of 69 American historians called on Congress not to adopt the resolution on the Armenian Genocide.[86] Bernard Lewis, a prominent historian of Islam at Princeton, was among them and so the case was named after him.[86][87] [88] The advertisement was paid for by the Committee of the Turkish Associations.[86] Another important signee was Heath Lowry, the director of the Institute of Turkish Studies at Georgetown.[89] Both Lewis and Lowry have been included among the key deniers of the Armenian Genocide.[90][91] According to Roger W. Smith, Eric Markusen and Robert Jay Lifton, Lowry was also advising on how to prevent mention of the Armenian Genocide in scholarly works, and was discovered ghost writing for the Turkish ambassador in Washington on issues regarding the Embassy's denial of the Armenian Genocide.[92] The Armenian Assembly of America found that many or most of the 69 academics apparently benefited directly or indirectly from Turkish government research grants.[93][94] According to Yair Auron, an Israeli historian, scholar and expert specializing in Genocide studies and racism, this advertisement is a good example of one of many Turkish attempts to influence academia, a project on which Turkey spends enormous funds.[95]

In October 2000, when the House of Representatives of the US was to discuss the resolution on the Armenian Genocide, Turkish politician Şükrü Elekdağ admitted that the statement had become useless because none of the original signatories besides Justin McCarthy would agree to sign a new, similar declaration.[SUP][98][/SUP][SUP][99][/SUP]

Would you like to try this again? So what do we have? NONE of the people who originally signed that document agreed to sign it again. Most of them were paid for by the Turkish government. A Turkish politician admitted that it was useless to try and rehash the matter because there was no support for it anymore except for one person. And you're calling into question a guy because he's a British Armenian? You're a desperate revisionist.
 
Last edited:
Armenian Genocide denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Would you like to try this again? So what do we have? NONE of the people who originally signed that document agreed to sign it again. Most of them were paid for by the Turkish government. A Turkish politician admitted that it was useless to try and rehash the matter because there was no support for it anymore except for one person. And you're calling into question a guy because he's a British Armenian? You're a desperate revisionist.

No I'm not.

What I most object to is your fixation on this topic. There are matters approaching genocide now in the ME, though the numbers low due to ongoing persecutions. Turkey is not one of the countries involved. So it is debating an irrelevant past instead of a current reality.

I also object to your declaring atrocities by others in the same conflict are irrelevant and declaring the cause of the conflict leading to atrocities are irrelevant. Basically, you declare everything you post has no relevancy to anything.

Good research you did, BTW. If academia is just bought, then no information is of any value. Again, your sources are Armenians. The bias obvious.

I do not believe there was an Armenian genocide distinction for other large scale atrocities in that same conflict. And the Armenian population had become a military enemy, including Armenian women - and on a MASS scale. If an average of children and old folks excluded, about 1 in 6 "civilian" Armenians was militarily at war with the Ottomans and within the Ottoman Empire. And an estimated 40,000 were non-uniformed combatants, making them "terrorist insurgents" by current definitions.

Most deaths in that approximate decade+ of war was by disease, the second largest cause starvation. Dying by war or violence was the 3rd cause. Even among the military, the leading cause of death was disease, not war. Disease is not genocide, but can be genocidal.

If you want to declare WWI was a genocide for some reason, I don't see a reason to argue with that as it is just a word.

Did you answer whether you are Armenians? I can't recall.
 
No I'm not.

Considering you're citing the admittedly revisionist claims of people paid for by the Turkish government? I think you are. Remember Joko, the guy I posted is a scholar of Armenian descent, that's what you determined was enough for him to be biased. As opposed to the many scholars you relied on which have proven financial links to the Turkish government. If you're going to depend on REVISIONIST sources to make your claims, go ahead. However, the writing is now on the wall and it's clear to everyone just what lengths you're willing to go to in order to make a case and deny the deaths of Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire.

Did you answer whether you are Armenians? I can't recall.

Lmao. No. You however are a revisionist. :shrug:
 
My exploration of documents and records relating to the Ottoman Sultan was that initially he was ordering that Armenians be relocated to Jordan, Libya and other areas away from the front and not to Armenian - anticipating they would become military adversaries. That prediction was very accurate.

As it was clear the empire and war was lost, and with Armenians on a mass scale - both as tens of thousands of non-uniformed insurgents and 150,000 strong as soldiers - I don't doubt the Sultan decreed kill all Armenians. Yet in context that also does not equate to a genocide, only that the increasingly irrelevant Sultan wanted one.

Hitler wanted all Germans to die if the war lost. Japan's military took a fight-to-the-last Japanese attitude too. So then I can claim that Germany engaged in genocide against Germans and Japan engaged in genocide against the Japanese because their defeated leaders wanted everyone to die with them?

People want the word "genocide" attached to the atrocities ONLY by one side in a horrific war - that occurred because the West and Russia wanted Ottoman territory and knew the Ottoman Empire couldn't possibly survive. To this day, to various degrees, Western powers and Russia control most of the old Ottoman Empire for colonial, imperialistic and economic reasons.

You declare all that irrelevant. I say it is what is more relevant, including in relation to Armenian civilian deaths. You want to accuse 1 boogie man - the Sultan - like people blame one boogie man - Hitler. But it isn't that simplistic or easily written off in my opinion. It is in yours.

So... given your opinion since the Sultan is dead, there is exactly no relevancy in the slightest possible and hasn't been for nearly 100 years. I see these matters as relevant and topical to this day. It could be argued that the conflicts generated by WWI have never been concluded - only highly reduced - and now they are roaring back because it was not just about the Ottomans, but about the Muslims under attack by the West and Russia to take control of them, their land and their natural resources.

Iran calls for "Death to America." So, genocide? ISIS calls for death to all how oppose them. Has there BEEN a genocide? They want one. Is there one going on?

The battle, that war between the West against Muslims over their land and their resources is still being fought as I post this - though YOU see NO relevancy whatsoever. It should be called the 100 year war as that's how long it's been going on now. Actually longer.
 
Last edited:
My exploration of documents and records relating to the Ottoman Sultan was that initially he was ordering that Armenians be relocated to Jordan, Libya and other areas away from the front and not to Armenian - anticipating they would become military adversaries. That prediction was very accurate.

As it was clear the empire and war was lost, and with Armenians on a mass scale - both as tens of thousands of non-uniformed insurgents and 150,000 strong as soldiers - I don't doubt the Sultan decreed kill all Armenians. Yet in context that also does not equate to a genocide, only that the increasingly irrelevant Sultan wanted one.

Hitler wanted all Germans to die if the war lost. Japan's military took a fight-to-the-last Japanese attitude too. So then I can claim that Germany engaged in genocide against Germans and Japan engaged in genocide against the Japanese because their defeated leaders wanted everyone to die with them?

People want the word "genocide" attached to the atrocities ONLY by one side in a horrific war - that occurred because the West and Russia wanted Ottoman territory and knew the Ottoman Empire couldn't possibly survive. To this day, to various degrees, Western powers and Russia control most of the old Ottoman Empire for colonial, imperialistic and economic reasons.

You declare all that irrelevant. I say it is what is more relevant, including in relation to Armenian civilian deaths. You want to accuse 1 boogie man - the Sultan - like people blame one boogie man - Hitler. But it isn't that simplistic or easily written off in my opinion. It is in yours.

So... given your opinion since the Sultan is dead, there is exactly no relevancy in the slightest possible and hasn't been for nearly 100 years. I see these matters as relevant and topic to this day. It could be argued that the conflicts generated by WWI have never been concluded - only highly reduced - and that now they roaring back because it was not just about the Ottomans, but about the Muslims under attack by the West and Russia to take control of them, their land and their natural resources.
The battle, that war, is still being fought as I post this - though YOU see NO relevancy whatsoever.

The Ottoman Empire created policies which it knew directly led to the death of hundreds of thousands. This is a fact of history like 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis. You tried to refute it using demonstrably revisionist statements from scholars paid for by the Turkish government. You had to swallow your crow and try to move on to another subject that has little relevance to the topic at hand. You've been doing that since you came into the thread. When nobody falls for it, you move on to your next absurd claim that dismiss the facts of the matter.

Remember Joko:

1. 85% of Armenians were either killed or forcefully removed from the Ottoman Empire.
2. Their property was confiscated by the state.
3. The Ottoman government had full knowledge of the effects their policies were having and did nothing.
4. Accounts of the genocide are corroborated by observers from the period and survivors.
5. The person who coined the term 'genocide' did so after observing what the Ottoman Empire did to Armenians.

That's a genocide, joko and you're a revisionist.

:shrug:
 
Considering you're citing the admittedly revisionist claims of people paid for by the Turkish government? I think you are. Remember Joko, the guy I posted is a scholar of Armenian descent, that's what you determined was enough for him to be biased. As opposed to the many scholars you relied on which have proven financial links to the Turkish government. If you're going to depend on REVISIONIST sources to make your claims, go ahead. However, the writing is now on the wall and it's clear to everyone just what lengths you're willing to go to in order to make a case and deny the deaths of Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire.


Lmao. No. You however are a revisionist. :shrug:

To claim an Armenian is the best source is absurd. Many Nazis including at the camps denied there was a genocide. AH, obviously the best proof - in your opinion anyway.

The underlined and bolded sentence is a lie and you know it too. What is clear is that the only civilian deaths you cared about then - or not - in that ongoing conflict were Armenians and no one else.
 
To claim an Armenian is the best source is absurd. Many Nazis including at the camps denied there was a genocide. AH, obviously the best proof - in your opinion anyway.

The underlined and bolded sentence is a lie and you know it too. What is clear is that the only civilian deaths you cared about then - or not - in that ongoing conflict were Armenians and no one else.

I thought he was British, joko? First you argued that the guy being a 'British victor' made his research inadmissible in debate. Now, being an Armenian makes his research inadmissible. I won't ask you which is it because it's clear that you'd never even heard of this guy before this conversation. It's also clear that you believe that the only arguments that should be taken into consideration are those funded by the Turkish government. Hell, you posted that revisionist crap and now you can't even point out what part of my link is wrong based on the research alone.

That leaves us with what? I have a scholar who is supported by literally hundreds of publications and scholars around the world, and you have 69 scholars who no longer want to be associated with denying the Armenian genocide, and 1 guy who was being paid by the Turkish government. Are you even keeping record of how badly you've lost this debate?
 
The Ottoman Empire created policies which it knew directly led to the death of hundreds of thousands. This is a fact of history like 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis. You tried to refute it using demonstrably revisionist statements from scholars paid for by the Turkish government. You had to swallow your crow and try to move on to another subject that has little relevance to the topic at hand. You've been doing that since you came into the thread. When nobody falls for it, you move on to your next absurd claim that dismiss the facts of the matter.

Remember Joko:

1. 85% of Armenians were either killed or forcefully removed from the Ottoman Empire.
2. Their property was confiscated by the state.
3. The Ottoman government had full knowledge of the effects their policies were having and did nothing.
4. Accounts of the genocide are corroborated by observers from the period and survivors.
5. The person who coined the term 'genocide' did so after observing what the Ottoman Empire did to Armenians.

That's a genocide, joko and you're a revisionist.

:shrug:

Even your own numbers contradict your first claim as there were 3,000,000 Armenians in the Ottoman empire.
Property confiscated does not equate to genocide and I could give almost countless examples in world history.
Doing nothing about atrocities does not equate to doing atrocities nor to genocide
Others of the period deny there was a genocide

As for the last, you degrade to declaring by definition Armenian deaths by the Ottomans equates to the meaning of the word "genocide" - therefore if one Armenian was killed the by definition that death was genocide. Pointless.

I'm not a revisionist, but your a minimalist and from a bigoted position since no deaths, no atrocities within the same conflict period nor any causes by anyone both Turks is relevant to you. Nothing matters or is relevant but hatred of Turks, only Turks.

In summary of my view. There were massive amounts of atrocities in the entirety of WWI and prior to it in that region. There were atrocities against the Turks on a wide scale for ethnic cleansing and genocide in the region of the Balkins and Cacucus. There were wide spread atrocities against Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians. WWI was an invasive war against the Ottoman Empire - accordingly also against Muslims, but the Christian West and Christian Russia, who defined Turks and Arabs as racially inferior - for the purpose of taking most of the Ottoman Empire and turning those regions and Countries into Western colonies for the purpose of taking their resources.

I do not see the atrocities against the Armenians as rising to what most people define as "genocide" - but also think bandying over the word is irrelevant. I do not see the atrocities of that long war as uniquely or distinctly by Ottomans or that Armenians were uniquely or distinction the only victims of atrocities on a mass scale. Both are subjects you refuse to even discuss.

Because I do not attach the word "genocide" to it nor see Ottomans as the only evil-doers who suffered no relevant atrocities and Armenians as only victims and the only victims does not mean I see the deaths of those Armenians as any more evil that you do. Bickering over a word does not define ethical comparison between two people. In fact, elsewhere on the forum I am under fire seriously for raging against a different genocide.

I have no idea why you have your strong feelings. I know why I have mine but also prefer not to say. No, there is no Turk in my history or relationships or even casually. Can remember ever meeting at Turk.

In my opinion, that horrific war of Western conquest and imperialism has never really ended and there is a growing insurgency that continues against Western control, influence, retaliation for the past and opposition to the political boundaries and systems of government dictated by the West ever since.

I think our "debate" has run it's course, don't you? Let's quit before this difference of opinion evolving to just a clash of words intermixed with insults that harms what respect we may have for each other.
 
To claim an Armenian is the best source is absurd. Many Nazis including at the camps denied there was a genocide. AH, obviously the best proof - in your opinion anyway.

The underlined and bolded sentence is a lie and you know it too. What is clear is that the only civilian deaths you cared about then - or not - in that ongoing conflict were Armenians and no one else.

Why? Wouldn't he have more cultural and historical context?

Im Greek, the Turks committed genocide there too. I dont understand your selective logic.
Eug%C3%A8ne_Delacroix_-_Le_Massacre_de_Scio.jpg
 
Even your own numbers contradict your first claim as there were 3,000,000 Armenians in the Ottoman empire.

If you're going to start with more lies, you better give up. My claim discussed 2.3 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. After 1922, only 15% of that initial 2.3 million remained. This was pointed out to you when you falsely claimed it the first time. Now you're doing it again and I'm not falling for it. Trying to interject more subjects into this specific issue just makes you look as desperate as you when you first started writing. Post some more revisionist crap so I can call you on it again? :)
 
If you're going to start with more lies, you better give up. My claim discussed 2.3 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. After 1922, only 15% of that initial 2.3 million remained. This was pointed out to you when you falsely claimed it the first time. Now you're doing it again and I'm not falling for it. Trying to interject more subjects into this specific issue just makes you look as desperate as you when you first started writing. Post some more revisionist crap so I can call you on it again? :)

That statistic I found was 3,000,000 Armenians. 15% remaining does NOT equate to 85% killed like you claim. They're called refuges of war. Every heard of that word?

Apparently you also count Armenians who were militarily fighting against the Ottomans as casualties of genocide. Any death of any Armenian of any reason was genocide. If a Armenian died in labor the Turks killed her. Get hit by a truck, it's the Sultan's fault. The Sultan caused cancer and heart attacks too. Anyone who died of a contagious disease - the Ottoman Sultan infected them. Like a "thanks Obama" joke - only you're serious.

Exactly EVERY historian on that war claims the #1 cause of death was disease. But not you. The Ottoman Sultan killed everyone. No Armenian died who had not been ordered killed by the Sultan. He controlled all virus and bacteria too. No one Armenian died unless ordered to die by the Sultan. So says your Armenian scholar. Absurd claims like that.

There has been a 99+% of Christians in the ME. Those damn Muslims genocided ALL of them! You logic.

The reduction of Christians and Jews in the ME is significantly greater. Many fled. Many Armenians fled.

All I can figure is since hating on Muslims to justify Western continued control (ie all Muslims are evil) won't really fly well on the forum, you convert it to all Ottomans were evil genocidal murderers. Otherwise there is no point to this thread since you deny there is any modern relevancy whatsoever. Do you think the Incas were genocidal? That is as relevant in your opinion.

Other than you hate who was the Ottoman Sultan in WWI, is there ANY relevancy of your messages whatsoever of any kind?
 
The Armenians were killing Ottomans in mass numbers both as non-uniformed terrorist insurgents and as soldiers.

9,876,580 Ottoman Muslim CIVILIANS were killed (no Armenians counted in this.)

The Armenians committed GENOCIDE AGAINST 9.8 MILLIONS Turkish Civilians!- and since we count military casualties like you do, Armenians committed GENOCIDE against 12,000,000 Ottomans. TWELVE MILLION! A genocide 800% greater than the Armenian genocide.

But as a "revisionist" you DENY the OTTOMAN GENOCIDE, don't you?

Let's both have ridiculous debate. Should we go to larger type and bold? :confused:
 
The Armenians were killing Ottomans in mass numbers both as non-uniformed terrorist insurgents and as soldiers.

9,876,580 Ottoman Muslim CIVILIANS were killed (no Armenians counted in this.)

The Armenians committed GENOCIDE AGAINST 9.8 MILLIONS Turkish Civilians!- and since we count military casualties like you do, Armenians committed GENOCIDE against 12,000,000 Ottomans. TWELVE MILLION! A genocide 800% greater than the Armenian genocide.

But as a "revisionist" you DENY the OTTOMAN GENOCIDE, don't you?

Let's both have ridiculous debate. Should we go to larger type and bold? :confused:

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?

I don't think there is any real question about the numbers and even the circumstances are pretty much clear, as are the mass deportations of Greeks. I have never understood why the Turks did not come clean decades ago.
 
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?
 
Back
Top Bottom