Did the Ottoman Empire Commit Genocide Against the Armenians?

joko104 · Apr 7, 2015

Hatuey said:
There is nothing localized about 1.5 million people who were killed through marches and concentration camps.

Except that is not the only way that 1.5 million number was derived. It was more 100 here and 1000 there. From what I read of it sometime ago, it was more local civil and military authorities, and sometimes just murderous riots. While I DO believe the Ottoman national leaders turned a blind eye to it and maybe even approved, that does not equate to ordering a genocide.

The USA government even thru Kennedy and Johnson was well aware of persecution and murder of blacks particularly in the South, and did little to nothing when they could have for political reasons, but that does not make it an action they took. I have never read any evidence that the Ottoman federal government leadership ordered the rounding up and killing of all Armenians. This is unlike what happened in Germany.

A concentration camp isn't a genocide. The USA had concentration camps during the Civil War - and a large percentage of the prisoners died - and during WWII. That does not constitute genocide. Nor does forced marches.

The Cherokee "Trail of Tears" was in effect a death march, and government ordered (with this prior declared by the US Supreme Court illegal), but it falls short of genocide as the goal was not to kill all Cherokee. Rather, it was to move all Cherokee with indifference to the suffering and death this would cause by the forced march.

Words like "crime against humanity," "slaughter of civilians," "killing and abuse of POWs," "governmental murderous criminal act" and more apply, but not genocide. Genocide was when the USA military charged into NA villages and killed everyone. THAT was genocide.

So it gets MORE complicated, doesn't it? I would agree there were "genocides" within the Ottoman Empire that was localized - ie a deliberate killing of every Armenian they could find. But, again, there is nothing I've seen by which the Ottoman federal authority issued an order to round up and kill all Armenians - either directly or by action (such as in Germany.)

joko104 · Apr 7, 2015

Hatuey said:
Who the hell is we? This is why your revisionism fails. You weren't even alive in that period and the empire dissolved nearly 100 years ago. What the Ottoman Empire did do was conduct a policy that directly led to the death of 1.5 million people. That is in fact a genocide.

Lots of government policies "lead to" the deaths of hundreds of thousands to millions of people. Generally all large scale wars do. The question is whether the 1.5 million deaths were ordered to be specifically killed?

The Nazi holocaust was "a genocide." But by your definition Germany going to war was also a genocide because of all the deaths that occurred. Did the USA commit "genocide" because of all the Japanese killed in WWII? Did the North commit "genocide" against the South by fighting against their withdrawing from the Union?

Montecresto · Apr 7, 2015

Hatuey said:
I'm pretty sure I said that not every country has admitted to its role in a genocide. Germany is one of the few who has and should be commended for that.

Yes, well....... We did rather hold them down with a foot on their chest and make them say it. But then they do deserve some credit I suppose.

Hatuey · Apr 7, 2015

joko104 said:
Except that is not the only way that 1.5 million number was derived. It was more 100 here and 1000 there. From what I read of it sometime ago, it was more local civil and military authorities, and sometimes just murderous riots. While I DO believe the Ottoman national leaders turned a blind eye to it and maybe even approved, that does not equate to ordering a genocide.

Yeah, we know, the mass graves containing 60K people, the massacres of Sivas, Mus, were counted "100" and "1000" at a time.

A concentration camp isn't a genocide. The USA had concentration camps during the Civil War - and a large percentage of the prisoners died - and during WWII. That does not constitute genocide. Nor does forced marches.

#1. Nobody said it was #2. It's the conditions under which they existed that count. Hundreds of thousands of murdered Armenians, hundreds of thousands more made to march under deadly conditions. Your revisionism is absurd.

So it gets MORE complicated, doesn't it? I would agree there were "genocides" within the Ottoman Empire that was localized - ie a deliberate killing of every Armenian they could find. But, again, there is nothing I've seen by which the Ottoman federal authority issued an order to round up and kill all Armenians - either directly or by action (such as in Germany.)

Good grief, the Ottoman Empire had pretty good knowledge of what their laws and actions were intended to do. It passed laws to restrict the ability of Armenians to defend themselves, then attacked and murdered them, all the while confiscating their property. There is nothing complex about that. It was a genocide meant to wipe out Armenians in its empire. There was nothing localized about it. The rest of your post was taken out because it's entirely irrelevant. :shrug:

Hatuey · Apr 7, 2015

joko104 said:
Lots of government policies "lead to" the deaths of hundreds of thousands to millions of people. Generally all large scale wars do. The question is whether the 1.5 million deaths were ordered to be specifically killed?

Armenian Genocide of 1915: An Overview - New York Times

Armenians mark the date April 24, 1915, when several hundred Armenian intellectuals were rounded up, arrested and later executed as the start of the Armenian genocide and it is generally said to have extended to 1917. However, there were also massacres of Armenians in 1894, 1895, 1896, 1909, and a reprise between 1920 and 1923.

The University of Minnesota’s Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies has compiled figures by province and district that show there were 2,133,190 Armenians in the empire in 1914 and only about 387,800 by 1922.

That's a reduction of 85%, Joko. With 3/4ths of that being made up of executions and death marches alone. Believing it was done under anything other than a policy of extermination at this point makes you look even more revisionist.

The Nazi holocaust was "a genocide." But by your definition Germany going to war was also a genocide because of all the deaths that occurred. Did the USA commit "genocide" because of all the Japanese killed in WWII? Did the North commit "genocide" against the South by fighting against their withdrawing from the Union?

Ummm the the Nazi holocaust was a genocide. There was a policy of extermination. The US had no policy of exterminating the Japanese. That's patently absurd.

joko104 · Apr 7, 2015

At that time, the Ottoman Empire was in an existential battle for it's very existence and those who dispute the Armenian genocide believe both that wide scale violence, persecution and murder was motivated, in part, by waves of ethnic cleansing committed against the Ottoman Empire's Muslim population in the Balkans and the Caucasus.

The victors write the history books. The Ottoman Empire was crushed as were their leaders and the Empire chopped up and literally eliminated by the victors. Who wrote the history from their perspective? No one. Just like history screams of German atrocities but largely is silent about Russian mass atrocities prior to and during WWII. Does that minimize the Nazi holocaust? No. But it doesn't mean the Russian atrocities are irrelevant either.

When wars become wars of national survival, unfortunately war also becomes increasing mass atrocities. Out of blame. Out of retaliation. Because everyone of them is the enemy - often due to escalating guerilla warfare by those being persecuted - for which then ALL civilians are potential enemy AND a desire to not have those people take the country if you lose.

The battle lines between both the Germans and Russians - and Japanese and Chinese - became kill and rape everyone, burn everything. Since some civilians do support, feed, hide and house guerilla warriors - and are a source of guerilla fighters who won't wear uniforms, those civilians in toto come to be seen as the enemy - why the often are put into concentration camps, deported, large numbers murdered publicly to make an example, and such.

WWI and the wars prior to it could be described as wars of atrocities. So there not only is the question of whether the Ottoman government directed a genocide against Armenians, but also whether then it was the largest genocide of all those going on?

At some point, wars of survival on a mass scale become revenge for revenge and retaliation for retaliation. All of them trying to kill all of us and visa versa. Civilians become quasi-military because their civilian activity and mere existence is a source of the enemy - if just a source and support to guerilla warfare such as the French Resistance as an example. Did the French Resistance kill every German they could in France, even if just in a civilian German administrative role? Were they murderers for doing so? Did French who fed and hide those fighters make themselves a military enemy?

And terror is a recognized tactic of war - for which nearly all bombing by the Allies for a while was against German and Japanese cities - ie fire bombing "to break their will to fight." Genocide? Mass murder? Or how wars go?

Is the side that kills more successfully then more evil? Is the loser more evil? The winner? Is it measured in motivation or body count?

We forget that historically in the further distant past wars tended to often be about genocide. The GOAL of the war was to kill everyone of "them," the other people, and take their land for yourself.

All of the USA came into existence under that premise, didn't it? Kill or run off all "Indians" and take all their land. That is what MOST wars in the past were about. Get rid of them, take everything they have. Do Americans throw ashes of remorse on themselves? Any of you care to give everything have back to those people? Your house? Car? You don't even think about it.

The "Biblical" style wars, in which exactly everyone except those taken off into slavery in a city-state would be killed - as in everyone.

The notion of ANY morality in war didn't largely come about until the late 1800s and evolved slowly.

AND THAT IS WHY I ASK WHY THE FOCUS ON THIS PAST MASS ATROCITY? There are hundreds to pick from. Thousands, depending how far back you want to go. Why not talk about CURRENTLY RELEVANT atrocities instead?

Hatuey · Apr 7, 2015

joko104 said:
At that time, the Ottoman Empire was in an existential battle for it's very existence and those who dispute the Armenian genocide believe both that wide scale violence, persecution and murder was motivated, in part, by waves of ethnic cleansing committed against the Ottoman Empire's Muslim population in the Balkans and the Caucasus.

The victors write the history books. The Ottoman Empire was crushed as were their leaders and the Empire chopped up and literally eliminated by the victors. Who wrote the history from their perspective? No one. Just like history screams of German atrocities but largely is silent about Russian mass atrocities prior to and during WWII. Does that minimize the Nazi holocaust? No. But it doesn't mean the Russian atrocities are irrelevant either.

When wars become wars of national survival, unfortunately war also becomes increasing mass atrocities. Out of blame. Out of retaliation. Because everyone of them is the enemy - often due to escalating guerilla warfare by those being persecuted - for which then ALL civilians are potential enemy AND a desire to have those people take the country if you lose. The battle lines between both the Germans and Russians - and Japanese and Chinese - became kill and rape everyone, burn everything. Since some civilians do support, feed, hide and house guerilla warriors, those civilians in toto come to be seen as the enemy - why the often are put into concentration camps, deported, large numbers murdered publicly to make an example, and such.

WWI and the wars prior to it could be described as wars of atrocities. So there not only is the question of whether the Ottoman government directed a genocide against Armenians, but also whether then it was the largest genocide of all those going on?

At some point, wars of survival on a mass scale become revenge for revenge and retaliation for retaliation. All of them trying to kill all of us and visa versa. Civilians become quasi-military because their civilian activity and mere existence is a source of the enemy - if just a source and support to guerilla warfare such as the French Resistance as an example. Did the French Resistance kill every German the could in France, even if just in a civilian German administrative role? Were they murderers for doing so?

Is the side that kills more successfully then more evil?

We forget that historically in the further distant past wars tended to often be about genocide. The GOAL of the war wa to kill everyone of "them," the other people, and take their land for yourself. All of the USA exists under that premise, doesn't it?

The "Biblical" style wars, in which exactly everyone except those taken off into slavery in a city-state would be killed - as in everyone.

The notion of ANY morality in war didn't largely come about until the late 1800s and evolved slowly.

AND THAT IS WHY I ASK WHY THE FOCUS ON THIS PAST MASS ATROCITY? There are hundreds to pick from. Thousands, depending how far back you want to go. Why not talk about CURRENTLY RELEVANT atrocities instead?

All this ranting because you can't really discuss the Armenian Genocide in any detail. It's clear Joko that you feel hundreds of thousands being raped, murdered and forced to march towards concentration camps doesn't count as a genocide. It's clear that you think the Turkish were in some fictional fight for survival against... the Armenians? Your dismissal that this was just business as usual in the early 20th century doesn't jive well with the facts. Your attempt to say "Well! Let's talk about something else!" makes you look like one of those kids who wants to have things his way. May I suggest that if you don't want to discuss the topic of the thread you kindly move along to another thread that discusses events and issues more palatable to you?

joko104 · Apr 7, 2015

Hatuey said:
Armenian Genocide of 1915: An Overview - New York Times

That's a reduction of 85%, Joko. With 3/4ths of that being made up of executions and death marches alone. Believing it was done under anything other than a policy of extermination at this point makes you look even more revisionist.

Ummm the the Nazi holocaust was a genocide. There was a policy of extermination. The US had no policy of exterminating the Japanese. That's patently absurd.

There was and is a policy of extermination going on still all over the ME. What about that? If you can bring up the Nazis, I can bring up the present and more recent history.

I read there were 3,000,000 Amenians to begin with. So it's 50%, not 85%, if the 1.5 million number is accurate. It is a number written by victors. That percentage pales to the percentage of reduction percentage of Christians and Jews in nearly all ME countries, FAR more current than now.

How many Ottoman civilians were killed in the Balkins and Cacucacus. By Armenian guerillas? By Russian and British? Do you know? Do you care? Anyone ever write about that? No, the Ottomans lost. They don't get to write history books.

Nothing I write defends the slaughter of Armenians. However to shake a cursing finger solely at the Ottomans for pre-WWI and WWI civilian deaths? That's very selective, isn't it?

US Conservative · Apr 7, 2015

Of course they committed genocide against the Armenians, Im in southern California and know several Armenians who still know the stories.

My fathers side is Greek, the Turks committed genocide there as well.

The Armenian Genocide[7] (Armenian: Հայոց Ցեղասպանություն Hayots Tseghaspanutyun),[note 3] also known as the Armenian Holocaust,[8] the Armenian Massacres and, traditionally by Armenians, as Medz Yeghern (Armenian: Մեծ Եղեռն, "Great Crime"),[9] was the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects from their historic homeland within the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey. The total number of people killed as a result has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million. The starting date is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915, the day Ottoman authorities rounded up and arrested some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases: the wholesale killing of the able-bodied male population through massacre and subjection of army conscripts to forced labour, followed by the deportation of women, children, the elderly and infirm on death marches leading to the Syrian desert. Driven forward by military escorts, the deportees were deprived of food and water and subjected to periodic robbery, rape, and massacre.[10][11][12] Other indigenous and Christian ethnic groups such as the Assyrians and the Ottoman Greeks were similarly targeted for extermination by the Ottoman government, and their treatment is considered by many historians to be part of the same genocidal policy. The majority of Armenian diaspora communities around the world came into being as a direct result of the genocide.
Armenian Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

JANFU · Apr 7, 2015

PeteEU said:
Again that argument can be made of any war.

Take territory disputes.. done because one side does not like the other side being in a certain place. Genocide?

And you cant say in this case of the Armenians that the intent was to kill them all off, simply because of the amount of Armenians left after the fact in the once Ottoman Empire. That there could be over 100k Armenians in the capital of the Ottoman Empire in 1921 kinda shows that. Drive them into exile sure, but that aint genocide..if it was, then the west committed genocide against the German people after WW2 when they took Prussia from Germany and forced millions of Germans to leave their historical home land and many died on the process.

That is why I say we have to be careful in using the "Genocide" claim, since it can be used against anyone. The formation of Israel? Genocide against Palestinians. Would you accept that? It aint no different than what happened to the Armenians.

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

Hatuey · Apr 7, 2015

joko104 said:
There was and is a policy of extermination going on still all over the ME.

This thread is about the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s Joko. Try and keep up?

I read there were 3,000,000 Amenians to begin with. So it's 50%, not 85%, if the 1.5 million number is accurate.

Armenian Genocide of 1915: An Overview - New York Times

The University of Minnesota’s Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies has compiled figures by province and district that show there were 2,133,190 Armenians in the empire in 1914 and only about 387,800 by 1922.

We're talking, once again, about the Ottoman Empire. Not the entire Armenian population. However, even if we were - your argument would be absurd too. It would mean there was not Rwandan Massacre because there are were many Tutsis in other countries of Africa who were not affected by the massacre.

It is a number written by victors. That percentage pales to the percentage of reduction percentage of Christians and Jews in nearly all ME countries, FAR more current than now.

How many Ottoman civilians were killed in the Balkins and Cacucacus. By Armenian guerillas? By Russian and British? Do you know? Do you care? Anyone ever write about that? No, the Ottomans lost. They don't get to write history books.

Nothing I write defends the slaughter of Armenians. However to shake a cursing finger solely at the Ottomans for pre-WWI and WWI civilian deaths? That's very selective, isn't it?

Your continued need to ignore the subject title and try to make it about what you want to talk about makes you look like the revisionist you've already proven that you are Joko. Do you run into book clubs near your house and scream that they should be discussing the books you want to read too? Because that's what you're doing here. The thread is about the Armenian Genocide. Not the Genocide Joko Thinks We Should Talk About.

Hatuey · Apr 7, 2015

US Conservative said:
Of course they committed genocide against the Armenians, Im in southern California and know several Armenians who still know the stories.

My fathers side is Greek, the Turks committed genocide there as well.

This is one of the few likes you'll ever get from me. Treasure it. Keep it in a box. Whatever.

US Conservative · Apr 7, 2015

Hatuey said:
This is one of the few likes you'll ever get from me. Treasure it. Keep it in a box. Whatever.

Its already forgotten.

JANFU · Apr 7, 2015

PeteEU said:
My bad, meant ethnic group, Iraqi or tribal groups or even religious minorities.

As for intent, come on.. the whole country is based on tribes and Saddams tribe was the most powerful. The US went in there to destroy their power base .. that is intent.

The argument can be made for this and any war. Take what Saudi is doing in Yemen.. targeting a single tribe or ethnic group. Genocide? The whole sunni vs shia... genocide? How about Northern Ireland?

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.
I provided links for you that defined Genocide, legal definitions.
Yet you stray from those.
No, the argument cannot be made for any war where it meets the criteria of Genocide.

joko104 · Apr 7, 2015

Hatuey said:
All this ranting because you can't really discuss the Armenian Genocide in any detail. It's clear Joko that you feel hundreds of thousands being raped, murdered and forced to march towards concentration camps doesn't count as a genocide. It's clear that you think the Turkish were in some fictional fight for survival against... the Armenians? Your dismissal that this was just business as usual in the early 20th century doesn't jive well with the facts. Your attempt to say "Well! Let's talk about something else!" makes you look like one of those kids who wants to have things his way. May I suggest that if you don't want to discuss the topic of the thread you kindly move along to another thread that discusses events and issues more palatable to you?

I am discussing the topic far more than you are. You're devolved to just ranting about Armenian deaths.

The Armenians did become the enemy, while it could be debated as to why.

The total number of guerrillas in these irregular bands was 40,000–50,000, according to Boghos Nubar, the president of the "Armenian National Delegation":

In the Caucasus, where, without mentioning the 150,000 Armenians in the Imperial Russian Army, more than 40,000 of their volunteers helpeds to liberate part of the Armenian vilayets, and where, under the command of their leaders, Antranik and Nazerbekoff, they, alone among the peoples of the Caucasus, offered resistance to the Turkish armies, from the beginning of the Bolshevist withdrawal right up to the signing of an armistice.

Armenian fedayi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at the photos. MOST of the most famous fighters did NOT wear uniforms. Tens of thousands of Armenian rebels fighting in civilian clothing in a war of survival - a war being lost - is going result in massive civilian casualties. The USA turned against civilians in the Civil War and bomber targeting of civilians in WWII against both Japan and Germany killed more than 1.5 million combined.

Total number of Armenians at war with the Ottoman in military terms, nearly 200,000 - and tens of thousands in civilian clothing.

If we stick to JUST taking about the Ottomans and the Armenians, if you read the history there was an evolved escalation of adversity between the two sides and they did become military enemies. The Armenians were often fighting in civilian clothing disregarding the conventions of war and hiding within civilian populations, who supported and provided for them.

It has ONLY been in THE most recent wars where it was accepted that non-uniform enemy can hide behind civilians for which they can not then be attacked.

Do you think those Armenian guerillas killed Ottoman civilians? Who many Ottoman civilians were killed in the Balkins and Caucacus? Do you know? Claim that is irrelevant?

JANFU · Apr 7, 2015

Cryptic said:
Technically no, though in practical terms, yes.

Genoicide is defined as an attempt to kill an entire group of people. As such, genocides have been rare (holocaust, Rwanda). The Turks attempted to kill any armenians living in certain areas which were deemed to be disloyal or potentially disloyal- and the Turks had a blanket definition of disloyalty that included every Armenian in those areas.

But, Armenians living in the capital and other parts of western Turkey were not killed, or even detained. Thus, what the Turks did was technially not an attempt to kill all Armenians- just the real or perceived disloyal ones (which was a very large number).

No it is not to kill all .

Genoicide is defined as an attempt to kill an entire group of people

The international legal definition of genocide - Prevent Genocide International

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

joko104 · Apr 7, 2015

Hatuey said:
This is one of the few likes you'll ever get from me. Treasure it. Keep it in a box. Whatever.

Why do people feel they need to qualify a "like?" Team playing and concern of being seen as disloyal? Just curious.

Medusa · Apr 7, 2015

Hatuey said:
This is one of the few likes you'll ever get from me. Treasure it. Keep it in a box. Whatever.

JANFU · Apr 7, 2015

Medusa said:
what kind of sources are they ?

What sources are acceptable?
Armenian Genocide - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

On April 24, 1915, the Armenian genocide began. That day, the Turkish government arrested and executed several hundred Armenian intellectuals. After that, ordinary Armenians were turned out of their homes and sent on death marches through the Mesopotamian desert without food or water. Frequently, the marchers were stripped naked and forced to walk under the scorching sun until they dropped dead. People who stopped to rest were shot.

At the same time, the Young Turks created a “Special Organization,” which in turn organized “killing squads” or “butcher battalions” to carry out, as one officer put it, “the liquidation of the Christian elements.” These killing squads were often made up of murderers and other ex-convicts. They drowned people in rivers, threw them off cliffs, crucified them and burned them alive. In short order, the Turkish countryside was littered with Armenian corpses.

So where did 600 K go.
Armenian Genocide of 1915: An Overview - New York Times

On the eve of World War I, there were two million Armenians in the declining Ottoman Empire. By 1922, there were fewer than 400,000. The others — some 1.5 million — were killed in what historians consider a genocide.

As David Fromkin put it in his widely praised history of World War I and its aftermath, “A Peace to End All Peace”: “Rape and beating were commonplace. Those who were not killed at once were driven through mountains and deserts without food, drink or shelter. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians eventually succumbed or were killed .”

Armenian genocide - German guilt? | Germany | DW.DE | 06.03.2015

In the German Reichstag on September 29, 1916, the diplomat Gottlieb von Jagow had to give parliament an account of the terrible events in Turkey, then the Ottoman Empire.

It was about mass displacement and executions taking place in the eastern region of Anatolia. The German Empire was a colonial power there at the time and also an ally of the Ottoman government, which had previously initiated a mass persecution of Christian Armenians before the onset of World War I. "We did everything we could," stated Jagow in defense of Germany's passivity.
Historian Christin Pschichholz from the University of Potsam has no doubts. After having read files at the German Foreign Ministry, she concludes that, "the German government had extensive information about the destructive policies regarding the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire. Death marches, executions and forced labor: German diplomats painstakingly took note of everything happening around them at that time.

JANFU · Apr 7, 2015

Montecresto said:
Of course the US government doesn't recognise it, it doesn't even recognise its own.

Pure politics is at play here. You know that as well as I.

Hatuey · Apr 7, 2015

joko104 said:
I am discussing the topic far more than you are. You're devolved to just ranting about Armenian deaths.

Nope, I've pointed out that it's a genocide. You've spent quite a few posts doing everything but try and discuss the topic. Throwing a dart at every map you can and hoping something sticks. Nothing has so far. :shrug:

The Armenians did become the enemy, while it could be debated as to why.

The total number of guerrillas in these irregular bands was 40,000–50,000, according to Boghos Nubar, the president of the "Armenian National Delegation":

In the Caucasus, where, without mentioning the 150,000 Armenians in the Imperial Russian Army, more than 40,000 of their volunteers helpeds to liberate part of the Armenian vilayets, and where, under the command of their leaders, Antranik and Nazerbekoff, they, alone among the peoples of the Caucasus, offered resistance to the Turkish armies, from the beginning of the Bolshevist withdrawal right up to the signing of an armistice.

This has absolutely zero to do with the fact that there are still hundreds of thousands who had nothing to do with these guerrillas and were exterminated and marched to concentration camps. Whether the person was a law abiding citizen or not was irrelevant. All were marched and murdered with little regard for their actual complicity in these uprising. Your continued avoidance of this little fact just makes your case look weaker.

Armenian fedayi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at the photos. MOST of the most famous fighters did NOT wear uniforms. Tens of thousands of Armenian rebels fighting in civilian clothing in a war of survival - a war being lost - is going result in massive civilian casualties. The USA turned against civilians in the Civil War and bomber targeting of civilians in WWII against both Japan and Germany killed more than 1.5 million combined.

If we stick to JUST taking about the Ottomans and the Armenians, if you read the history there was an evolved escalation of adversity between the two sides and they did become military enemies. The Armenians were largely fighting in civilian clothing disregarding the conventions of war and hiding within civilian populations, who supported and provided for them.

Do you think those Armenian guerillas killed Ottoman civilians? Who many Ottoman civilians were killed in the Balkins and Caucacus? Do you know? Claim that is irrelevant?

From your link:

Armenian fedayi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fedayi (Western Armenian: Ֆէտայի Fedayi; Eastern Armenian: Ֆիդայի Fidayi), also known as the Armenian irregular units or Armenian militia, were Armenian civilians who voluntarily left their families to form self-defense units and armed bands in reaction to the mass murder of Armenians and the pillage of Armenian villages by criminals, tribal Kurdish forces, and Hamidian guards during the reign of Abdul Hamid II in late 19th and early 20th centuries, known as the Hamidian massacres. Their ultimate goal was always to gain Armenian autonomy (Armenakans) or independence (Dashnaks, Hunchaks) depending on their ideology and the degree of oppression visited on Armenians.

It's clear from your own links that these troops were created for self defence. Using them to establish a rationale for the policies the Ottoman Empire embraced to justify the destruction of Armenian culture within its borders makes you look desperate now joko.

Medusa · Apr 7, 2015

JANFU said:
What sources are acceptable?
Armenian Genocide - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

So where did 600 K go.
Armenian Genocide of 1915: An Overview - New York Times

Armenian genocide - German guilt? | Germany | DW.DE | 06.03.2015

new york times ? haha

)

Hatuey · Apr 7, 2015

Medusa said:
new york times ? haha )

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the person in this thread who claims to know more than everyone else, yet hasn't posted a single source for anything. :lol:

JANFU · Apr 7, 2015

Medusa said:
new york times ? haha )

NT Times, free press, something you can laugh about as Turkey no longer has any.
2 other links, they must have been valid then.

Montecresto · Apr 7, 2015

joko104 said:
I am discussing the topic far more than you are. You're devolved to just ranting about Armenian deaths.

The Armenians did become the enemy, while it could be debated as to why.

The total number of guerrillas in these irregular bands was 40,000–50,000, according to Boghos Nubar, the president of the "Armenian National Delegation":

In the Caucasus, where, without mentioning the 150,000 Armenians in the Imperial Russian Army, more than 40,000 of their volunteers helpeds to liberate part of the Armenian vilayets, and where, under the command of their leaders, Antranik and Nazerbekoff, they, alone among the peoples of the Caucasus, offered resistance to the Turkish armies, from the beginning of the Bolshevist withdrawal right up to the signing of an armistice.

Armenian fedayi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at the photos. MOST of the most famous fighters did NOT wear uniforms. Tens of thousands of Armenian rebels fighting in civilian clothing in a war of survival - a war being lost - is going result in massive civilian casualties. The USA turned against civilians in the Civil War and bomber targeting of civilians in WWII against both Japan and Germany killed more than 1.5 million combined.

Total number of Armenians at war with the Ottoman in military terms, nearly 200,000 - and tens of thousands in civilian clothing.

If we stick to JUST taking about the Ottomans and the Armenians, if you read the history there was an evolved escalation of adversity between the two sides and they did become military enemies. The Armenians were often fighting in civilian clothing disregarding the conventions of war and hiding within civilian populations, who supported and provided for them.

It has ONLY been in THE most recent wars where it was accepted that non-uniform enemy can hide behind civilians for which they can not then be attacked.

Do you think those Armenian guerillas killed Ottoman civilians? Who many Ottoman civilians were killed in the Balkins and Caucacus? Do you know? Claim that is irrelevant?

To the bolded. Yes, and there's good reason for that shift to modern opinion on that, and this Armenian genocide is exactly one of.

Did the Ottoman Empire Commit Genocide Against the Armenians?

Did the Ottoman Empire Commit Genocide Against the Armenians?

Yes

No

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

Land by the Gulf Stream

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

Land by the Gulf Stream

Land by the Gulf Stream

Land by the Gulf Stream

Land by the Gulf Stream

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

Land by the Gulf Stream