So called Armenian genocide

This is a very high level summary of course (and I particularly regret not having the time or space to elaborate on the transformation of the CUP over time – but perhaps I can present more of this at a later date) - I write this up to pass on a bit of understanding of why such a thing as the Armenian Genocide occurred and to put into context and perspective with other massacres that occurred to Armenians and other Christians of the Ottoman Empire during this period and to present an overview of the social and political situation within the last phase of the Ottoman Empire and the revolution that led to the Genocide.

We often see Turks claiming that Armenians were the first to kill Turks and that Turks were only “deporting” Armenians because Armenian “gangs” were somehow a threat to the state and were killing Turks. They claim that these actions were defensive and that there was a civil war and such - putting the burden of blame on Armenians. Of course this is the furthest thing from the truth and is in fact completely the opposite of what occurred. There is ample evidence - and incredible amount of it in fact - entirely from official Ottoman and CUP party records - as well as from accounts (descriptions and explanations of and for meetings, plans and activities) written by Ottoman and CUP members after WWI that details the intentions, plans and methods for cleansing (exterminating) Armenians and other Christians from Anatolia and the Ottoman Empire.

‘’‘Political deterioration and Christian Massacres during the late Ottoman period’’’

Of course we are all aware of the series of large scale massacres committed under the direction of Sultan Abdul Hamid in the late 1800s and the (for over 100 years) almost continuous massacre and repression by Kurds and other nomadic chettes who roamed the Eastern provinces (having been deliberately relocated by the Ottomans into Armenian provinces for the intention of de-Americanizing them) still living off of booty and pillage as they always had done. However the intentions of the CUP directed deportations and massacres were much different (and far more sinister) then these earlier massacres. The goal of Abdul Hamid and the Ottomans was suppression of political and economic expression of the Christian minorities in order that they maintain their place in Ottoman society – as Dhimmi – religious minorities of lesser status then the Muslims of the Empire. Much like the Jews in Germany early in the 20th century the Christians of the Ottoman Empire were prospering and developing a substantial modern urban presence consisting of educated and relatively wealthy individuals. (It should be noted that the majority of the populations of each of these groups remained as they had always been – poor and agricultural – in the Armenian case - and poor and urban [ghettoized] in the Jewish case – however the perceptions among the majority groups - based on a sizable though still small percent of the population - were that these minorities were becoming enriched and more powerful – and in fact this was true as such for a segment of the population). This occurred due to education and the fact that these groups were forced into economic paths that had become lucrative but didn’t fit into the occupations that fit high social status of traditional Ottoman society – government and military service – that Christians were prohibited from joining. As a result these groups began to exercise political aspirations where before there were none. These aspirations were primarily in the form of pressing for “equal rights” – individual and in regards to property (necessary for development of stable business environments) and also included calls for ending repression, massacres and other deprivations against them. While there existed an undercurrent of nationalist sentiment – primarily among the foreign educated student population who became exposed to such concepts in Europe – the political goals of the vast majority of Armenians (those who had them at all) were for greater equality and recognition within the Ottoman system that had always been exclusively dominated by Muslim Turks. During the Tanzimat period (1839-1876) a constitution was adopted that acknowledged these concerns for equality of Ottoman citizens. However these reforms and Christian calls for greater rights were opposed by the Sultan and were only adopted by outside force of the European powers – primarily Russia, Britain and France (and all of these reforms and the constitution itself were ultimately nullified by the Sultan). Sultan Abdul Hamid’s response to Christian situational reforms was to use force and massacre to quiet the Christians and to teach them that their entreaties for help would lead to no good for them (quite the opposite) and that change was not possible. The Sultan and the Ottomans were desperate to maintain the system that legitimized them and their centuries long order and domination.

The European powers were able to force many concessions from the Ottomans – in the political arena – at least on paper – though largely not carried out – but more importantly in the Economic arena. These concessions amounted to capitulations that gave the European powers specific legal and economic powers within the Ottoman Empire itself. These were highly resented by the Ottomans who blamed the Christian minorities for their humiliation. Thus a cycle of Ottoman massacres of minorities, European intervention, and resentment of the Christian minorities began. Additionally, the European powers were annexing Ottoman territories – often through the rational of protecting Christian minorities - and other territories were lost in war – particularly against Russia – who specifically carved a role of defender of their fellow Orthodox Christians (and took advantage of this for her own gain). As the Ottoman Empire’s fortunes waned and territory was lost to (once despised and looked down upon) foreign powers and to Christian minority uprisings (such as in Greece and in the Balkans) supported by the former States – a great resentment began to build against both outside powers and internal minorities. This was exacerbated due to the influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees from these lost territories and as a result of various Turkic groups fleeing massacre committed by Russians and the newly freed minority groups themselves who had experienced such at the hand of the Turkish overlords and were seeking revenge. Many Turks were forcibly deported from these areas as well – though most refugees were voluntarily fleeing expected and actual reprisals. The Ottomans settled a great many of these (angry and desperate) exiles into traditional Armenian provinces and areas in part accounting for and adding to the great animosity that had been building on the part of Muslim Turks – already resentful of their Empires and their own falling fortunes (due to the rising Ottoman corruption and economic impact of lost wars and crumbling Empire) and they further resented the perceived prosperity, growing status and special treatment afford the minorities.

‘’‘Young Turks, Pan-Turkism and Revolution’’’

In this environment there rose among educated Ottomans (primarily among the young military and medical fields) a desire to save the Empire and to modernize. There were however many competing and often improvised schools of thought that arose on how to achieve this. Most all on some level appeared to view the (absolute power of the) Sultanate as a relic of the past and wished for political and economic reform to break the Empire form its malaise and inferior (and rapidly falling) status vis-à-vis the European powers. On one hand there were those who aspired to French style democracy and equal rights and responsibilities for all citizens – with the removal of ethnic distinction and restriction – who could imagine an Empire where all ethnicities could contribute and be a part of an integrated whole (still however, it should be added – under ultimate Turkish dominion). On the other hand a small but over time growing contingent of reformers emphasized nationalist Turkish (and Muslim-Turkish) aspirations to the exclusion of the Christian minorities. It is telling that nearly all who advocated this path had their roots in either the Balkans or in by then Russian held territories be it Crimea or the Caucuses and nearly all of the “Turks” were in fact not quite ethnically Turkish (and certainly not Ottoman Turkish) – but were some variant – Tartar, Bulgarian, Azeri or such – and these individuals were raised to manhood in environments where their home territories were lost to foreign Christian powers and to nationalized former Christian minorities – and this is a very key aspect to their development and thinking – particularly in regards to their perceptions concerning the remaining Christian minorities of the Empire (Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians). Eventually those who aspired for reforms were lumped together and considered as “Young Turks” (there were as well Young Ottomans who advocated concepts of reform within the Ottoman structure). All of these Turkic groups however never abandoned the concept of the Turks as the ruling people of the Empire and in fact as Turkish nationalism arose out of the defeats (and obvious bankruptcy of Ottomanism) and loss of outlying territories at the hands of Foreign and minority Christian groups there arose great enthusiasm for the concepts of Pan-Turkism and Pan-Turanism – the later being the extension of the concept of the Turkish “nation” to include all Turkic peoples of the world across Central Asia. These concepts took on greater importance to the Young Turk movement with the ascendancy of the radical wing of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) – the leading Young Turk political party – that adhered to these principals.

The CUP undertook a successful coup of the government in 1908. At this time the liberal faction held sway and they reinstalled the constitution that Abdul Hamid had suspended and invited participation from representatives of the minority communities. The Armenian political parties and populace supported the new regime and were hopeful for reform. However after an Islamic student led counter-coup in 1909 (in large part in protest of this concept of elevating minority rights) led to an ascendancy of the Pan-Turkic/Pan-Islamic CUP faction that quickly passed the Law of Associations forbidding ethnically based political associations (parties) – thus banning the Armenian political parties whom in their pan-Turkic vision had become adversaries. The various CUP actions against the minorities – such as forbidding any language besides Turkish to be taught in schools – prompted protests and even revolts in the minority communities. It was this very issue that prompted the Albanian revolt in 1910 and this further turned the CUP toward a Turkic only platform (as Albanians were Muslim but non-Turkish) and further hardened the CUP against the minorities. It was beginning at this time where CUP Central Committee records and foreign observers at CUP Congresses first mention that the use of violence and force to transform the Empire and specifically against the minorities was given broad recognition within the party and was a policy (secretly) adopted at the highest levels. The Balkan War in 1912 further hardened the CUP/Ottoman elite and convinced them that there was no chance to reform the Ottoman Empire in a multi-ethnic fashion. However it should be noted that all attempts to do so up to this point all were clearly determined to enforce the concept of Turkish dominance and force the minorities to Turkify and it is no surprise that the minority groups – even the Muslim ones – reacted against this.

‘’‘CUP campaign to eradicate Christians from Anatolia’’’

By 1913 when the CUP took full control of the state with the assassination of the Grand Vizer Mahumet Sevket - Turkism was officially adopted as party policy and enactment of this vision was put into effect. Various committees were established such as the National Defense Committee and the Committee of National Independence whose aims were to Turkify the economy by force and extended the power of the party and of trusted pan-Turkist Turkish operatives throughout the Empire. These committees organized boycotts of Armenian and Greek businesses and formed volunteer armed gangs called fedai cheteler (or chettes) who were charged with committing massacres and expulsions of Christians with the explicit aim to thin their populations. What is interesting is that these actions – which began in late 1913/early 1914 occurred prior to the Ottoman’s entering the war and were concentrated in Western Anatolia – in the Aegean region and to a lesser extent in the Black Sea region – where the bulk of the prosperous Greeks resided. It is also interesting that at this time (January 1914) Enver Pasha was appointed Minister of War and under him the Special Organization was reformed with operatives sent both East and West. East to the Caucuses to prepare the Muslims there under the Russian Empire to revolt with the intention of joining the Ottoman Empire and West to massacre Greeks and Armenians along the Aegean coast. Its also interesting that a senior government official from the Tekfurdagi district who was involved in implementing these measures at the time later said that the policy was variously called “emigration” or “deportation” but that the intent was “devastation and annihilation”. As word of these massacres reached the Western powers in Istanbul a commission of Inquiry was established but by then the damage had been done – hundreds of thousands of Greeks and Armenians had been slaughtered and an estimated 500,000 ethnic Greeks were forced to flee to Greece. Later, after the bulk of the Armenian Genocide had occurred (in both 1916 and again in 1918) these massacres and expulsions resumed. The head of the Special Organization – Kushchubasi Eshref Bey - later admitted that in 1914 alone the number of Greeks and Armenians affected by his “purifying conquest operations” was 1,150,000 – with an estimate 500,000 killed! These massacres and expulsions occurred over one year prior to the more commonly known Armenian “deportations” and Genocide and they began well prior to the outbreak of World War I and there was no violence or charges of sedition to prompt them. The lack of any repercussions from these massacres must have further emboldened the CUP central committee as they contemplated their plan to eliminate the Armenians who stood between them and their Turkish brethren to the East.

During this same period of time Ottoman military operatives and special organization members were scouring various Armenian localities charged with disarming the population (on pretext of measures being taken against violent Armenian “secret” political parties and gangs – who were outlawed and seen by the CUP as potential threats). Armenian communities that had successfully resisted massacres in the 1890s were specifically targeted and their inhabitants harassed. Additionally, even prior to the April 1915 round up of Armenian leaders and intelligencia in Istanbul and other Armenian towns there were selected arrests and murders of Armenian political and religious leaders, and various massacres were conducted throughout Anatolia designed in part to provoke the Armenian population to revolt (which they by and large did not do) and any counteraction was used as an excuse for further repressive measures. In August of 1914 all Armenian men between the ages of 20 and 45 were subject to being drafted and resistance to this was used as an excuse to harass Armenian communities. Additionally, the Ottomans forced Armenians from all the provinces to pay enormous war contributions. All of these events occurred prior to the Ottoman Empire entering World War I and during this period all reports form the Armenian provinces suggest that there was no revolt and no significant activity whatsoever. Shortly after the Ottomans joined World War I and attacked Russia the CUP began to circulate charges of Armenian sedition and Armenian soldiers in the Ottoman Army were disarmed and converted into labor battalions. Incidents of massacre and attacks on Armenians increase significantly throughout Anatolia. Charges of sedition became particularly strident after Enver’s disastrous defeat at Sarakamish in the Caucuses in January of 1915 where additional charges against Armenians to excuse the defeat – yet Enver himself actually praised the valor of Armenian units that had saved his life. However, it was when the Allies invaded and attacked the Dardenelles in March 1915 and Istanbul itself was threatened that the “final solution” to the “Armenian Question” was put into effect. These CUP central committee decisions are well documented. In April 1915 Armenian community, political and artistic leaders from Istanbul and major Armenian towns throughout Anatolia are rounded up and taken away – most will be killed. And following the successful resistance to massacre by the Armenians of Van the CUP enact the Temporary Law of Deportations – that acts as the cover for the extermination and cleansing of Armenians from Anatolia and the Ottoman Empire. The Law of Abandoned Properties was further used to seize Armenian economic assets and complete the CUP plan to nationalize the economy and Turkify the nation. Within a year nearly all Armenians are gone from Anatolia – with more the half killed (estimated at over 1 million individuals) and most of the rest of the survivors in death camps in the Syrian desert (where nearly ½ million more would die), with a percentage escaping into Russian controlled Caucuses or elsewhere. In the years following the vast majority of the Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians – the last remaining Christian communities of the Empire – are either killed or expelled. These actions against the Christian minorities continued throughout World War I and recommenced with the advent of the Nationalist Turkish War for liberation in 1919 with actions taken against remaining Armenians in Anatolia as well as in the Armenian Caucuses where up to an additional 400,000 Armenians may have been massacred and killed. The final stage of the Turkish Genocide of its Christian communities can be said to have occurred in 1922 and 1923 with the burning of the predominantly Greek and Armenian city of Smyrna and the forced expulsion (that became a population exchange) of the remaining Greek and Christian elements of Turkey save for a small community that remained in Istanbul and a very few isolated Armenian villages that somehow escaped or who converted to Islam and were left be. However even converting to Islam did not save many of the Empires Christians as even these too were directed to be “deported” (massacred)…and today there are only a small handful of Armenians and Christians left in Turkey – again mostly concentrated in Istanbul itself.

1.5 million,

thanks for the reply and the bulk on information. While most of it is condivisible (to me; a turkish counterpart would probably contest most of it), I remain unconvinced on some issues.
To be sure: the massacres are not under discussion; while some (well, probably a majority) or the turkish public sincerely believes they were ‘relocations’ of a rebellious minority, there is no serius scholar who would ever subscribe to this view.
My perplexities are about the two a.m. issues: deliberate intent and ‘provocation’.
While I am far from sure that the order of extermination was NOT given, the degree of falsifications (of which the armenians too carry part of the blame) makes it hard to accept many of those documents as authentic.
While there is no lack of western (and turkish) scholars who recognize the events as deliberate genocide, many serious historians fall well short of defining them as such; some (Justin McCarthy, Andrew Mango) can be accused of turkish apologism, but others as Bernard Lewis and Lord Kinross deserve more attentions. At a lower scholarly level, writers such as Peter Hopkirk and Louis de Bernieres do not find certain proof of a genocidal intent. The issue need to be better documented before it can be digested by the Turkish public.
What cannot be accepted in Turkey (and trust me, it never will) is the ‘racial’ thesis, that see the armenians persecuted as such, as the jews were in Germany. As there is no such thing as anti-armenianism in Turkey (mixed marriages are common; much more, interestingly, than Greek-Armenian or Turk-Kurd ones, where prejudices are stronger), and as nationalism in Turkey, barbaric as it can be, never assumes racist overtones, it is hard to see the reason of such an unmotivated wave of rage.
This becomes more dangerous when the Greeks are taken into the picture: would it be possible to describe the greek pontus massacres and the fire of Smyrna as ‘unmotivated’? There was an invasion, and atrocities from both sides. Furthermore, the Greeks and Armenians of Istanbul were left untouched (until the fifties, when another wave of hate swept them away, but again the Cyprus massacres need to be taken into account). The armenian thesis that this was because there was an ally presence in the city does not hold: it was 1915, and the allies were far away from Costantinople, where the Ittihadists had complete control.
What I am trying to say is that the armenian case should be treated as a case in itself, without reference to the Greek or Jewish tragedies (the Jews in particular, having strong motives of gratitude toward the Turks, are the first to oppose these parallels).
While I do believe that a level of acceptance of the ethnic cleansings of 1915 can be reached in Turkey (a debate at Bosphorus University is taking place now, with the usual contour of grey wolves shouting ‘traitors’ and waving flags), unfair parallels, murky and racist accusations and mistifications (none of which have taken places in this forum; there are nonetheless armenian sites that talk of ‘extermination camps’, to further the similitude to the Shoah) do not help the cause. Elif Shafak, quoted above as a proponent of the armenian point of view, actually states that the word ‘genocide’ precludes any possibility of dialogue. I don’t think so (if proofs can be brought that it was, ‘genocide’ it should be), but the sensitivities of the turks, expecially of those more inclined to the recognition, should be taken into account.
One last observation on the parallel with the Shoah: Germany’s recognition of guilt, while commendable, has followed its defeat in war, and occupation of the allies. Turkey was not defeated, and got rid of its enemies on its own, at the price of blood and tears. No undefeated nation has ever recognised its own crimes at the extent that Turkey is expected to (Bush is not known for being apologetic to the indians, for example). It will not happen. A recognition of the terrible crime extolled on the armenians during the 1915 deportations would be a considerable step. It would also help Armenia itself (the armenians of Istanbul are doing quite fine, and seem not very interested in the subject).

Two questions:

  1. What was going on in the Mexican Revolution genocide (or massacre, not sure if genocide is the right term, is it?)? Was this U.S. or texan forces killing Mexicans, or Mexicans killing Mexicans, or the Spanish? What?

  2. How much of the SE Asia death toll is attributed to the handiwork of the US? Is civilian deaths in a “war” not counted or is it counted?

Yes, I’m curious, too.

Yes I am glad that you at least understand this.

Though I believe the Andonioan documents are authentic – as they match up in style and substance with CUP/Talat originating secret telegrams that have been otherwise discovered – they are by no means the only direct and explicit evidence of premeditation on the part of the CUP. Additionally my presentation on the origins of the Genocide where I presented the campaign against the Greeks and Armenians of Wesern Anatolia occuring prior to the start of WWI and also the history of CUP attitudes (and statements of record) concerning the minorites should make it clear the intent of the CUP was annhiliation of the Christian communities in toto. The systemic and thorough acts of massacre and “deportation” should also be sufficient proof. Again – no such documents exist in the case of the Holocaust – yet the intent of such is not disputed. Additionally even in the case of Nazi policy towards the Jews – there first apears the concept and practice of “deporation” that rapidly turned to extermination. The same process of thought seems to have occurred within the CUP – however the decisions to essentially wipe out the Christians appear to have been made as early as 1911 and this has been extensively documented by Turkish historian Taner Akcam. I highly recommend that you read his recent book – “From Empire to Republic – Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide.” In this book and in other articles I possess by other scholars the extreme racial (religious and racial) bigotry that developed against the Christian minorities is also very well documented. Likewise I suggest that you read Robert Melson – “Revolution and Genocide” for a thorough rebuttle of the “provocation thesis”. It is clear that these attacks began long before any Armenian revolutionary violence and additionally such violance had practically ceased after the CUP revolution of 1908. Radical Armenian political parties actually supported the (liberal) CUP and like other Armenians of the Empire had high hopes for reform within the Ottoman system. They like other Armenians were taken unaware and were not cognizant of the fundemental changes that occurred within the CUP leadership structure and the Genocidal policies that were embarked upon.

In fact Armenians in Istanbul were not untouched – 40-80,000 (depending on citation) were “deported” – and the Armenians of Smyrna/Izmir would have likewise been subject to the same were it not for (well documented) German intervention. But yes – in fact the presence of a great many foreigners in Istanbul was a clear deterent – as the CUP was constantly attempting to put foreward its cover story of military necessity – so deporation of Armenians (clearly without cause) from Istanbul and other areas where foreigners were concentrated was problematic. And in fact there were many foreigners – Ottoman allies and many from the United States – which was not an ally – and never declared war on Turkey (only Germany itself). These foreigners were diplomatic, business, educational, missionary as well as a sizeable full time expatriate community that existed in the very cosmopolitan city.

The Armenian case clearly stands on its own. However the particualrs of it are much well know to the average public – partially due to the time factor – longer ago – and partially due to the aggressive Turkish efforts to deny and prevent recognition. Thus conparisons with the Jewish Holocaust are entirely relevant as a point of reference. I don’t dicount some important differences – of course all of these are unique time and circumstance – however the parallels are really quite numerous and frightening. Extermination camps did exist BTW – as well as numerous temporary transit camps. Several camps were established in the Syrian desert with the sole purpose of containing Armenians while they were being starved to death. Nearly ½ million may have been killed this way. These are highly documented by German and American missionaries as well as from US diplomatic consul reports and from Turkish sources. The existance of a great deal of Turkish eywitness information to the Genocide is perhaps not well know – but there was a great deal of published material immediately after the war (primarily in newspapers) that led to Parlimentary Inquiries and there are a number of biogrophies and other accounts. What is interesting is the great degree of self-admission on the part of many Turks who took part in massacres and from some who were well aware of the central direction of the extermination orders (who received such in their official capacities) and who reported the details of such. Of course there are those post war Ottoman Military Tribunals where the documented evidence and verdits are quite telling (and this is the source for documentation of many of the secret telegrams). It should be made known that all information aout these trials has been purged from the Ottoman Archives…curious that…

I understand the Turkish “sensitivities” to this issue in all its forms. And I know what roadblocks to Genocide recognition they present. Additionally I understand the context that the Turks place these events in – however based on a great deal of erroneous information. The later complicity of Kemal and the Nationalists in perpetuation of these policies – indeed the foundation of the very Republic is dependent on these (racist) concepts. And I know that there currently exists very little middle ground between the Turkish and Armenian perspectives on this issue and any attempt to force the Turks to accept and admit will meet failure. The Turks must mature and come to the realizations on their own – perhaps with the help of some reasoned tones pointing them the way (this I see as my role). However I think the Turkish side also needs to be more sensitive and understanding of the Armenian pain and perspective and needs to begin to understand this issue outside of its anti-Imperialist and treason accusations.

I also understand how Germans were forced to admit what had been done – and lacking that perhaps would today be in a similar situation to the Turks. However the German society has also taken the step as an open one and debate and such is possible. This is not yet fully possible within Turkey – as we have seen today where an Armenian Genocide conference of (Turkish non-Government beholden) Turkish scholars that was to convene today was cancelled by the Turkish Justice minister. I understan dhow there is much more ability (and interest) to discuss these issues within Turkey today as opposed to before – as all ethnic issues and human rights issues are coming to the fore. Turkish society is in a period of transition with the fall of the Soviet Union spurring much, as well as EU issues and the re-emergence of Islam. Turkey right now is much as Yugoslavia was after Tito (in certain respects). It is in a cirsis to be sure. One can only hope that it moves in a positive direction. Armenian Genocide recognition and other related hisotrical revelations – myth busting – is key to this.

The following are some exerpts of short essays of mine that originally were posted elsewhere as part of a diologue between Armenians and Turks on this issue: (edited slightly for context only)

1

…there was a rapid transformation of racial views in the Ottoman Empire – much as occurred in Germany prior to World War II. Also – racism against Jews in Germany – though it existed even in the 19th century – was confined to a very small minority segment of the population and saw voice in several political parties that never achieved any widespread support. And in fact Jews became very integrated into German life – and this is (in part) what spurred the extreme racism of the Nazis – because just like the Armenians in the mid-late 19th century the Jews experienced a cultural renaissance and were increasingly successful in business and in general and began to express themselves culturally in a more visible way. Their self-confidence – like the Armenians – created a backlash – as the majority of society – in each case was experiencing economic (and political) hardship with crumbling Empire and external threats (and these external threats [nations] were considered to be in league with the minorities – further causing them to be despised and looked upon suspiciously). And contrary to the contention that Ottomanism was about assimilation – it was just the opposite.

Thus under the Sultan – there was no real attempt to assimilate Armenians. Of course – as the status quo was an unequal one – many Armenians did convert and attempt to become “Turkish” in a sense – for advancement/integration in the predominant society – but by and large the majority of Armenians were very much left to be such in their own communities – this concept in fact was at the center of Ottomanism – its what Abdul Hamid tried to hold onto (with Armenians not being equated equal rights and status etc – and this is where the earlier Anti-Armenian racism appeared – again as with the Jews – when the Armenians began to assert themselves in face of the status quo) – and it was only with the rise of the CUP where this concept of integration first appeared (as more or less an official doctrine) – though it was quickly abandoned when the racist (military based with ideological input from Pan-Turanist intelectuals) rose up and took over the party and they defined a very explicitly racist agenda.

According to David Kushner in “the Rise of Turkish Nationalism 1976-1908 (1977) – “the emergence of Turkism, the ideological core of Turkish nationalism, led to a shift from ethnoreligious racism to a more biological version of it, for Turkism centered upon the concept of race (cins or irk)” And Akchura (who was influential with the CUP) and was one of the leading proponents of Turkism proposed (in 1904) “a Turkish political nationality founded on race” While admittedly one can have stereotypes or bigotry and such based on another’s race – it is quite a different thing when one starts proclaiming that (as Ziya Golkalp did in 1911) – “the supermen whom the German philosopher Nietzsche imagined are the Turks” and one need look no further then the life exploits and proclamations of one Enver Pasha (one of the CUP triumvirate responsible for the Genocide) to see the realization of such racist/racially based outlook. And while the racism did differ in specific intensity form the Nazis – and while the CUP had other motivations (economic certainly – but then again the Nazis accused the Jews of controlling the German [and beyond] economy and wished to take it back for the Germans – there can be no doubt that Turkish racism played a central role in the Genocide – and this racism was a major motivator of anti-Armenian violence on the part of the Turkish masses/mobs as well (in addition to pillage) – that was stoked to a fury by the call for anti-Christian Jihad. Additionally this issue of allowing converts to Islam survive – yes while there was some of this – mostly for captured women and children (and remember Turks themselves are essentially multi-ethnic – so not truly “pure” as Germans see themselves…so yes some differences – still its “Turkification” and this in itself is racist – even if not strictly biologically so) – also - Talat ordered many who were converted to be “deported” just as well (particularly later when the CUP was hunting down Armenian remnants) – and these Armenians were massacred too. And the Nationalist record of “Turkey for the Turks” and more narrow Turkism was certainly racist as have been the policies of the Republic of Turkey towards “Mountain Turks” and the policy of Ionou to force the Greeks out – etc and so on and so forth. Additionally much of the anti-Armenian sloganeering (as well as publications [Weems, Fein etc] and on web sites such as TaT) one hears from Turks today is highly racist toward Armenians (though I do not discount the reverse on the part of many (uneducated and overly loud) Armenians of today as well.

2

There can be no doubt that the CUP that came to control the Ottoman Government and its policies and the later Kemalists were highly racial/racist in their world view. Ataturk encouraged studies of Turkish racial origin and attempted to have the origins of the Turks be considered as arising from the mythical kingdom of Mu. Its pretty amazing - when one adopts a racist outlook - the lengths one goes to justify…and this is exactly the point of it.

While at its heart the issue of the Ottomans with the Armenians was not primarily racist - but one of maintaining an etnoreligious cultural, political and economic status quo - there can be no doubt that the rise of Turkish nationalism ushered in an era of extreme racial doctrine not unlike that avowed by the Nazis.

And it is clear that in each case - regarding the Jews and the Armenians - racism played a major factor - the facts in each case support this and the similarities in how each minority group was seen by the majority are near astounding.

In each case the minority group was achieving economic and political success and cultural renaissance that was highly resented by the majority (that was suffering from extreme economic hard times and cultural stress from rapid and [perceptibly negative] cultural and political changes and from outside pressures - and from rising nationalism on the part of the majority population in each nation).

In each case the majority was fearful of both the minority group’s increasing economic might and potential political consequences of such - and in fact explicitly disparaged the political organizations of the minority and claimed them to be seditious.

In each case there was a situation of societal upheaval and revolution from the former order that ushered in political parties whose undercurrent philosophy was one of racism and nationalistic xenophobia.

In each case these parties aggressively entered a World War against external enemies that it equated as being in alliance with the minority.

In each case they used the pretext of war and the charge of (alleged or potential) minority collusion with external enemies as rational for rounding up and massacring entire segments of the minority population - and in each case they aggressively seized the economic assets of that minority for their own use - and in each case they rationalized their actions based on racist ideology and rational - continuing to affix to these minority groups charges of seditious and untrustworthy racial characteristics and alleged activities - interesting in that as they started these wars - with territorial and racial aspirations of their own - they accused the minorities of such and of being untrustworthy in times of war - war that they themselves precipitated - thus a self fulfilling prophecy!

Yes - the parallels are many - indeed they are - even the denial of each to this day - is along very similar racist lines with the very same (concocted, exaggerated, and untrue!) arguments being used - the only difference being that Germany and Germans as a whole are shamed from what their nation and people did - and the Turks are mostly either ignorant of the facts or in some cases are proud - feeling that they have won some sort of victory -and indeed they have - as The Nationalist were able to triumph out of the ashes of defeat and were never called to account. They achieved their (downsized from the CUP Pan Turanist vision - but still significant) goals - where Germany was parceled and occupied. Thus Turkey and Turks can and do deny what was done where Germans - outside of a narrow groups of remaining and largely discredited anti-Semites - cannot. This is the difference.

Of course this is not the entire story - the Turks committed what could be considered a rational evil where the Germans just seem irrational in their fixation on the Jews. And there are reasons for this - going back to the Jews being perceived as the killers of Christ and from the roots of anti-Semitism stretching back to Roman times and through the middle ages - the baggage is oh so much greater and the root of anti-Semitism much deeper. The Ottoman Turkish racism was a comparatively newer phenomenon. Armenians - though of lower status had been accepted and respected. It was only with their rising (economic and political) status and the perception among the Turks of their potential to be another Bulgaria or Greece (or even worse as they lived in the Anatolian heartland now claimed by the Turks as home) that the extreme reactions began - and this is also where their fears were perhaps (arguably so) more legitimate then German/Nazi fears of Judiazation of the Germans (which in fact was to some degree urbanization and industrialization - need much more space to properly discuss). So the Turks fear of the potential for Armenian aspirations - as seen by the success of the other ethnics - and knowing how the Russians and others were using the Armenians for leverage against the Ottoman - well these fears were real (as fears) - and the presence of unassimilatable Armenians and other Christians - in their midst - was a clear blockade to Turanist/Turkist aspirations that had clearly supplanted (the failed Ottomanism and Pan Islamism [considering the Arab revolt…and Albanian succesion]). So yes this and the fact that the Armenians (along with the Greeks) were the elements in Ottoman society that had moved toward modernization (like the Jews in Germany) and they did largely have control of (modern) commerce (education being key as well for this…). So the Turks could perhaps sense that if they did not act decisively they were doomed (this was the only option to them as they saw it - having rejected cooperation with the Armenians - as they were unwilling to cede their pre-eminent status…)…thus rational vs irrational (evil) and why arguments for the pre-eminence of the (political) economic argument (for Genocide causation) versus outright (irrational and extreme) racism of the Nazis. But it is also clear that racism was a necessary and prevalent element. Think about it – this was Genocide – deliberate extermination of a people and elimination of a culture – not just an act of war or setting some economic policy.

There was a tremendous amount of Turkish racism against Christains and particualrly Armenains during this period. I suggest you read Stephan Astourians article “Modern Turkish Identity and the Armenain Genocide: From Predjudice to Racist Nationalism” in Rememberence and Denial - edited by Richard Hovannisian (Wayne State University Press - 1999). You should need no further convincing. His acticle is chock filled of Turksih racist epitaths and sayings that attibute naegative and dispicable characteristics to the Armenians. Interesting is the repeated comparision of Armenians to swine - a double negative connotation considering the Muslim aversion to pork. Oh yes - this and a great many more. And in fact the entire volume is first rate - with wonderful contributions from Armenian scholars, Jewish scholars and others from a variety of different fields. And as the contention of a tolerant Ottoman Empire - I agree - however just ponder this - Germany and Germans was/were also considered particualry tolerant and accepting of Jews - which is why so many settled there and why they propspered as they did - they were more successful and more integrated and more accepted in Germany then anywhere else in Europe - bar none - yet there too is where a rising racist ideology grew - from the ashes of economic and political ruin - from a legacy of lost wars and failed empire. The parallels between Germany and The Ottoman Empire and the disposition and fate of each targeted minority bear strking similarites. So yes racism - in addition to xenophobia - was certainly a factor - and this is reinforced by the tactics used by the CUP to rally the Turks and Kurds against the Armenains and the resultant anti-Armenian frenzy that was witnessed throught the country - particualry in the East - and the ease at which the Turkish people believed the lies and exaggerations that were sown concerning Armenian rebellion and treason when we know that Enver praised the Armenian loyalty after Sarikamish and where numerous German officers and Turkish accounts - verify that the Armenians were not in rebellion and provided no provocation - that all was in fact quiet in the East

…racism was a very large part of the motivation on the part of Turks - and here I refer to the average Turks not just the Turkish government or CUP party apparatus. You are no-doubt familiar with the concept of the Dhimmi (non-Muslim) and Millet (recognized ethno-religious community) identification of peoples whereby (religious [non-Muslim] and ethnic [who happened to predominately non-Muslim]) minorities were accorded a decidedly inferior (though in theory respected) status in Ottoman society. Well a number of things factored into the rising Ottoman (Turkish) resentment of the Christian minorities (and specifically Armenians) - the failure/downfall of the Ottoman Empire and tremendous cultural stress and upheaval, the (highly resented) pressures upon it (external and internal) for reform - adoption of (the short lived) Tanzimat reforms with establishment of a new constitution (1876) whereby minority groups were accorded more or less equal rights and could aspire to governmental and other positions etc - the successful independence movements of the outlying ethnic communities - primarily in the Balkans - creating refuges and a backlash against Christians - etc. these factors and most importantly - the fact that the Armenian and Greek communities in Anatolia were experiencing a cultural renaissance - with education and prosperity and began to assert themselves and call for greater rights - well this stoked resentment on the part of the Turks - towards these “uppity” Christians that was further fanned by extreme Turkish ethno-centric Nationalism - Golkalp, Tekin Alp, Akchura and others - who spewed much the same type of uber-Turk doctrine as Hitler and Himmler did later for the Germans - and don’t forget the concept of the “National Economy” whereby a series of boycotts against Christian businesses was conducted between 1908 and 1914 as well as violence against Christian shops and properties very similar the Kristalnach against German Jewish businesses in 1933 - yes racism and religious extremism (leading to the call for jihad) all played a part - particularly when in came to the attitudes of common Turks who were driven more by emotion and thoughts of revenge (Balkans/Crimea etc) and jealousy (against former vassals who had made it good at [in their perception] their expense – and you can even see how this drives Turks today who still dig up and destroy former Armenian properties in search of fabled Armenian gold and treasure) - etc - and on the part of the CUP leaders and Ataturk and the Nationalists who used such - most assuredly - but whose vision was greater - who understood that the Armenian genocide - the annihilation of the Armenians - was the price for a Turkish state

The controversy surrounding the Armenian Genocide – Supporting Evidence, Turkish denial and counter-charges
The various massacres and brutal treatment of the Armenians (directed by the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II) during the waning days of the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th Century were both well publicized and known to the world (even though it should be noted that these massacres were vigorously denied by the Sultanate at the time). These massacres – the largest and most publicized of which occurred throughout Anatolia at various times beginning in 1894 and continuing through 1896 – resulted in up to 300,000 Armenian deaths – prompted widespread condemnation of the Turkish Sultan (nicknamed the “Bloody Sultan” by Western media) and prompted the first worldwide large scale humanitarian relief effort the like of which was unknown until that time. Christian missionaries and relief workers who poured into Anatolia to feed and care for suffering Armenians - who had been massacred and left homeless - reported the details of many of these massacres (and there aftermaths) to the West. A subsequent large-scale massacre occurred in 1909 in the Southern Anatolian city of Adana that resulted in an estimated 15,000 – 25,000 Armenian deaths and the complete destruction of the Armenian portions of the city. This massacre was likewise witnessed and reported by many foreigners – both official government representatives and unofficial observers.

And the Ottoman Turkish Genocide of Armenians that occurred during World War I was extensively witnessed and documented not only by various Western (European and American) observers (missionaries and official diplomatic personal) but by citizens of Ottoman Allies (military and civilian) who were stationed in Anatolia and in what is now known as Syria (the destination of many of the deportations where various refugee concentration camps were located).

The Ottoman Turks themselves extensively documented the events that transpired and described the planning and methodology of the Genocide itself additionally confirming that the Young Turk dominated government employed an extensive state (legal, political and military) and political party apparatus toward highly criminal ends that included actions aimed toward the elimination of Armenians and other Christian minority groups within the Empire and the wholesale plunder of their properties under the false pretense of wartime emergency. The evidence is complied in a series of post-war military tribunals that were held in various districts in Turkey beginning in 1919 immediately following the conclusion of World War I. The Ottoman Military Tribunals convicted a great majority of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) leadership and key personal that had directed and enacted the Armenian Genocide based on the assemblage of a compilation of incriminating evidence – in the form of secret cables (telegraph and other messages) among CUP leadership and operatives and testimony that established the premeditation, organization, methodology and undertaking of massacres, death marches, forced deportation and wholesale robbery of the Empire’s Armenian (and other Christian) citizens based upon unproven pretense and exaggeration of their potential threat to the Empire during time of war. The evidence that supports the verdicts of the tribunals and the charge of Genocide is overwhelming as is the corroboration provided by the foreign observers – including Ottoman Turkish allies, Christian missionaries and relief workers, United States Consuls, survivor accounts and others who were there in Anatolia during these events. All describe in great detail a systematic campaign aimed toward elimination of the Armenians and further detail the brutal and indiscriminant application of a wide variety of cruel and inhumane methods used to this accomplish this objective.

Regardless of the overwhelming evidence that has been complied during and subsequent to the acts of genocide - the Government of the Republic of Turkey – that assumed power in place of the fallen Ottoman Empire - immediately subsequent to this period of time – has never acknowledged that the massacres, deaths and forced relocation of Armenians during this period was either a crime against humanity or a genocide (since the time the term has been defined in 1944 - largely on the basis of the actions taken against the Armenians in World War I and against Jews and other targeted peoples in World War II); nor in fact will they admit to any worse blame then perhaps an overzealous mistake being made (though more often they claim that the measures taken were justified based on war time expediency and due to the potential for or alleged Armenian rebellion or treasonous ness). Instead the Government of Turkey has at times labeled these events a “tragedy” caused by poor wartime conditions giving a variety of explanations for Armenians deaths and subsequent absence from the Anatolian landscape and often placing the blame for deaths and losses upon the Armenians themselves whom the Turks charge with rebellion and collusion with Russia with whom the Ottoman’s were at war during this period. Additionally the official Turkish position – and that held by scholars who hold to the Turkish justifications and denial – significantly downplay the number of Armenian deaths stating that Western and Armenian claims are overstated. In some cases Turkish officials have been reported to claim that the Armenian exodus from Anatolia was voluntary or that the relocation of Armenians was done to move them from inhospitable environments to places more favorable for agriculture and commerce. Furthermore – since the 1960s (when [second generation] children of Armenian Genocide survivors began coming of age and became more aware and vociferous concerning the Genocide) the Government of Turkey began an aggressive counter campaign of denial of the historical record and rejection of nearly all charges leveled against the Ottoman Turks and the CUP in this matter – admonishing all Turks and successive Turkish governments of any blame or wrongdoing for Armenian losses and the disappearance of Armenians from Anatolia.

The nexus of the Turkish argument is that the Ottoman Armenians were in revolt and that official actions taken against them were a result of wartime urgency and need and that there was no official policy to annihilate them but only to move them from regions affected by the war where their possible loyalties might be in question. Armenian deaths are considered to be the result of Kurdish excesses, the inability of the Government to protect deportation convoys and the result of famine and other wartime conditions. Charges of deliberate acts of killing, massacre and deliberate mistreatment are rejected and denied. Furthermore, Turkish sources often claim that the numbers of Turkish deaths in this region during this period of time actually significantly exceeded that of Armenians and Armenians are often blamed for these deaths as a consequence of alleged inter-communal warfare. Turkish claims concerning Turks killed by Armenian “roving bands” number from 500,000 – 1 million individuals (and sometimes the figure of 3 million Muslims killed in World War I is used as a counter to charges of Turkish collusion in Armenian deaths – this 3 million figure appears to refer to total Muslim deaths – many of whom were Arabs who were actually killed by the Turks – and there is really very little evidence to ascribe any significant percentage of these deaths to Ottoman Armenians who were targeted by the Turks) Furthermore, these are almost impossible figures to fathom being ascribed to (being killed by) Armenians when one considers the relatively helpless situation of most Armenians, the fact that most Ottoman Armenian men had been drafted into the Ottoman Army (and were disarmed and forced into labor battalions, and considering the extensive disarming of Armenian groups that occurred prior to the war and the fact that such killings would have clearly been prevented by the Ottoman army who were in control of most all of these regions where Turks inhabited. There were certainly instances of violent acts (and murders) committed against Turkish civilians by armed members of Armenian revolutionary parties prior to this period and there were some places where Armenians actively resisted deportation and massacre. Additionally there are instances in years following this period where armed Armenians from the Caucuses (Russian citizens and in many cases soldiers in the Russian army) augmented by Ottoman Armenians who had fled or otherwise escaped massacre and deportation committed acts of violence and revenge upon innocent Turks – however the Turkish charge of wide scale rebellion, treason and other immediate justifications used for taking extreme and inhumane actions against Armenians and civilian Armenian populations appear to be either contrived or seriously exaggerated – and most arguments to this effect that are offered as justification to this day - tend to refer to Armenian actions against Turkish civilians that occurred after 1917 – well after the genocide of the Armenians had already in fact occurred.

Likewise many of the other Turkish explanations for undertaking the actions that were taken as well as the denial of the severity of the measures and their purpose do not ring true. To properly understand why the Turkish actions that amounted to Genocide were taken – how the environment within the Ottoman Empire and all that happened before built to such a point to allow for such extreme measures and actions the historical environment must be presented and discussed. The Turkish attitudes of animosity toward the Armenians and subsequent denial of what occurred can only be properly understood by examining the history and understand how the deteriorating conditions in the Ottoman Empire and related issues affected the Turkish psyche and how the circumstances of war presented the opportunity to enact the unthinkable in regards to the Armenians. The events of the downfall of the Ottoman Empire (including the environment of revolution and societal upheaval) and the rise (and triumph) of the nationalists (and Turkish nationalism in general and the circumstances surrounding the Turkish War for Independence including the nation building myths that Kemal Ataturk successfully employed to save the Turkish nation from destruction) and circumstances surrounding the (post World War I through the present) political and economic motivations of involved nations - all play into the reasons why the Republic of Turkey has never – to this day – been able to admit to the Genocide (conducted by the CUP lead Ottoman Turks) nor has the international community been able to force such recognition due to these and other strategic political factors and considerations. In fact efforts on the part of Armenians (and any and all other groups) to force recognition by Turkey have largely met with extreme and very persistent Turkish backlash and counter recognition efforts. This problem continues to the current day causing some historians and genocide scholars to term the denial a persistent or second genocide as there has been no resolution or closure for both survivors and their decedents nor for the decedents of the perpetrators nor their society as a whole which arguably suffers from the shackles of (much) false history and myth that have built up around this issue.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS

President: Robert Melson (USA) Vice-President: Israel Charny (Israel) Secretary-Treasurer: Steven Jacobs (USA)

Respond to: Robert Melson, Professor of Political Science Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA
April 6, 2005
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan TC Easbakanlik Bakanlikir Ankara, Turkey FAX: 90 312 417 0476

Dear Prime Minister Erdogan:

We are writing you this open letter in response to your call for an “impartial study by historians” concerning the fate of the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire during World War I.

We represent the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe. We are concerned that in calling for an impartial study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian Genocide and how this event conforms to the definition of the United Nations Genocide Convention. We want to underscore that it is not just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is hundreds of independent scholars, who have no affiliations with governments, and whose work spans many countries and nationalities and the course of decades. The scholarly evidence reveals the following:

On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of its Armenian citizens an unarmed Christian minority population. More than a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing, starvation, torture, and forced death marches. Another million fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.

The Armenian Genocide was the most well-known human rights issue of its time and was reported regularly in newspapers across the United States and Europe. The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documented by thousands of official records of the United States and nations around the world including Turkey’s wartime allies Germany, Austria and Hungary, by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness accounts of missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by decades of historical scholarship.

The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly, legal, and human rights community:

  1. Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he meant by genocide.

  2. The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

  3. In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars, an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, unanimously passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide.

  4. 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie Wiesel and Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in June 2000 declaring the “incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide” and urging western democracies to acknowledge it.

  5. The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem), the Institute for the Study of Genocide (NYC) have affirmed the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide.

  6. Leading texts in the international law of genocide such as William A. Schabas’s Genocide in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian Genocide as a precursor to the Holocaust and as a precedent for the law on crimes against humanity.

We note that there may be differing interpretations of genocide - how and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its factual and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims, and erase the ethical meaning of this history.

We would also note that scholars who advise your government and who are affiliated in other ways with your state-controlled institutions are not impartial. Such so-called “scholars” work to serve the agenda of historical and moral obfuscation when they advise you and the Turkish Parliament on how to deny the Armenian Genocide.

We believe that it is clearly in the interest of the Turkish people and their future as a proud and equal participant in international, democratic discourse to acknowledge the responsibility of a previous government for the genocide of the Armenian people, just as the German government and people have done in the case of the Holocaust.

Sincerely,

[signed] Robert Melson Professor of Political Science President, International Association of Genocide Scholars

[signed] Israel Charny Vice President, International Association of Genocide Scholars Editor in Chief, Encyclopedia of Genocide

[signed] Peter Balakian Donald M. and Constance H. Rebar Professor of the Humanities Colgate University

I will be quiet now unless specifically asked a question or challenged in my presentation. I believe I have given the “straight dope” on this issue and hope that there are some here interested enough to attempt to absorb and understand what I have presented. Again - I am sorry for the degree on inundation - however I thought it necessary.

A couple of books on this subject that are (a) well worth reading, and (b) have yet to be mentioned:

Smyrna 1922: The Destruction of a City by Marjorie Housepian Dobkin, (focusses on the slaughter of the Greeks in Smyrna and that city’s transformation into what is now called Izmir, Turkey), and

Not Even My Name by Thea Halo (a daughter recounts her Greek mother’s survival of the Turkish death marches).

Mexican/Mexican. The Mexican Revolution being referred to happened between 1909 and 1920 (sez so right on the table). Centralist/oligarchical factions (Díaz, Huerta) vs. peasant/reformist factions (Villa, Zapata) plus intra-factional fighting. Foreign armed intervention was limited to US-border skirmishes (e.g. Villa v. Pershing) and actions to secure enclaves of interest (Veracruz) (though indirect participation by support for particular factions did go on).
The counts for such places as Cambodia ostensibly are estimates of that slaughter which was inflicted internecinely.

Once again, thanks for the info.
I remain convinced that turkish racism is a contraddiction in terms. Far from having a ‘superiority complex’, most turks have a sense of inferiority (one could argue that it is the latter that is the major source of racist attitudes, I must say). Most turks are well aware of being far from racially pure, and take pride in their mixed balkanic, caucasian and anatolic blood. Racial theories in Turkey are nothing more than a joke, but I can assume that in the beginning of the century they had more appeal. It must be said thou that the dhimmi issue is contraddictory in itself: islam does have a paternalistic attitude toward christian and jews, but no racist theory of its own (indeed, islamic countries are among those who recognize the genocide, and blame it on secularism; Talaat himself was an atheist)

One last note: Taner Akcan is not taken seriously in Turkey because of his ultra-leftist positions. A highly militarized and conformist society, Turkey does not approve of eccentric or unhortodox behaviour and assume that they have an axe to grind (same thing can be said of Orhan Pamuk: ‘great writer, wacky individual’ is the general opinion).
More respected is the position of Halil Berktay, who is trying to promote studies on the armenian massacres with a ‘softer’ approach (he is the organizer of the meeting you mention; the fact that it has been ‘posponed’ is s-h-a-m-e-f-u-l). Hope that he can make the message go through, as the ‘relocation’ story is starting to unnerve me too.

All in all, I don’t agree with the jewish/armenian comparison, nor I am convinced of the thesis that there was no organized armenian rebellion, but after all I am third party to the issue. Hopefully, the parties involved wil be able to proceed with the studies with a degree of civilization.

Best

Y.

Y - there is absolutly no proof whatsoever of the claim of any organized Armenian rebellion - none - so why would you give credence to this claim? Do you know the origination of this claim? It is from Dr Behedin Sakir - of the CUPs Special Organization (previously described). Not only was this individual known for being fanatically anti-Armenian but he was the coordinator of the Specical Organizations acticities within the Eastern Anatolian provinces directed specifically against the Armenians. In fact these activites began months before the Ottomans attacked Russia and joined into the Great War. Initially the SO was ostensibly under the Army but it was pulled out and joined directly to the CUP in part because of the Ottoman Army calling for its disbanment - why? Because of its extreme brigandage against civilians - and this included against Muslim villages! Yes - this is documented by a great many correspondences from Ottoman Army commanders in the region. The CO was comprised of Kurdish chieftans, Muslims drawn from the refugee populations from the Caucuses, Crimea and the Balkans and was also composed of violent prisoners who were unlawfully released form prisons by the CUP. These irregular forces were trained and instructed to massacre and pillage. They had secret orders to “liquidate” Armenians (and these are very well documented) and they were charged with carrying out the Genocide of Armenians. Their actions were directed by the CUP central commitee. After the Genocide (in 1916) the CUP actually had many of these people killed outright to attempt to silence them and distance themselves from their activities - but when they were killing Armenians the CUP not only knew all of the detials and did nothing - but encouraged and directed their activites - there is extensive documentation and admission of these facts. What is interesting is thatmany of the reports of Armenian brigandage against Muslim communities was in fact gangs from the SO - but to cover these crimes and to make their case against the Armenians these were reported - directly by Sakir - as Armenian outrages! Even German military reports corroborate some of these instances. So again - at this point in time there was no serious Armenian seditios actions whatsoever. What was occuring - some desertions by Armenian soldiers (BTW Ottoman soldier deserted in incredibly great numbers and themselves were pillaging the countryside - Ottoman Arab soldiers for instance were known to be taken to the front in chains! etc). Actual seditious, destructive or otherwise unlawful and or violent activites on the part of Armenians against Turks were minimal and isolated and not part of any plan - nor was their any kind of Army. Of course there were Armenians (primarily form the Caucuses - but also from those who had fled Ottoman territories) in the Russian army - but so were their Kurds, Azeris and other Muslims fighting in the Russian armies…and there were desertions from the Russian side to the Ottoman armies as well - and part of the SOs functions were to organize Muslim gangs withing Russian territory - behind the lines - to attack Russian infrastructure (and there were many accounts of massacres of Armenians in the Caucuses and elsewhere - beyond the borders of Anatolia) by these irregular forces, Much of this - within Anatolia and external to Anatolia - occuring even prior to the Ottoman declaration of war - again all quite well documented.

Believe me - I appreciate your dispasionate views on this issue - I applaud them - however you do not have appreciation for the facts at hand and the tremendous amount of documentation of such. I understand the reasons for the Turkish attitudes concerning the Turksih scholars who affirm the Genocide - focusing on them as not in step with Turkish societal views and norms versus attempting to digest their messages - it is such a shame - and I agree shameful to supress them - etc.

BTW I am able to provide great detail concerning reports and documentation of CUP Genocidal pre-meditation if desired. I think you might be very surprised at the extent of this material.

Concerning the Holocaust-Genocide connection and similarities and the issue of Turkish racism. I understand your points concerning Islam and the multi-cultured (ethnic) nature of the Turks - however it is clear that the Turks and Turkish society underwent a revolutionary period where racist (ethnic and religious) nationalism held sway - even if perhaps this was not a fundemental character trait of the Turks prior. Again however there exists paralles with Germany society and Germans in this regard. There is also no doubt that the environments of pre-WWII Germany and Pre-WWI Ottoman Empire had a great deal of similarities - including that of the minorities who were of a differernt religion and who were in many ways culturally seperate from the mainstream. It is equally clear that there were racist overtones against both these groups as well as other perceptions that caused them to be despised and treated as “others” and blamed for the nations/Empires ills. It is also clear that each nation embarked on a very similar program of annhilation of these minorites using amazingly similar rhetoric and methods. I acknoweldge some of the differences (such as the issue of strict illogical anti-semitism) - however there was clear ethnic hatred of Armenians and again nearly identicle charges and language used against them. The Armenian sedition charge - in the real sense of the word - as action against the parent state - is as equally unfounded as the charges of such by the Germans against the Jews.

Once again, let me clarify: the (true or false) rebellion of armenians against the central gov’t does not justify the massacres (or genocide, depending on the intent): it would explain it in an historical contest, thou, therefore making it different from the Shoah and comparable (thou immensely more devastating) to the ethnic cleansing of the Balkans. This is where we don’t agree.

While Turks are certain that the rebellion was a real danger, and you are certain of the contrary, I must rely on my readings and my deductions. The activities of the Hunchak and Dashnak movements, the terrorist attack to the Ottoman Bank, the case of Sasun and Zeytun, were isolated incidents or manifestation of a growing nationalistic aspirations? You can see that, from the turkish point of view, the latter interpretation would be favoured.
Across the 19th and 20th century, nationalistic rebellions cut the old empires to pieces, and Italians, Serbs, Bulgars, Greeks, all started to reclaim their homeland. It is hard to see why the armenians, thou labelled the loyal minority, should have been different. True, their homeland was less clear cut, and in many areas they aspired to they were themselves a minority, so that made their hopes more romantic and desperate (turks would say, ‘crazy’). But I would say that it is logic and consistent with the tide of world history that the Armenians struggled themselves to gain an indipendent state.

Still, all my reasoning gets a bit stale when a conference on the subject gets cancelled in Turkey and their partecipants labelled as ‘traitors’. A sad day indeed. To be sure, I myself attendet to a conference in Koc University in Istanbul where Grigori Suny freely exposed the armenian point of view, but it was a lower profile event. Books exposing both thesis are available in most bookstores, but the mayority of the public still favours the ‘relocation’ thesis too blindly, and for historical and cultural reasons they tend to react very homogeneously when subjected to criticism. My fear (physical fear: I don’t want Turkey to turn into an islamic dictatorship) is that pressure put the wrong way would push the country in an unexpected direction (and the consequences for the minorities in Turkey and for Armenia itself would be dire).

The Wall Street Journal had a couple of articles on this issue recently:

“Killings From 90 Years Ago Haunt Turkey in its EU Bid”

and its followup story with reader comments at the bottom.

Y -

I don’t have time fopr a long post at the moment (I can hear the sighs of relief from some) - but let me just state a few things. Do you recall that prior to the US inasion of Iraq they made many charges concerning the existance of Iraqi WMD and development efforts - offered proofs and such - yes? ANd it turned out these were largely based on old and outdated information. Yes - there were isolated actions by Armenian revolutionaries and armed resistance to such things as double taxation (extortion) by Kurdish warlords etc. But most all of this had died down with the advent of the CUP revoluton in 1908. Besides Van and perhaps Sasoon there was no armed resitance and the only reports otherwise come from Dr Sakir of the Special Organization - after his irregulars have caused so much destruction that the army is calling for their disbandment. German reports and other reports indicate that the Armenians are quiet. Even Nogalas reports that the Armenians were only defending themselves when he had been led to believe by the Turks that they were the aggressors. So you see outside of a very few instances these acusations do not add up. Many Turks spoke to this fact during and especially after the war and their were trials and parlementary inquires and newspaper reports and such indicating this - the outrage of the actions taken by the CUP - without supporting rational or reason. Remember the germans made the very same sorts of accusations against the Jews - absolutley. Thus you cannot blame the victim peoples in either case. And you canoot blame them if the CUP leadership had perceptions of what they might do (but were not doing) based on the experiences of the minorites in the Blakns, Greece and Albania etc. The Armenians (outside of a few hotheads) understood that they had no realistic national aspiration outside of the Ottoman Empire or in concert with the Turks. Outside of massacres and deprivations from Kurds and such they had it fairly good and were used to not having a nation of their own. Even Justin McCarthy in his book the Ottoman Turks states that Armenian nationalism was a failure in the years prior to WWI. Thus these Turkish/CUP claims can be largely said to be spurions - based more on their own (racial based) Nationalistic ambition (and from their experiences in the outlying regions with minority groups - that I talked to in earlier posts) - then anything to do with the Armenians or Armenian actions. Don’t you find it funny that with all of these lighltly guarded deportation caravsns that not a single one was saved by armed Armenians moving in? Not a single village (besides Van) resisted or was liberated (behind the Ottoman lines). If there were all of these armed Armenian revolutionaries running around - if it was indeed a civil war - all of these thinsg would have occured. Yet there is not a single report of such a thing happening.

I understand your fears opf what might hapen in Turkey. But there are a great many forces at work - and perhaps the Armenian Genocide issue - so fundemental to the Turkish nation (whether Turks realize this or not) might be a chance for a transitory breakthrough in the society. Much more can be said on this issue that I have time or space for here - and not sure how relevent this discussion is to most folks interests here…cheers

To people who aren’t familiar with the issue, you can force this propaganda through the pipeline and it may - may - come through to the other end and be accepted as truth. However, those who have studied the region will tell you that Armenians living in most parts of Armenia or NK will not speak of the Genocide as cause, reason or justification for any of their daily lives. Their issues are food, water, safety. They want to survive and live normal lives again. They may tell you stories of Azeris killing Armenians, but the Genocide is not in their conscience.

The Armenian who lives in the Diaspora and does not have to think of food, water and safety daily, has the time to afford to dip into their subconscious and dwell deeper and further into their history.

Once again, the NK issue is of self-reliance - unrelated to the Genocide. You’re trying to muddy the water, make the Armenians less the victim and more the criminal.

This is what used to happen in rape trials. So why did you wear that outfit and go up to the hotel room then?

It doesn’t matter.
The Genocide happened.
End of story.

Anyone one who has seen Fiddler on a Roof or read the Shalom Aleichem stories, knows of the pograms against Jews in Russia? Is it then no surprise to people that something similar could have been done to ethnic minority pockets in other countries? :frowning: