Are US forces held as responsible, primarily, for the civilian deaths?
Mexicans are held as primarily responible for the mass deaths in the Mexican Revolution and the post-Revolutionary violence (e.g. the cristeros religious repression). The “Bad” Mexicans, of course, which depends on what side you were sitting, and sure, with varying degrees of external support of the different factions.
Basically what “US forces” did was seize the port of Veracruz from April to November 1914 to “secure American business interests”, i.e. pressure Gen. Huerta’s resignation by blocking his foreign aid; and spend from March 1916 to January 1917 chasing Villa back and forth across the border desert and confusedly getting into skirmishes on both sides of the border with both Villa’s AND Carranza’s (whom we recognized as “legit” revolutionary leader) men. We inflicted minimal direct damage; I’ll leave it to the Mexicans to say what ill effects may have come from giving our recognition to Carranza and Obregón and thus helping set them up as the “winners.”
I would like to recommend that anyone interested in an impartial first hand look at this issue seek out and reed Rafael de Nogales book: Four Years Beneath the Crescent. De Nogalas was a Venezulan Army officer who served under the Ottomans. He directed the seige of Van and has many interesting observations of this battle and he travelled throghout Southeastern Anatolia and Syria at the Height of the Genocide and was a close confidant of the various regional govenors, CUP men and Army officers who perpetuated these crimes. Here are some outakes and further commentary on my part:
Nogales documents how Djevded bey killed 50,000 Armenians in a fortnight in Mush (p 117) and he documents how Enver’s brother Khalil had 15,000 Armenians from Bitlis killed in a single day (p 115). (I should note that Khalil in his memoirs claims to have been personally responsible for the deaths of 300,000 Armenians…he is quite proud of this in fact…) Nogalas describes some of the horrid manner of their deaths in great detail. He specifically cites that he witnessed the following: “After the massacres of Djarbekir, the tide of carnage and persecution rolled over the provinces of Adana and Northern Syria (Zeitun, Urfa, Marrash, etc) which were at the time crowded with deportees from Central and Northern Anatolia…The provinces of Van, Bitlis, Djarbekir…were the only ones which suffered massacres in the true sense of the word. In the remaining vilayets of the Empire persecution took the form of deportations, which effected almost the same results as the massacres.” He then discusses mortality rates (and non-benign causes for such) at from 75-95%! (p 117). The he follows by very clearly acknowledging: “there can be no doubt that the massacres and deportations took place in accordance with a laid-out plan for which the responsibility lay with the retrograde party, headed by the Grand Vizier Talat Pasha and the civil authorities under his orders. They aimed to make an end first of the Armenians, then of the greeks and other Christians, Ottoman subjects, in the Empire. We glean ample verification for this from the masacres of Sairt, Djesiret, and the surrounding districts, during which perished no less then two hundred thousand Nestorian Christians, Syrio-Catholics, Jacobites, etc, who had no connection whatever with the Armenians, and who had always been the Sultan’s loyal subjects.” (p 118) Nogales speaks very specifically about observing various Ottoman goveners and/or their direct agents leading band of irregulars tot he slaughter and of witnessing the crimes in action and the results. In each case they tell Nogales that they are doing such on orders of the central authorities. Additionally Nogales documents (in great detail) the manner in which all of these officials as well as the CUP heirarchy personally enriched themselves from the stolen wealth of the Armenians. After describing how he expends all his personal funds to feed the starving in Aleppo that he can manage Nogales describes a written order from Talat: “Officially we are forbidden to give the deportees any ration without a written order signed by the civil authorities of the province from which they came, along with other idiocies invented by Talat Pasha in order to kill the poor devils with starvation.” (p 147).
Just wanted to remark how polite most of this discourse has been in light of the amount of disagreement. Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board.
I have found the following thread (perhaps it has already been posted here) to be a very good explanation of the Turkish position on the issue.
http://www.turkishembassy.org/governmentpolitics/issuesarmenian.htm
Regards,
Michael
Following is a segment from the like I posted above:
The British convened the Malta Tribunals to try Ottoman officials for crimes against Armenians. All of the accused were acquitted.
The Peace Treaty of Sevres, which was imposed upon the defeated Ottoman Empire, required the Ottoman government to hand over to the Allied Powers people accused of “massacres.” Subsequently, 144 high Ottoman officials were arrested and deported for trial by the British to the island of Malta. The principal informants to the British High Commission in Istanbul leading to the arrests were local Armenians and the Armenian Patriarchate. While the deportees were interned on Malta, the British appointed an Armenian scholar, Mr. Haig Khazarian, to conduct a thorough examination of documentary evidence in the Ottoman, British, and U.S. Archives to substantiate the charges. Access to Ottoman records was unfettered as the British and French occupied and controlled Istanbul at the time. Khazarian’s corps of investigators revealed an utter lack of evidence demonstrating that Ottoman officials either sanctioned or encouraged killings of Armenians.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the British Procurator General determined that it was “improbable that the charges would be capable of proof in a court of law,” exonerated and released all 144 detainees – after two years and four months of detention without trial. No compensation was ever paid to the detainees.
go to top
FACT 6: Despite the verdicts of the Malta Tribunals, Armenian terrorists have engaged in a vigilante war that continues today.
In 1921, a secret Armenian network based in Boston, named Nemesis, took the law into its own hands and hunted down and assassinated former Ottoman Ministers Talaat Pasha and Jemal Pasha as well as other Ottoman officials.
Regards,
Michael
Interesting. Here is some more information, courtesy of Samantha Power (2002):
Talaat lived under a Turkish sentence of death in Germany, which resisted claims of extradition. He was assassinated in 1921 by a 24 year old Armenian, in vengeance for his family’s death.
The Ottomans feared appearing weak before the British and the process of justice slowed down. The Brits responded by shipping war crime suspects to Malta. In 1920 Kemal (later Ataturk) seized 29 British soldiers. The following year, a prisoner swap ensued, freeing those accused of war crimes against the Armenians.
I think the turkish position is this:
Was there killing? Yes
Was there a lot of killing? Yes, minimum estimate seems to be 600,000.
Was it centrally ordered? No.
Was it an ugly time in the area? Yes, very much so.
Were others killed besides Armenians? Yes, up to 2.5 million Moslems.
The thing I find interesting is that Turkey has offerred to have a conclave of international experts review the entire situation. They have offerred to open their archives for this purpose and have asked Armenia to open theirs also. The offer appears to have been refused and perhaps someone here can explain.
Regards,
Michael
Just to be clear, that last claim conflicts with the opinion with the 1919 Tribunal, set up by the Turkish government in Constantinople.
Here’s an article on the current diplomatic give and take between Turkey and Armenia.
Basically, Armenia’s position is that 1) The genocide is an established fact, 2) sure, our 2 governments could set up a commission to discuss matters of mutual concern, including the genocide, but 3) we should first establish diplomatic relations and 4) Turkey should lift the embargo on Armenia.
Separately, there’s something called the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission.
Measure for Measure:
With all due respect, it seems common in debates to ignore what is uncomfortable, perhaps hoping it will go away. You omitted part of my posting, let me list it again:
“Was it an ugly time in the area? Yes, very much so.
Were others killed besides Armenians? Yes, up to 2.5 million Moslems.”
Perhaps you ignored it because Armenian lives are worth more than Moslem lives, I don’t know. If so that is your problem, not mine.
As to the 1919 Tribunal, I fortunately live in Louisville Ky and am a supporter of the University of Louisville, where Justin McCarthy (or however his name is spelled)works. This does interest me as it seems a very valid point. Perhaps I can contact him and we can discuss it over lunch, I will get back to you on it.
Finally, your listing of the Armenian position is just silly. This is what it boils down to: “A” says “B” is a criminal. “B” says no and furthemore that “B” and “A” may have information that they can jointly examine that will exonerate “B”. “A” say that they may jointly look at the information after “B” admits that “B” is guilty. Duh.
Regards, Michael
I must emphasize my lack of expertise in this area. My biggest problem is that I continually seem to come across Turkish claims that fall apart with just a little fact-checking. (Specifically, I have relied heavily on a single chapter in a single book by S. Power.)
All the same, when a source makes claims that are shown to be highly dubious (or obfuscatory) it unfortunately makes their other claims suspect.
No. I ignored it because, quite frankly, I didn’t have any information on it. (I did have information on the “centrally directed” question however.)
Ok. Just to be clear though, I basically posted my entire knowledge on the subject.
Um, sort of.
Turkey wants to be admitted to the European Union. The EU wants them to (among other things) get their situation with Armenia sorted out.
It would be convenient for Turkey if the Armenian government, in exchange for opening trade etc, would let them save face on the genocide question.
That won’t fly. Armenia doesn’t want their diplomatic relations with Turkey held hostage to a historical debate. Historical truth should be a matter of examining the evidence, not diplomatic pressure. (I’m not saying you disagree with this, btw.)
Incidentally, I am neither Armenian nor Turk. Though I do believe that genocide was committed by the Turkish government during the period in question (and was indeed opposed by many Turks in succeeding years), Turkey is sadly not unique in this regards: other countries guilty of appalling atrocity include Rwanda, Germany, Cambodia, Serbia, etc. And that’s just a selection from the 20th century.
Measure_for_Measure, I need to take you down a logic path:
Set Counter = 0
Set Open-Mind = Yes
Set Willing-to-learn = Yes
Set Able-To-Form-Beliefs-On-Little-Information = No
Goto Start
Start:
Read following quote from mgauss:
“The thing I find interesting is that Turkey has offerred to have a conclave of international experts review the entire situation. They have offerred to open their archives for this purpose and have asked Armenia to open theirs also. The offer appears to have been refused…”
Read following quote from Mearure_for_Measure:
“Historical truth should be a matter of examining the evidence…”
Pause and Think for 20 seconds
If Mgauss-Is-Correct-And-Has-Great-Wisdom then
Goto Reply
if not Mgauss-Is-Correct-And-Has-Great-Wisdom then
Add one to counter
If counter = 1000 then goto Hopeless-Case
Set Open-Mind = Yes (again)
Set Willing-To-Learn = Yes (again)
Go to start
Hopeless-Case:
Set I-Refuse-To-Admit-My-Views-May-Be-Incorrect = Yes
Set I-Am-Making-A-Mistake-But-Don’t-Care = Yes
Set I-Do-Not-Want-My-Beliefs-Colored-By-Facts = Yes
Set Open-Mind = No
Set Willing-to-learn = No
Set Able-To-Form-Beliefs-On-Little-Information = Yes
Quit
Reply:
Respond by typing “Perhaps there is a reason Armenia does not want the archives opened. Perhaps they fear some uncomfortable truths may come out. Thank you mgauss, you have great wisdom and have opened my eyes. Please show me more.” and posting on this blog.
Regards
Michael
Oookay.
Again. If the Armenians posted claims that were refuted by some quick fact checking, I would be skeptical of their remaining claims. But this is not the case.
Separately.
I have not seen evidence that Armenia refuses to open its archives to scholars. If they indeed have done so, I would say that’s a problem.
However, my understanding is that Armenia is reluctant to form a government-to-government commission to examine whether genocide was perpetrated against them, as a precursor for Turkey bestowing diplomatic relations. This merely seems to be a prudent method of preventing the appearance of succumbing to diplomatic blackmail, as opposed to an attempt to stifle debate. (Again though, Armenia is willing to have a government-to-government commission to discuss, “Matters of mutual concern” , or something like that.)
As an aside, there have been some scattered efforts at Turkish/Armenian Dialog, specifically by the Turkish Armenian Reconcilliation Commission (TARC).
Background legal stuff: Article 2 of The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide.
S. Power’s summary follows: “For a party to be found guilty of perpetrating this new crime of genocide, it had to (1) carry out one of the aforementioned acts, (2) with the intent to destroy all or part of (3) one of the groups protected. The law did not require extermination of an entire group, only acts committed with the intent to destroy a substantial part…”
Measure_for_measure, I feel that I am debating air…
First your quote:
"I have not seen evidence that Armenia refuses to open its archives to scholars. If they indeed have done so, I would say that’s a problem. "
Then read from the link you posted a couple of days ago…
"Erdogan wrote to Kocharian in April suggesting that the two countries, which have no diplomatic relations, set up a commission of historians that would look into the 1915 events and determine whether they were indeed a genocide. The unusual move came ahead of the April 24 worldwide ceremonies commemorating the 90th anniversary of the start of mass killings and deportations. It was welcomed by the United States and some European leaders.
But Kocharian effectively rejected the idea, contending that the Armenian genocide was already an established fact. "
Hello, anybody home?
Regards,
Michael
There is no inconsistency between those two statements.
John W. Kennedy:
Sigh.
Let me try and keep this very very simple.
Regarding claims of a genocide, I am not a historical scholar on this issue. If you check all my posts you will see that I have not posited an opinion on this. It does seem, however, that there is a serious issue. Specifically, one side is accusing the other of a genocide, the accused party denies it.
Both sides state that terrible things happenned in eastern Turkey in the time period in question.
It certainly appears there is a lot of misinformation on what exactly happenned.
I am interested in the Truth, whatever it is. If Turkey committed a genocide they should be punished for it. If, on the other hand, Armenia is perpetrating a fraud then they should be punished for it.
So forget all the blather that has been posted here to-date, there is only one way to find the Truth, and that is to look for it. That is the point I have been trying to make, and measure_for_measure just does not understand.
Let me say that again: There is only one way to find the Truth, and that is to look for it.
Now, one side has proposed a way to get down to the nitty-gritty, and the other side is refusing.
To use a couple of quotes from measure_for_measure:
“Historical truth should be a matter of examining the evidence…”. I totally agree.
Then from the link measure_for_measure posted regarding the Turkish offer to do exactly that: "But Kocharian {the Armenian President, my insert} effectively rejected the idea, contending that the Armenian genocide was already an established fact… "
Perhaps you do not see any problems here, but I have tried to make it as simple as possible. I sincerely apologize if I have made this is too difficult to comprehend.
Regards,
Michael
As John W Kennedy has noted, there is no contradiction.
There is a distinction between,
“Refusing to form a specific sort of government-to-government commission (while leaving the door open to other forms of inter-governmental inquiry)”,
and
“Denying scholarly access to Armenia’s national archives”.
I have seen no evidence for the latter claim.
There are also people who insist that the world is flat and that 1 + 1 = 3. I cannot help them either.
Perhaps there is someone else on this blog that can intelligently answer my original querry, it is post #88. I would relish a discussion with someone who has an open and creative mind.
Interchange on sites like this can be a learning experience if it is between thinking minds, or it can be a waste of time.
Regards, Michael
With respect, you made no query in post #88.
Andros:
Sorry, my error, I was typing in frustration. Instead of a query, consider it an issue for exploration:
“The thing I find interesting is that Turkey has offerred to have a conclave of international experts review the entire situation. They have offerred to open their archives for this purpose and have asked Armenia to open theirs also. The offer appears to have been refused and perhaps someone here can explain.”
My position on this, from another post (96):
"I am interested in the Truth, whatever it is. If Turkey committed a genocide they should be punished for it. If, on the other hand, Armenia is perpetrating a fraud then they should be punished for it. "
And one good statement from measure_for_measure (91) before he/she fell apart:
“Historical truth should be a matter of examining the evidence…”
Regards,
Michael