Talk:Armenian genocide/Arguments

Learn more about this page

This is the Arguments page for the Armenian Genocide article. Any comments not directly relating to the content of the Armenian Genocide page may be moved here. Please respond here.

WHAT A WONDERFUL NONSENCE

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How to decide a nonsence is a nonsence.

Pity Americans, pity Armenians !!! Poor politicians.

CARLSON: Congress is getting set to take on genocide. Not the genocide that‘s been taking place on and off for the past several decades in Africa, but killings of Armenian Christians at the hands of the Turks that took place around the time of the First World War. Almost nobody denies that those killings took place. They did. And yet the symbolic resolution, which describes them as genocide, has inflamed relations with Turkey, a key ally in the Iraq war effort.

The White House says this resolution could put American soldiers at risk. And yet backers of the bill, mostly Democrats, plow forward. Joining me now is a Republican supporter of that resolution, Congressman George Radanovich of California. Congressman, thanks for coming on.

REP. GEORGE RADANOVICH ®, CALIFORNIA: Tucker, good to be here, thanks.

CARLSON: Now this seems like a moral statement, almost a kind of moral preening or exhibitionism. It may be right, but it seems to be playing out against our own interests internationally. Why are we doing this?

RADANOVICH: Tucker, the genocide happened in 1950. It‘s historical record that it was genocide. And what I would do is put to you that when Hitler began to invade Poland in 1939, when people raised objections about public reaction to what he was doing, he said who raised objections to the massacre of the Armenians in Turkey? And I think the important point to note is that genocide has existed throughout the beginning of the last century, all the way up until now.

Had people stood up then, things like the holocaust may not have happened and we‘d have a stronger reaction in Darfur of what‘s going on there today.

CARLSON: You may be right. I‘m not claiming that it wasn‘t genocide. Frankly, it sounds like genocide to me. I‘m not taking the Turk‘s side in this. I‘m merely saying it‘s over. We can‘t undo it. And Hitler, by the way, died in 1945. That‘s over, too. It may feel good to describe it as genocide. Here‘s the flip side; it infuriates the Turks. We need access to their airspace, to their border crossing, to their military bases. We may lose those things if we call it genocide. So why don‘t we just—I mean, why are we doing this? It is hurting us.

RADANOVICH: In some ways we‘re doing this to benefit the Turks. They themselves want to become a member of the European Union. And they‘re being turned down for the lack of recognition of some of their—the things that they do in their country. One of the reasons, Tucker, is because they failed to recognize a genocide that didn‘t happen by the current Turkish government, but by an old Ottoman empire almost 90 years ago.

In many ways we‘re doing Turkey a favor because they want to be a part of the west.

CARLSON: Oh, come on, Congressman.

RADANOVICH: Let me finish. We‘re doing this as a favor, in some ways, to Turkey because they want to be a part of the west.

CARLSON: OK, but this is the kind of favor that, you know, you don‘t want done for you. They hate this. It‘s humiliating to them. They‘re our friends. We need them as our friends. We‘re sticking our finger in their eye and you know it. And we‘re doing it because there are a lot of Armenians in this country that are still mad. I understand why they are still mad.

This is interest group politics. They‘re pushing American politicians to do something to address a historical wrong, but it‘s hurting America.

RADANOVICH: Well, Tucker, what I will say is that we occupy their base at Incirlik, which would be in northeast Turkey right now. The American ambassador said we need Turkey. Turkey needs us there as much as we need to be there, number one.

And number two, the Turkish government is not going to be doing anything to resent this. This is a resolution by the House. This is the House opinion on what occurred 90 years ago in a different country. The Turks should not take this personally. It was the Ottoman empire.

CARLSON: Just because we‘re accusing them of genocide, but don‘t take it personally. I guess my bottom line question is what does this have to do with us? OK, this is something that took place in Europe two generations ago. Why—why are we getting involved in this? Don‘t we have enough problems?

RADANOVICH: Because I think the—genocide is such a scourge on humanity that we ought to be confronting anywhere in the world to try to prevent it from ever happening again, in the Holocaust, in World War II, in Cambodia, in Darfur today. The world needs to stand up and say, we can‘t allow this kind of stuff to go on in a civilized world. And I think it‘s important to recognize it during the times that it happened, much the way that Congress recognized the Japanese comfort woman and the situation that happened back then.

CARLSON: If the Turks—very quickly, if the Turkish parliament or the Turkish people voted on a referendum to condemn America‘s treatment of American Indians and called it genocide, I think you and I and every other American would say, hey, pal, buzz off. You know what I mean? I personally had nothing to do with that. Why are you criticizing us? That‘s an attack on us. Why wouldn‘t they take it the same way?

RADANOVICH: You know what I would do, Tucker, is recognize that that country as a sovereign country has a right to debate those issues and recognize those things around the world. I mean, I would not see a problem if Turkey debated and passed a resolution like that. And you know what, we wouldn‘t be pulling out of Incirlik if they did that.

CARLSON: Well, that‘s because we‘re not insecure because we‘re the most powerful country in the world. But other countries look at us—we make them feel insecure and they take what we say personally. And you know that to be true.

Here‘s the bottom line. Nobody who is responsible for those killings in Turkey is still alive. So why are we attacking people—basically we‘re attacking a country in which the culprits are already gone. Why don‘t we just leave it alone?

RADANOVICH: Well, what I would tell you, Tucker, is that Turkey is acclimated toward the west and they want to be a part of the European Community. This issue is keeping it from happening. They need to address it. They need to not take it personally. It‘s the old Ottoman empire. They need to put it behind them. I mean, these things don‘t go away just because people are dead.

CARLSON: Wait a second. If it‘s the old Ottoman empire, then why does it have current relevance? I mean, you‘re already saying that—

RADANOVICH: Ask the Turks that. Ask the Turks that.

CARLSON: I thought we condemn this every April anyway. Congress under pressure from the Armenian lobby condemns these killings every April and has for some time, if I understand that correctly.

RADANOVICH: Not as genocide, Tucker. But what I will say is the Turkish government spends millions and millions of dollars to erase the record so that it will never get recognized as genocide. The world community itself has already recognized that this is a genocide. And god bless Turkey, but they‘re trying to erase it from their past and pretend like it never happened. And that makes the problem more urgent to recognize.

CARLSON: All right. Congressman, you are certainly a vigorous and articulate proponent of your point of view. And I appreciate you coming on.

RADANOVICH: Tucker, take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedet72 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN FRANCE

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Here is a wikipedia article about Jewish Ottoman Historian Bernard LEWIS. HE was found "guilty" by a neonazi court. Here is the related part: " In a November 1993 Le Monde interview, Lewis said that the Ottoman Turks’ killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 was not "genocide", but the "brutal byproduct of war". A Parisian court interpreted his remarks as a denial of the Armenian Genocide and on June 21, 1995 fined him one franc. Since then Lewis has stated "There is no evidence of a decision to massacre. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence of attempt to prevent it, which were not very successful. Yes there were tremendous massacres, the numbers are very uncertain but a million may well be likely,"arguing that "the issue is not whether the massacres happened or not, but rather if these massacres were as a result of a deliberate preconceived decision of the Turkish government," and that "there is no evidence for such a decision." He thus believes that "to make Armenian Genocide, a parallel with the holocaust in Germany" is "rather absurd." " For the full article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis

What's your point? same thing happens in present-day Turkey. Artaxiad 00:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The point is that people like you complain (rightfully) about Turkey's law that tends to restrain "genocide affirmers" while you applaud or remain silent (wrongly) about the despicable French law that restrains academics like Bernard Lewis from stating their academic opinion!

So, the point is that it happens in present-day Turkey AND present-day France -- and neither of those are acceptable. (And the French law specifically prohibits questioning the nature of the Armenian genocide as a genocide, while the Turkish law doesn't even go that far.)

--24.5.70.65 04:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

MUSLIM VICTIMS

http://www.ataa.org/ataa/ref/armenian/anatolia1915.html

http://www.ataa.org/ataa/ref/armenian/tragedy.html

http://www.ataa.org/ataa/ref/armenian/fein.html

Armenian survivors in 1919

Latest comment: 17 years ago23 comments3 people in discussion

According to this one-sided article, in 1914, before World War I, there were an estimated two million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.

Now ! lets look another original American -Armenian source:

The near east report for Syria, The New York Times Current History Magazine for the April-May-June 1919. (Look into this web site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Near_East_Relief_Report_1919_-_The_New_York_Times_Current_History_-_May_1919.png)

According to this document, the Armenian Commitee for Relief in the Near East made the following statement: One million seven hundred and seventy thousand (Notice!!! #1.770.000#) persons are at an average of 400 miles away from home and must be taken back at a cost of $3 for each person, thus requiring $5.310.000 for this purpose. For these repatriated persons 50.000 temporary houses will be needed to replace the ones destroyed by the Turks. These will cost $50 each, making a total of $2.500.000.

Dear reader please make a few calculus and add to these numbers, the Armenians those run into Russia, Iran, America and the Europe. And do not forget the conditions of the FIRST GREAT WAR!!!

QUESTION: WERE THESE PERSONS THE TURKS or THE ARMENIANS? OR THE ARMENIAN BENEFACTORS WERE HELPING THE OTHER PEOPLES? THUS, THE SO-CALLED GENOCIDE OF 1point5 million ARMENIANS IS THE GREATEST LIE WHICH THE HISTORY EVER HEARD. THE TURKS PEACE BE UPON THEM WERE JUST TRYING TO BUY THE ARMENIANS LUNCH AND A CUP OF COFFEE. THE ARMENIANS ALL COMMIT SUICIDE THEN ARRANGE THEMSELVES IN A PILE JUST TO MAKE THE TURKS LOOK DISHONORED! I WILL NOT BE HUMILIATED BEFORE WHOLE WORLD AS YOU CAN SEE I AM MAN OF DIGNITY! ALLAHU AKBAR!

According to this fact, the Armenians not only told the same lies to the Turks and the world, but also to the Americans and even deceived the dear President of the U.S, the infidel Woodrow Wilson!!!!!

Or these lies were for only GREEN AMERICAN DOLLARS? BECAUSE ARMNIANS ARE GREEDY DOGS WHO REFUSE HOSPITALITY OF TURKS WHO WANT ONLY TO BUY THEM LUNCH AND A CUP OF COFFEE? TRY TO MAKE ME LOOK UNDIGNIFIED BUT AHA YOU CAN'T CAN YOU!

Okay there's two different sources we don't know which one is more accurate. You're not a genius for finding this out, this is the least of debates and arguments regarding the Armenian Genocide. Artaxiad 07:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Artaxiad, this is an Armenian source not a Turkish one. Then we know which one is more accurate.

Okay what if it was 1 million and what? its still a genocide. Artaxiad 07:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

No victims makes not a genocide but a certain lie.

Wrong, a genocide is a systematic murder, it can be 100,000 and its a genocide. Artaxiad 07:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

If there is no victims, then there is also not an intent of systematic murder.

The Turkish claims are that 300,000 died thats still considered a genocide if it falls under "systematic" I can care less what number it is if its unstoppable killings its a genocide. Artaxiad 07:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Another Turkish claim says the intent was not to destroy but to protect from Armenians filching their hummus! Why not to believe this?

That is fake man, its common sense! please look at it from a humans point of not a nationalists, why would Turkey invade the Armenian population in Turkey? to take there lands obviously, I've never seen any country in the world deport people because it was a war zone that is a hardcore myth. They were cleansing the region of Armenians, due to that many Armenians died in the streets from hunger, that is all Turkeys fault. Artaxiad 07:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are you mentally damaged? "I've never seen any country in the world deport people because it was a war zone" -- ha! Did you notice how the Turks in the Caucasus were dealt with? Read much Roman history? And people were dying of hunger all over the Empire -- according to one Western source, THOUSANDS of Ottoman troops were dying every day. The photos of Ottoman soldiers without shoes -- posing, without shoes -- and the testaments of British POW's that the Ottomans who guarded them were in worse shape than they were as prisoners attests to this.

Isn't it possible that the government really didn't have the intention to kill all the Armenians -- as the Andonian papers, now proven fake, indicated -- and instead really was clearing a population of people who were siding with their brother's on the enemy's side (i.e. they were siding, in some cases, with the Russians and Russian-Armenians) away from the area where they could do much damage -- BUT, some of the military people were bad, and massacred Armenians, and Kurdish bandits would sweep in and attack the Armenians being deported (while even the good Ottoman guards of the Armenians, shoeless and starving, were impotent as protectors), and Turkish citizens would also massacre BECAUSE great enmity had developed between the two during years of MUTUAL inter-ethnic struggle throughout the Empire, i.e. the Turks killed Armenians because of how Turks in the Caucasus and elsewhere were massacred (and otherwise died starving after deported) by Russians and Russian-Armenians. The Anatolian Armenians were in some ways caught in the middle, that characterization being especially accurate if the numbers that actually substantively supported the Russians and Russian-Armenians were small, as some contend.

But, regardless of the degree to which the Anatolian-Armenians actually rebelled, there is a narrative here IN WHICH NEITHER SIDE IS VICTIM OR VILLAIN. BOTH SIDES played that role at different times and places (Turks were the villain in Anatolia, Armenians and Russians in the Caucasus, etc.) during the crumbling of the Empire.

BUT the government, as I've narrated the tale, did not have any goal of racial purity behind its actions, and it did not use the Armenian rebellion as a pretext -- instead, the Armenian rebellion WAS the reason they did what they did. (What they did, in the case of massacres, was unjustifiable and wrong -- but this wasn't done under government command. [Certainly military personnel were involved in these activities, but there's no indication that it was an organized government policy directed against Armenians.] But these massacres were no different than the massacres that the Russian-Armenians engaged in while fighting for and with the Russians, in the Caucasus and in Anatolia.)

This narration, in which the massacres committed by Armenians and Russians in the Caucasus against Turks, and the deportations which resulted in starvation of Turks by the former, inspired Ottoman military personnel and Turkish citizens to massacre Armenians in Anatolia -- which then provoked Armenians in Anatolia to do the same, which invited further retribution, etc... -- and in which the central Ottoman government did not take any action regarding the Armenians... -- actions which stretched there already losing and starving military!! (this was the least convenient time to commit a "genocide"!) -- ... except in reaction to a real threat from the Anatolian Armenians, and even then commanded deportation, which engendered commands which clearly state to protect the Armenians (the only papers ordering ill treatment, on the other hand, are the discredited Andonian papers).

There was no planned genocide, the Turks killed Armenians because of the violence Turks had begun to suffer in the Caucasus and elsewhere at the hands of Russian-Armenians and others, the government began deporting the Armenians because of a real perceived threat, and the deportees starved and died of sickness along with their guards while suffering at the hands of Kurdish bandits and Turks whose enmity against the Armenians had increased during a cycle of MUTUAL violence in the Empire (e.g. the Caucasus) which eventually found its way into Anatolia. The Armenians died in larger numbers in Anatolia, the Turks in the Caucasus. 2 genocides or 0, its insulting and racist to take any other position, and the comparisons to the Holocaust -- which imply (and to be valid, require) a government engaging in the sort of racial lunacy the Nazis did, and that's just not the case, as you can see.

At least, this is the version of events a look at *all* the evidence supports, and it's by far more plausible than the contention of my opponents that the Ottomans decided to embark on a program of racial purity, using their military personnel, during a time when the Empire was about to be conquered in its entirety, and for some reason only bothered killing Armenians in the East, leaving Jews and other minorities, along with Western Armenians(!) untouched -- and the fact that the Armenians were joining the Russians, and it could only be logically expected Russian-Armenians (and by extension, all Russian troops) would find much support in the Anatolian Armenians, all that was just a COINCIDENCE that the Ottomans craftily used as a pretext for deporting only those who could pose a danger (those near the front) despite the fact it was their goal to cleanse the nation ethnically.

It's a load of BS. Doesn't anybody think that the Armenian revolt and a desire for revenge against the race who had slaughtered their Turkic brothers in the Caucasus, led to the government ordered deportation and non-government ordered massacres (which inspired revenge massacres, and re-revenge massacres -- yes, Anatolian Armenians also massacred, and when they kill kids and women, you can't just call it self-defense and heroics), respectively, rather than some baseless Hitler-ian desire for racial purity, because of which the violent actions taken by Armenians have no place in the story because now it's a "genocide" rather than inter-ethnic struggle, i.e. war??

Get a clue -- I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong about the government's thinking, but can't you see none of the evidence supports the idea that there was one genocide against the Armenians??? I mean, how do you think all those Turks died in the Caucasus? Russians and Russian-Armenians killed them! This is confirmed history -- yet this is never discussed. 2 genocides or 0 is the only conclusion -- over half of one million dead Turks in the Caucasus, and over half of one million dead Anatolian-Armenians -- how can only one of those be a genocide?

2 or 0. Either deny the deaths of the Turks in the Caucasus (I'll drop a reference on you, in that case), or affirm that there was 2 genocides or 0.

--24.5.70.65 05:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Most of the great evacuation operations also carried out everywhere by most of the great powers such as Russia, France, the Great Britain, Italy and America. Why not to consider them as genocide?

They did not viciously kill there own people like the Ottomans did to there minorities, while the deportion process many were attacked and killed, raped, pillaged all there belongings stolen making them walk for miles and miles in the blistering sun is cruel. Artaxiad 08:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why this was not happened before, during the long-lasted five centuries of Ottoman Rule? It was not happened, was it?

The Ottoman empire was collapsing during those last years, they were scared the Armenians would team up with the Russians and attack which they did but the Armenians who were living in Russia did mostly. The Ottomans were told to crush anyone in there way during those years because they were under pressure from many countries battles, wars etc. The Ottomans were trying to establish a state in that area also, meaning deport and kill the Armenians annihilate all the Armenians in that area whether it was with force or major deportation to establish a Turkish nation. Artaxiad 08:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Armenians were also trying to establish a state of their own in that area , meaning deport and kill the Turks annihilate all the Turks in that area whether it was with force or major deportation to establish an Armenian nation backed by the Great Powers.

That's physically impossible maybe it was mentally possible the Armenian population was around 2 million and the Turks were almost 40 million thats impossible thats a myth Armenians could not succeed Armenians just wanted lands but they didnt get it. Artaxiad 08:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Then return the starting point of the discussion. In that Great War there were no Armenian victims and genocide . This was a great chance for the two million Armenian population. Okay!

lol I'm done here you're wrong, you know it ;-) Artaxiad 08:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ha! ha! ha! Lets the other readers judge this!

LOL all you were doing is asking me questions you never responded.

Artaxiad 09:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Look for my response at beginning of this discussion. Good lookings for true lies!!!

Sorry man but you're brain washed!!! to your government grow up please you know nothing please refrain from making stupid myths and go do some research.Artaxiad 09:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Open please! closed doors of your archives! Let the truths speak! Then I can put a last point to your great lies!

You were never there so you don't know the truth or the lie. Artaxiad 09:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

What obout you? Were you there?--Jedet72 11:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

NO did i say its a lie? did i say its real? Artaxiad 11:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes you have just claimed it was a genocide.--Jedet72 11:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wrong, I was trying to prove it yet you ignorantly call it a lie. Artaxiad 11:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please read the entire article again and again to see what you have said so far. --Jedet72 11:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please show me, or quote me. Artaxiad 11:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You said that 'the (Turks)were cleansing the region of Armenians, due to that many Armenians died in the streets from hunger, that is all Turkeys fault.' I said that there was neither mass killing nor the specific intent to kill them, so not a genocide. Again, 2.000.000 -1.770.000 equals 230.000 NOT 1.500.000. Not forget! that 230.000 Armenians could run into Russia, Iran, America and the Europe or in to the rest of the Near or the Middle East. Is not this enough to prove a lie! Is that OKAY?Jedet72 12:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop implying and use real facts or implications. These are things that you are making up this is "history" this has happened so stop implying things. Artaxiad 12:36, 23 February

2007 (UTC)

Please! take an account of how many Armenian implications have been used to construct an image of the distorted Turk--Jedet72 12:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

LOL none, you guys are the ones who bring in things, oh what about the population this that, you guys imply to much use facts. Artaxiad 12:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear friend! You have too much time to consume on these false lies. I have to work. Bye... This discussion is over, for me.--Jedet72 13:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The lier always gives up good bye. Artaxiad 13:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Armenian name?

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The Armenian word for genocide is "LIES", capiche? 85.1.89.101 11:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I for one do not "capiche". Please explain in detail, with references. -- Jibal 16:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I do not know if you all are Armenians arguing with Turks, but it seems that occasionally, as I read your arguments, the point of such a debate is lost. When I was eleven, my grandfather taught me some Armenian words as that is my parentage and I should begin to appreciate it (as you can see you will not be able to read any references with this short paragraph). My great aunt taught me how to make several Armenian dishes and when I was old enough, told me something else... something much different. She told me what she saw as she fled for her life as a child in Armenia when the Turks had invaded her town. With her mother and several other wives, daughters, and infants, she hid in a barn in hopes that the Turks would burn down their homes and leave. They were wrong. She remembers the Turkish soldiers speaking the very language she had feared to hear in such a close vicinity. She remembers an infant crying out and a soldier seizing it from it's mother, tossing the male child in the air and catching it with a pitchfork, murdering the babe. He then set fire to that barn. This, among other recollections my aunt told me ensure that I will never doubt and never stop fighting for the universal recognition of the Armenian Genocide. I cannot site this source, nor can I ask her to repeat these recollections (God rest her soul) but this April 24th at Turlington at UF I will be reading aloud what I did transcribe for anyone to hear so that at least someone may be touched, educated, and know that annihilating a population for whatever purpose is wrong, but doing so and never admitting such an offense is deplorable on a whole new level.-JM

Gee, ever thought of writing a novel? You seem to have a way with words!

Talk pages are for discussing how to improve the content of the related article, to make WP the best it can be. They are not for anything else. -- Jibal 09:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well then perhaps the article could include detailed quotes from actual survivors of the genocide. How do you suggest it could be improved? A lot of your comments reveal this desire and yet I can't recall what it is you wish to do to improve the encyclopedia entry. Perhaps an actual account of the event would be helpful...just not in the way you would have wanted. I added the above to remind both sides of the issue that there is a human element to this which must not be ignored. Any other suggestions?72.153.5.197 00:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Arguments

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Fine - remove the "Turkish position" from the article then - at the very least. It is nothing more then genocide denial. It is poorly written and entirely POV - based on opinion and not fact. It is neither referenced nor supportable and should be treated as symptomatic denial - not history or even a legitimate position. The only proper way to deal with the Turkish denial of what are clearly truthful and scholarly/historical accepted positons are to present their false manipulated position for what it is - a joke and an insult and to treat their offical denial campaign in the manner which it deserves to be treated - with contempt (and certainly presented for what it is). What I have posted on these talk pages supports these contentions. I provide solid evidence for the position that affirms the fact of genocide and the fact that Turks undertook a systematic campaign to eliminate Armenians of the Ottoman Empire/Anatolia and then they deny that such occured - while evidence clearly shows otherwise. Meanwhile Turks comment here offer nothing but unsubstantiated opinion and personal attacks. Yet you people perpetuate this garbage while censoring my contributions. So you want the article to suck it seems. Fine. I would be and am embarrased by this amature piece posing as legitimate information and you should be too. You should be even more embarrassed about how you are supporting Genocide denial and unfactual revisionism and everyone should be embarrased by the extremely low quality of these talk pages in general. I've attempted my best to improve the quality of the discussion here - but obviously it is not appreciated. Truth and accuracy are seemingly secondary considerations in the world of Wiki. Quite pathetic. I will not be regulated to some secondary talk page while no nothing revisionists hold sway in the article and in the discussions. I can find better things to do with my time. --THOTH 01:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

you have consistantly provoked the other side with your endless efforts in censorship of anything that even remotely disagrees with your view of events that occured during this tragic part of history. By not accepting the immense suffering of Turks under the hands of the Armenians and the foreign occupiers, you are in fact insluting the memory of these people. This, unfortunately has very much been the position of Armenians and their western supporters, the fact that the value attached to the lives of non christians is far less important. This sickening attitude goes on today, you just have to look at dysfunctional Iraq where hundreds of thousands of civilians have been massacred in what is conveniantly coined as collateral damage. If you had a more open mind and respect for others, maybe this topic would look much better today! If you are going to go back to your whining arguments of how the poor innocent armenians without provocation were massacred, please refrain from doing so because we have danced to the tune so many times already! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.78.105.144 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 28 March 2006.

Suffering of Turks at the hands of Armenians is not relevant to an article about genocide of Armenians. Please see tu quoque. And everyone should refrain from personal attacks and injections of ideology. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a nationalist battleground. As a general rule, it's a good idea to for editors to stay away from articles that evoke strong emotions in them. -- Jibal 17:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

please visit this site to learn more about what you oppose [1] --Hattusili 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

turkish thesis

Latest comment: 17 years ago20 comments10 people in discussion

I think we should make another page about the Turkish thesis, to provide neutrality and place links between these two pages. Armenian Genocide (Turkish Thesis) --Hattusili 12:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thats a very bad idea. We call those POV forks. - FrancisTyers 12:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints" but this article does not fairly represent the opposition. We cannot request unprotection for this page because radical nationalists may ruin it all. so what should we do? --Hattusili 13:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

One option would be to make a copy of this page in your userspace or in the article space, e.g. Armenian Genocide/Working version edit it and then request that it replace the current page when there is consensus among all reasonable editors on the talk page. - FrancisTyers 14:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

you gotta be joking, thats a very bad idea! Adendum 15:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please explain why you think it is a bad idea, and what you propose instead. -- Jibal 16:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

It already exists: Holocaust denial, under Other.

--Eupator 17:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Holocaust denial is totally different from what we are argueing here, the Turkish side also have strong evidences about their claims so that an article about Armenian Issue should include their thesis. wikipedia has to be neutral in such issues. --Hattusili 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Excerpt from the Findings of the United Nations Permenent Peoples Tribunal 1984 - There is no doubt regarding the reality of the physical acts constituting the genocide. The fact of the murder of members of a group, of grave attacks on their physical or mental integrity, and of the subjection of this group to conditions leading necessarily to their deaths, are clearly proven by the full and unequivocal evidence submitted to the Tribunal. The specific intent to destroy the group as such, which is the special characteristic of the crime of genocide, is also established. The reports and documentary evidence supplied point clearly to a policy of methodical extermination of the Armenian people, revealing the specific intent referred to in Article II of the Convention of December 9, 1948. The policy took effect in actions which were attributable beyond dispute to the Turkish or Ottoman authorities, particularly during the massacres of 1915-1917. On the evidence submitted, the Tribunal considers that the various allegations (rebellion, treason, etc.) made by the Turkish government to justify the massacres are without foundation. It is stressed, in any event, that even were such allegations substantiated, they could in no way justify the massacres committed. Genocide is a crime which admits of no grounds for excuse or justification. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the charge of genocide of the Armenian people brought against the Turkish authorities is established as to its foundation in fact --THOTH 19:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nobody claimed everyone agrees with those who reject calling it a genocide (or who call for calling what happened to the Turks genocide also)! Your 1984 UN Tribunal proves nothing! The point is that there are people who disagree with the Tribunal, and others who aver the identity of what happened to the Armenians as genocide, while simultaneously denying that what happened to the Turks was genocide. The fact that scholars like Bernard Lewis and Justin McCarthy dissent, and the form of their dissent should be included on the page. In fact, their dissent is already mentioned -- it's just surrounded by editorializing and otherwise not covered properly.

Also, unlike "denial" of the Jewish Holocaust, there are are real academics who dissent. That alone means there is a real academic debate. The fact that you were able to show us which side of that real academic debate a political organization came down on is meaningless, and does nothing to refute the contention that the views of the dissenters are important, and relevant, and should thus be included properly on the page. The writers of the article either agree partially, and have chosen to include them improperly and with evident bias, or they agree totally with that contention and have merely failed to execute the inclusion properly.

In no case does anything in your post even come close to dealing with that contention -- one which is basically inarguable. (One Wikipedian resorted to posting a single word in response to my contention, when he failed to find any substantive rebuttal: "wrong". Backed in a corner, they just can't admit when they're wrong!!!!)

Forking the article is unnecessary: the dissenting academics' views should be covered properly in the main article, and be identified as the minority view, and more thoroughly in the currently titled "Denial..." article, which should be re-titled "Debate...".

The dissenting views are clearly important and relevant to the subject, and this is magnified by the politicization of the history. Why do you people have so much trouble with *telling the truth*??? We all know what Bernard Lewis have to say, and we all know they're the minority -- what's so hard about informing the readers about what they say and who they are????!?!?!? It can only be called an aversion to truth, unless you'll dispute the importance and relevance of their views, which is absurd. So, pick your poison: which untenable position will you take on, or will you just grin and bear the fact that sometimes other people are correct and you're wrong?

--24.5.70.65 23:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

As a side note, an article on Non-Armenian casualties during the Armenian Genocide would probably not fall under the definition of a POV fork. Providing the page did not duplicate information here and was restricted in scope. As far as I'm aware the main Turkish argument is that "lots of people not just Armenians died" so a page explaining that would probably be good. The page could then be linked from here using the {{main}} template. Just a suggestion, feel free to shoot it down... - FrancisTyers 17:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unencyclopedic proposition. It is like starting an entry about 'Non-Jewish casulties during the Holocaust' etc. The reason why the Armenian genocide has it own casulties entry is because the position of an Armenian genocide exist and is more than a fringe. An encyclopedic entry would be 'Ottoman casulties during and after WWI' or something such. Besides, 'during the Armenian Genocide' does not make sense because not much or if any revisionists have placed any 'alone' figure for the period when most Armenians have died. As professor Daniel Panzac an autority in Ottoman history writes, most Muslims died after the period most Armenians have died and that for this reason both casulties are not related. Fad (ix) 18:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

what about starting an entry about "Turkish Casualties in Eastern Anatolia in 1915" or "Armenian armed operations and forced emigration" ? I think it can be a fair start. --Hattusili 18:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

You can have WWI Turkish casualties.--Eupator 18:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is there a section in Wikipedia concerning fiction? If so that is where these laughable Turkish claims belong. There is no support - there are no witnesses - there is no truth in this claim that Anatolian/Ottoman Armenians killed any significant numbers of Turks - and certainly not Turkish civilians - during this period of time. The evidence from eyewitnesses is clear however - that the CUP led Ottoman Turkish government undertook a systematic campaign to cleans Anatolia of its Armenian (and eventually all Christian) elements. This campaign was undertaken under orders of the CUP government using paramilitary and military forces primarily against unarmed civilians who were rounded up and with slaughtered on the spot or led into the desert without access to sufficient food and water - where the intention was to bring about their deaths! There is no Armenian counter to these actions. There was no Armenian military campaign against Turks or Turkish civilians. The few instances of Armenians taking up arms were primarily in defense after they had witnessed massacres of other Armenians and murders of their social and political leaders. There were no significant Armenian revolutionary, gureilla or 5th colomn elements operating against the Turks. There is no evidence other then unsupported Turkich charges which were used as justification for actions taken against Armenians but for which empirical evidence from the time as reported by nuetral eyewitnesses and even by numerous Turkish accounts entirely repudiates. Wikipedia should not be allowed to be used as propoganda for hateful genociders - for those who perpetuate genocide through its denial. None of this would even be remotel;y allowable in a Holocaust article and this article should be no different. --THOTH 19:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

oh oh, here goes the merry go round again Don Killuminati 05:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

You see, I have left this article for near a week I think and thought that things will settle down, but this is not what happened, visit any pages, or the Hereros, or the Khmer Rouge regime, the Holocaust, the Ukrainian famine, the Hereros genocide etc., etc., etc... and tell me if there is at least one other equivalent article that has given as much space or if any members there had as much patience as I had here.

No, no 'Turkish Casualties in Eastern Anatolia in 1915,' and the reason is obvious, very obvious. You can attempt to build a parallel page to this, it won't make it much encyclopedic. Why? Here some reasons why, the Ottoman records were dumping the entire Muslim population, no separation between the groups, in the East, the Kurds, the Circassians, etc... were the majority Muslim population, besides maybe Erzerum or some other places, whos majority Muslim population were Turk I think. Many Muslims died during WWI(millions of Germans died in World War II), but most of Muslim casulties happened starting with mid 1916, when already over 800,000 Armenians have died. Besides, there has been a war between the Arabs and Turks, between Kurdish revolutionaries and Turks, there has been Envers megalomany sending his army on the front to freeze in Winter, or the starving army in the East, and this as a result of the ministry of the war evacuation of the Armenians which deprived the East and amputating the food supply.

So, you see why you can't have a Turkish casulties page? Because Turks were not separated from other Muslims. Also, there was very few Turkish civilian casulties in 1915, Muslim casulties jumped upward in 1916, during which time the Eastern zones Armenian population was gone.

Does the Turkish government section not give enought space for your second proposition? Don't forget that when I have proposed this, there wasn't much space for the Turkish position, you don't expect to have nearly half of the spaces in the main article and another full for the Turkish position, do you? Fad (ix) 19:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

These exerpts from official German reports form very early into the Genocide prove that the Turks were undertaking a campaign of elimination of the Armenians and that there was no military justification for such actions. The Germans made no reports of Armenians carrying out any massacres of Turks during (or prior to) this period. These so-called Turkish contentions are rubbish

1915-04-15-DE-002 - 15 April 1915 - From the Ambassador in Constantinople (Wangenheim) to the Reichskanzler (Bethmann Hollweg) - There only seems to be agreement on one point: that the Armenians have given up their ideas of a revolution since the introduction of the Constitution and that there is no organisation for such a revolt. Without doubt, excesses and acts of terror have taken place against the Armenians in eastern Anatolia and, in general, the events have probably been related correctly by the Armenian side. ...irregulars and bands of marauders organised in military fashion and bearing the title Militia; these are being blamed for numerous plunders, murders, for robbery and other acts committed against the Armenian population of the country...clubs affiliated with the Comité Union et Progrès, in which many dishonest elements are said to be present...in particular the one in Erzerum, have set up formal proscription lists, and a series of political murders which were committed on various respected Armenians since December of last year are attributed to their activities... In two districts of Van formal butcheries took place under the connivance of the Kaymakams... it is emphasised that the Armenians – a fact which, one might note, is contested by the Turks - despite all the suffering they have been subjected to, are behaving loyally and correctly, but at least passively.

1915-05-27-DE-001 - 27 May 1915 - From the Ambassador in Constantinople (Wangenheim) to the Reichskanzler (Bethmann Hollweg) - I have tried to find out on what the attitude of the government to a widespread Armenian conspiracy is based...it would have been fair if, from the Turkish side, proof should be presented of a disloyal attitude or disloyal acts on the part of the same, before punishing the addressees. It appears, however, that this was not regarded as necessary. Also in all other respects, the government seems to have regarded the conspiracy through a magnifying glass. I am convinced that the greater majority of the deportees is suffering innocently.The government also seems to be insisting on the archaic opinion that a whole people must be punished in solidarity for the deeds of an individual or of a few for its punishments extend to the destruction of the Armenians in whole districts. All Armenians with possessions, education or influence are to be removed so that only a leaderless herd is left behind.

1915-06-17-DE-003 - From the Ambassador in Constantinople (Wangenheim) to the Reichskanzler (Bethmann Hollweg) - 17 June 1915 - The expulsion of the Armenian population from their homes in the East Anatolian provinces and their relocation in other areas is being carried out ruthlessly. …In some places there have already been excesses during their march; the Armenians who were deported from Diarbekir to Mossul are said to have all been murdered in the course of their journey...It has come to light that the banishment of the Armenians is not only motivated by military considerations. The Minister of the Interior, Talaat Bey, recently spoke about this without reservation to Dr. Mordtmann, who is currently employed by the Imperial Embassy. He said “that the Porte is intent on taking advantage of the World War in order to clean sweep of internal enemies - the indigenous Christians - without being hindered in doing so by diplomatic intervention from other countries. --THOTH 19:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

its not rubbish, whats rubbish is the assumption that what this so called ambassador reports must construe the truth. It certainly wouldnt cross your mind that this individual, and many like him, had a major gripe against the Ottomans for whatever reason and where therefore bent on spreading malicious lies. It belongs to the trash heap in the same category as those religious missionary freaks who were reporting on behalf of the Armenians. Their word can simply not be taken as fact Adendum 12:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Uh do you have any proof that they meticulously and intentionally lied? Because I find it rather disturbing that you are calling hundreds of eyewitness to Armenian massacres as either bias or liars. They were secret, coded telegrams that were meant to be read by members of the German political bureaucracy, not to dismantle the precious Ottoman Empire.

I think its your words that hold no water, its easy to assert that.--MarshallBagramyan 20:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

So you think that its all a conspiracy against the turks? Maybe you should visit a site with pictures. I'm sure photoshop didn't play a part in those. Don't take our word for it-- a picture speaks a thousand words-- and do me a favor and imagine the people in the photos to be turks!!

The basis of the accusations against the Ottomans is a book written by Aram Andonian in 1920, "The Memoirs of Naim Bey: Turkish Official Documents Relating to the Deportations and Massacres of Armenians". Book was published simultaneously in London, Paris and Boston - in English, French and Armenian.It has been proven that these "documents" were fabricated. In one of his forged documents, Mr. Andonian appends a note and signature attributed to Mustafa Abdulhalik Bey, as the Governor of Aleppo while at the time the Governor of Aleppo was Bekir Sami Bey. Also Andonian wasn't able to assign correct dates to documents since at the time Ottoman Empire was using Rumi calendar, which starts at year 622 A.D. and uses the lunar years. Not to mention script or phraseology. These documents include a number of telegrams attributed to Talat Pasha, the Minister of Interior of the Ottoman Government, supposedly found by the British forces under the command of General Allenby, when they captured Aleppo in 1918.

This is for the moderators. Read the Armenian Genocide page carefully. Does anyone check these references? I found this article from Oxford Journals, "Turkish Military Tribunal’s Prosecution of the Authors of the Armenian Genocide: Four Major Court-Martial Series, Genocide Study Project,Spring 1997" Paper itself says they never saw the actual documents quoting from the paper "the actual transcripts still are not available to scholars" and it continues "relying upon other sources". This paper is about trial proceedings. If you don't have access to proceedings what is the basis? How can you refer to something as a proof which itself couldn't refer to any actual document? How can you reference a document which can't say anything beyond 'it is believed that...' Also Reference 17 claims that it is according to the trial proceedings that are referred to as inaccessible in reference 18. I don't think any sane people can trust in this kind of claims that lack professionalism. Also many references point to nothing. It is really hard to track this but giving non-existent references to give an illusion of correctness is just ridiculous.

Armenian documents talk about 'hundreds of eyewitnesses' and convey the information 'on their behalf'. Below is a guy who spoke for himself.

U.S. War Correspondent George Schreiner, an eyewitness to Armenian relocations in 1915, writes: "Of the real causes the world knew nothing, and still knows nothing really worth knowing. The press everywhere had been used to mislead readers, and when the warring governments began to deluge the world with 'colored' books, most of us took their contents to be gospel truth." (The Craft Sinister, 1920, Publisher:New York, G.A. Geyer ) Here by 'colored books' a reference is made to The Blue Book and The Black Book which were products of British Political Intelligence Department responsible for propaganda authored by Toynbee and Bryce. Black Book is about German atrocities in Belgium during WW1 (most people claims that it is WW2 to accuse people of denying the Holocaust while the book was published in 1915 many years before WW2) Black Book is refuted by British government itself. While Blue Book is discredited by its own author in 1922's The Western Question in Greece and Turkey. The colored books are also heavily criticized in Propaganda Techniques in the World War by Harold Laswell (1927) and Falsehood in Wartime by Arthur Ponsonby (1928) as being 'overstated and tool for propaganda'. Blue Book constitues another major basis of Armenian point of view.

Whoever wants to see picture showing the status of Turkish army in 1915 can check the following link. If a nation didn't have resources to support its own army, how could you expect them to take good care of people being deported. A picture of Turkish soldiers, 1915 Gallipoli defense http://itss.org/mehmetcik1915.jpg

TOTH should read more history. "There is no Armenian counter to these actions. There was no Armenian military campaign against Turks or Turkish civilians." And YOU're accusing people of denying, huh? This is the most explicit form of denying. Turks don't deny losses or say nothing happened. They talk about the part of history that you don't care to read about or that you're denying. That's why when PBS wants to show a discussion about this, or a 20 minute program about Turkish point of view, they were made to cancel by threats and protests. If there are no secrets and if everyone is so sure about correctness of their claim, why avoid discussion? Discuss and win the discussion in front of everyone so nobody can question your point again.

Armenian Genocide

Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Finally, i have decided to add my comments.What a shame that you armenians are trying to show it had been happened to you what you have done against Turks only for money and land request.

By the way, armenian genocide was not recognized by the slandered government.So this propaganda article is illegal...Inanna 19:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

please, assume good faith. and don't share your emotions with us. noone needs them. thanks --tasc 19:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is the discussion page...Inanna 20:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

but this is not a soapbox. --tasc 20:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

What's soapbox? Everybody has right to know the trues...Inanna 20:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox --tasc 20:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

It says "articles".I can say whatever i want in discussion page.It's propaganda while we are talking but it's not while you are? Please be fair. Inanna 20:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please see Help:Talk page: The purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the article in question....Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into a slanging match. See also: Wikiquette -- Jibal 09:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

There are two types of Armenians in the world.One of them are "Eastern Armenians" who lives in armenia,georgia,azerbaijan,iran and most in russia.Another group is "Western Armenians" who lived in Ottoman Empire(eastern anatolia) and the armenians who spread to world from here(diaspora in USA,France,...etc).Center of western armenians was Istanbul and center of eastern armenians was Tbilisi until before 1900's.Both society has specific diffrences(such as language, education level, income difference).

Let's look at the (western)armenian population at the region:

Ottoman census statistics for 1893: 1.001.465

Ottoman census statistics for 1906: 1.120.748

Ottoman census statistics for 1914: 1.221.850

It really needs ability to kill 250,000 people who has never lived(!) Inanna 20:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Inanna, from our last accounter, if you remember correctly, you have thrown racistic slurs and as a result I have decided to ignore you, which if you don't mind I will be doing again too. Until you stop with your ultranationalist racistic trash I will ignore you. BTW, there is already an article about Ottoman Armenian population. Ottoman Armenian Population

I cannot see any racism here and i don't mind whether you ignore me or not.Mine is Ottoman Census, not exaggerated numbers of an Armenian nationalist...Inanna 21:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

What a shame that you armenians are trying to show it had been happened to you what you have done against Turks only for money and land request.

This added with the trash you already spewed on your userpage as an answer to my friendly question, is indeed racism. It is a matter of fact that this article often recieve the visit of trouble makers that discuss about things that have nothing to do with it. There are no claiming specific number of deaths in this entry, there are two other entries one about the Ottoman Armenian population which present every sources including the Ottoman statistics, and another entry about the Armenian deaths which also provides the different sources.

I(we) want proof about armenian genocide.We offered armenia to found a common commission about that but they strongly refused.Why? Do they afraid something? Whatever...

Western Armenian Population in The World:

United States 1,400,000
Russia 700,000
France 450,000
Lebanon 234,000
Armenia 200,000
Syria 150,000
Argentina 130,000
Turkey 95,000(included Hamshenis)
Poland 92,000
Jordan 52,000
Germany 42,000
Canada 41,000
Brazil 40,000
Australia 35,000
Bulgaria 30,000
Iraq 20,000
Greece 20,000
Uruguay 19,000
United Kingdom 18,000
Hungary 15,000
Belgium 10,000
Czech Republic 10,000
Yugoslavia 10,000
Rest of the world 77,000

Total 4,000,000

Source: [2]

If Turks have killed all of the armenians so who are those 4 million armenians although very few population growth rate of armenians????? Inanna 23:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

The next time you post unrelated stuff in the talkpage, I will delete it. Discuss what is in the article and not what is not. But just for your information, before WW1 there was about 4.2 million Armenians in the world, today there is 7.5 million. Before WWI there was from 6 to 8 million Turks in the Empire, now we have over 50 million Turks. There has been various statistics of Armenian population after WWI to present and they do match with an Ottoman Armenian losses of over a million, the figures of todays Armenian population do support the figures of losses. Everytime a revisionist use them, without knowing they are shouting on

their own feet, Fad (ix) 00:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Question? Armenians in Ottoman Empire are referred to as minority. Doesn't your 6-8 million Turks population with the claim that about a million Armenians being killed (add the ones that survived the deportation and the ones not harmed) conflict with definition of minority?

Total population before WW1 for the empire (not only Asia Minor) is 12 million. This 12 million includes many different ethnicities Turks, Kurds having the highest population. There's not enough room for everyone in this figure if you assume Armenian population is that high.

sinsi:: According to the ottoman archives the armenian population in 1911 is given as 1020881 http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/kitap/belge.asp?kitap=25&belge=27#secili This example is in arabic alphabet with a turkish translation. The armenian claim of 1.5 million loss would leave minus 500000 people, if this certain document is true. Of course there is a range of estimates but throwing numbers like four million will not improve this discussion. Please give sources otherwise do not talk about numbers

???

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why are we discussing things that happened a century ago??I am a Turk and I have lots of friends who are Armenian.We shouldn't care things like this.Come on!--Okar--

So - let me try to clarify what you are saying - your position is that everything over 100 years ago or that happened over 100 years ago should be forgotten. Is this it? Or are you saying that we might remember - but we shouldn't care? Live for today sort of thing...Your position is rather unclear I have to say. Not that it matters much really - as I (and others) obviously feel differently - and certainly unless you expalian why your position should be taken up by all I really can't imagine anyone doing anything but ignoring or ridiculing such. My guess is that you probably haven't a clue of what it is we are even discussing here...or perhaps you do but wish to avoid the shame of it or you are ashamed and don't wish to be reminded or perhaps you are callous and just don't care? Or maybe you are hyper nationalistic and just can't stand the thought that any Turks or group of Turks may have done wrong - if even in the past..and your statement is more of a diversion. Though perhaps you really just don't know anything (like you imply)...and have no wish to know...and can't understand why others would care to know or value that they do. If this is the case can I ask you - just why are you consulting an Encyclopedia in the first place? And why did you click on or search for the subject - Armenian Genocide? (if it is such an ancient thing to you...though perhaps it is not ancient - perhaps it is still occuring today eh? maybe that is why you and other's care...ever think of that?) But if it is your position that you don't care - why bother? Well some of us do care - can you at least respect that? ...even if you don't understand why we might? Ask one of your many Armenian friends...perhaps they will enlighten you at least why they might care...--THOTH 23:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well let me perhaps enlighten you on the message of the previous anon, maybe you can learn something from this? The message is the following: If you want to dwell and get stuck in the past, please be my guest, you will be the only loser around (although I believe that point has already been reached). Like Thomas Friedman said in his latest book: those countries that dwell in the past and cling to memories will remain backwards whilst those that look ahead and embrace the future and the flattening of the world will enjoy tremendous progress! 81.213.178.166 06:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I should explain why I said that. What will you gain when you convince the others? Do you think I don't care people who are dead. I am full with respect to them. But arguing about this subject won't bring anything but forgetting it will help your friendship with the others.I am not ashamed because I think there is nothing to be ashamed of. I believe that Armenians killed Turks and Turks killed Armenians. This is an ashame that we are killing each other. How many Turk friends you have? You will understand me when you get Turkish friends.--Okar--

The question "Why are we discussing things ..." is quite out of place here. This is a page for discussing how to improve a specific Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias discuss all sorts of things, and how long ago they happened isn't relevant. Among other things, an encyclopedia documents human culture -- all of it, good and bad. The goal is to provide comprehensive information -- for the whole human community. No page, including this one, is aimed only at Turks and Armenians, and Wikipedia is expressly not intended as a forum for political debates and nationalistic squabbling. WP articles are intended to inform, not to produce shame. The nationality and ethnicity of WP contributors and their friends is irrelevant. Personally, I think it's shameful the way people abuse Wikipedia and ignore its purpose and policies. Please see The five pillars of Wikipedia -- Jibal 09:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Important Interview with Andrew Goldberg - producer of documentary The Armenian Genocide

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Armenian Genocide

An Interview with Andrew Goldberg

By Khatchig Mouradian

March 23, 2006

On April 17, 2006, PBS will air a powerful documentary, titled “The Armenian Genocide,” which deals with the massacres and deportations of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915. The documentary, written, directed and produced by Emmy Award-winning producer Andrew Goldberg, features interviews with leading genocide scholars and is narrated by Julianna Margulies as well as Ed Harris, Natalie Portman, Laura Linney and Orlando Bloom, among others.

Filmed in the US, France, Germany, Belgium, Syria, and Turkey, the one-hour documentary also features discussions with Kurdish and Turkish citizens in modern-day Turkey.

Andrew Goldberg of Two Cats Productions (www.twocatstv.com) has produced and directed documentaries, news segments and long-form programming for PBS, NBC, E!, Inside Edition, ABC News and many others. His documentaries include “Armenians, A Story of Survival” (2001) and “A Yiddish World Remembered” (2002).

The following phone interview was conducted on March 10, 2006.

Khatchig Mouradian -Why did you decide to make a documentary on the Armenian genocide?

Andrew Goldberg- The Armenian Genocide is one of the most underreported stories of the 20th century. Every time there is an attempt to raise this issue, there are those who try to stop the discussion. I wanted to get this important subject discussed. I am glad we succeeded.

KM- The title of the documentary is enough to make the Turkish government and other genocide deniers try to stop the discussion this time around as well, even without bothering to see the documentary, isn’t it?

AG- As I have previously stated, I did not use the title “The Armenian Genocide” to be provocative. However, if you don’t use the word “genocide,” you are enabling denial. It’s not that we must use the word “genocide”; it’s only that we cannot allow people to stop us from using the word. The term “genocide” did not exist for years, but the mass killings of the Armenians were denied back then as well. We could call it anything and the people who want to stop the truth would still deny it. We are using the term “genocide” because it’s the only word in the current language to properly describe this event. The mass murder of the Armenian people has been denied for nearly a hundred years; I won’t be a part of that denial no matter what.

KM- The documentary also gives an opportunity to deniers of the Armenian genocide to express their views and tell what they consider to be “the other side” of the story. What is your comment on that?

AG- Denial can be looked at, but it must be looked at in a controlled, quarantined situation. If you quarantine denial, contextualize it, and explain to people that what they now are seeing is denial, then you are shielded from the virus of denial and it doesn’t cause damage. While we do present in the film the points of view of deniers, I wouldn’t call it “the other side,” because there is no other side. People do not understand just how committed the denialists are to distorting the story. People need to understand the monster. That’s why we chose to show what they had to say.

KM- In the documentary, columnist and retired Turkish diplomat Gunduz Aktan says, “The Turkish people firmly believe that what happened to the Armenian people was not genocide.” Tell us about your impressions of how the Turkish people approach the Armenian issue.

AG – First of all, they approach it differently on camera than they do off camera. I’ll give you an example not related to the genocide. If you speak to the Hamshen, they will say to you, “We are Armenians,” but when you point the camera at them, they say “We are Turkish.” Turkey is not a nation of free speech, although it may present itself as such. Therefore, there’s a double dialogue in Turkey. There’s a dialogue that you see presented publicly, and then there’s a dialogue behind closed doors. There is an increasing number of people in Turkey who do believe it was genocide; however, they would not say this publicly.

KM- The main challenge of addressing a historical event by film would be making it related to the here and now. Was this the case with “The Armenian genocide”?

AG- I believe that this is an event that started 91 years ago and is not over. Denial is the final stage of genocide. Therefore, it’s a current event. Besides, we address many contemporary issues in the film, such as the recent ruling in Turkey that they would teach the students that there was no genocide. This is incredible; believing is one thing, but teaching it in the state curriculum is another thing. We did not take on news issues like Orhan Pamuk because you don’t know how they are going to turn out and when they turn out one way or another, the film immediately becomes old. This documentary is not a news piece; it’s a piece that has to have some shelf-life. This is more of an issue piece than a news piece.

KM- Tell us a bit of this all-star cast of narrators.

AG- I worked with Aleen Keshishian who is a wonderful and extremely accomplished Talent Manager in Hollywood. We worked together in picking the narrators, and every one of them donated their services. Every single one of them did it for free, because they cared deeply about the cause. We have a wonderful cast of talented people and we are very proud of them.

KM- What is the message that you want to convey to the public with “The Armenian genocide”?

AD- What happened to the Armenians is one of the most inhumane acts in the history of the human race. The victims of that event and their children have never been acknowledged and affirmed, and it is important that we, as non-Armenians and Armenians, affirm and acknowledge this tragedy, and send a clear message to those attempting to deny this tragedy that we will not allow their position to make progress into this international conversation.

I believethat his position is one that the editors and others involved in producing this article on the Armenian Genocide here in Wikipedia need to take heed. The Armenian Genocide is not only history - it is a current event. The denial - that we witness here and elsewhere - is part of the continuing act of Genocide against the Armenian people who were once of Anatolia. This fact must be highlighted in any article concerning the Armenian Genocide. The facts of the ever changing Turkish ongoing denials and tactics of denial must be hightlighted in the articel or in a related article. This is most important. And it is just as important to not allow the denial to be presented just as "an opposing view" that has any validitiy whatsoever except as it can be seen as a denial of truth and a biased and untrue revision of history. --THOTH 16:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Goldberg? JAAS (Just Another Armenian Stooge). He produced something earlier so in fact I stand corrected, the correct term is JASAS (Just Another Serial Armenian Stooge) and FYI Portman is a right wing Israeli who hates Palestinians, she said it herself!

I have come to a point where i can finally enter in some input into this matter i am not an historian i am not a politician i am not an anarchist and i am not an injust person. i am just a boy yet this topic is becoming filled to the brim with evidence and so on and so fourth it has been 91 years since these events occured and during that state of 91 years many countries have acknowledged the genocide ( dont ask me i dont know ) i mean cmon we all agree upon genocide being inhumane and injust yet we get racism from the comment on top of mine (JAAS) wow. and if you think portman is racist your being quite ironic commenting on somebody racist right after making a racist remark, real stylish. I have only one thing to say Armenians you shouldnt be angry at turks in general there are many turks that admit to the geoncide i have many turkish friends that admit to it and have no problem with it i myself am armenian and it may suprise you that i have turkish friends. but its true i eat kebabs and all that and i dont withdraw my self from learning a few word, however my condemnation is to the ataturk movement and the old ottoman government, well frankly the government right now aswell. I admit some turks were killed i mean what did u expect people to give up without a fight and just let there home be burried. but still denial is hard on such a topic considering one nation has stood there ground on the matter for 91 years and new movements such as the you atataturk movement are coming to light now. im not injust but i cannot shed light on what the turks believe considering i dont know and i am pleaing to any one commenting make sure you know what your talking about before you post. because your just making waves for no reason and please be gentle over the topic after all we are dealing with the dead

I have been researching this Genocide for weeks for a college project and I've seen from the research that there is way too much evidence for the genocide. Turks cannot truthfully say there wasn't a genocide. It happened, DEAL WITH IT, the wikipedia page should stay how it is.

Oh ok I get it, if you question or, God forbid oppose the genocide thesis you are accused of being a racist! Do you know the meaning of the word stooge? Look it up because its the first time I hear that the word has anything to do with racism. And you know what? I thank God every day for giving us Ataturk because if it was not for him, there would be no present day Turkey and your remarks baffle me because its a well established fact that he had nothing to do with the massacres that took place towards the end of the Ottoman empire. You should read a bit more history before making silly remaks because it only highlights your total ignorance on the subject matter. But maybe it is that you are brainwashed by the Armenian propaganda rubbish that is being fed to you like gripe water to quel your colic self in which case you could be excused. I do have a pertinant question for you though, do you ask the kebab guy if he agrees with the genocide thesis before ordering? Oh and coming back to the Goldberg documentary, did you know that the project was almost completely funded by Armenians? Says a lot about being objective on the matter, dont you think? 83.76.136.62 17:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

As a matter of fact denying the Genocide is racist and irrational, because the denialist "argument," is predicated of numerous assumptions that are inherently bigoted. For starters, the denialist "arguemnt" necessitates labeling all those who survived the Genocide as liars and or traitors. That is to say, the cumulative effect of the testimony of every survivor designates what happened as genocide. Thousands of testimonials are incredibly consistent in their descriptions of the premeditated atrocities carried out by the "guards" and local population. The undeniable fact remains that if these entirely consistent recollections made by small children, women , children, rich and poor, are to be considered completely fallacious, then the denialist "argument" must make the racist claim that the whole of the Armenian race in involved in one giant conspiracy, the proportions of which, truly dwarf anything that UFO or Bigfoot conspiracy believers maintain.Thus, denying the Armenian Genocide IS racist.

Summary

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You've carved a wooden horse

riding and calling it real

fooling yourself in life

though only a wooden horse

ride it again my friend

and gallop to the next post...

Rumi

neurobio 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please do not cite poetry here, it is a misuse of the talk page. El_C 01:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC

http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please check the web site below.

http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/index.html

Why there is no link for this web site? Is it because you didn't like the written things?

Please also check the photos in album!!

Verdict og the UN Permenent Peoples Tribunal fully answers all Turkish counter-charges

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

There has been raised the issue of intent in regard to the Genocide of Armenians – as well as charges that Ottoman Armenians were in rebellion or were acting in some significant military way counter to the Ottoman Government. These issues were all examined by the UN Permanent Peoples Tribunal in 1984 and here is a relevant excerpt (material to the counter-charges and claims made by various Turks on these talk pages) of their verdict – United Nations Permanent Peoples' Tribunal - April 16, 1984 - Verdict of the Tribunal – (excerpt) - A revolutionary movement began to develop within the Armenian community (Dashnak and Hunchak parties). Following the Sasun insurrection in 1894, approximately 300,000 Armenians were massacred in the eastern provinces and in Constantinople on the orders of Sultan Abdul Hamid. Protests by the Powers led to more promises of reforms which, again, were never kept; the guerilla ('fedayis') struggle continued. From the turn of the century onward, Armenian revolutionaries also began to cooperate with the Young Turk party in the definition of a federalist plan for the Empire. Following the hopes generated by the constitutional revolution of 1908 Young Turk ideology, under pressure of the exercise of power and external events as well as from the radical wing of the movement, began to develop toward a form of exclusive nationalism which found expression in Pan-Turkism and Turanism. At the Eighth Congress of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation at Erzerum in August 1914, the Dashnak party rejected Young Turk requests to engage in subversive action among the Russian Armenians. From the beginning of the war, the Turkish Armenians behaved in general as loyal subjects, signing up with the Turkish army. The Russian Armenians, on their side, were routinely conscripted into the Russian Army and sent to fight on the European fronts. … Beginning in January 1915, Armenians soldiers and gendarmes were disarmed, regrouped in work brigades of 500 to 1,000 men, put to work on road maintenance or as porters, then taken by stages to remote areas and executed. It was not until April that the implementation of a plan began, with successive phases carried out in a disciplined sequence. The signal was first given for deportation to begin in Zeytun in early April, in an area of no immediate strategic importance. It was not until later that deportation measures were extended to the border provinces. The pretext used to make the deportation a general measure was supplied by the resistance of the Armenians of Van. The vali of Van, Jevdet, sacked outlying Armenian villages and the Van Armenians organized the self-defense of the city. When the news of the Van revolt reached Constantinople, the Union and Progress (Ittihad) Committee seized the opportunity. Some 650 personalities, writers, poets, lawyers, doctors, priests and politicians were imprisoned on April 24th and 25th, 1915, then deported and murdered in the succeeding months. Thus was carried out what was practically the thorough and deliberate elimination of almost the entire Armenian intelligentsia of the time. From April 24 onwards, and following a precise timetable, the government issued orders to deport the Armenians from the eastern vilayets. The execution of the plan was entrusted to a 'special organization' (SO), made up of common criminals and convicts trained and equipped by the Union and Progress Committee. This semi-official organization, led by Behaeddin Shakir, was under the sole authority of the Ittihad Central Committee. Constantinople issued directives to the valis, kaymakans, as well as local SO men, who had discretionary powers to have moved or dismissed any uncooperative gendarme or official. The methods used, the order in which towns were evacuated, and the routes chosen for the columns of deportees all confirm the existence of a centralized point of command controlling the unfolding of the program. From May to July 1915, the eastern provinces were sacked and looted by Turkish soldiers and gendarmes, SO gangs ('chetes'), etc. This robbery, looting, torture, and murder were tolerated or encouraged while any offer of protection to the Armenians was severely punished by the Turkish authorities. It was not possible to keep the operation secret. Alerted by missionaries and consuls, the Entente Powers enjoined the Turkish government, from May 24, to put an end to the massacres, for which they held members of the government personally responsible. Turkey made the deportation official by issuing a decree, claiming treason, sabotage, and terrorist acts on the part of the Armenians as a pretext. Deportation was in fact only a disguised form of extermination. At the end of July 1915, the government began to deport the Armenians of Anatolia and Cilicia, transferring the population from regions which were far distant from the front and where the presence of Armenians could not be regarded as a threat to the Turkish army. The deportees were driven south in columns which were decimated en route. From Aleppo, survivors were sent on toward the deserts of Syria in the south and of Mesopotamia in the southeast. In Syria, reassembly camps were set up at Hama, Homs, and near Damascus. Between March and August 1916, orders came from Constantinople to liquidate the last survivors remaining in the camps along the railway and the banks of the Euphrates. In Eastern Anatolia, the entire Armenian population had disappeared. … The Tribunal considers that the facts presented above are established on the basis of substantial and concordant evidence. This evidence has been produced and analyzed in the various reports heard by the Tribunal, to which numerous documents have been submitted. … The refusal of the Turkish government to recognize the genocide of the Armenians is based essentially on the following arguments: lower estimate of death toll; responsibility of Armenian revolutionaries; counter-accusations; denial of premeditation. There is no doubt regarding the reality of the physical acts constituting the genocide. The specific intent to destroy the group as such, which is the special characteristic of the crime of genocide, is also established. The reports and documentary evidence supplied point clearly to a policy of methodical extermination of the Armenian people, revealing the specific intent referred to in Article II of the Convention of December 9, 1948. The policy took effect in actions which were attributable beyond dispute to the Turkish or Ottoman authorities, particularly during the massacres of 1915-1917. The Tribunal notes on the one hand, however, that in addition to the atrocities committed by the official authorities, the latter also used malicious propaganda and other means to encourage civilian populations to commit acts of genocide against the Armenians. It is further observed that the authorities generally refrained from intervening to prevent the slaughter, although they had the power to do so, or from punishing the culprits, with the exception of the trial of the Unionists. This attitude amounts to incitement to crime and to criminal negligence, and must be judged as severely as the crimes actively committed and specifically covered by the law against genocide. On the evidence submitted, the Tribunal considers that the various allegations (rebellion, treason, etc.) made by the Turkish government to justify the massacres are without foundation. It is stressed, in any event, that even were such allegations substantiated, they could in no way justify the massacres committed. Genocide is a crime which admits of no grounds for excuse or justification. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the charge of genocide of the Armenian people brought against the Turkish authorities is established as to its foundation in fact. http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.66/current_category.5/affirmation_detail.html --THOTH 23:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

you know what? for a monent I believed that! but google is there for people who are willing to learn. ok I will stay calm. I am talking about a real international Court. Not this self declared mupet show. [[3]]. I hope you did not do that mistake intentionaly (i gues you are just fooled by Armenian propaganda sites). I repeat Peoples tribunal is not formed by UN. it is a organ of Lelio Basso international foundation. it is just a NGO not an international court. They have done this pathetic show AT THE SORBONNE, PARIS FRANCE, APRIL 13-16, 1984 and there wasnt a single Turkish soul there. [[4]] it was not a court the "verdict" was given in 3 days (for a matter which has not been resolved for 90 years) which means that they already found the defendant guilty. oh sorry the defendant was not there. Anyway it is useles to comment on this circus. like the Turkish saying puts it "they play for themselves, and they dance for themselves". and lets see how this NGOV published its "neutral" "verdict". (A Crime of Silence, The Armenian Genocide: Permanent Peoples' Tribunal. Pierre Vidal-Naquet, preface, Gerard Libaridian, editor. London: Zed Books Ltd., 1985. French edition edited by Gerard Chaliand in collaboration with Claire Mouradian and Alice Aslanian-Samuelian. Paris: Flammarion, 1984.). Rather pathetic for a independent NGOV which fights for human rights. I am telling you again if you have money and strong lobbies it is not hard to have such shows. You cant go to a real international court instead you make this shows to feel great. Oh How much they wish the real int. court can come up with this verdict but it wont! thats why Armenians are not doing the first thing that they should do. instead they spread propaganda. If you can get a verdict from an int court Turkey has nothing to do but accept then you can get good money from these deniers. This one is as valid as our students verdict in our university where they sentenced Bush for his war crimes.neurobio 01:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Here are some reasons why you can’t go to an international court. You may think that these are fabrications but big bosses in the Diaspora know very well that they are indeed true that is why they by pass the easiest way for a recognition of the so called genocide. If you spend a life time reading only biased sources you may end up very disappointed.

The number of Muslims committed to the guards of Armenians and massacred by them after being inflicted physical pains upon and struck by the butt of rifles reached 30.000; the Armenians serving in the Ottoman army were deserting and deliberately surrendering to Russians to disclose information about the said army;

19 R. 1333 (6. III. 1915) from ottoman archives

"When the Armenian volunteers taking the stolen spoils, the Russian soldiers trying to hinder them was shot by the Armenians. Moreover, the volunteers are plundering continuously and find pleasure in any kind of committing murder. In order (to) end these murders, a Council of War was established in Van. In addition, to prevent these crimes, it was deemed necessary to form the unities of discipline."

TELEGRAPH OF RUSSIAN GENERAL NIKOLAYEF TO CAUCASIAN ARMY COMMANDER

"I know from reports of my own officers who served with General Dro that defenseless villages were bombarded and then occupied, and any inhabitants that had not run away were brutally killed, the village pillaged, and all the livestock confiscated, and then the village burned. This was carried out as a regular systematic getting-rid-of the Muslims."

Ambassador Mark Bristol

In these days the Armenians were perpetrating indescribably cruel murders among the poor Turkish inhabitants of the neighborhood of Erzindjan; the Turks were unarmed and without any means of self-defense. On hearing that the Turkish troops were approaching, the Armenians, committing fresh crimes, fled in the direction of Erzerum.

According to the reports of the Commander-in-Chief, confirmed by officers who were actually present at the scene of the crime, the Armenians slew more than 800 Turks in Erzindjan, and so avenged one of their miserable accomplices who had been killed by a Turk in justified self-defense. Furthermore, the Armenians massacred the unhappy Mohammedan population of Ilidja, in the neighborhood of Erzerum, without sparing the women and children.

TELEGRAPH OF RUSSIAN GENERAL NIKOLAYEF TO CAUCASIAN ARMY COMMANDER

This is about your national hero Antranik

"I arrived in Bayburt on August 8, 1917. What I saw was terrifying. Armenians under the Russian administration were committing horrifying, wild atrocities against Turks in Bayburt and Ispir. The rebels named Arshak and Antranik, slaughtered the children in the orphanage I worked at with their daggers. They raped young girls and women. They took away 150 children with them while they were withdrawing from Bayburt and killed most of them while they were still on the way." Red Cross Attendant Tatiana Karameli, student of Russian Medicine School, serving at Russian Red Cross 1917-18, memoirs. neurobio 01:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Neuro, you're just quoting lines from Turkish websites which obviously deny the Genocide and especially that unabashed racist Holdwater. Find some sources from other books and places. These two entities, especially that idiot Holdwater, MAKE UP SOURCES. Numerous times I have courted Holdwater on discrepancies on his quotes, on falsified quotes, on fake books that don't even exist and he has never been able to answer back to them.

You're honestly quoting Admiral Bristol as a source? The same racist man who equated Armenians and Jews as "parasites"? Get some more realistic sources. You do know that even Admiral Bristol acknowledged that the Armenians were being massacred en masse and said that it was because the Turks were more numerically powerful and the Armenians were just weak? Admiral Bristol was obviously promoting the Untied States' policy of pro-oil Turkey, obviously he would never make any disparaging comments on Turkey itself and blame Armenians. He's not even an eyewitness, his testimony is pure hearsay ("I heard from my officers"? he was a US ambassador not a sailor in the navy [where is the ocean his men were serving on]---quote is made up!)Check back on your sources and quit being so damn gullible on everything you find on TurkiyeCumhurriet.com. How patheticlly desperate these people become.--MarshallBagramyan 16:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please refer to the pictures I uploaded below. I am sure they will be deleted soon because they are the PROOF of a CLEAR FORGERY. Also I dont know how to link them directly. If someone can do that, that would be appreciated.

I am not presenting any comment since the pictures speak for themselves. I also recommend that we put these as a proof of Armenian propaganda to the article. I think it clearly gives an idea. File:Apotheosis-of-War-big.jpg

--Sokrateskerem 04:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's not a secret that Armenians forged and are forging documents and photos... Thanks for reminding that to the audience. Off course they are the victims and we are the bad people right, so who would believe their forgery? At least the truth is out there. --Gokhan 04:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

That image on the book is clearly an illustration, not a photograpgh. Its a direct facsimile, which can hardly be called something that was "forged". To call this an example of "Armenian forgeries" doesn't make sense because it doesn't illustrate what was forged. Check back on the dust cover of that book and you'll most probably find the picture credited to the Russian artist. And I get a great kick out of how the publication is described as a falsification and goes on to practically show that talaat Pasha was just an innocent bystander who got caught up in the events of 1915. Whitewash.--204.102.210.1 19:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Either way, showing that one image has been forged does not mean that all images have been forged, nor does it mean that all of the claims about the events have been forged. --InShaneee 19:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

That image is clearly an illustration ? How can you verify that ? I am REALLY SURE it is an illustration. And people do that right ? When they think about something evil, they put an image of a skull pile , especially when talking about a `FALSE` genocide lie. It is very well known that, SOME Armenians ( I know true Armenians, who try to ignore these issues when they see a Turkish friend, because they dont care like their deceitful compatriots. These are my friends, some of you will get mad, even deny that! pathetic...) FORGED and FORGE documents like this. In black and white background it really didnt seem like an illustration. You can check back the dust only to see forgery. Of course they did not even mention that it was a painting, let alone the artists name. \

Response to Whitewash : 1. ) I cannot see how you linked these photos to the innocence of Talat Pasa. It says nothing about him. Maybe you want him to be blamed so much that you cant even stand seeing him by a forged Armenian document.

2.) I do not know your spoken English level, or about your eyes` accuracy but if you read the script written under the so-called photograph explains the forgery with references. So please, try to keep up even if it`s hard.

Response to InShanee : 2. ) Noone said that all images have been forged. Why do you feel so defensive ? This is a forgery and it is one aspect of my fellow Armenians propaganda. And IT Must BE INCLUDED in the article. People must see it

--Sokrateskerem 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, it must not. It's POV and demonstrates nothing of relevance. --InShaneee 20:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

He means that juxtaposing the illustration next to Talaat doesn't represent a forgery. That painting is quite famous, it would be rather dumb to pass it off as a photograph won't it? The picture is used as an analogy rather than a historical photograph that was taken during the Genocide.--MarshallBagramyan 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

what book is this?

Opinion

Latest comment: 18 years ago26 comments5 people in discussion

I recently came across to this.

Sarkisyan argues that the Jews encouraged the Ottoman Turks to commit genocide against Armenians. Sarkisyan continues:

“Talat Pasha was a Jewish. They made Turks and Armenians hostile. Turks would not have committed genocide. But all of the Jon Turks (Young Turks) were Jewish”.

what do you think abut this? not as a part of our debete but I really want to learn. It is common knowledge that almost all young turks are jew what do you think about it? is it a general understanding or this man is just a radical soul.neurobio 23:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Check here Donmeh.--MarshallBagramyan 00:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Talat Pasha was not Jewsish and neither were any substansial portion of te Young Turks. While most of the Toung Turk ideologues and such came from areas outside of Anatolia proper and many would only nominaly be considered Turkish in the strict sense - the important thing is that they were Turkish Nationalists - not what particular ethnicity they were. Talat went to a Jewish school growing up - not surprising since Salonkia where he grew up was known for a high population of Jews and Domneh (former Jews who had converted to Islam). The Solonkia connection is the source of these charges of Talat and other Young Turks (and even Ataturk) being Jewish - however aside from a few members - such as Tenkin Alp (Moishe Cohen) - very few Young Turks were actually Jewish and this supposed Jewish connection is entirely a non-issue. Djemal attempted to "deport" Jews from Palestein and massacre them (until he was stopped by the Germans of all people) - and some Jews were killed. Likewise the Young Turks discussed/debated taking the exact same measures against the Jews as they ultimatly did against the Armenians at their party congreesses prior to the war...--THOTH 20:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can I ask where you got the "Jewish" deportation excerpt from Thoth?--MarshallBagramyan 03:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am not at my home at the moment and won't be for a time - however I have numerous sources that report these discussions among the CUP leadership as well as documentation of Djemal's efforts to massacre and deport Jews and the German consternation over this (bad publicity & giving more imetus for Jews to rally to the British). I can pass on these references when I get back. --THOTH 13:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

LOL for some reason I picture you in eastern anatolia with a spade frantically looking for proof to support your thesis! lutherian 14:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

maybe you should have read my previous comments before you writing this. come to my talk page if you want to talk.neurobio 00:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

LOL, who is this guy? lutherian 05:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is not a fiction article - please refrain from posting ignorant and entirely ficticious claims that have absolutly nothing to do with reality.--THOTH 20:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry but your comments and personal attacks against me have no credibility nor basis. You have no clue regarding my background and my understandings of the various "pains" and situations of peoples of thsi period. I would be more then willing to discuss/intorduce such factually and in the proper context - however I have yet to see the Armenian Genocide denialist camp do so. I suspect that most - like yourself - who introduce such really don't much understand the true history but are only parroting the latest Turkish propoganda pieces - and this seems very obvious to me. McCarthy's quote is typical of this. Certainly if we are discussing the totality of Armenian history some mention of Armenian revenge attacks against Turks after the genocide and/or the activities of Russian Armenians in WWI would be appropriate. In any discussion of the Armenian Genocide these things deserve perhaps a slight mention - however they are not fundemental to the issues of the Armenian Genocide itself. The "provacation thesis" and claims by Turks and Turk apologists of civil war and such are entirely false and discredited assumptions. I don't at all contend that no Turks suffered during - prior to and after this period - but for this article we are attempting to provide accepted facts that prtain to the Armenian Genocide and the only Turkish suffering of this period of note came from actions of the CUP and events tied directly to the war situation. The Armenian Genocide refers to the actions initiated by the CUP/Ottoman Government to ethnically cleans Anatolia of its own Armenian citizens. This extremely brutal and comprehensively destructive series of acts has few collallarys in modern history and certainly no counter done by Armenians (or even any others) to any group of Turks. You obviously fail to understand the magnitude and devastation of these actions and the decimation and utter deppravities commited against the Armenians. I find your attempts to equate any Turkish suffering of this period to the Armenian devastation to be entirely disengenuous and faulty. And furthermore your and other's attempts here to claim that Armenians did something equivilant or even that they commited acts to justify what was done are clearly no more then a repeat of vicious CUP/Turkish propoganda that have no bearing on reality and that is highly insulting and hurtful to Armenians and to all victims of genocide. This article is about the Armenian Genocide. It is an encyclopedic article - thus it shouold be entirely factual and supportable and relevent to the issue. I find that your comments meet none of these criteria.--THOTH 13:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whitewasssssshhhhhhhhhh lutherian 14:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

yes we should not make the jews angry. you are pro my dear. there is no stop in your history distortions.neurobio 01:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

"What the Klingon has said is unimportant, and we do not hear his words." Leonard McCoy - stardate 3497.2. Planet Capella lV --THOTH 14:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Should one assume that you equate the klingon race to the Turks? Interesting how your subconcious works! lutherian 14:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

whenever you come up with a nonsense claim and have no document to show I suddenly become Klingon. See upper sections where Pinky and the Brain came up with a huge claim yet change the subject when asked for a document. way to go.neurobio 20:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes of course. Whenever I come up with nonsense - you are a Klingon...lol...no wonder you (nobrainer) & lex luthorian seem to show no ability to understand the written word...you obviously can't and don't - and if I were you I wouldn't in good conscience make accusations that others are posting nonsense claims...particularly with the degree of support (none) behind your various contentions...--THOTH 22:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

good rhetorics and nice try (nobrainer and Lex luthorian) yet not good enough. well you are a pro! Talat is a jew! because Salonica was also habited by many alevi-bekhtasi Turks (yörük) who were widely moved from Aydin there were plenty of regular scools just like the one Mustafa kemal attended. let me tell what nonsense is! claiming that a muslim Turk child can go to a jew school is nonsense. (first he will not be sent by the family since there are regular schools second minorities dont accept others. and please remember that all these schools give a strong religious back ground. At that time almost every thing that was tought in schools were religion oriented.)

so will it whitewash Turks? absolutely no but this is a good marker to understand if the person you are dealing with is a diaspora propagandist or not. A good willed armenian who fullhardedly belives in genocide says "ok Talat and many other young turks were jew so what?" (like marshall bayramyan has said) but a diaspora propagandist says no they were not jews. Why because they know they need the help of the jewish comunity for their cause. They dont want to make jews much more upset for now. And they also want to tickle strong Jew lobies with false claims like young Turks (almost half being jew) would have deported jews if it wasnt for Germanys intervention (the germans who will comit the real holocaus some 30 years later). Our diaspora propagandists who are "revealing the past" just skip this part just in a blink of an eye. When it is all over they will start writing books on "jewish responsibility in armenian genocide".

Yes why would I want to antagonize anyone with "false claims that are untrue"? This makes no sense at all to me. If I make a claim it is because I have support for it. The mention of Talat going to a Jewish school was from Fromkin - A Peace to End all Peace ...who also spoke to the widespread anti-semitism of the British Middle East desk where many of these rumours and (false) charges of Jewish complicity in the Young Turk movement originate from. Fromkin - who could hardly be considered as a biased or questionable source - dispells these arguments by presenting the facts and circumstance. --THOTH 13:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

So I (nobrainer) ask you pinky (or brain if it makes you feel better) to accept me as a klingon and answer none of my post. And I will accept you as a diaspora propagandist with an unmached talent to ignore or falsify the simplest facts of history and dont take you seriosuly from now on. deal?neurobio 23:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

That Lex Lutherian name calling really cracked me up Thor, I know you consider yourself a genius and far more knowledeable on this subject than anyone else except maybe Fadix who has frequently given you a good thrashing for your blind propaganda. I suggest you go take a break like he did for the sake of improving the quality of this topic lutherian 04:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

What's with the insults? Can't we have a civilized discussion here? This isn't a freakin' dissfest you know. —Khoikhoi 04:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have approached the issues here seriosly and by providing support to the positions I present. However, the response has either been name calling of me personally (this "thor" thing is not new nor is commentary that I am hateful toward Turks and a propogandist). If not this they make ad hominem attacks against legitimate and respected researchers or they admonish me for making long posts that they will not read. Either way they are making no substantive comments or contribution here. This issue of supposed Jewish involvement in the armenian Genocide is just another of their red herrings. No matter what I answer with factually they will find some typical denialist angle to attack on. Of course I will tire of responsing to wild unsupported claims and meaningless (to the issue) statements...thus the Klingon comment...I mean should I really be wasting my time on their irrelavent and entirely unsupported garbage? Its quite easy for the true propogandists who provide nothing of substance to accuse others that they are doing the same. However, I think I have proven to possess historical and scholarly foundation for the views I put forth and I am able to provide legitimate support for such as well - I have done so frequently...unlike this "other side" which produces only innuendo and claims based on opinion and not fact. --THOTH 13:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You know, I have been reading these posts for some time and watching everyone go back and forth with charges, accusations and insulting each other. This is becoming absurd. This is my first post, so please excuse me if I am not followig proper protocol. Regarding the genocide, I have personally met over two dozen survivors of the Armenian genocide and have been to Armenia six times so far. The painful memories and stories of the survivors say it all to me. Also, I have worked extensively in the Armenian community and have heard contless accounts of families torn apart from the genocide. By the way, I am not Armenian, but I am entirely convinced of the reality of the genocide. Read all of the history books and debates as you want, but after hearing the testimonies of the survivors and their relatives first hand, I do not need any more convincing. If you ever have the opportunity to travel to Armenia, you will see that the Armenian people are STILL suffering from the effects of the genocide. If you choose to not beleive it, that is your right, but please show some respect for those who have suffered and continue to suffer from this terrible tragedy.

typical one sided view of the story, a massacre can quickly and easily turn into a propaganda genocide especially when in the hand of those that have bad intentions. According to the above, you have been several times to Armenia and are probably in love with Armenians, have you bothered looking at this from the Turkish side? I doubt it very much! lutherian 17:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

We appreciate your comments concerning your experiences with Armenians concerning the Genocide (and that it and its denial have a continuing effect) and the your correct view of the unassailability of Genocide claims and knowledge based on the historical record. It may prove helpful to the article if you list some of the sources of information you have come accross/relied on for your information. I share your disgust concerning the denial and the pityful and shameful campaign here on the part of some disengenuous proponents of denial to claim that the genocide did not occur. I have tried to counter these contentions with fact but have been met by steady opposition - no matter the poor quality of such - that it continues and that the article continues to portray the denial as legitimate is enough to debase the history and make this article a bit of a joke. As poor as the support for their positions has been - if not countered they assume the right to change the article as they see fit - even if their edits (like their commentary here) totally fail to meet all quality standards for a factual article of this nature. IMO the involvement and contributions of people such as yourself are vital to counter this denial. I would however encourage you to sign your posts. --THOTH 15:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

you start calling me Lex Lutherian and then you are surprised I call you Thor? A couple of pages back in the archives you go as far as insulting Jews by attempting to diminish the importance of the Holocaust. Wasnt it you who said that the so called Armenian genocide is arguably more tragic or more of a crime than the Jewish Holocaust? Frankly I find it shocking that you would think something like this but it reflects your frame of mind. As for the so called genocide, you grotesquely inflate your claims and continuously use highly questionable sources as support and then expect everyone else to agree? In addition to this, you opnely LIE when you say that the opposition is here just to attack your claims. Just to refresh your selective memory, how many times did deepblue, neurobio and others bring totally valid points disproving the so called genocide on this page and the likes of you and Fadix just smeared them with the most ridiculous arguments such as nationalism, and in the case of non Turks, that they were on the payroll of the Turkish government. It is impossible to have a discussion with you when the only thing you do is just bombard this page with tons of cut & paste material that nobody reads (even your pal Fadix criticized you for this) and when you do contribute with your own words, its just to insult others or just to conduct your smear campaign calling us vandals, trolls or what not. You truly deserve what you get, you have a serious attitude problem, if you want others to respect you then you should learn to do the same!lutherian 17:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have never said anything to diminish the Holocaust - this charge is completely a red herring. And yes I did say that the Armenian Genocide could be arguably considered more tragic then the Jewish Holocaust...and I stand by this statement - if one considers the degree of devastation (% killed alone based upon population and shortness of time taken to destroy the community), the complete loss of homeland and resultant absence of Armenians in Anatolia, the fact that Armenians continued to be killed and massacred even after the Genocide (by the Nationalist forces) and the fact that the Turks were basically able to see the Genocide of Armenians to completion - where the end of WWII cut short the german efforts to totally decimate the Jews of Europe - yes - I think an argument could be made that the Armenian tragedy was of greater severity. However I view ech communities suffering as essentially the same and do not think one can easily put a value on each - which was certainly equally devestating and horrible for those subjected to each. As for the rest of your diatribe - I'm tired of responding to klingons...--THOTH 19:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Again I am shocked by your confirmation here as I am sure many others are. I would also mention that you somewhat contradict yourself when you mention that one cannot put a value to suffering right after saying the Armenian tragedy was of greater severity. You also mention that the killing continued even after the so called genocide, are you referring to the Armenian attack on the Turkish forces which was swiftly repelled and crushed? Talk about hostilities! lutherian 06:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Comment

Latest comment: 18 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

At that time , armenians were attacting turkish people. And they were attacking defendless innocent people. they killed pregnant woman and opened her belly just for fun to check whether baby is male or female.

Do you want me to give another story? I have many. There was a guy and his neithbor was armenian. At that time, armenians captured him and they tied him to a tree. And they started to cut his children's ear. They forced him to eat ears of his children. They didn't killed this guy. Because they wanted him to suffer by thinking his dead childrens.

In adana, people ascaped to mountains to survive because armenians were cutting them.

I beg you !! Dont show armenian as angel please.. We didnt forget anything and "armenian genocide propanganda" is nothing more than insulting us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.102.50.215 (talk • contribs) .

This isn't a Turkish fiction story site mate - seems you've happened upon the wrong place.--THOTH 21:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is an example of stories.. Perhaps it gives an idea how Armenians were devil..

so if copy paste is contribution here comes contribution.

let me refresh your memory.

"At the beginning of the Fall of 1914 when Turkey had not yet entered the war but already been making preparations, Armenian revolutionary bands began to be formed in Transcaucasia with great enthusiasm and especially with much uproar... The Armenian Revolutionary Federation had active participation in the formation of the bands and their future military action against Turkey... In the Fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer band organized themselves and fought against the Turks because they could not refrain themselves from fighting. This was an inevitable result of psychology on which the Armenian people had nourished itself during an entire generation; that mentality should have found its expression and did so....The Winter of 1914 and Spring of 1915 were the periods of greatest enthusiasm and hope for all Armenians in the Caucasus including of course the Dashnaktsutiun. We had no doubt the war would end with the complete victory of the Allies; Turkey would be defeated and dismembered and its Armenian population would be liberated. We had embraced Russia wholeheartedly without any compunction. Without any positive basis of fact we believed that the Tzarist government would grant us a more-or-less broad self-government in the Caucasus and in the Armenian vilayets liberated from Turkey as a reward for our loyalty, our efforts and assistance. "

who is this science fiction writer: Mr. Hovhannes Katchaznouni, first Prime Minister of the Independent Armenian Republic (1919 manifesto "Dashnaktsutiun has nothing to do")

December 15, 1915 article from the famously anti-Turkish New York Times called "The Black Company" attesting to these facts: "By the 15th of last October 26,000 Turkish Armenians had taken the field against their ancient overloads, and 15,000 more were drilling at Tiflis, these groups being entirely distinct from the 75,000 Russian Armenians that had already been welded into the Czar's army. Fully 2,800 of these Turkish Armenians had been contributed by the Armenian colony in the United States."

let me also remind that Boghos Nubar Pasha asked for a full participation to lousanne treaty stating that the actively fought against the Turks.

and brand new (my translation to english) "As it has been reported in Russian military officers reports and orders, Armenian volunteer bands mostly dealed with massacring the non-Christian civilian population. These volunteer bands which destroyed the Turk and Kurd population in a systematic manner aimed to clear Armenian lands off from foreign elements…. This was employed in such a continuous (with enthusiasm) way that caused problems (displeasantness) in the Russian Army." And this is not Isac assimov… This is Artases Balasiyevic Karinyan a states man from soviet Armenia. Published in “Bolshevik Zakavkazya” magazine 1928 article name “Armenian nationalist movement (fractions)”. You can find it in Lenin library.

As usual Reality is more interesting than fiction. Just imagine they attack first start killing unarmed people (because all men were in the army) to make way for their Armenian home land (where they constitue %20-25 of the population). then the government moves them to somewhere else (700.000 to 900.000 moved. on the way 300.000 to 400.000 died According to Armenian boghos nubar pasa. i have the document from french archives if you want) in its boundaries still they attack with the Russian army. in the mean time a propaganda (genocide claim) goes on so that imperial powers will occupy these vilayets and grand them a Homeland a Republic. later they come with the frenc as Legion de lorient continue killing in antep region. when all fails they start a campaing across the atlantic where no one was there to tell the truth. in 1980 they start a second series of assasinations with ASALA against Turkish people and diplomats assasinate over 200 (these asala "heroes" are today resting in yerablur cemetary the great monumenrtal cemetary for armenian heroes). they produce fake documents, fake testimonies, fake pictures When they are proven to be wrong they start saying that these historians are paid by Turkey, they start a smear campaign if not enough they bomb these historians houses. And the number goes up and up and up 1918 (400.000), 1920 (600,000 - 800.000), today (1.5 milion). And today I with my fiance whose 13 relatives were killed and dumped in to a well by armenian bands in Erzurum (probably by armenian national hero the great Andranik. It should be his region. Interesting thing is the tortures that were described to us by a 90 year old man was identical to Khojaly[[5]]). We find our selves trying to convince our fellow friends who have been exposed to Armenian propaganda for ages that there is no genocide. Really it is so strange and you cant help but go crazy. You should understand that most of Turkish people are unaware of the immense armenian propaganda but they grew up listening to Armenian atrocities from their mothers and fathers. They grew up playing aroung the mass grave in their village. Someday everything will be revealed only if you can just be neutal.neurobio 01:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

First of all your claims concerning numbers here are false all around. The 1.5 million Armenians killed was used very on by Germans in secret correspondences from Anatolia back to Germany (and was used by others as well..and apeared in Newspapers from the time)and it has been widely used since. Even the CUP/Ottomans admitted to 800,000 killed in deportations...and this does not count those killed in massacres (such as Armenian men from forced labor battalions and otherwise who were in the army and were killed...nor does it include the great many Armenians killed after the intitial Genocide phase). There is a great deal of discussion about these numbers already so I don’t feel the need to reiterate everything – suffice to say that there is more then enough proof to support this figure or something very near to it (1.2 million being a figure that has been derived by various scholars for instance). As for your other cut and pastes here – the quotes from Hovhannes Katchaznouni are known to have been doctored/mistranslated and at least partially fabricated. And in any event they, like some other quotes often used by the Genocide deniers, they are from a period where Bolshevik Armenians were attempting to discredit Dashnak Armenians thus these type of charges need to be taken with a grain of salt as they were entirely politically motivated to discredit the Dashnaks in the eyes of other Armenians. The same is true for Bogus Nubar who was doing everything he could at the Paris talks to inflate the role of Armenians in the war to better assure them recognition in the post war period. Neither of these two sources can be relied upon for concrete numbers as they must be considered in their context. (I usually rely on the various German figures where possible and so do most scholars). I am not at all familiar with Artases Balasiyevic Karinyan – nor could I find a single word concerning him from any source. Not surprising really as there have been a plethora of such quotes that have appeared where analysis has revealed that they are either total fabrications or seriously mistranslated to seem to say things that were not ever said. Your other subjects – ASALA and Nagorno Karabagh are irrelevant here (however here I would also dispute your contentions - but they are of no relevance here concerning the issue of the Armenian Genocide - whther it happened or not). In fact nothing you have posted here does anything to contradict the facts of the Genocide. No one has ever disputed that Russian Armenians fought with Russian forces during the war and that there were certain atrocities committed by these Russian/Armenian forces – typical of this sort of war situation - but not something attributable to Ottoman Armenians or possible to use to counterbalance the crimes commited by the ottoman Government against their own ethnic Armenian citizens. Likewise it is known that some Ottoman Armenians did indeed flee into Russia and join with the Russian forces…much as a great many Azeri’s and other Caucasian Turkic’s did in reverse…in fact the Special Organization had been involved in recruiting and propagandizing various Turkic’s within Russian territories and this Special Organization was already murdering Armenians and destroying Caucasian Armenian villages well before the war….in effect they were doing exactly what they (for the most part falsely) accused the Armenians of. In fact the zeal (thugery) of the SO was such that the 3rd army commander in this region called for their disbandment (and issued an arrest warrant for their leader – Dr Shakir) shortly after the start of the war – for the reason that these irregulars were plundering Muslim villages as well as Armenian and that they were out of control, out of bounds in their savagery, and were causing havoc in the region. He (and the Germans in their reports) were likewise concerned that these actions would turn the otherwise loyal local (Armenian) populace against the Ottomans. So it is no surprise that Shakir ended up in Istanbul with a fistfull of (largely concocted) accusations against the Armenians to cover his crimes and turn the opinion against the (hated…he was a known hater of) Armenians. And this is exactly what occurred. The fact is there was very little 5th column activity by Ottoman Armenians against the Turks. Besides a handful of cases of resistance to massacre – such as in Van – there were literally no instances of Armenian irregulars saving lightly guarded columns of “deportees” or acting in any way as revolutionaries or against Muslim civilians - German confidential reports indicate that Armenians were quiet and peaceable during this time and in fact the Dashnaks were still under the delusion that the CUP still included them positively in their plans - thus all anti-government activity from them had ceased long before the war. These Turkish counter-charges are largely complete fiction - based more on the CUP paranoia - based on CUP/SO plans and activities then on any reality based on what Armenians were doing. As for (Caucasian) Armenians (and remnants of Ottoman Armenians) massacring innocent Turks in the latter part of the war (after the main thrust of the Genocide had already decimated the Ottoman Armenian population) – yes this did occur and is unfortunate and sorrowful. And there is no doubt that much of this sort of massacring of villages occurred on both sides during the war. However these wartime atrocities are not comparable to the Genociding of the entirely of the civilian Armenian population of Anatolia by systematic means and those actions commited by Armenians largely occured in periods after the genocide had largely been completed. Nor can any of these actions – which in the period prior to the Genocide were very few in any event – be used as an excuse or justification for the government sponsored mass barbarity and slaughter of its own civilian population - the Armenians - who were overwhelmingly peaceful and loyal. Melson very well disproves this “provocation thesis” and he and other sources clearly show that it was the dynamics of the CUP revolution itself and the bigotry and Pan-Turanic designs of its principles that was the cause of the Armenian Genocide – no anything that was done on the part of the Armenians.--THOTH 16:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fascinating, its like talking to a wall!!! THOTH have you ever considered that if in your words the biggest crime of last century was committed by Ottoman Turks we should credit them for being so methodical, efficient, ingenious, swift and organized as they, in such short a period, apparently succeeded in wiping out 1.5 million souls (some even suggest 2 million) and that its still being debated today. I mean this far surpasses the ingenuity of the Nazi Germans that were famed for their ruthlessness and efficiency. From all the garbage you produce on this page, one would think that the Turks were so impressivly organized and efficient. Dont you think that you given too much credit to a people that are much better known for their sloppyness and machoism, a bit like Italians? lutherian 20:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The results of the CUP plan to exterminate the Armenians speaks for itself and the observers whose cooborated accounts documents the severity and enormity of the slaughter and the quickness in which it was accomplished speaks for itself. I am not giving anyone (undue) credit...the facts are documented and known. There are thousands of reports that speak to the brutal efficiency of the forced starvation marches and other methods of mass slaughter. I'm sure that even the CUP leadership itself was surprised by their ultimate efficiency. Such a mass slaughter has never either before or since been witnessed in all of human history (unless perhaps one was to consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki...even then...). Another Turkish historical milestone to be proud of I guess. --THOTH 23:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are so Funny THOTH. Diverting ideas, confusing minds, telling lies. I am sure that ninety nine percent of the well-written reports are biased. But I will tell you two things that will discourage you 1.) Ottoman Empire did and could not with a prior organization kill so many people. Not even their worst enemy Armenians.

2.) Officially, the Turkish Republic, and the US and Isreal, in a global sense, will never let the tiny Armenian lobby to succeed in their false propaganda.

Dont be sorry. YOu can still make a living with producing garbage. Not much though.

See you in the conference, oh I forgot, there is none!

Sign > Jehovah's Witness

Jehova? I believe it's spelled Jehovah. —Khoikhoi 00:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Witness? I believe it's spelled Witnesses. —Khoikhoi 01:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dumbs h i t...is I believe spelled L u t h e r...yeah...thats it...though otherwise known as klingon...--THOTH 02:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Or perhaps Witless is what he meant to sign...--THOTH 02:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

To THOTH and brainles Khoikhoi > The followers of Jehovas Witnesses( Thanks for your dumb English correction ) can be called as Jehovas Witness among themselves. This is one person.

This is an Armenian Genocide talk page, if you want to spit your hateful swears go to Armeniapedia or some other vulgar site like that. Here spitting venom is not tolerated. You stick with the topic, or get the hell out of here. And be careful this time you may not have secluded your ID very well. Still, you can afford to go to McDonalds I guess. Signature >

J.W

McDonald's is pretty good. Did you hear they recently changed their menu? —Khoikhoi 05:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

So you hav come here to make threats? Is this the latest silencing tactic now? Well not latest - as it too has been used before (by the ZTurkish Government).--THOTH 13:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

LOL, like Fadix your mind is playing tricks on you, must be the heat of the summer. FYI, I aint the one who wrote the above, unless you believe that for the fun of it, I hopped into a plane and crossed borders just to fool you, LOL. And please get it into your head that the Turks just dont have the type of organization and efficiency to commit a swift genocide and then in no time and amidst all the chaos get rid of all the official documents in such an effective way that even today people speculate as to what happened to them. Again, you give them way too much credit, its just not in their DNA.

You can have your opinion - and you can just imagine how much that is valued here - however as I have said before - the facts speak for themselves. The CUP - like the Sultan before it - employed one of the largest secret intelligence (and operations) organizations known to any nation in history. Additionally the CUP - much like the Nazi party in Germany 20+ years later operated a quasi governmental party aparatus of a kind not seen before which seized the functioning of the Ottoman Government at all levels and oprated behind the scenes in secrecy - with secret orders delivered by telegram - a favorite method of Talat - himself once a telegraph operator. These secret orders were by design made to be destroyed after reading. Additionally there is documentation of Talat and other hich level CUP operatives destroying a great number of party records and other information. So yes - contrary to your historically lacking assertions - there is a great deal of evidence suggesting that the CUP had the means to efficiently carryout orders of this type - and the systematic methodology of the Genocide in time and place is well documented - none of this is a fabrication - just because Genocide deniers refuse to aknowledge the overwhelming amount of cooberative data. And that records were destroyed en mass is again no surprise - and the CUP got a head start and were able to come to an understanding of what needed to be done when it looked as i the Allies were going to break through the Marramara and take Constantinople itself. At that time they destroyed records and in fact were set to burn down the city itself. They were always very concerned that the outside world would become fully aware of their crimes and did everything they could to prevent this - including incredible censorship. So it is no wonder that the written documentation as well as photographic evidence is much less then one might imagine. Still what is available is more then sufficient to prove the case.--THOTH 13:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, you can argue as much as you like, show all the evidence you want, the bottom line is its impossible that such a huge campaign of massacres were carried with the ferocious efficiency that you suggest taking into consideration Turkishness, the utterly chaotic sitation of the times (think of the logistical nightmares) where an empire was collapsing very rapidly, corruption was rampant, wars on several fronts and serious rebellions within, the less advanced technologies of the times and the relative poverty of the masses. There would have been blunders the size of Alaska, not the type that would require years of detective work and inferences. Sorry but you are seriously making a fool out of yourself here lutherian 18:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

BTW Khoikhoi your last sentance really cracked me up, over here its the football burgers for the world cup, LOL lutherian 04:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

`Still what is available is more then sufficient to prove the case` !! This guy really wants this to be true. They are clearly right that he is being paid for this. IT is interesting that people can make others lie in a terrible way, in matters they dont know anything about, just by paying them. Poor person...

M.I.T Scholar from US

I think you never checked the turkish history before. First of All, you are from America and This is a simple stupid american point of view. 'Just belive any propaganda which exist' user:onur

THOTH style

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

http://www.genocidewatch.org/TurkishPMIAGSOpenLetterreArmenia6-13-05.htm

From above - "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 the overwhelming opinion of scholars who study genocide: 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. The rest of the Armenian population 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." --THOTH 02:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe?" LOL, any serious person knows that these scholars are a bunch of fakes and this association of genocide scholars is a major hoax. I would equate their credibility and seriousness to a bunch of clowns in a circus lutherian 05:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

"In the Spring of 1915, when the snow was beginning to melt on the Armenian plateau, the government in Constantinople began work on the systematic annihilation of Armenians. The Armenians were driven to the South, avoiding routes from where Armenians were already cleansed. The town of Urfa, nearby the Syrian desert, which was the terminus for the driven Armenians, was the last one to be cleansed of Armenians. By the Summer of 1916, the Armenian community had been removed and fragmented. The largest nucleus [of Armenians] outside Constantinople, consisted of laborers found outside Adana, working on the Baghdad railroad. There were no Armenian villages left. The history of the Armenian genocide is the history of Armenian women and urchins. The men were murdered right at the start. From primary sources, both Ottoman and other, it appears that in the East where a war was being fought with Russia, the Armenians were murdered on the spot. Elsewhere, they were deported, whereby their houses were not destroyed but confiscated. Their personal possessions, such as money and jewelry were looted from them. For the reason for the implementation of the genocide, you should ask Talaat. Both pan-Turkism and Islamic fervor existed well before the genocide. The provocation thesis, which states that Armenian were the fifth column and would have turned on the Turks the moment the Russians advanced, is a concoction that was hatched at the German embassy in Constantinople in May 1915. The Ottoman Empire was extensively centralized. A good bureaucracy held it all together. The telegraphic system of communication was exemplary. Special military units were instituted for the purpose of carrying out the genocide. No one was allowed to murder Armenians without the consent of these military units. Those who disregarded the rules were dealt severely." Hilmar Kaiser - PHD - European Institute, Florence - Historian (Ottoman social and economic history) and Armenian Genocide resercher who has worked directly with the Ottoman Archives - from an interview with Dirk van Delft - NRC Handelsblad Page 51 - Amsterdam - May 27, 2000 --THOTH 02:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

A rockstar who was kicked out of the archives and who himself stated in 1999 that he was not a scholar, how many clowns are you going to quote? lutherian 05:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

"What took place was genocide, not massacres. I use the word `genocide' because it adequately describes the phenomenon. It's the only term we have that describes it. If one day we have a better word, fine. The English, German, and Turkish languages have only one word to describe. That this has a negative consequence on the Turkish government is something I can't change; I can't change history. I'm not prepared to haggle over it. If a Turkish scholar says it too politicized and he or she doesn't want to use the word, then let him/her take a different subject. If you want to be part of this debate, apply proper terminology and if you don't want to do it, you aren't a scholar." Hilmar Kaiser - interview with Khatchig Mouradian - 24 September, 2005 - published in Aztag Daily Newspaper --THOTH 02:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ditto lutherian 05:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

"(What actually happened in 1915-16) was no accident, this was not a marginal or small thing, it was not a geographically or demographically limited thing, virtually the entirety of Ottoman Armenians has been ordered to be rounded up, socially deracinated, uprooted, dispossesses, and deported for no reason other than that they were Armenians and, secondly, that there was very strong evidence that the accompanied violence and massacres had not started spontaneously or despite the best intentions of the state to protect the convoys of the deportees. Rather, there was strong evidence to the effect that there were orders issued, disseminated, and executed through the Teşkilât-ı Mahsusa and that this in turn triggered secondary and tertiary rounds of violence and massacres once it became clear that the Armenians were fair game and that the shooting season was open on them. It fits the clauses of the 1948 UN convention (on genocide) comprehensively, and in that light, if we are permitted to take those categorizations and apply them to an event that occured 33 years earlier, then we have to say, “Yes, it was genocide” Halil Berktay - The Specter of the Armenian Genocide - An Interview with Halil Bektay - by Katchig Mouradian - November 1 2005

This is what Berktay had to say in an interview back in 2000 :" Before the Armenian events, there is the whole background of the 19th century. (...) With the Allies forcing the Dardanelles [in 1915], the Ottoman Empire, that had suffered one defeat after the other in the Balkans and that had nothing but the lands of Anatolia left, entered into a psychosis of (...) being cornered and squeezed, of helplessness. [At the same time], Armenian bands massacred a lot of Muslims as well. In such a process, it is impossible to find out who threw the first stone, who committed the first crime. Everybody has a story. Turks, Bulgarians, Greeks, Armenians, everybody. In each of these stories, those who tell them are always in the role of victims. They themselves have never committed injustices against others, and they have been the only ones who have suffered. One can remark that 1915 killings of Armenians are remembered and the Cretan massacres committed against the Turkish Muslim population of the island between 1896-1900 are not remembered. I come from a family of Cretan immigrants myself. I know that my two great uncles have been hanged to the tree in our garden by a band of Greeks." lutherian 05:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

"...the fact that what happened in 1915 was a mass murder was not even the subject of an argument in any manner from the viewpoint of the actors of that period, with Mustafa Kemal at their head. Of course the word soykirim [genocide] (being a term belonging to the post World War II period) was not used in those days. To describe what had happened in 1915, words such as "katliam" [massacre], "taktil" [killings], "teb'id" [taking away, expulsion, expelling], "kital" [massacre] were used. Mustafa Kemal has dozens of speeches in which he defines the treatments reserved to Armenians as "cowardice", or "barbarity", and names these treatments "massacre". In September 1919, the American General Harbord, who visited Mustafa Kemal in Sivas, says "he, too, disapproved the Armenian Massacre." According to Mustafa Kemal, "the massacre and deportation of Armenians was the work of a small committee who had seized the power" Taner Akcam - Historian and sociologist --THOTH 02:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

LOL, how can you take the words of a former terrorist with a major chip on his shoulder seriously? lutherian 05:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Lutherian, please don't laugh, if you think you are in a circus in Istambul, then think about it as a circus of horror and clowns are actually butchers killing live people like YOU only Armenians on the arena and if dying there in a bath of blood still looks like fun to you then I suggest you count how many Turks were killed during world war II and make party about it with cola and hot dogs. Have Fun! Steelmate (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

"The Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust were the quintessential instances of genocide in the modern era. Both catastophes were the products of state-initiated policies whose intended and actual results were the elimination of the Armenian community from the Ottoman Empire and of the Jewish community from most of Europe, respectively. Their destruction was not only a war against foreign strangers, it was a mass murder that commenced with an attack on an internal domestic segment of the state's own society. The genocide of the Armenians should be understood not as a response to "Armenian provocations" but as a stage in the Turkish revolution, which as a reaction to the continuing disintegration of the empire settled on a narrow nationalism and excluded Armenians from the moral universe of the state. It should be obvious from the overwhelming evidence that exists in the state archives of major powers that the 1915 genocide of the Armenians was premeditated and the isolated cases of armed resistance by the Armenians were deliberately provoked by the Turkish govenrment so as to exploit it as justification for a general campaign of race extermination. That being so, bringing up the much discredited myth of Armenian disloyalty in the context of the 1915 Armenian Genocide is as offensive to the victims as well as to well-informed non-Armenians as bringing up the Nazi rationalization of an alleged "international Jewish conspiracy" would be in the context of the Nazi Holocaust. Because both the Armenians under Ottoman rule and the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe perished not for something they did or failed to do, but for who they were." Professor Robert Melson - Holocaust survivor and genocide scholar in Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust - University of Chicago Press 1992

"The Armenian Genocide is proven in all its components - among them intent. The converging evidence is well in excess of that generally judged abundant in establishing other historical truths. The genocide was a horrendous crime. The evidence is there - province by province, city by city, village by village, hamlet by hanlet, with its countless variations according to time and place yet all the same in the vast process of extermination - genocide. A deliberate plan, carefully organized and brutally executed. The deniers and rationalizers offend the dignity of the historian and of all humanity." Yves Ternon - author of several volumes concerning human rights and genocide in - Freedom and Responsibility of the Historian - the "Lewis Affair" - 1999 --THOTH 02:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

THOTH style meets its match - not quite...

Latest comment: 18 years ago31 comments4 people in discussion

Louise Nalbandian, The Armenian Revolutionary Movement, Berkeley 1963 p 168 The programme of the Dashnaksutiun Party (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) was drafted during the General Congress in 1892. The methods to be used by the revolutionary bands organized by the Party were as follows: a. To propagandize for the principles of the Dashnaksutiun and its objectives based on an understanding of, and in sympathy with, the revolutionary work. b. To organize fighting bands, to work with them with regard to the above-mentioned issues and to prepare them for activity. c. To use every means, by word and deed, to arouse the revolutionary activity and spirit of the people. d. To use every means to arm the people. e. To organize revolutionary committees and establish strong links between them. f. To stimulate fighting and to terrorize government officials, informers, traitors, usurers and every kind of exploiter. g. To organize financial districts. h. To protect the peaceful people and the inhabitants against attacks by brigands. i. To establish communications for the transportation of men and arms. j. To expose government establishments to looting and destruction 24.211.192.250 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all this proclamation of the Dashnaks occurred in 1892 and a great deal had changed between then and 1915. It is widely accepted and was observed that the Dashnaks ceased anti-Ottoman Government activities with the CUP revolution of 1908 and the re-establishment of the constitution with Dashnak participation in the Parliament and alliance with the CUP…so this declaration has nothing to do with events of the Armenian Genocide. Still – let us examine it a bit and consider the circumstances of such a declaration. In 1878 the Treaty of Berlin, agreed to by the Ottomans, contained provisions for protection of Christian minorities within the Ottoman Empire. While Sultan Hamid chose to ignore these provisions – and in fact the record is that these spurred greater atrocities, depravations and massacres – the Treaty did establish that in fact the Christian minorities were being mistreated and that reform was needed. The Dashnaks, like other Armenian political parties – and in fact other political parties such as the Young Ottomans and the Young Turks – all agitated for reform and acted against the Ottoman Government which was rightly seen as corrupt, repressive and detrimental to the Empire and to the rights and living standards of all its citizens. The Dashnaks were opposed to the repressive measures being taken against Armenians and the Sultan’s abrogation of the Tanzimat reforms and were seeking additional foreign attention to these facts and to the plight of Armenians – and no wonder as the Ottoman Government under Sultan Hamid - had already proven incapable of needed reform – in fact quite the opposite – they were regressionary and reactive in the worst way. No where are the Dashnaks calling for the establishment of a separate Armenian State – their (called for) actions are a desperate attempt to stimulate progress towards betterment of the Armenian lot within the Ottoman Empire – and I don’t think anyone can argue that such was not justified or needed. While one may question the range of methods that they advocated – when one considers the great deprivations and massacres that Armenians endured – and these being part and partial to Official Ottoman Government policy – we can see that the Dashnak targets where squarely against Government functions and functionaries – and their call for “revolutionary spirit” parallels that of other political groups in the Empire opposed to the bloody reign of the Sultan – including the CUP.--THOTH 01:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sir Mark Sykes, The Caliph's Last Heritage, London 1915 (p. 409). As for the tactics of the revolutionaries, anything more fiendish one could not imagine - The assassination of Moslems in order to bring about the punishment of innocent men, the midnight extortion of money from villages which have just paid their taxes by day, the murder of persons who refuse to contribute to their collection boxes, are only some of the crimes of which Moslems, Catholics and Gregorians accuse them with no uncertain voice. The Armenian revolutionaries prefer to plunder their co-religionists to giving battle to their enemies; the anarchists of Constantinople throw bombs with the intention of provoking a massacre of their fellow-countrymen. If the object of English philanthropists and the roving brigands (who are the active agents of revolution) is to subject the bulk of eastern provinces to the tender mercies of an Armenian oligarchy, then I cannot entirely condemn the fanatic outbreaks of the Moslems or the repressive measures of the Turkish Government. On the other hand, if the object of the Armenians is to secure equality before law and the maintenance of security and peace in the countries partly inhabited by Armenians, then I can only say that their methods are not those calculated to achieve success 24.211.192.250 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the comment of Sykes the British head of their Near East office concerning excesses of some Armenian revolutionaries at some point (unidentified in the text) prior to WWI. However I would argue that much of his commentary is unsupportable speculation – particularly concerning motives of some of the actors – much like he was (falsely) convinced that the Young Turk movement was nothing more then a Jewish plot (and that the Young Turks were all Jews – in fact Fromkin in his Peace to End all Peace - comments numerous times how clueless Sykes was concerning what was occurring within the Ottoman government and empire jut in general). But OK - no one will argue that certain young and idealistic Armenians may have taken their anti-government actions too far – this did certainly happen. However, when one looks at the record of Ottoman Government atrocities committed against Armenians during and prior to this period it is of no surprise that some Armenians acted violently in response as well – and who could really blame them? In Syke’s last sentence – which I think is notable - Sykes correctly points out (IMO) that these activities are likely to not meet with success “to secure equality before law and the maintenance of security and peace in the countries partly inhabited by Armenians” and I think most Armenians – including many who were themselves terrorized by the “gangs” that arose and were active in this period (late 1890s) felt similarly. However one cannot damn the entire Armenian race for the actions of a few “revolutionaries” (Though ultimately, in a sense, this is exactly what the Turks did – even though – by 1908 – these activities had largely died down. This is not to say that there were no Armenian “gangs” or vigilantes or what have you in the countryside during these later times – as there certainly were. There was a great deal of lawlessness in the East from a variety of groups – most notably the Kurds and among recent Muslim immigrants. And the poor economic conditions spurred all sorts of bandits and outlaws. Armenians themselves called upon the Turkish Government for assistance against both Kurdish and Armenian bandits who harassed their villages. If the activities of such could be construed as a justification for Genocide then one could certainly make a case for the Ottomans genociding the Kurds during these times – or the Russians committing genocide against their Turkish minorities as theses groups were demonsratably far more seditious and far more violently active against both governmental assets and civilians of their respective nations.--THOTH 01:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

William A. Langer, The Diplomacy of Imperialism, New York, 1960 Revolutionary placards were being posted in the cities and there were not a few cases of the blackmailing of wealthy Armenians, who were forced to contribute to the cause. Europeans in Turkey were agreed that the immediate aim of the agitators was to incite disorder, bring about inhuman reprisals and so provoke the intervention of the powers. For that reason, it was said, they operated by preference in areas where the Armenians were in a hopeless minority, so that reprisals would be certain. One of the revolutionaries told Dr. Hamlin, the founder of Robert College, that the Hunchak bands would "watch their opportunity to kill Turks and Kurds, set fire to their villages, and then make their escape into the mountains. The enraged Moslems will then rise, and fall upon the defenseless Armenians and slaughter them with such barbarity that Russia will enter in the name of humanity and Christian civilization and take possession". When the horrified missionary denounced the scheme as atrocious and infernal beyond anything ever known, he received this reply: "It appears so to you, no doubt; but we Armenians have determined to be free. Europe listened to the Bulgarian horrors and made Bulgaria free. She will listen to our cry when it goes up in the shrieks and blood of millions of women and children. We shall do it" (p. 157). 24.211.192.250 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit of speculation and second hand assertion of what some “revolutionaries” might have said or what their aims might have been - I think of dubious value. And even if we say they are true for arguments sake – again my argument above addresses this – and can we still say that the complete destruction of over one million individuals can be justified as revenge against the actions of a few – no matter how deplorable? And one should consider this - "Surely a few Armenians aided and abetted our enemy, and a few Armenian Deputies committed crimes against the Turkish nation... it is incumbent upon a government to pursue the guilty ones. Unfortunately, our wartime leaders, imbued with a spirit of brigandage, carried out the law of deportation in a manner that could surpass the proclivities of the most bloodthirsty bandits. They decided to exterminate the Armenians, and they did exterminate them." Mustafa Arif - Ottoman Minister of Interior (after Talat) - 13 December 1918 --THOTH 01:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

C.F. Dixon-Johnson, The Armenians, Blackburn 1916: We have no hesitation in repeating that these stories of wholesale massacre have been circulated with the distinct objective of influencing, detrimentally to Turkey, the future policy of the British Government when the time of settlement shall arrive. No apology, therefore, is needed for honestly endeavouring to show how a nation with whom we were closely allied for many years and which possesses the same faith as millions of our fellow-subjects, has been condemned for perpetrating horrible excesses against humanity on 'evidence' which, when absolutely false, is grossly and shamefully exaggerated (p. 61). 24.211.192.250 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no context to these comments that would allow them to be of any value or for them to be commented on. It is not even clear who or what he is talking about.--THOTH 01:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

David G. Hogarth, A Wandering Scholar in the Levant, New York, 1896: The Armenian, for all his ineffaceable nationalism, his passion for plotting and his fanatical intolerance, would be a negligible thorn in the Ottoman side did he stand alone. The Porte knows very well that while Armenian Christians are Gregorian, Catholic and Protestant, each sect bitterly intolerant of the others and moreover while commerce and usury are all in Armenian hands, it can divide and rule secure; but behind the Armenian secret societies (and there are few Armenians who have not committed technical treason by becoming members of such societies at some point of their lives) it sees the Kurd, and behind the Kurd the Russian; or looking west, it espies through the ceaseless sporadic propaganda of the agitators Exeter Hall and Armenian Committees. The Turk begins to repress because we sympathize and we sympathize because he represses and so the vicious circle revolves. Does he habitually, however, do more than repress? Does he, as administrator oppress? So far we have heard one version only, one part to this suit, with its stories of outrage and echoing through them a long cry for national independence. The mouth of the accused has been shut hitherto by fatalism, by custom, by the gulf of misunderstanding which is fixed between the Christian and the Moslem. In my own experience of western Armenia, extending more or less over four years up to 1894, I have seen no signs of a Reign of Terror. Life in Christian villages has not shown itself outwardly to me as being very different from life in the villages of Islam, nor the trade and property of Armenians in towns to be less secure than those of Moslems. There was tension, there was friction, there was a condition of mutual suspicion as to which Armenians have said to me again and again "If only the patriots would leave us to trade and to till!". The Turk rules by right of five hundred years' possession, and before his day the Byzantine, the Persian, the Parthian, the Roman preceded each other as over-lords of Greater Armenia back to the misty days of the first Tigranes. The Turk claims certain rights in this matter - the right to safeguard his own existence, the right to smoke out such hornets' nests as Zeitun, which has annihilated for centuries past the trade of Eastern Taurus, t!he right to remain dominant by all means not outrageous (p. 147). 24.211.192.250 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Again – these comments seem highly opinionated and seem unduly negative and of dubious value for a variety of reasons. It would seem to me that he has developed some negative impressions through some specific contacts that rubbed him the wrong way and then he projects and speculates where I doubt he really has sufficient information to do so. Again – this is 1894 (ie it has nothing directly to do with the Armenian Genocide)…and in fact while he has claimed to not have seen any terror he does admit that there has been repression and that it is in response to Armenian calls for reform. And the fact that he claims to have traveled around during this period – but seems to have seen no terror against the Armenians – during a period where at least 100,000 Armenians and perhaps as many as 300,000 Armenians were killed and more driven from their homes leads me to seriously question both this man’s objectively as well as the truth of his claims in general.--THOTH 01:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

K.S. Papazian, Patriotism Perverted, Boston 1934: When the world war broke out in Europe, the Turks began feverish preparations for joining hands with the Germans. In August 1914 the young Turks asked the Dashnag Convention, then in session in Erzurum, to carry out their old agreement of 1907 and start an uprising among the Armenians of the Caucasus against the Russian government. The Dashnagtzoutune refused to do this and gave assurance that in the event of war between Russia and Turkey, they would support Turkey as loyal citizens. On the other hand, they could not be held responsible for the Russian Armenians..The fact remains, however, that the leaders of the Turkish-Armenian section of the Dashnagtzoutune did not carry out their promise of loyalty to the Turkish cause when the Turks entered the war. The Dashnagtzoutune in the Caucasus had the upper hand. They were swayed in their actions by the interests of the Russian government and disregarded entirely, the political dangers that the war had created for the Armenian!s in Turkey. Prudence was thrown to the winds; even the decision of their own convention of Erzurum was forgotten and a call was sent for Armenian volunteers to fight the Turks on the Caucasus front (p. 37). 24.211.192.250 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Now this commentary is really telling – though doubtlessly not in the way it was intended by the poster. We note that as early as 1907 the CUP and the Dashnaks had an agreement where the Dashnaks would help the Turks in fermenting an uprising in the Caucuses against the Russian Government. This also revels that the Turks were in fact fermenting just such a revolt – already in August of 1914 – prior to declaration of war against the Russians! So we see that the CUP felt as though the Dashnaks would remain loyal to them –as they had been in the years since 1907. In fact the Dashnaks - for all of their miscalculation in various periods – made the right call here. The Dasnaks correctly felt that the citizens of each nation should maintain their national loyalties. That some Ottoman Armenians who had been subject to massacre and other deprivations over the prior few generations might choose to cast their lot with their Russian brethren in hope for relief from Ottoman oppression should be no surprise. The fact that a great many ethnic Turks from within Russian territory did the same in reverse is also no surprise (as the Turkish efforts to ferment such were far more active then the reverse –and we can also see that they even hoped to stir up the Armenians on their behalf! As for Ottoman Armenian men in general – well they like other Ottoman men – were conscripted into Ottoman service. And in fact Armenians had served loyally in Ottoman Armies as recently as the Bulgarian campaign of 1912 – so the loyalty of Ottoman Armenians – as a group – was really not in question. It was both the CUP paranoia – knowing their own plans in the Caucuses for fermenting ethnic revolt against the Russians – more so then any mass Ottoman Armenian desertion (which was in fact far less then the level of Arab and Kurdish desertions) or Ottoman Armenian sedition (which likewise was incredibly minor) and even more so – the existence of CUP Pan-Turkic designs which excluded Armenians from their vision of a future Ottoman Empire – these factors – more then any real Armenian sedition – are what drove the CUP to act against the Armenians. In fact – the CUP representative to the Dashnak party Congress in 1914 – was Dr Shakir – who was already at work with the Special Organization massacring Armenians – and was the very organization that was fermenting unrest among Turks in the Caucuses and even further East. Shakir had a number of the Armenians from the Congress ambushed and killed after the meeting and it appears he already had plans to betray them.--THOTH 01:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hovhannes Katchaznouni, The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnagtzoutiun) Has Nothing to Do Anymore, Bucharest 1923, (translated from the original by Matthew A. Callender): (Mr. Katchaznouni was the first prime minister of the Independent Armenia). In the beginning of fall 1914, when Turkey had not yet entered the war but was preparing to, Armenian volunteer groups began to be organized with great zeal and pomp in Trans-Caucasia. In spite of the decision taken a few weeks before at the General Committee in Erzurum, the Dashnagtzoutune actively helped the organization of the aforementioned groups and especially arming them against Turkey..There is no point in asking today whether our volunteers should have been in the foreground. Historical events have a logic of their own. In the fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer groups were formed and fought against the Turks. The opposite could not have happened, because for approximately twenty years the Armenian community was fed a certain and inevitable psychology. This state of mind had to manifest itself and it happened. 24.211.192.250 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We’ve already addressed the context of these comments which were intended to discredit the Dashnaks. That being said – considering the environment where the Sultan and Kurds and such had long preyed upon Ottoman Armenians and refused to aid them and do the things a government might be expected to do to protect its citizens…isn’t it any wonder why some might hope for relief against this oppressive regime? However – even with that being said – the majority of Ottoman Armenians saw themselves just as that – Ottoman Citizens – its all they had known for generations – and in fact many Armenians were very well integrated into Ottoman life. These Armenians had no interest in being ruled by Russia and in general many Armenians were highly suspicious of Russian intentions in regards to them and the region.--THOTH 01:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Philippe de Zara, Mustapha Kemal, Dictateur, Paris 1936: After having accomplished the minimum of their duty as Ottoman citizens, the Armenians began to encourage the activities of the enemy. Their ambiguous attitude had certainly little to do with loyalty. But which Westerner would have the right to accuse them when traditions taught by Europe made the insubordination of the Sultan's Christian subjects the most sacred of obligations. An insubordination which was often sanctioned by giving autonomy, if not sovereignty. Nevertheless, how can anybody deny that in the opinion of the Turks, according to the law of all the states, the conduct of the Armenians facilitating during the war the task of the adversary, van be recognized as anything but a crime of high treason?..The Armenian committees, divided among themselves for internal issues, were often in agreement to facilitate the advance of the Russian armies; they were attempting to obstruct the retreat of Turkish troops, to stop the convoys of provisions, to form bands of francs!-tireurs. Mass desertions took place in the Eastern provinces; Armenians thus formed many troops officered by Russian officers. Here and there local revolts occurred. The leaders were setting the examples; two Armenian deputies fled to Russia. A literature of hatred was recalled. "Let the Turkish mothers cry..Lets make the Turk taste a little grief". The culpability of Armenians leaves no doubt (page 159). 24.211.192.250 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This individual was obviously not aware of what sparked the resistance in Van and seems to also pretty much accept the Turkish propaganda at the time concerning Armenians lock stock and barrel. He obviously is relying on the Turkish position so really is not dealing with actual facts or a proper (full) understanding of events, actions and motivations.--THOTH 01:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Lieutenant Colonel T. Williams (Labour Party M.P.), Parliamentary Debates (Commons), London 25.ii.1924, vol. 170: The Armenians were very well treated for hundreds of years by the Turks, until Russia, in the first place, started using them as pawns for purely political purposes; they exploited them as Christians, solely as pawns. 24.211.192.250 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Jews were very well treated for hundreds of years in Germany…my my what could have caused the Germans to hate them so? A quote from a member of Parliament? Are you serious? Have you heard of some of the uniformed BS these types often pontificate about? Come now…--THOTH 01:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

A. H Arslanian, British Wartime Pledges, 1917-1918: The Armenian Case, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 13, 1978:British promises to Armenians were exactly like their promises to Arabs in Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia; they were made with the purpose of encouraging the war efforts of the Armenians, to influence neutral states in favor of England and to excite the separatist tendencies in ethnic minorities under the rule of these neutral states so as to make their enemy, the Ottoman Empire, collapse from the inside (page 522).24.211.192.250 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This quote concerns British pledges made to Armenians 1917-18. OK. By 1917 there were no Armenians in the Ottoman Empire aside from the communities in Constantinople and Smyrna and some Armenians working for the German Baghdad railroad. So again this has no real bearing on the Armenian Genocide which was primarily enacted in 1915/16. These are just words – British promises – OK – I fail to see their relevance.--THOTH 01:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

General Bronsart, Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 24 July 1921: As demonstrated by the innumerable declarations, provocative pamphlets, weapons, ammunition, explosives etc., found in areas inhabited by Armenians, the rebellion was prepared for a long time, organized, strengthened and financed by Russia. Information was received on time in Istanbul about an Armenian assassination attempt directed at high ranking state officials and officers. Since all Muslims capable of bearing arms were in the Turkish army, it was easy to organize a terrible massacre by the Armenians against defenceless people, because the Armenians were not only attacking the sides and rear of the Eastern Army paralyzed at the front by the Russians, but were attacking the Muslim folk in the region as well. The Armenian atrocities which I have witnessed were far worse than the so-called Turkish brutality. 24.211.192.250 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bronsart was a German who was correctly accused of involvement in and encouragement of atrocities against Armenians. He was well entrenched in the Ottoman High Command during the war and he directly participated in actions against Armenians working for the Baghdad railroad. He was known to be highly anti-Armenian and pr-Turk and made these comments in an attempt to clear himself of charges of committing atrocities against Armenians. Enough said really. These comments have zero credibility – they are a direct repetition of already discredited Turkish propaganda charges against the Armenians that were already rejected by Germans (in confidential correspondences) and all others. In fact there is quite a bit of documentation (from other German sources) of Bronsart’s fanaticism against the Armenians in an attempt on his part to ingratiate himself with the Turks during the war.

General comments on the above quotes…rather pathetic really – opinions (and pretty much just that) from dubious sources and most often considering periods of time either before the Genocide or after– none of which directly addresses issues concerned with the Armenian Genocide itself. The quotes I provided in a prior section do directly address the issue of Turkish complicity in the Armenian Genocide and the reasons for it and are considered scholarly sources which clearly establish the pertinent facts of the Armenian Genocide. While I have long advocated inclusion of the prior political environment and history – including the role of Armenian political parties and various issues associated with such – and agree that the current article is deficient in this regard – it is even more deficient in its lack of explanatory passages concerning the role and plans of the radicalized Young Turk party – their Pan-Turkism, their anti-Armenian bigotry, their zeal to eliminate ethnic and political rivals and their secret party apparatus which established control over the Empire and carried out a campaign to exterminate the Armenians under cover of war. As the quotes I provided above allude to – and as is proven with eyewitness accounts by the thousands and proven scholarship – this is the real and proven history – and nothing you have posted here – or could ever post here (if based upon fact) can counter these truths.--THOTH 01:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thoth, looks like you shot yourself in the foot, LOL lutherian 07:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

please! deleting other peoples entries does not help at all. it is not acceptable. if you want to contribute please get a nicname and sign in and add your signature. this way is better for all. this type of behaviour puts us in a bad position in unbiased aditors eyes and eventually ends up in the revesion and protection of the article.neurobio 23:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

All Turkish children also should be killed as they form a danger to the Armenian nation Hamparsum Boyaciyan, nicknamed "Murad," a former Ottoman parliamentarian who led Armenian guerilla forces, ravaging Turkish villages behind the lines, 1914. Cited from Mikael Varandean, "History of the Dashnaktsutiun."

heresay...at best the ravings of one individual...proves nothing...the proof is 1.5 Million Armenians killed and no Armenian Nation lefin Anatolia...any Turkish crying about Turks killed by Armenians when the Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide - 1.5 million killed - is just ludicrous. There is no Armenian corrallarly to what the Turks did to the Armenians.--THOTH 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thousands of Armenians from all over the world, flocked to the standards of such famous fighters as Antranik, Kery, Dro, etc. The Armenian volunteer regiments rendered valuable service to the Russian Army in the years of 1914-15-16. Kapriel Serope Papazian, Patriotism Perverted, Boston Baker Press, 1934, pg. 38

Yeah...so? Thousands of Jews joined various armies in the fight against Germany in WW2 - does this justify the Holocaust?--THOTH 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Moslems who did not succeed in escaping [the city] were put to death... Grace H. Knapp, The Tragedy of Bitlis, Fleming H. Revell Co., New York (1919) , page 146.

When was this? Who is this? I am not familiar. However I would be very interested in knowing the numbers of Turks living in Bitlis after these times as compared to the number of Armenians. Enough said. --THOTH 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Many massacres were committed by the Armenians until our army arrived in Erzurum... (after General Odesilitze left) 2,127 Muslim bodies were buried in Erzurum's center. These are entirely men. There are ax, bayonet and bullet wounds on the dead bodies. Lungs of the bodies were removed and sharp stakes were struck in the eyes. There are other bodies around the city. Official telegram of the Third Royal Army Command, addressed to the Supreme Command, March 19, 1918; ATASE Archive of General Staff, Archive No: 4-36-71. D. 231. G.2. K. 2820. Dos.A-69, Fih.3.

This is 1918...revenge attacks...I think we already said that these occured (again this is post Armenain Genocide and is the actions of individuals - not a government) - interesting that the report says that the victims were entirely men...so women and children were sparred it seems...doesn't this violate some manifest that you posted earlier? --THOTH 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

[One of the main aspects of Armenian] "national psychology... [is] to seek external causes for [Armenian ] misfortune."..."One might think we found a spiritual consolation in the conviction that the Russians behaved villainously towards us Hovhannes Katchaznouni, First Prime Minister of the Independent Armenian Republic, The Manifesto of Hovhannes Katchaznouni,1923, Page 8

The point or relevance here? Should we make posts concerning the supposed racial psychology of the Turk? --THOTH 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Historical questions should be left to historians Mesrob II, Armenian Patriarch, 2001.

...yes and not religious personages...who should just but out. BTW - historians have clearly spoken on this issue...--THOTH 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

(The Ottoman State) has used its right to defend its existence against Armenian organisations that had fomented and incited disorders and rebellions at the instigaion of the Russians by relying on Russian arms Leo (Arakel Babakhanian), Armenian historian, Turkahai Heghopokhutian Kaghaparapanoutiunu (The Ideology of the Revolution of Turkish Armenian), published in Armenian,1934, Paris)

An obviously politically motiated statement of some kind (if even a true one and not just fabricated) that is also obviously false. Ca anyne really say thst the Armenian Genocide - the killing of hundreds of thousands of women and children - by most brutal means - was in any way justifiable as a response against "Armenian oraganizations" who were disorderly or rebellious? (particualrly when it can be easily proven that the Dashnaks were in league with the CUP since at least 1907 and had ceased all counter government activities.) Would the USA have been justified in genocideing its black population because cerrtain black groups (such as the Black panthers) were "inciting disorders and rebellions" - can any human being actually believe this? --THOTH 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

(The Armenian revolutionary committees considered that) "The most opportune time to institute the general rebellion for carrying out the immediate objectives was when Turkey was engaged in war" Louise Nalbandian, Armenian Revolutionary Movement, University of California Press, 1963

Nice statement - but funny it has no corralarly with reality. There was no Armenian rebellion in Anatolia during WW1 - none whatsoever. What is true is that the CUP used the cover of war to enable it to exterminate its Armenian population. --THOTH 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The entire Armenian Nation will join forces ? moral and material, and waving the sword of Revolution, will enter this World conflict ... as comrades in arms of the Triple Entente, and particularly Russia. They will cooperate with the Allies, making full use of all political and revolutionary means for the final victory of Armenia, Cilicia, Caucasus, Azerbayjan. ... [H]eroes who will sacrifice their lives for the great cause of Armenia.... Armenians proud to shed their blood for the cause of Armenia.... Hunchak Armenian [Revolutionary] Gazette, in a call to arms just prior to the formal declaration of war against Germany and the Ottoman Empire, November 1914 issue, Paris.

Ah the revolutionary fever and idealism of political party newspaper writers....another justification for Genocide I assume - "Insulting Turkishness" or some such? --THOTH 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Hunchak Committee will use all means to assist the Entente states, devoting all its forces to the struggle to assure victory in Armenia, Cilicia, the Caucasus and Azerbaijan as the ally of the Entente states, and in particular of Russia Hunchak Committee instructions to its organizations in Ottoman territory; Aspirations et Agissements Revolutionnaires des Comites Armeniens avant et apres la Proclamation de la Constitution Ottomane, Istanbul, 1917, pp. 151-153

1917. Perhaps I would have added to crush the Turks out of exsistence - depending on what I had witnessed during the years prior - and the losses among my family...--THOTH 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

From all countries Armenians are hurrying to enter the ranks of the glorious Russian Army, with their blood to serve the victory of Russian arms... Let the Russian flag wave freely over the Dardanelles and the Bosporus. Let, with Your will, great Majesty, the peoples remaining under the Turkish yoke receive freedom. Let the Armenian people of Turkey who have suffered for the faith of Christ receive resurrection for a new free life under the protection of Russia. Samson Harutunian, president of the Armenian National Bureau in Tiflis, in response to Czar Nicholas II's visit to the Caucasus, to make final plans for cooperation with the Armenians against the Ottomans. (Source; also cited in p. 45 of Prof. Hovannisian's "Armenia on the Road to Independence" as having appeared in the Nov. 30, '14 issue of Hairenik Taregirk, V, Boston 1947, p. 126))

Again the revolutionary zeal (primarily of those safely sitting in cushioned chairs far from the conflict)...so is the Armenian Genocide to be justified based on the words of idealisitc youth who weren't even Ottoman Armenians? And considering the massacres and mistreatment of Armenians within the Ottoman EMpire (culminating in total domestic genocide) who could blame Armenians (of the diaspora) for wanting to free their lands and people from the Turks. Get real. --THOTH 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Armenians greeted the Russians with ringing bells and with their priests dressed in their ceremonial robes. In this war, too, the Armenian people took their place beside the Russians... The war broke out and volunteers came from everywhere, from Armenia in Eastern Anatolia, from Egypt under Turkish rule, from the non-Russian areas of Rumania; all these people who were Ottoman subjects, familiar with Anatolia, gathered together and put themselves at the service of the Russian Empire Tchalkouchian, in a May 24, 1916 speech addressed to the Armenian Congress in St. Petersburg

see above. BTW - this same statment could be made concerning Jews volunteering for Allied Armies in WW2 and who formed into parisan units to resist the Nazis - so are you saying that this justifies the Holocaust? Again though it should be considered that (if true) this is a political speech with the intention of garnering support...--THOTH 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

"The Osmanli (Ottoman) has yet to be heard." (The English have) "heard stories ad nauseam of massacres, of pillages, of the ravishing of women, but none of these stories have been corroborated by a single European eyewitness. Captain Charles Boswell Norman, "The Armenians Unmasked" (1895)

? This refers to what? (1895?) - and he is refering to "stories" he has heard...and then states that these stories have no cooraboration...--THOTH 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Neither political nor legal or material claims against present-day Turkey can be derived from the recognition of this historical event as an act of genocide. European Parliament, 1987 resolution

Is that so?...well if Turks believe this then why are they always bringing up the red herring that all Armenians are after is land and monetary compensation from Turkey...seems a bit of a disconnect here..--THOTH 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

"And the unarmed Armenian villagers were forced to help the armed rebels at the cost of their blood." "If Turks were (thieves) and (brigands) like (Europeans claim, the) Armenians (would not) have had their prosperous lives, which continued until 1896 General Mayewsky, Ambassador to Erzurum and Van, commenting on massacres by Armenians in the late 19th Century, translated from the Russian language, "The Statistic of Van and Bitlis Provinces," Ottoman Military Printing Office (1914) 24.211.192.250 01:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Somehow this guy is either blind or highly biased to make such an obviously false statement...anyway again this concerns 1896...though we already know that the Europeans had acted on behalf of the Armenains pushing the Sultan for reforms....what would the need be for "reforms" if there were no abuses occuring? We know this history - one quote - does not change reality as known by historians.--THOTH 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thoth you were the one whining that those rejecting the genocide thesis dont provide any proof to support their case and instead spend the whole time attacking you. Well the anon above bothered to provide ample proof contradicting the genocide claims and just as I had predicted, you dismissed them using the silliest of arguments. When a witness contradicts the genocide claims, in your eyes he is a fake or paid by the government or whatever your vivid imagination produces. When the witness supports the genocide claim he is divine or sacred. This foolish reasoning of yours is exactly what has led to the tensions on this site, it will get you nowhere and FYI all the proof that you produce in my opinion and believe me, in those of many others belongs to the deep and very smelly end of the rubbish heap! lutherian 18:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not a single quote provided does anything whatsoever to refute the fact of the Armenian Genocide nor what is known and accepted by historians concerning it. In fact - very little of what was posted has anything directly to do with the Genocide whatsoever. You spek of witnesses and denying witness testimony - well there are thousands and thousands of pages of such testimony in the archives of Germany, USA and other nations...yet all you Turks do is deny them. You offer a few opinion pieces from dubious sources concening events not directly related to the Genocide and you claim to have countered the facts of the Armenian Genocide...hardly.--THOTH 21:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Berktay - Armenians killed by a Special organization

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

In a 2005 interview Berktay clearly states that what occured to the Armenians was without question a Genocide. He admitted that he had long been reluctant to use that word due to its political implications and automatic response by Turkey (and likely out of worry for being prosecuted or otherwise attacked etc) - however he has come to believe it is an accurate and the only accurate depiction of events. While Bektay does discuss the fact that various Muslims/Turks were killed and massacred in various times and places - and even by Armenians - mostly after the period of the Genocide - he also very strongly states that the killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Government cannot be counterbalanced or equated with the sporadic killings by various ethnic gangs (non-government entities) and that the numbers as well are entirely incomparable. Here is an interview from 2000 where he discusses some fo these issues (with some of my comments in parentheses).

`Armenians were killed by a special organization' An interview with Turkish historian Halil Berktay regarding the Armenian Genocide; Translated from Turkish exclusively for ANN/Groong Originally published in "Radikal" newspaper on October 9, 2000

Turkish original available on internet at http://www.radikal.com/tr/2000/10/09/insan/erm.shtml

At that time there were 1 million and 750 thousand Armenians living in Eastern Anatolia. (my note - this figure is for Eastern Anatolia only - not Anatolia/Ottoman Empire at large) The deportation order issued by the ruling military triumvirate was drawn up so as to include all the Armenians in the region, without exception. These things are documented in writing. There was no mention of massacres or slaughter. The provincial governors and garrison commanders were directed to deport the Armenians to the region south of Turkey's current borders. However, it's clear that, in addition to these official orders, separate, non-written orders were given to the most rapacious members of the `Teskilat-i Mahsusa' (`Special Organization'), who worshipped violence and were not bound by adherence to any normal moral code.

For the Armenians to be killed?

Yes. Historian Taner Akcam has demonstrated this in a very sound way. There was on the one hand a legal decision and implementation, and on the other another mechanism entirely that proceeded in an illegal manner.

How many Armenians died during the deportations?

At least 600 thousand.

How did they die? Who killed them?

Those who issued these orders had them carried out via a special organization, the Teskilat-i Mahsusa.. Think of it as a combination of the forces involved in the recent Susurluk scandal and the Turkish Hizballah organization. It is clear that Bahaettin Sakir, who operated as the Teskilat-i Mahsusa's man for Enver, Cemal, and Talat, set up death squads in the region. Some of these people were convicted criminals who were saved from the gallows and released from prison just to carry out such activities.. Do you know what types of people carried out these crimes? It was the equivalent of today's `Yesil', Abdullah Catli, and the Turkish Hizballah organization. The whole affair is that simple and clear. Bahaittin was just like today's `Yesil' or Catli. In addition to them, Turkish and Kurdish tribes also attacked the convoys of Armenians being deported. In addition to these actual massacres, there were the terrible losses caused by the deportations carred out in appalling conditions of deprivation. Everywhere in the Western world, there are photographs of these incidents which we can't bear to look at. The first time I encountered these visual records, I cried and could hardly breathe for several minutes. They are no different from the images of the concentration camps, or the massacres in Africa. For there are huge numbers of people in these pictures . Well, didn't the Ottoman state try and punish those officials found guilty of the deaths of Armenians?

Of course. These massacres were not the work of the regular Ottoman army and bureaucracy. Historically, in such situations, the regular army and bureaucracy hate and despise those `special teams' and gangs that carry out such deeds. We can see that the Ottoman army and bureaucracy understood just how terrible a thing this was , that they were repelled at the `special teams' set up independently of the governors and garrison commanders, and that there were even governors and commanders who issued an arrest order for Enver and Talat's man Bahaettin Sakir in 1915-16 and tried to capture him.

Did the Ottoman leaders make any statements to defend themselves?

The Ottoman regular army and state bureaucracy, both as a result of the repugnance it felt toward these events and in order to clear themselves before the rest of the world, tried as best it could to capture, try, and punish those responsible for this disaster. And there were definitely those who were punished. After the end of the war in 1918 and the Ottoman defeat and subsequent flight of Enver, Cemal, and Talat, who were the primary ones responsible, the parliament (Meclis-i Mebusan) established an investigatory commission just for this purpose. There was later a military trial in Istanbul. This was a famous trial. Books on it have been published in English and Turkish.

What were the losses of the Muslim population in that area during this same period?

They may be 10,000 or 20,000. (ny note: elsewhere i have seen him say "no more then 10,000) But it's not a question of `They only killed a few, and the Ottomans killed a lot'. The issue is as follows: The activities of the Armenian guerrilla bands were generally localized, small-scale, and isolated. But for hundreds of thousands to die, there would have to be a population of this size, which couldn't be attained merely by wandering around the villages and hamlets. In addition, it's deceptive to turn the matter into a question as to whether or not Enver and Talat Pasha gave a written order to the `Yesil' or Catli of the day. They never did so, and no such document will ever be found. In this regard, the witnesses of the day are extremely important. There is a huge body of eyewitness accounts and visual material concerning the Armenian incidents that never reaches the Turkish public. Turkish public opinion is essentially ignorant of what the people of Germany, England, France, and America see and read.--THOTH 01:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

first let me answer like this There is a huge body of eyewitness accounts and visual material concerning the Armenian insucency that never reaches the the people of Germany, England, France, and America. World public opinion is essentially ignorant of what the people of Turkey see and read and listen from their fathers.

dear Thoth please. what you fail to understand is that The Armenians constituted a political group since they engaged in armed political activities, first to gain autonomy and then to found an independent state on the Ottoman lands. For this reason, they were not one of the four groups protected by Article 2 of the Convention. You also can not prove the intent of mass extermination despite Andonian fabrications. And that is why neither Armenia nor your precious Diaspora have the guts to apply to an international court. they know the outcome very well. They know that a court will only laugh at Dadrians "it is said that", "talat was seen saying that" "it is said that kemal said that", "a newspaper states that" rubbish. If it is so well proved go to a court my friend get your money get your recognition try your chances to get some land. If you cant go to a court stop crying and pointing people calling "DENIER". Just like a kid running around saying this man killed my father you can gain sympathy but court is the place to prove somehing. Ask your self "WHY THE HELL WE CAN NOT APPLY TO AN INTERNATIONAL COURT?" you could not go to a court when ottoman arhives were closed and after seing what has come out from the archives your last chance of an international court victory evaporated. Now your only credit is the islamophobia and some strong nations which doesnt want Turkey in Europe. try your chances.neurobio 20:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry - Armenians were an ethno-religious group within the Ottoman Empire that had no means of protection but was preyed upon by its own government. The CUP/Ottoman government instigated a campaign to exterminate these people and carried this plan out. This is what the history shows. There was no Armenian rebellion nor any serious 5th column or other activity that directly preceeded the Genocide that could in any way be used to justify such. There is no question of an international court as the plantiffs and defendents are no longer alive...what we are discussing here is a matter of history and the history is well proven. (and what happened to "let historians decide eh?" That didn't work so now its "let international courts decide" - is this the Turkish government position? Is the government of Turkey ready to be the defendent? If not then who is to be the defendent eh?) All of your efforts here and elsewhere to deny such are just that DENIAL of known Genocide - just as those who deny the Holocaust - using essentially the exact same arguments as you have - you are perpetrators of the crime and deserve no recognition whatsoever. I find it funny that you and Luther here try to claim Armenians as a beligerent because of some idealisitc writings in some newspaper...just like Nazi sympathizers who claim that because it was published that Jews declared war on Germany in 1933 that Hitler was justifyied in his actins agaunst the Jews - that the Jews started it etc - don't believe me -http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html - yeah so you are in good company. And for you to claim that the intent of mass extermination cannot be proven is the biggest laugh of all...such things as the erradication of an entire people in the space of less then 2 years cannot be something accidental - and the eyewitnesses of the time prove that not only was it not just a byproduct of some failed policy - but that the admitted intentions of those involved was extermination of the Armenians - this has been shown time and time again. There is no question of intent - intent has been thoroughly established. --THOTH 21:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

it seems you dont know law terms in this case and it seems that you dont know much how int law works. As you should know Turkey has signed all documents regarding international law. So if you go and sue Turkey there is no option for Turkey but to attend. This is possible believe me just recently a Turkish citizen sued france (ah the bearer of the brave Armenian legion de lorient) for its crimes in Gaziantep. So we will se what happens. I will not lecture you about law. In a court you will se many defences and all of them are quite the same. A killer and an innocent persons says the same thing "i did no do it" So please cut that 7 (or I dont know how many) ways to denial nonsense.

Historical studies are essential to render understandable the incidents that took place in the second decade of the 20th century. However if a historian lacks education and/or experience in international law, that person cannot judge whether or not these incidents amounted to genocide. Like historians academics such as sociologists and political scientists who laboured on these issues, tend to describe as genocide almost any incident, which involves an important number of dead. However genocide as an international crime, can be determined only by jurists on the basis of the prescribed legal criteria.

and what happened to "let historians decide eh?". Let me tell you what happened Historians are harrased, stalked, booed, attacked and bombed by armenians so that not many decent people are left to study.

Any way i repeat it if you are so sure it is universally and inevitably accepted go to the court and sue. Turkey has no option but to defend.neurobio 22:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sadly the key issue is never addressed

Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Whether the number is 250,000 or 1.5 million. Whether they were relocated and died or killed outright.

The fact of the matter is, those who perpetrated these acts are not alive today but those whose are descended from those who survived know the truth of how it affected the lives of their parents, grandparents and greatgrandparents.

What puzzles me is that Turkish government cannot simply state "Many died, and although we are not personally responsible, we promise that history will not repeat itself"

Its more complicated than that: they can't come to grips that their grandparents were responsible for such brutality; being murderers, rapists, torturers, pedophiles, etc. Its unfathomable for people living in Turkey where nationalism is highly encouraged and even the mildest stain upon Turkish heritage and "Turkishness" in general is taken with great umbrage. That's somewhat apparent seeing as how desperate some Turks become when they come here or when they edit the entire article by simply saying "its a lie" or "the Armenian Genocide fairy tail myth".--MarshallBagramyan 20:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Marshal obviously is not avare that the times are changing. Still What he says has some truth just like any nation Turks have hard time confessing their crimes. BUT what is more important is!

if you put Mnt. Ararat in your banner and still claim right in Turkeys land because there are historic churches there,

or if you invade azerbaican masssacre a whole lot of population and claiming that these lands are actually yours,

or if you present Asala terorist as heroes and give them protection and money in your country,

or if your country or people have links with terorist organisation PKK or terrorists are trained in your country and some of your people participate actively in PKK attacks,

or if you build monuments for assasins in US and Armenia,

or if you openly discuss that after recognition comes the compensation money and more importantly land demand,

or if you keep on denying that your ancestors at least had their own crimes you can not expect such a resolution. Other than that Turks are ready to say sorry. forgot to sign againneurobio 23:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It would be a senseless attempt for me to even address the gross inaccuracies in your statements. Just to begin with, 1) ASALA members were never harbored in Armenia since it was a Soviet Socialist Republic back then and were hence barred from immigrating there. 2)Go check up the ASALA article on Wikipedia and see that the claims to the PPK are accusations that have no citations. 3)Bringing up Azerbaijan shows how partial they are when it comes to atrocities being reported. Azeris are considered the bretheren of the Turks, since they are of Turkic origin, but how often do Turks speak about Azeri atrocities, how often do you hear them condeming the Sumgait massacre (Feburary 1988)? the Kirovobad massacre (1988)? the Baku massacre (Janurary 1990)? the Maragha massacre (April 1992)? Its simply turning a blind eye.

"or if you build monuments for assasins in US and Armenia,"

This is the one I get a real kick out of. Neuro here is alluding to Soghomon Tehlerian, the man who assassinated Talaat Pasha, the main organizer of the Genocide who was condemned to death in absentia by the Ottoman Military Tribunals. In Turkey, they probably omit that piece of info, and portray Talaat as a poor unsuspecting government official who attempted to live a peaceful life in Germany but was gunned down by an Armenian terrorist. See how distorted the truth becomes? They think that things such as ASALA and Tehlerian grew out organically, as if by chance and who arbitrarily targeted Turks because Armenians hate Turks. "Truth" in Turkey is as much as foreign a term as "justice". Despite their protestations, none of them are able to come up with some sort of solid proof to counter the claims made by witnesses, much less even address as the picture above as to why were Armenian women crucified in such an ordinary deportation?

Simple questions and witness statements are things they have difficulty addressing. I doubt I'm going to even hear a positive rebuke, much less am interested to hear what excuses they're going to offer.--MarshallBagramyan 00:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

even subconciously you are attempting to whitewash a terrorist organization, its simply amazing. The most notorious example of this is in the section on the Armenian legion which is chock full of pathetic attempts to whitewash what is arguably one of the most evil organization ever to exist on earth. No mention of those murderous thugs in French uniform slaughtering women and children by the masses (oh yeah, it never happened), suggesting that they saved Jews (Orthodox christians saving Jews? thats a funny one), and considering their leader a certain General DRO a national hero are in my view the most blatent examples of whitewashing. It is also said that former ASALA members, your Armenian bretheren have today been recycled and are members of the Armenian government. Should one be surprised? lutherian 05:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I fully condemn ASALA and its actions....satisfied? Now as to "whitewashing one of the most evil organizations ever to exist on Earth" well...lets discuss the CUP...and as for your other claims and such...proof my dear boy proof...though anything not directly connected with the Armenian Genocide is not a point of discussion here (that includes any events after it occured unless they are relevant to the issues of recognition and/or denial. However I just have to ask you for proof when you bandy about charges that memebers of ASALA are in the Armenian Government...lol...I think this desperate charge on your part (as well as your focus on ASALA) is fully indicative of the level you operate and the fact that you have no real ability to input constructively or factually concerning this article. --THOTH 15:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I beg to differ when you say that anything not directly connected with the so called genocide is not relevant. Everything is relevant here because they are all the result of this tragically misguided view that what happened during that period constitutes a genocide! As for the CUP, I have no doubt in mind that there were racist elements aiming for an ethnically cleansed anatolia but to go from there to accusing the Ottoman government of genocide is simply far fetched. I would appreciate a concise response from you unless you wish me to just skip it. lutherian 17:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

"tragically misguided view" - sorry - does not compute. You obvioulsy have no business whatsoever contributing to this article as this is a non-fiction piece.--THOTH 18:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Marshall please just google a bit

1. Asala and PKK was/is in close contact. [6] , [7]. maybe you will be kind to add these to the Asala article.

2. Armenia loves PKK, PKK loves armenia [8],[9]

3. Asala terrorists are resting in your “cemetery of heroes“. They are regarded as heroes and people mourn for this sad loss. Please read this one carefully. [10] . who are these heroes? They opened fire on passengers in the airport killed 8 injured 82 in 1982. And this is should be a shame for any normal person!

4. Solomon is an assassin (fact) he killed Talat while he was buying his morning newspaper(fact). Shot him from the back (fact). Talat may be a criminal. He may be a monster. Still Solomon is an assassin. And I do not know of any other nation which has built a monument for an assassin.

Read these and ask your self do you deserve that? Do Armenian youth has to accept killers as heroes? You are giving a debate about how Turks are nationalist. They have such a crazy Turkishness myth. Are you any different? No let me tell you something you are just like twins with Turks even the look in your eyes. (is this an insult for you?). I know this very well I had two Armenian students under my supervision and met many others.

Please read the life of your national heroe. I think you already know more than this [11] But this time ask your self what he was doing in Bulgaria with his proud armenian legion ((millet-i sadika oh my))? How come there were 150.000 armenians in Russian army fighting against ottomans. Who was he fighting before 1914 even in 1901. How many muslims were killed in Van and before by him? Why he thought he can create a home for Armenians in 6 vilayets where they only constitute less that %30 of the population. and how was he supposed to achive that given the huge Turk kurd muslim population?

Then maybe I can comment on your picture where I see horsemen who are obviously not dressed in Turkish army clothes (just like the first picture in this article). One also has to ask when it was shot and are they really Armenian?neurobio 01:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

And work your brain while you're at it neuro. ASALA is a defunct organization that died out in the mid 1980s because Armenians themselves were upset with their actions. Not to mention that many of its members including its leaders were also wholly opportunistic and driven by monetary gains rather than anything beneficial to Armenians which was fed for international consumption. Its leader was killed by Armenians and its dealings with the the PKK were the same hollow deals it later made with Meinhoff and the Phalangists. ASALA died 20 years ago, get with the program already.

2)And interview between the two? Yes, I see the hearts in their eyes and intimate affection for each other. Kurds have come to grips with their own past and their acts during the Genocide, if anything, Turks should take an example.

3)Many people consider the acts of ASALA, though tragic in terms of death and injuries, beneficial that the Armenian Genocide was brought back into international view. By the 1970s, the Turkish government had erased all mention of it and practically trivialized it to a nonevent. A matter of perspective, not fact. How many of your countrymen idolize Mehmet Ali Ağca or the Grey Wolves? Should I characterize all Turks as terrorists because some of them idolize and commit terrorist acts? What inane logic and what red herring.

4)I never denied that he was an assassin. But again, I question your logic. Chances are if Claus von Stauffenberg and his friends' attempts came into fruition, you would also criticize people who built statues you for them.

5)Andranik and his men left the Ottoman Empire long before the first World War. They despised how your Sultan ruled them and how unfairly Armenians were treated, on how they were arbitrarily raped, pillaged and massacred by Turkish forces with impunity. Its only natural that people want to defend themselves and disconnect away from such heinous and brutal leaders. What do you find offensive about that?

150.000 armenians in Russian army

??!

The Russian Army made several gains into the Ottoman Empire in the late 1870s. They obviously incorporated areas where Armenians lived including Georgia and Armenia. And like all the subjects of the Tsar, them being Armenian, Azeri, Russian, or Georgian, were all liable for military service during wars. What's so confusing about that.

The picture isn't a soldier on a horse (perhaps not even a horse, looks like a large mule) but a column of refugees. The picture comes from the German archives if you bothered to read the caption. Read its source: Der Bundesbeauftragte für die Unterlagen des Staatssicherheitsdienstes der ehemaligen Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. Its an authenticated and documented photograph from that time period.--MarshallBagramyan 03:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Armenians themselves were upset with their actions and thats why ASALA stopped??? LOL thats probably the funniest excuse I heard recently. ASALA evaporated because the Turkish prime minister of the time gave orders to wipe them out. One of their founders was hunted down and assassinated in front of his home in Cyprus, the other one died of cancer and the rest of the band of terrorists were tracked down by Turkish special forces and killed during a meeting in Lebanon. I am sorry to pop your bubble on this one or maybe you think this is yet another figment of the Turkish imagination? Maybe we should start questioning the existence of Turkey too whilst ure at it?

I see that you are even trying to excuse the fact that Armenians fought on the side of the Russians by suggesting that they were forced to do so? Boy there is no limit in your attempts to whitewash every single Armenian soul. In your mind there is no bad Armenian, its just impossible but its also what makes this whole argument a silly joke!

As for your picture, its funny that a "passion of the christ" snapshot suddenly pops up after 90 years! Where has it been all this time? lutherian 06:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, internal pressure broke it up. Read the book "My Brother's Road" which documents the absuses in ASALA and documents first hand evidence by members themselves who attested to the fact that pressures inside and member assassinations, conflict with the Dashnak party were the main contributors to its downfall. Hagop Hagopian was assassinated by four of his Armenian rivals who peppered him with several shotgun rounds on a street in Cyprus. Their actions of killing civilians and even killing and torturing its members. The "rest" simply melted away. Sorry but Turkey's precious MIT had no role in taking down ASALA. Its your little bubble that was popped away, sorry to rob you of guys a victory but the defeat of ASALA was just a propaganda ploy by Turkey's government. Turkey's self-congratulatory victory was just fed for internal consumption, and from all looks, you guys bought it.

Wow, popped up huh? Check back in the German national archives for hundreds of other unpublished photos and you'll see they've been there since 1915. The picture itself was published in a book in 1993.--MarshallBagramyan 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

LOL, whilst your at it, maybe it was the Armenians who also brought Ocalan to justice? Oh and im sure going to take a book written by an Armenian at face value! lutherian 04:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

"What the Klingon has said is unimportant, and we do not hear his words." Leonard McCoy - stardate 3497.2. Planet Capella lV --THOTH 14:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tall Armenian Tale

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This website why removes at external links? I want answer.--Tall Armenian Tale 22:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

System of a Down

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

System of a Down, a band whose all it's members and Armenian, have released several songs about the Armenian Genocide. Discuss. Emerald Flame 23:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

yeah, there is already a section for gay devil worshippers in the main topic, no need to repeat lutherian 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Someone's a little cwanky. Hakob 23:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

i belive that what soad is doing is one of the best thu=ings they could do. How else could they speak out against it. 02/16/07

progpaganda back on track

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Moved from Talk:Armenian Genocide

Looks like the usual band of Armenian suspects (and their devoted admirers) are back in business, turning this topic into a circus. Tsk tsk! lutherian 11:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see one of the prominant members of the band of suspects is already busy in a revert war! Tsk tsk! lutherian 12:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Usual band of Armenian suspects?" -- Clevelander 12:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

yeah, with your greek orthodox sidekick, right? lutherian 12:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

U made that comment, lutherian, before i make any of my reverts... U knew in advance that your edit would be reverted, that's why u accused (in advance) anyone who would possible revert... I'm sorry, but keep your POV for yourself... (btw, don't say 'greek orthodox' as if it is an insult... LOOL) --Hectorian 12:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

not at all, I added stuff that had been deleted without any comments and out of the blue you guys come in and without any explanation reinstate the deletions. I dont know what your definition of civility is, but your attitude does not even come close lutherian 12:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

...and you would consider saying "gosh im sooooo scared that I need to take a dump this instant" to be civil? -- Clevelander 13:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree that my reply is not civil, but who started the fire? lutherian 14:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You did. -- Clevelander 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Lutheran is a disgrace to the community and deserves to have been blocked88.16.44.192 22:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

FYI - Comment added at request of Artist to "art" section

Latest comment: 18 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion

Moved from Talk:Armenian Genocide

Armenian-American keyboardist Derek Sherinian collaborated with duduk master Djivan Gasparyan on the song "Prelude To Battle", which Sherinian "dedicated to his great grandmother who fought the Turks in the Armenian genocide" as part of his 2006 CD "Blood of the Snake".

Thank you.

Tvccs 06:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Gee, i can just picture a super granny fighting ottoman soldiers, LOL. Good thing there werent many of these grannys, they could have very well led the turks to extinction, LOL. lutherian 06:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

wait a minute were you an unarmed folk that fall victim to a genocide or were you proud and glorious fighters agaisnt the "Turkish Yoke"? first decide that please...! neurobio 22:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

My great-grandfather was a victim of the Armenian Genocide. He was also apolitical and worked in the textile industry, yet when Turkish gendarmes invaded his village, they nearly beat him to death. Needless to say, he did not deserve the beating he received. He would have died had my grandmother not thrown her body over his and screamed so as to get the attention of other people living in the area. -- Clevelander 23:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

No doubt lots of innocent persons died in that period but to go from there and accuse Turks of orchestrating a genocide is stretching it. I see that prejudice and hostility towards islam is alive and well, have you heard the present day nazi pope's remarks? lutherian 05:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I will trust a muslim Arab or Iranian source on the AG 100000 time smore than Christian British source. Religion had nopthing to do with the Armenian Genocide nor anything modern related to it. Btw, the Pope didn't say anything factually incorrect.--Eupator 11:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

My friend and I were just talking about that, actually. —Khoikhoi 05:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The question is: why in this time of extreme sensitivity, quote the debasing words of a 14th century christian emperor? Is it to, as he suggests, forge better inter religious relations? Who is he kidding? Even an idiot would understand that this is plain and simple provocation. Its reckless comments like this that has caused death and destruction throughout history. And since this world is full of idiots that have a natural affinity towards provoking, the cylce just repeats itself. Also your statement that he didnt say anything factually incorrect is also provocation. lutherian 12:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Go grab a tissue and wipe those tears. Better relations cannot be forged by historical revisionism, which you are trying to accomplish in the name of extreme sensitivity. To hell with that. Islam was spread beyond the Arabian peninsula by a scimitar and that is a fact, the Crusades were a retaliatory consequence. This is offtopic and has nothing to do with the AG.--Eupator 13:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

there you go again with your superiority complex rethoric. Beggers cant be choosers, you should know that better than anyone else! lutherian 15:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're suffering from an inferiority complex (rightfully so might I add), why not cease begging to join the "Christian club"? You are part of Oriental culture stick with it, but feel free to continue selling doner kebabs and watermelons to the natives of the "Christian club".--Eupator 17:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

and you dare deny that you are a racist? lutherian 23:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

As usual when you're set straight in your place you resort to ad-hominem insults. Keep up the good work, after all that's been your only contribution since you joined wikipedia.--Eupator 00:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Insults? You just made denigrating racist remarks and you are accusing me of insults? Do you suffer from selective memory? lutherian 05:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Did u hear what the turkish minister (director, or whatever) of religious affairs said about what the Pope said? We also know that Christianity is wrong, but we do not use bad language against Jesus... adding that the Pope should cancel his trip to Turkey, which is on November to meet the Ecumenical Patriarch. they said last year that "he is not welcomed" in Turkey. again this year they more or less tell him not to go there... is this 'religious tolerance'? Hectorian 13:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

you dare talk of religious tolerance with your christian club? The difference is your extreme hypocrisy, you supposedly preach tolerance but in reality its the other way round lutherian 15:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

These insults and flames are in violation of wikipedia policy (WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground); I suggest everyone simply cease commenting on this thread. Sdedeo (tips) 17:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Orhan Pamuk awarded Nobel Prize for Literature

Latest comment: 18 years ago24 comments9 people in discussion

Moved from Talk:Armenian Genocide

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/12/europe/EU_GEN_Turkey_Pamuk_Reaction.php

--THOTH 00:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

and... neurobio 00:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think the point is defining the events as genocide. Turkey doesn't deny that many people died, even though they might disagree with the numbers and how it happenned. Orhan Pamuk never used the word genocide, he said that so many Armenians and Kurds died in these lands, which is exactly the same as the official Turkish position (even though the numbers vary). In any case no need to get hyped up over this though.. :) Baristarim 01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unlike Pamuk, I don't think the Turkish government says that over 1,000,000 Armenians died...congratulations to him regardless--MarshallBagramyan 01:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maybe.. Nevertheless, i think some people should avoid writing him to the genocide-supporter column so fast, since the debate has always been if the word genocide was appropriate, not the exact number of people that died. He could have easily used the word genocide, but he didn't, which, in essence, is the same as the official Turkish position. that's all I am saying at the end of the day, nobody should try to hijack his Nobel prize to their own ends - he had been a writer for thirty years and wrote over 30 books, and only one of them was overtly political: Snow, which was about the clash of ultrasecularism and islamic fundamentalism.. It is for this carreer that he was awarded the Nobel prize.. Baristarim 02:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Regarding his uses of the word genocide, have you listened to this interview? [12] Fad (ix) 16:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, he seemed rather embarassed when on CNN they asked him what he thought of the French vote, he quickly switched subjects, LOL lutherian 09:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I watched it all and haven't heard him pronounce the word genocide (which is the heart of the debate), but again, that's beside the point. Well, he condemned the French vote very strongly actually, along with nearly all Europeans (including French Le Monde, Le Figaro, Ouest France, Liberation), Americans and pretty much the whole world.. In any case, I hope that some people are not trying to get hyped up over this, since, frankly, the French don't give a damn about what happened in the past to anyone but themselves (i live in france, i know what i am talking about :)).. It is sad, but it is the truth.. One: elections r coming up, two: they don't want Turkey in the EU. They are just trying to find reasons to stop Turkey's membership. It is a long game between two big countries, France and Turkey. i hope that the Armenian diaspora realizes that the true reconciliation for what happenned to all sides involved (Armenians, Turks, Kurds etc) because of France, GB and Russia's involvement, whatever you put a tag name on it, lies between the Armenian and Turkish people - not with other countries getting involved because of their geopolitical reasons.. Of course when u r living thousands of miles away and have a nice job and all, things might be hard to put into context for some people, but again, that's their problem.. As for Pamuk, he is a really great writer, but the fact that he made those comments just to consolidate his chances of winning the Nobel was rumoured since the last two years.. But it doesn't change the fact that he is a great novelist and let's remember that Nobel was not given to a writer who wrote "Turks are genocidal barbarians".. I personally think that Yasar Kemal deserved the Nobel more, but again that's my POV and if people want to hijack a Nobel prize for Turkish literature, that's their shallowness :))) Baristarim 02:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify something.. I read three of Pamuk's books.. Not one of them mentions, even remotely (except for an of-the-topic comment about a couple of Armenian churchs in Kars in his book Snow, which was about the clash between islamic fundamentalists and ultrasecularists in any case), anything about what happened during WWI and after.. That comment I mentioned had nothing to do with those events either.. He wrote many books where he elegantly deals with the clash of Eastern and Western cultures in Turkey, and not Armenia or Greece or whatever, but his city (Istanbul) and his country (Turkey), and exclusively that.. Go read his books, u will see what I am talking about :))). In any case, I would like to remind that he later affirmed many times that his remarks in that Swiss magazine were not made to talk about the massacres themselves, but to highlight freedom of speech issues in Turkey.. As one great French writer and philosopher whose spirit is long dead in France once said: I might not agree with what you say, but I will fight until death to defend your right to say it :)).. Orhan Pamuk is Turkish, an Istanbulite, he made those comments only so that his country can become better, not so that other countries can start insulting Turks.. Anyone who reads his books will see that he is a person who is simply in love with the rich culture of his country and city.. So that's the food for thought for the day folks.. :))) cheers! Baristarim 02:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Noone insults the Turks, but Turkey... the Turkish state insulted Pamuk (a Turk) by dragging him into a trial for "insulting turkishness" according to the newly created article 301, right? He wants a better Turkey, with free speech, but it seems that Turkish government does not, that's why instead of fixing or deleting dubious articles and laws in the spirit of the EU laws, they create new ones that remind the Middle Ages... Don't say that the French, or the Europeans in general, do not want the Turks in the EU... The truth is much different: if Turkey fullfills all the criteria and proves to be worthy of an EU membership, the Europeans will accept it. If Turkey wants "special treatment", all she'll get will be "special relationship", as Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy have said... Fair enough to me:) Hectorian 02:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do I need to reiterate that it was a case brought by a private complaint?Nobody is creating new articles that remind of the "Middle Ages", 301 is the continous transposition of 159 of the old Penal code. Turkey's much more free than most EU countries, c 4 yourself 1 day if u want (abortion in Poland or divorce in Ireland, anyone?) A man I personally know, the Turkish Consul General to Paris, is in court in FR right now (since ~Sept) for publishing info on his blog that claimed that the events of 1915-17 didn't have a genocidal character. ouhhh, i don't see u act like Voltaire (see above quotation) though. As for Europeans accepting Turkey, 2 points: 1, unlike what some people wish it to be, it's Turkey's right to join the EU since it's been an integral part of Euro culture and life much more than Romania or Malta for example, TR is not asking to join, it's expecting the fulfillment of an inherent right. 2, you baffle me when u say that Europeans or FR will accept TR if it fulfills all criteria. If TR is accepted, it'll be the biggest, most populous and strategic country in the EU as well as have its most dynamic economy and young population, and have the most seats in the EU parliament (2 of Germany's MEPs are already Turkish). U know what that is called? power game. The day it joins the EU, it'll be stronger in the EU than Greece and whole Eastern Europe combined. That has no impact, right? :))))) And what is the criteria? Not being Muslim, as the Nazi-youth Pope and far-right parties of Europe mentioned? Or are we talking about some objective criteria here?? Pleeassee :))) In any case, let's not stray off the topic, my posts above were very relevant to this topic (about Pamuk and how can the needed reconciliation be done) and u diverted attention to something that doesn't concern at all (in the eyes of the people who truly rule the EU :)) Ar, Gr or Cy: the strategic power game between the big of Europe and Turkey in order to determine the balance of power the day Turkey becomes part of the EU - please be my guest&have a look at this [13]. food for thought :)))Baristarim 04:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

It was u who talked about Pamuk wanting to make Turkey better (free speech) and the French not wanting Turkey in the EU. The problem is that u think of Turkey's accession to the EU as more Turks do, id est, not as a new EU-member state, but as a union between EU and Turkey... This is not the case, my friend... Turkey will have equal rights and equal obligations if she'll ever join... About Turkey an integral part of Euro culture, more than Romania or Malta, better wonder what exactly has offered to that culture... aren't things vice versa? Turkey decided to westernize its culture, not Europe to "orientalize" hers. apropos, who were all the european countries fighting for centuries? certainly they were not seeing the Turks as Europeans back then... Fullfillment of the criteria means: no demands over other states' territories (Estonia and Latvia resigned from demands over Russia, in order to join...), respect of international treaties (does Lausanne Treaty rings u any bell?), respect of protocols that has signed (Protocol of Ankara... still not valid, although signed! huh?), not intefierence of the army into political life (how many times the turkish generals appered on the turkish TV recently saying that they will "protect" the country and that they will not stop getting mixed in politics?), minority rights (e.g. Kurds), religious freedom (e.g. Ecumenical Patriarchate, Alevis, Catholics...), freedom of expression (old or new, article 301 is obviously crap...) etc etc... There are sooooo many things to be done in order Turkey to reach the EU standards... btw, calling the Pope a nazi?! Geeee...! at least the Pope killed noone... Quite the opposite of the man the Turks still worship (Kemal):). better be accepted well in Turkey, with no wolves around... Hectorian 05:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nevertheless, u missed my point about the power-game and the reconciliation. I truly care about this, since I consider that Armenians and Turks have been like brothers for centuries. That's why I have a different approach than bunch of french politicians who only care about getting re-elected.. Europeans killed more people fighting each other than Turks ever did. I also think that you should not be so prejudiced, eurocentric and orientalist, you missed all that I was trying to say above. Nobody (even un-known authors) went to jail because of 301 btw.. In any case have a good day. Baristarim 05:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I feel like I have to say this after all that ranting how such a bad boy Turkey is. Istanbul has more functioning churches (an evangelist church just opened two months ago in the district where i am originally from) than all of Greece, and definitely more than Athens, which still has none, because some racist people (or a lot? I am confused) that protest that having a mosque in their district would be un-Greek.. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones my friend.. Baristarim 05:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I did not miss your point, Baris... I believe that the Europeans do not want such a country to have much power (not such a nation. i am talking about a country-ruling class that does not meet the criteria). Can u ever imagine a Turkey having 120 (?) members of EU parliament voting in favour of the interfierence of the army in political life?! this is totally crazy and against the democratic values...! If Turkey is as funcioning as the other members, there will be no problem... Law 301 is still active, which means that people are afraid to say something that could be penalised (no matter if someone will go to jail or not, i guess that noone wants to go on trial...). I do not know how many functioning greek orthodox churches are in Istanbul, but i do know that the Greek Orthodox (the largest christian denomination there) were brutally driven out of the city... so, its pointless... About the mosque in Greece, maybe u do not know things correctly: the Greeks are not against the construction and operation of a mosque. they are against the demands made for that mosque... They wanted to built it just outside Athens International Airport with money from Saudi Arabia... we would never accept that! there is not even a church out of 'Greece's gate to the world'! and, of course, never with money from a country that, not only does not allow the operation or churches in its soil, but does not even allow the existance of christians inside its borders! i bet u know that this is true, since u've lived there... have a nice day u too:) Hectorian 05:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Because you see Greece as a model EU state? Do you know how much the EU pumped into Greece to prepare it for accession and then to maintain it as a viable member? Do you know how much over budget they had to go to make the last olympics a success? Irrespective of where a mosque was to be built, the point is, there isnt a single place of worship for moslems which speaks volumes about your openess to other cultures and faiths. lutherian 15:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

life is so full of Ironies. A Greek whose country just dumped many refugees into the see and virtually killed them, whose country opresses its Turkish minorities. A Greek whose county can not stand a single mosque, whose country support Terorism in its neighbour lecture us about Democracy. neurobio 11:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

...unlike Turkey however, Greece got away with it. How does that make you feel?--Tekleni 22:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

well, they are so miniscule that they can hide easily lutherian 15:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Every cloud has a silver lining... Greece made it into the EU anyway (of course they didn't get on the wrong side of Chirac). --Tekleni 15:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

:))) Baristarim 23:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

in my litle world full of hate and mediocracy I feel teribble... :)neurobio 23:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

In order to explain a couple of things: Greece has many mosques in Thrace, state-sponsored economically speaking. The turkish (and muslim, in general) minority is in perfect condition and with full rights (the exact contrast with the Greek minority in Turkey...). Greece is an EU member, and that's a fact. Turkey wants to join, so she must meet the criteria (this is also a fact). and lastly, for the turkish users: do feel happy that a Turk won the Nobel prize! he deserved it!!!!:) and btw, he is the only nobelist u have... Hectorian 11:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't like Orhan Pamuk even he is the only one Nobelist. Please tell me the percent of Turkey people who wants join EU. Everyday percentage goes down, and I'm sure that EU is a Christian Pub.

Obsteel 12:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

my thoughts exactly...

Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Moved from Talk:Armenian Genocide

Gunduz Aktan in TDN lutherian 12:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

He says:

This kind of France cannot bear to have us become an EU member. Let's have pity on France and let's abandon our bid for EU membership.

When's that joyous event going to happen?--Tekleni 12:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not too far away, when the Turks finally come to their senses and realize that they have no place in a xenophobic club. Actually, the status quo should remain a bit longer so that Turkey benefits more from the structural reforms. In 15 or 20 years when the European health care and pension systems collapse under the weight of the ageing population, it will be time for Turkey to jump the boat. At that point we will probably see hoards of unemployed Europeans looking for jobs in Turkey, LOL. lutherian 13:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Seems like science fiction... (or maybe indeed is!) Hectorian 13:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well 15 to 20 yrs is a lifetime, take Greece as an example, not more than 10 yrs ago it was in the middle ages. You can change anything if you have lots of loot lutherian 13:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually that was three millenia ago: Greek Dark Ages. Please check your math as it's off by a few zero's, and even then they accomplished more than certain countries in their Golden Ages.--Eupator 18:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was actually using a euphemism for the sorry state of greece in the 80's but it seems that you actually took it literally, tsk tsk lutherian 05:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry state? lol... Eupator is right, these were the Greek Dark Ages... But if u wanna find even Darker Ages in history of Greece, look at the years 1453-1821. Regards Hectorian 08:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

we saved you from military coup... why this ungratefullness. :))) ha ha.neurobio 10:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Karalol!:). Coup of 60, Coup by Memorandum, Coup of 80, Postmodern Coup D'etat... someone has to save himself, before claiming to have "saved" others... Hectorian 11:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

you did not even get what I am talking about did you?neurobio 14:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I did, be sure about it... Hectorian 12:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Orham Pamuk's mother calls him a liar - lol

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Moved from Talk:Armenian Genocide

http://english.sabah.com.tr/3105A05C...FD0468E8A.html

"Orhan spoke falsely

Nobel winner Orhan Pamuk's mother, Şekure Basman, has commented on her son's controversial words after 1.5 years: "He spoke falsely."

Orhan Pamuk's mother, Şekure Basman, has commented on Pamuk's words; "1 million Armenian and 30,000 Kurds were killed." Şekure Basman said: "Orhan spoke falsely to a small European Newspaper. However, the Turkish press exaggerated his false statement. The government tried to cover it up, but the press scooped it up."

"My son said false things"

Orhan Pamuk's mother has commented on her son's words regarding the death of 1 million Armenians on Turkish land: "Orhan spoke falsely."

Şekure Basman has given an interview to SABAH Newspaper, as the mother of the first Turk to have ever received a Nobel Prize. Şekure Basman said: "I am very happy for my son but when I heard he won a Nobel Prize, I thought 'God knows what they will write about him this time...'. Orhan probably knew false things about history. I don't think he has much information about the subject. No one teaches these things in school. I myself have no idea about this issue. Orhan spoke falsely to a reporter from a small Swedish newspaper. However, the Turkish press overexaggerated his statements. Although the government tried to cover it up, the Turkish press scooped it up and took great pleasure from doing so. I think it is the press we should blame."

In spite of his mother's disaproval I congratulate Turkish writer Pamuk - who in spite of his aparently false notions concerning history...and in spite of his (self admittadly and comically ignorant) Mother's disaproval - has won the Nobel prize for literature this year. Turks should be delighted that the Nobel prize committe overlooked Pamuk's obvious ignorance and mistatements concerning historical issues (that no one speaks about or teaches in Turkey...) and instead aparently only chose to bestow the award based on the merit of his work alone....lol --THOTH 18:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The only reason why Pamuk won the nobel prize this year was for his controversial remarks and everyone knows that. The only reason you congatulate him is again because of those remarks (you probably wouldnt even have known he existed if it wasnt for those remarks). I have read his books, they are brilliant and I appreciate him for his talents, not the BS political trash that has elevated him to the stratosphere. lutherian 05:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Azeri Genocide by Armenia

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Moved from Talk:Armenian Genocide

Jean-Yves Yunet, journalist (France)

...We happened to be the witnesses of Khojaly massacre, we saw the dead — bodies of hundreds of civilians — women, children, old-age people and defenders of Khojaly. We managed to fly by helicopter, we were taking photographs of everything we saw around Khojaly at a height of a bird's flight. However Armenians started shooting our helicopter and we couldn't manage to finish our job. That was a terrible scene. I heard a lot about wars, about cruelty of German fascists, but Armenians went beyond them, killing 5 or 6 year-old children, innocent people. We saw a lot of injured people in hospitals, carriages, even in kindergarten and school buildings.

Obsteel 13:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

If Armenians finds the turks defendless, they will kill definetly.. They are devil..

Thats funny because you have no evidence against these claims, go research your massacre, this is the only massacre that has allegedly occurred by Armenians, not to mention Sumagit, Kirovabad, and other pogroms and massacres by your people even worse. "Most of the victims have been Armenians attacked by mobs in the Azerbaijani capital of Baku. Terrorized Armenians were said to still be fleeing by the thousands." "Armed units in black uniforms attacked 3 villages in the southern Soviet republic of Azerbaijan yesterday and ordered all ethnic Armenians to leave, the Interfax news agency said. The report said troops backed by helicopters and armored vehicles entered the Azerbaijani villages of Erkech, Manashid and Buzlukh, which are heavily populated by Armenians. The gunmen threatened the ethnic Armenians with death if they did not comply with the orders to leave." Associated Press (14 Jul. 1991)" obviously Armenians will be blatantly blamed for these crimes, Armenians have a bloody history by there neighbors but no committing crimes there selves history repeats the Seljuk Turk invasions to the Armenian Genocide to the Nagorno-Karabakh war. Artaxiad 00:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

ASALA

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Moved from Talk:Armenian Genocide

Note: Taken from ASALA Info page

ASALA is NOT an active organization at this time, since it has served its purpose of raising awareness of the Armenian Cause.

“We find the information of the existence of the offices of ASALA in Armenia and Nagorni Karabakh currently to be inaccurate.”

ASALA (Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia)

The Orly Group 3rd October Organization

Description

Armenian group formed in 1975 with stated intention to compel the Turkish Government to acknowledge publicly its alleged responsibility for the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915, pay reparations, and cede territory for an Armenian homeland.

Activities

Initial bombing and assassination attacks directed against Turkish targets. Later attacked French and Swiss targets to force release of imprisoned comrades. Made several minor bombing attacks against airline offices in Western Europe in early 1980S. Bombing of Turkish airline counter at Orly Airport in Paris in 1983--eight killed and 55 wounded--led to split in group over rationale for causing indiscriminate casualties. Suffering from internal schisms, group has been relatively inactive over past four years, although recently claimed an unsuccessful attack on Turkish Ambassador to Hungary.

...

Terrorism as a weapon for dictating thoughts. Good way, really works!

Obsteel 13:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Comment by 85.146.98.224

Moved from Talk:Armenian Genocide

All of the so-called armenian genocide is based on reports of so called witnesses, while the claims of the people who say there were indeed armenians killed but there was NO genocide, i repeat no genocide base their claims on facts like THE OTTOMAN ARCHIVES. Those are the facts, you cannot base history merely on so called witness claims. For all you people claiming there was a genocide, look at your sources. Ask yourself, what does this mean? Don't just listen to stories, look up the facts!!

On the other hand i can't seem to find articles concerning the massacres the armenian militia's committed on the turks in anatolia and kafkasya.Here's a nice list for all you people, this IS based on facts http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/massacres/lists.html i think i might write an article about that since everyone seems to forget about that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.146.98.224 (talk • contribs).

There are no specific reason?

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Moved from Talk:Armenian Genocide

I could not see any reason for a genocide. Could a reason be added in order to complate the puzzle? Because without a reason, a genocide is nothing more than a self-destruction of the brutes.(88.240.114.200 18:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC))Reply

Exactly. There is supposed to be a murder, so there should be a motive. Whatis the motive ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.16.198 (talk • contribs)

"Their main goal was to defend Armenian villagers from persecution and at the same time, disrupt the Ottoman Empire's activities in Armenian populated regions. However, their ultimate goal was always to gain Armenian independence. This can be seen in their slogan "Azadoutioun gam Mah", which literally translates as "Freedom or Death". These bands committed sabotage activities like cutting telegraph lines and raiding army supplies. They also committed assassinations and counter-attacks on Muslim villages. They helped Armenians defend themselves during village purges by Hamidieh guards. They were supported by Armenians and quickly gained fame, support and trust by them."

"Apart from thousands of Armenians who were drafted or volunteered in several different armies fighting against the Ottoman empire, and apart from those who were drafted in the Ottoman army prior to WWI [1], the fedayees fought inside Ottoman borders." here is the motive guys. taken from armenian militia article [[14]]. These armenian guys are so badly confused.

keep on guys. The Law is clear thoug. (from Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide)

Article VIII: Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article

III.

Article IX: Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.

Here you see every thing is there for Armenians to apply. The Question that every Armenian must ask "WHY CANT YOU APLLY TO AN INTERNATIONAL COURT"?

let me answer for you. Aside from all your claims for race extermnination is being simply fake (which your historian know very well); the groups to be protected under the Convention mentioned in Article 2 are limited to four types, that is, national, ethnical, racial and religious groups. Lemkin, who had defended the inclusion of the political groups, suggested himself during the deliberations on the draft text that the political groups be left outside the scope of the Convention. Unlike Resolution No. 96 (1), neither the `political groups' nor the `other groups' found their way into the Convention text. This modification constitutes a highly important difference because history shows that the most frequently seen struggles -and the ones that claim the largest number of civilian lives- take place between groups with political aims. Accordingly, for example, the massacres committed in Cambodia by the Pol Pot regime causing the deaths of nearly two million civilians did not fall within the scope of the genocide definition given by the Convention. Similarly, the deaths that occurred in the framework of the October Revolution (1917) cannot be considered genocide. In line with many verdicts of the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia, save perhaps some exceptional acts which will be judged in the future trials as genocidal, even the extensive Serbian ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina does not correspond to the definition of the crime of genocide.

Now read your Fedayee(armenian militia) article again and then go on playing in this open playground :) neurobio 00:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Um, these people were volunteers from other countries or had defected from the Empire long before the war began. I don't know who wrote that article but 1)Armenians never asked for independence and 2)small milita units cannot be said to have represented, political or otherwise, the entire population of Armenians living in the region. As for people not being "protected" by the convention, show me what crime a five year old child, a pregnant mother, or one month old had committed to betray the Ottoman Empire and I'll personally send you a concession letter.MarshallBagramyan 01:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately that is not true. Ottoman Armenians participated in this uprising if you could have at least read the link I have sent you about Armenian testimonies (it was totally an Armenian link by the way) you could have seen it. this is well documented not only by Ottoman documents but also from international documents starting from 1900 and that is simply the main reason that this case is not brought to a court. Dear Marshall we are aware that many innocent Armenians died and we are ready to face and deal with it. It is simply a shame!!! Just like a pregnat woman or a baby who is blown into pieces in Iraq or Palestine these people were the victims of a teribble war but if you keep on naming this conflict genocide we are drawn into radical opposition. We are ready to respect your deaths but what about our babies and mothers that were butchered by Armenian volunteers. Who will respect them? The real Denial is denieing that thousands of Armenians fougth a terible dirty war against Turk villagers. Until 1980 the silhouettes of curicified and burned Turk villagers were still on the walls of old houses in Erzurum. How are we supposed to forget that? You did not believe my personal family stories but how am I supposed to forget it? It is a shame that innocent Armenians perished between these crazy mans of Power. All these death people are hopefully in peace already but just like in the past some powers from inside or outside are playing with our people over and over and over and over again. neurobio 17:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

When German, US, French, British, Russian, Austrian and Swedish archives all document deliberate provocations to anger Armenians and subsequent massacres to "quell" "uprisings" then ywe all that Ottoman documents aren't worth ____ :) None of your statements are ever backed up on these imaginary uprisings and it only makes sense that you are calling out the "bias" card when you cannot even prove your own words. A pregnant woman being killed in a hail of crossfire between insurgents and US troops is much more different than picking her up in the middle of the night, forcing her out of her home, stripping of her clothing and have her walked endless circles under the sun. If you knew your history, you would know that Armenians never wanted independence from the Ottomans, they would have been satisfied with self-rule/autonomy in pertinence to Article 16 of the T. of San Stefano or 61 of Berlin. Erzerum was an Armenian majority town and the only people who got slaughtered there were the Armenians themselves.

I don't believe a single personal story you Turks propagate. Do you know why? Because no one, not a single source ever says that Armenians went out and slaughtered Turks en masse in 1914-1915. Its BS and you shamelessly are unable to admit it because its the other way around: most Armenians can trace back their ancestry to Turkey, my grandfather on my father's side was from Kars, my mother's side, my great-grandmother from Constantinople (another city which was teeming with Armenian volunteers :) ). The stories they tell me are obviously true because they are supported by other witnesses who weren't Armenians: Germans, Britons, Americans, Austrians, etc. The ones you claim are obviously fabricated or exaggerated. There's a reason why I'm not the only person who feels this way.--MarshallBagramyan 17:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just like there is a reason why i'm not the only person who vehemently disagrees with your views lutherian 22:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Heh, heaven forbid you guys actually retort something. Bothered to come up with an excuse as to what crime toddlers committed during the "uprisings" yet?--MarshallBagramyan 05:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Specific reason u want? Armenians killed Turks and Turks killed Armenians. Pretty simple! In addition, ottomans drove them from their homes and to be honest probably did what armenians claim what Turks did to them. Killed babies, mother etc... We gota believe that (and to be honest i believe those things happened) but when it comes to our side of the story noone is supposed to believe that? Marshal u point that no source suggests armenians killing the turks right? How about the ottoman archives? turks just printed them after armenians came up with such a claim? be honest!! Now what ottomans did was not right, but it was NOT a FU..IN GEENOCIDE!

Last thing I d like to add is that; marshall u sound so naive when u talk about american soldiers "accidentally" shootin iraqian civilians, a reminder of the vietnam war; take a look and tell me if these soldiers carrying this dead vieatkong dead soldier sounds like your "proud","honest" american soldiers: http://www.milliyet.com.tr/content/galeri/tamsayfa/50yil/default.asp?id=12

Ever seen the movie "Platoon"? I like the observation they make there; "The first thing lost in war is innocense" My point? There are "unproud" moments in wars... It is a fact, noone is proud of it but thats what happens in wars... What your people havent killed any turks to get independent and free? ahh yea i forgot armenians didnt want that! well if they didnt then what are we discussing? cuz then it would simply mean that armenians didnt see themselves as a nation, and therefore was no armenian nationality back in the ottoman empire! Hence it was only turks/ottomans killin each other!! I know it doesnt make sense, but it was built up from your conclusions! It wouldnt matter tho since you have a prejudiced perspective. I mean afterall im a barbarian, a turk! Heh if it wasnt for my armenian, greek neioghbors in istanbul, i would be prejudiced also!!! Wont u consider all of them as back stabbers since after a war breaks up and armenians,greeks were the ones who betray us and join enemy forces!! ```ProudTurk

The logic is actually the otherway around - the Turks wiped out the Armenians and only after that - 1917-1918 - did some Armenians take retribution against them. The Holocaust wasn't the product of war-time casualties and sugarcoating this under the paint of collateral damage smacks right against the line of reality and delusion - the latter of which many Turks persist on residing in.--MarshallBagramyan 23:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yea right, ottomans/turks just decided to do sometin different for a change and killed armenians! Forget whatever the fuk they teach u in armenia and ask yourself which is more possible; "Kill and risk security on your eastern border, close to your enemy, by killin a bunch of minorities?" or "Kill the majority, when they are in war with another country (when they are weak), help the enemy of your "enemy" to get your own country and freedom?" Which makes more sense? Isnt the second scenario sounds more likely to happen? Havent a so many countries earned their freedom by helping the enemy of their ruler empire? examples are so many...

```ProudTurk

Armenian Genocide is a Lie

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is easy to setup many photographs from archives whic taken by some unknown people.I am a Kurdish and I have live evidences. My relations also have been killed by Aremenian rebels at same time.May father was born at 1907 at Sarikamis. At 1915 early spring Armenian has attacked their willage and killed one paralyzed and his old aunt which is could not run. This example has been repeated by my old father till he died. This example shows how much Armenian was out of rules. The tragedy is bilateral and initiated by Armenian. Why Armenian not sueing France or Russia. The Russian was occupied the eastern Turkey while 1877-1878 Ottoman-Russo war and Armenian was the Russian alliens. They was equipped and armed by Russian and promised the independant greate Armenia. The Armenian was uprised and was out ruled.There was World War I and environment was quite unappropriate for living.There was lack of food and infectional dissaes and harsh living conditions. In these conditions some new non experianced Ottoman Pashas was issued some laws (Techir Law) which is not applicable. Because it was proven that Ottoman army was also unable to transport the power and maintain the law enforcement. Enver Pasha tried to move third armay from Erzurum to Sarikamis at 3'rd December 1914 till 5'th Jan-1915. The result was tragedia and 96.000 of 156.000 soldier has dided because of diseases ,cold and stavration. They was defeated without facing Russians. The fact is that if you can't transport your army at such short distance how you transfer Armenian in even worse conditions? Unfortunately tragedia repeated itself. Turks can't apply systematic genocides and holocust,their character is not sound for this. I accept many Armenian was suffered but you also might accept Armenian was not so innocent as the example I give you initially. I don't want to explain what torture has been applied these two relations but any one can't kill anybody in such conditions and age. Amenians commited many killing scenarios in Kars and Erzurum willages.

The Armenian should sueing Russia and France. Because these two of Armenian alliances has left them suddenly and without remedy. They were supported and uprised by these countries and left alone by these countries. If they were not cause this now all Armenias were living in Turkey borders like other minorities.

This conflict should be left to historian ,they should study the case and clarify the case. Politic could not decide about it because their business is getting more votes and make profitable business.Turkish history could not be judged in any country parliment. Should be judged by historian.

By Muhittin Karakurt

The images are tooken by well known people such as Armin wegner, who witnessed the tragedy, no one cares about the photos there just there to show how the Armenians suffered, whether it was a genocide or massacre the turks owe us a apology we have yet to receive anything this shows how disgraceful the Turkish government can be. Nareklm 22:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Today Anniversary of Sarıkamis

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Today(22 dec) is anniversary of Sarıkamis. 90.000 Turkish solder had been tranfered to Kars to save Turkish citizens from Russian and Armenians. All of those solders had died. Weather was snowy and very cold. They got frozen. They had to walk on foot through Sarıkamıs (a very snowy valley), because it was urgent duty (Urgent duty because armenians were killing defendless turks :( ). Unfortunately this walk had been their end. I will not do comments about this artical because there will be no change.. I tried before and nothing changes. They copy paste some strange and very long assays from some books to me. Assay like some English man reported this, some Greek reported that. Why these English guys didn't report killed turks. Is it because they are English?

This is frankly outrageous. (Personal attack removed) Armenian women and kids, Christians, were killing defenseless Turkish savages in the uniform!

Now, I thought that there might be a place for Turkey in the EU - until I found THIS discussion. I never realized that the genocide of Armenians committed by the Turk, well-documented, photographed, talked about by everyone event, part of works of speeches by everyone of any repute or disrepute, from Winston Churchill to Adolf Hitler, with survivors and their grandchildren of the genocide scattered throughout the world now living in every European and American city - from St. Petersburg in Russia to San Francisco in America, so I never realized that this, a documented historic fact, is a subject for any debate.

This is relevant to the article by any chance? I removed one of your sentences for WP:NPA. Try not to say things like "bloodthirsty genociders and their descendants".Baristarim 00:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't get what your trying to imply Sarikamis took place around 1920 i suppose stated on the battle of Sarikamis if its the same, the Armenian genocide is 1.5 million estimated killed and 2,000,000 Armenians removed from the Ottoman empire and 750,000 Assyrians persecuted by the ottomans total mayhem broke out during the genocide. There was many militias and armies that fought back but not under government rule after they were murdered by turks this started during the Hamidian massacres but obviously both sides suffered. Also you can't compare what militias do and governments there is a big difference if you want to compare government ruling to what militias do there is just too many things as what is happening now. The Sarikamis Anniversary is not well documented if it was it would have been discussed much more but it doesn't seem to be. Nareklm 06:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nareklm,just for your information the battle of Sarikamis that you are talking is the battle when the Turkish Revolutionaries commanded by Kazım Karabekir Pasha recaptured the eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire.The Battle of Sarikamis that is written above is in 1914, fought between The Ottamans and the Russians. Enver Pasha, commander of the 3rd Army launched and very bad planned attack over the Russians at Sarikamis. The battle ended when the Ottomans retreated giving heavy casualaties. Many Turk soldiers died from cold, hunger and disease (especially typhus). You can learn more from wikis article. A.Gökmen 19:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Genocide lie

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

If this is genocide, what is this migration thing??.. Why didn't they killed Armenians directly. For example cutting throat is much easier and more economic then traveling 600 km, right? (see Hitler he is much more economic. he directly burns them - no need to bury and spend bullets.) It is meaningless 600km migration. This is what I know : Before that migration, as you know, Ottoman was in war. (European countries decided to delete us from maps), Soldiers in Ottoman army were doing their military service maybe more then 10 years. I don't know maybe you watched the movie Cold Mountain, the story is same : while you are doing your military service , somebody else who is not doing military service f.cks your wife :)) . Yes Armenians were f.cking turks' wifes while they were fighting against enemy :)). Armenians were enemy inside nearby Turk's wife :)). As you know, Armenians refused to join the army and they became terrorist and gangs. After this long war, Ottoman didn't unleash their soldiers.. Do you know why? because Ottoman knew these soldiers will attack to Armenians to take revenge because they betrayed us. So they decided this deportation plan to protect Armenians. If Ottoman wanted to kill Armenians why they lived together with them 600 years. They say Ottoman murdered Armenians.. No, Ottoman protected them. They lie.

Perhaps if you actually read some (real) books on this subject you would understand the answers to your questions. In the meantime - considering the ignorance you have just expressed - you clearly are not knowledgeble enough to contribute meaningfuly here. I find it sad how easily the ignorant accept the propaganda fed them and then attempt to preach and spread it to those of us who know better. I feel sad for you. --THOTH 04:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I should real books of what? Armenians' or Turkish one? I think you should read some Turkish books little bit. I am not asking a diffucult questions here .. My questions are easy.. We know your propagandas, dont worry.. I also feel sad for you. This article is full of imagination.. (It is sad that.. It is believed that.. Most people think that..) And you give me preach..You are all facist against Turks..—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.38.49 (talk • contribs)

It is not Turkish vs. Armenians, it's Turkish against the world. I can understand you don't want such a disgrace in your history books, but it just happened, accept it. It's in every history book around the world, just not in the Turkish. Are we all fascists? Think about it before you accept your countries vision on the matter. High King of the Noldor 00:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

No it is absulately not all World!!. (Lebanies because many armenian living there, France also like that, It is political issue, political games.Armenian loby.) I think your world is so small surrounded by Armenians. You do here a propaganda. Turkey will go to Lahey soon. Yes all world facist against us. I believe to that. They think we are Arabic (we are not). And they hate Arabs also. Turkey is very fastly developing country.. They afraid of Turkey. That is why they accept this kind of propagandas..--Onur 18:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

We are talking about Armenians,, First of all They are dangerous,, they threated artist Antoinio Banderas just because he accepted to be ATATURK (World Number One Leader!!!!!) in the film about Ataturk's life... And you know ASALA ???? terorist organization?? Throughout its history, the ASALA assassinated 31 Turkish diplomats and embassy staff.. And they thread many famouse foreign people who doesn't accept genocide. You say here "all world accepts".. Go away!...--Onur 20:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I assure you that there are more Turks then Armenians, if there are any, here in Belgium and the genocide is accepted here too. I am not a fascist, nor do I consider you Arabic, nor am I afraid of Turkey. I can accept your argument that Armenians threatened Antonio Banderas, but compare it to actors that play Adolf Hitler and get theats for that, I don't approve either of them. I know ASALA and yes they are terrorist, and yes they should be brought to justice, but I think you should look at yourself first. If that is terrorism, so was what Turkey did in Armenia and with the Kourds. If you can accept that everyone should be brought to justice, we can continue here.High King of the Noldor 01:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

DONT EVER COMPARE ADOLF HITLER WITH ATATURK..

As I already said it is political games. In that years Armenian population was around 1.3 million, and they say turks killed 1.5 million Armeanian. What about the Armenian population in Armenia, Kudus, Beyrut, France.. They all immigrated from Turkey. Most of them immigrated themself. Because they affraided turk. The reason why they affraided is Armenian gang.. Armenian gangs killed civilians.. Even child and baby everybody who is human (including arabics kurds..).. Yes some individuals (including arabs and kurds) also killed Armenians to get revenge but it is not ottoman empire.. It is not Ataturk. What is the problem with kurds? Here in Turkey we are getting married with kurds. There is no difference. [user:onur_prg]

I didn't get a single proof from these Armenians. Their case is always based on some fictional stories told them from generation to generation. Exegerated! And moreover, there is always a good paid scholar on the Armenian side, advocating them. Paid good. You should be thankful to Ottomans for your existence of today. If Ottomans had act as the Spaniards, then there would be no Armenian, no Bulgar, no Greek or no Serbian. Ottomans just tried to save your butt as described above by my friend.

First off im Armenian, no one ever told me about the genocide, i researched and educated my self from reading books, articles, and historian and scholar references that "generation" thing is a myth from your government to brainwash people like you into thinking we make these things up open your eyes, Armenians are not the only ones who claim this the Kurds, Greeks, and the Assyrians too. Nareklm 22:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ohhh Yess Kurds.. They are always opposite to us.. Because they hate Turkish government. What is Assyrian?

Understand my friend. If Ottoman Gov. in Istanbul didn't deported Armenians to south, then there would be more and more lost from both sides. In the end, there would be no Armenian left to tell any stories. 85.96.36.116 18:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where are the mass graves?

Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion

The facts & the question:
- We would need a 4km2 land and have to dig 2 meter deep to hide the 1,500,000 corpses.
- It would take 1 year to do the job with 100 modern excavators.
- I don't want to calculate the time, shovels and manpower needed to do the job.
- Incineration is not an option with the 1915 technology. Moreover, I don't want to mention the calorific input value (fuel) needed to do the job.
- In the light of the above facts, where are the mass graves of these 1,500,000 people that are said to be massacred by bloodthirsty Turks?
Waiting for objective answers. Do not post some undependable news portal or forum links please.--85.96.104.205 16:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You would not need to hide them. The rain and weather, combined with bacterial decomposition, the scavenging of jackals, dogs, ravens, hawks, and various other animals, probably would have obliterated most of the corpses within a year (a few more for the bones to dissolve away). And don't forget that many corpses were piled up and burned or dumped into rivers. Just take a look at the photos.. The Myotis 02:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't knew that dogs, jackals, hawks and various ! other animals have appetite for bones... Yet, we are talking about 1.5 million human here. Do you have any idea how many bones would it make! Furthermore, dumping into river would not make bones disappear.. If you had any idea on what you are talking about you would be aware that bones do not decompose with bacteries. To my opinion, there is no such mass grave, so genocide of 1.5 million human is not true.85.102.184.166 21:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where are the 6 million jews? so you deny the Jewish holocaust? Nareklm 22:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where are the mass graves? they are kept dugged well in Turkey's land. Whenever one is found, the Turkish gov steps in and makes sure it doesnt exist. [[15]] Chaldean 00:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Most of the Jews were incinerated in the ovens. Yet, there were mass graves as well. These are facts. Did Ottoman's had incinerators in 1915 or before? No, I don't think so. Regarding other point; We are talking about a really big land here. Have you ever seen 1.5 million people gathered together? You can not hide such mass graves even if you wanted to. I didn't understand "whenever one is found, Turkish gov makes sure it does not exist..." Perhaps you are watching too many conspiracy movies. It has been about 100 years and you say that all the villagers, all the army, all the police, all the people, all the media, all the governments since these 100 years are so well organized and keeping this non sense big secret from whom!?. I'm a "Occam's razor" person and to me, a genocide of 1.5 million human never took place. Oh, and to remind "Do not post some undependable news portal or forum links please."85.96.36.116 21:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You want more sources? here [16], [17] look at those pictures, there rotten bones most are probably camouflage in dirt, i hope you don't expect a living person to pop out of the sand. Nareklm 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also many Armenians were forced out of there homes to the Syrian desert thousands, there not all in turkey its going to take centuries to find all of them. Nareklm 21:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I repeat again: "Do not post some undependable news portal or forum links please." Thank you.85.96.36.116 22:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, Dogs and Jackals are perfectly capable of crushing most of the smaller bones (ribs, jaws and lighter limb bones) and cracking open even the heavy leg bones. After that, there really is not that mush left to hide. The bones become scattered, partially or completely covered in earth, and hidden by whatever (at least in the Northern provinces) vegetation happens to grow. By that time, one would not notice any remains unless standing directly above them, and even then, probably could not recognize them as Human bones (and certainly not as Armenians). The bones would eventually dissolve as well, and though this would take a bit longer, they undoubtedly would have dissolved away in the 90+ years they have been sitting out in the sun and rain. And, out of curiosity, where exactly are the bodies of the 2 million (or whatever the number was) Muslim soldiers and civilians I have heard so much about dying in that same time period? If the events of the time where as chaotic as I have heard, there should have been no time or manpower available to carry most of the bodies home for burial.

Do you really believe what you say? 1.5 million humans consumed by dogs and jackals in few years and nobody noticed this. No photograph. Nothing. They all vanished. OK, just photographs of some 10s or 100s of people. There is a big mass grave of muslims died in WW1 near Erzurum area by the way, estimations are 1 million human.85.96.36.116 07:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

First of all, if there was time to dig a mass grave for that app. 1000 Muslims, why is it so unbelievable that conscripts and labor battalions could not have done similar work for a similar number of Armenians? Second, I would appreciate it if you would at least read through the article. You seem to be under the impression that we are saying the entire Armenian population was rounded up into a giant crowd and simultaneously massacred with bayonets. The article states very clearly that the majority of deaths were caused en-rout, that is, most Armenians died while being marched south, allowing the bodies to be quite sparsely scattered. Except when the soldiers butchered their changes with bayonets all at once, or when the victims were gathered into an encampment to starve, the bodies were not worth collecting into piles. Since most groups of deportees probably would have numbered around a hundred, it would make no sense to expect larger numbers of corpses. Second the article states numerous eyewitness accounts of large graves (see the American consul who reported thousands of Armenian corpses dumped into ravines) and, considering how rare cameras were and how difficult it was to use them in the field in that day and age, and the percentage of corpses burned or dumped in rivers, the fact that any photographs of the events exist is fairly lucky. As a side note, just how could we see a photograph of several thousand Armenians killed? Unless bodies are stacked into a giant pyramid, you can only photograph a few dozen at a time. And yes, I do believe the forces of nature could consume that many corpses into basic bones in a few years, though this would depend some on whether conditions, scavenger populations, and how concentrated the bodies were. The Myotis 00:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes you can only belive and think about the stiation. nomore.. (user:onur)

The number of muslims died that I mention was for WW1 + Turkish War of Independence. To me, marching people to south in summer time of 1915 during a terrible war can not be considered as a genocide. Yet, some of those people were uprising against Ottoman Empire, killing muslims etc. So, we can not basically say that nobody was harmed from both sides. Can we? I don't think that you really believe that 1.5million Armenians were killed by 100s by 100s. It would make 15,000 different locations. Wow! Are you aware what this number means? Do you know how many villages in Turkey? Moreover, cameras were not so rare as you think in those days. If there were any noticeable view, I'm sure that it would be photographed no matter from which side. Terrible things happened to both sides. This is for sure. But both were not genocide.81.215.112.174 15:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Excellent link to understand the issue:
http://www.tsk.mil.tr/eng/uluslararasi/armenianissue.htm
85.96.36.116 17:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Killing on both sides nulls a genocide thesis? Hardly. The main reason that genocide victims don't fight back is because their weapons have been confiscated (as was certainly the case in 1915). What happened in Bosnia is by the most legal of definitions considered genocide, despite the fact there were plenty of armed Bosniaks and Croats fighting against the Serbian army. The Jewish brigades and volunteers fought against and invaded Germany during WWII do not null what happened in the concentration camps. It would not matter if there were Armenian revolts in every city (as clearly that was not the case) what was done to the civilian populace, the women, children, the elderly, and the disarmed noncombatants, would still have the event officially classed as genocide. Consider this question; if almost all the Jews in Germany had been rioting in the streets, attacking German officials, and generally trying to overthrow Hitler, would what happened to those who in Auschwitz no longer be considered genocide? Would those who died, even the women and children, be considered prisoners of war, seditionists who were simply trying to be contained? Would their emaciated conditions and hard labor be seen as the unintended consequence of the inevitable supply shortages caused by the war? I don’t think so.

I dont think in Bosnia , Bosniaks people killed 500.000 Serbians. But Armenians killed 500.000 Turks by fighting behind us.. Your examples doesn't macth at all..even I dont remember Jew killed 500.00 German.

P.S. I don't think think I have to remind you that the entire area of the massacres was under Ottoman control. It goes without saying that they would not have taken photos of their own victims, nor would have allowed photogaphers of enemy nations to view massacre sites. The Myotis 02:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

massacres was under control of French army and Russian army or Ottoman?

Do not post entries unrelated to this topic please. Instead, you are free to start your own topic. Thank you. 85.96.36.116 18:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

"I don't think think I have to remind you that the entire area of the massacres was under Ottoman control." I am Australian, I came into this topic with an objective untainted view. It's no doubt that thousands of Armenians died, and so did thousands of Turks, so naturally as a byproduct of war, you'd expect to find graves for 50 or so people, as have been found. But for 1.5 million? You say the area was under ottoman control, so the mass graves were covered up. Yet weren't the arab nations under ottoman control as well. How did they manage to gain independence, if they were under 'control'. You say dogs and jackals ate the bones of Armenians, yet you find small graves of 10-15 people, and post it on this page as if it would bring Armenia salvation.

I not sure who you are, but where did you get 10-12 statistics? Most Armenians didn't have graves, but were scattered, dropping off as they marched south, many other being dumped in rivers or ravines, the rest killed and left to rot where they stood. I'm sure some were buried, or driven into caves, but you would have remembered, if you had been paying attention, that most were not. The Arab revolts happened far to the south of the massacre sites, particularly early in the war. The majority of Armenians died in 1915, whereas the Arab revolts did not even start until 1916.The Myotis 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Myotis, it seems that you don't know in what kind of situation the Ottoman Empire was in WW1. The goverment was hardly feeding and giving clothes to their own army. How do you expect to do mass killings with an army that has old unfashioned weapons. I saw that some people told that they used bayonets. You can't just kill 1.5 million people with bayonets. I'm not even talking about bullets cause the army didn't even had enough bullets to fight the enemy off. Killing 1.5 million people with bayonets and burrying meanwhile fighting with Russians and Armenian gangs in that time is imposible for the Ottomans. Lol, if they figured out how to do it, then The Ottoman Empire didn't deserve to be a really back nation. Don't miss understand, not killing Armenians but a person that would have planned to mass kill 1.5 million people with bayonets ,burrying them while fighting enemies with a poor supported army would have been a cruely genious. And we know that there were no people like that. In my opinion, there is no genocide. In fact, if there is a genocide the one that did one is the Armenians. Teaming up gangs, getting weapon support from the Russians and planning it (look to the topic below THOTHS Style (i dont remember the name)) well. İN an act of genocide, not the number of the killen people but the art of killing, the goal and the planning is important. The Ottomans hadn't had a goal to kill the Armenians. İnstead, they wanted to protect them but when the Armenians started to revolt, the Ottoman 3rd Army's supply road was cut and they got crushed by the Russians. When the Armenians started to kill the muslim civillians, the goverment got fed up and arrested a the rebellion leaders and marched the Armenians (about 2 million) to south. (This act is happening at 24 april which the Armenians count the day of the genocide) I ask you, how willingly and how good can an army crushed by the russians and were hit by the Armenian gangs protect 2million people from harsh climate conditions and from bandits living at the mountains(most of the army was fighting at the front, only a few divisions escorted the convoy). Even to this situation, it was reported that 1.8 million Armenians were safely arrived to the southern plains (Syria, Clycia) The other 200 thousand people died on the way from diseases, harsh conditions and the most of them ran away secretly to the Russians to support them. This is my thesis and I have proofs to support (of course then it wouldn't be a thesis :) it. By the way, when the Allies officially invaded İstanbul (Constanstinapolis) they arrested the goverment at that time because of mass killing Armenians and sent them to Malta. Afterwards the English were searching for proves to proof the Armenian Genocide. They also wanted help from America to help them. But they couldn't find a single thing. But the important point is, that a few months before, "The Blue Book" that was published by The English Propoganda Bureau. This book was about The (so-called) Armenian Genocide. It was telling the genocide and what the Turks had done (!). Now, this was a proof for the English but they didn't use it because they didn't trust the informations that it contained. İmagine! They don't trust their own published book! And the heaviest criticism against the book came from the English itself! So the English didn't even believed that there was a genocide. Their only goal was to get the U.S.A to their side of the war, and they were sucsessful. Especially Armenians, note that in those times nobody was trying to find justice, everybody was looking for thier own gain, not thinking justice to Armenians. It's the same now. France, is giving penalties to people denying the genocide(not comfireded) to win votes from Armenians at France that are not less at all (Ill give you bunch more examples). The event that makes me mad is that there wasn't any trial about the truth of the genocide but many nations have already confirmed that there is a genocide. One last note; in one of wikipedias articles it says that there was stricted muslim rule in Armenia. Strict?? The guys gone mad. If there had been a stricted muslim rule in the christian states of the Ottoman, now the Balkans' populations 90 percent would have been muslim. 300 years at the Balkans. 300 years isin't a small division of time. In fact, The Ottoman Empire is one of the most tolerant empires in history. They didn't assimilate the Balkans, they didn't converted them harshly to muslim. They sent ships to Spain at the 1500s to save the jews and the muslims that were ill-treated by the christians that gained power at the Iberian peninsula. There are dozens of examples that won't fit here. If you have read my writting till here, I thank you really much for your respect whatever your opinion is.

A.Gökmen 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cultural learnings for make benefit glorious Turkey

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The websites are neat, it's so cool that Turkey has its own website! Good job guys, maybe now you can get in the EU!

I tend to prefer primary documentation for my history though, as collected by American eyewitnesses (not Armenians or Kurds or Turks). How much arguing and questioning until these contemporary American newspaper articles are made to disappear?

SAYS EXTINCTION MENACES ARMENIA; Dr. Gabriel Tells of More Than 450,000 Killed in Recent Massacres. 600,000 DRIVEN INTO EXILE Unless Neutral Powers Intervene, Says Nubar Pasha, Almost the Whole People Is Doomed.September 24, 1915, New York Times. [18]

500,000 ARMENIANS SAID TO HAVE PERISHED; Washington Asked to Stop Slaughter of Christians by Turks and KurdsSeptember 25, 1915, New York Times. [19]

TALES OF ARMENIAN HORRORS CONFIRMED; Committee on Athrocities Says 500,000 Victims Have Suffered Already. NATIONAL PROTEST URGEDSeptember 27, 1915, New York Times. [20]

TELL OF HORRORS DONE IN ARMENIA; Report of Eminent Americans Says They Are Unequaled in a Thousand Years. TURKISH RECORD OUTDONE A Policy of Extermination Put in Effect Against a Helpless People.October 4, 1915, New York Times. [21]

800,000 ARMENIANS COUNTED DESTROYED; Viscount Bryce Tells House of Lords That Is the Probable Number of Turks' Victims. October 7, 1915, New York Times. [22]

SPARE ARMENIANS, POPE ASKS SULTAN; Following Report from Constantinople, Benedict XV. October 11, 1915, New York Times. [23]

MORGENTHUA URGES AID FOR ARMENIANS; Ambassador Appeals to Americans to Save Them from Annihilation.May 15, 1916, New York Times. [24]

SLAUGHTER IN ARMENIAAugust 6, 1916, Washington Post. [25]

Difficult to make Turkey look any more guilty... I didn't even know there were any Armenians left in Turkey until you people did what you do and made Mr. Dink so famous. Or maybe he's still alive, it's an elaborate hoax, because I don't have any pictures of his bones? Or he was planning an uprising, yeah a revolution, to destroy the government with treason and terror and eating Turkish babies? An Armenian Lobby™ CONSPIRACY to DOMINATE the world with the Russians, so they can eat all the babies together, invent genocides, and kill themselves just to frame the noble Turks?

What's all this about "TOTALLY didn't kill 1 point 5 million Armenians, like, gosh!" What, 500,000 murders would give you some kind of higher moral ground? Word?

Now you're not guilty of murder by any means. That's fine, it's history, you don't inherit crimes you haven't yourself perpetrated or endorsed. Problem is, your creepy nationalism makes you hold yourself accountable; see how that works? You've got this conflicted guilt thing, where you're personally proud of a past that you yourself didn't actually participate in, so you're in turn perceiving yourself persecuted by the guilt you insist on inheriting.

It's not your guilt. It's not your fault. But your nationalism is offensive to my Western sensibilities; and your ignorance and indignation are magnificently entertaining.

Bernard Lewis (born May 31, 1916, London) is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. He specializes in the history of Islam and the interaction between Islam and the West and is especially famous for his works on the history of the Ottoman Empire.

Lewis is one of the most widely read scholars of the Middle East, whose advice is frequently sought by policymakers.

In a November 1993 Le Monde interview, Lewis said that the Ottoman Turks’ killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 was not "genocide", but the "brutal byproduct of war". A Parisian court interpreted his remarks as a denial of the Armenian Genocide and on June 21, 1995 fined him one franc. Since then Lewis has stated "There is no evidence of a decision to massacre. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence of attempt to prevent it, which were not very successful. Yes there were tremendous massacres, the numbers are very uncertain but a million may well be likely," arguing that "the issue is not whether the massacres happened or not, but rather if these massacres were as a result of a deliberate preconceived decision of the Turkish government," and that "there is no evidence for such a decision." He thus believes that "to make Armenian Genocide, a parallel with the holocaust in Germany" is "rather absurd.
85.101.61.3 17:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dr. Justin A. McCarthy is an American demographer, Ottoman Empire expert, and history professor at the University of Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky. McCarthy is known for his controversial challenge of the view that there was an Armenian Genocide. 85.101.61.3 17:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

My god....

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I have never seen such horrifying images besides that of the Jewish Holocaust. Slowly starving a person to death is a cruel way to kill a person. The Turkish Government, whether it is Genocide or not, must officially recognise their crimes against humanity and apologize for the suffering they have caused to the Armenian people. Germany has apologized to the Jews, I say it is required of a modern nation to take in to thought of their crimes, and apologize. Odst 05:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

first of all you are stupid because you compare us with germans..

I think what British ethnographer William Ramsay is not so much relevant neither for the armenian genocide nor for the status of the armenians in ottoman empire. He can only describe what he saw during late 19th century. At that time ottoman empire was quite an oppresive regime for all minorities in the empire beacuse of the fear of disintegration, thats true, but that doesnt reflect exactly centuries long ottoman rule of Armenians..User:Laertes d|laertes d]] 19:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yo dude, sign your talk thingy!! you see that sentence in bold that says "do not copy text from..." right beloe that, there's this inscription that says "sign your name: " click on those 5 wierd looking thingies next to it. Odst 06:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

dude, if i didnt do what you are telling me then i guess there shouldnt have been something like that, "User:Laertes d|laertes d]] 19:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC". When i edited, it seems i erased some part of the signature ..Anyway thanks for passing by..--laertes d 09:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh? I thought you were one of those people that copied what others did... That's what I used to do! lol Odst 00:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Comparing Ataturk with Hitler..

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Nowadays a propaganda started against Turkey.. Showing Ataturk as same as Hitler.. Are you crayz?.. What is your aim. To change history all ever ???. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.101.5.191 (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

Actually notable past life specialists have fully proven that Hitler was in fact Ataturk in a former life...cute little mustache was added later BTW...wtf are you talking about anyway? nevermind --THOTH 18:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

First of all your statement has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Ataturk did not come into power until after AG and, while he was arguably a very bad leader, I did not see anyone comparing him to Hitler. If you want to discuss your Dear Leader, you can go to the Ataturk article page.The Myotis 18:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

In Turkey many people says these Armenians crossing the line because they are comparing Ataturk with Hitler. There are many f.cking propandas going everywhere and Armenians showing Ataturks as Hitler.. Am I right.? .yes I am gad dam right. Talk with any armenian here (I already did) and they know ataturk as a second hitler.. I think you wrote history all over again.. See they threatened Antonio Bandrass because he wanted to play Ataturk.. They told him they kill him if he accepts to play this role. Because Ataturk is a second hitler for them .. Is that right??..

Well, from an outsider's point of view, Hitler and Ataturk have some similarities. Hitler had the Hitlerjugend, Ataturk the Young Turks. They both were dictators (in the meaning that they had the power all for themselves, de facto). Hitler and his associates set up the Holocaust, Ataturk was one of the responsibles for the Armenian Genocide. So the comparison between them isn't completely wrong. The difference is that Hitler was much smarter then Ataturk, which made him much more dangerous. The Genocide of Jews was better planned and was done with better methods. So comparing the two is wrong indeed.High King of the Noldor 00:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please - this is a useless/pointless discussion full of factual and perceptive errors. Ataturk was in no way responsible for the Armenian Genocide of 1915 and thereabouts. His role in killing of Armenians during the (so called) Turkish War for Independence is another matter - but at this time I think it is a bit beyond our scope/focus here. Ataturk was a brilliant (visionary) and capable leader who through his actions ensured the establishment of the Turkish Republic. Hitler brought ruin upon his nation and the world and his ultra-racism (and that of his direct associates) can be held directly responsible for the Holocaust. Ataturk - while certainly not perfect - and not unsurprisingly was a man of many flaws (His autocratic nature being one and his adopting of policy that politically and socially marginalized both Armenians and Kurds which could be considered at least indirectly responsible for repressive actions and even killings of a great many Armenians and Kurds that occured during his time and after) - however, even understanding such, he cannot at all be seen as an equivalent to Hitler. We need to move beyond such generalizations and discuss pertinent facts and at this time a discussion of Ataturk is out of place in the Armenian genocide article. BTW - I was kiddign about the past life specialists etc above if you didn't understand that.--THOTH 16:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you're right.(!) Ataturk was a dictator, that's why he founded the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. Ataturk was responsible of the so called Armenian Genocide, that's why he was fighting at Gallipolli and at Mesopotamia when there was the relocaiton. Ataturk was a bad leader, thats's why he drove the English supported Greeks out of Anatolia and won against the imperialist powers.

Sounds right eh? Think again. You must shame that you use "Ataturk" and "Hitler" in the same phrase. A.Gökmen 19:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Comment

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

WIKIPEDIA PUBLISHING SUCH ARTICLES WHICH ARE COMPLETELY POLITICAL AND HAVE NO RELATION TO THE TRUTH OF THE ACTUAL EVENTS IS AMAZING. THIS ARTICLE HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN PUBLISHED BY ARMENIANS AND THEREFORE CAN IN NO WAY BE NEUTRAL AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.102.28.11 (talk • contribs)

Why can't Armenians have neutral point of view? Automatically they are liars? Sir, you are a racist!

Than don't read it. ROOB323 05:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article seems to describe the truth, inasmuch as I can confirm by reading through western media accounts. Please review the citations, as this article is consistent with American media accounts of the era; I understand that the Turkish educational system contests American, French, British, and other accounts of the tragedies, but nonetheless it's inaccurate to characterize the New York Times circa 1915 as "Armenians". If you find anything problematic, bring the problem to the Talk page, engage the people here in a friendly manner, and please help to improve the entry--I know this entry in particular requires a lot of work, as it is often the target of vandals. If you can refrain from future outbursts, I'm confident you would succeed in working alongside people of all ethnicities in articulating a balanced, legitimately referenced, honest chronicle of these events.DBaba 05:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You can't get anywhere by decieving people, you think you can change the history! be objective instead of saying" Then don't read it" Why nobody quote Admirol Bristols letter,

"I see that reports are being freely circulated in the United States that the Turks massacred thousands of Armenians in the Caucasus. Such reports are repeated so many times it makes my blood boil."

Naturally, the modus operandi of Armenians and Greeks is to viciously attack anybody who comes across as remotely supporting the nation they love to hate. Little did Admiral Bristol suspect that these many years later, his character would be in line for assassination from our Orthodox friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.162.18 (talk • contribs)

is it interesting ?saying that armenian incident is a trigger factor on holocaust.if it was punished,holocaust mihgt be prevented.Can I ask you clever guys?punishment of holocaust can prevent genocide in Ruanda and Bosnia?why palestinian people always pay the bill for holocaust are they responsible for holocaust in EUROPE.so we TURKS are not responsible for the events of world war 1,our fantastic nextdoor nations would be more and more realistic.in 1911 encyclopedia armenian population was around 1,5 million.not much more but less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.141.183 (talk • contribs)

In what year was Bristol's letter written? In what context? I believe I'm seeing it was written 6 years after the massacres? Please, try to be even-handed; Bristol does't even seem to be addressing the events of 1915.DBaba 18:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Reply to the comment from IP address 88.109.162.18 Why should I be objective? I figured out that you are an uneducated nationalist Turk trying to push your ideas whatever you learned in school, which was that there was no Armenian genocide because your government does not want any mention of Armenian Genocide in Turkey and if people talk about it they are arested and thrown to a prison. Just kepp your comments to your self if all the sources in the article is not enough for you to prove there was genocide than go read something else why bother reading this article if you don't like the content? ROOB323 19:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, let's take a look at to Wikipedia's own articles too while discussing what happened during World War I. Armenian battalions, French-Armenian Agreement (1916), French Armenian Legion, Armenian volunteer units, Battle of Bitlis and Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire TIASB 14:22, 15 February 2007 (GMT)

First of all you will notice that the Armenian-French agreement is A. only cited from inaccessible text sources and B. not created to until 1916, when it was already clear that the Armenians were faced with annihilation. Some Armenian soldiers fighting with armies in the Balkans or with the Russians simply means they were serving their country. Show me evidence of such alliances happening in 1914 and earlier and maybe your argument will be worth something. Second, as I have stated before, the presence of rebels, in this case a very small amount does not indicate that genocide did not occur. Look at former Yugoslavia, or Iraqi Kurdistan. Even if you manage to convince the world that “Civil War” occurred, you will still not be able to shake the Genocide label.The Myotis 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Myotis, When do you think the World War I has initiated that you look for an evidence before 1914?

As given in those links, Armenians became French alliance and volunteers to Russian army in the World War I to achieve the former Armenian Kingdom of Clicia-Greater Armenia era (Armenian national movement) or capture at least east Anatolia within the period of Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire for sure, those Armenians were the real combatant against Ottoman Empire not a poor, tiny, innocent minority or serving(!) their country in the Ottoman land. (SEY01 09:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC))Reply

I want evidence that there were Armenians actively fighting the Ottoman Turkey ‘‘before’’ genocide attempts. Can you blame people for fighting against a country that had proven itself dedicated to their removal and destruction? Not any more than you can blame Soviet Jews for volunteering to attack Germany, even before anyone guessed at the magnitude of the Holocaust. Blaming Ottoman Armenians for the actions of Russian Armenians or Armenians in the Balkans is nothing short of racism, and there is no dispute there were many thousands of Armenians serving in the Ottoman army. You cannot believe that an ethnic group is a single entity and that is right to massacre thousands of unarmed Armenians based on the actions of some Armenians living on foreign land or a handful or rebels.The Myotis 20:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The usual

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This comment might go unheeded by some, but please do not post comments along the lines "this is all a balooney" or "Turks are butchers" - please try to concentrate on how it effects the article. eg "I think that in the X paragraph in Y section it should be included that Z, A, B call this a balloney for Q, W reasons", or "maybe we should reorganize C and D sections to concentrate on the fact Turks are butchers per P, R and S" :) Obviously I am exaggerating to make a point, but let's at least try to keep a correlation between the talk page and the article, no matter what viewpoint we are presenting. People are free to speak their minds of course, but it is just an advice... Baristarim 10:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just to show the point is well taken, I suggest replacing the article text with "It's a big lie" :) It's true and tragic many people died; however there was no intent on finishing an entire race. If there was, that race would have been finished and we wouldn't be hearing all this whinging. See, dear Armenians, you can say there was genocide because there was no genocide. There was forced moving, yeah, but do we call forced movement of nations during Stalin's reign genocide? Drop it. How did we indent again? 124.168.207.123 16:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Signed by Draco - can't bother to register, sorry.Reply

http://www.gtaag.org/ this single page will be enough clear your minds out of armenian lies. Get rid of your prejudice and come to the truth... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.248.0.45 (talk • contribs)

Besides anything else, I just can't stop myself from smiling at the irony :) But hey, I did my duty and left my note above. lol. Baristarim 19:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well he did suggest a specific replacement for text. Otherwise however along the same lines...as "the usual"...--THOTH 14:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Govermantal site for so-called genocide

Latest comment: 17 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion

http://www.tsk.mil.tr/eng/uluslararasi/armenianissue.htm Did anyone read it? Could we put link to this page. This is offical page. where are the other links ???? They all removed. This is the proof that Armenians are doing propaganda here!!! [user:onur_prg]

Are you serious? This is just another proof of how the Turkish gouvernement tries to deny the genocide ever happened. I didn't even had to read a whole page to see that this is just incredible Turkish propaganda, and that most parts don't make sense. You are right about placing in the article though. I think it should be placed in the part about the position of the Turkish gouvernement.High King of the Noldor 13:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

No we cannot that site is straight from Turkeys government what the hell do you expect. Nareklm 07:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

yes under position of Turkish government lets put it...

Here is a quote from the linked article that supposedly "disproves" the Armenian Genocide - "The so-called Armenian genocide is a totally made-up, unreal and unfounded scenario of imagination based on enmity towards Turks and lacking any valid instruments, proofs or any legal basis." Yeah - no proofs, entirely made up - imagined just to get at the Turks - of course - how is it that we have all been fooled for so long? --THOTH 20:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

What are you talking about. We have millions of eye witnesses and many mass graves.. And do you know you do propaganda that some mass graves belongs to Armenians. But it is already proved that they all belong to turks.. I think Armenians owe us an apologise!! right?.. according to your saying then, science is an imagination, archives are an imagination, It think your brain is something robotics it will never say something different forever (turks do imagination and propaganda)..The only think you do removing turkish sources from artical and putting your propagandas.. heh.. kurdistan accepts genocide.. Who gave a f.cking dam to them so called kurdistan. some kind of mountain men, terorists. These terorists killed many turks civillians burned factories killed teachers, solders.. And they accepts genocide. is this your proof? kurdistan?. it is discussting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.101.5.191 (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

..."millions of eyewitnesses"...I like that one...really nothing to say to you...you obviously know all of the facts...--THOTH 18:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

yes you have also millions of eye witnesses right? It was your words.. eye witnesses. you didn't like your words... do like coffee .. with sugar?[user:onur_prg]

Unfortunatley most of our (about 1.5 million) eyewitness are dead. If you are looking for primary-source eyewitness testimony, check out http://www.theforgotten.org. Testimony straight from the survivors' mouth. Unless you beleive these old men and women, some over 90 years, are lying for propoganda purposes.The Myotis 01:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

As you mention later a great many witnesses to the Armenian Genocide were German and American - also others - including many Turks themselves. There is more then sufficient corroboration to establish the facts regarding the CUP/Ottoman Turk campaign to eliminate Armenians - individually and as a group/society/nation within the Ottoman Empire and that such actions constitute (in every way) what is meant by the term "genocide" - and this includes (and very much so) the intent of the perpetrators to eliminate Armenians as a group from Anatolia proper. As for the various Turkish claims that such things have been invented and have no basis - well this is of course just pure rubbish and a rather poor and obvious (and rather shameless and shameful) attempt at denial. The same is true regarding Turkish apoligetics that attemtp to justify the CUP/Ottoman actions on the basis of military necessity, as a response to Armenian revolutionary activities and the claim that such was civil war and not what it was - which was an event very much akin to and a precursor to what was witnessed in WWII in regards to the Holocaust commited againt Jews and other undesiorables by the German Nazis. Here in fact (regarding the Turkish counter claims) there is absolutly insuficient eyewitness and documentary evidence to substantiate the Turksih claims. What is used is a combination of already discredited and unsupported Turkish wartime and racist propoganda against the Armenians along with exaggerated and misapplied examples of Armenian violence against Turks (that did occur - primarily after the period of the Armenian Genocide) but not nearly to the scale that is attributed by Turkish deniers nor can such be categorized in nearly the same way as the Ottoman Government sponsored and deliberate campaign to eliminate Armenians as a body from Anatolia and from the Ottoman Empire. Eyewitness and documentary evidence clearly supports the charge of a campaign of genocide against the Armenians - and the evidence is also clear in regards to the lack of Armenians where they once were and the documented deaths and klillings of such - but neither eyewitnesses nor documented evidence at all supports the Turkish counter claims. The documentation (such as from the Ottoman post war tribunals and parlimentary inquires and CUP confessions) clearly establish that the CUP directed an organized Ottoman government campaing to kill and disenfranchise the Armenian Ottoman population, to steal their wealth and to eliminate them as future potential political rivals. It is clearly established that the aim of the CUP controlled Ottoman Government was to eliminate the Armenians - and not to just temporaily relocate them from war zones and their is no evidence that such a policy was reactive - based upon "Armenian provocations" or collusion with the enemy (Russia) but that such a plan was concieved and execution of such was inititiated even prior to WWI (as can be seen from Speical Organization actions in Eastern Anatolia, the Caucuses and in what is now Northern Iran and Iraq many months prior to the war and in advance of any "deportation" orders) - with events such as the successful Van resistance only providing propoganda fuel and cover to the CUP/Turkish plans. Additionally the entire campaign of "deportation" along with the covering orders to protect and feed Armenians, to account for their properties for eventual return and so on and so forth, is clearly proven a facade as evidenced from the actions - where Armenians were slaughtered and killed and not provided for in any way and where their properties were not accounted for and in fact were almost always immediatly turned over to Muslims who were brought in to these areas and to CUP memebers themselves. And as an aisde in this regard we often see mention of trials (court marshalls) held during the war - supposedly for excesses commited against Armenians - in fact (while this explanation was given as a cover and the CUP tried many ruses of this nature to fool outsiders regarding what it was they were attempting) these trials actually involved individuals who stole Armenian (and sometimes/just as often Muslim/Turkish) properties for themselves and who did not account with the CUP authorities regarding such - there was certainly a level of renegadism as the Turks like to claim and blame such on the "excesses" commited against Armenians. But in fact, in regards to the treatement of Armenians - the government itself was sponsoring, directing and commiting such excesses. The documentary evidence supporting such is overwhelming. I think it is far past the time to move beyond Turkish claims to the contrary. What they are doing - in general and in regards to the article is preventing progress towards a more thourough and useful presentation of informations and the useful and truthful facts regarding what occured during these time and instead is causing repetition of the same round and round arguments - "yes they did" "no they didn't" type disputes which are just silly. The evidence supporting the charge of genocide is overwhelming and clearly established. We need to move beyond this and discuss real issues - such as when was such a decision made (or how did such evolve and why) and why would the CUP take such a postion that involved implemention of an ultimatly brital and entirely inhumane policy and what were the other social and political events driving the actions of people(s) during these times - what were the roles of outside powers and who within the CUP/Ottoman Empire was involved - what were the opinions and involvement of common Turks and others (Kurds, refugeees from Balkans and Caucuses etc) in all of this - what was the role of Islam and what was the relationship to the Armenian genocide to other ethno-relegious persecutions of the time (including Greeks and Assyrians by the Turks and including against Muslims by Orthodox Christians - Russians and Balkan peoples) and why were all of these things occuring. A better presentation of the politics of the Ottoman EMpire is also needed for the reader to better understand why the CUP - much like why the Nazis in Germany between WWI and WWII. But first we need to establish very clearly that the basic facts and acceptance of the Armenian Genocide is factual and unassailable - and indeed it/they is/are. If we cannot move beyond this then there is no hope for improvement of this article and instead we will just go around and around as we have been for years.--THOTH 15:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I promise I will read all of your text above but for now I only read the beginning. Eye witnesses only witnessed a murder. We already know that some turks killed some armenians. Everybody know that. I also know that. ofcourse there will be eye witnesses then. Even there was commanders doing that (few).. (It is logical. commanders are also human, they can be crayz.).. But you can not decribe this as genocide. It was civil war. (Armenians also killed many..) Show me proof that ottoman organized a genocide, something like they ordered thier army to kill the armenians. or any word that Ataturk said about armenian. Lets talk about numbers. We say 500.000 turks killed (you say no), You say 1.5 million armenians killed (we say no). As far as I know, total population of armenian was 1.3 million and most of them immigrated themself, because they were afraid that turks will take revenge, can you explain me the population of Armenians in Armenia, Kudus, Beyrut, France.. They all immigrated from Turkey, And believe me this civil war thing started with Armenian gangs(noone know from where they come). Because armenians and turks were friend before the war (Every turks say and know this, it was suprise for all that that kind of thing happened between them.). --Onur 23:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Onur - if all was witnessed was a murder then why were there a series of headlines in the New York Times and in other US papers at the time talking about the death of a nation (Armenians), mass slaughters and even using the figure 1.5 million killed etc? Also if it were a civil war - wouldn't the Germans - who were alied to the Turks in WWI have reported such? They were desperate to find anything to explain away what was happening and to bolster the image of the Turks - yet they never made such claims. In fact the secret German correspondences of the time clearly indicate that Turks were mass killing Armenians with the goal of exterminating them...they didn't even by off on the military necessity of such. The 1.5 million Armenians killed is a well supported and well used number (and it is clear that the Ottoman Armenian population was over 2 million...I suggest you read the Wiki section that specifically addresses this issu) - again even from that time. No serious person believes that Armenians killed 500,000 Turks during this period. It is such a blatantly impossible claim - that again is entirely unsupported even by German allies and even by Turk sof the period - it is an entirely recent invention and based upon materials that are so poor in quality and so obviously unsupported propoganda materials that the figure is absolutly impossible to be taken seriously or to be given any credence whatsoever. If such was true why did no Turkish delegation after the war mention such losses? Why wern't the Ottoman Allies the germans mentioning the "civil war" and the toll on the Ottomans? Answer - because it is your fiction. Sorry - but this is the truth. You, like most Turks, have a great deal to learn concerning your own history and perhaps one day you too will be able to see through your own fabrications.--THOTH 00:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am from Adana. And many people in Adana is Arabic oriented.. Many arabic people were killed also. We are not only talking about turks. It is not about race. People escaped to the mountains because Armenian gangs were killing them.. We know that many people escaped and lived in forest just by eating murt, cornelian cherry etc.. I say civil war because people whose relative killed by Armenians attacked to them. I am right on saying that it was civil war then, right?.. Regarding Turkish losses, sorry but in Kars (It is not a village - the hole city), Armenians helped to Russia (they promised to Russia and Russia decided to attack there) and no sivilian did survive there, They all killed, I am not telling about soldier I am talking about civilians. What about your numbers? Is your claim about 1.5 million belivable? We killed and bury 1.5 million Armenians? Show me where is the mass graves of Armenians. There could be mass grave if we killed 1.5 million people, right? But we only found many mass graves of Turkish peolple. Why?. Still we are finding.. In ottoman archives you will find the words of reallocation (deportation).It doesnt mean mass killing of Armenians with the goal of exterminating them. The dead of nation? If it was a dead of a nation, what is Armenia? What is the Armenian population at Kudus, Beyrut and France?. (user:onur) --85.101.5.191 19:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Funny how the Turkish government would report that it has only found mass graves of Turks killed. As this is the central point of your argument I feel that no more needs to be said here. You are ignorant of the facts and are wasting our time here. This is not a forum for argueing whether or not the Armenians genocide is valid - whether or not 1.5 million Armenians were deliberatly killed by the Ottoman Turks and whether or not it was a civil war and was all the Armenian's fault...get real...the facts surounding all of these claims are known and the article as written confomrs to the known and supported scholarly record. Your round and round here (nothing new - we have heard all of these arguyments before and already have answered them as naseum) is only wasting time and server space.--THOTH 03:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Show mass graves in Syria (It is written in article: The majority of the camps were situated near what are now the Iraqi and Syrian frontiers,). Syria is not Turkish land, right?. In this article it says there are contemptation camps in Syria.. Where is mass graves? Jews showed mass graves and burning rooms.. these are a kind of musuem now..No one can hide existing truths if it is real. Turkish government's power can not be enough to hide such kind of event.(user:onur_prg)

Onur are your trying to tell me that the entire Armenian people, acting as a single organized entity, attacked Muslim civilians, and also as a single organized entity, simultaneously fled the Ottoman empire? Pardon me for saying so, but to really believe that scattered ethnic minority acted with that organization and unity is nothing short of a conspiracy theory. And are you also telling me that those old women and children deserved the 'vengeance' that was reaped upon them, and that the 'disorganized revenge killings' involved deportation conducted by Turkish soldiers. Just how deep do you believe this 'Armenian Conspiracy' goes? The Myotis 03:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Armenians got encourge with Russia and France, These countries came and help them. Armenian gangs mostly were foreign and encouraged the local Armenians. It became a civil war. Armenians and Turkish groups were attacking each other. If you were the decision maker, how would you stop this? Answer is reallocation. The only solution was reallocation. I am not saying old woman and childeren were supposed to immigrate but you can not know who supports Armenians gangs, right?... 'disorganized revenge killings' happened at both side. Ottoman was not strong enough to organize these kind of reallocation.. In fact they were very poor and they had some Armenian causalities during this migration.(user:onur)--85.101.5.191 19:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, so let’s see if I understand this. Your are saying that Russian and French agents infiltrated Anatolia right under the Ottoman's noses, and spread instructions for to all major Armenian communities to simultaneously revolt. The majority of Armenians complied, and indiscriminately attacked a far greater number of Muslims, killing a few thousand innocents and initially suffering little casualties themselves, while virtually no records of these attacks reached the Western World, even their German Allies? And then, either using the same agents, or some Armenian underground network, they spread word that the Muslims would be on the quest for vengeance and that they should all flee. And those who stayed were relocated was the 'only way' to stop 'rebellion'. It that what you expect me to beleive?

Russian and French agents?.. No, Armenian agents are enough I think. Ottoman was sick and powerless. It was easy to make these actions.(check the sick man of the Europe).(user:onur_prg)

First of all, the 'rebellions', mostly concentrated in a few cities on the eastern front started after the deportations, and the term 'relocations' seems to be used in very much the same way the Soviets did; 'relocate' the populace to Gulags when they aren't assimilating to communism. No civilized nation stops rebellion be shipping a few million ethnic minorities into a desert when it is fully aware it does not have the resources to care for them, assuming that such a minority even had the potential to 'revolt' in the first place. And I realize that the Ottoman government was not in its strongest state, which is precisely why genocide occurred. Eliminating unassimilated minorities would unify and strengthen the Empire and eliminate and chance of a Christian Fifth Column. But I don’t care how practical the reasoning of the Ottomans was or how afraid they were of having they precious empire stolen from them, it does not excuse what happened to the Armenians.The Myotis 00:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

For your above comment and questions I don't have good knowledge.. We should ask this questions to historians. Or other wikipadians can adjust.(user:onur_prg)

Yes onur - makes perfect sense - sound great etc - but I could make up any number of ficticious stories that could blame whoever I could think up and exonerate the Turks....but thats about as much credence as your (ficticious) story of Armenian revolts and Russian and French machinations deserves. "Armenian Gangs" are like ther bogeyman to you...in fact they were an insignificant factor prior to the genocide - and this is supported by Germans and other eyewitnesses of the time - not just Turkish propoganda claims of a murderous regien attempting to use every possible means and method to justify it s actions. Likewise claiming that Ottoman Empire was incapable of carrying out the Genocide ignores the corraborated eyewitness acounts of the time that prove just how capable the Ottoman Empire was to do such (murder 1.5 million innocentes)...and it turns out it really wasn't so difficult after all (particularly as Armenians offered very little reasitance)...oh and BTW - Ottoman Empire managed to sucessfully resettle 900,000 Muslims into Armeenian homes/lands during this very same period of time (and feed and cloth and take care of them pretty well as well). Again facts are witnessed and documented. Your worthless opinion is just that.--THOTH 02:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

you wrote :"Ottoman Empire managed to sucessfully resettle 900,000 Muslims into Armeenian homes/lands during this very same period of time". Many people died at that time. If the house owner is dead or deported than you give its property to others. The matter is : reallocation was correct iddia or not. This is the point that I am discussing here. But I will give you an example : think about Cyprus Turks.. Some of them had properties in the south part of Cyprus (Greek part), but they couldn't have it after the Cyprus war.(user:onur_prg)

Let us assume for the moment that all the justifications used by Turks regarding "deportation" of Armenians were true as stated and that in fact the intent was only to "deport" - could you still then say that such was "the correct idea" considering the immense tragedy that occured? No you cannot. And in fact the truth regarding these actions are much more sinister and malicious. Your ignorance of the facts does not change this.--THOTH 23:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could you also take a look at to the Wikipedia's own articles before making a decision what happened during World War I, as far as Armenian-Turkish relations concerned.

Armenian battalions, French-Armenian Agreement (1916), French Armenian Legion, Armenian volunteer units, Battle of Bitlis and Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire TIASB 10:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

My sources are better then what can be found in Wikipedia - they are actually written by scholars who know what they are talking about and who reference first hand sources and put thier propositions up for peer review etc. I would say using Wikipedia is OK for one of casual interest - but I would caution even accepting what one reads here as fact even in such cases. And I would pity one who would think to come to Wikipedia for authoritvie answers/explanations for things - particularly when it involves historical matters.--THOTH 23:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

A simple question, what has happened and Ottomans decided to issue the famous Tehcir Law "Provisional Law of Relocations" on May 1915 for her Armenian citizens after living together quite a long time in peace? Should we start studying the reason "why" among TIASB's above given links for wikipedia articles or anyone will clarify the subject for us to save time. One more link worth review Van Resistance - mind the dates! Sey01 17:44, 15 February 2007 (GMT)

The referenced artcles above are all entirely un-schoalraly and unworthy of wikipedia and entirely worthless as references here. I do agree however that a better discussion of the reasons why the Armenian genocide was undertaken by the CUP/Ottoman Empire is in order. --THOTH 14:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

That all depends on the definition of the word genocide. Now genocide itself means " the deliberate killing of a large group of people". That is true, by the way, and it is impossible to deny that millions of Armenian Turks were killed by The Ottoman Turks, and whether the purpose to this act was based on racism or not, it is therefore undeniably true that it was an act of genocide. Again, first consider what the word genocide means to you. Odst 01:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

So what about your source. I also think armenian source are full of imagination. Please put this govermantal page into the artical.

First, please sign all of your posts. Second, what you think of the 'Armenian' (by which I assume you mean American and German) sources and statistics is irrelevant, they are acceptable by wikipedia standards.The Myotis 19:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The thing is here that whenever you find an American or an european source you give no chance that the source may be incorrect. I ask you are there no Armenians living in America or in France? Are there no racists in these countries? This problem must be solved between the two countries. But somehow the Armenians reject the offer to form a comitee and to have a trial with the Turkish comitee. Doesn't that make any sense. You say we have sources we have sources show me one damn document from the Ottoman Archive that prooves the genocide. You have no written documents that proofs the genocide. There are no documents in the Ottoman, in the Russian neither in the Armenian archives. Only some propoganda publishments like "The Blue Book" or "Naim Bey'in Anıları" that have no written documents as grounds. Even the writer of "the blue book" confessed years later that the book was a crap. No wonder, it was published by the english propoganda service. You have eye witnesses, we also have eye witnesses; People that fled from Armenian gangs. I don't care what writes in a racist american's website that are shown as references. This is historians buisness. Not buisness of people to write shocking untrue news in their newspaper or people who want to make profits out of this event (There are about 50 films that are based on the holocaust). It is the historians buisness not ours.

A more objective view

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is the conclusions I've reached from my research of both sides of this issue. TRY TO BE MORE OBJECTIVE BY REVIEWING ALL SIDES OF THIS ISSUE.

The Ottoman Empire was engaged in a war against Russia. Most Armenians, mainly the Armenian rebels sided with the Russians in the hopes that they would gain independence and grab a large part of the Ottoman Empire and name it Armenia. The Armenians attacked Ottoman supply routes, since many of the Armenian Rebels were behind the Ottoman front lines, they provided a lot of aid to the Russians in the military effort. Not all Armenians wanted to do this, but a lot of them wanted independence. The Armenian rebels also attacked civilian villages that had a lot of Turks or Kurds. When other villages would discover such events and atrocities, they would seek revenge. This started an endless cycle of vengeance, which quickly escalated into a large civil war. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians, Kurds, and Turks died. Some people, especially Armenian propagandists who are still trying to change history, claim it as a genocide, for money, land, and the chance to fine the Turkish Government. However, it is not a genocide, because if you actually traveled to the areas where the fighting had occurred, many villagers will tell you how many of their ancestors died. In fact, the population of Muslims and Armenians dropped significantly in the area. Armenian propagandists, like to ignore the Muslim casualties, claiming that only Armenians died, and they make constant comparisons to the Holocaust. However, in Germany, there was direct orders, documentation, and physical evidence of genocide. In the Ottoman Empire, there is not a single archive that hints at ordering mass killings of any ethnic group. The only references were to the Armenian relocation in 1915, where Ottoman commanders order their soldiers to move those populations under protection of Ottoman soldiers. When the Ottoman Empire decided that the only way to stop the Armenian rebels was to relocate the Armenian populations in the troublesome areas, so that the civil war will stop and the Ottomans can continue fighting the Russians without Armenian rebel interference which caused a great amount of toll on the Ottoman military effort. This is what many historians that have done their research other than some Armenian scholars agree upon. Some people will refuse to believe this, because it's easier to believe that Muslims in a Muslim land, killed Christians, and cannot dare believe that the opposite could happen. Well for those of you skeptics out there, you will be surprised to learn that, the West did for a time believe that the Ottomans were committing atrocities! So what did they do? The British when they captured Istanbul, tried many Ottoman officials, commanders, and government leaders, that they believed were responsible. Despite all the search, by Armenians and the Western scholars, they came up short, because they thought that the Ottomans ordered mass killings. The trial was called the Malta Tribunals. Despite all the efforts, the Ottomans were found innocent and released, because there was just no evidence of a genocide or any atrocities committed by the Ottoman government or their officials that were in-charge at the time. So if they were tried and found innocent so many years ago, why are Armenian propagandists still bringing it up again? The Ottoman Empire was never guilty of genocide, so please, do the research before you start arguing based on what you've heard or read in some propagandist book. Look at all sides of the issue instead of just the Armenian side. If you want to be unbiased and objective in your view, for once read the pro-Turkish side, and compare it with the Armenian side. Then use logic and evidence to decide and draw conclusions. If anything read a few pages of this website: The Other side of the Falsified Genocide. It is pro-Turkish, but it is well documented, and for once be enlightened by OTHER points of view. You don't have to believe it if you don't want, but at least read it and learn what the other side has to say about the issue. I reviewed both sides of the issue, and I just told you the conclusion and data that I have researched. Executex 02:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree - fiction is easier then fact. BTW - who were the judges at the Malta Tribunals? Who were the prosecuting autornies? What about defense? And where are the transcripts fo the trials? What about the official verdicts? etc etc I'm curious...haven't been able to find anything at all n them - outside of some Turkish produced/propogated heresay...--THOTH 20:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

As much as I am certain you love the Falsified genocide site, and as much as he does cite his (in many cases, questionable) sources, the entire thing is basically written editorial-style, with plenty of personal attacks, exaggerations, and off-topic remarks. And don't forget that a large portion of the site is just complaining about how Turks are portrayed in the western media, or about the Cyprus and Nagorno conflict, or making attacks on Armenian culture (and to that end Greek culture) in general. While it is an interesting read (assuming you agree with the author) It can't looked at as a credible or scholarly source, even if you are just trying to glean raw information. As for your request for 'objectivity' I have certainly looked at the Turkish republic's view on the matter and cannot say it was convincing. Statistics and evidence that even come from the Ottoman empire's allies make the facts of the matter clear. To say that the Ottoman Empire was found guilty is untrue; Turkey's own Government found the three Pashas guilty of War Crimes and sentenced them to death. I also have trouble understanding why, if there was no actual Genocide, would the international Association of Genocide Scholars, at least 21 independant nations, the vast majority of Historians, and scientific/historical media such PBS and National Geographic state such. Do you think institutions such as these would make such claims based purely on the influence of propaganda? And since it is obvious Turkey has been vigorously championing it's own side of the story, why have such sources not accepted it. Evidence is, obviously, in the eye of the beholder, but when so many otherwise neutral sources chime in, can you really believe it's all an illusion?The Myotis 03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

THE MOST OBJECTIVE VIEW

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

LYING IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

John J. Mearsheimer University of Chicago

NATIONALIST MYTH-MAKING (Genocide allegation is a form of dirty diaspora based myht-making politics.) Look how Professor Mearsheimer makes it obvious:

With the rise of nationalism over the past two centuries, ethnic or national groups all around the globe have established or are trying to establish their own state, or what are commonly called nation-states. In the process of building a nation-state, the relevant elites invariably create sacred myths about the past and the present that portray their national group in a favorable light and rival national groups in a negative light. The basic goal is to tell a story where “we” are always right and “the other” is always wrong. This leads to telling some lies (as well as spinning and concealment) about the historical record as well as contemporary political events. Ernest Renan put the point succinctly when he wrote: “errors about history are an essential factor in forming a nation.”

Elites concoct myths about their states’ history for two reasons. First, myths are essential for creating a powerful sense of nationhood, which is necessary for building and maintaining a nation-state. They give members of a national group the sense that they are part of a noble enterprise, and that they should not only be proud of it, but that they should also be willing to fight and die for it. Actually, the people themselves hunger for these myths; they want to be told “happy” stories about the past and present that put them on the side of justice and virtue. In effect, nationalist myth-making is as much a bottom-up phenomenon as it is a top-down phenomenon.

Second, elites create myths about their nation-state to gain international legitimacy. The payoffs here are usually small, however, because it is difficult to hoodwink outsiders with myths that are contradicted by the historical record.

The severity of nationalist myth-making is largely a function of two factors: 1) the level of brutality involved in creating the nation-state, and 2) how recently the nation-state was formed.

The more brutal the state-building process, the more bad behavior there is to cover up, and thus the greater the need for elites to tell lies about what actually happened. The more recent the state-building process, the more likely it is that people on different sides of the fight are going to remember it and care deeply about it. Therefore, the elites will have to work overtime to concoct a story of how their state was created that makes them look like knights in shining armor, and their rivals like the devil incarnate.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF NATIONALIST MYTH-MAKING

Lying to help perpetrate national myths does not appear to have serious consequences. There is little danger of blowback because the vast majority of people are so taken with the myths about their state that they do not recognize them for what they are. Instead, they tend to think that the myths are hallowed truths, not lies or distortions of the historical record. Even elites sometimes fall victim to this phenomenon; they believe their own lies.(Nejdet)

Huh.. Applying anti-Israeli literature to Armenians? Can’t say I’m surprised, or that I find anything wrong with either Armenia or Israel. But I think that this makes my argument for me. The Myotis 17:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually I think the above is more correctly applied to the Turks/Turkey...and perhaps that was the intent...--THOTH 20:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's correctly applied to the all nation-states. Myths and hatred against "the other" is required to create a homogenic nationstate. This was true for Germany, Italy, Greece you name it. As well as for Turkey and Armenia. What matters is for how long the people believe in that nationalist BS.Ombudsee 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

To me this is not a part of antisemitic litertature, but an omnipresent truth. Nationalism is always an elites' work and Armenian diaspora elites uses this in a ruthless manner.Let me repeat, even Armenian elites had fallen victim to this phenomenon; they have been believing their own lies and trying to sell these lies on WWW MARKET.(Nejdet).

Sorry but the nation state built on brutality in this case has clearly been Turkey. This article has nothign to do with the Armenian Diaspora or Armenia proper. Again, you saying "genocide allegation" and claiming that such is a myth is GENOCIDE DENIAL. I sure hope for your sorry sake you do not live in France. --THOTH 08:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I find it interesting how Turks deny the Armenian Genocide so viscously when they basically know nothing, they just go along with the crowd instead of researching, since its a crime to speak about the genocide, the Article 301 crap that got my friend Hrant dink killed also by some nationalist jerk. If this continues in Turkey it will be a outrage more people being born are brainwashed into hating Armenians, I've been to anti-genocide rallies, you go to a "Turkish Genocide" one they call Armenians murderers you go to an Armenian Genocide one peaceful no inappropriate usage of words or tone. I doubt there's one or two books in Turkey about the Armenian Genocide, they should start teaching there people not brainwashing them, as for the ASALA bs they bring up if Turkey apologized this would never have happened all we ask for is an apology thats all is it that hard no. Yet stubborn Turkey doesn't deserve a country since they can't handle anything. Regarding there selfish comments last week, if America recognized the genocide Turkey would stop supporting America meaning removing there troops and putting the American troops lives at risk. Artaxiad 08:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't know if it was me who you were meaning in the "basically know nothing" part, but I'll have to object that. Your friend Hrant Dink (I think that you're really blessed if you personally knew such great guy) always criticized the Armenian Diaspora for their struggle of recognition. And when it comes to "Article 301 crap", I'll have to say that actually it's you who need to do a little more research on it. First of all, it's not something that the Turkish come up with, especially not regarding Armenian Genocide. Almost all countries have their Article 301s in their penal codes (in this case the outline of the Turkish penal code was derived from the Italian one). The problem is how it is interpreted by the judges. (Due to this the wording in the article is about to change). And, talking about the genocide is NOT a crime in Turkey. NOBODY has ever got CONVICTED for recognizing genocide. People were SUED to recognize genocide, which has absolutely no prerequisties, and their charges were always dropped before their court began. Just couple of weeks ago Kemal Kerincsiz, the ultra-nationalist lawyer who sued Hrant Dink and Orhan Pamuk, was sued for insulting Turkishness by some of his collegues because of the cases he filed against those people. (Ironic isn't it. I hope you understand what I mean. I can sue you right now for eating bananas, thus insulting Turkishness. It doesn't need to make sense) And when it comes to Franch law making it illegal to deny Genocide. How sad it is for Sartre's country to do a such thing. (By the way, did you know that Dink was going to go to France and deny the genocide if he was not shot and the law was passed. May he rest in peace. Only if all Armenians were dialogue-seeking like him...) Gotto go now, I'll write more later.Ombudsee 09:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't bother me at all what Hrant dink did but i know what he died for or why i should say, do you live in Turkey? do they teach people about the Armenian Genocide? no, the answer is no they teach people to go against it. Artaxiad 09:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are incredibly misinterpreting Hrant Dink's position on the Armenian genocide. His disagreements with some in the Armenian Diaspora had to do with (some who) expressed hatred towards Turks/Turkey - and some of the methods regarding how genocide recognition was pursued (governmental resolutions and such to force Turks vice trying to build bridges and communicate directly etc) - he was not objecting to the Armenian Genocide being recognized - quite the contrary. Likewsie Dink objected to the French Armenian genocide denial law strictly on a free speech principal (and considering that he was a journalist and was suffering from restrictive laws against free speech its no wonder he objected - just on principle alone...and in doing so he certainly strengthened his credibility among [reasonable] Turks). I understand and appreciate this objection and I fully respect his objection - but what I think Dink failed to understand is that genocide denial is not "free speech" but it is an act of genocide perpetuation - and in this regard it is more then just speech. Perhaps I will post an essay here that I had written about this issue previously if you require further enlightenment in this regard. Your not trying to claim that Dink approved of genocide denial do you? Or that he believed that it was OK for Turks to deny the Genocide...and as we know the Armenian genocide is fact and its designation as such is accurate I would hope that your njot advocating denial yourself. In regards to article 301...well much can be said...but I don't feel like going into it at the moment...I am a bit skeptical with your claims that "Almost all countries have their Article 301s in their penal codes " and that their is a (current) Italian penal code that the Turkish one was modeled after (though perhaps under Mussolini there was...)...--THOTH 22:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict)Well actually they don't even teach people to go against it. Turkish governments approach to the events is inconceivable. I was 16 when I first heard that we had a such past with Armenians, and that was in Italy when some guy asked me about it. Our government acts as such events has never took place at any level, even ignoring the "official Turkish thesis".

And your concerns about USA recognizing the genocide; wipe them away. If such thing happens, it will only be a couple of months of individual-boycott by some nationalist Turks, and it's effects will totally fade in couple of years (see the French-Turkish relations after recognition). And Turkish-American alliance is not a one to be harmed anytime soon due to the situation in Iraq. The world of politics is disgusting, and I believe the possibility of recognizing the Armenian genocide was/is actually being used as a blackmail against the Turkey. I share (and care a lot about) the pains of the Armenians that lost their life in 1915, and as a Turkish also feel ashamed although neither me nor any of my relatives took no part in it. I expressed these feelings of mine many times, yet the only thing matters for the Armenians (and the Turkish) is if I use the word "genocide" or not. Ask a regular Argentinian where Armenia is in the map and he/she won't have an idea. They don't give a flip to the pains of the Armenians %1 as much as I do, yet tha Armenian diaspora sees that event as a success just because it's another country in their pile using the wording they want. (That's what Dink was always criticizing)

Plus, I think that it's really senseless to see that many people fighting over a past event that much when there are genocides still happening this very day. Some advocate that if Armenian genocide was recognized and punished, there would be no Holocaust. So can somebody please explain me what has happened in Ukraine, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo and is still happening in Darfur and Iraq? If USA was that sensitive of a country the death of "an American hero in the Middle East sacrificing his life for the freedom of Iraq" wouldn't be more important than "the deaths of a couple hundred rebels".

And unlike what you said, ASALA's presence was not dependent on a simple "I'm sorry" by the Turkish Government. The reason behind their existance was Armenian land claims in the Eastern Anatolia (Take a look at their logo), an area where they had the plurality (not the majority) before 1915. (a.k.a Vilayet-i sitte)

If the Turkish government today is following the policy of "nothing at all" has actually happened, it's not because they are ignorant about the events, but because they fear it might trigger cases of indemnities. Then us regular people make hours-long debates about the situation.

I wish that one day my country will apologize for the sufferings their descendents caused to the Armenians. But in this disgusting world of politics it's not going to happen anytime soon. I believe that fighting for the recognition is something that the Armenian diaspora takes as a duty for their losses in 1915, and I can partly understand how they feel, but I believe it's not the way to solve this issue. As I previously said, only if all Armenians acted the way Dink did, this issue would be settled until now. But then a brainwashed kid kills the guy, and just puts another knot in already tangled situation.

Well, we were talking about the myths right. I went off topic. I guess I'll write about it laterOmbudsee 22:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

THOTH, I don't misinterpret Dink's position on Armenian Genocide. I know he was for the recognition of it. But he always defended that first there should be a healty environment of discussion before we get in all this genocide-or not discussion, which was never present in Turkey. But yes, he stated that it would be OK for Turks the deny the genocide, as long as Armenians could object these claims freely. (He said exactly said this in his interview in Kanalturk) And for your doubts about my claim of other nations having their own 301s; I hope this helps; http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=57105 .Actually Baristarim found a better link couple of weeks ago, but I couldn't find it. (What's "Turkishness" anyway to begin with?) Regards Ombudsee 23:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Commenting

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I searched again and again. Why even there is not any reference to the Turkish loses? Hundreds of thousands of Turkish soldiers and civillians were killed by Armenian bandits, especially in the east part of Anataolia. Armenian loses were the result of the Great War!!! Not forget! The Ottoman Empire was fighting against major powers of the West,Russia, the Great Britain, France, Italy, Greece... Reflect the conditions of the time more objectively. Take a look how many Armenians were fighting against the Turks?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.255.88.121 (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

False, try again. Armenian "bandits" did not and could not have killed "Hundreds of thousands of Turkish soldiers and civillians" - only in twisted Turkish fairy tales. --THOTH 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

My fantasy question?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If no Armenains had been killed on 1914-1918, but only they were moved to south of Ottoman Empire (for example,if the government had used airplanes for transportation, no Armenians had been killed, as my question is a fantasy), would you also call it as GENOCIDE?. I think, Armenians can call transportation of Armenians out of their homelands as genocide even if there were no killings. For thousands of years they were here, but now their civilization disappeared in Anatolia. (The last sentence is Mr. Dink's idea.) [This example came to my mind when I was thinking about Kırım Tatars.]Ayasi 00:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, that would be called deportation. And actually that is what "terminologically" happened to the Crimean Tatars. Though half of them perished en-route. Ombudsee 11:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Re:My fantasy question?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

And I ask what would happen if the Armenians did not rebel on Ottoman Empire at their backs by provokations of Imperial forces? What would happen if the Turks ands Armenians lived along and died side by side in the war against those Imperial forces for their homeland. Armenians would live and have a bigger country in the East of Asia Minor right now. That's the answer. In 1915 there were 15 armanian delegates in the Ottoman Parliament. Ottomans referred Armenians as "brother race". There were marriages between the Armenian and Turkish people. Armenians lived under Ottoman rule in peace for over 500 years. One must consider that beforehand. Hrant Dink is the wisest of all Armenians. I have great respect for the man. He sought peace not hate and that last sentence you refer to is also a self criticism for Armenians. Also I want a logical answer for this. Genocides, throughout the history, were done by governments at the peak of their power. Why would you want to wipe out a nation you lived, married even had representators in your parliament? If you are to do that, why would Ottoman Empire wait for its collapse? --Valmont 19:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Genocides, throughout the history, were done by governments at the peak of their power."-Vamont. Where on earth did you get that idea? Saddam did not start massacring the Kurds until after his devastating defeat by the coalition. The ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia happened while the country was dissolving into chaos, not while the Serbs (or any group) had regional control. Even Hitler did not begin mass concentration of undesirables until after the Second World War began, though he certainly had the resources to do so much earlier. Genocide is usually an act of desperation, done to save an endangered nation or entity for perceived ‘internal enemies’. Usually, it is only when such a desperate ‘siege mentality’ exists that such a extreme act as genocide seems a valid option.The Myotis 22:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually I was going to write the same exact thing The Myotis just did. And the disolving of the Ottoman Empire was the main reason behind 1915. Ombudsee 07:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

SLANDER

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

This article is nothing but slander. The article does not contain any Turkish Thesis. The style of the writer is not neutral. Newspaper news and war-time propaganda books can not be an evidence. Today Turkish archives are open and Turkey proposed foundation of commission composed of historians. However, Armenia and its diaspora do not open her archives and do not accept the commission composed of historians. This article is not scientific but politic.

for more info: http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/index.html and http://www.genocidereality.com/default2.asp and http://www.tetedeturc.com/home/spip.php?rubrique2 and http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/kitap/ and for some of the fake so-called Armenian Genocide documents: http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/forgeries.htm and http://www.ataa.org/ataa/ref/armenian/forgeries.html and http://www.tsk.mil.tr/uluslararasi/ermenisorunu.htm news about a middle age European court: http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-3-9/52623.html and also: http://www.tallarmeniantale.com and here is a documentary( The names of the scholars and the archive number of the documents are given):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCmg7AdM1tU&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6YJwHR8aXw&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7Q77jAaIhk&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr0kWla0UFs&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_p7lh2m8Vw&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEg7lAv4kq4&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J6KjxKhVKk&mode=related&search=

And another one which tells Armenian Revolt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55dk_0H6w-o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYceOG-Ckwg&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkHKJ-NVviQ&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_53qAWAcaM&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajw4uPZUWI0&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvZFJOukNKI&mode=related&search=

In the article photo of some bones were titled as the bones of Armenian victims. However the owner of the bones is unknown. What is the proof that that bones belong to Armenians? Here, in this video you can see one of the mass graves of Turks. Scholars from foreign countries were there when it was found. In those graves Koran pieces and other objects belong to Turkish people were found. Read the subtitles very carefully and watch the video carefully. The old people are telling how Armenian gangs killed civil Turks when their males are in the war front: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qForZRFT9M and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1k_9jAxWy0

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.122.113.165 (talk • contribs)

You think youtube is a valid source for any information? This does not even deserve a comment.The Myotis 03:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow - your right! How could I have not seen this before. I've been entirely convinced. Its all slander and propoganda - made up just because everyone is jealous and hateful of Turks - its all so clear now. So how do we just wipe out the article as it stands and just make it a link to these most excellent scholarly documentaries from YouTube - which tell all that there is to know? --THOTH 14:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Taken from Wikipedia article of ottoman millet

"The Ottoman millet system (citizenship) began to degrade with the continuous identification of the religious creed with ethnic nationality. The interaction of ideas of French revolution with the Ottoman Millet system created a breed of thought (a new form of personal identification) which turned the concept of nationalism synonymous with religion under the Ottoman flag. It was impossible to hold the system or prevent Clash of Civilizations) when the Armenian national liberation movement (National awakening (1800s-1914)) expressed itself within the Armenian church. Patriarch Nerses Varjabedyan expresses his position on Ottoman Armenians to British Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lord Salisbury on April 13, 1878.

It is no longer possible for the Armenians and the Turks to live together. Only a Christian administration can provide the equality, justice and the freedom of conscience. A Christian administration should replace the Muslim administration. Armenia (Eastern Anatolia) and Kilikya, are the regions, where the Christian administration should be founded... The Turkish Armenians want this... That is, a Christian administration is demanded in Turkish Armenia, as in Lebanon."

As noted, poor Armenians were really innocent and friendly (East Anatolia as Armenia and Cukurova as Kilikya) in that period as barbarian Turks cut them into pieces... Tiasb 13:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Those websites are horrible give us real references, and Tallarmeniantale is the most bias Armenian site out there. Artaxiad 14:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lets see now - what had just happened (1894/95) - 1 in 10 Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were slaughtered. And what occureed afterward (in 1915) - perhaps 3/4 of all Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were viciously slaughtered. So I'd say that the Patriarch's statement is not nly quite understandable - but accurate in every sense of the word. Can this really be disputed? BTW I don't see anywhere where he says - "oh by the way lets kill all of the Turks" - however considering what the Turks did to the Armenians - just prior to and shortly after this time - I don't think anyone could blame him if he were to have said such a thing.--THOTH 14:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are exactly right, all of a sudden Ottomans decided to issue the Tehcir Law "Provisional Law of Relocations" on May 1915 for Armenians and slaughtered them all on the way. Purification of the Empire(!) SEY01 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

According to TTK(Turkish History Organization), killed Armenians were 8500, and total died Armenians were 100000 at maximum numbers. Respect TTK, or not! But we respect it, since TTK is our official history source. Ayasi 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Ref:http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/321123.asp in turkish. Ayasi 17:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Official" history...always the best kind...indisputably I might add...--THOTH 19:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

A big strategical mistake that Ottomans have done during WWI (1914-1918), while fighting against French, Italian, UK. and Russian armies in all fronts, insisting to spare his forces to slaughter 1.5 mio. Armenians at homeland.(thinking that not easy to cut into pieces 1.5 millions of people by only civilian talent - considering the technology in WWI era). What a big HATE of Ottomans' to Millet-i Sadıka (Loyal Nation-Armenians)despite of being defeated in all fronts against invasion forces. SEY01 20:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, imagine those Germans in WWII - Fighting millions of Russians, French, British and Americans on mutiple fronts - with a great many more troops and materials commited to war/combat then ever the Ottomans managed in WWI - I guess - just like the lazy and incompitant Ottomans - its just impossible that they could have spared the effort and resources to slaughter 6 million (primarily Jewish) undesirables - rounding a great many of them up from far of places....etc etc...yeah, you're convincing me with your brilliant logic - I'm thinking it was just too difficult - no way it could have been possible - didn't happen - never - in fact Jews obviously just made it all up to get after the Germans - just like the Armenians are doing - witnesses - bahh - paid stooges all - Turk haters - And Armenians - they must number in the what now - 8-10 million you might think - spread out all over Anatolia - its just a land grab against the Turks...yeah - thats the ticket...--THOTH 21:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear THOTH, as looked over this page it's quite certain that you have a deep knowledge about this genocide issue. Could you please briefly tell us which politics or reason initiated Ottomans/Turks to slaughter Armenians one day, rather than discussing "happened/not happended" since it's not clear in Armenian Genocide article either. (I think we know the aim of Hitler, simply: purification of the race/nation, isn't it?) (88.247.29.238 07:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC))Reply

What you are asking cannot be done with justice briefly. It is quite complex - obviously it is not an event the like of which happens all the time - that one group is driven to attempt to exterminate another (on such a scale). I don't think that (reason for/rational for) the Holocaust is so simple as you portray either. And in fact the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide share a great many similarities in regards to the relationship between the majority group (that ultimatly perpetrated the atrocities and their justifications for such) and the minority group (who were the victims) -- as well as many other similarities in undertaking of the genocides themselves (though also many differewnces as well - as each were unique - though highly similar events). I will attempt to at least outline some areas which need to be understood to really understand why these genocides occured. To understand why both of these genocides occured we must consider a number of things - first, we have to understand the relevant recent history of the nations/empire where the genocides occured (Germany and the Ottoman Empire) and understand what was occuring externally - vis a vis foreign powers and wars of the recent past and the role of and resentments against these foreign powers by the ruling elite of the perpetrator nations (in response to recent provocation and feelings of ongoing beseigement). Secondly, we must understand the (evolving) roles and circumstance of the minority group within the perpetrating nation/empire and understand why (and how) the majority group grew to resent their particular minority groups (and supress them) - and why at these particular junctions in time such majority-minority relations evolved into extreme violence. Third, we must understand that each nation - Germany and Turkey - were nations that had undergone a very recent revolution - where the revolutionary parties that came to power represented very radical and non-mainstream/non-traditional elements of the ruling majority. Each of these radical parties - the Nazis and the CUP had violent influences and had key members who held hightly racially centered views. Each party felt that they were the salvation of the nation - the necessary salvation - and both parties continued to be revolutionary - in that they actively saught to supress and eliminate percieved (internal) enemies. Additionally each party saught to reclaim past glories and each party scapegoated the minorities for blame for currentr troubles. Lastly of course (and again this is the briefest of lists that is not entirely adequate) we hgave to be aware that both Germany and the Ottoman Empire (under the direction of the revolutionary party elites) willingly entered into aggressive world wars with the aim of taking territories and recliaming past glories. And in each case a major secondary aim of these wars was to allow the majority party/people to act violently against hated minorities in a manner beyond what they were able to do in peacetime. Of course there are a mirad of related issues and circumstance that need to be brought out to do each situation justice (and to better understand the unique nature of each genocide). Of course each majority group attempted to make a case against their minorities as being seditious and in league with enemies etc. Whether these charges were true or not (and basically they were not - at least to the degree/extent charged - the perceptions were certainly held - particularly by party loyalists in each case and to a lesser extent - but still prevelant - by significant members of the najority populations themselves. And certainly foreign powers had their roles in agitating the perpetrator nations - but do we blame the British and French for the inequities of the Versailles treaty for driving the Germans to start WWII and for enacting the Holocaust against the Jews?--THOTH 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I also should acknowledge that the ruling Muslims of the Ottoman Empire (Turks) certainly felt beseiged and resentful against both foreign powers (and primairly Russia) and Orthodox Christians in general - for what they saw was seperatist encouragement (and desire) and repression of Muslims in areas that were brought under Russian/Orthodox control. There can be no doubt that the presence of regugees from Russian controlled areas (Caucuses/Crimea etc) and the Balkans (lands recently liberated from the Ottoman Empire where the Orthodox Christians did take revenge against former Turkish overlords and Turkish/Muslim populations in general - that the great number of these refugees who were absorbed into Anatolia added to anti-Christain/anti-Orthodox resentment that made the violent actions against Armenians more possible. The fact that a great many of the CUP elite came from outlying areas of the Empire - most of which were areas no longer (recently) under Ottoman control - was also a significant factor contributing to these elites desiring to enact "revenge" against the remaining Christians of the Empire. And there can be no doubt that these individuals could see and view the radical Armenian political movements and the interest by Russia and other foreign powers in the affairs of the Armenians as legitimate (if only potential) threats to the future integrity of the Empire. And perhaps they lacked an ability to meet/address such (percieved) "threats" with anything but violence (as they were certainly men of violence). Additionally, there also can be no doubt that these very same Ottoman (CUP) rulers were aware of Russian sucess at clearing certain areas of Muslims and claiming these territories as their own. These were also polcies that were known to and encouraged by the Germans (to the CUP during WWI...and even prior to this time). And lastly one of the reasons that Turks/Turkey haves such a difficult time acknowledging themselves as perpetrators of these crimes against the Armenains is that they see themselves (somenwat legitimatly) as victims of these very same type of crimes as well as their histroy emerging victorious from WWI and the post war Imperilaist designes of the Western Powers. In this respect the Turks see themselves as victims who overcame foreign manipulations...and they see the Armenians as simply pawns in this foreign game against them. I reject much of this as actual (as opposed to Turkish perception) while certainly acknowledging a certain element of truth to the assertions (in a very limited fashion). In the end of course there is still no question that a genocide of massive proportions was commited against the Armenians (and nn of the reasons given can justify such). We need to better understand all of the circumstances and influences which led to such a thing however and we need to better understand (present) how ans why such is so vigorously denied. --THOTH 02:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comments, I think it is much better to discuss this way, rather than struggling desperately to convince; "You did" vs. "We didn't do" format. (88.247.29.238 09:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC))Reply

McCarthy - historian or fraud?

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

A document worth reading about Armenian-Turkish Conflict. http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/Armenia/justin.html Tiasb 13:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunatly this account is filled with a bit too much (unsupportable) fiction and suffers from an extreme case of ommission of important material (concerning Ottoman persecutions and misrule and attempts to disenfranchise Armenians from their own lands, history of predation upon Armenians by Turks and Kurds and it completely ignores the unsavory nature of the CUP and the fact of their crimes - which of course include the fact that they perpetrated a deliberate and preplanned genocide against the Armenians of Anatolia - and this fact was well witnessed and documented). And does he really expect us to believe the myth of Ottoman benevolence/tolerance? And his attempt to blame the Armenians - specifically regarding Sarikamish - and just in general - is rather absurd. Again - if there had been an Armenian "revolt" during WWI the Germans would have reported it and publicised it mightily - and they did no such thing. Nearly everything asserted by McCarthy in this article is unsupportable assumptions - a good story - that does not hold up when the facts are examined. McCarthy's pathetic attempts to just blame everything on Armenian Nationalist boguymen just doesn't hold up. It may play well to the Turkish audience but it just doesn't fly when one really knows the facts. McCarthy is really not a serious scholar of this period (this has been well shown by others - and in one case through a direct encounter between himself and Prof Marshalian in which McCarthy was forced to admit the falicy of many of his claims). He is mostly just a propogandist. I don't even think he believes most of what he spouts. --THOTH 01:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why other than your opinions are unsupportable, imaginary, not serious, fictitious etc. and only the materials supporting your ideas are real, sounding as if you have lived and a witness of that period of time. You should at least be able to read the opposing ideas as we read the clarifications about the subject that you have written above before. Tiasb 11:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have read every book written by McCarthy (that I know to exist). I understand his arguments and what he is basing them on. I am able to know and understand the accuracy and relevancy of McCarthy's points because I have read a great deal more then just McCarthy. Additionally I am familiar with much of the material he bases his claims on and also understand his methodology (or lack therof). While much of what he presents concerning trials and tribulations of various Muslims within the Ottoman Empire, within its former territories and in other areas (primarily Russia) has some validity even this is extremely one sided and only presents a partial picture of these events. (however I don't totally disagree with much of what he presents here). However when it comes to his portrayal of the Armenians and events and circumstances surounding Armenians his manipulations and misrepresentations become clear. In this regard he is not at all a proper historian. Sure he is better then a Weems or such - but that is not saying much - and in fact that we can make the comparison is not a good thinkg for McCarthy. No one disputes that some Armenians took up arms and actively fought against the Ottoman Empire (but consider as well that the CUP did the same and in fact the CUP and the Dashnaks in particular had an alliance through much of the period prior to 1915.) However when one looks at the actual violence commited by various Armenians in the period from the 1870s to 1915 what one finds is that most of what can be seen has been on the part of Armenians who are Russian citizens fighting in Russian armies. The amount of actual activity by Ottoman Armenians - revolutionaries or shat not - is in fact rather minimal in the scheme of things - particularly considering the far greater amount of somehwat similar violence and much greater predation occuring by various Kurdish groups and Turks - much of which was in fact part of an Ottoman state sponsored terror campaign against the Armenian population of Anatolia...and what wasn't state sponsored was State ignored/allowed and deliberatly so - despite repeated Armenian protestations for the Ottoman state to act on their behelf and protect them. Do I really need to go into the details of all of this that I am talking about here? (that in fact is compleatly ignored by McCarthy who instead pushes the fiction that Armenians just spontaniously started revolting and killing Turks for no reason). And in fact there was no Armenian "revolt" or revolution - just never happened. There were isolated instances of revolt - but each of these requires specific examination and consideration (and I don't discount that in some cases these were fermented by Armenian "revolutionaries" and such - but more often these were desperate attempts to avoid slaughter or to respond to extrme Turkish provocation. Mcarthy does not treat the history at all acuratly - and deliberatly so. He is an ultimate apologist for the Ottoman government (even the CUP) - that even Ataturk had nothing but disdain for and who knew that its corruption and failures were unsalvageable and were what led to disaster for the Empire and its inhabitants. And in the end the bottom line is that the Armenians were Ottoman citizens who were preyed upon by their own government - for purly political, ethnic and religious reasons (because they were different) and ulitmatly the CUP led Ottoman government planned and carried out a genocide against them. This is what occured. No amount of attempts to justify and switch blame can possibly represent truth - because such is untruth at its core. We can discuss all sorts of specifics and even failures and misdeeds of various Armenians throughout this period - but the bottom line is that none of these things can be justification for what was done to the Ottoman Armenians. And no claim of rebellion or civil war can be valid - because it does not reflect the truth. McCarthy in this is a schister - a purveor of untruth - a propogandist who attmpts to make a great case out of what can be seen as a conspiracy theory level of speculation that does not hold together when one knows the facts. One cannot exptrapolate to his conclusions - to reach the position he (and the current Turkish government) now takes to justify or ignore (as McCarthy conviently does pretty much in its entirety) the fact that it was the Armenians who are the clear victims here - who were preyed upon and ultimatly destroyed - that any conflict between peoples was perpetrated by the Turks and was unequal in every possible way (to the detriment of the Armenians). McCarthy just very conviently ignores the overwhelming facts and presents his tidbits as somehow conterveiling to such when they are not in any sense. So bottom line McCarthy is a complete and utter fraud as an objective historian - embarasingly so for any in the know. --THOTH 15:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Gosh, there is one person here that suffers from verbal diarrhea (can anyone guess who?) Amjikian 07:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

So I supose you have something of substance to add? Do you? If you do then do so - otherwise who is wasting whose time here...--THOTH 15:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I dont really have much to add but I do find your long lecture like remarks very tiring to read, I am just suggesting that you be a bit more concise so that ordinary persons like myself can actually follow your argument. I mean it takes you a couple of sentances to make a point that is obvious in the first sentance. Do you have a problem with that my friend? Amjikian 19:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

As I said - if you have nothing of substance to add - why are you wasting our time. I can't be responsible for your lack of ability or inclination to read. In the meantime I don't feel as if simple answers are suficient. If you are able to answer the questions put forth or address the issues with simple answers then I suggest that you do so. BTW - good luck. And again, if you can't do better then I would suggest you keep your snide comments to yourself. And yes I do have a problem with your obvious attitude problem. --THOTH 00:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I did not realize that only those that contribute to the article are allowed to comment (or at least that is what I interpret from your remark), my intention is not to waste your time or anyone else's for that matter, I would be happy to contribute but I don't because, unlike others here, I do not claim to be an expert on the matter. I just made a casual observation and I notice that you are offended by it, but please understand that it is simply an observation, not an attack. I am sure that there are many here that would concur with this very observation. Amjikian 06:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Of course anyone can contribute - it is not for me or anyone else here to say who can or cannot do so - as long as they do so in such a manner that conforms to the protocols set down for doing such here - including refraining from personal attacks. It is obvious to me that your initial comment was not made with any constructive objective but just to denigrate my contributions here and to do so in a snide, smart-alecky and off the cuff way. It certainly comes accross to me as a personal attack and nothing more. I believe that I am making valuable and necessary contributions here and am doing such in an acceptable manner. If you have a problem with what I have written here perhaps you might have a specific recommendation to improve (the substance of) it or to say it better. As this is not the article proper I may not have taken the time to edit down to the most concise prose possible but I don't think I can be accused of making incoherent, irrelevant or innacurate points. If the prose is a bit verbose then I'm sorry but you will just have to live with it - or not if you choose not to read - but I daresay I have a problem and concern with people that possess attitiudes such as yours - who expect answers or insights into complicated issues but are seemingly unwilling to take the effort to process anything beyond a simple soundbite. Most sad IMO. Perhaps you should just stay away from written encyclopedias such as Wikepedia and related discussions alltogether and concentrate your limited time, energy and attention span on clips from YouTube or simple slogans that rhyme with something easy that you might be able to process and remember. However I can't say that I am happy that folks such as yourself think they are qualified to express their opinions on complicated matters when all they have been able to process and integrate into their intelectual pallet are simple soundbites and such. It is exactly people such as yourself that (certain) governments and special interests are able to manipulate so easily and who can be made to believe the lies and then repeat them back such with conviction because they lack the basis to know the real underlying truth. Most sad. So perhaps it is best that you don't contribute as it is highly doubtful you have anything really of substance to add to the discussions here or even less likely the article itself. In the meantime my advice to you - made with your best interests in mind - is that you do you best to take the effort - regardless of how difficult and painful it is to you - to learn and attempt to read and process complex information. It may save you someday. --THOTH 15:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

See? You did it again, you could have very well presented a big chunk of what you posted in a more concise manner. I also notice many instances of personal attacks in your message so I dont understand why you accuse me of PAs and then pull a 180 on me? I have visited several topics on wiki and the talk pages are usually concise and to the point, but here, its really something else and I am afraid that you seem to be the main culprit behind the 1000 word sentences. I also notice that you try to outdo youself each time, its absurd really. I did not come here to offend, it was an honest and truthful observation I made, I think that there would be a huge improvement if you cut down on the fat Amjikian 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well others seem to disagree - ie "Thank you for your comments, I think it is much better to discuss this way, rather than struggling desperately to convince; "You did" vs. "We didn't do" format. (88.247.29.238 09:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC))" ...so Amjikian I supose you think that I should just be posting "No it wasn't" or "Yes it was" eh? You think that this is sufficient? Well I don't. Anyway your input has been noted - for what it is worth.--THOTH 22:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

THOTH, most probably you have got some words to say about the events as they are briefly given in wikipedia too, remarkable events listed below as a reminder;

Sounds, much more than current PKK terrorism against Turkey, Armenian irregulars in those days against Ottoman Empire, even maybe more insolent to attempt for assassination the Sultan Abdul Hamid II. Tiasb 09:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

McCarthy: a great historian not fraud. But Andonian an authentic fraud!!!

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Forgeries of Aram Andonian In the First World War, the Ottoman Empire fought on the side of the Central powers-Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Bulgaria-against the Entente Powers-England, France and their allies.At least since that time, the Ottomans have been accused of a conscious policy of extermination towards their Armenian Minority.

During the war, such accusations belonged to the standard repertoire of war propaganda, as used by all nations in all times.In the case of the Ottomans and their Turkish heirs, however, events took a more dramatic course than usual.

The virulent attacks on Turkey did not let up.On the contrary, the Ottomans were soon being accused of massacre, and after the second world war the word became genocide.The intention here was obviously to darw a parallel between the fate of the Armenians in the turmoil of the First world war and Hitler's extermination policies towards the Jewish people.

The basis for the accusations against Ottomans (and later against Turks) was a book written by Aram Andonian in 1920, The Memoirs of Naim Bey: Turkish Official Documents Relating to the Deportations and Massacres of Armenians-in French, Documents Officiels concernant les massacres arméniens.He published his book simultaneously in Paris, London, and Boston-in English, French, and Armenian.Ever since then, these "Documents" have formed the backbone and the basis of all Armenian accusations against the Ottomans and their Turkish heirs.

Aram andonian claims to have met an Ottoman official by the name of Naim Bey in Aleppo, after the entry of the British.This official supposedly passed the papers with the death orders to Andonian.Without going any further into the serious differences between the French and English editions of those "Documents Officiels", it must be said that after having studied both editions it is no longer clear whether these are supposed to be the memoirs of Naim bey or of Aram Andonian.

In the text of the English edition, there are altogether forty-eight "official Ottoman documents" scattered through the book.These are attributed to the following persons and institutions:

Person/Organization Number of documents Minister of the Interior Talaat Pasha 30 Director of the settelement Commission of Aleppo, Abdülahad Nuri Bey 8 Governor of Aleppo, Abdülhalik Bey 3 Committee of union and Progress 2 Minister of War Enver Pasha 1 Ministry of the Interior 1 Governor of region Deirs es Zor, Zeki Bey 1 Governor of the region Antep, Ahmet Bey 1 Unknown 1

Not at all these "documents" are complete.sometimes the date is missing, sometimes the serial number, occasionally both.All in all, exactly half are lacking in some way.The originals of the papers copied by Andonian were never seen.Photographs of fourteen "documents" appear in his books.When asked for the originals, he claimed they were lost.Not a single one of the documents reproduced bu Andonian can be found today.They were probably destroyed to make it more difficult to prove that they were forgeries.Andonian made so many mistakes in preparing the papers, however, that is impossible to prove with absolute certainty that they were forgeries, even without the originals.

Wrong dates.

The simplest, absolutely irrefutable proof of the forgery involves Andonian's incorrect use of calendar information.To give just one example, Andonian has the governor of Aleppo signing documents at a time when he had not yet been named to the post and was still living in Istanbul.

Naturally, for his forgeries Andonian used the Rumi calendar, which was use in Ottoman Empire at the time.The Rumi(Roman) calendar of Ottomans was a special variation on the common islamic calendar, which takes the Hegira (Mohammed's flight from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD) as a starting point.Because it used lunar years, it was only necessary to subtract 584 years to convert from the Gregorian to the Rumi year.1987 A.D, for example would be 1403 on the Rumi calendar.There is another trick, however.In addition to the 584 years, one has also has to figure in a difference of thirteen days.Moreover, the Rumi calendar began on March 1.That meant that the last two months of the Rumi calendar (January and February) were already the first months of the Christian calendar.

The correct date-according to the Christian calendar-for these last two months of the Rumi calendar is obtained by adding 584 plus one year.An example: January 5 of the year 1331(Rumi) corresponds to January 18, 1916.(1331+584+1+13 days)

That, however, is still not all the tricks.As mentioned above, the Ottoman year always began on March 1.In February 1917, the difference of thirteen days between the Rumi and Gregorian calendars was eliminated in order to facilitate coversion.The difference of 584 years remained unchanged, however.Thus, February 16, 1332 (February 1917) suddenly became March 1, 1333(march 1, 1917 A.D.).At the same time, the year 1333(1917) was made into a year with onlt ten months, running from March1 to December 31.

January 1, 1334 thus became January 1, 1918 A.D.(Note:the Turkish republic adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1925, so that the Rumi year 1341 became 1925 A.D.)These calendar technicilaties may seem ver complicated and uninteresting.They are, however, of tremendous importance in conncetion with The Forty Days of Musa Dagh and the forgeries of Aram Andonian, which at first fooled Franz Werfel.

In considering the dating( and the sequential numbering) of the "Andonian papers" and the authentic documents, one must also keep in mind that numbering of the incoming and outgoing documents always began with March 1(1333 Rumi=1917 A.D.) and continued sequentially through February 28( the last day of the Rumi year).It was then "New year's" once again on March 1.

In forging the most important of his "documents", which he called Number 1, Aram Andonian already committed a serious error.Here is the text of the most important part of this "document":

Document No.1

"In the name of god, the Compassionate, the Merciful, To the delegate at Adana, Jemal Bey.

february 18, 1331The only force in turkey that is able to frusrate the political life of the Ittihad and Terakki(Committee of Union and Progress) is the Armenians.From news which has frequently been received lately from Cairo, we learnt that the Dashnaktstuin is preparing a decisive attack against the Jemiet."

After a short transition, the alleged "Document no 1" comes to following conclusion:

The Jemiet, unable to forget all old scores and past bitterness, full of hope for the future, has decided to annihilate all Armenians living in Turkey, without living a single one alive, and it has given the Government a wide scope with regard to this.Of course government will give the necessary injuctions about the necessary massacres of the Governors..."

After some further details, the "document" ends with an unreadable signature. For the sake of completeness, is should also be mentioned that this key letter in Andonian's of documents is dated February 18, 1331(February 18, 1915) in the original French version of his book, but bears the date February 8, 1331(March 25, 1915) in the English version.The original Turkish text, however, clearly bears the date February 18, 1331.Let us recall:according to the rules of calendar conversion, February 18, 1331corresponds to March 2, 1916.(1919 was a leap year, so february had 29 days).It does not correspond to February 18, 1915, as in the french translation, nor to March 25, 1915, as in the English translation.In other words, Aram Andonian should have written 1330 instead of 1331 if he wanted to forge the correct date.A letter written on March 2, 1916 can hardly have brought about events that are supposed to have occured nine months earlier!

Anyone who thinks that this might have just been an accident, a mistake on the official's part, will be set straight by "Document No.2" in Andonian's collection.The second letter in his collection should naturally have been dated Marc 25 1332(April 7, 1916), but in fact bears the date March 25, 1331.It is quite clear that the forger simply knew too little about the Ottoman calendar and overlooked these tricky details in converting.

The Turkish Historians Sinasi Orel and Sureyya Yuce published an extensive scientific work in 1983 concerning the forgeries of Aram Andonian.They follow up on all the details(there are hundreds) of the unsuccesfull forgeries.These range from dates and counterfeit signatures to transmogrified greetings such as "Bismillahs", which no Moslem would ever have dared to write.

A particulary insidious section of the forged Andonian papers deals with the "broadening of the massacre"-in particular to include children.This section is brilliantly done from apsychological standpoint.One "document" of this type reads as follows:

Document No.4

Deciphered copy of a ciphered telegram of the Ministry of the Interior

No.502, September 3, 1331(September 16, 1915)

"We recommend that the operations which have ordered you to make shall be first carried out on the men of the said people(the Armenians), and that you shall subject the women and children to them also.Appoint reliable officials for this.

The Minister of the Interior, Talaat

Note:

To Abdülhalad Nuri Bey, September 5.Have you met with the commandont of the gendarmerie?

the Governor, Mustafa Abdulhalik

Aside from the fact that the governor's signature is clearly(and crudely) forged, Andonian was sloppy and let another blunder slip through in composing the telegram.No "Governor Mustafa Abdülhalik" could possibly have had anything to do with an administrative act in Aleppo on September 3 or September 5.the governor of Aleppo at that time was Bekir sami Bey.Mustafa Abdülhalik was still in Istanbul at the beginning of September.He took office in Aleppo on ovtober, 1915.

There is indeed a telegram from september 3, 1331 in the Ottoman archives addressed to the governor of Aleppo, Bekir Sami Bey.At any rate , it bears the serial number 78 and not Andonian's fantasy number 502.

It appears that Franz Werfel, in writing The Forty Days of Musa Dagh was especially moved by Andonian's chapter on "the Broadening of the Massacre".ıt was no longer just the men who were to be killed(according to Andonian's forgeries).Now, the women and children were to put to death as well.Twelve of Andonian's "documets" deals with this issue.five of them are supposed from Talaat Pasha himself.Fortunately, these telegrams were esp. easy to expose as crude forgeries, based on several criteria(date, signature, names, serial number).

Franz Werfel was at first completely convinced by the forgeries of Aram Andonian.He undoubtly also believed the stories of his circle in Vienna, who supplied him with reports of "the crimes of the Turks".It is thus understandable that he passes judgement on the Mevlevi monks without having any clear idea of Islamic Mysticism or the objectives of the dervish order of the Mevlevi.

Occasionally Franz Werfel's comments are clearly intended(by his informants) to appeal to certain instincts.One example is when he is speaking of Ottoman Minister of war Enver Pasha and calls him a "vain playboy of the Ottoman Empire".Another example follows a description of the meditation exercises of Mevlevi monks, where Werfel writes, "The love-celebration here below him did not come out of mind, the spirit, but out of these wild contortions of the body", -as if the harmonious movements of the dancing Mevlevi disciples had anything whatsoever to do with "wild contortions"!But in light of the monumantal task that Franz Werfel had set fro himself, all this might well be overlooked.

By Erich Feigl

Thank you Erich for your enlightening post (not). Perhaps you might be interested in David Irving's number - I hear that he is looking for some new ideas regarding how to better present genocide denial arguments. His and your claims that only 10,000 Jews and 10,000 Armenians were ever killed in the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide respectively are getting a bit tiresome and stale. I'm sure that there are plenty of ways to present so-called evidence to claim conspiracy and forgery etc while never actually addressing the actual facts of the matter - observed and documented by numerous sources in addition to the one source that you attack. A source that has been well corroborated using other sources from the time but which is in fact uncecessary for establishment of the core argument and is in fact not one that scholars need to or do commonly use as plenty of other more direct evidence is available. Besides taking the word of certain Turkish "scholars" (as well as non-academics with an axe to grind such as yourself) might just prove embarrasing rather then properly enlightening when one is concerned with actual facts and true historical events and interconnectivities. --THOTH 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Check this out !

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

BBC, The World's most prestigous news channel does not call these events "a genocide" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6505927.stm, so can anybody explain to me why we have such title in Wikipedia? Furthermore, to my opinion Turkish people are not so mean with their words as Armenians when you read through the arguments on this page. Don't you agree?88.235.97.58 15:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

April 24

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lets call this day "The Armenian SS (Schutzstaffel) Unit Day".

Yet another historical fact: a fact that for years has been deliberately forgotten, concealed, and wiped from memory — the fact of Armenian-Nazi collaboration. A magazine called Mitteilungsblatt der Deutsch-Armenischen Gesselschaft is the clearest and most definite proof of this collaboration.

The magazine was first published in Berlin in 1938 during Nazi rule of Germany and continued publication until the end of 1944. Even the name of the magazine, which implies a declaration of Armenian-Nazi cooperation, is attention-getting. This magazine, every issue of which proves the collaboration, is historically important as documentary evidence. It is a heap of writing that should be an admonition to world opinion and to all mankind.

To give specific examples of actions; In May 1935 the Armenians of Bucharest attacked the Jews of that city, while the Greeks of Salonika attacked the Jews in the August of the same year. During World War II, Armenian volunteers, under the wings of Hitler's Germany, were used in rounding up Jews and other undesirables destined for the Nazi concentration camps. The Armenians also published a German-language magazine, with fascist and anti-Semitic tendencies, supporting Nazi doctrines directed to the extermination of 'inferior' races [1]. This is confirmed by Armenophile Christopher J. Walker, who admits that the Armenians collaborated with the Nazis. According to him, members of the Dashnak Party, then living in the occupied areas, including a number of prominent persons, entertained pro-Axis sympathies.

A report in an American magazine went so far as to claim that the Nazis had picked on the Dashnaktsutiun to do fifth-column work, promising the party an autonomous state for its cooperation. Walker goes on to claim that relations between the Nazis and the Dashnaks living in the occupied areas were close and active.

On 30 December 1941 an Armenian battalion was formed by a decision of the Army Command (Wehrmacht), known as the 'Armenian 812th Battalion'. It was commanded by Dro, and was made up of a small number of committed recruits, and a larger number of Armenians. Early on, the total number of recruits was 8,000; this number later grew to 20,000. The 812th Battalion was operational in Crimea and the North Caucasus. (These are the dates and numbers given by Walker).

A year later, on 15 December 1942, an Armenian National Council was granted official recognition by Alfred Rosenberg, the German Minister of the occupied areas. The Council's president was Professor Ardashes Abeghian, its vice-president Abraham Giulkhandanian, and it numbered among its members Nzhdeh and Vahan Papazian. From that date until the end of 1944 it published a weekly journal, Armenien, edited by Viken Shant (the son of Levon), who also broadcast on Radio Berlin.

The whole idea was to prove to the Germans that the Armenians were 'Aryans'. With the aid of Dr. Paul Rohrbach, they seemed to have achieved this as the Nazis did not persecute the Armenians in the occupied lands [2]. "Members of the Dashnak party living in the occupied areas, including a number of names famous from the period of the republic, adopted a pro-Nazi stance." [2]

"Wholly opportunistic the Armenians [see below] have been variously pro-Nazi, pro-Russia, pro-Soviet Armenia, pro-Arab, pro-Jewish, as well as anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist, anti-Communist, and anti-Soviet - whichever was expedient." [3] Sources: [1] Turkkaya Ataov: Armenian Extermination of the Jews and Muslims, 1984, p. 91. [2] C.J. Walker: _Armenia_ London, 1980, pp. 356-8. [3] John Roy Carlson (Arthur Derounian), _Cairo to Damascus_ Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1951, p. 438.

Yes I heard the Armenians are also pro-alien invaders, and due to their collaboration with aliens in the extermination of humankind in the year 3099, the genocide of the majority of the Armenian people in 1915 must have been a good idea, and one for which there are countless moral rationalizations. A.D. Paranoiac, p. 972, Harpoonian Smardoodian, Harvard Cornell Penn Publishing, 29-p 3132 xqπ*.

TEH ARMENIAN DEMON MAGIC MUST BE DESTROYED BEFORE IT TOO LATE, they raeps pregnant womens, ARMENIAN CAN DO FLYING WITH ONLY HIS ARMS HE MAKE FIRE FROM HIS BUTTOCK, KILL KILL KILL NASTY CHRISTIAN

I kid because it is too much to weep.DBaba 05:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proof for the Armenian Genocide

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Recently several editors have presented what they claim is disproof for the Armenian Genocide. Additonally there is constantly put foreward the claim that Armenians were only being "exiled" for their own good and that every effort and intention was made to take care of them so that they would arrive well and fed at their destinations - and that this claim of 1.5 million (or anything close) is a recent one made up by Diaspora Armenians and such- etc. Well I recently came accross a posating of a single article from the New York Times of this period that addresses all of these Turkish claims and I am interested in comment from this - specifically I am interested in how the Armenian Genocide can still be denied in the face of these sort of reports (of which this is one of many) - (my bolds BTW)

AID FOR ARMENIANS BLOCKED BY TURKEY Attempts to Send Food to Refugees Frustrated, Says the American Committee PUTS VICTIMS AT 1,000,000

Careful Survey Shows 55,000 Persons Killed in the Vilayet of Van Alone

November 1, 1915

The American Committee on Armenian atrocities, among the members of which are Cardinal Gibbons, Cleveland H. Dodge, Bishop David H. Greer, Oscar S. Straus, Professor Samuel T. Dutton, Charles R. Crane, and many other prominent citizens, issued a statement yesterday in which it was said that authentic reports from Turkey proved that the war of extermination being waged by the Turks against the Armenians was so terrible that when all the facts were known the world would realize that what had been done was "the greatest, most pathetic, and most arbitrary tragedy in history." A chance to furnish food to the Armenians, ordered deported to distant parts of the empire were blocked by the Turkish authorities, the committee said, the Turkish officials stating that "they wished nothing to be done that would prolong their lives. " In the statement the committee makes public its report received a few days ago from an official representative of one of the neutral powers, who, reporting on conditions in of one of these Armenian camps, says: "I have visited their encampment and a more pitiable site cannot be imagine. They are, almost without exception, ragged, hungry and sick. This is not surprising in view of the fact that they have been on the road for nearly two months, with no change of clothing, no chance to bathe, no shelter and little to eat. I watched them one time when their food was brought. Wild animals could not be worse. They rushed upon the guards who carried the food and the guards beat them back with clubs hitting hard enough to kill sometimes. To watch them one could hardly believe these people to be human beings. As one walks through the camp, mothers offer their children and beg you to take them. In fact, the Turks have been taking their choice of these children and girls for slaves or worse. There are very few men among them, as most of the men were killed on the road. Women and children were also killed. The entire movement seems to be the most thoroughly organized and effective massacre this country has ever seen." "They all agree," adds the committee, referring to the reports, "as to the method of procedure, the thoroughness and cruelty of the destructive work, and the confessed purpose of the plan to wipe out the Armenian nation. The fact that the central government at Constantinople refuses to permit Armenians to leave the country is a further evidence of their purpose of extermination. "The Turks do not deny the atrocities, but claim they are a military measure to protect them against a possible attack of a race that is disloyal..."--THOTH 20:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

LOL, put things into context boy, the members cited above are hard core christian fundamentalists and I don't know if you realize that it was during a time when the United States was considered an enemy of Turks, do I need to remind you that it took the United States a couple of years before it decided to recognize the republic of Turkey? lutherian 21:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Luther, what you just said is not true in the slightest.

America was not an enemy of Turkey in 1915, the United States did not enter the war until 1917, and if you read the first couple of lines, you would have seen that the article was written in 1915. Consequently Americans missionaries, embassy personnel and even military officers were in Turkey during the 1915 Genocide. Many of the best accounts of the genocide are from Americans who were in Turkey at the time.
Well obviously the US did not recognize the Republic of Turkey at this point as in 1915 the state we are talking about is still the Ottoman Empire. The Turkish Republic was formed in the 1920s.
Many of the people writing accounts of the Armenian Genocide were not Christian fundamentalists, such as the American Ambassador to Turkey, Mr. Mogenthau who was himself a Jew. Oscar Strauss above could also very well be a Jew judging from the name, although I can't say for certain.

-AlexiusComnenus

1. I was referring to the guineas at the American Committee on Armenian Atrocities, seems logical to me that most members of this hate group would be christian fundamentalists! 2. America does not need to enter a war to be an enemy, I don't think the U.S. was a friend of Germany when the Nazis decided to invade Poland, the U.S. entered the war very late, after a large amount of Jews were already killed! 3. As for recognition, read my comments carefully, it took the U.S. a couple of years before it recognized the Republic of Turkey which was founded in 1923. lutherian 04:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The jokes on you Lutherian. All of the accounts referenced in this NYT article are available in their original form - from the source - the actual eyewitnesses - with no reliance on the American Committee on Armenian atrocities needed. This is exactly why I posted this. Because I knew you would make an ad Hominem attack against the supposed source of this information when in fact the direct sources are unassailable (and in fact are primarily from German sources - when Germany was an ally with the Ottoman Empire - and not from US sources at all). So again you have shown your denial tactic (having nothing to do with the facts at hand) - which has nothing to do with the actual facts which you cannot contend. ie you lose. You are shown for exactly what you are. The bottom line is that you have no answer for these fatcs and the thousands of other accounts of this nature - which indeed do proove the Genocide for what it is and absolutly counter any attempt on the part of denilaists like you to claim that it wasn't so --THOTH 22:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

So in fact what you are saying is that you concocted an elaborate trap just for me? Gee, I am truly flattered but doesn't this also prove my point that you really have nothing better to do in life? Au contraire, joke seems to be on you, LOL. lutherian 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

On the contrary, you fail to argue any of his points. You fail. 15 May 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.55.236 (talk • contribs)

Thanx

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you our Armenian brothers who prepared this page. Now it looks so biased and propagandic that, you can easily understand this genocide thing is a joke. 85.96.137.253 20:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Truth About Genocide

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At Ottoman Empire Armenians were called "Millet-i Sadika" for centuries. It means "Loyal Nation". Most of Armenians were merchants and developed Ottoman Empire's economy. Ottomans took lower taxes from Armenians and they lived in peace and wealth for centuries. But at first quarter of 20th century, Russians promised to Armenians for an Independent National Armenian Country and gave them munitions. And after this, Armenians chose a part of Ottoman Empire to found an Armenian Country. Armenians invaded this lands and killed Turks and Kurds living there. Now there are thousands of mass graves of Turkish and Kurdish people there. Turks and Kurds both couldn’t do anything because Turkish and Kurdish youth were both fighting at “Gallipoli” against English Imperialism and protecting their country. For protecting villagers, Government agreed about “Emigration of Armenians” to other lands. During emigration, angry Turkish and Kurdish people both killed thousands of Armenians but not millions. During events there are ten thousands of people died, most of them were Turkish and Armenian. Everything began with Armenian’s betrayal. After this events between 1975 and 1985 Armenians killed many Turks with Asala Terror and at 25th February 1992 Armenians killed 613 Azerbaijani Turks at Khojaly with Russia’s help. Armenians want the East Anatolia Region of Turkey now. It can be seen at Armenian songs, books etc. and because of Armenian's imperialist wishes Armenians say “There was a genocide against Armenians at 1915 and 1,5 Million Armenians died”. There was not a genocide. Only it's a lie for imperialist wishes. --KhaLduNTR 08:33, 05 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The usual

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This comment might go unheeded by some, but please do not post comments along the lines "this is all a balooney" or "Turks are butchers" - please try to concentrate on how it effects the article. eg "I think that in the X paragraph in Y section it should be included that Z, A, B call this a balloney for Q, W reasons", or "maybe we should reorganize C and D sections to concentrate on the fact Turks are butchers per P, R and S" :) Obviously I am exaggerating to make a point, but let's at least try to keep a correlation between the talk page and the article, no matter what viewpoint we are presenting. People are free to speak their minds of course, but it is just an advice... Baristarim 10:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

External Links

Latest comment: 17 years ago60 comments20 people in discussion

Why all the external links are the ones which support the Armenian theory? For instance, why not this website ? Miller --88.106.11.115 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Possibly because it is not considered a theory, as much as a historical fact? Or perhaps because the cited website has no credentials and a fairly obvious POV? Just possibilities...The Myotis 23:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Myotis, but I think these are still theories. I am following this genocide issue since 2005, I did not see even one strong evidence which really manifests that there was an Armenian genocide and / or Turks didn't do anything to Armenians. I am not sure if you are aware of it but there are even some serious discussions going on about the picture on the main page - Wallstein Verlag picture.. :-) In this sense, I really don't see any difference between an Armenian website and a Turkish website. What I was trying to say is, if there is going to be a objective article about this issue, I think, there should be information / references from both sides. Don't you think? (PS: I am not Turkish or Armenian..) Miller 88.106.107.162 22:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Have you heard of the historians, like Bernard Lewis and Justin McCarthy who disagree? Real, respected, historians? They're even mentioned in the article, although their views are besieged by editorializing that's inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The POV of our article here is also very clear, and the POV of the historians the article cites, historians who consider what happened to be a genocide, is very clear. When there is an academic argument, do you expect the two sides to conceal their conclusions, i.e. their POV?!?!?

Surrounded by 'em, I swear it.

--24.5.70.65 20:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Generally, we do not build an article by balancing between the two most passionate opposing voices say, but on the thesis of the more neutral institutions. Since the vast majority of historical have defined the events as 'genocide', that is what the article is written towards. The 'external links' section just gives more specialized sources aligned to the already established thesis. Looking at the Bibliography section, you will see that we have sources from both Armenians and Turks, but most of the sources cited are neither.The Myotis 01:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is not my point, I think you are deflecting what I try to say. I think external links as important as the article itself as they give people a chance to see different opinions from both sides, I am not talking about cited references. And right now, article has only 3 external links which advocate the Armenian view. That was my main question (sorry, maybe it wasn't quite clear) and your reply is definitely not the right answer. Are you saying that armeniapedia.org website is more objective than www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr ? If yes, based on what and/or who? Historical evidence? I really don't think so. Let's not be subjective ... Miller 88.106.121.156 21:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If people want to see the opposing viewpoint they can look at the Armenian genocide denial page. I think it states the opposition very neutrally, and give external links avocating the minority view. It is not the job of Wikipedia to represent all viewpoints, and no other Genocide article gives denialist sources. The Myotis 03:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I thought all the articles should be objective here in wikipedia and as far as I see, this article is not; at least the external links section. If this was an objective article as you said, there should have been other external links as well (which are opposing). Also I am not talking about other genocide articles, we are discussing this one right now. If others don't have essential external links, then they should be corrected too. Miller 88.106.95.83 17:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

So you confirm that you believe other Genocide articles should also include minority/denialist views? And you believe that they should be 'corrected' as if in violation of Wikipedia policy? Well, I am sorry, but neither this nor any other article (all of which are WP policy compliant) accepts such sources and there is no reason for AG to become an exception to the rule. If you want to change it, you will have to do it to every similarly situated Wikipedia article simultaneously, and the only way that would be possible would be to change WP official policy.The Myotis 21:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I will repeat again (hopefully for the last time), I am just talking about external links, not overall condition of the article (Cows fly kites, thanks for clarifying that below, but again, I am not questioning the genocide thesis. And, of course, I totally agree that Wikipedia is not a webspace provider). I do not confirm anything, I just asked a question about external links. Minority, majority thing is completely your opinion, you cannot count people to see how many support a thesis and how many do not. You may say people opposing to AG are minority but this would be something you made up, because you simply don't know that; you just assume that your opinion is the one which is generally accepted. Where is the objectivity on this? What I am saying is if this is an objective article, there should be also other 'external links' explaining both side's opinions and/or showing different (historical) evidences. There is no need to be a Wikipedia cop, I just need a plain answer : why there are no external links which support the other side's opinion while surely the subject deserves to be defended by both sides? Miller 88.106.62.16 00:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would like to clarify a misunderstanding that seems to have arisen. The Wikipedia policy is known as the Neutral point of view (NPOV), not the Multiple point of view (MPOV). Wikipedia articles must be written "fairly, proportionately and without bias." I agree that the article is far from perfect, and needs a lot of improvement and finetuning. But the basic structure of the article is quite good, imo: background to the events --> events --> repercussions --> views in Turkey --> views outside of Turkey. From what I understand, the events described in the article are not under dispute. The dispute revolves around the question of whether those events constitute genocide. Editors should be reminded that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, Wikipedia is not the place to bring original research into the scientific community. I think the article summarizes the relevant, notable and attributed positions on the events quite nicely: the majority of scientists and of the international community feel that the events constitute genocide, with Turkey and a sizable minority of the scientific community dissenting. While the coverage of the debate can and probably should be improved (The chapters "Views of Turkish academic community and intellectuals" and "Recognition of Genocide" need to be expanded, to give one example), the basis should remain unchanged. If editors feel that those supporting or opposing the use of the term Genocide are in the wrong, it's up to them. But Wikipedia is not the place to prove them wrong. Wikipedia is not a weblog, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance and Wikipedia is not a free webspace provider. Cows fly kites ^{Main account: Aecis}^/^Rule^/^{Contributions} 10:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

All very good points and well said. One thing I would like to disagree with however is your contention that a "sizable minority of the scientific community" dissents from the viw categorizing the Armenian Genocide as such. If we were to list the names of all academics, historians and scholars who have voiced an opionion on this issue and divide them into two camps - one agreeing with the designation of "genocide" and the other not - I suspect that the list of names in favor of such designation would number on the order of 200+ to 1 for ever name on the list opposing the designation of "genocide". Furthermore the vast majority of those names opposing would be the names of Turkish academics and an extremely high percentage of the remaining names would consist of scholars who are indebted to Turkey by means of direct grants and employment or through the need to curry Turkish Government favor in order to maintin the ability to access Turkish controlled sources of historical data or to obtain Turkish visas and such for necessary research that must be performed in that country. So I would not at all characterize the opposition to use of the term "genocide" applying to the Armenian Genocide as one comming from the scientific community. Instead it is clearly political opposition and nothing more. Likewise I also am not sure that I believe you accuratly characterize the views of many of the contributors here who seem to have issues with the article as it now stands as accepting/not disputing the factuality of the events described in the article. In fact it is apparent from their edits and from their comments here that they do not in fact accept many of the very basic descriptions of the history and the premisses inherrent in the presentation of such as written. Of course the even more basic issue regarding the characterization of these events as genocide itself is hampering things and causing much unessecary and unproductive debate - but it cannot be ignored that there is a "sizable minority" of editors and commentators here who do not in fact even believe that the events described in this article are historically accurate at all and who believe differently about what occured - who believe that the vast eyewitness data that has been compiled and the incredible amounts of scholarly presentation and anlysis that has been performed are simply fabricated and ficticious - and this to me is a very fundemental aspect of our problem here. I'm not sure what to do about it and I share the feeling among many Wikians that this is not the proper place for debating these facts and debunking fantastical notions to the contrary - but given that there are significant numbers of outright deniers who apear in these pages on a weekly basis I am not sure that we can ignore this and allow such misinformation and politicaly motivated input to go on unchallenged. And this is why I comment here as I do - even knowing that many believe it to be inappropriate - and I understand this as well - however I see no option. As long as there are individuals and groups who are making such claims - that this is all fiction and propoganda, or that it was not Genocide but some kind of justyfiable action and it is only because of anti-Turkishness or such that it is being portrayed as it is, or that it was just a civil war (even though the facts belie this claim utterly) and such - what can we do? We can't just ignore these views and accept the vandalism - we have to counter and protect the truth. And while I agree the article is far from perfect - there have been few suggestions for its improvement that in fact would be improvements IMO. I think that it is incumbant on Wikipedia to understand that this article may have to be far lengthier and far more in-depth in its coverage to ensure its unassailability by the biased/bigoted political forces set against it (who would perfer that such an article not even exist at all). We may just have to address every objection and every alternative perspective that comes along and do so in a way that is well supported from the scholarly world - and IMO this means a great deal of background discussion and presentation - more so then currently exists in the article. Anyway that is and has always been my perspective on this. But in the meantime - lacking that - I will at the very least contribute here in these talk pages to ensure that we not get to carried away in fictions.--THOTH 14:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

See, I am totally out of this but to tell the truth even the heading "Armenian genocide denial" does not really sound neutral to me. so it2s not as if there are two viewpoints, but there is one right viewpoint, and the other one that denies that absolute truth. The neutral one would be "refusal of the armenian genocide allegations" or something like that. Anyway, just wanted to mention it. I personally think that it's useless to argue about a past event when there are still genocides going around the world. Regards, Kerem Özcan 08:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

'Denial' is used as it is the opposite of 'recognition'. The viewpoints are portrayed the way they are, not as a 'truth' and a 'falsehood', but as the 'majority view' and the 'minority view'. According to Wikipedia policy, a significant minority view can be described in detail as long as it is not portrayed as the 'truth'. Look, for example, at the Evolution article, no creationist links. Holocaust article? Nope, no denialist sources there. I am not sure what your definition of "objective" is, but if you believe being objective necessitates that every article describe the minority view, then clearly Wikipedia is not "objective". The Myotis 17:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

So you would also advocate that the Holocaust denial article be changed to "refusal of the Jewish Holocaust allegations"?--THOTH 20:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, no hard how some people try, this will never be in the same ballgame as the Holocaust and definitely not Evolution (that refers to a scientific concept btw, not a historical analysis). I don't want to get into debates in this article, but I have posted comments before to this effect. People have a right to make their own research and wonder if the genocide classification applies to this. Therefore the analogy with the Holocaust denial is not correct, since most Holocaust deniers deny outright that Jews died and that it is all one big scam - however in this case, the "opposing" position espouses the view that even though many people have died, it shouldn't/can't be classified as a genocide and/or questions about the involvement of the Ottoman government (which is a key part considering the recent case pitting Bosnia against Serbia where it was decided that Serbia didn't commit genocide - I don't think that we can call the judges of the ICJ as "Holocaust deniers", can we?). There is a big difference, and I frankly think that it is pretty childish all these attempts to equate everyone who makes research/wonders if the events can be classified as genocide into the same group as common Neo-Nazis or conspiracy theorists (see my example above about Serbia/Bosnia - people have a legitimate right to make their own research in good faith and not be afraid of a political correctness firestorm). Just my two cents.. Baristarim 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry but you are very wrong here in every respect. The Armenian Genocide is more then sufficiently proven as such - including intent (absolutly), including Ottoman Government chorographation (my word BTW - but one that absolutly fits) - and certainly the events are known and witnessed and the results are clear - GENOCIDE. In addition there have been trials - aborted certainly, but enough to make the picture quite clear. And in addition to all the eyewitness accounts and official reports from governments and such - there have been plenty of confessions to the crimes as well as admissions by various Turks from the time. And there are legal rulings as to the applicability of the term/concept of Genocide as applies to this case and there is the fact of the origin of the concept of the word being created to specifically describe this very event and for it to be the model for the type of events that have come to be known as Genocide. We have presented all of this information many times before. The probelm lies with those of you who just utterly fail to see reason and truth and instead attempt to be legalistic with minutia and tangental arguments - none of which change the basic facts and truth of the Armenian Genocide nor do your arguments here affect one iota what is occuring in the scholarly world and what scholars and historians publish and know about this issue (overwhelminlgy concluding genocide - with the only serious disagreements concerning particulars that in no way would or could change this designation). And again you are wrong in your mischaracterization of the Armenian Genocide. It is in all major respects EXACTLY like the Holocaust - as is its denial. So it is you and the likes of you who need to cease your pathetic and "childish" attempts at denial and prove that you are not here just to push a faulty and already discredited national agenda and continue in the tradition of your government to deny and thus perpetuate and be accomplice to genocide. Have a nice day. --THOTH 04:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lol. I was referring to something completely different, but you went on ranting on a completely different road. Read my post carefully again: It is much more subtle than that, and I touched upon other aspects. However, I don't like getting into discussions in this talk page since this page never became more than some common forum.. Have a nice day too. cheers! Baristarim 04:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict)Look, first of all I did not advocate or propose any name changes. And yes, the first sentence of the Holocaust denial article goes as "Holocaust denial (commonly called Holocaust revisionism by its supporters)" is kind of the same thing. The difference between Holocaust and Armenian Genocide is that, the people responsible for holocaust were judged, found guilty of genocide and even today's germany recognizes the events. Still, it could be under the name of "Holocaust revisionism" and it wouldn't bother me. That doesn't mean that I refuse that it ever happened. Plus you're talking to the wrong guy, we have had this discussion before (I was known as Ombudsee then) and I have never denied the mass killings of Armenians. And while I was defending Hrant Dink's ideas, you were on the other side. (See my talk page)

And Myotis, I didn't say that we should include external links either. That discussion was made here maybe about ten times. I understand the reasoning behind that perfectly. I just thought that the title for the denial page sounded oddly contradicting itself. An Oxymoron you might say. Plus; Wikipedia is not, and can not be a Neutral place anyways. History is always re-written by the ones in power. Why (and by whom) do you think were the events in 1915 were pigeonholed up until now, and they are suddenly becoming apparent now? you blame the Turkish government? I don't think so. How come we don't see a movie about American indian genocide, Sedif massacre or Dresden Bombing, while there are hundreds about Holocaust?

I really don't understand the people who sit front of the computer all day rowing in the Armenian Genocide forums. I just think that if Turkish government recognizes the event as a genocide one-day, there will be no purpose of life for them anymore. I mean, stop wasting the time as such and do something that actually worths it. Feed an African child, teach somebody how to fish - I don't know! Or else we'll keep hearing the Iraqi civilian casulities as statistics, and death of an American soldier as a "A brave fighter sacrificing his life for the freedom of others". Duh.

Anyway, I am getting off topic. I try to stay out of this, and everytime I roll in once again.

Just wanted to make it clear once more, I respect and share your pains;

Regards, Kerem Özcan 23:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry but you obviously do neither (respect our pains nor do you share them). Instead of showing respect you do quite the opposite. So "hundreds of movies about the holocaust" you say - please name these "hundreds" before you make such claims - claims that in fact are absurd (as if number of movies made about something makes it true - look at all the movies made about the bible - I win this argument BTW)...as is your anti-semitic undercurrent here is rather sad...again certain nationalistic Turks don't know how to do anything but jump in and attempt to shift blame away from their government at every oppurtunity....and you accuse Armenians of having nothing better to do...and you accuse Armenians of needing to do something more important. Please keep you uneeded and irrelevant opinions to yourself.--THOTH 04:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, keep putting words in my mouth. I am out of this. Kerem Özcan 07:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

"since most Holocaust deniers deny outright that Jews died" -- no, no Holocaust denier does that. If you're going to talk about "everyone who makes research", you might want to demonstrate that you've done some. But in any case this "research" is irrelevant, since it is against Wikipedia policy. It is not up to editors to determine whether "the events can be classified as genocide", but only whether they are so classified by cited sources. Really, folks, Wikipedia would be a much better place if you all left your nationalism and ideologies at home, and stuck to editing. -- Jibal 02:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Baristarim, I don't think you quite understand what Holocaust denial is . I think Jibal beat me to it, but I was going to say that Holocaust denial very rarely entails a direct denial that any Jews died, but is usually comprised of claims that far less Jews died than conventional estimates, that there were not even 6 million living in Europe at that time, that the Jews were not intentionally killed but instead died from wartime famine and disease. They also claim that there were conspiracies within the Allied government to exaggerate the Jews plight in order to demonize Germans, or that, even though crimes were committed, they were not the result of orders from the German government. And many people who have been identified as Holocaust deniers have no visible ties to Neo-Nazi organizations or conspiracy circles. Even several card-carrying historians (Harry Elmer Barnes, David Hoggan, and James J. Martin, for example) have taken up Holocaust denial. One could easily compare them to Justin McCarthy. As for a scientific concept vs. a historical analysis, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, they require the same validation. In any case, the precedent should stand.The Myotis 21:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The so-called Armenian Genocide is a production of AntiTurc attraction. In fact there was the 1st World War, and the Ottoman Empire's troops were battling on different fronts and very outside of Anatolia. The Anatolian Turkish population was out of the protection and the external (mainly France) powered Armenian gangs were killing them. Since the male population was mainly in fronts of the war and the Armenian-Ottoman citizens were not obliged to have the military service, the Turkish families were free of protection. The Armenian gangs had this opportunity to attack the innocent families and kill them in a massive way. Today many of the graves of those people are still to be explored. For this reason the goverment of the Ottoman Empire led by Talat Pasha took the decision, which was forcing to dislocate the Armenian-Anatolian population. During this dislocation of the Armenian population, under the for the time being's conditions, were unfortunatelly died. But this was absolutely no genocide, but a very rightful action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.244.97.244 (talk • contribs)

Please use this talk page to discuss the article itself, not the subject of the article. A ecis^Brievenbus 11:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dislocation is not and cannot be a rightful action, but it was not a genocide. Caglarkoca 11:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Anyone who is of the opinion that there was no Armenian Genocide or that there is insufficient evidence to claim the Armenian Genocide as fact is either just purely mistaken (due to ignorance) or is supporting a purely political agenda. In either case they have no business editing the article - just as a Holocaust denier has no business editing the Holocaust article.--THOTH 15:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

THOTH, just a quote from the last Star Wars movie : 'Only the Sith deal in absolutes' :) Miller 88.106.121.156 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Miller - just a quote from Evil Dead 2...on second thought...anyway nevermind Darth Genocidius...--THOTH 20:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

"When the powers that be in Wikipedia agree to amend the Holocaust article to state that in fact "it is not a fact but a claim, one side of the story". And when - in your words - they agree to let people who are on the other side to tell their point of view, rather than just being mentioned in the article as the "rejecting" side or the minority that accepts this - then I would say that precedent has been established and that the Armenian Genocide article should follow suit. In the meantine - yes you are mistaken. However, we forgive you. In fact there is no real debate. There is the truth. There is real and accurate depiction of history. And then there is a shameful political agenda that is being pursued by one nation and by brainwashed people of that nation to continue to perpetuate lies and half-truths for the purpose of denying clulpability in the enactment of known, acknowledged and highly witnessed and well documented crimes commited against humanity - in this case against the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire and against its other Christian inhabitants by the majority population of Muslim Turks. Tese essential facts are unassailable even though the deniers use every tact and every approach imaginable to do so. But of course part of this effort is to disrupt processes such as this article - giving the aprearance of "debate" on these basic issues when in fact there is no legitimate debate at all. They think that this helps to cover up the crimes of the past and recognition of them and of discussion and presentation of the details and relevant facts and issues. And it is apparent that these tactics suceed on at least a certain level because here we are discussing this bullsh*t when we would be better served working toward a more accurate true presentation of the history and related issues as opposed to endless debate over whether it is or is not a genocide and debating whether or not we have properly considered and included the "Turkish" position. I think we havfe given more then enough time and attention to this "Turkish" position and it is well past the time to move on to real issues" THOTH, that was brilliant. very well said.

ari 09:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with 88.106.62.16 (Miller) to some extent. The external links section of this article should contain all relevant and notable websites about the Armenian Genocide. Per Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article...", provided the linked website does not "mislead the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." It should be reminded that linking to a website does not constitute an endorsement of the content of the website. A ecis^Brievenbus 11:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fine - but two (related) questions - Does Wikipedia support links to hate sites - because any site that outright denies the Armenian Genocide or makes false counter charges (ie Blames the victims) is indeed a hate site, and does the Holocaust article in Wikipedia provide links to Holocaust denial web sites? If the answer to either of these questions is "no" then I do not think it is right to provide links to such sites here either. Furthermore I would protest against linking to any more then a single Turkish Government web site on this matter. Even with one you are thrusting a dagger into the hearts of the descendents of survivors of this genocide as well as highly disrespecting the dead.--THOTH 13:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here is the link to the Holocuast "links". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_%28resources%29 Quite an impressive list I should add - and I could not find a one that linked to any site denying the Holocaust. Funny that. --THOTH 14:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

And here is the article concerning Holocaust denial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial At the bottom there are a variety of links. Even here only a few actually go to "examples of denial websites" - the rest are analysis of this phenomenon of denial. I believe that the Armenian Genocide article and the accompanying Denial of the Armenian Genocide article (and their links) should follow suit. Allowing anything else here - IMO - is giving in and participating in Armenian Genocide denial. Is this a position that we want to see Wikipedia in? --THOTH 14:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Holocaust resources does not have the same purpouses as a main. It contains resources on the Holocaust position. I already created such on the Armenian Genocide in the past, which is not used and forgothen, but something different with mine was that it also included ressources from the other side. I do not care what there is in other articles, as I believe that the revisionist position has a place on every of those articles. The reader should know that such a position exist, removing it is totally misleading as it suggest that such a position does not exist. Also, removing those informations is an insult to the intelligence of the reader, as those removing it under the pretext that it is misleading think that the reader is not intelligent enough to understand from the text what is the majority and what is the minority position. The only way to work on this article and prevent edit warring, the only way to bring Turkish contributors so that they too feal that they could contribute is to make it absolute, absolute NPOV. The majority position, the minority position. One might disagree with the majority position, but there is no reason under policy or guideline to remove it or edit war on it. I do not expect you to adhere to this, I just hope that others are taking note on how this article should continue its progress once I would not be able to contribute on it.

This does not mean to add hatesites, it means to present the official positions of the minority positions, it does not mean to add sites like armenianreality, tallarmeniantale. But it means adding ATAA, Turkish government sites, official Turkish organization sites. Neutrality does not mean 50/50, and as far as I am aware, the Turkish contributors have accepted this by now, so there should be no problem. Fad (ix) 17:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. I propose to add this additional link to the external links section of the article: http://www.ttk.org.tr/index.php?Page=Sayfa&No=90. This is a governmental website (Turkish Historical Society) and it includes the historical facts and information about the issue. I think, data presented by experts there is quite something. Can everyone view the link and let me know? Thanks Miller 88.106.61.112 14:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunatly "facts" are few and far between in regards to the Turkish Historical Society web site and in general with this organization which was specifically founded by the Turkish Government to propogate its own POV version of history. Since the founding of this organization they have been responsible for a serious of incredible falsifications and the deliberate spreading of disinformation for the purpose of Armenian Genocide denial and historical fabrications. For instance THS leader Prof Halacoglu claims that Armenains commited a Genocide against the Turks and that only 80,000 Armenians were ever killed by Turks during this period. This is far from historically accurate on both counts. This website is clearly a Turkish Government propoganda site designed to further the Armenian Genocide through its denial. Its quite pathetic really and not something that Wikipedia should be promoting in any fashion.--THOTH 14:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

So you think that http://www.ttk.org.tr/index.php?Page=Sayfa&No=90 link is a propoganda although it clearly explains the historical facts with references :) You may be a dedicated nationalist but please at least be a "logical" one.. Are you telling me that Armeniapedia website and it's contents are not propoganda? Look at the domain of the website... :) I really found your words funny.. Miller 88.106.88.103 22:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I could not help but jump in, even though my days here are numbered, since this has a consequence on the overal article shape. I understand what Baris means and I agree with him partly, it is true that hardcore revisionists of the Holocaust do deny nearly totally that Jews died, Rassinier "calculations" were of about a million, which he claims was the result of war conditions and not any German decision which could have in any way precipitated their deaths. Also other Holocaust deniers use statistics of estimates pre and after, to claim that only excess Jews are missing (basically that there was no population growth, and this they justify by claiming it is expected during war time) Why I say I agree only partly, is because not all Holocaust deniers think like this, Irving does not, for instance in an interview he accepted 4 million losses, which is basically the figure that some scholars who accept the term Holocaust adhere to. So definitly there is two sort of deniers. And my other argument on the part which I disagree is that, there are Armenian genocide deniers who indeed deny that Armenians died, Halacoglu in his booklet claims 56,000, which is basically not much further than the loss of population excess. It is true that the denial in both cases is not on the same level, but not exactly where Baris place it.

Also, I don't see what is the problem of adding "revisionist" sites, official positions in any case should remain here, I do not agree their exclusion on the Holocaust article, one wrong does not justify another. As for Evolution, there is no comparaison, evolution is a scientific concept, it is not history, also the logic of excluding creationist science is not the same. As the revisionist sites are about the occurence of the Armenians, while most opposition to evolution are not about "evolution" in itself, its direct criticism, but on another level such as intelligent design or creationism. There too, I agree that had there been some critic sites directly on evolution, some should also go in its main. That they do not, is again not right. So other articles wrong does not justify excluding in this one some useful sites. Everyone know here that excluding those sites will lead to pointless edit wars and that there is a rational of including those sites, so be it. We are not talking about tallarmeniantale.com, this definitly does not go in the article, it is a hatesite. But official sites like those of ATAA, or the Turkish government are definitly welcome. Of course not turn this into the excess either. Fad (ix) 16:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding a point raised by THOTH above: Wikipedia's "task" is to provide comprehensive, authoritative, reliable, verified and unbiased articles about notable events and people. We are not in the business of respecting or disrespecting the emotions of either side of the debate. We did not do that with Piss Christ, we didn't do it with the Danish Muhammad cartoons, and we shouldn't do it here. If a website is relevant and notable, it deserves to get linked. How victims feel about it is immaterial. That may sound harsh, but that is one of the consequence of striving to be comprehensive. Aecis^Brievenbus 20:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Basically my point. With a minor addition, the reason I had opposed the addition of tallarmeniantale.com, was not more of the position it maintains by rather the reliability of the site itself. It is registered by proxy, basically no one takes the responsability of the material there. As long as it is an official position, reliable, it should be added. Not to play in the excess either. And your description of what Wikipedia is right on point, it is not Wikipedia's task to say what the truth is, it's function is to represent information, the revisionist position exist and people should know of its existance. Whatever or not it is true does not make any differences. Fad (ix) 21:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
- I think I more then adequatly made my points above why such sites should NOT be included in the article. They are hate sites pure and simple. In the Holocaust article denial of the Holocaust is treated just as it should be. Is denial of the Armenian Genocide any different - just because it is funded and supported by a government with nearly unlimited funds and ability to sponsor "researchers" and influence a captive group of historians? NO. It is still denial and the positions put foreward are still untruth and still constitute a hateful act of genocide denial. Numerous international bodies and academic groups have stated that the essential facts and truth of the Armenian Genocide are uncontestable and its categorization as genocide is more then proven. So when ATAA and the MFA of the Turkish Government deny it - what they are doing is extremely wrong and hurtful and Wikipedia should not be supporting such things. This type od denial needs to be presented for what it is - just as the denial of the Holocaust is presented. For those who feel that the Holocaust article is in the wrong I suggest that you make these very same type of suggestions over there - and let us see what response you get - and what comes of it.--THOTH 04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  - The inclusion of those sites has reached concensus, their removal was done without prior discussion. "Hurtful" and "wrong" are alien concepts to Wikipedia. Stop that. Fad (ix) 06:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  - THOTH, just for clarity: inclusion of a link does not imply endorsement of the content of the linked website. Being "hurtful" is not a relevant criterion for a link, and Wikipedia doesn't "support such things" by including a link. Aecis^Brievenbus 09:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    - Obviously some folks here such as yourself see things differently then those who have participated in editing of the Holocaust article for instance. And obviously you see it differently then historians and history book writers. And obviously you see it differently then the editors at Microsoft Encarta (who in 2000 rebuffed an attempt by the Turkish Government to eliminate reference to the Armenian Genocie as "genocide"). And obviously you see it differently then the Massachusettes School Board that refuses to provide links to Turkish sponsored denialist web sites. Why do all of these folks hold this view - counter to yours? Well, they understand that genocide denial is in fact part of the process of genocide itself. For WIkipedia to give in to Turkish pressure and allow denial of the Armenian Genocide to have a forum makes Wikipedia itself and all of its editors who allow such a thing accomplices in genocide. It is as simple as that. This is what is widely accepted - I'm not making it up. Additionally we need to deal with this aspect of genocide - the denial itself - in both this article and in every article where genocide is denied. Thus I contend that the Holocaust article (and the corresponding Holocaust references article) has done it correctly. And it is clear that we should follow their example here. In fact it is all the more important as the denial of this genocide is more pervasive do to the active participation and encouragement of the Turkish Government. And I cannot believe that editors of such a fine project as Wikipedia would allow themselves to sucumb to such pressure. We have to do the right thing here. --THOTH 14:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
      - THOTH, I understand you care deeply about this issue. But what could you possibly stand to gain by putting words into the mouths of other people? Where have I indicated that I view the Armenian Genocide different "then historians and history book writers"? Where have I indicated that I view the Armenian Genocide different "then the editors at Microsoft Encarta (who in 2000 rebuffed an attempt by the Turkish Government to eliminate reference to the Armenian Genocie as "genocide")"? I have said that it might be possible to include some links to some websites, provided they meet the conditions outlined by our External Links policy. A ecis^Brievenbus 15:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
        My impression is that you are advocating inclusion of denialist websites in the links section of this article. If this is not so - and you oppose inclusion of such links - then your views are in accordance with those I have cited.--THOTH 15:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
        I'm not advocating anything. All I said was that including a link to certain websites under certain conditions is allowed under our External Links policy. Whether an individual website meets those conditions has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. We are not responsible for the content of other websites, and inclusion of a link does not mean endorsement of the content of those websites. But let's suppose, just for the sake of the point you are trying to make, that I was "advocating inclusion of denialist websites in the links section of this article." How does that mean that my position on the Armenian Genocide itself differs from "historians and history book writers" and "editors at Microsoft Encarta"? How does advocating the inclusion of a particular type of website equal advocating the content of such websites? The article on Stormfront has a link to the white nationalist website of Stormfront, but does that mean that Wikipedia or the editors of that specific article endorse or advocate the content of that website? A ecis^Brievenbus 16:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
        Your position here is quite disingenuous and you should know it. There is a great deal of difference between an article concerning a hate website - and thus linking to the site about which the article in question is referring - and linking to propoganda sites that deny the truth of the subject of this article - allegedly a factual encycleopedic article about actual historical events. As Encarta and these other entities refused to succumb to the pressure of the denialists and you are conciously or otherwise allowing yourself to be atool of their denial - well I see both your position as quite different to theirs and your anology to be faulty.--THOTH 16:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
        Your position has been noted, but I'm not willing to discuss this matter with someone who calls others "disingenuous" and "a tool of their denial." I will only say that I deliberately did not compare the article on Stormfront with the article on the Armenian Genocide. I merely used the article on Stormfront as an example to illustrate how adding a link does not necessarily mean an endorsement of the content of that link. I will also say that I'm noone's tool, as my contributions to this article and this talk page will show you. With that, my participation in this discussion ends. You can have the last word, if you want to. A ecis^Brievenbus 16:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
        
        For the 1000th time, INFORMATION, it is the purpouse of Wikipedia. Does the position that there was no genocide exist? Yes or no? It does not matter if it is true or not. There are articles on some alien spacecraft landing in 1947. Which I don't buy a second, does the event happening makes any differences on the existance of the position? The official position of the thesis that there was no genocide is presented in websites, readers should be informed of those websites. The sites which should be excluded are those who are not official positions, example, tallarmeniantale.com, armeniareality.com etc., those sites do not belong here. But definitly, ATAA or sites relating to the official Turkish government position should be included, they represent the official anti-thesis position. No one beside you had any problem what so ever with their inclusion, their inclusion had reached concensus, their removal, not. Fad (ix) 22:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

By your logic if there are any unofficial positions about the genocide then these should be included as well - as we are here to provide INFORMATION (any and all aparently). Like you said - it doesn't matter if it is true or not. In fact I imigine there might be articles that claim aliens from the future came back to 1915 and commited the genocide and that Turks were just innocent bystanders who have been set up to take the blame - my we must reference all of those websites and give space to those views as well. In fact I know that there are a huge number of websites that blame the Jews for all of these evils and provide a great deal of detail. Many people seem to believe that such things represent the truth - shouldn't we explain these views as well and provide links to these sites too. C'mon now - lets get at it! And i'm certain that there are "official organizations" of all types that have staked out positions - how can we afford to not include them all - The Turkish MHP party has some things to say about this for instance. I'm certain an argument can be made to link their websites. In fact I don't see anyone objecting - so it must be the consensus to include them as well...and so on...and finally I think I will make sure that all of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's prounouncemtns oin the Holocaust are linked to that sirte - I mean he is the President of a major world nation...pretty official - how can we leave him out? I mean Wikepedia readers want to know! And there are all sorts of sites that deal with ideas of various organizations regarding the naute of life, creation, the universe, and so on and so forth - shouldn't we append links to these sites to every scientific article dealing with these subjects? I mean - it doesn't matter if it is true or not we are just providing a conduit to more INFORMATION right? Shouldn't any anti-thesis position be linked and mentioned no matter how far fetched? Just where do we draw the line eh? I happen to think that the Armenian Genocide is no thesis - it is factual. And I happen to think encyclopedias (such as this one purports to be) are supposed to be factual not fiction. You are advocating presenting fiction as fact as far as I'm concerned and I think anyone reading this who is concerned about this and the slippery slope of presidence this will put us (and many other articles) on - should weigh in and comment here lest certain parties assume that no comments mean aquiesence to such concepts --THOTH 23:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I will not use the few days that are left to me on this irrelevent discussion. Fad (ix) 04:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

"Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information..." If critical links are not allowed, this wikipedia-article is violating the wikipedia rules.Chonanh 02:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

The neutral point of view
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one.
The wiki-moderators should act according this. That means not refusing links which critize the Armenian "genocide".Chonanh 03:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you should read the NPOV page before you cite it, particularly the WP:UNDUE section. There you will it stated that giving undue weight to a minority view goes against Wikipedia policy. It is fairly clear that the aerialists are outnumbers by the confirmers, and that the petty collection of academics, many of whom are not actual historians and really have no place in defining the event, and few of whom are of any notability, hardly counters the decisions of the 126 Holocaust Scholars, the members of IAGS, the Institute on the Holocaust and genocide, and those who experienced similar events first-hand such as Elie Wiesel and Yehuda Bauer.The Myotis 19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Which minority view do you mean? The world of scientist in this matter (historians, Middle East scientists, etc.) is far greater than 126 Holocaust Scholars you mention. There must be thousands of historians in the world and a small number has a point of view in this matter. You can't take the point of view of a tiny group and tell wiki-visitors that the rest represents a minority view.

It's better for the people responsible for this article (the mods) that they act fairly. Otherwise in the long run the behaviour shown here (it resembles to censur in order to show one point of view)will strike themselves. Don't forget the wiki-community is greater than the people handling this article. When they see how here the wiki-standards are levelled down, they could act.My advice to the people responsible for this article here: act fair.Chonanh 03:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there are more than a couple hundreds of 'Western' historians interested in this, heck we might not even have a 100 (despite 126).

I could very easily become a member, just paying some annual fee. Also the council deciding something does not mean everyone agrees with it, that means less than half oppose it. deniz^T_C 03:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is true that most people (and most historians) probably do not have a strong opinion on the subject. However, out of the historians that do, the majority of them (and virtually all of them without any obvious POV) do use the 'g-word'. I understand it is difficult to determine what 'they all' believe, so in many cases (when such numbers are unavailable or difficult to sort through) it may be better to simply take the mainstream view, the one published by most nonpartisan sources (Universities and scientific/historical publications). Also, the affirmation made by the International Association of genocide scholars passed unanimously, and the 126 academics signed their name to a petition. The Myotis 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Myotis, the problem is about this 'nonpartisan' thing. Please see the references section. We are giving too much weight, probably undue weight to this Michigan Armenian Research Center (also I dislike having so many citations to Balakian's book, we should have more citations from Dadrian and the likes, Balakian is a literature academic, not a historian).

"The creation of the Center for Armenian Research and Publication at The University of Michigan-Dearborn (Knights of Vartan Endowment, Armenian Research Center), was due to the vision of Dr. Dennis R. Papazian and other far-sighted members of the Knights of Vartan, a North American fraternal Armenian organization, who desired to establish a facility devoted to documentation and publication in the field of Armenian studies and research which would be attached to a well-known and highly respected American university.

The Center would be dedicated to documenting the Armenian Genocide and current Armenian issues, and establishing a resource center available to students, faculty, and the public. It was to engage in anti-defamation work and was to inform opinion makers, officials and the public regarding issues of interest to the Armenians.

The Center received initial start-up money ($25,000) from the members of the Knights of Vartan Nareg Lodge, No. 32, Detroit, and a further grant of $75,000 from the Knights of Vartan Grand Lodge in 1985, under the leadership of then Grand Commander Kachadoor Kazarian. The Grand Lodge has continued to support the Center with annual gifts.

Dr. Papazian then sought to augment the original donations through private contributions to create a $1,000,000 endowment to ensure the continuation of the Center in perpetuity, through spending only the interest generated by the Knights of Vartan endowment account. Since only the interest is spent, the annual budget is modest. Many Knights (asbeds) responded to the call, including the late Edward Mardigian who generously donated $500,000 as a challenge grant (and an additional $375,000 for the campus library). That challenge was finally fulfilled in 1993, when, due to the efforts of then Grand Commander Kegham Tcholakian, Past Commander Suren Fesjian pledged $100,000, which completed the endowment in a two year period. Asbed brothers and their friends have thus contributed $300,000 over the past eight years through annual solicitations, finally reaching the goal of $1,000,000."[26]

Another thing is the 'denialist' position is misrepresented, everybody (maybe except Halacoglu) says that many hundred thousands of Armenians died (eg Dadrian around 1 mi as far as I know). The main point of the position is that many 'Turks' died as well, and also that the term 'genocide' does not apply due to the lack of the (proven) intentions of the state. That's why I think Karl should revert himself. Enver Pasha and the likes were not the best commanders, he himself 'killed' (caused the death of) almost one hundred thousand Ottoman soldiers without fighting, and that's is like his only major battle. He might have been 'stupid' (especially siding with Germans throughout the war), but we still do not have any evidence to destroy an ethnicity from the Ottoman documents, which should be the main source. The lack of intention to eliminate an ethnicity/stupidity of the commanding elite should in my opinion be not so important, the death of people should be the important thing, and it did happen. Many of those 126 probably think similar to me, and probably many of them have some Jewish or Armenian background. To be one of the 126, they just needed to have paid some annual fee, and to go to the meeting wherever it was deniz^T_C 02:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

When I said ‘nonpartisan’ I meant considering mainly the opinions of completely neutral sources, with no Armenian or Turkish sources, and only in reference to defining the event. After the mainstream interpretation is established, sources that comply to that interpretation may be used.

I don’t think anybody familiar with any form of genocide denial. If you check the Holocaust denial article, you will find that the majority of people categorized as such do not actually deny the deaths of Jews, but rather claim that the death tolls were much smaller, the deaths were the indirect result of the war, the camps were not designed to kill, only to contain, etc. As for the 126 scholars who singed the petition, none of them had to pay for anything, and i don't belweive they were formally connected by anything. Here is a partial list of their names[27]. Almost entirely university professors, as you can see. And I doubt that the IAGS is any easier to join. Also, I don’t understand how being of Jewish background would influence a person to affirm the Armenian genocide.The Myotis 03:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

My POV & Suggestions

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

I am an Armenian living in Turkey and here is my POV & suggestions:

1. Why Before War section is so small when the rest is too detailed, even without any scientific evidence? I am quite astonished to see my relatives in California know and write so much then me & my family who didn't left Anatolia since then. Why not mention that we lived together with Turks in harmony for 900 years and even in WW1 there were our people in government itself? If Turks wanted to exterminate Armenian race they had very long time to do that. About 1000 years. But we are here right?

2. It would be objective to change this article title as "Mass Killings of Armenians".

3. Why we do not create an article called "Backstabbing of Ottoman Empire". I urge those Turkish people that are interested to create this. Yes, my people have backstabbed their own Empire. If we didn't, we could live in our homeland for another 1000 years. Look what happened now!

4. Why not create an article "Mass Killing of Turkish Women and Children by Armenians" or this one can be merged with item 3.

5. Why not create an article "So Called Armenian Genocide". (Where are the Turkish contributors?)

6. Having the article on item 5, we can delete the article "Denial of the Armenian Genocide".

7. I have checked the article "Genocides in history". Almost quarter of it is full of this issue. I think Wikipedia becomes "dirty" in such way. Negligible information on what happened to Inkas, Mayas, Aztecs, native Americans.. Has anyone watched the movie called Les Invasions barbares?
From this movie:

"Contrary to belief, the 20th century wasn't that bloody. It's agreed that wars caused 100 million deaths- a round figure generally loved by historians. Add 10 million for the Russian gulags. The Chinese camps, we'll never know, but say 20 million. So 130, 135 million dead. Not all that impressive. In the 16th century, the Spanish and the Portuguese managed, without gas chambers or bombs, to slaughter 150 million Indians in Latin America. With axes that was a lot of work Sister! Even if considering that they had the Church supporting them, it was so great an achievement. An achievement so great that the Dutch, English, French and later Americans followed their lead and butchered another 50 million. 200 million dead in all! The greatest massacre in history took place right here. Right around us. And not the tiniest Holocaust museum. "Gokturkler 06:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. Because this article is about the Genocide, not the Armeno-Turkish relation within the Empire before the genocide.

2. That would be (Mass killings of Armenians) a redirect, the event is most known in English language as "Armenian Genocide."

3. Because it will be a FORK

4. Because it will be a FORK

5. Because it will be a FORK

6. Denial of the Armenian Genocide is a total rewrite article, but we can not delete it because almost everytime the Armenian genocide is mentioned its denial is mentioned to, we definitly need such an article. This does not imply the genocide happened, you can deny a crime which you did not commit.

7. Expend the other cases in that article and it will fix your problem.

The other stuff you mention is irrelevent. Fad (ix) 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. When reading about such issue, it is important to know that Armenian and Turkish races have not met in 1850 and Turks have suddenly decided to exterminate Armenians. It is important to mention the position of Armenians in the Empire.

2. Event is most known as AG?! How do you get these statistics? The world population is 6.5 billion right? How many believe in this and counts it as a genocide? Or do you still think English is only for English and North Americans? Wikipedia should be built on scientific facts, not fairy tale stories. You can make a movie about this story but can not change the history. More people in the world believe that it was not a genocide. I can guess 1 billion to 5.5 billion. So, Wikipedia is not for that 1 billion only. Or is it?

3. This one can be a good article. At least the Turkish community of the World know the events like that. You would have 500 million Turkic community keep to it. If Turks had intention for extermination like Spanish and others, then there would be no Greek, no Bulgar, no Serbian even no Arab. Arabs have stabbed the Empire from its back as well. They even did worse and have stabbed their Caliph from his back. That's why Ataturk have abolished Caliphate.

4. Yes you are right. This one can make a sub-article of item 3. Add Arabs to this article as well.

5&6. Denial of something really does not give effect of "So called" right? If we are talking about + and -, and we keep saying "Armenian Genocide", then the opposite should be "So Called Armenian Genocide". The word "Denial" gives an objective reader a negative start at the very beginning. Why we do not call this article as "Denial of So Called Armenian Genocide"?

7. Article itself is far too long. Not necessary. If we make every sub article on it like Armenian issue, then it could easily be the longest article in Wikipedia.

Of course, other stuff is irrelevant to you because you and others really do not care about humanity or history. Your mission is different I must admit. That is what should be called a Genocide. Are there any Inkas, Mayas, Aztecs today? No! Do we have a Genocide museum for them? No. Now, thats what I would call a Genocide. There are nobody left to talk about it. Have Inkas, Mayas and Aztecs found time to live with Spanish for 1000 years?!?85.96.213.75 19:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. Irrelevent, this article is about the Armenian Genocide.

2. It is the most used term in English language, search "Armenian 1915" here, http://www.blackwell-synergy.com. here http://www.oxfordjournals.org/, here http://books.google.com/, the word genocide in connection with the Armenians yield 1.6 million results on google. While it is true that google alone does not document notability, in connection with published materials, it does, more particularly when it is in the hundreds of thousands.

3. And the relevency with the current article?

4. Your point is?

5. The answer is quite simply, because it is called "Armenian Genocide." This does not mean it is true, it means that this article relates to an event which is called "Armenian Genocide" and the other article relate to what is called "Armenian Genocide Denial." If you have so relevent comment to make do make them.

The rest, again irrelevent, this is the Armenian Genocide talkpage, if you have any point to make on the way other events are covered on Wikipedia, bring those issues in their relevent talkpages. Fad (ix) 19:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your definition of Genocide is wrong. The person who invented the word Genocide used it specially for the Assyrian and Armenians. I'm sure he knew what he was talking about. Those Aztecs that is completely irrelevant so stop going off topic. The Jews are a great example and they have survived a genocide like the Armenians. Artaxiad 19:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

85.96.213.75 - OK let us address your points. Point #1 I am in total agreement with. More needs to be explained concerning the dynamics of the Armenian community within the Ottoman EMpire in the period leading up to the Genocide of 1915 and more links should perhaps be provided to articles dealing with the history of Armenians and of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire since its inception. Before however characterizing the Armenian experience up until the Genocide as being one of living in "harmony" I would ask for proper citations (from historians who have studied these periods and specifically are acknowledged as being experts on the Armenian condition with the Ottoman EMpire and regarding relations between Armenians and Turks/Ottoman Government etc) and a better explanation for what you mean by the word "harmony". Regarding your point 2. It has been more then established that "genocide" is the correct term - here and within academia. I would suggest you take the time to read over the archives concenring discussions we have had about this issue and the support that has been referenced. If you are not willing to do this I will save you the time and tell you that your point #2 is a non-issue. Further I find your explanation for the numbers of people who reject the term "genocide" to be rather unconvincing and unsupportable. Again it is my contention that if we were to list relevant scholars her by their acceptance or non-acceptance of ther term (and of the basic facts as presented in the article here itself) that there would at least be a 200 to 1 margine of acceptance versus denial. Point 3 - this is supposed to be a factual article based upon actual academic discourse and presentation. I would suggest that it might be more appropriate for you to participate in a creative writing class. Here you could pretend that you are an Armenian who rejects the known facts and instead believes that he is an assassin of Turks - following in the age old tradition of Armenian "backstabbers". Additionally you can imagine a world without Jews (as I assume that you believe that the Holocaust was indeed a genocide and that the only way it can be seen as such is if it were 100% succesful in killing every member of the target race/group. And funny that you calim that Turks would have killed each and every Armenian f they had wished to as other Turkish comentators have used the excuse of Ottoman ineptitude to claim that they could not possibly have killed as many as is claimed (as they in fact did). Point 4 - again another work of fiction. Point 5 - By all means I urge ou to create such a page - "the so-called Armenian Genocide" - I am very curious in regards to its contents and I would imagine it to be a sort of litmus test for Wikipedia - so I support your proposal as an expirement - by all means go ahead and do such a thing. Point 6 - Now I here I certainly disagree with you. The article "denail of the Armenian Genocide" obviously needs serious beefing up and should begin with events of 1915 itself - if not even early - when the Sultan denied that he ever killed any Armenians at all...etc - yes much to be added here I think... Point 7 - I am all for a thorough treatment of the extermination of these various indigenous peoples and for relaince on the scholarly efforts of our day to properly characterize such. I have to disagree that the Armenian Genocide article is too long. As support I present you. Obviously the presentation needs to be better and more detailed as you seem to have read the article but still seem have no clue whatsoever what the Armenian Genocide is/was all about.--THOTH 20:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. It is not irrelevant. Everyone should see Armenians lived 1000 years within Turkish states and how they were free. We still live in Turkey. Turks are probably the most friendly people of the world. Even after what my people did to them.

2. And this is the way to find it? :) You know better then me. Please tell me how many people in the world believe in an Armenian Genocide giving the facts, and how many does not believe. So, what is Wikipedia for? Changing the idea of the majority by manipulating and manipulating.

3,4,5&6. "Denial" is part of a Genocide act. Opposite article for the "Armenian Genocide" can not be "Denial of the Armenian Genocide". As more people in the world believe that these things were not genocide, the article could be called "Denial of the So Called Armenian Genocide". Majority's choice. Wikipedia should stick to it.

7. Again, I would call those a Genocide not what happened in 1915-1918. Gokturkler 04:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, this is the wrong place for this kind of proposal. Wikipedia is not a democracy. This encyclopaedia is created by editors working in good faith to compile verifiable sources of repute into a comprehensive picture, not trying to promote our own conclusions. That the Armenia genocide happened is not in serious dispute, and this article represents the positions of the reliable sources on it in a reasonable way. WilyD 13:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

(Obviously Wiki is not a "democracy" in the sense that we decide upon what is to be presented as fact by voting or looking to the world for the majority view.) But about the rest, you're half-right. That the vast majority of *what you refer to* as the Armenian Genocide took place is not in serious dispute. However, there is serious dispute about: 1) some of the contentions those who aver the appropriateness of the term genocide, for example certainly faked documents which show planning on the part of the government are disputed 2) whether or not violent Armenian agitation was used as a pretext for already planned activities (see #1), which mounds of evidence argue is implausible (see: the relationship between the Armenians and the same Young Turks who are alleged to have been planning this, the way Hitler planned the Holocaust [the Young Turks happily oversee Armenians gaining even more clout in government, meanwhile planning a "holocaust" against them -- one which never begins until Armenians, Russian or not, have attacked the Empire] 3) whether the existence of very similar decimation of Turkic populations in the Empire -- at the hands of Armenians, Russians, and others (for example in the Caucasus), by massacre and deportation and the starvation that resulted -- renders any recognition of what happened to the Armenians as "genocide" without lending equal status to what happened to Turkic people a racist, political, and inappropriate gesture -- a gesture which, rather than helping us avoid future genocides, as many "Armenian-siders" contend, actually seeds the same seeds of ethnic divide and struggle that resulted in the deaths of both Turks in the Caucasus and elsewhere and Armenians in Anatolia.

So, as long as Bernard Lewis, Justin McCarthy, and numerous other intelligent historians and civilians dispute these points (while not disputing, and certainly not denying, the bulk of the tragedy against the Armenians [or the Turks]), there will be a "serious dispute" related to the Armenian Genocide.

You are also only partially correct when you say "this article represents the positions of the reliable sources on it in a reasonable way" -- the article does a passable (although not great [bad writing, flow, and some weaselly bias in most sections]) job at presenting the majority view (the view which should take up the bulk of the article), it fails to present the minority view without bias. I'm not alone in my assertion that the views of the academic dissenters should be presented -- check the article, they're already there. However, they are not included properly. That section is the number one POV problem with the article. The article itself actually presents one conclusion as correct, rather than merely presenting the majority view and minority view, and identifying them as such, so that readers will often walk away believing the majority view. That the writers couldn't even allow the possibility that any reader would look into the dispute regarding the points I mentioned speaks to their adherence to a mission of quashing of the academic debate, just as the French law that Bernard Lewis was prosecuted under for averring an academic view does!.

Another thing: when the article presents the views of the legitimate (and sometimes extremely eminent) historians who dissent properly, I hope it will also either remove the editorializing about the effect of Turkish Article 301, or accompany it with some editorializing about the French law that Bernard Lewis was prosecuted under. Obviously the writers of the article are only concerned about academic "chilling effects" when they "chill" the work of those who affirm the identity of what happened as a genocide, not about the chilling effect prosecuting people who have a dissenting view. It's absurd, absolutely absurd. (I condemn both Article 301 and the French -- Wiki should treat both equally, but I [and the history of good encyclopedic work] tend to think we should leave the facts to the encyclopedia and the opinion forming to the reader.)And the presence of major academics who dissent shows that there is serious dispute. Just like Wikipedia is not a democracy, neither is academics. The presence of a several (occasionally very) eminent historians who dissent is enough to constitute a serious debate regarding the issues they dispute. (And none of their contentions take away from the horribleness of what happened. To the contrary, the horribleness is magnified when you see that there was no victim (also known as a hero) and no villain -- both Turks and Armenians and other Christians in the Empire played villain and victim.

It's a very sad, sad time when an academic can be taken to court in France for presenting a legitimate academic viewpoint! (Much of what Lewis and other educated dissenters say has little to do with arguing [or denying!] facts, but instead rests upon an unbiased look at the established facts. I.e., if it's a genocide when it happens to Armenians by Turks, it's a genocide when Armenians and others do it to Turks.)

And the Andonian documents are still cited, along with diaries that he got his grubby hands on! Where's the laws against that, against bold-faced, politically motivated dishonesty?!? Are we really to believe that somehow the Turks aimed at racial cleansing -- not at preserving their country against a military threat (however weak it may have been) -- when they deported the Armenians -- and that they somehow just never got around to killing any of the other racial groups?

The Armenian-beloved Richard H. was giving a talk in which he spoke of Turkish goals of Hitler-ian racial purity. When he was asked, "Then why didn't they kill the Jews?" he answered "Because they weren't fighting for their own state" -- and promptly tried to backpedal.

Whether this report is true matters not -- what does matter is that there is no other possible answer to that question -- the geographic location of the deportations at the front of World War 1, and the fact that the Jews and others were not deported, argues against the notion that the Turks were aiming for racial purity and argues for the notion that they made a terrible decision to deport, in the moment, unrelated to any plan or pretext, and that the massacres not centrally planned, and were the result of the hate bred by the murder of Turks by Christians in other parts of the empire, and in Anatolia, which preceded even the Hamidian massacres. Which version makes sense? Hitler appointing Jews to the highest positions in the government in 1933?? Then stop comparing the Young Turks to Nazis -- and in Wikipedia include the work of those who dissent from those comparisons. The Holocaust comparisons, in particular, are in serious dispute. As I said, it's a serious matter, and there are extremely talented historians, and Bernard Lewis for God's sake, who dissent -- there's your serious dispute. Now it needs to be included properly, as a minority view, without being surrounded by editorializing and claims that somehow somethings just can't be studied by scholars because such scholarship is a hate crime! Absurd, absurd.

--24.5.70.65 21:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hovhannes Katchaznouni

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

Hello People, I am brand new here. I was browsing through the Turkish sources about the genocide, I saw another "evidence" that disproving the genocide claims. The evidence is Hovhannes Katchaznouni. He was the first prime minister of the Armenian Republic in the first quarter of the 20th century. The Turkish thesis claim that Hovhannes Katchaznouni prepared a report regarding the genocide. In the report, he says that Armenians were misused by the Imperial Powers and the Turks had the right to exile them. etc.. Well I do not know the full detail of this man, I cannot find his books or reports. I thought, perhaps the wikipedians might provide me some insight about this new "evidence" coming from the Turkish side.. Does this report really do exist? If so, what is in the report?

Thanks in advance —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.96.18.143 (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC).Reply

Well, Hovhannes didn't write exactly the way you've been told. However, he did write! And those who have claimed below that these writing have nothing to do with what happened during WW1, and instead deal only with the 20's, have not read, or have not read well. He directly deals with what happened during WW1!!!! He does, also, deal with later activities. However, some of the writing about WW1 was supressed -- it clearly wasn't left out of early translations because of its irrelevance, but instead because of its extraordinary relevance and importance and, more importantly to the biased translators, because of its implications for those who would paint the Turks as villains and the Armenians as angelic heroes who avoided bloodshed until there was no alternative. His book was called "The Armenian Revolutionary Federation Has Nothing To Do Anymore" -- aka, the terrorist groups (Armenian historians' words, and Dashnaks' words, not just mine), the Dashnaks, have nothing to do anymore. (The Berlin Dashnaks found something to do in the 30's when they joined the Nazis, but there was a bit of a down period there between the 20's when the eminent Minister recorded these words and the opportunity to fight for the Nazi cause.) It's important to remember, and this may explain the incorrect contention of one of the below posters, that later translations, such as by Arthur Derounian, were "condensed" -- they excluded material, some of which was excluded because the First Prime Minister of Armenia himself was saying things which tended to argue against the common Armenian-conception of what happened during that period. Here is a selection of his words, with my own emphasis added in portions:

INTRODUCTION

However the propagandist may try, historical truth cannot be subverted forever in a free country. However hard Dashnag propagandists may try to twist and bury the truth, and glorify the failure of their Independent Armenian Republic, truth must eventually prevail. Now, for the first time in English, is a deep and incisive self-study by a competent Dashnag observer.

The author was a pillar of Dashnagtzoutiun. He was the first prime minister of the Republic. He knew every Party secret before, during and after the founding of the ill-fated Republic. Few were in a position to know more, nor to express themselves with greater clarity, logic and foresight than Hovhannes Katchaznouni.

Unlike most Dashnag leaders who were revolutionists, and reared in the early Russian socialist-revolutionary schools, Katchaznouni was born in Akhaltzkha in the Caucasus, the son of a revered Armenian priest. He was graduated from the Architectural School of the University of Moscow. His notable works include the magnificent Cathedral at Baku, among many others.

This booklet is a condensation of his parting words to Dashnagtzoutiun, given in the form of an address to the Party congress in 1923 — words which proved remarkably prophetic, and currently are as true as when they were first spoken.

In reprinting Katchaznouni’s address neither the translator nor the editor are assumed to agree or disagree with his views.

Katchaznouni’s work is published at this time as a refutation to the grandiose, exaggerated and even outrageously false claims of the Dashnag leadership today, mouthed by men who for the most part were mere party functionaries during the days of the Republic, but through the years have blown up themselves into intellectual giants, saviors of Armenia, etc.

Katchaznouni’s work is a basic source of Dashnag history, and the Armenian Information Service considers it a privilege to be able to present, for the first time, the writings of this Armenian patriot and prophet to an American audience.

JOHN ROY CARLSON

August, 1955 (Arthur A. Derounian)

TO THE READER

This is a manifesto which I am preparing to the Convention of foreign branches of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation convened during this month of April, 1923.

Deeply convinced that all the questions raised here will be subjected to the most serious consideration of not only the members of the Party but also of every single Armenian, I thought it was my duty to have this manifesto published and thereby make it public property.

I am having it printed complete and without any alterations except the final three or four pages which contain concrete proposals that are reserved to the governing bodies of the Party.

HOVHANNES KATCHAZNOUNI

Bucharest, July, 1923

Hohvannes Katchaznouni

The first man who led the Republic of Armenia. His name is

sometimes spelled "Kachazouni."

Comrades:

These matters have had my deliberate and serious consideration. I do not know whether you, too, have arrived at the same conclusions. Allow me to say more: I am afraid that my final conclusion — those very difficult words which I shall here state with all singleness of heart — will cause general embarrassment, perhaps resentment, in the Convention.

I am prepared for that.

I only ask that you believe: a) that it is more difficult for me to write and sign those words than for you to listen to them from my own lips; b) that those words are not the result of thoughtless or petty, transient dispositions or hasty resolve. They are the result of deep-rooted convictions and a clear awareness, for I am capable of thinking and understanding, considering and determining a stand point.

I beg of you, therefore, that you be patient and approach the matters with an open mind, unhampered — something which is not easy for men who have lived a Party life and have thought from a Party angle. (ed: my God is this spot on!)

Let me now proceed with my subject.

In order to present my conclusions in proper sequence I feel it is necessary for me to refresh your memory with the various phases of the Armenian Cause — from the Great War to the Lausanne Conference [42] — and the role played by the Dashnagtzoutiun during that period. So that I may not abuse your attention, I shall curtail my speech and present to you a concise yet accurate commentary.

Following 1914, what stages did the Armenian question pass through, what development did the events show, how did they come about, what sequence did they follow and and where did they lead to and in the meantime, what did our party do and what will it have to do in the future?

When I recall the recent past, with these considerations in mind, and when I distinguish the important points from the secondary and the arbitrary ones, and arrange them in chronological order, this is the picture that arises:

At the beginning of the Fall of 1914 when Turkey had not yet entered the war but had already been making preparations, Armenian revolutionary bands began to be formed in Transcaucasia with great enthusiasm and, especially, with much uproar. Contrary to the decision taken during their general meeting at Erzurum only a few weeks before, the A.R.F. had active participation in the formation of the bands and their future military action against Turkey.

(Ed: could some of that uproar, that bark without bite, be evident in modern genocide recognition campaigns that ignore what happened to the Turks, in the Caucasus and elsewhere, often at the hands of Armenians? Also, this section was excluded from the original Derounian translation -- I wonder why?????)

In an undertaking of such gravity, fraught with most serious consequences, individual agents of the Transcaucasian A.R.F. acted against the will of our superior authority, against the will of the General Meeting of the Party.

Why?

Because they were also suffering from the syndrome of following the masses, and were flowing in the direction that the current was taking them.

This example urges us to recall that the A.R.F. in Transcaucasia in the past had been a follower rather than an originator of movements that had their inception beyond their control. Thus it was in 1903 (rebellions and demonstrations on the occasion of the seizure of Church properties); thus it was in the year 1905-1906 (bloody encounters between Tatars and Armenians); and thus it was also during the first big movements of the laboring classes (1903-1906) when the A.R.F. was being led at Baku, Tiflis (Tblisi) and Batoum by the policies of foreign socialistic parties.

The same characteristic line of action appears, as we see a little later, in the conduct we pursued afterwards generally.

It would be useless to argue today whether our bands of volunteers should have entered the field or not. Historical events have their irrefutable logic. In the Fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer bands organized themselves and fought against the Turks because they could not refrain themselves from organizing and refrain themselves from fighting. This was an inevitable result of a psychology on which the Armenian people had nourished itself during an entire generation: that mentality should have found its expression, and did so.

And it was not the A.R.F. that would stop the movement even if it wished to do so. It was able to utilize the existing conditions, give effect and issue to the accumulated desires, hopes and frenzy, organize the ready forces — it had that much ability and authority. But to go against the current and push forward its own plan — it was unfit, especially unfit for one particular reason: the A.R.F. is a people’s mass, strong in instinct but weak in comprehension.

42. In the Treaty of Lausanne, signed July 24, 1923 between the Allies and Turkey, reference was no longer made to Armenia or Armenians. Both had ceased to exist in the eyes of both Turkey and the Allies. Thus the “Armenian Question” and the question of Armenians was buried in the grave of diplomatic silence.

It is also useless, today, to question who is responsible for the wrongs (if the issue of responsibility does ever come up). (Ed: He's speaking of responsibility among Armenians, not among Turks, but it's still significant.) If it had not been Bishop Mesrop, A. Hatisov, Dr. Zhavriev, S. Arutniov, Dro and Andranic, there would have been others to do the same things in their place. If the formation of bands was wrong, the root of that error must be sought much further and more deeply. At the present time it is important to register only the evidence that we did participate in that volunteer movement to the largest extent and we did that contrary to the decision and the will of the General Meeting of the Party.

The Winter of 1914 and the Spring of 1915 were the periods of greatest enthusiasm and hope for all the Armenians in the Caucasus, including, of course, the Dashnagtzoutiun. We had no doubt that the war would end with the complete victory of the Allies; Turkey would be defeated and dismembered, and its Armenian population would at last be liberated.

We had embraced Russia whole-heartedly without any compunction.(Ed: I guess all this about the loyalty of the Anatolian Armenians isn't so accurate?) Without any positive basis of fact we believed that the Tzarist government would grant us a more-or-less broad self-government in the Caucasus and in the Armenian vilayets liberated from Turkey as a reward for our loyalty, our efforts and assistance.

We had created a dense atmosphere of illusion in our minds. We had implanted our own desires into the minds of others; we had lost our sense of reality and were carried away with our dreams. From mouth to mouth, from ear to ear passed mysterious words purported to have been spoken in the palace of the Viceroy; attention was called to some kind of a letter by Vorontzov-Dashkov to the Catholicos as an important document in our hands to use in the presentation of our rights and claims —a cleverly composed letter with very indefinite sentences and generalities which might be interpreted in any manner, according to one’s desire.(Ed:Hmmm... sounds like a good birthing place for all the reliable personal testimony of what was really happening back then -- of course, what the Turks whispered is all bull-pucky, but not those Armenians surrounded by a "dense atmosphere of illusion" who had "implanted [their] own desires into the minds of others")

We overestimated the ability of the Armenian people, its political and military power, and overestimated the extent and importance of the services our people rendered to the Russians. And by overestimating our very modest worth and merit we were naturally exaggerating our hopes and expectations.

The deportations and mass exiles and massacres which took place during the Summer and Autumn of 1915 were mortal blows to the Armenian Cause. Half of historical Armenia —“ the same half where the foundations of our independence would be laid according to the traditions inherited by European diplomacy —“ that half was denuded of Armenians: the Armenian provinces of Turkey were without Armenians. The Turks knew what they were doing and have no reason to regret today. It was the most decisive method of extirpating the Armenian Question from Turkey.

Again, it would be useless to ask today to what extent the participation of volunteers in the war was a contributory cause of the Armenian calamity. No one can claim that the savage persecutions would not have taken place if our behavior on this side of the frontier was different, as not one can claim the contrary, that the persecutions would have been the same even if we had not shown hostility to the Turks. (ed: He's clearly pointing out that the activities of the Anatolian Armenians cannot be dismissed as a pretext. [They can't be proven to a non-pretext, either, he says.] Again the Minister is stating something very sensible which those who affirm the identity of what happened to the Armenians as a genocide, without recognizing the same about the suffering Turks endured at the hands of Christians in the Caucasus and elsewhere in the final stages of the Empire. I refer those Armenians and Armenian-sided people who are shaken by the words of their George Washington to his plea at the open that readers remain open minded. [Just as Turks must realize that terrible things were done to Armenians.])

This is a matter about which it is possible to have many different opinions.

The proof is, however — and this is essential —“ that the struggle began decades ago against which the Turkish government brought about the deportation or extermination of the Armenian people in Turkey and the desolation of Turkish Armenia.

This was the terrible fact!

Civilized humanity might very well be shaken with rage in the face of this unspeakable crime. Statesmen might utter menacing words against criminal Turkey. “Blue”, “yellow”, “orange” books and papers might be published condemning them. Divine punishment against the criminals might be invoked in churches by clergymen of all denominations. The press of all countries might be filled with horrible descriptions and details and the testimony of eye-witnesses. . . Let them say this or that, but the work was already done and words would not revive the corpses fallen in the Arabian deserts, rebuild the ruined hearths, repopulate the country now become desolate. The Turks knew what they ought to do and did it. (ed: there's a couple of ways to interpret this, as I touch on later. But this is clearly not the way those who aver the identity of what happened to the Armenians as genocide (yet deny the extraordinarily similar treatment of Turkic people by Christians was genocide) would write. In fact, I would never touch the word "ought" in this situation. But the militarily minded Minister obviously saw things differently than I, who affirm the two genocides (or zero) position, and those who affirm only one genocide, do -- he seems to be arguing that Turkey was pushed into that position by an Armenian. (ed: Wow, I couldn't agree with the man more -- what the Turks did was horrible, but it wasn't a Hitler-ian planned racial cleansing that used the Armenian revolt as a pretext. Instead, it was only conceived in response to the fact that Russian Armenians were fighting with the Russians, and finding at the very least some support among the Anatolian Armenians. The only thing he doesn't say that I think is important about the matter is that equally terrible things happened to Turks. But, I won't hold it against him, since this article is designed to tell the Armenians what to do in the 1920's, not to just discuss all the relevant history [which is Wikipedia's mission and hence why such history should be included in the article without weaselly editorializing]. He'd make both sides angry -- he denies the Ottomans didn't actually find the Armenians to be a real threat, and implicitly denies they used the Armenian threat as a pretext for an already conceived plan, and he also condemns what the Ottomans did. That's how you know he's right.)

The second half of 1915 and the entire year of 1916 were periods of hopelessness, desperation and mourning for us. The refugees, all those who had survived the holocaust, were filling Russian provinces by tens and hundreds of thousands. They were famished, naked, sick, horrified and desperate floods of humanity, flooding our villages and cities. They had come to a country which was itself ruined and famished. They piled upon each other, before our own eyes, on our threshold dying of famine and sickness. . .

And we were unable to save those precious lives. Angered and terrified, we sought the culprits and quickly found them: the deceitful politics of the Russian government. With the politically immature mind peculiar to inconsequential men, we fell from one extreme to another. Just as unfounded was our faith in the Russian government yesterday, our condemnation of them today was equally blind and groundless.

It was claimed that the Russians were intentionally slow to act, showed uncertainty and provided the grounds and the means for the Turks to slaughter the local Armenians. It was professed that the reason behind this attitude on the part of the Russians was to vacate Armenia and later settle the Kossacs there and that Count Lobanov-Rostovsky’s widely known project “Armenia without Armenians” was in progress.

It was not only people, but our party and many of our citizens with common sense who also shared this idea.

We were reluctant to understand that there did not have to be such a project as “Armenia without Armenians” to explain the Russian stand and that the Russian plans did not necessarily have to involve such an item as unconditionally taking on the defence of the Turkish Armenians. Such a plan definitely did not exist. We were only projecting our own wishes on the Russian government and accusing them of disloyalty.

Our volunteer units were naturally trying to capture Van and Muş without any waste of time. They headed for these places to save the Armenians. However, Russians did not only consist of Armenians and they had other intentions. Their sluggishness and uncertainty to act which we evaluated as disloyalty is explainable by the customary ineffectiveness of the Russian command ( which was witnessed many times on other fronts as well) or other general military conditions unknown to us now.

This incident being very much original and interesting, demands to be taken up individually. By an extraordinary mental aberration, we, a political party, were forgetting that our Cause was an incidental and trivial phase for the Russians, so trivial that if necessary, they would trample on our corpses without a moment’s hesitation.

I am not saying that we did not know the circumstances. Of course we knew and understood and so we started when it was necessary to explain the situation. Deep down in our hearts, however, we did not grasp the full meaning of that word-formula; we forgot what we already knew and we drew such conclusions as though our Cause was the center of gravity of the Great War, its cause and its purpose. When the Russians were advancing, we used to say from the depths of our subconscious minds that they were coming to save us; and when they were withdrawing, we said they are retreating so that they allow us to be massacred. . .

In both cases we misinterpreted the consequence with the purpose and intention. We sought proofs of Russian treachery and of course we found them — exactly as we sought and found proofs of the same Russians— undeniable benevolence six months before. To complain bitterly about our bad luck and to seek external causes for our misfortune— that is one of the main aspects of our national psychology from which, of course, the Dashnagtzoutiun is not free.

One might think we found a spiritual consolation in the conviction that the Russians behaved villainously towards us (later it would be the turn of the French, the Americans, the British, the Georgians, Bolsheviks — the whole world —to be so blamed). One might think that, because we were so naive and so lacking in foresight, we placed ourselves in such a position and considered it a great virtue to let anyone who so desired to betray us, massacre us and let others massacre us.

In February 1917 the Russian Revolution broke out. New possibilities opened up before us unexpectedly.

A democratic order was under way in Russia. Extremely important social issues (such as appropriating the lands into public ownership) were waiting to be solved. We, the socialists and democrats welcomed this new order with enthusiasm. Also, as a national political party, we concentrated on the issues of taking over the administrative power from the central authority and the autonomy of individual regions and peoples.

We set out on a hard work.

The old state mechanism needed to be changed and the local units of the new authority needed to be set up. The central government which was going through the first phases of the Revolution did not have the means to look into this question. The local cadres were wholly entrusted with this issue. Social institutions such as political parties, workers’ unions and national governments were authorized with dealing with the issue (or, rather they took it upon themselves to deal with it).

The issue of national participation in the government was a particularly complex and difficult question in Southern Caucasia. National councils among which were Armenian councils were established in important centers.

The Southern Caucasian Commissariat and Worker, Soldier and Peasant Soviets Southern Caucasian Center were established. These were two independent establishments of the central government and were assigned with governing the region until governmental institutions were set up.

“The Soviets Center” had lost its authority by the end of the year and it left the political scene. On the other hand, the Southern Caucasian Commissariat gained strength and turned into the governing power of the whole Southern Caucasia.

As it later proved to be in the Seym and in the Southern Caucasian government, the “Commissariat” was also a coalition.

This coalition represented the parties in name and form and the nations, in essence. The main parties were: The Menshevik Fraction, the Social Democrats, the Musavat and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation Dashnagtzoutiun. These parties in fact represented the three main nations of the region: the Georgians, the Azerbaijani Tatars [43] and the Armenians.

The Georgian Mensheviks assumed the authoritative position, the leading role in the Commissariat and later both in the Seym and in the government.

What was the reason?

Here are some reasons:

Firstly, the Commissariat had taken over its authority from the Provisional Government, or rather the State Duma circles in Petrograd. The Georgian representatives, over a long period of time, had acquired important positions and influence and had established contacts, relying on a strong organization which was the Russian Social Democratic Party. When a “Commissariat” was established in Southern Caucasia, the priority was naturally given to the Georgians and not to the Armenians and the Tatars who were not conspicuous in the Duma.

Secondly, there were people more or less experienced in state affairs, among the Georgians. These people had acquired some habits and experience due to active participation in the work done in the Duma. Neither we, nor those from the Musavat, however, had been through such a school and were not prepared. Musavat was new and Dashnagtzoutiun was in fact only prepared for underground activity. Doubtlessly, the qualities of the party leaders were also important to a certain extent. The Georgians had bred a few capable people or social leaders; we had nobody to sit next to them and we used to sit behind them in the second or third rows.

Another point was that in the times of the old regime, the state affairs were in the hands of the Georgians. This fact continued after the Revolution, for more people were to be found among the Georgians, who were capable enough to conduct technical work. Experience in official service naturally formed a strong basis for the Georgians to gain further strength in administrative duties. So was the situation from the “Commissariat” to the affairs relating to the railways and the post and telegraph.

The most important was the following: The Georgians were the best organized people with the highest social consciousness in Southern Caucasia. On the other hand, there was no threat against the physical existence of the Georgian people. For these reasons, the Georgians were stronger than the other peoples.

The geographical location of the Georgian people and the fact that they inhabited the same area together, that they suffered fewer losses in the War and also that they bred no mutual antagonism (serious enough to be a threat to their national existence) against their neighbours made them luckier in being able to be heard, in comparison to the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis. No matter what, the Georgians could be on better terms with Turkey and Azerbaijan, compared to the Armenians. What was more, a Georgian population outside the borders of Georgia, whose lives were under threat did not exist. However, Armenians had kins living in Azerbaijan and so did Azerbaijanis, living in Armenia.

The Georgians were living in peace and quiet on their own land; although they did have certain border problems with their neighbours, these arose from imperialist claims and could easily be increased or completely solved without putting the present or the future of Georgia under threat. On the other hand, the relations between Armenians and Turks and Armenians and Tatars were different. Between them there had been problems going on for centuries and it was impossible to solve them without major conflicts. Turkey, unconditionally defeated on the west, was trying to open up a future for itself and consolidate it on the northeast. And here the Armenians interjected between Erzurum and Baku and blocked their way.

Insolvable land problems stood between Armenians and Azerbaijanis . The problem was not occupying one or two towns but having the national population inhabit an unbroken, continuous geography. This wish was fostered both by the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis. Armenia could not survive without Şarur-Nakhichevan and the importance of Nakhichevan for Armenia was different from the significance of Zaqatala, Akhalkalaki and Lori for Georgia. This was why both Armenia and Azerbaijan were unlucky.

It was perhaps possible for politically mature peoples to find peaceful solutions. However neither we nor the Azerbaijanis were mature enough; for this reason, the conflict between the two peoples had mutually become a source of antagonism and distrust.

43. Tatars: The author here refers to the Azerbaijani Turks. Katchznouni sometimes prefers the word, “Tatar” is it was sometimes used by the Tsar regime but occasionally uses the word “Azerbaijanis” to refer to the same people. (LA)

The Georgians used the Armenian-Turkish and Armenian-Tatar conflicts cleverly (in other, stronger words, opportunistically), in order to consolidate their privileged situation. Relying on Turks and Tatars and threatening us with moving the borders in this or that way, they complicated matters for us and forced us to accept their conditions. Whenever they needed to ally with us, they started threatening the Azerbaijanis. This kind of behaviour was politically an absolute blackmail and it provided a superiority for the Georgians over their neighbours and established their hegemony over others.

I have digressed a little but in order to make the political situation clear in that period in Southern Caucasia, it was necessary.

Our party must understand and keep in mind that the party was under the hegemony of the Georgian Social Democratic Party in the most difficult days, and it acted abominably.

In September 1917, the Armenian Convention met in Tiflis (Tbilisi). A national board was established as its executive organ and was named the Central National Council. This National Council later acted on behalf of the Armenian people of Southern Caucasia and became the fully authorized representative of the nation.

Dashnagtzoutiun played the leading role both at the Convention and on the board and the council.

Towards the end of the same year, elections were held in Southern Caucasia for the members of All Russia Provisional Assembly.

Out of the parties which participated in the election campaigns, the Menshevik Social Democrats won 12, the Musavat won 10 and the Dashnagtzoutiun won 9 seats. The number of seats won by the other parties was negligible.

These three parties represented three great peoples who could be listed, according to their political weight, as the Georgians, the Tatars and the Armenians. These elections showed that the strongest, or rather the only organized party was Dashnagtzoutiun.

The All Russia Provisional Assembly. could not meet. The Bolshevik Revolution broke out in October and was triumphant in Moscow and Petrograd. The Soviet order was proclaimed and the meeting of the All Russia Provisional Assembly was not permitted, as this assembly was considered to have bourgeois tendencies.

Southern Caucasia, loyal to the February Revolution did not recognize the Soviet sovereignty and system

Why?

Because in this corner region the dominant parties preferred a democratic platform based on a broad mass membership and for this reason would not accept especially a party dictatorship. On the other hand, they thought that the country was not mature enough for a fully socialist, let alone a communist regime (besides, the Musavat Party possessed nothing in the name of socialism). The socialism of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation Dashnagtzoutiun was only on the surface and had no deep roots among the masses of people within the party. Among the Georgian Mensheviks, on the other hand, the nationalistic anti-Russian trend was strong.

Secondly, the Georgian Mensheviks which determined the atmosphere in the political life of Southern Caucasia, had broken away from the Bolsheviks and were openly opposing them.

The Mensheviks who were loyal to their party regulations and the general political line of their party, were pursuing here, exactly the same policy their Russian comrades were pursuing in Russia. The Musavat which had enthusiastic desires about capturing Baku and had Panturkist ideals, wanted an immediate separation from Russia.

The Armenian Revolutionary Federation Dashnagtzoutiun had formed close relations with the local Bolsheviks and was assisting them, in case the Tatars would capture Baku. In Tiflis (Tbilisi), on the other hand, they could not close their eyes to the reality of the Georgians and Tatars and so could not put in practice Bolshevik policies. They would not have been able to do so even if they had wanted. Anyway, they had no desire to do so, because the Bolshevik ideology and tactics did not appeal to them.

Our Party stood in the anti-Bolshevik camp partly due to certain convictions within the Party and partly because of being under the pressure of outside factors.

I have to remind you here of the neutral and reluctant stand our comrades took in Baku.

Baku, the industrial city which bore a proletariat of tens of thousands and strong workers’ organizations offered very favorable conditions for the development of Bolshevism. That city had been the only region where the Bolsheviks could find a reliable sanctuary and a sound support in the whole Southern Caucasia since the first days of the Revolution. Baku did not refuse, in form, the sovereignty of the Southern Caucasian Commissariat even after the October Revolution. In reality, however, the power was in the hands of two local organs: the Social Organizations Soviet and the Workers’ Representatives Soviet.

In the first one, anti-Bolshevik groups, and in the second one the Bolsheviks dominated. Our Party was represented on both the organs. Inside these organs which were independent of each other and were of different nature, an open struggle for domination was going on.

In the first period, the Social Organizations Soviet was stronger (here, the mild socialists and the liberal bourgeoisie had formed a silent alliance against the Bolsheviks). The Workers’ Representatives Soviet was gradually gaining strength and by January 1918 it had gained control over the entire situation.

This Soviet was led by the Bolsheviks. Bolsheviks were not an important force then; their accomplishments were essentially due to the insecurity prevailing in the other camp.

Only two parties, Dashnagtzoutiun and Musavat could demonstrate any strength against the Bolsheviks. However, though these two parties needed to act in alliance if they wanted to accomplish anything in the struggle against Bolshevism, this was unimaginable, for there was no mutual trust. Dashnagtzoutiun was aware that its support for Musavat was required only because of the Bolshevik threat. Musavat had to erase Dashnagtzoutiun from the political scene, after having eliminated the Bolsheviks. No doubt, the Bolsheviks would do the same to Dashnagtzoutiun after having destroyed the Musavat with the help of armed Dashnag troops. For the Armenian community, the Bolshevik dictatorship was more acceptable in comparison to the Musavat dictatorship.

The fact that our people got more and more involved in the Bolshevik movement in Baku and that they provided a kind of sustenance to them is explainable only with this.

Just as we unintentionally came under the domination of the Georgian Mensheviks in Tiflis (Tbilisi), we were under the influence of the Bolsheviks in Baku. In both cases the motivating force was the Turkish-Tatar threat. Bolsheviks wiped out Musavat in Baku with our support (March 1918); we, on the other hand were able to protect Baku against the Turkish-Tatar assault with the help of the Russian elements among the Bolsheviks.

Later, again with our initiative, British forces were invited over from Iran. This happened in the last moments when the Bolsheviks were getting ready to escape to Russia and had got on the ships.

If the British had been able to settle down firmly in Baku, the outcome of the events would probably have been different. However, the few numbers of the British troops did not promote trust among the people and they got on their ships and went back to Iran.

We were left alone; we did nothing else besides following the British to Iran.

The Azerbaijani government based in Gäncä so far, entered Baku with the Turkish armed forces and the armed people. The Armenian people were started to be cruelly massacred; just as the Muslim people were massacred (on a smaller scale) in March during the Bolshevik-Musavat conflict.

These incidents were happening outside Armenia, in one of the Tatar regions; nevertheless they were reflected on our political scene and confused the situation and made it more difficult.

The Tatars continually provoked the Turks against us and speeded up their assault, in order to be able to enter Baku. With this intention, they were very cunningly speculating about the March incidents and were putting the blame of the incidents entirely on the Armenians. The Georgians were displeased with our association with the Bolsheviks; they had doubts about us, thinking we were seeking for an opportunity to open the doors of Southern Caucasia to the Russian Bolsheviks. Apart from this, they interpreted having the British forces over in Baku when the Germans which they were flirting with, were in Tiflis (Tbilisi) as a betrayal of the Georgian-German-Turkish-Tatar policies.

As a result of the policies we practiced in Baku, our neighbours started to regard us as independent allies. Our comrades in Baku, on the other hand, thought that they would be able to protect the rest of Armenia against Turkish assaults by consolidating their existence in Baku and attracting the Turkish-Tatar forces to the city. They developed their policies in this direction. I am going back to the chronological sequence of events.

At the end of November 1917 the Russian Army started to get demoralized and the soldiers started to abandon their troops on the Caucasian front. The front was being destroyed in astonishing speed.

At the end of January, there was no longer an army. Negligible Armenian troops, with some soldiers left over from the army, were charged with defending the Erzurum line.

The situation in Southern Caucasia was getting more and more dangerous.

The Bolshevik Revolution and the civil war spreading wider and wider every day, had definitely torn away the outer regions from Russia.

The Commissariat which acted in the name of the Provisional Government led by Kerensky lost the ground under their feet after the Government was turned out of office. There was a need to establish a new power, authorized in the eyes of the public and capable of conducting governmental affairs independently and with greater authority. Such a power was established with the Southern Caucasian Seym and its Government.

The Seym was formed out of the Southern Caucasian members of the All Russia Provisional Assembly (by multiplying this number with three). Thus the Mensheviks (Georgia) had 36, the Musavat (Azerbaijan) 30 and the Dashnagtzoutiun (Armenia) had 27 seats in the Seym.

The Seym met in Tiflis (Tbilisi), the natural and indisputable capital of Southern Caucasia.

At the first general congress on 10th February 1918, the executive committee report was read and the resignation of the Commissariat was accepted. Later, the Seym taking into consideration the fact that the relations between our region and Russia had been actually broken and that it was uncertain as to when they would be reestablished, announced the independence of the Southern Caucasian Democratic Republic and that it was the only institution which held the executive power in its hands. Within this context, Y. Gegechkory (Georgian Menshevik) was assigned the task of forming a provisional government (a cabinet) responsible to the Seym.

This did not mean a separation from Russia; it only reflected the actual situation and was temporary. Internationally, Southern Caucasia was considered to be an inseparable part of Russia.

Encouraged by the increasing corruption of the Russian army, Turkish military troops hastily got organized, got themselves in order and started to capture one after the other, the regions they had lost. In the meantime, the Turkish Command (Vehip Paşa) started to initiate a cease-fire and the continuation of the peace talks.

The Seym took a decision to stop the war and sat down for a settlement with the Turks.

The first talks were conducted in Trabzon in March 1918. The Dashnagtzoutiun fraction was able to add among other Seym demands the demand for self determination of the Armenians in Turkey within Ottoman borders, as a separate individual point (there were four separate demands).

However, this demand ( which was very badly formulated and was open to negotiation) was immediately answered officially and was stated that the self determination of the Turkish Armenians was an internal matter of Turkey and nobody had the right to interfere with the internal affairs of Turkey. Thus, they gave us the message that if we ever brought up the issue of the Turkish Armenians, they would cut off any talks. The Southern Caucasians did not bring up the issue any more. The reason why they had brought it up was clear; the Seym’s decision was only a gesture of good will towards the Armenians, and the Seym never had the intention of insisting on this demand. The Georgians were not inclined to get into needless trouble (they did not feel the need to); for the Azerbaijanis, on the other hand, the Turkish interests were more important than the future of the Armenians and even the Southern Caucasian Republic. The Armenian members of the delegation, were certainly not able to make the Tatars and the Georgians accept their demands. To be just, it must be pointed out that even if our allies at that time (the Georgians and the Tatars) had been able to defend the Armenian demands most sincerely, they would not have been successful. The balance of power was in Turkey’s favour and therefore there was no reason why Turkey should give any concessions. This point was clear to us –the Armenian members of the delegation.

The issue of borders became a hot subject of discussion.

The Turks were convinced that the border between Southern Caucasia and Turkey had been determined with the Brest Agreement signed by the Bolsheviks. In the same manner, they stated they had come to Trabzon not to open this agreement to question but to establish friendly relations with their neighbour, the Southern Caucasian Republic. Southern Caucasia on the other hand, did not recognize the Brest Agreement and thought it was the Southern Caucasian peoples who were authorized to decide about land concessions to Turkey. In other words, the Southern Caucasian delegation did not want to accept that the Soviet government was legally authorized (on the grounds that this government was not recognized within Russia itself and on the other hand that according to the slogan of self determination voiced during the period of the Great War, the real owners of Southern Caucasia was not the Russian Government, no matter how legitimate it might be, but the peoples of the region themselves).

It was very difficult to defend this stand not only because it was new and controversial in international law, but also because the Turkish Army was growing stronger every day and the Southern Caucasian Army was on the verge of breaking down. In international affairs it is no secret that the powerful party proves to be right.

Another reason why it was difficult to defend this attitude was because the delegation was not in unity within itself.

Because the Georgians were primarily concerned with the issues of Batoum and Ajaria , in order to be able to secure all this region, they were inclined to leave Kars and Ardahan to Turks.

However, Armenians needed Kars. We were ready to give Ajaria big concessions in order to get Kars in return. The Azerbaijanis, on the other hand, as the fourth (or if Dagestan is taken into consideration, the fifth) republic of the Southern Caucasian Federation, wanted a Southwestern Muslim Republic to be established in Ajaria. If not, they thought, Ajaria ought to be attached to Turkey. They did not want it to be attached to Georgia.

The Azerbaijanis defended completely the same view with the Turks concerning Kars and Ardahan. They considered Kars and Ardahan Turkish territory and therefore regarded it quite natural that they should be attached to Turkey.

Turks were very closely informed about our inner conflicts and therefore insisted on their views.

There was another issue which invoked a big discussion: Turks wanted Southern Caucasia to be declared independent of Russia and thought that an agreement with us would only then be possible.

The Southern Caucasian delegates insistently stated that Southern Caucasia was physically separated from Russia and was in fact independent. Turks, on the other hand, quite rightly declared that in order for an international agreement to be signed, a de facto situation was not sufficient and that a legal foundation was needed and that to bring this about, certain formalities had to be carried out.

These unproductive talks went on for about a month. It was to Turks’ advantage that the talks went on for so long (otherwise, they would have ended them any moment). Time was passing, our military force and defense potential was continuously getting weaker whereas those of the Turks were getting stronger. While we were busy with holding meetings and with correspondence in Trabzon, the Turkish Army was advancing without meeting any obstruction. They captured Erzurum at the end of March and Batoum at the beginning of April.

Nevertheless, the Seym would not admit defeat.

When it was clear that Turks would not make any compromises on anything that was included in the Brest Agreement, the Seym withdrew its delegation and the Trabzon talks broke up (this was called “a break”).

Internal discord within the Seym and inside the government of the Federation which had been going on since the first days was more clearly prominent now.

Turkish success encouraged the Azerbaijanis; their delegation had a better chance to sit down with the Turks and talk in Trabzon (and they certainly did use it). In the Seym the Azerbaijanis did not hide that they sided with the Turks. Defending and developing the Turkish view, they demanded that Southern Caucasia be speedily separated from Russia, Turkey be given considerable concessions and also the war be ended, having come to an agreement with Turkey; for they stated that as Muslim democrats, their religious sentiments prevented them from getting actively involved in a fight with the Turks.

These words, expressed by a Musavat speaker in the Seym should have been understood as a possibility that the Southern Caucasian Tatars would fight against us, let alone fighting on our side, (they had never actually been on our ranks and had never fought on the Turkish front) if the war with Turkey was continued.

The Georgians hesitated, as if they were the Menshevik fraction of the Seym.

They harboured two trends, two different tendencies (the Russian tendency and the German-Turkish tendency). Those that were inclined towards Russia did not definitely want a separation from Russia, but because they evaluated the Brest Agreement as unacceptable, thought that instead of a peace with such conditions, a war was more acceptable. The representatives of the second trend were against Russia; They thought the Russian threat against Georgia was more important than the Turkish threat. Therefore, they were ready to give very big concessions to Turkey, to be able to compromise (to speak openly, they were trying to give concessions in the name of Armenia, to be able to save at least Batoum and the harbour there, if not the whole Ajaria).

The Armenians (Dashnagtzoutiun fraction in the Seym) did not want to separate from Russia nor did they have positive expectations from Turkey. The Armenians would rather stop Turkish attacks with armed force, because they believed that it was going to be them, rather than anybody else (or perhaps only them) who would suffer losses and they still hoped they were capable of future military victories.

The Armenian National Assembly met in Alexandropol (Gumru) in April and took up this issue. Despite the presentation made there, by the author of these lines, it was agreed that the Brest Agreement should be refused and the war should be continued. However, this decision could never be put into practice, because we were not in a position to assert our ideas, we could not even determine our own fate.

The indecision of the Georgians did not last long. The German-Turkish trend was victorious in the Seym and as a result of this victory, the Seym announced boisterously on April 22 that Southern Caucasia parted from Russia. On this occasion, the Georgian and the Tatar leaders made very emotional speeches at the Seym meeting. The Dashnag fraction supported the proposal of separation but did not make any speeches.

It was not easy for us to accept this separation, but there was no other way. If we had opposed, the Southern Caucasian Federation would have broken down; the Georgians and the Tatars would have agreed to reconcile with the Turks and we would have been left alone; and we would have been standing against the Turkish Army. Russia (neither the Bolshevik one nor the anti-Bolshevik one) could not have helped us even if they had wanted to. We were not only alone, but behind our lines it was also not secure; for it was clear that the Azerbaijanis and (perhaps the Georgians too in order to capture Akhalkalaki [Ahılkelek], Lori and Pembek) would come against us. We needed the Southern Caucasian Confederation more than anybody else and did not want it to break down. This was why we acted in the same direction as our neighbours did.

On April 25, Kars fell; and with almost no fighting, for directives were received from Tiflis (Tbilisi) to surrender the fortress to the Turks. This treacherous directive had been sent without our knowledge and it aroused great reaction among our people. That day the fate of the Federation looked very critical.

However, what was done was done. The Kars fortress which was our most strategic area was now in the hands of the Turks; there was no room for hesitation and neglect. The Seym accepted the Brest Agreement as the reference and decided to continue the talks which broke up in Trabzon.

The new phase of the talks started in Batoum on the first days of May (where the Turks had quite comfortably settled for some time). This time the Turks had a different approach. The Brest Agreement was no longer satisfactory for them. They were saying that following the Trabzon talks there was more bloodshed and that this had to be compensated. They mainly demanded more land compensations from Armenia. Long and useless talks started again. The Brest Agreement which we did not want to hear about a few months ago in Trabzon, became our sole wish now. However, it was impossible to persuade the Turks. They had gripped our throat tightly and did not want to let go.

On May 15, the Turkish troops crossed Arpaçay (Arpatchai) which was the border according to the Brest agreement, and invaded Alexandropol (Gumru ) in a few hours and moved towards Karakilise.

The situation was unacceptable.

Tiflis (Tbilisi) which was the capital of Georgia and Southern Caucasia was also under threat. No further advance was made in the talks going on in Batoum.

The discord in the Seym could not be settled with any compromise. An explosion was inevitable.

The Georgians were able to see that we were a useless burden on their shoulders and they could very easily solve their own problems without us. The Azerbaijanis, on the other hand, had one wish: Joining the Turks to invade Baku right away. Following the Turkish victory, the Azerbaijanis had no longer any need for the Southern Caucasian Federation. They did not need the Georgians and they saw the Armenians as their enemy.

The moment of breaking down had come.

On May 26, the Seym abolished itself and abandoned its rights, taking into consideration that there were fundamental disagreements concerning war and peace issues .

On the same day and in the same building, Georgian National Council bombastically declared the sovereignty of Georgia.

One day later Armenia took the same step.

Now it was Armenia’s turn.

Was it right to declare our sovereignty; did we have the means to establish our own state and maintain it?

These questions were absurdly unnecessary. We had neither the place nor the time to organize elections. History had brought us to a certain point. We had to gather courage and solve this problem, for we did not want to disappear. We had to own our country, otherwise, we were going to lose it forever. A small hesitation and neglect would create a situation of res nullius (nobody’s property) and in such a situation we would become a war booty for our neighbours, the Turks, the Georgians and the Tatars.

On May 28, late at night, the Central National Council declared Armenia a sovereign state and itself the highest sovereign organ of this state.

The Council had not received any such authority from the National Board, but nevertheless they did not hesitate in the face of such a formal obstacle and in the following years nobody thought of accusing the Council of transgressing their authority. Everybody was aware that there was no other way.

On May 22-26 the battle of Serdarabat and on May 25-28 the battle of Karakilise were fought.

The Armenian people had gathered all their strength to defend their existence. No doubt these fierce battles, the brave resistance that the people (there was no longer an army) showed (especially around Karakilise) significantly raised our standing in the eyes of the Turks and provided the opportunity for a settlement.

The Armenian delegates who were now acting on behalf of the Armenian Republic and who had been authorized by the National Council returned to Batoum and a treaty was signed on June 4. It was a new phase in the life of the Armenian people; a phase of the revival of a state organization which had been lost long ago.

On August 1, The Armenian Parliament began to work in Yerevan (Erivan) and the first government was formed.

The parliament had been formed by tripling the present number of the National Council members. 6 Muslims, 1 Russian and 1 Yezid member was added to the other members. The majority belonged to the Armenian Revolutionary Federation Dashnagtzoutiun. Because our fraction held 18 votes out of the 47 and because we could not form a bloc with any other fraction, the Parliament had no stable center and a definite political identity.

The government was not stable either. The cabinet changed four times during the first 10 months, but the head of the government was always the same person.

The first governments that were formed were all coalitions (the Dashnags, the Cadets and an independent war Minister). The coalition government was not founded on a sound basis, because it did not have a safe majority in the parliament (the Cadets often took a different course from the Dashnags). What was more important was that there was no common agreement among the parties forming the government, on the basis of the program. The attitude our party had towards the government was also an obstacle in this context.

Now I would like to take up a mistake which I find very important and explain it below.

Armenia was a Democratic Republic. It had the proper organs of a democratic-parliamentarian government: a legislative body composed of the people’s representatives and a responsible administration. The Parliament was composed of representatives from the four existing Parties and minorities with the widest true democratic principles. The government received its authority from the legislative body and was responsible to it. This was the form. But the reality was otherwise. In practice our Party tended to subject to itself, to control, the legislative body and the government. We did not have the courage, nor the ability to declare an open dictatorship, but did not wish to remain within parliamentarian limits either and tried to establish in Armenia the “Ittihad” [44] system —a party dictatorship disguised as a democracy. An intolerable dualism resulted from it — on the surface the Parliament and the government; behind the scenes, invisible, the Party and its organs.

Naturally, these two types of authority which were practiced officially and unofficially were only obstructing one another. The official rules prevented the party from acting freely and fast and exposing its own will; the manipulations of the party also prevented the government from acting with its own initiative. This factor made it extremely difficult to form coalitions. Actually, the foreign elements of the coalition government had to practice the policies which had been decided outside the government, in party offices which did not belong to them and they had no control over.

Last summer, I prepared a report on this sensitive issue and presented it to the Party Congress, as I was instructed by the related party organ. My report was read at the regional meeting which met in Constantinopolis.

44.The Ittihad (The Committee of Union and Progress) represented the resurgence of the Young Turk movement in 1909 against the oppressions of Sultan Hamid. It started as a revolutionary movement friendly to the Dashnags and Dashnag aspirations, but it soon followed, the established pattern of massacre, bloodshed and rabid Turkish fanaticism.

Here I will suffice with a few lines on this issue.

In November a general peace was declared. Germany and its allies lost the war.

The German troops left Georgia in haste. Turks also receded back into their old territory.

Towards the end of the month, British troops –the troops of our ally— entered Batoum. We started to entertain new hopes. It appeared as if our situation in Southern Caucasia would radically change, for the victorious and those which replaced the German troops in Tiflis (Tbilisi) were our allies. We had fought against a common enemy. We certainly would attain the privilidge of special friendship of the British, compared to the Georgians who had flirted with the Germans and to the Azerbaijanis who had openly went over to the Turkish side.

We were once more wrong. The British saw no difference among us. They acted as if either they did not know that we had been their ally or had forgotten this. The generosity they showed towards the Georgians and the Azerbaijanis was unexpected and incomprehensible. We certainly did not like this attitude of the British and thought they were disloyal. This was the easiest way of explaining to ourselves an incomprehensible situation. We contented that they were unfaithful and we were relieved. We did not examine the reasons for this unfaithfulness.

At the beginning of December, a war between Georgia and Turkey broke out but did not last long. When the Turks moved from Alexandropol (Gumru) to Pembek and captured Karakilise, the Georgians took the opportunity and sent troops to the Lori region of Armenia. Nevertheless, even when Turks receded, the Georgians did not want to vacate Lori. On the contrary, they took every opportunity to secure their presence there.

They ruthlessly suppressed the resistance of the people of the region. Lori became a matter of dispute and the gravest border question between Armenians and Georgians.

Georgia broke us off the rest of the world, in order to be able to apply pressure on us they imprisoned us inside our borders. Even the wheat which was imported into our country in order to feed our immigrants, was obstructed in Georgia and could not properly reach its destination.

Georgia invaded Lori and closed the railway. We were surrounded. This was actually a reason to declare war on Georgia. The revolt of some Armenian villages in Lori and the severe measures taken by the Georgian government was a direct reason for declaring war. It was as if the Georgian government was looking for reasons to massacre Armenians.

Probably the provocations of the Russian officers serving in our army also played a part. The government in Georgia was trying to diminish the Russian factor (which was quite strong in Tiflis-Tbilisi), curb its influence and nationalize the state apparatus. For this reason they were dismissing the Russian officials and officers and were expelling them from Georgia in big groups.

A significant number of Russian officers were serving in our army and these officers had connections in Tiflis (Tbilisi) (and perhaps also in the volunteer units of the Dennikin Army). It was probably the same people who provoked our military circles in order to create the hostile atmosphere needed to start a military operation.

The war lasted only three weeks. On December 31, the British interfered and a settlement was made. Lori was temporarily declared a neutral zone and a common Armenian-Georgian authority was established there, under the supervision of the British commissar.

In this way, the war had concluded favorably for us. We had partially achieved our aim (the railway connection was reestablished with the help of the British). Nevertheless, the war made us think over many issues. We were a very young state with a history of only 4-5 months and this country which was in need of many things had fought a war. We had been fighting with a neighbour with whom we had to have the closest relations, for we could only establish connections with the rest of the world over Georgia.

We were aware of that and sincerely wished to have friendly relations with the Georgians, but we were not able to accomplish that. The reasons were both the attitude the Georgians took towards us and our own weakness, political inadequacy and our inaptitude to use the state apparatus.

Here, I also have to call attention to the continuous fights going on within and outside our national borders.

We were officially at war with Azerbaijan, because we were actually fighting with them in Qarabag (Karabağ). There were often clashes in Qazax(Kazak) too. Inside the country, at certain places like Agapapa (Akbaba), Zot (Zod), Zanki-Bazar(Zengibasar), Vedi-Bazar (Vedibasar), Sharur-Nakhichevan, (Şarur-Nahçıvan) Zangezour (Zengezur) etc. many bloody battles were fought with the native Muslim inhabitants.

And also there is no doubt that the attitude of Azerbaijan in this matter was hostile. Also it is indisputable that the native Muslim inhabitants had been acting against the Armenian state because they were encouraged by Turkey and Azerbaijan. What is important is that we had not been able to take the precautions either within our country or outside it, to secure our stand. We could not establish an acceptable modus vivendi with Azerbaijan. We were not able to establish order by means of administrative methods, in the Muslim regions; we were obliged to use arms, send troops, demolish and massacre. We were not successful even in these; so much so that this failure shook the prestige of the central authority. In important points such as Vedibasar and Şarur-Nakhichevan we were not able to establish our authority even with arms; we lost and receded.

On May 28, 1919 on the anniversary of our independence, the Parliament declared Armenia “united”: in other words, declared that we included the land which would possibly be saved from Turkish sovereignty into the present Armenian territory. This step was considered by some Turkish Armenians as usurping their rights, because they found it extremely dangerous from the point of view of the Armenian question. They made a great fuss, they protested and the Armenian problem in Turkey was once more brought very heavily against the Armenian question in Russia. The liberal bourgeoisie inside and outside the country called this an irresponsible behaviour on the part of Dashnagtzoutiun and started acting furiously towards the party.

These objections and worries were all ungrounded. The Dashnagtzoutiun had no intention of usurping their rights or doing any plotting, besides, it was later understood that this step would not harm the Armenian question in Turkey. The May Declaration had no effect whatsoever on the Armenian question in Turkey and nobody ever even became aware of it.

It was later seen that the hopes the people who prepared this declaration cherished to increase the political significance of Armenia and to facilitate the diplomatic work done in Europe were in vain. No change had been brought about in the situation, in the eyes of the European diplomacy. A single declaration of our parliament, this meager record which had not been supported with the necessary activities could not have changed the effect of realities. It could have been expected that our national delegation in Paris would be abolished, but it was not. Even following May 28, two diplomatic missions in Europe (The Delegation of the Republic and the National Delegation) continued to function side by side ; they were assigned to advocate the same issues in the same places to the same people. However, it proved difficult to compromise the activities of these two organs who were competing for authority. In this way, our undivided front in Europe was divided. In Armenia, on the other hand, it became difficult to find an opportunity to have a coalition with liberal elements and for this reason our party was more isolated.

The psychological demands which led us to announce the Federal Armenia Declaration are explicable.

The political considerations which led us and which justified the declaration are also understandable. However, it is a fact that this declaration did not lead to any favorable results; its unfavorable results (domestic strife and conflicts) are, on the other hand, very clear.

The Armenian Parliament opened on August 1, 1919. The elections took place in accordance with the democratic procedure — general, equal, direct and secret balloting — but it was strange and disheartening that 72 out of 80 members were Dashnaks, with only four members from the other parties. There was no opposition party to act as a check. We Dashnaks seemed to be victorious but did not understand that it was not a Parliament but the caricature of a Parliament.

We could not understand that elections proved that our people were not yet ready for an independent political life. We were not aware that our parliamentary victory was not actually a victory but a defeat and that by sending 72 members into the parliament we had lost the ground we trod on, the democratic foundation.

We did not understand that as we assumed authority, at the same time, we were also assuming all the responsibility. We lacked the necessary provisions and elements. We could not understand that a strong opposition was needed simply to discipline us and to prevent us from transgressing the present law and order. We also did not understand that by carrying our party meetings into the parliament we were actually bringing the existence of our party to an end.

There was no Parliament; it was an empty form without content. The problems of state were being discussed and solved behind closed doors, in the rooms of the Dashnag faction, and then declared from the rostrum of the Parliament.

In reality, there was not even a parliamentary faction, because this latter was under the very strict supervision of the Dashnag Bureau, and was obliged to carry out its orders. There was not a government either. This, also, was subject to the Bureau; it was a kind of executive body for the Bureau in the state. This was the Bolshevistic system. But what the Bolsheviks were doing openly and consistently, we were attempting to veil under democratic forms.

On the first days of May 1920 there were Bolshevik demonstrations and attempts at uprising. These were suppressed without much effort, because they had no basis; Bolshevism was strange to us. There was also no outside support.

Nevertheless, there was also an interesting situation. A group of young Bolsheviks (even in Yerevan (Erivan) in front of the eyes of the government) were making noisy demonstrations and propaganda among the military toops, occupying the train station in Gumru and capturing an armoured train

This proves that the government was irresponsible, weak and ignorant.

Following the Bolshevik rebellious efforts of May 1920, there was a “coup d’etat” and the A.R.F. Bureau (the so-called “Bureau Government”) replaced the Parliament with its own dictatorial rule. By order of the Bureau the resignation of prime minister A. Khadissian was accepted on May 5, and by order of the Bureau Dr. H. Ohanchanian was ordered to form a new cabinet; the latter presented the already-prepared list of ministers in the same meeting in which he was ordered to form a new cabinet. That was the Bureau itself. Parliament was ordered indefinitely recessed. The Armenian Parliament had given a dictatorial government to the Dashnagzoutuin — to the Bureau.

This was against the decision of the 9th General Meeting of the A.R.F. and had many disadvantages, but it also had the advantage of coming out in the open in its true form and color.

The Armenian-Turkish war which broke our back began in the Fall of 1920. Would it have been possible to evade it? Probably not. The crushed Turkey of 1918 had recovered during the two years. There came forward patriotic, young officers who formed a new army in Asia Minor. They saw the necessity of attacking in the Northeast, and also in the Southwest against the Greeks which they could not do without first crushing their flank on the Armenian front. One cannot say that the Turks really had such a plan, but it is possible that they did and it was also probable that the war with us was inevitable.

Despite these hypotheses there remains an irrefutable fact. That we had not done all that was necessary for us to have done to evade war. We ought to have used peaceful language with the Turks whether we succeeded or not, and we did not do it. We did not do it for the simple reason — no less culpable — that we had no information about the real strength of the Turks and relied on ours. This was the fundamental error. We were not afraid of war because we thought we would win. With the carelessness of inexperienced and ignorant men we did not know what forces Turkey had mustered on our frontiers. When the skirmishes had started the Turks proposed that we meet and confer. We did not do so and defied them. [*]

(((Alternate translation:*

Have we not formerly been persecuted by the Tsars and the Ottoman Sultans? Could we not do the same in the Armenian Republic as we had done for years in Turkish Armenia? Of course we can. We can establish a national home in the Karadag area of Iran (just as we had done in Selmas) and from there we could smuggle fighters and ammunition across the Araks, we could establish secret contacts and we could form armed bands. We would be able to incite to rebellion in the villages in inaccessible spots on the Sunik or Tarlakyazi mountains, on the Sasun mountains and the hills of the Shataks, and we could overcome the communists and crush them. We would also be able to hold noisy demonstrations and even occupy for a few hours an office at Erevan, just as we had once occupied the Ottoman bank. We could blow up buildings, establish organizations and perpetrate terrorism and personal murder. We could of course kill a few Bolsheviks just as we had killed the functionaries of the Sultan and the Tsar. Indeed we could explode bombs in front of Miyasnukian or Lukashin just as we had done before Sultan Hamid. We could do all these things, but there is one quesiton left; What would we hope to gain?

I should point out that in the autumn of 1920 we were not a quantitie negligable in the eyes of Turks. The terrible incidents of the past years were forgotten. Our people were well rested and our army was well armed with British arms. We had sufficient ammunition. We were holding a very important fortress called Kars in our hands. Finally there was the Sèvres Treaty and it was not simply a piece of paper in those days, it was an important gain against Turks. We were not in a similar position to what we were in May 1918 in Batoum. We could easily believe we could be heard, because Turks were considered the defeated party.)))

We did not make an attempt.

If we had accepted their offer what would they have proposed to us? They would probably have started from where we had left at Batoum and Brest and then they would have given further concessions and receded behind the 1814 border lines. They could possibly have withdrawn further and could have handed over Beyazıt and Eleşkirt too.

Turks would never have given any further concessions than these in September 1920 and in return, they were going to demand from the Armenian government that they give up the rights advanced by the Sèvres Treaty.

How would the Armenian government have reacted to this?

They would certainly have refused the offer. The government would never have agreed to these conditions; they would have preferred fighting.

Not only the Dashnag Bureau-Government but any Armenian government would have acted in the same way. I am calling attention to this fact. And this quite significantly alleviates the crime committed by our party. The government could never have accepted these conditions; because all the political parties and groups, all our diplomats, all the appointed and voluntary patriots… all would have revolted, rejected the government and accused it of treason. The Sèvres Treaty had blinded everyone’s eyes.

We now see that if we had agreed on a settlement with the Turks directly (in spite of the Sèvres Treaty) we might have gained a lot. But we could not see this at that point.

All these are possibilities, but they are also the reflections of our thoughts then.

War, on the other hand, was a reality.

It is also a reality, an unforgivable reality that we did not do anything to avoid war but did just the opposite; we created excuses for it. What is unforgivable is that we had no idea about the military power of Turkey and neither did we know our own army.

The war resulted in our indisputable defeat. Our army was well fed and well armed and dressed but it did not fight. The troops were constantly retreating and deserting their positions; they threw away their arms and dispersed in the villages.

Our army was demoralized during the period of internal strife, the inane destructions and the pillages that went without punishment. It was demoralized and tired. The system of roving bands, which was especially encouraged by the Bureau government, was destroying the unity of the military organization. The instruction of the army, its military spirit, its organization and discipline, and therefore its power for defense had deteriorated to the last degree, and that was a surprise to the government: the government and the ministers of war did not know their own army.[44a]

And then the government made a fatal mistake. Intending to increase the number of troops, it called under arms additional men who were past middle age and tired, overburdened with family and financial burdens. They were made to put on the military uniforms in a great hurry; rifles were put into their hands and instantly sent to the front. These were ready-made deserters which caused additional defections and demoralization in the ranks of the army.

When on November 2 [1920] the victorious armies of Karabekir had reached Alexandropol (Gumru), the Bureau-government presented its resignation. It could not stay in power any longer; it was beaten, and on account of its defeat it had been discredited.[44b]

Then it became necessary to begin negotiations with the Turks and it became necessary that those who negotiated should be new faces. After a short indecision, the government of Simon Vratzian was formed, composed of Dashnags and social revolutionaries. Dashnag ministers belonged to the “Left” wing of the Party, while he, the prime minister [Vratzian] was known to be a man of the Russian orientation, and the socialist revolutionaries had personal ties in the Armenian Bolshevik circles. There was a remote hope that in the event the Bolsheviks came to power (a fact we were beginning to understand was inescapable) a government with such a composition would be able to find a common language with the new comers.

The Turks had already occupied Alexandropol. In the meantime the Armenian Bolsheviks at the head of the Red troops entered Itchevan and Dilijan. Was there an understanding between the Bolsheviks and the Turks? In our ranks that conviction was widespread. I think, however, that it was wrong; in all events there was no positive proof. It is probable that the Bolshevik agents (or individuals with Bolshevik leanings) were trying to destroy our Army from the inside, but for that it was not necessary to have an agreement with the Turks.

The plot of the Bolsheviks was not the reason for our defeat, nor the power of the Turks (which was not important at that time) but our own ineptness! Of course the Bolsheviks benefited from our defeat and that was very natural, but it was not essential that they should have come to an understanding with the Turks for that purpose...

It goes on for a while, following this, and he recommends "suicide", his word, for the Dashnag party. So, as the other poster said, he does deal alot with post-1918 activities, but still he touches on the Turkish-Armenian conflicts during Ww1 in a substantive, important way. He also condemns those in the diaspora who were attacking "enemies", at that time it was the Bolsheviks, from a distance. Interesting, and relevant, no? He says:

European cities are full of emigrant malcontents of all kinds who publish newspapers, write books, call protest meetings, threaten, cure the Bolsheviks. I know of no other “work” that is more futile and miserable than what is being done. Is it with these thundering words that they will blow off Soviet heads? That is not a fight nor a struggle but an exposition of a despicable stupidity. The fighters against the Bolsheviks must fight from within so that the blow may tell; but to hide behind the frontiers and show one’s fist from a safe distance — it is a gesture which, at all events, is not worthy of Dashnagtzoutune.

So, there it is, and, as we can see, there are some divergences from the Armenian-side's current party line about why the violence began. Search for "terrible fact", I believe that's what it was. I'll divulge my own point of view here: what happened to the Armenians was inexcusable and unjustified (the Minister almost seems to say it was justified, if you read the word "ought" in the essay as "rightly ought"), but their violent provocations and siding "enthusiastically" with the enemy was the reason for the deportations -- and not a pretext, but the real reason, and the massacres were the result of inter-ethnic strife that was, as far as the Turkish aggression was concerned, begun with the massacres of Turks in the Caucasus and elsewhere, and magnified by the knowledge of Armenian cooperation with their WW1 enemy! (Now, I'm open to the idea that Anatolian Armenians posed only a small threat to the Turks, and I condemn what was done either way. But I will always inquire as to the truth about the degree of their revolt and violence, even though there will never be a justification.)

However, those who reject the characterization of what happened as civil war need only look to this text!!! The minister calls it war -- Armenians versus Turks, is the way he portrays it, not just Russians and Russo-Armenians versus Turks. He doesn't separate the Anatolian Armenians from the Russian Armenians, and the Turks did the same. The Minister lays it out -- it was an Armenian failure to judge Turkish strength that resulted in the catastrophe -- as well as an (likely an over-)estimate of Armenian strength by the Turks which drove them to think the deportations of Anatolian Armenians. It was no pretext, though, and that's borne by a reading of this text. The whole history of that period is damnable, including what happened to the Armenians, but also what happened to Turks -- but we should get the history right in addition to damning it. And the Minister's characterizations of Armenian revolt make it clear that claiming the Turks used revolt as a pretext for racial purity are absurd -- instead, they were reacting to Armenian actions. As he says, whether the Turks would have done it anyhow -- not because of racial purity, but because the Russians and Russian Armenians were likely to find at least some support among Anatolian Armenians -- is something about which we can have a multiplicity of legitimate opinions. But none of those possible legitimate opinions find the Turks to possess a plan for racial cleansing; to the contrary, it finds the Turks reacting to Russian and Armenian aggression. The only question is if the Anatolian Armenians ever had a way to escape the bloodshed, or if the actions of the Russians and Russian Armenians, and the agitators among the Anatolian Armenians, along with the Turks' proclivity to reacting strongly to any domestic military threat, condemned them to die regardless of their own actions. In any case, the Turks and the Armenians were at war, even if some of the Armenians abstained, and the presence of a genocide against Armenians is only legitimately argued if one accepts the identity of the treatment (read: murder) of Turkic peoples in the Caucasus and elsewhere by Armenians and others as genocide. (And as I said, this provoked massacres against the Armenians along with the military action of the Russian Armenians [as the Minister indicated] and some Anatolian Armenians.) A "terrible fact" indeed -- blood on everyone's hands, not just the Turks.

I can email anyone a full copy if they like, just let me know.

--24.5.70.65 22:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I personally doubt such a report exists, and if it does, I doubt that it can be used to 'disprove' genocide, or (I am trying to interpret what you said) justify it. In any case, a source that is only rumored to exist is irrelevant to Wikipedia. The Myotis 03:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yep I know that's irrelevant to wikipedia. I am just trying to find out the truth. I know the Turkish often comes with fake evidences, but I do check however. This time, it was not easy to verify if Hovhannes Katchaznouni really prepared a report like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.96.18.143 (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC).Reply

A source like this is certainly not irrelevant to Wikipedia! How can the first Prime Minister of Armenia's views not be relevant to "Wikipedia"? Do you really think there's no article in which his views are relevant?

--24.5.70.65 22:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Armenians (including women, children, elderly) were never "exiled" BTW...but marched to their deaths across the deserts and scrub with little or no food or water, gathered into death camps with neither food nor water, tied together and shot en mass, burned alive, drowned or otherwise killed in great numbers. All of this extensively eyewitnessed and thoroughly proven and accepted - yes. OK - so what can one say that "disproves" these facts? And what justification would you consider to be acceptable for this sort of behavior? Let us just say that in the 1960s it was discovered that the Soviet Union was supporting the Black Panther party in commiting violence and robbery against white people in San Fransisco - would this then be deemed sufficient justification and rational to march all Black people in the USA out into death valley in the middle of the summer with no food and water...and to outright kill any who were unwilling to go or when you just got to lazy to march them all off - etc? I am very interested in your answers to these questions. Upon examination can anyone claim justification for the (again eyewitnessed and fully accepted) actions taken by the CUP lead Ottoman Turkish Government during this period?--THOTH 03:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

TROTH, you keep saying the same things. Remember, we have discussed these issues in the past. You write just as if you were there. You do not comment on Hovhannes Katchaznouni, but just lead the discussion to the same point which was not directly relevant to the main question. I don't think that a rumored source is irrevalant. We may check whether it exists or not. I have searched about it four months ago: http://www.armenianreality.com/An_Armenian_source_hovhannes_katchaznouni.html I haven't read the full text yet because of my exams. Read it and talk about it TROTH, nothing else.Caglarkoca 01:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

See my comment below. I find your presentations of unscholarly and irrelevant assertions such as this to be tedious and time wasting. I addressed the substance of your claim to have found "new evidence" disproving the genocide. Why don't you (ever) address the substance of my comments? --THOTH 07:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Caglarkoca,

I have found the following quote from the book that you have mentioned.

The following text extracted from http://itss.org/new/node/92

Statement of the First Prime Minister of The Republic of Armenia; He says there was not even massacre, let alone genocide..

"The war with us was inevitable... We had not done all that was necessary for us to have done to evade war. We ought to have used peaceful language with the Turks...We had no information about the real strength of the Turks and relied on ours. This was the fundamental error. We were not afraid of war because we thought we could win. Our army was well fed and well armed and [clothed] but it did not fight. The troops were constantly retreating and deserting their positions; they threw away their arms and dispersed in the villages. ...In spite of the fact that the Armenians had better material and better support, their armies lost......the advancing Turks fought only against the regular soldiers; they did not carry the battle to the civilian sector ....the Turkish soldiers were well-disciplined and there were not any massacres" The Manifesto of Hovhannes Katchaznouni, First Prime Minister of the Independent Armenian Republic Published by the Armenian Information Service Suite 7D, 471 Park Ave. New York 22 – 1955

Also, following text is explaning the point I was trying to make earlier.

ps. Dear User MarshallBagramyan, this is what 69 American Academicians accepted. Also, for your information The Ottoman Archieves are open to public. Can you tell us whether Armenian archieves open or not? Thank you.

.." As for the charge of "genocide," no signatory of this statement wishes to minimize the scope of Armenian suffering. We are likewise cognizant that it CANNOT BE viewed as separate from the suffering experienced by the Muslim inhabitants of the region. The weight of evidence so far uncovered points in the direction of serious inter-communal warfare (perpetrated by Muslim and Christian irregular forces), complicated by disease, famine, suffering and massacres in Anatolia and adjoining areas during the First World War. Indeed, throughout the years in question, the region was the scene of more or less continuous warfare, not unlike the tragedy which has gone on in Lebanon for the past decade. The resulting death toll among both Muslim and Christian communities of the region was immense. But much more remains to be discovered before historians will be able to sort out precisely responsibility between warring and innocent, and to identify the causes for the events which resulted in the death or removal of large numbers of the eastern Anatolian population, Christian and Muslim alike." THE STATEMENT MADE TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY 69 AMERICAN ACADEMICIANS ON MAY, 19, 1985.

Celaloglan 02:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

First - you two act as if this is some kind of newly discovered statement (Katchaznouni) which it is not. Second - this statement has absolutly nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide (but of the situation in 1919/1920 where the new state of Armenia was faced with an offensive from the Nationalist Turks under Gen Kazim Karabakir. Third - this is the stated opions of one man (a politician) whose words must be examined in the larger context of both what he was trying to say and why (political motivation vis a vis [other Armenian] political enemies). In any event it is of no relevance to the Armenian Genocide. You claim that it "disproves" the Armenian Genocide. My earlier comment addressed this absurd claim from another (valid) angle showing the impossibility of your claim (regardless). So enough said. And as for the 69 (so-called) scholars (once again). Israel Charney demonstrated the clear political (and economic) motives behind those signing this statment and the fact that few of them made any effort to substansiate or re-affirm the claim of the statement afterwords (leading doubt to the veracity of their belief). Furthermore, as I mentioned before, very few of these academics were or could in fact be considered to be historians of this period or scholars in the subject of genocide (or even politics/current events or what have you) to be considered to have any special insights or academic credentials to allow them to comment substantivly on this issue (again unlike the 129 Holocaust scholars who called for unconditional recognition of the Armenian Genocide based on known and academically accepted facts). Thus paid political propoganda brought to you by the state of Turkey and nothing more. Their obvious political statement in fact doesn't say much of anything factual pertaining to the genocide in any event. I mean one can say that there have been wars in Europe going back generations and many Germans have been killed over the centuries - however this truly say s nothing /does not directly address the facts of the Holocaust in any way. So anyway - it seems to me that it is far past time for disputing the veracity of the Armenian Genocide. Your attempts will end in failure. We need to discuss pertintent issues of which these that you bring up are not. If I was a cynical person though I would say that you are accomplishing your purpose here regardless in that I surmise you don't truly want this article improved (in a factual manner) but instead are happy to be here pushing a purely political agenda whose ultimate purpose is to disrupt progress on this issue and in this article specifically. If you were honest you would not make so much of any issue with accepted historical facts and instead you would be more interested in revealing more information about these events and not disputing the (factually and academically) indisputable and wasting time here.--THOTH 07:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where did Charny tell that about these 69 scholars? Can you give the source (and the exactly pages)? And can you give 5 examples (from these 69 scholars) of this allegations of Charny (+source +exact pages)?

And these 129 Holocaust scholars: are you sure they were all that kind of scholars? No novelists etc between them?

Don't forget the big picture:There are ten of thousands historians in the world that don't confirm an Armenian "genocide". Chonanh 12:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

"There are ten of thousands historians in the world that don't confirm an Armenian "genocide". - really now? - please name even 20 non-Turkish historians that out and out deny the Armenian Genocide. As for Charney's follow up to the (so-called) 69 scholars who supposedly deny the Armenian Genocide - http://www.freewebs.com/deniarschallenge/document2.htm I would also suggest that you check out - Roger W Smith - Genocide and Denial; and Deborah E. Lipstadt - Deniers, Relativists, and Pseudo-scholarship, Dimensions, 6:1 (1991); and Israel W. Charny, The Psychology of Denial of Known Genocides, in Charny, ed., Genocide, 2:13-15 --THOTH 13:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

professor Alan Fisher, professor Heath Lowry, professor Eric Feigl, professor Bernard Lewis, professor Norman Itzkowitz, professor Andrew Mango, professor Malcolm E. Yapp, professor Justin McCarthy, professor Norman Stone, professor Guenter Lewy, professor Jay Winter, etc. http://www.freewebs.com/deniarschallenge/document2.htm can not taken be serious, a www.freeweb-source. This is Wikipedia=high requirements when submitting sources. Roger Smith is not a serious source, he is payed by Armenians.Smith ("Chairman of the Zoryan s Academic Board of Directors.” http://www.yevrobatsi.org/st/item.php?r=3&id=790). Zoryan Institute is the bastion for the Armenian genocide propaganda.I’ve read work of Deborah E. Lipstadt. But she is talking about the denial of holocaust. If you want to transport her thoughts about denial of holocaust to the AG, you are free in to do that. But you must not tell that she is talking about the AG.Israel W. Charny. He is probably a psychologist http://asa.sa.utoronto.ca/Photos/9900/Events/Charny/charnyCV.htm In his work he fabricates profiles of “denialists” of the AG (“category denialists I, II”, etc.). But these theories come only from his mouth. If in his area (psychology) his theory is commonly accepted, I’ll give his idea more weight. The fact that he refers to himself about a quarter of the time (References: 12 of 45=27%) is a bad sign. I advise not to trust such scientists. Chonanh 03:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Funny, both of those sources come from personal letters published in an "TURKISH student" society webpage. If you want anybody to believe that statement, you will have to find the primary source, published from a nonbiased source. Obviously this statement 'exists', but also obviously this particular source has an enormous probability of being fabricated. In fact, I cannot find information on the "Armenian Information Service Suite" anywhere, except for copiers of the same "quote". If you can find it, please let us all know. The Myotis 02:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

THOTH

I dit not imply that if the genocide did not happen. I certainly believe so, that it did happen. My aim was to verify if the Armenian political figure did really compose a report like that. Because often the Turkish side comes out with new stuff in order to disprove or refute the genocide allegations. And most of the time, the new stuff are to be meant to justify the genocide or to imply that it was inevitable. And some of the documents that the Turkish "historians" provide are, even, plain fake. Why I am saying this, because I am fairly new to the topic. All I wanted to learn is Hovhannes Katchaznouni's stance. Did he really compose that report. What says the repot? What does the genocide scholars think about the content of the mentioned report? Kind Regards

I bet that this statement has to do not with the 1915 Genocide, but with the 1919 Turco-Armenian war, which was a different even. The statement needs to be taken into context. -AlexiusComnenus

you can download it here guys read it:

http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2005/08/about-contact-us-links.html

it is not about the Turkish-Armenian war. only reading the first 10 pages will show that to you. He says we were stupid to embrace russia as our saviour. it was wrong to create the voluteers army. The deportations would not have happened if we did not attack!!! Read your prime minister guys just read...

From the manifesto:« At the beginning of the Fall of 1914 when Turkey had not yet entered the war but had already been making preparations, Armenian revolutionary bands began to be formed in Transcaucasia with great enthusiasm and, with especially, much uproar. Contrary to the decision taken during their general meeting at Erzurum only a few weeks before, the A.R.F. had [actively participated] in the formation of the bands and their future military action against Turkey.

« In an undertaking of such gravity, fraught with most serious consequences, individual agents of the Transcaucasian A.R.F. acted against the wiIl of our superior authority, against the will of the General Meeting of the Party... In the Fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer bands organized themselves and fought against the Turks because they could not refrain… from organizing and… fighting. This was (in) [sic.] an inevitable result of a psychology on which the Armenian people had nourished itself during an entire generation : that mentality should have found its expression, and did so. » (Pages 30 to 32) only these 3 pages burries your genocide claims...

Surprise, surprise, another Turkish website, one that states it is mirroring the famous 'Armeniantalltale' site. How come we never see this quote coming from any neutral sources? Also, even if we were to assume this quote was accurate and in context, do you really think that a few rebel organizations, regardless of what they did, justify the extermination of an ethnic group? Do you think it is right for a government to say 'some of them are dangerous, be we are not sure which, so they all must die'? Do you think that this would null the definition of genocide? Try finding a credible source.The Myotis 00:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The assertions that have been made about the Minister's words are mostly incorrect -- he did make comments that are relevant to the Turkish-Armenian bloodshed during WW1, although he also deals with what were then contemporary matters (1923). He makes statements that clearly indicate that he believed the Turks engaged in the deportations because of the actions of the Armenians inside of and outside of Anatolia (he never distinguishes the two in this context, and only speaks of "enthusiastic" Armenians embracing the WW1 enemy of the Ottomans, the Russians). Also, the understanding of these documents some people have is based on the fact that Derounian put out a "condensed" translation, which, in large part, served only to remove important statements that indicate the Minister's above point of view. The notion that the Armenian revolt was a pretext for racial cleansing, aside from its implausbility, is now even contradicted by a the Armenian equivalent of George Washington. I have a lot of respect for that man, for being willing to speak unpopular truths, even when they'd make no one happy. (What he wrote wouldn't make anyone who could actually be described as a "genocide" "denier" happy, nor would it make those who aver the identity of what happened to the Armenians as genocide (yet who deny the identity of what happened to the Turkic peoples elsewhere in the Empire, sometimes at Armenian hands, as genocide) happy. That's how you know someone's on the right track -- they piss everyone off!

newest ref (genocide watch)

Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

Something not so related, you can remove later, but I think it may stay:

Let me tell you this, if you want to send to Turkish prime minister a mail. It is not

TC Easbakanlik

Bakanlikir

It is

TC Basbakanlik (better: T.C. Başbakanlık)

Bakanliklar (better: Bakanlıklar)

deniz^T_C 07:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why would we want to send the Turkish PM mail? If one wished to express onseself to someone who mattered and/or could do something in Turkey about relevent issues (such as begging for the Turkish Army not to do something really stupid an invade Iraq (Iraqi Kurdistan) - then you should be providing the email of the Turkish military Chief of General Staff.--THOTH 07:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a smart move? Another venomous remark from a notorious Turk hater. I suggest everyone ignores all comments from THOTH, he is like appenzeller cheese that has turned foul lutherian 17:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Ignore all comments"...I don't suppose I am the only person who sees the irony in a statement like that coming from somebody who has yet to make a relevant comment or evidence-based argument. I would even venture a guess that reason he posts such aggressive comments is to prevent them from being ignored. Some people will do anything to get attention. The Myotis 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well I certainly seem to have caught your attention, how does it feel like to shoot yourself in the foot? lutherian 21:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

So you admit that you are only here to get attention? Yes, I realize that was your sole intent, but today is rather slow on this particular talk page and I am curious as to why you would pursuer such an unsatisfying endeavor. Posting insults on a talk page and desperately hoping for a response seems like a waste of time.The Myotis 22:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Desperately hoping for a response? hmmm that's probably why on several occasions I ask THOTH to kindly not to bother replying because I don't enjoy reading his novellas! BTW, if you find my remarks provocative, why do you bother to respond? lutherian 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you find the amount of information and evidence Thoth posts to be too overwhelming, you are not required to read them. This page is not curtailed to your enjoyment, obviously. And if you would prefer I do not respond to your posts, that they remain ignored, then I am happy to comply. The Myotis 15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I dont think you quite understood what I meant when I said that I would rather THOTH refrain from answering. It was with regards to his responses to my remarks. Don't worry, I certainly do not bother reading his long winded essays as I have come to discover (like many others over here btw) that it is a monumental waste of time. lutherian 18:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why bother asking someone to refrain from posting if you’re just going to ignore their posts. It would be like if I asked asking you to please not reply because I don’t enjoy reading baseless attacks and insults. After all, if the evidence is in your favor, why does it matter what people rant about? The Myotis 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

You still don't get it, do you? Ok, lets give it another shot, the reason why I asked him to refrain from answering is because he is too long winded with his answers. If he was straight forward and to the point instead of writing mini essays all the time I wouldn't ask him to refrain from responding. Capiche? I hope that's a little clearer now lutherian 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you dont read them why do you care what he writes? The Myotis 22:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Every country has the right under international law to intervene in other countries, in which people and movements exist who are causing damage to the former with the latter not being able to insure law and order in its own territory. Since PKK is recognized as terrorist and is causing problems in Turkey due to its activities in Iraq which the Iraqi government is incapable of stopping, Turkey has that right. I don't see why it would be "stupid" either. I have Turkish friends who have been to Iraq when they were in the army - Turkish army made more than 20 incursions into Iraq in the last ten years. It is not a "big news". Once it concerned nearly 100,000 soldiers and they went 250km inwards. In fact, :), there are 3000 Turkish soldiers in Northern Iraq as we speak. No, Turkey didn't just launch an invasion - they have been there for the last 15 years. Anyways, Turkey will enter there right after the pres elections as far as I know. But enough soapboxing. Baristarim 05:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was talking about this. Anyway, Turkey is not US, it will not invade whole Iraq, it will just continue to have cross border operations (I think all countries have such right to secure their national integrity, also this might be part of treaty of Lausanne), or it can move a big army section near the border, which worked against Syria, though I don't know if it will work again. deniz^T_C 04:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

yeah, the occasional disinfection operation is a must, especially after being provoked by a turbin wearing, pockmarked guinea (Barzani for the uninitiated) lutherian 17:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Turkey will invade Northern Iraq to pursue "PKK gunmen" which is dubious, the most stable area in the region is Northern and we will see how the whole country will be torn upon when they invade. --Baktov23 00:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why is it "dubious"? Who do you think has been crossing the border and killing Turkish soldiers? Who do you think kidnapped a group of them?!?! And since when does stability of a region or state mean it doesn't harbor gunmen? Is the United States stable? Does it harbor gunmen that invade other countries? Served.

--24.5.70.65 20:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply