The Armenians and the Ottomans; huh?

[Brother None]

You know, the discussion recently flamed up again in Holland. One of our new stations managed to dig up a CD-Rom from the department of tourism of Turkey which point-blank denies the genocide of the Armenians in the early 20th century ever happened. Oh my God, Dutch Euro-politicians go, this is unacceptable! Turkey must not be allowed to join the EU until they accept their guilt in the Armenian genocide! This is not European! We always accept our own guilt, they must too!

Grand Dutch journalism. Netwerk looks important because they dug up an irrelevant CD-Rom and inflated its importance, the Euro-politicians look important because they can be all moral towards Turkey, which we all love. Damned Turks.

Sometimes I hate my country.

It raised an interesting issue for me again. I've never seen conclusive evidence that the genocide in fact happened. I've seen evidence that crimes were comitted, but nothing of the scale or intention that shows genocidal tendencies. Yet somehow this has always been incontestible. You may not say that maybe there was no genocide, damn you!

Today an interesting article popped up from Justin MCCarthy, professor of history at the University of Louisville and author of "The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire". I'll translate some fragments:

The term "genocide" for Turkish acts is easily shown to be incorrect.

(...)

Although the commitment of "Armenian genocide" has officially been recognised by parliaments and courts, the existence of it is not a decided matter. As more historical research is done, it has become clear that there has been a terrible war between the Turks and the Armenians, but that there can be no mention of genocide.

(description of Armenian revolt during WW 1, how much they damaged the Ottoman war effort)

The Ottoman command to deport the Armenians can be explained by the damage caused by the Armenian rebellion. If the Ottoman reaction was exagerated is a matter of discussion between historians, but no objective analyst can doubt the fact that the Ottomans had good reasons to fear rebellious movements from the Armenians. They had to do something to defend themselves.

Can you call the reaction of the Ottomans genocide? The definition of the UN, the most quoted definition, doesn't bring any enlightenment. The UN states genocide is "acts committed with the intent to wipe out, partially or whole, nationally, ethnically, racially or religiously defined groups." The problem is in the word "partially". According to the definition of the UN war is always genocide. The war between the Turks and the Armenians is a war like any other.

Did the Ottoman government give the command to murder Armenians? Yes, just like the Armenian authorities gave the command to murder Turks and Kurds. The Ottomans hung Armenian revolutionary leaders. Some victims were innocent. The Armenians selected Ottoman government officials to kill. There were innocents there too. Mass murders were committed against Armenians by muslims, especiallyu in Harput and Trabzon. There were also mass murders, on a much larger scale, committed by the Armenians on muslims in cities like Van, Bitlis, Erzurum and Mamahatum.

The Armenians and the muslims died by murder, hunger and disease in the war zone. The death rate was roughly the same in both groups, about 40%. If one party is guilty of genocide, than both parties were guilty of genocide.

Practically most people define "genocide" as an effort to wipe out all members of a national, ethnic or religious group. This was not the case in the Ottoman Empire. Some false "bloodbathorders" and other dubious evidence have been dug up, but nobody ever found an authentuc order from the government to commit genocide.

It is not logically possible to prove that something doesn't exist. It is possible to reveal that the acts of the Ottomans were not genocidal; the Armenians from Ottoman Europe and West-Anatolia were not seen as a threat and they were not deported. They were left in peace.

The largest majority of the Armenians who were deported, survived the deportations. Armenian deported were given food from the supplies of the Ottoman army. This could not possible by genocide.

Why is so little of this history known in Europe and America? The answer to that question is related to traditional anti-Turkish feelings in Europe and the US - feelings that go back to the Middle Ages. And amongst people who are not too happy about current Turkey and their way of dealing with human rights there is a tendency to believe the worst of the Turks. And some use the demands that Turkey must recognise the genocide as a historical fact as a strategy to keep Turkey out of the EU.

(some stuff, including notes about powerful international Armenian lobbies and the failure of the Turkish republic to study the subject, as they feared anger from the population against the Armenians, which would be bad for Turkey's reputation)

In France it is forbidden to state that there has been no case of genocide against the Armenians. The historian Bernard Lewis was haunted by lawsuits for years in France because he denied the genocide. In the end he was found guilty. There are comparable laws in Zwitserland. In that country they have started a lawcase against the chairman of the Turkish Historical Union. He is being accused of denying the Armenian genocide. A law is currently going through Belgian parliament to turn denying the genocide into a law. In France, Switzerland and soon probably Belgium too this article would be againt the law. (In Holland the Christian UInion is currently designing a law by Belgian model, red.)

America is not far behind in this opression of history. The pressure is more subtle there, though. Young scientists are recommended no to study such a "dangerous" subject. Older scientists simply know their carreers would be hurt if they study the subject. American newspapers have caved into the political and economic pressure and don't even try to make a balanced analysis of the case. In more liberal times the Boston Globe once published an article stating that during the First World War both Turks and Armenians were killed. Two thousand Armenian protestors and the threat of losing revenue by advertisements convinced the paper never to print such material again. Frustated by the refusing of the media to publish anything other than one side of the case, sdome even tried to make their views known by paying for it.

Neither the politicians nor the newspapers who try to supress the study of the history of the Turks and Armenians can state they have ever studied this history.

In France and Switzerland a historian who denies the genocide can go to jail, in the US he can lose his job. No wonder only one side of the story is told. Now that Turkey has opened his archives, more and more scientific publications are brought forth by which the hypothesis of the genocide loses ground.

If Europeans and Americans are ever to see this version of history is, sadly, a matter of politics.

Now I find this worrying. I have always felt some sympathies for opression of mention of the German genocide of the Jews and the fact that it is forbidden by law in a number of countries to mention the genocide or read Hitler's little book, but the above shows that there are a number of problems with this kind of state regulation of historical facts. It's understandable that people are weary of historical falsifications surrounding the genocide of the Jews and people don't want to forget these crimes, but it's too easy to twist this policy to cover other facts and turn it into propaganda against people such as the Turks, who are guilty of many crimes, but perhaps not of all the crimes they're being accused of. This kind of opression of facts is not only unjust, but also highly dangerous.[/quote]

 

[The Vault Dweller]

The area I grew up in was next to an area of Los Angeles called Glendale or sometimes "Little Armenia". Most of the Armenians in the country live their and I remember they were very adamant about the Turkish attempt at genocide towards them. The real problem is the Turkish may really have been at legitimate war with them, but since so many died the Armenians cried genicide and any relation to them doing anything to the Turkish is ignored due to fear of a political backlash.

Still though half a million people of such a small population is hard to pronounce as non-genocide. I do believe they shouldnt even attempt to make laws to make people admit something did or did not happen...its up to them to decide.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[John Uskglass]

The largest majority of the Armenians who were deported, survived the deportations. Armenian deported were given food from the supplies of the Ottoman army. This could not possible by genocide.

This is not accurate. Parts of the Ottoman Army where willing to defend the Armenians, many did not. In many cases, Kurdish militants would simply wipe out Armenians 'protected' by the Ottomans.

Genocide is a silly word. Armenians killed Turks, Turks killed Armenians, Kurds killed Armenians, Armenians killed Turks. But this much is true; the Armenians where generally loyal citizens up to Russian promotion of Nationalism, and even then they where still considerd better then the Kurds, who had always been difficult. When the Armenians where being stripped of rights, some defected to the Russian army, and then full on ethnic warfare commenced.

I've always been pro-Armenian, even if I do like the Turks now. Read The Ottoman Centuires by Lord Kinrosss; a Turkophile who clearly admitted the genocide and saw it for what it was. Also try The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus by Vahakn N. Dadrian.

Too many good Turks died for it to be called one sided, but the Ottomans where a national government who should have protected the rights of all thier citizens; instead they wished to eradicate the Armenians in some perverse national dream of Turan, a Turkish nation stretching from Bulgaria to Inner Mongolia.

 

[Hellion]

Here's what our trusty Wikipedia has to say on the matter...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

Not surprising that editing this page has been haulted due to a discussion on the forums on whether it was a genocide or not

Here's another wiki-related link, but with different content:
http://www.uncover.us/en/wikipedia/a/ar/armenian_genocide.html

Sure looks like a "Genocide" to me...

 

[Bradylama]

There's also a key part of this issue. Armenia isn't applying for EU membership.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Also, the reason nobody in the EU wants Turkey in the EU is not the Armenian Genocide, but Turks...

 

[Jebus]

Speak for yerself, buddy.

 

[Brother None]

This is not accurate. Parts of the Ottoman Army where willing to defend the Armenians, many did not. In many cases, Kurdish militants would simply wipe out Armenians 'protected' by the Ottomans.

Note how he makes no commitments towards wether or not all Ottomans helped Armenians. It's like saying "French socialists voted against the EU Constitution." It's certainly true, but it seems to indicate that all of them did, which is not true.

Genocide is a silly word. Armenians killed Turks, Turks killed Armenians, Kurds killed Armenians, Armenians killed Turks. But this much is true; the Armenians where generally loyal citizens up to Russian promotion of Nationalism, and even then they where still considerd better then the Kurds, who had always been difficult. When the Armenians where being stripped of rights, some defected to the Russian army, and then full on ethnic warfare commenced.

I've always been pro-Armenian, even if I do like the Turks now. Read The Ottoman Centuires by Lord Kinrosss; a Turkophile who clearly admitted the genocide and saw it for what it was. Also try The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus by Vahakn N. Dadrian.

Too many good Turks died for it to be called one sided, but the Ottomans where a national government who should have protected the rights of all thier citizens; instead they wished to eradicate the Armenians in some perverse national dream of Turan, a Turkish nation stretching from Bulgaria to Inner Mongolia.

Uhm, not to fret, but the Armenians were in an uprising and obstructing the war effort. Why exactly is it the job of the Ottoman government to protect the rights of rebels or, hell, terrorists? The Russians don't have to protect the rights of the Chechens and they certainly wouldn't have to during war times.

One could argue it was their job to be very careful about who to persecute, but since the Armenians weren't making this discrimination either, which would label them as terrorists under modern-day standards, I don't see why it's the Ottoman's job to protect them, 'specially during WW 1`.

I don't see how your argument can hold up unless you were to argue the Armenian uprising was somehow "legitimate", despite their actions of mass murder.

And I really don't think the term genocide in the sense you seem to think it applies in applies here. If this was about a perverse ethnonational dream, like the nazi dream, why were not all Armenians persectued? Why were they not killed before? What do you have to support your statement, really?

PS: heh, so you're anti-Ottoman on this issue? Consider me not surprised.

 

[John Uskglass]

Note how he makes no commitments towards wether or not all Ottomans helped Armenians. It's like saying "French socialists voted against the EU Constitution." It's certainly true, but it seems to indicate that all of them did, which is not true.

This is bullshit, total, utter bullshit. If a group of SS Officers where fighting behind the lines in WWII, and many where, would that justify an attempt to 'relocate' the Germans to Alaska, resulting in a fatality rate among those relocated of around 60%?

No. That's called Genocide.

Uhm, not to fret, but the Armenians were in an uprising and obstructing the war effort. Why exactly is it the job of the Ottoman government to protect the rights of rebels or, hell, terrorists? The Russians don't have to protect the rights of the Chechens and they certainly wouldn't have to during war times.

You don't know what you are talking about. Until the Hamidian Mercenaries, the Armenians where called the 'Loyal Millet.' Armenians where generally loyal citizens of the Empire as they gained much from Ottoman rule, and the Ottomans where better then thier former masters. It was not until the Hamidian massacers that Armeniain terrorism became popular, and even THEN it was NEVER on the scale of Greek or Kurdish disruption to the Ottoman Government.

The Armeniains where ALWAYS more loyal then the Kurds. They NEVER rose up until the FORCED MIGRAITONS.. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! What happened was an Armenian Forced Labour Battalion went over to the Russians. The Armenians in the Ottoman Army had been forced to give up wepons despite being honorable soldiers in the Sultan's Army, as the Armenians had been for 300 years, and the took away the wepons of All Armenians, making them sitting ducks to Kurdish militia.

One could argue it was their job to be very careful about who to persecute, but since the Armenians weren't making this discrimination either, which would label them as terrorists under modern-day standards, I don't see why it's the Ottoman's job to protect them, 'specially during WW 1`.

They where terrrorists among the Armenians, yes. There where terrorists among African Americans. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising, where they 'terrorists' Kharn?

I don't see how your argument can hold up unless you were to argue the Armenian uprising was somehow "legitimate", despite their actions of mass murder.

The Ottomans had already tried to wipe out the Armenians in 1894-1897, and was alligning with Egypt during the Greek War of Independance to help wipe out the Greeks. If that's not deserved, nothing is.

The Armenians learned tactics from the Kurds, and sadly often went down to their level. That does not mean they had no right to defend thier land.

And I really don't think the term genocide in the sense you seem to think it applies in applies here. If this was about a perverse ethnonational dream, like the nazi dream, why were not all Armenians persectued? Why were they not killed before? What do you have to support your statement, really?

Uh, all Armenians where persecuted, what have you been smoking? During the Hamidian Massacers only specific groups of Armenians, initially, where targeted, but not during the 20th Century massacers.

And it was a Nazi like dream. Go look up Turan and the Young Turks. They where in many ways the first Nazis.

At least the Nazis where somewhat realistic.

EDIT: The Turan map is from a Grey Wolf website ,and the Grey Wolves are modern and openly National Socialist. However, Turan was a Young Turk idea.

PS: heh, so you're anti-Ottoman on this issue? Consider me not surprised.

Ottomans where largely a force of tolerance in a sea of religious genocide for 200 years. I'm anti-Young Turk and somewhat anti-Russian Interventionism on the issue. Maybe a little anti-Kurd.

 

[Brother None]

This is bullshit, total, utter bullshit. If a group of SS Officers where fighting behind the lines in WWII, and many where, would that justify an attempt to 'relocate' the Germans to Alaska, resulting in a fatality rate among those relocated of around 60%?

No. That's called Genocide.

No it's not. Don't be stupid. If you have a multi-grouped nation like the Ottoman Empire and one group resists the Empire Total, for whatever reasons, then a reaction against this group is in no way uncommon or automatically genocide. By your definition, Israel's war against Palestine is genocide, as is, again, Russia's war against Chechnya.

Source that 60%, it's 40% by my book, which, incidentally, is also the local death rate amongst muslims. Muslim Genocide?

You don't know what you are talking about. Until the Hamidian Mercenaries, the Armenians where called the 'Loyal Millet.' Armenians where generally loyal citizens of the Empire as they gained much from Ottoman rule, and the Ottomans where better then thier former masters. It was not until the Hamidian massacers that Armeniain terrorism became popular, and even THEN it was NEVER on the scale of Greek or Kurdish disruption to the Ottoman Government.

The Armeniains where ALWAYS more loyal then the Kurds. They NEVER rose up until the FORCED MIGRAITONS.. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! What happened was an Armenian Forced Labour Battalion went over to the Russians. The Armenians in the Ottoman Army had been forced to give up wepons despite being honorable soldiers in the Sultan's Army, as the Armenians had been for 300 years, and the took away the wepons of All Armenians, making them sitting ducks to Kurdish militia.

Hehehehe, you sure know how to get worked up about stuff, don't you? Take a breather, relax and before you accuse someone of not knowing anything, I'd be interested to know how many books you've read that didn't have a clear bias in favour of the Armenians.

Funny how you're contradicting yourself, though. On one hand you're saying Armenian terrorism is endemic of the post-Hamidian massacre Ottoman/Armenian period and that these acts from the Ottoman empire caused terrorism from the Armenians, on the other hand you're saying such terrorism didn't exist, the Armenian were loyal citizens during WW I until, for unknown reasons, the Ottomans decided to kill them all. So which one is it? Did Armenian terrorism exist because of the Hamidian massacres or did it occur during WW I as an effect of mass deporation? Careful here, don't trip over factual incorrectness

They where terrrorists among the Armenians, yes. There where terrorists among African Americans. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising, where they 'terrorists' Kharn?

By current American definitions? Sure.

The Ottomans had already tried to wipe out the Armenians in 1894-1897, and was alligning with Egypt during the Greek War of Independance to help wipe out the Greeks. If that's not deserved, nothing is

Hang on, no, wait, fuck you. Deserved has nothing to do with it. The Armenians rebelled during a state of war. This is treason of your country. If you somehow make such a rebellion legit on odd reasons you will have to make a shitload of other rebellions legal too, such as, cha-ching, Chechnya and Palestine. And the American Civil War.

Uh, all Armenians where persecuted, what have you been smoking?

That's odd, then why did any of them survive the deportation when the Ottomans could have easily starved them to death during? And why were the Armenians from Ottoman Europe and West-Anatolia not actively persecuted? All Armenians my ass.

During the Hamidian Massacers only specific groups of Armenians, initially, where targeted, but not during the 20th Century massacers.

Source it.

Go look up Turan and the Young Turks.

Yes, because I obviously don't know what that is yet.

They where in many ways the first Nazis.

Been listening to Hitler too much, huh?

EDIT: The Turan map is from a Grey Wolf website ,and the Grey Wolves are modern and openly National Socialist. However, Turan was a Young Turk idea.

Really, so you just proved Turan was a Young Turk idea they actively pursued by showing a map from a Grey Wolf website? Wow! You rock at historic evidence, you should become a historian.

Ahem, source it or stuff it.

Ottomans where largely a force of tolerance in a sea of religious genocide for 200 years. I'm anti-Young Turk and somewhat anti-Russian Interventionism on the issue. Maybe a little anti-Kurd.

Monomaniac

 

[John Uskglass]

Kharn, when half of your posts contain the words 'source it', you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

No it's not. Don't be stupid. If you have a multi-grouped nation like the Ottoman Empire and one group resists the Empire Total, for whatever reasons, then a reaction against this group is in no way uncommon or automatically genocide. By your definition, Israel's war against Palestine is genocide, as is, again, Russia's war against Chechnya.

They did not resist Kharn, that is what you are not getting. The trouble caused by Armenian 'terrorists' was NOTHING compared to the trouble by Kurds or several other minorities.

Source that 60%, it's 40% by my book, which, incidentally, is also the local death rate amongst muslims. Muslim Genocide?

Your book?

Almost all numbers on the subject are estimations, most numbers I see are near 60%, not including people killed in Van and the like.

Hehehehe, you sure know how to get worked up about stuff, don't you? Take a breather, relax and before you accuse someone of not knowing anything, I'd be interested to know how many books you've read that didn't have a clear bias in favour of the Armenians.

Already said. Lord Kinross was a Turkophile, but in his The Ottoman Centuries he clearly details both the Hamidian and the subsequent Pontic and Armenian genocides. Also, good adolescent book called Forgotten Fire by Adam Bagdasarian.

Also, Orhan Pamuk, probably the best living Turkish writer, takes a lot of flack for believing in something close to Genocide. Read his amazing Snow.

Funny how you're contradicting yourself, though. On one hand you're saying Armenian terrorism is endemic of the post-Hamidian massacre Ottoman/Armenian period and that these acts from the Ottoman empire caused terrorism from the Armenians, on the other hand you're saying such terrorism didn't exist, the Armenian were loyal citizens during WW I until, for unknown reasons, the Ottomans decided to kill them all. So which one is it? Did Armenian terrorism exist because of the Hamidian massacres or did it occur during WW I as an effect of mass deporation? Careful here, don't trip over factual incorrectness

Three causes.
Russian influence on nationalism in the area. Basically, I think there could not have been an Armenian genocide without Russian influence, and so should most people. And the other two.

Actually, not for unknown reasons. If you had read anything on the subject (doubtful) you would have read how the Turkish government saw the Armenians as being in the way of Turan, the pan-Altaic superstate they wanted to create.

By current American definitions? Sure.

Some of them where terrorists. And to be totally honest, the actions of Armenian terrorists are one of the reasons we are even HAVING this discussion; in the aftermath of Turkey annexing 60% of the Wilsonian Armenian State, many Armenians made it thier life's goal to get rid of the Ottoman generals who commited those crimes. Up until this point, the new Turkish Republic actually was willing to admit to many of the nastier parts of the Ottoman collapse.

Hang on, no, wait, fuck you. Deserved has nothing to do with it. The Armenians rebelled during a state of war. This is treason of your country. If you somehow make such a rebellion legit on odd reasons you will have to make a shitload of other rebellions legal too, such as, cha-ching, Chechnya and Palestine. And the American Civil War.

They where not rebelling. How many times must I say this? There was no organized, large scale rebellion against the Ottomans. This was not the ACW. If they did anything to help overturn the Ottomans, it was help the Russians; and not THAT many did that even.

And to be perfectly frank, I think that the rebellion in Chechnya and Palestine ARE legal, and I basically support one and am ambivilent on the other.

That's odd, then why did any of them survive the deportation when the Ottomans could have easily starved them to death during? And why were the Armenians from Ottoman Europe and West-Anatolia not actively persecuted? All Armenians my ass

Buahahahaha. Who are your sources? This is almost INSULTING!

Many of them DID starve to death. Most of them. The Russians helped, many where able to make it to the relative saftey of places like Russian occupied Kars or to the French or British. In some cases the soldiers 'guarding' the deporting Armenians just slaughtered them, in some cases they let the Kurds slaughter them, and in some (few, rare occasions) the Ottomans protected the Armenians against Kurds.

But to quote Dr. Taner Akçam

“The fact that neither at the start of the deportations, nor en route, and nor at the locations, which were declared to be their initial halting places, were there any single arrangement, required for the organization of a people's migration, is sufficient proof of the existence of this plan of annihilation.”

Source it.

Jesus Dude, just get a book. Don't you work in a book store? I'm sure they'd have half a dozen books on the subject. Internet sources tend to be either raving or badly written or just dull.

It's from The Ottoman Centuries, if you really need to know. Abdul Hamid was a sociopath who was in all likelyhood half-Armenian, as he was even called 'Bedros' when he was ruler (Armenian name for Peter, kind of stereotypical Armenian name).

Yes, because I obviously don't know what that is yet.

Actually, it looks like you don't. The Young Turks where insane when it came to the Turanic ideal. Enver Pasha died fighting the Soviets to maintain some kind of hope for it.

Been listening to Hitler too much, huh?

I'm sure I don't need to dig up that quote.

Ahem, source it or stuff it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Turkism

See Enver Pasha as one of primary Pan-Turanists.

Monomaniac

I have not picked up a book on Byzantine or Turkish history in a couple of months. I'm almost moving past it. I still have no tolerance for people who pretend to know anything about the genocide, though, or claim it is MOSTLY Armenian myth.

 

[Brother None]

Kharn, when half of your posts contain the words 'source it', you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Actually, no, when half my post contains the words "source it", I am worried that all you've read on the subject is anti-Turkish stuff. Since almost all studies on the subject are obviously biased one way, how do I know you read up on it?

They did not resist Kharn, that is what you are not getting. The trouble caused by Armenian 'terrorists' was NOTHING compared to the trouble by Kurds or several other minorities.

The trouble caused by the Armenians was very significant during WW 1, don't belittle it.

The relative stance of the trouble compared to others is irrelevant, unless you think it's unfair that Ottomans pick on one and not the other. Religious reasons? Sure, but that does not make it a genocide.

Your book?

Almost all numbers on the subject are estimations, most numbers I see are near 60%, not including people killed in Van and the like.

I know all numbers are estimations, which is why you should be careful shouting about large numbers from, again, anti-Turkish studies.

Already said. Lord Kinross was a Turkophile, but in his The Ottoman Centuries he clearly details both the Hamidian and the subsequent Pontic and Armenian genocides. Also, good adolescent book called Forgotten Fire by Adam Bagdasarian.

Also, Orhan Pamuk, probably the best living Turkish writer, takes a lot of flack for believing in something close to Genocide. Read his amazing Snow.

That's odd. So you have read a lot of stuff biased against the Turkish side of the story, from Turkish hands? The fact that Turks or Turkophiles wrote it means exactly dick to me, a person writing about the holocaust not having happened does not make a more convincing case if he's Jewish himself.

The problem here is that there barely are any reliable studies showing the other side of the story, but the fact that a lot of documents used by historical studies have by now been shown to be false and the stuff being uncovered now showing the other side prove pretty clearly that the biased studies so far are incomplete.

Russian influence on nationalism in the area. Basically, I think there could not have been an Armenian genocide without Russian influence, and so should most people. And the other two.

Actually, not for unknown reasons. If you had read anything on the subject (doubtful) you would have read how the Turkish government saw the Armenians as being in the way of Turan, the pan-Altaic superstate they wanted to create.

You're still contradicting yourself. Again, it is IMPOSSIBLE that Armenian terrorism has existed since the original slaughters of the late 19th century. but yet Armenians were loyal citizens until being deported during WW 1. Pick one or the other, stop trying to lie and squirm.

They where not rebelling. How many times must I say this? There was no organized, large scale rebellion against the Ottomans. This was not the ACW. If they did anything to help overturn the Ottomans, it was help the Russians; and not THAT many did that even.

Exactly. They were on the frontier, helping the Russians. Key positions during WW 1. Maybe you need to brush up on warfare, but treason from your own side can be pretty painful during wartime, even if its "small-scale".

Organized rebellion is not relevant. Multiple mass murders being committed against Turks, treachery in supporting the Russians and other forms of revolt all combine for painful matters, even if it's not organized.

Many of them DID starve to death. Most of them. The Russians helped, many where able to make it to the relative saftey of places like Russian occupied Kars or to the French or British. In some cases the soldiers 'guarding' the deporting Armenians just slaughtered them, in some cases they let the Kurds slaughter them, and in some (few, rare occasions) the Ottomans protected the Armenians against Kurds.

You're not listening. Genocide is a heavy word. It shows a certain intent, namely an intent to systematically wipe out a race. Protecting them and feeding them, even if it's rare, shows that this is not the case.

“The fact that neither at the start of the deportations, nor en route, and nor at the locations, which were declared to be their initial halting places, were there any single arrangement, required for the organization of a people's migration, is sufficient proof of the existence of this plan of annihilation.”

Bullshit. It shows that the Ottomans didn't care if the Armenians starved. Boo-fucking-hoo. That's still a far shot from wanting to wipe them all out.

Jesus Dude, just get a book. Don't you work in a book store?

No, here's an idea, how about you get a book that actually isn't biased against the Turks. I don't care if it's written by a Turk or not.

And I don't work in a book store.

Actually, it looks like you don't. The Young Turks where insane when it came to the Turanic ideal. Enver Pasha died fighting the Soviets to maintain some kind of hope for it.

Hahahaha, man, your view of history is skewed. Yes, you do have an inkling of a point there, but the fact that you anachronistically compare it to the nazi empire shows you don't understand what you're talking about.

Drifting off the point, too, even if the Turanic ideal shows a reason that the Armenian massacre could be called a genocide, it does not prove that it happened just because they had a reason to

I'm sure I don't need to dig up that quote.

Funny, isn't it? Hitler is an evil man, his little Kampf-book is forbidden in most countries, yet he says something about Armenians and people actually *consider it true*. The fact that Hitler once spouted some bullshit about the matter means historians feel justified to compare the two seperate matters. How stupid is that?

I still have no tolerance for people who pretend to know anything about the genocide, though, or claim it is MOSTLY Armenian myth.

You and fucking 95% of the Western World. Good going, guys, censor out dissident voices and, wow, surprise, suddenly all historical studies prove the Armenian genocide did happen!