Israeli-Palestinian conflict (86 Viewers)
- Thread starter ReBeL
- Start date
They should not deny that they killed about 1 million Armenians but I would not call it a genocide to be honest. It is a matter of definitions but the word genocide is being overused for almost anything these days.
The Armenians were in an armed rebellion against the Ottoman Empire and cooperating with the Russians in what we can call a war of liberation. The Turks who carried out the killings were mostly irregulars and it seems that the central government attempted to restrict the amount of killings by deporting Armenians from the sensitive areas to the historical Armenian homeland. One has to understand that Armenians were living throughout Anatolia in the early 20th century due to centuries of wars and events.
The term genocide was coined after the holocaust and thus, when one wants to use the term, he evidently has to compare the event in question to the holocaust. For the Armenian "genocide" to be a genocide, you would have to assume that when Adolf Hitler started killing the Jews and issued the Final Solution, the Ashkenazi Jews of Germany had been in an armed revolt for years, trying to assist the English, Americans, and Russians against Germany. Then, you would need the crimes to be committed by irregulars rather than by regular troops and the government. Also, you would need the Nazi government to deport Jews from the sensitive areas to a safe harbor (Palestine, let's say for the sake of argument) rather than to concentration and death camps.
Ultimately, the massacres of the Armenians during WW1 was a terrible event and the Turks should certainly apologize for it. However, it was definitely not a genocide if definitions matter.
The Armenians were in an armed rebellion against the Ottoman Empire and cooperating with the Russians in what we can call a war of liberation. The Turks who carried out the killings were mostly irregulars and it seems that the central government attempted to restrict the amount of killings by deporting Armenians from the sensitive areas to the historical Armenian homeland. One has to understand that Armenians were living throughout Anatolia in the early 20th century due to centuries of wars and events.
The term genocide was coined after the holocaust and thus, when one wants to use the term, he evidently has to compare the event in question to the holocaust. For the Armenian "genocide" to be a genocide, you would have to assume that when Adolf Hitler started killing the Jews and issued the Final Solution, the Ashkenazi Jews of Germany had been in an armed revolt for years, trying to assist the English, Americans, and Russians against Germany. Then, you would need the crimes to be committed by irregulars rather than by regular troops and the government. Also, you would need the Nazi government to deport Jews from the sensitive areas to a safe harbor (Palestine, let's say for the sake of argument) rather than to concentration and death camps.
Ultimately, the massacres of the Armenians during WW1 was a terrible event and the Turks should certainly apologize for it. However, it was definitely not a genocide if definitions matter.
are you aware that the inventor of 'genocide' coined his idea from the armenian genocide?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Lemkin
and yes its defininetly a genocide if definitions matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Lemkin
and yes its defininetly a genocide if definitions matter.
Holy fuck, I forgot about that 
I do disagree with his methodology though, the Armenian "genocide" has almost nothing in common with the holocaust. If you want to call any type of disorganized massacres a genocide then the word becomes irrelevant.
The way I see it, a genocide is a deliberate attempt by a central government to completely eradicate a people in a systematic way. The massacre of the Armenians does not fall in that category.
Why then did the Turkish government bother to deport the Armenians from sensitive areas to the Armenian homeland to prevent killings?
I do disagree with his methodology though, the Armenian "genocide" has almost nothing in common with the holocaust. If you want to call any type of disorganized massacres a genocide then the word becomes irrelevant.
The way I see it, a genocide is a deliberate attempt by a central government to completely eradicate a people in a systematic way. The massacre of the Armenians does not fall in that category.
Why then did the Turkish government bother to deport the Armenians from sensitive areas to the Armenian homeland to prevent killings?
The ideal of historical legacy of crimes is one of the most backward ways of thinking. This is totally unrelated to the Armenian genocide because that is still an unresolved issue today, but where should we draw the line? If Turks today should feel sorry about what happened in the 14th century and onwards, how should the German today feel only 70 years after WW2? Was the fall of the Berlin wall even a positive thing when thinking about it, since the generations after 1945 inherit the guilt of their predecessors - shouldn't we just have given Germany the post WW1 treatment again?
I don't know how you can justify historical legacy of crimes, especially since the notion of nations and 'people' is a fairly modern one.
- - - Updated - - -
Genocide doesn't have to be restricted just to killing. Every able bodies Armenian man (and other minorities mind you - the Greek got the same treatment ) was either killed outright or worn down by physical labour. Women and children were just deported and the weak and elderly were forced to go on death marches into the Syrian desert. If that ain't a genocide, then I have no fucking idea what is.
I don't know how you can justify historical legacy of crimes, especially since the notion of nations and 'people' is a fairly modern one.
- - - Updated - - -
Genocide doesn't have to be restricted just to killing. Every able bodies Armenian man (and other minorities mind you - the Greek got the same treatment ) was either killed outright or worn down by physical labour. Women and children were just deported and the weak and elderly were forced to go on death marches into the Syrian desert. If that ain't a genocide, then I have no fucking idea what is.
It was carried out by irregulars and the government tried to restrict the killings. Hence, it does not qualify as a genocide the way I see it.
We may very well have different views on the use of the term genocide. In my opinion, it is often misused.
I'm not a fan of the Turkish government in any shape or form (see their treatment of Kurds and other minorities) but I do insist on the proper use of words.
We may very well have different views on the use of the term genocide. In my opinion, it is often misused.
I'm not a fan of the Turkish government in any shape or form (see their treatment of Kurds and other minorities) but I do insist on the proper use of words.
No. Rwanda would qualify as a genocide (it was during a civil war but the Akazu who ordered and planned the killings did hold power, several of them were members of government) for instance. It was a deliberate attempt by the Hutu leadership to completely wipe out the Tutsis.
The Armenian case is much different.
The Armenian case is much different.
But the effect of it nonetheless stands. The jewish population was much less decimated by WW2 and the genocide you acknowledge than the Armenian population was by the 'terrible' happenings that do not quite live up to the standard of Genocide. The numbers as to 'how many died' ( @swag 
) vary, but what seems to be the most accurate places the total death toll at 850.000 ( Justin McCarthy ). The total number of Armenians before 1914 was 1,2 million.
This isn't an attempt to down talk the jewish holocaust of WW2, but I'm just trying to get you to grasp the facts of what you refuse to acknowledge as a genocide.
) vary, but what seems to be the most accurate places the total death toll at 850.000 ( Justin McCarthy ). The total number of Armenians before 1914 was 1,2 million. This isn't an attempt to down talk the jewish holocaust of WW2, but I'm just trying to get you to grasp the facts of what you refuse to acknowledge as a genocide.
Holy $#@!, I forgot about that
I do disagree with his methodology though, the Armenian "genocide" has almost nothing in common with the holocaust. If you want to call any type of disorganized massacres a genocide then the word becomes irrelevant.
The way I see it, a genocide is a deliberate attempt by a central government to completely eradicate a people in a systematic way. The massacre of the Armenians does not fall in that category.
Why then did the Turkish government bother to deport the Armenians from sensitive areas to the Armenian homeland to prevent killings?
I do disagree with his methodology though, the Armenian "genocide" has almost nothing in common with the holocaust. If you want to call any type of disorganized massacres a genocide then the word becomes irrelevant.
The way I see it, a genocide is a deliberate attempt by a central government to completely eradicate a people in a systematic way. The massacre of the Armenians does not fall in that category.
Why then did the Turkish government bother to deport the Armenians from sensitive areas to the Armenian homeland to prevent killings?
Having said that, I'm not some right wing nutter who thinks the Turks should pay for what they did in the past. What happened happened and maybe some reperations will help honor the memory of the victims at the time. Communication will only help the two countries right now to move on after 90 years of status quo.
Way to miss the fucking point. 2/3's of the Armenian population died in those two years, and your relucatance to acknowledge it as a genocide comes from the facts that the armenian populace had nationalistic movements prior to WW1 (which somehow makes it less bad to be exterminated?), that Turkish irregulars worked in some of the 25 or so concentrations camps and that the Turkish government deported females after they had raped them?