Armenian Genocide

YoungCalifornian wrote:

The Armenians have almost nothing to gain by lying about such an event.  As it is, they've stuck to their story for over 80 years and have nothing to show for it.

LOL. You must be joking. Normally,I would answer why they are striving for the recognition of genocide but I am not sure whether you,yourself,even believe what you said.

YoungCalifornian wrote:

Is there any mass grave of them? no. but in Erzurum, in Agri, in different cities in the Eastern Turkey they still find new mass graves of Turkish people. Hmmm... so the Turks, who deny the genocide, have declared that they have only found mass graves of Turks, but not of Armenians, within their modern borders?  Forgive me if I do not hold such reports in the highest esteem.  The Turkish government is hardly an impartial party in this debate.  There a many accounts of mass graves and concentration camps within Turkey; however ,the Turkish government claims that these simply reflected the poor state of the empire and the that many peoples of all kinds died in those turbulent times in the desert.  They claim that they had not the means to enact a plan to exterminate the entire population of Armenians.  These excuses sound incredibly lame when one considered that the Ottoman government was able to relocate and house close to a million Muslim with minimal loss of life at the very same time.

I know very well why the Armenians seek Turkey's recognition of the genocide.  What I was trying to consider, in the statements of mine which you cited, is what the Armenians would be trying to gain if they were indeed lying.  I think that anyone can understand why the Armenians would want an admission of guilt by Turkey if the genocide is true.  What it's difficult for me to imagine is what the Armenians would have to gain by perpetuating a lie for over 80 years, assuming it wasn't true.  The Armenian community has stuck to its story consistently and yet they have gained nothing.  If the stories were all exaggerations, then why not let is go by now?  Why do you think the Armenians persist?

Harmony?  Give me a break.  First of all, you must consider the nature of  empires.  I must admit that I've never heard of the "Lehs", but the Armenians, Greeks, Serbs, and Albanians were all violently conquered by the Turks.  Jews are obviously not Christians, and most Albanians either fled to Italy or were forcibley converted to Islam.  All those peoples resisted Turkish domination, as is understandable.  The only thing that made the Armenians different from those other Christian minorities is that much of their traditional homeland (Western Armenia) was in eastern Anatolia, the very region that the Turks had settled in after defeating the Byzantine Empire, and which constitutes most of present-day Turkey.  The traditional regions of Greece, Serbia, and Albania were all outside of Anatolia.  More important than that however, is that most of those peoples were no longer under Ottoman control at the time of the Armenian genocide.  Greece won its freedom back in 1829 (and accused the Turks of numerous atrocities in their war for independence).  The Serbs and Montenegrans got their independence in 1878.  Thus, by the time of World War I, the Armenians were the only major Christian nationality still within the Ottoman Empire.

Alright, but none of that is relevant to this discussion.  I'm not trying to argue that Turks are evil, or that they've never done anything amiable in their history.  However, a few good deeds or periods of tolerance do not mean that the Turks weren't capable of great violence and atrocities.  The fact that Jews lived relatively peacefully in Germany for many years prior to the Holocaust does not mean that the Holocaust didn't occur.  Such logic is #####.

Again, your ###### is ######### ####, or at the very least, ######.  Putting aside the fact that numerous massacres of the Armenians by Turks occurred prior to World War I (although not government-sponsored), pointing out that attempts at genocide were not made before is not a reasonable argument as for why they couldn't have occurred later.   Situations change.  Does the fact that the United States and Japan never fought a war against one another before World War II mean that all those accounts of war in the 1940s shouldn't be believed?  Does the fact that the Turkey and Great Britain fought against each in World War II mean they are still enemies today?  Such an opinion makes no sense.

Anyone taking a look back at history can see that many things changed just before and during the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire.  The Young Turk Revolution of 1908 and World War I itself are the two most obvious examples.  While it's difficult to know exactly why the Ottoman government would seek to exterminate the Armenians, seeing as how they deny it to this day, there are many educated opinions as to the reasons.  The most widespread is that the idealistic Young Turks sought to create a more culturally unified empire, and the Armenians, being a religious minority, represented a significant obstacle to that goal.  It is also believed that the Turks feared that the Russians would use the plight of the Armenians (being fellow Christians) as an excuse to conquer Ottoman terrority.  Couple that with the fact that their had been minor uprisings at times by some Armenians in the eastern provinces, and some think that the Turks figured the best solution was to simply exterminate the whole community.

Edited by Mod. to remove personal comments which have been offensive.

YoungCalifornian wrote:

Harmony?  Give me a break.  First of all, you must consider the nature of  empires.  I must admit that I've never heard of the "Lehs", but the Armenians, Greeks, Serbs, and Albanians were all violently conquered by the Turks.  Jews are obviously not Christians, and most Albanians either fled to Italy or were forcibley converted to Islam.  All those peoples resisted Turkish domination, as is understandable.  The only thing that made the Armenians different from those other Christian minorities is that much of their traditional homeland (Western Armenia) was in eastern Anatolia, the very region that the Turks had settled in after defeating the Byzantine Empire, and which constitutes most of present-day Turkey.  The traditional regions of Greece, Serbia, and Albania were all outside of Anatolia.  More important than that however, is that most of those peoples were no longer under Ottoman control at the time of the Armenian genocide.  Greece won its freedom back in 1829 (and accused the Turks of numerous atrocities in their war for independence).  The Serbs and Montenegrans got their independence in 1878.  Thus, by the time of World War I, the Armenians were the only major Christian nationality still within the Ottoman Empire.

Firstly , time changes. The times when Ottoman Empire was established and conquered the Europe and the time when Ottoman Empire was in downfall(especially I want to point out the time after French Revolution) are different times and need different view of aspect.

When Ottoman Empire was established and conquered the Christian nations, as you have lined up above,the situation and conditions were different. At that time tolerance was the cement of this ethnicity. Dont dare to tell me it is not true because i have even read the external sources about why Byzantian and Christian citizens were welcome to Turks , at that time. Because they had suffered too much from church and hardships of crusades.(Even in one crusade the crusaders plundered the Balkans and Byzantine,as you know). And the policy of Ottoman Empire was not nationalism but Osmanliclik which advocates the idea of Ottoman culture and unity rather than the subcultures. So they treated subcultures equally because in administration there werent many difference between a Christian and Muslim. And even scrutinizng on history what i can see is there were times when Christians had much more rights from Muslims, which caused insurgencies in Anatolia several times. And even another fact is the first synagogue that was establihed within the borders of Byzantine was with the order of Ottoman Empire after a war between Ottoman Empire and Byzantine.

Time changes, as i said. Especially after French revolution nationalism skyrocketed and influenced minds. So you can be right at the point that Greeks and Serbs may have suffered for independency. Independence is not cheap and it wasnt cheap for us , either. You know, we have lost 250.000 people only in the war of Dardanelles(a front in WW1)for our independence. I admit it but again it doesnt change what i claim. Independence has a price and genocide is different than war. Both sides have lost its people. What is the difference between Greeks or Serbs and Armenians. The difference is Greeks achieved to be independent but Armenians couldnt.They tried to be independent as Greeks and Serbians did but they couldnt achieve. It is not a matter of Christianity. It is a matter of war and independence. And they resort to different ways now. And i cannot understand what is the problem with Armenians right now. We have still Armenian minority(especially where i live is a place which was residented by predominantly Armenians) I have acquaintances and we say it is a matter of history. Both sides suffered. You may not believe but I even want my country to solve the conflicts with Armenia and open the border. What is the guilt of Armenian citizens for matters of history? But, dont forget the Azerbaijani persecution.I am still indignant to Armenia because of those massacres.

P.S Lehs is a race which constituted the nation of 'Lehistan' and at that time collaborated with Russia and Austria against Ottomans. They are the ancestors of the current Poland.