Armenian Genocide

YoungCalifornian wrote:

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.

You are right . Russians backed Armenian minority and underpinned mobs and insurgent groups to cause fear to public in the war. They could make easy their job in the war by abusing Armenian minority.And Armenians were abused by Russians. But,Turks tried to exile Armenians to Syria as a place distant from the influence of Russia instead of building concentration camps to massacre Armenians.

Janissary, let me take this time to state that I mean you no personal disrespect.  I don't think that my comments necessitated censoring, but apparently the moderators disagreed.  I was not attempting to insult you, but rather was attacking your logic.  Ironically, I think that by concealing what I wrote the moderators made it look worse than it actually was.  While we obviously have a serious disagreement here, I do enjoy discussing this topic with you and having my own logic and beliefs tested.  There is no doubt our opinions are heavily influenced by the perceptions commonly held by those amongst whom we were raised.  In that sense, we are both biased.

I'm not totally sure I understand your point regarding how my sentences don't correlate.  Regardless, it seems that some of our mutual confusion stems from our perceptions of who is doing the accusing.  I have little interest in the modern Republic of Armenia.  While I'm happy that many Armenians now have a country to call there own, limiting the greater Armenian community to that single state is folly.  Historic Armenia extended far beyond the borders of that small country, and a great number of Armenians (including many genocide survivors and their descendants, such as myself) live in other countries and have almost no connection to the modern state with that name.  The entire Armenian diaspora is estimated to be 8 million people, whereas the population of  modern Armenia is only 3 million.  The republic is essentially what amounted to Russian/Eastern Armenia.  Most of the victims of the genocide lived in regions of present-day Turkey, which was then known as Ottoman/Western Armenia.  Thus, when I speak of the Armenians, I refer to the entire diaspora, and do indeed consider it a matter of indivduals.  I don't care about current border disputes, and know little about the fighting between Armenians and Azerbaijanis.  What happened to the Armenians living under Ottoman rule and the concerns of the Republic of Armenia are two separate issues.

As for what the Armenians hope to gain by convincing Turkey to recognize the genocide, I don't believe they expect much in the way of compensation.  Although most lost much in the way of personal property, most of the survivors are now dead, and I think that few have any interest in returning to Turkey in order to make claims to family land and such.  Even if they did (and they would have a right), most realize it would be incredibly diffcult to prove the validity of any such claims.  No, I think that most Armenians simply want to forgive and forget.  However, it is impossible to forgive someone unless they admit to their sin.  In the face of Turkish denial, Armenians can't afford spiritually to put this behind them.

Obviously situations do indeed change over time, and relationships between neighboring ethnicities have their ups and downs.  That said, it's quite a stretch to state that the Turks were welcomed with open arms by Eastern Orthodox Christians.  It's true that western European Catholics had plundered Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade, but by the time the city was conquered by the Turks, the Byzantines had regained control of the city for almost two centuries.  In anticipation of the arrival of the enormous Turkish army, Emperor Constantine XI desperately sought the help of Rome, but most of the western European powers were already engaged in wars of their own.  Once the city was conquered, Sultan Mehmed II allowed his soldiers to enslave, rape, murder, loot, and pillage the city and its citizens as he warned would happen if they resisted.  To his credit, he did force such actrocities to cease after one day. These people clearly did not want to be part of a Turkish empire, though.

While many of the nations under Turkish rule may have lived peacefully for many years, that does not mean that they were content.  Conquered peoples, especially religious minorities, were certainly not treated as equals.  While the Turks generally did not seek to persecute or convert religious minorities (mostly for economic reasons), Christians and Jews were still subject to dhimmi status and laws, and all the discrimination that came with them.  The Koran itself declares that dhimmis have to be "disgraced, humiliated, and belittled".  A charge of blasphemy by a Jew or Christian against Islam was enough for a death sentence.  Dhimmis were also subject to strict clothing restrictions, higher taxes, and denied the right to bear arms.  Eventually, the hardships of living under dhimmi status in Muslim-controlled lands convinced many populations to gradually convert to Islam.  So while there were certainly other conquerors who treated their religious minorities worse than the Turks, that doesn't mean that the Turks treated religious minorities especially well.

Yes, independence doesn't come cheap, as we Americans are also aware.  My point in mentioning the struggle for independence on the part of the Greeks and Serbs was simply to point out that they clearly were not happy being ruled by the Turks.  I think that most anyone can sympathize with a conquered people seeking their autonomy, as you seem to also.  Still, the Armenian drive for independence was, most believe, largely exaggerated by the Turkish government, and simply used as a pretext to get rid of them.  That's not to say that groups of Armenians didn't want independence, but the majority of the Armenian sought only the same status and rights as Muslims living in the Ottoman Empire.  Most violent and rebellious acts committed by Armenians before World War I were in response to prior attacks made by Turks and Kurds.  After the Russo-Turkish War, Armenians were guaranteed a series of new rights under the Treaty of Berlin.  However, most of these were ignored by the Ottoman government, and whenever a group of Armenians complained, they were brutally suppressed as evidenced in the Hamidian massacres.

I do not know a whole lot about the fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan, but as I mentioned before, I think it's irrelevant to discussions about the Armenian Genocide.  My understanding is that the bloodshed and hatred between the two countries is mutual.  Still, your constant references to present-day politics seem like meager efforts to deflect attention from the real issue we are discussing.  I'm not trying to argue that Armenian people have never committed violent acts, nor am I trying to claim that the Turks were bloodthirsty tyrants throughout their history.  However, comparing Turkish deaths to Armenian deaths at the time of the genocide is laughable.  The number of Armenians killed by Turks simply dwarfs the number of Turks killed by Armenians.  The Armenians were also sadistically tortured and raped, all with the support of the government.  Furthermore, any Armenians who may have fought the Turks were doing so for idealistic reasons; usually they did so in an effort to draw European attention to their plight.

Of course the Turks have been aware that the Armenians were Christian since the day they first conquered them.  If you are again trying to make the point that it's unlikely the Turks would have attempted to exterminate the Armenians at the beginning of the 20th century because they hadn't done so in the past, I'll repeat what you said yourself: times change.  A new government took hold of Turkey in 1908, and those leaders eventually sought to exterminate the Armenians in their land.  This is similar to the case of Germany, where a new government took hold in 1934, and eventually sought to exterminate the Jews in their land.  Seeing the other examples that history provides, it shouldn't be hard to imagine how this could happen in the Ottoman Empire.

Two of the most logical reasons why it's hard to believe that Turks sought only to relocate the Armenians as a means of preventing Russian influence are as follows: firstly, Armenian populations not located near war zones were also deported.  Secondly, no plans or organizational efforts were made for the relocated Armenians.  They were sent into the Syrian desert with no destination, no protection, no food other than what they brought themselves, and basically no means of survival.  Beyond those logistical reasons, lie the many eyewitness accounts of Armenians being massacred prior to the location.  Most of those being deported were women and children, because the vast majority of the men had already been executed.  In addition, there are numerous accounts of the Ottoman army inciting local Kurdish and Turkish tribes to rob, rape, and murder the travelling Armenians, as well an taking part themselves.  These eyewitness accounts are not limited to Armenians, but also include the coinciding testimonies of numerous Americans, Arabs, Russians, Britons, Swedes, and even Germans and Austrians, who were Turkish allies during World War I. 

To deny the Armenian Genocide is to ignore numerous international testimonies, accounts, photographs, and other evidence, all in deference to the opinion of the one country accused of the atrocity: Turkey.  The following are a list of some international organizations that recognize the genocide:

• United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities
• International Association of Genocide Scholars
• European Parliament
• European Council
• International Center for Transitional Justice

You may also want to take a look at some of these photos (I must warn you that they're gruesome):  http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide_Photos

Mod; my original comment should have read  '... may have been offensive...' Sorry for the error.

YoungCalifornian wrote:

Once the city was conquered, Sultan Mehmed II allowed his soldiers to enslave, rape, murder, loot, and pillage the city and its citizens as he warned would happen if they resisted.  To his credit, he did force such actrocities to cease after one day. These people clearly did not want to be part of a Turkish empire, though.

Let me explain you this is not true. There were tenets which consituted the spirit of Ottoman Empire as well as official rules,at that time. Firstly, you are narrating the matters of as you have watched the scene.This is not acceptable even if the speaker is an historician or whatsoever. Especially, in the time of Sultan Mehmed II, the Empire was established upon the believes of Islam ,which even forbids adultery.If you said that about the wars that happened centuries ago,I wouldnt dare to say,there werent anything that sort of because the army changed and was deteriorated by the time.

On the other hand , there were rules about conquest in Ottoman Empire.According to the rules of war in Ottoman Empire, if a country is conquered by soldiers (after siege), the soldiers have a right to plunder the city. However , if the city which is besieged submits, there is no right of soldiers to take anything in favour of themselves. And Fatih Sultan Mehmed  literally loved Istanbul.So, he didnt want the city ruined or plundered. To clarify this rule, you can look at the matter of Vienna Siege. The general of the army, Merzifonlu Karamustafa Pasa, waited the the submission of the city even after three weeks when the city was out of power and resistance. Becuase he didnt want such a beautiful city being pillaged and plundered. And after three weeks when the Crusade Army reached to help the city.That was the catastrophe for the tired Turkish army and resulted in defeat, which induced the regression of Ottoman Empire.

So,these are the rules of the Ottoman Empire.So you cannot say the city was looted or people were raped,both in terms of military rules and ethics of Islam.

YoungCalifornian wrote:

The number of Armenians killed by Turks simply dwarfs the number of Turks killed by Armenians.

I want to bring an end to this insight which is nonsensical to me.You say Turks were more ruthless than Armenians were or killed more Armenians than Armenians did to Turks. I cannot understand this frivilious point of view. I have never said Turks didnt kill or neither did i say Armenians were more tyrant. Because to discuss the level of atrocity is absurd to me.If there is tyranny it is tyranny. I cannot say my tyranny is worse than you or your tyranny contains more mercy than my tyranny. Nonsense

I'm sorry if my description of the events surround the siege of Constantinople sound like a firsthand account, but I really know of no other way to speak of them other than writing "allegedly" before every statement.  My description was based on objective historical accounts, and I assumed it would be obvious that I wasn't an actual witness to those events.  Your criticism also seems quite hypocritical considering that your descriptions of past events throughout this thread have been written in the very same manner.  You've stated many things as facts which I think most historians would strongly disagree with.  As an example I take your characterization of Ottoman military practices in the paragraphs above.

Just because official Ottoman policy and the ethics of Islam dictated that Turkish soldiers must not behave in the manner I described does not mean that they didn't.  It's quite naive to assume that because a rule exists it is always followed.  Are we really to believe that because it is forbidden by Islam, no Muslim has ever committed adultery?  Christianity has even stricter rules on how belivers should treat other individuals, and yet, as you continually point out, atrocities like the pillage and plunder of Constantinople by western Crusaders still occurred.  Human beings rarely live up to the ideals to which they strive.

Your characterization of Ottoman rules regarding siege and plunder conform to what I've heard.  As I initially stated, Mehmed warned the citizens of Constantinople that if they resisted he would allow his soldiers to free reign to pillage and punder.  My understanding is that Turkish tradition allowed for three days of plunder of a conquered city.  However, the citizens of Constantinople did not submit and so they were indeed subject to numerous atrocities.  I have also heard that Mehmed did indeed love Constantinople, which is why I pointed out before that he only allowed the plunder to continue for one day.  Of course, what motivated him to do this was not the suffering of the inhabitants, but rather the damage being done to the buildings and structures.

I would concur that for most of the Ottoman Empire's history, Armenians and other minorities got along relatively peacefully with their conquerors.  I said as much in the opening of the paragraph to which you were responding.  My point was simply that just because these people were living relatively peacefully under Ottoman rule, that doesn't mean they were happy to be under Ottoman rule.  It's simply untrue that they were considered equals under the law.  Furthermore, just because some Turks felt that Christians and Jews were given too many rights, doesn't mean they were correct.  Taking my own country, the United States, as an example, the fact that many white people felt that blacks were given too many rights after the end of slavery doesn't mean it was true.  In fact, blacks were still being severely repressed by the government, and would be until about 100 years later.  Also, that doesn't mean that black people were content for those 100 years just because they didn't rise up.  I don't think it's too hard to imagine why religious minorites were more hesitant to rebel than Muslims living in the Ottoman Empire.  However harshly treated those Turkish rebels may have been, I'm sure it would have been much worse for any Christians or Jews who tried to do the same.

The reason why I don't think it's frivolous to compare the scale of Armenian deaths to Turkish deaths is because their circumstances were so very different.  If anything, I think it's frivolous to even bring up Turkish deaths when discussing the Armenian Genocide, but because most of the Turkish contributors to this thread want to, I'm forced to address and compare them.  It is the belief of most experts on the subject that the government of Turkey has intentionally (and greatly) exaggerated the number of Turkish deaths at the hands of Armenians in order to distract attention from the real issue: the genocide.  Much as you are doing, the government attempts to minimize the issue by claiming that numerous people died on both sides so as to portray the events as more of a civil war than a government-sponsored genocide.  Thus, it becomes difficult to assign any blame, and Turkey can claim that they are trying to put the past behind them.

You have to recognize that just because two acts are both crimes, they are not inherently equal in measures of heinousness and historical importance.  For example, pointing out that some Jews may have killed Germans in World War II does not mean that both the Jews and Germans were guilty of "tyranny".  While all human death is terrible, some deaths are indeed worse and more significant than others.  Just because some Armenians rose up and killed Turks, does not mean that they hold an equal amount of guilt as a Turkish government which systematically murdered 60% of their people living under its rule.  It's not only easy to tell the difference, it's important to.