A lot has been written on this blog lately about what some refer to as the ‘Armenian genocide.’ Most posts were, obviously, inspired by the resolution approved by the House panel recently that labels the killing of many Armenian Christians during World War I by the Ottomans genocide. Not only that, the resolution also makes the Turkish government - which didn’t exist during the period the alleged genocide took place - partially responsible for what happened by expanding the range of the killing from between 1914-1915, perhaps 1918, to 1923 when the Turkish Republic was established. Every co-author of this blog who weighed in condemned the resolution for a variety of reasons, most of them political: the US can’t afford to alienate Turkey right now, because Turkey is an important ally to America and the West in general. There are however, also other grounds on which the text of the resolution can be criticized.
Let me start with the number of casualties. It has become fashionable these days, to charge that 1.5 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire - Anatolia to be precise - were killed. However, although the genocide crowd would want you to believe differently, there’s a lot of debate about this number. A significant amount of scholars charge that the most likely numbers is somewhere between 800,000 and 1,000,000. Yes, that’s an incredibly high amount, but it’s no 1.5 million. If you want to talk about a subject as serious as this, exaggerating the casualties won’t help your case.
Furthermore, some of those who criticized me and other co-bloggers argued that we are no better than holocaust deniers. This even though none of us argue that there was no genocide - it seems to me that most think there was, I’m the most crititical one and I don’t even dismiss it, I only say that more research is needed - as such and, even though, the two are complete incomparable. The Armenians organized themselves in militias. They killed thousands, tens of thousands and possibly even hundreds of thousands of Turkish Muslims in their attempt to become independent and to help the Christian Russian forces beat the Muslim Ottoman Empire.
Furthermore, Jews were rounded up and killed in concentration camps on the order of the Nazi rulers. With the Ottomans there’s no bulletproof evidence that the Ottoman rulers ordered the killings of the Armenians. Yes, they ordered the deportation of the Armenian Christians because they had rebelled against them, but that’s not the same as ordering them to be killed. Now, some here seem to assume that many Armenians being killed means that there was a genocide. That’s not true. If we use the definition of genocide we are used to use we need an order from the Ottoman government. Instead, Andrew Mango writes in his autobiography of Atatürk that the Ottoman rulers (and Atatürk and his followers) were disgusted by what some people, Enver Pasja among others, had done.
Admitting that hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed by the Turks (directly and indirectly) but saying that there’s not proof (enough) that what happened can rightfully be labeled ‘genocide’ isn’t equal to denying the holocaust. Instead, I and many others agree that terrible things happened and that an enormous amount of Armenians were killed. Not just those who fought against the Ottoman Empire but also women and children were killed. Some of them died by violence, others starved, again others died of one disease or another. They suffered tremendously. I’m not denying that. I am denying, however, that looking at the evidence we can conclude that it was a genocide. To truly find out whether it was a genocide or not more research is needed. The Turkish government invited the Armenian government to do this research. However, those who are most passionately calling what happened a genocide refuse to take the Turks up on their offer. I can’t help but to get the feeling that they refuse to do this research because they fear that research will show that there was no determined attempt by the Ottoman government to kill off the Armenian population of Anatolia.
Lastly, some like to refer to the Armenians who survived the deportation as ‘proof’ that it was a genocide. These people went through hell and so we should listen to what they have to say. However, although they can tell what happened to them, they can’t say whether it was genocide or not. They simply don’t know enough about what went on in the higher ranks of the Ottoman government to say anything about that.
For more information about the Armenian genocide I refer you to this pdf containing letters to the editor of Commentary magazine in response to an article written by Guenter Lewy on the subject. The last letter is Lewy’s response.
UPDATE
Reader Nihat points out that the offer of the Turks to research what happens by opening up the archives may not have been as… unlimited as some hoped:
I read it in Fatih Altaylı’s column in Sabah daily yesterday.
Turkish History Institute (TTK) President Yusuf Halaçoğlu was supposed meet with Ara Sarafyan, the author of Blue Book, which is seen as one of the most important documents backing Armenian claims.
Both sides were supposed to produce various documents to argue their case, the first such meeting.
I was very excited about it…
Suddenly, we were all told the meeting was cancelled. Professor Halaçoğlu held a press conference and said Sarafyan had cancelled the trip, presenting an article in weekly AGOS that said the Armenian diaspora was furious about Sarafyan’s trip. That was the reason of cancellation, he said.
Now we learn from Altaylı that the real reason why the meeting was cancelled was very different. It appears Halaçoğlu refused to open the archives without limits and objected to presenting certain documents.
That’s indeed ridiculous. If Turkey says that it was per definition not a genocide than it should open its archives unconditionally. This is of course a two-way street. The bill shouldn’t be accepted, but Turkey should open its archives completely and let historians do what they do best. If, then, they find documents of the Ottoman rulers telling their inferiors to kill off as many Armenians as possible, Turkey should accept the truth and then we can say with 100% certainty that it was a genocide. If, on the other hand, such documents can’t be found, we can say what we can say today: that many Armenians died, but that it wasn’t a genocide as such.
UPDATE II
Commenter David points out that Bernard Lewis - who basically is the expert in the West on Turkey / the Ottoman Empire - doesn’t believe that what happened constitutes genocide. That’s correct. From (the all powerful) WikiPedia:
There is no evidence of a decision to massacre. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence of attempts 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…[and] 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… there is no evidence for such a decision.
He also said that comparing the holocaust to what happened to the Armenians is “absurd.” He also said:
The deniers of Holocaust have a purpose: to prolong Nazism and to return to Nazi legislation. Nobody wants the ‘Young Turks’ back, and nobody wants to have back the Ottoman Law. What do the Armenians want? The Armenians want to benefit from both worlds. On the one hand, they speak with pride of their struggle against the Ottoman despotism, while on the other hand, they compare their tragedy to the Jewish Holocaust. I do not accept this. I do not say that the Armenians did not suffer terribly. But I find enough cause for me to contain their attempts to use the Armenian massacres to diminish the worth of the Jewish Holocaust and to relate to it instead as an ethnic dispute.
So, my question to those who accused me of being just as bad as holocaust deniers: is Lewis one as well and is it so silly to agree with the words of one of the world’s most well known and best scholars in this field?
“The Armenians organized themselves in militias. They killed thousands, tens of thousands and possibly even hundreds of thousands of Turkish Muslims in their attempt to become independent and to help the Christian Russian forces beat the Muslim Ottoman Empire.”
I lived in Beirut & became a bit knowledgeable about the events of the First World War from some Armenians descended from survivors.
Then one of my jobs in the ‘84 Mondale Campaign was to write Fritz’s Armenian Day Proclamation. I did a lot of research as there were political landmines in the event of a mistake.
My under was that along the Russian Front with the Ottomans, the Russians encouraged the Northern Armenians to recruit and organize into units to fight for an independent state. Enver Pasha was Ottoman commander there, if my memory serves, and in order to support the Ottoman war effort, whipped up a political frenzy of ethnic hatred. The Southern Armenians, hundreds of miles from the front, suffered from this witch-hunt.
The Turkish irregulars and other units did round up Armenians with their usual extreme prejudice, sometimes burning down Churches filled with Christians.
Most were rounded up and sent south into the Syrian Desert, where they were set upon by Kurds, their immemorial enemy since pre-historical times. The few who reached Arab zones were treated relatively kindly by the Arabs, who themselves had grudges with the Kurds ["enemy of my enemy....."] and many settled in Lebanon, where a sizeable Armenian population still lives today.
What the Turks initiated was “ethnic cleansing” with no regard to any rights that the Armenians had as a “Dhimmi” subject people. A war crime, perhaps, but purists like Jimmy Carter would probably balk at calling it “genocide.”
Although it was wartime and questions of loyalty to the state were involved, on-the-ground incompetence & brutality produced a garden-variety of what the modern world experiences as “genocide,” willy-nilly. Though Jimmy would niggle and emit contrary sounds.
Ironically, Sultan Abdul-Hamid II had an Armenian mother who had been Harem wazira, and many other Sultans had been rumored to have had Armenian and Greek mothers.
For Tom Lantos & the Dems to put this resolution forward is almost as incompetent as Enver Pasha’s silly wartime crusade ["that word again"] against Christian turncoats.
Thank you for reporting on this issue. George Bush and the World should understand that this isn’t between Turkey and the United States, and it’s not between Armenia and the United States, it’s between Americans and the United States. We have a right to have the victims of this atrocity recognized. George and his bunch, the Turks, and everyone else who isn’t an American should just shut up and mind their own business. This resolution will pass the full House and Senate, like it or not. I’m really sorry if this insults Turkishness or George Bushness or whatever ego trip the offended party happens to be on but juctice never offends the victim, only the criminal.
John Moorvartian
California
To say that 800,000 to 1 million Armenians died instead of 1.5 million does not lessen the enormity of the crime. The net result was that the 2,700 year Armenian presence in Anatolia was extinguished and all property confiscated or destroyed.
However, the crux of the issue is intentionality. The crime of genocide as defined in the U.N. Genocide Convention requires a finding that an act was committed ‘with intent’ to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm
Lemkin, who was instrumental in drafting the Convention, and who coined the term ‘genocide’, had the Armenians in mind as well as the WW2 Holocaust.
Dutch academic Eric Zurcher, whose highly regarded book ‘Turkey: A Modern History’ does not hesitate to categorize the actions of the Young Turks against their Armenian citizens as genocide, recommends the work of Turkish academic Taner Akcam. Akcam has done extensive research in the Ottoman archives and published part of his findings in his recent book ‘A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility’. Akcam details hundreds of documents demonstrating that the CUP had indeed planned and carried out the extermination of the Armenians and the confiscation of their property.
Akcam is now being prosecuted under art. 301 of the Turksih penal code for ‘insulting turkishness’.
Professor Zurcher also considers that the offer by the Turkish government of a joint commission is not innocent given that Turkey wishes the historians to be appointed by the governments and all discussion of historical issues to be suspended during the commission. Turkey has not offered to re-establish diplomatic relations with Armenia nor to abrogate art. 301.
There is ongoing research in Ottoman, American, German, Russian, Armenian, etc. archives. There are contacts between Turkish, Armenian and other scholars on the issue. However, true scholarship should not be at the direction of governments.
The great majority of historians and genocide scholars consider this to be a genocide, including an increasing number of Turkish ones. It is interesting you cite retired political scientist Guenter Lewy. Lewy of course does not recognize any genocide except the Holocaust.
So why not take the Turkish government up on its offer? both the Armenian and Turkish government open up the archives and make all information public. I certainly believe that it could be a genocide, but it’s simply way too early to call it as such with the evidence there is now (including Armenian scholars who use forged documents to ‘prove’ that the ottoman government ordered the killings).
It seems very silly to me that the armenian diasporan nationalists who live, eat, drink, sleep “genocide” still havent the gall to go the International court of Justice.
They wont because they simply dont have a case and they know it. Instead, they are trying to get all foreign parliaments to pass these motions accepting their versions to set up claims for money and land (Armenians refer to eastern Anatolia as “Western Armenia”). Have you noticed that all these claims of “genocide” came after the Jews received massive reparations from Germany ? Hmm
Pelosi and the democrats should stick to trying to fix real world issues. Like armenia’s current illegal occupation of 20% of Azeri land and how half a million Azeri refugees now live in railcars because of Armenian terrorism.
While I don’t question that a lot of Armenians were killed, and it may have been genocide by the OTTOMAN TURKS, why stick a finger in the eye of the current government of Turkey?
Where do we stop? Shouldn’t we go farther back and condemn the Italians for what the Romans did? How about the Mongolians for Ghengis Khan? Chinese for killing so many Vietnamese? Mexicans for the acts of the Aztecs? Guatemalans for the Mayans? This is all a bunch of “feel good” BS. Who will it help?
Back to why stick a finger in the eye of the Turks….the answer is the Democrats are using it as yet another backdoor attempt to derail the effots in Iraq AND Afghanistan by cutting off the route we bring in 70% of the logistical supplies.
Sluggo: yes. in fact, you could make a stronger case by accusing the Dutch of genocide against the inhabitents of Indonesia. And what about Native Americans? What about the Spaniards?
Quicksilver: and they also don’t want to take the Turkish government up on its offer of both countries opening up their archives and letting historians sort it out.
STrange huh?
While I don’t question that a lot of Armenians were killed, and it may have been genocide by the OTTOMAN TURKS, why stick a finger in the eye of the current government of Turkey?
Because governments are irrelevant in millenia-old ethnic feuds, and because there are no reparations available from a government that hasn’t existed for almost ninety years, only from currently existing governments.
Michael, who says the archives are not already open? What kind of historians are appointed by governments? How can independent scholarship occur when the scholar risks prosecution for insulting turkishness, or worse?
One would have thought that to demonstrate its good faith Turkey would first normalize relations with Armenia.
And my guess is you darn well know that the relationship between the two were improving already.
And Armenia is far from innocent. It has committed crimes against humanity as recently as in the 1990s.
And: according tojust about everyone who tried to write about it, Armenia doesn’t let those who are critical of the claims in their archives, and Turkey doesn’t let those who claim there was a genocide in. Or if they do, with great trouble.
The offer stands, let Armenia take them up on it.
It’s also remarkable, by the way, that the people pleading for this resolution are Armenians living in America who couldn’t care less about Armenians living in Turkey. Turkey’s Armenian population doesn’t want the resolution to be approved at all.
How is a resolution recognising that genocide by the Ottoman regime a finger in the eye of the Turks? It is the present regime in Ankara which cannot dissociate itself from the acts of the Empire. Why do they care that governments around the world recognise an historical event?
By taking this further and even prosecuting those who dare suggest the Ottoman government did perpetrate a genocide, they lower themselves further in the eyes of the civilised world. And all this silliness about a delicate time in US-Turkey relations: either you are an ally or you are not. If the Turks weren’t so beligerent about denying this tragedy, I would think they were just using it as a ploy to excuse their incursions into Iraq.
Hopefully this kerfuffle with the Americans about the resolution will help the member states of the EU realise that for more than geographic reasons Turkish membership is a not good idea.
Dave: did you actually care to look at the dates?
On the face of it, that seems like a reasonable request.
The devil however is in the details. What are the terms to be for instance? The Turkish government, past and present, has not exactly been known for its passionate pursuit of truth, whatever that may be, and especially if it makes the Turks look bad, insulting “Turkishness” and all that other bullshit. When one can be thrown in jail, and one’s life be harassed (and even endangered) simply for questioning and challenging the official Turkish version of events and being accused of treachery, it doesn’t engender much confidence in that particular system or its outcomes.
Furthermore, there are roughly 80 000 Armenians or so still left in Turkey. Given Turkey’s particularly atrocious record with her minorities, a negative outcome for Turkey could leave them particularly vulnerable as they suffer the backlash. There is a reason that most Armenian Turks do not want to take part in this debate and it’s not because they really believe the official Turkish version of events. Rather, they HAVE to believe it, IF they know what’s “good” for them.
So I’m afraid that until there is real fundamental change in the way Turks and especially their governments and elites approach not just this issue but all contentions issues re: Turkey, her past, her identity etc, then this option is really a non-starter.
Please stop this false statement about the “offer” on Ottoman the archives.
Do you read the Turkish press? Turkish journalists have reported that this was a false offer.
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=68233
Nihat: thanks for that link. It’s important to include that in the post.
Bernard Lewis, probably one of the worlds greatest experts on Turkish history, does not believe that the treatment of the Armenians amounted to genocide.
David: correct. Same for Mango who’s quite respected as well. I expect that both these distinguished scholars, who know far more about Turkey / the Ottoman Empire than anyone of the accusers, are nazis in the eyes of the latter.
He also believed that invading Iraq was a good idea and that it would be relatively easy. He also believes that Europe will be majority Muslim within two generations or so. He’s an excellent historian to be sure; I’ve read a few of his books. But expertise does not equal infallibility.
“Genocide” means the murder of a people, based on their racial or ethnic identity. Purists may quibble over how many casualties are needed to qualify: millions or merely hundreds of thousands. However, in a small town that number could just be dozens. So what? The net effect is the same–to remove all of those citizens of ‘diverse’ ethnicity by violence from your local region. And that’s precisely what modern Turkey–which includes the military rule of the last few years of the Ottomans, as well as the modern state–has done. First the Jews, then the Greeks and Armenians. Now it’s the turn of the Kurds. It’s hard to imagine now, but under the Ottomans, ethic Turks were actually an elite minority–now the situation has been reversed, not all at once under a Hitler, but slowly over time as the result of a concerted policy.
I sympathize with your Turkish romantic ties, but I suspect they blind you to the truth. And that truth is that the Turkish military are at it again, poised to unleash war on Iraqi Kurds as well as their own. This pitiful House resolution–which comes 50 years too late to have any meaning whatever–is merely a pretext on their part to sever ties with us that became pointless after the end of the Cold War and ended, for all intents and purposes, the moment of the Iraq invasion. The Turks and Kurds are headed for a broad war, and it may very well be that nothing can stop it. If thay comes about, you would do well to read a biography of Charles Lindbergh. Because Turkey, which should be studying a Swiss rather than a Nazi German model for its future, will be on the wrong side of history.
Yet again.
“They killed thousands, tens of thousands and possibly even hundreds of thousands of Turkish Muslims…”
It’s amazing that for someone so insistent on even more scholarship on what is already a widely accept historical fact can still sink to the level of throwing out random heresay which is not supported by any serious historian.
Of course some Armenians did help the Russians, after all many of them were Russian citizens themselves and therefore duty-bound to fight against the Turks. Meanwhile there were some from the OE who did join but it is disingenuous to portray what they did as flat out treason while ignoring such things as the Hamidian massacres of 1895 and the long line of mistreatment leading up to 1915. The Armenians of the empire had been disarmed in 1914 and left as sitting ducks, that some opposed such a move after a history of violent behavior against them by their government should come as no surprise. Their numbers were nowhere near that which would have given them the capability to kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims, and it’s amazing how you can cut down and dismiss anything remotely pro-genocide while accepting such laughably unrealistic as this in the name of building your pro-Turkish arguement.
And David- we all saw how well Bernard Lewis’s expert advise on invading Iraq turned out. Even experts can be wrong. And I can tell you that Bernard Lewis, while he does not believe the word genocide applies, does NOT subscribe to Michael’s “hundreds of thousands of Turks killed by Armenians” fantasy quoted above.
Paul, are you getting paid for your work or what?
No. My ancestors were killed in 1915, their churches in Turkey stand alone in ruins (or in the case of the church my one ancestor was responsible for building and was buried at, it was dynamited in the 60s and his tomb destroyed). The reminders of the Armenian population have been mostly erased from the entire landscape and the fact my ancestors even ever existed there let alone suffered in the desert which is now their tomb are totally erased. Turkey needs to be reminded of this, something they have refused to come to terms with and I don’t think being pro-Turkish means helping them cover up admitting it happened. I am not saying Turkey needs to apologize for what the Ottoman Empire did, I am saying they needed to acknowledge it as a fact of the past and move on together with Armenians. So far they have had nothing to do with that and stubbornly refuse to do anything but the complete opposite.
Let me first say that I’m sorry to hear that. As I said, they went through hell and the ones responsible were monsters.
Secondly, so what about the 1923 date?
Guenter Lewy feels the archives will reveal little new. The Turks in Turkey clearly want to deny that much bad happened at all and not merely that they aren’t responsible for a legal genocide. They want to forget the whole affair. Of that much they are undoubtedly guilty. Turkish interest groups abroad, who aren’t under the ridiculous legal threat of “insulting Turkishness,” are more honest and will admit what happened was terrible but argue it doesn’t constitute genocide.
I feel there is insufficient evidence to indicate a genocide on the part of Turkey’s central government and some evidence to suggest otherwise. I doubt the issue can be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone since we are talking about an event that happened almost 100 years ago — an event that is closer in time to the American Civil War than the year 2008 — and even pro-Armenian historians suggests the Turks were being sneaky about the way they implemented this supposed genocide: with covert Young Turk cadres running the show and what not. I also think it’s unlikely much new information about culpability will emerge from the Turkish archives though newly revealed documents may reveal more about the nature and extent of the horrors.
If the U.S. were to pass a resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide it would be strictly a symbolic measure. In Europe, unfortunately, measures of this nature carry legal consequences for those discussing the issue. I encourage Europeans to dump all such anti-free-speech measures (including ones against Holocaust denial) and I also encourage Turks to dump their laws against “insulting Turkishness,” open the archives, and let the truth come out. All such things are best resolved through open and honest debate.
I agree with that Tommy. In fact I plan on giving some attention to those laws in Europe (which we should get rid of asap).
If the U.S. were to pass a resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide it would be strictly a symbolic measure.
It isn’t strictly symbolic when there are current real-world consequences attached. As Lantos himself pointed out.
Michael, sorry I’m just getting back to this post. Referring back to comments 12 and 13, to what dates do you refer?
The resolution (HR 106) dates the Armenian Genocide to 1014-1923. Historians date it to 1914-1918, inclusive. The other twenty-two nations that have issued resolutions dated them to 1915, or to 1915-1916.
The dates Michael refers to are the shifting of the dating to 1923, which seems nonsensical unless one is trying to assign responsibility to the current Turkish government–founded in 1923.
and you also like to bring up Azerbaijan and say that Armenia committed genocide against Azeri’s. Well excuse me, first of all, both countries were having a war against each other, both sides were fully armed and had declared war with each other. But of course Azeri’s only say its genocide because we are “insulting” their turkish cousins with the 1915 genocide. Even well known Turkish historians say that 1915 was genocide - Orhan Pamuk and several others. The man who invented the word genocide said that it happened to the Armenians. The majority of Armenians during 1915 were not armed, but sure some Armenians probably did retaliate. Of course they would, when they see that their families and people are being murdered, who wouldn’t retaliate? And in regards to Azerbaijan, Azeri’s have massacred Armenians during the war but we don’t go on about that because we have a real genocide to get recognized. Islam is a barbaric religion. Kurds are just as bad as Turks, Kurds massacred Armenians during the genocide too. No one ever talks about Assyrians and what they suffered by Turks. I can’t believe i’m still having to defend that fact of the Armenian Genocide in the year 2007.
Re the 1923 date. Note how the genocide is said to end that year. For all you know the fact it ends in 1923 is attributed to the end of the Empire and rise of Kemal. One thing can end at the beginning of the year and another can begin later in it and have the same year but not be contemporary. I think you are reading too much into this ending in 1923 date. If it went to 1924, you’d have a case, but not so. The date most likely refers to the end of the Ottoman Empire.
The bulk of the genocide took place 1915-1917, but I think the years are stretched in the bill due to events like the Izmir troubles against Armenians in 1922. The Treaty of Laussane officially ended the Ottoman Empire in mid-1923.
Not buying that, Paul. The only reason I can see for using the 1923 date is to assign responsibility to the current government of Turkey. Which did not exist at the time of the events in question. Twenty-two other governments in their resolutions dated the massacres to 1915 or 1915-1916, and historians date the Armenian genocide as 1914-1918 inclusive in counting the diaspora as well. That’s five years earlier than the House resolution dates it. Why?
Ataturk’s real rise dates back to 1920 and the formation of the Grand National Assembly, which refused to recognize the Ottoman government and began chasing the foreign forces out of Turkey. The Ottoman Sultanate was abolished in 1922, not 1923.
No, it looks to me as if someone really really wants to push the dating of the genocide past the Treaty of Lausanne, which established the current Republic of Turkey.
And I still don’t see why that resolution could not conform to those 22 other in the dating. Except that both the UN resolutions covering genocide and US law on same have no statute of limitations, and the current republic was founded in 1923.
To those arguing with Michael; note that Michael is using all the tactics that denialists use:
a) he quibbles over #s- 800k or 1.5 mill
b) he accuses the others of manipulating #s, yet comfortably tosses around counterclaims as facts
c) he accuses the other side of having ulterior motives
d) but his side, the accused, could not possibly have ulterior motives
e) he tosses out spurious claims (about opening archives)
f) he backs the work of fringe scholars
g) he dismisses the documented facts by many diverse and indy groups (because they do not square with his facts)
h) he tries semantic dodges (ie- genocide is not just mass murder, but it has to have a smoking gun that the leader ordered it, in writing, and w a bow tie, if can)
i) he does not accept even standard definitions
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/genocide
Main Entry:
geno·cide Listen to the pronunciation of genocide
Pronunciation:
\ˈje-nə-ˌsīd\
Function:
noun
Date:
1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
j) resorts to blame the victim (a handful of Armenians, in a different part of the country took arms when they heard of what happened to other Armenians, and allied themselves with a foreign power to survive, therefore, their reaction is a post hoc rationalization of the initial crime- how dare a woman stab her rapist?)
k) when challenged, he falls back on all the above, repeats them, as if repetition makes right, and then
l) resorts to naked emotionalism when all else fails.
admin: calling people names is not allowed
That’s direct ad hominem clear through, Dan.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem
Main Entry:
1ad ho·mi·nem Listen to the pronunciation of 1ad hominem
Pronunciation:
\(ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
New Latin, literally, to the person
Date:
1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
A direct point by point revelation of tactics is wholly antithetical to the definition.
So, why are you, like MIchael, so fond of redefining terms when they define things you do not like?
Unfortunately, the pdf link isn’t working at present but I believe that Balakian (the author of “The Burning Tigris”) is one of the author’s that comes in for criticism from Lewy in his response at Commentary. Dadrian, another “authoritative” Armenian genocide historian, has come in for repeated criticism from Lewy for being “guilty of willful mistranslations, selective quotations, and other serious violations of scholarly ethics.”
Believe it.
It’s equivalent to looking at the facts honestly and making a determination based on the available evidence. Calling something a genocide doesn’t make it so. Up to a third of all Cherokee Indians died during the Trail of Tears. Was this a result of a deliberate effort on the part of the federal government to exterminate the Cherokees? No, it was a result of irresponsible cost-cutting and poor planning that left the Cherokees without adequate food and clothing during an especially harsh winter. Was deportation uncalled for? Certainly. In fact, it was carried out in violation of a Supreme Court decision. Was it a tragedy? Of course. Was it genocide by legal definition? No.
Irrelevant. Try building a church in Egypt or Saudi Arabia and see what happens. That doesn’t mean the Egyptians or Saudis slaughtered the Armenians.
Just a small footnote: way back when, I was involved in some degree, very small, with the setting up of the National Holocaust Museum in DC.
Originally, it was designed, but not mandated, to also include other significant foreign genocides, and the Armenian mass-murders were included.
But the original building for the Holocaust Memorial was quickly turned into a massive tear-down edifice project for the European Jewish Holocaust. I found that the American Jewish Community wanted no other victims of genocide included in the DC memorial. The Holocaust was unique. My guess is that Lewy fits into that paradigm.
I respect Bernard Lewis highly & have read many of his books and discussed many issues. I believe he may have cut corners on the issue due to his deep Turanian background. Why gouge the eye of a country he knows and understands better than almost any non-Turk in the USA?
I end up, however, regarding it as partly ethnic-cleansing, partly Trail of Tears, partly wartime hysteria…. And perhaps more Kurds killed the Armenians than Turks, though the Turks threw them to the tender mercies of their millenial enemy, the “Mountain Turks.”
I wonder whether we could get Jimmy Carter to pontificate on the issue?
The Armenian Genocide is indisputable and irrefutable. To say it is debatable is a crime in every sense of the word. The horrors my grandparetns went through and survived, the lonliness of being an orphan or seeing evryone beheaded… my fingers are trembling with a desire to smack people who say this is a debate.
If you play the Denialist game, don’t whine if you are called a Denialist.
LMAO. Thank you for confirming exactly what I said. Projection of your own flaws onto others doesn’t make you original, clever, or witty. Nor does it mean the others are possessed of your flaws.
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Exactly what you’re doing, Dan. QED.
A direct point by point revelation of tactics is wholly antithetical to the definition.
Yet you haven’t done that. Indeed, it’s the very thing you seem unable to do, that you refuse to do, that when requested to do ignore to go directly to “Because I said so!” Why not address the issues raised rather than pounding the table? Why not offer evidence in rebuttal rather than name-calling? Why not, Dan?
Great. These are the ‘experts’ we’re arguing with.
Dan: you’re the most emotional person here, you ignore all arguments that don’t support your case or viciously attack your opponent. You’re a good writer, I suggest you stick with writing, movie, and literature.
I let someone read your comments and she had a great laugh at your hypocrisy and blindness for your own emotionalism.
Another comment like that and you’re permanently banned.
Fringe scholars: such as the world’s biggest experts, Lewis and Mango?
Van Zakarean what your parents went through isn’t necessarily genocide. They went through hell, but not all hell is genocide.
Tully: exactly.
I agree with Jessica. Yes there were some resistence groups- the 40 Days of Musa Dagh being most famous amongst them.
And all this talk of Armenians in the Russian army- well duuh. Modern-day Armenia was a part of the Russian Empire and as such there were numerous Armenians on that side of the border whose duty was to fight the OE. There were also quite a few Armenians who had either immigrated abroad over the past couple decades (usually to escape things like the 1895 Hamidian massacre)- now no longer a part of the Ottoman Empire- who returned to fight with the Russians. They should not be branded traitors as they had renounced their Ottoman citizenship by moving abroad and on top of that I don’t see how one could blame them after the Ottoman gov’s terrible treatment of them and now they saw the survivors being deported in death marches en masse. I’d like to see you muster a defense of the Hamidian massacres or the desire to fight against the empire that was systematically destroying your people.
I can’t believe the intellectual quibbling over the word genocide. The intentional killing of masses is an universal evil. Be it Pol Pot,Native Americans,Jews,Rwandans,Bosnians, non Soviet Russians or Armenians.
That’s because genocide is a legally framed word. Words matter. When you want to label something genocide you should be able to prove it. If there’s not prove, what happened is still horrendous but it’s too early to call it “genocide” in every day language, let alone to let it be labeled as such by government.
Another comment in this thread has been deleted. Everyone who comments here realizes that I’m engaged to a Turkish girl. There’s no need to point that out and especially not in the way it’s being done right now. If you can’t stick to arguments, it’s better that you comment somewhere else.
Paul: that’s simply not in line with the facts. It’s mere propaganda. The Armenians were mostly treated well, but the relationship became worse after the nationalist sentiment took over the Armenians who then started rebelling against the Ottomans. Even pro-Armenia scientists are quite honest about that.
This is where we’ll part ways. How long do we as humans wait to better ourselves ? I have to tell you that anyone that has a dog in this fight already calls it genocide on a daily basis. I would further state that since Reagan initial assertion the cat is out of the bag. The following “leaders” attempts to rebag it is nonsense.Lastly the United States has the right to act as it deems fit. Ankara,Tehran,London or wherever are secondary.
On a personal note I’ve enjoyed the blog and wish you and all continued success in the future. Attacks on you personally were a little twisted and uncalled for.Take care.
I guess my opinions don’t matter.
Interesting opinion piece by historian Niall Ferguson in the LA Times this morning. He has reviewed the evidence, including the archives of Ottoman ally Austria-Hungary, and concludes there is no doubt this was a genocide. He is however not in favor of H.R. 106:
“Armenian males of military age were rounded up and shot. Women and children were herded onto trains, driven into the desert and left to die. The number of Armenians who were killed or died prematurely may have exceeded 1 million, a huge proportion of a prewar population that numbered, at the very most, 2.4 million, but was probably closer to 1.8 million. With good reason, the American consul in Izmir declared that the fate of the Armenians “surpasse[d] in deliberate . . . horror and in extent anything that has hitherto happened in the history of the world.”
It is absurd, then, that Turkish politicians and some academics (not all of them Turks) insist that the issue is somehow open to debate, though there is certainly room for more research to be done in the Turkish archives. And it is deplorable that writers in Turkey can still be prosecuted for describing the fate of the Armenians as genocide.
Yet I remain far from convinced that anything has been gained by last week’s resolution. Indeed, something may well have been lost.”
His book “The War of the World” is an excellent read.
The link for the LA Times piece by Niall Ferguson is:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ferguson15oct15,0,2244478.column?coll=la-opinion-center
Richard: thanks for that link. About the prosecution of those who call it genocide: I agree, Turkey has to get rid of that law (301). In order to truly find out whether what happened constituted genocide ordered by the Ottoman government or not, debate and research in Turkey is necessary.
Jessica: they most certainly do. Just don’t make it personal.
From the bit of reading I’ve been able to do, it seems that those who are portraying the Armenians’ actions against the Turks as being purely defensive. The Armenian resistance preceded the deportation orders, and it certainly seemed to have a separatist or nationalist basis. It also seems clear that Russia’s influence in support of this separatist movement was a factor.
So a lot of what Michael (I think) is trying to point out seems more correct than those who are arguing “Of course the Armenians took up arms when they were being brutally deported- wouldn’t you?” because the Armenian resistance was taking place before that happened, not just afterward.
HOWEVER….
I do think Michael, that you need to further consider or attempt to support this point:
Who defines “mostly treated well” in this case? Would the nationalist movement have really taken hold, if the Armenians had been perfectly happy with Dhimmi status?
In other words, from what I know right now, it seems that people are incorrect if they think that the Turks were simply aggressors toward the Armenians because of cultural differences- the aggression was in response to a resistance movement which probably could have been considered an insurgency. But I think that it’s of course right to condemn the type of reaction that the Turks had to that resistance movement; then also though to question whether or not the resistance movement itself had any justification. It’s the old story, one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist- and I just don’t think the facts are at all clear which it is in the case of the Armenian resistance. Valid source references on the particular point of how ‘well’ the Armenians were treated under Ottoman rule would be helpful, IMO.
Christine, if you’re really interested, i can e-mail you a list with books you can read?
And - first they were purely dhimmies, which meant that they had to pay more taxes and couldn’t practice all the professions muslim turks could, but later that changed and they grew increasingly successful. so much even so that quite some muslim turks started being jealous, while at the same time armenians became more and more nationalistic, and the two sides had a go at each other every now and then.
Sure, e-mail away.
Honestly I’m not sure even a good historian can capture this though (but I’d like to see what they say). You can look at the Dhimmi laws that were in effect, but then how did that actually play out? For example, in addition to the extra tax (which in itself is extremely unfair, IMO- one should not have to pay for ones right to practice a religion or to be exempt from practicing someone else’s religion), there were laws preventing Dhimmi’s from testifying in court. So how did that work out in practice? I can certainly imagine circumstances where the Armenians or other non-Muslim members of the population would have no recourse of law for actions that might have taken place against them.
And even in the scenario you describe, Michael, there’s elements of why the unrest happened. If, as you describe, the laws were being eased up to make the non-Muslims more equal- but then when some of them were successful the Muslims became jealous and retaliated? Doesn’t that indicate that the real intent was to keep the non-Muslim population subjugated, at least to some extent? That the peaceful coexistence, or ‘good treatment’ of the non-Muslims was not so good after all? I know I certainly wouldn’t have stood for that, and would have felt justified in fighting against a second class status.
OK, so the Hamidian massacres is just propaganda.
I guess I can’t argue against that, you used the p-word. Last I checked well-acknowledged historical facts (no one is trying to use the g-word with the Hamidian massacre, and no one is denying them either) do not equal propaganda, but if you insist on blindly branding them so I guess there’s nothing else left to say.
And yes there were some resistence going on before the deportations of 1915- but you keep overlooking instances like the 1895 Hamidian massacres. Yes I’m harping on it, because you Michael look at what was the massacre of 100,000 or so Armenians by order of the sultan Abdul-Hamid II
I know you’ve staked your claim and acknowleding something like 1895 would severely undercut your point that Armenians were treated “mostly well” leading up to 1915 and it was their unprovoked actions which made the deportations necessary (as if women and children led into the deserts to die is justifiable no matter what their ethnic group has done), but it is so out of step with reality that you are just hurting your own credibility here. We can’t have a legitimate debate if you continue on insisting on such fantasies that late Ottoman Armenian life was a walk in the park, that they did not have serious greivances to protest, and that there was no slaughter of Armenians by their own government in 1895, then its your own responsibility to familliarize yourself with something more than the Turkish talking points when blogging so actively on the issue. At this point our debate here is not even a matter of whether the bill should be passed or not but whether or not you will take off your rose-colored Ottoman glasses and actually learn about the history.
No Paul it’s true and that was indeed horrible and unforgivable, however, you simply ignore the fact that Armenians were treated well by the Ottomans for centuries and that the Armenians themselves weren’t as innocent as some seem to think they were. They formed militias, they killed people because they were Muslim Turks, they were terrorizing some places, even taking over entire villages / cities.
And I’m well aware of those instances. In fact, the situation was quite well until deep into the 19th century. Up until that time, the relationship was mostly good. Then things started to change: the ottoman empire was weakened, it lost territory continuously, it had to blame someone and something, it was paranoid, at the same time Armenians thought that they could get rid of their Muslim leaders and create a Christian nation so they organized themselves in militias and fought against the Muslims, terrorized people, tried to help the Russians, etc. etc.
The relationship was good for a long time, and then everything got increasingly bad. You, however, seem to believe that the Armenians were persecuted throughout their history, while that’s simply not true. They were relatively well off for a long long time, their influence even grew because foreign countries forced the ottoman empire to ‘emancipate’ the Armenian Christians, this resulted in more economic wealth for the Armenians, etc. etc.
My point is, constantly, that there’s more to the history than some seem to think. I wouldn’t like to live in the Ottoman Empire because although one could live well, Christians had to submit to islamic rule nonetheless, but that doesn’t mean that life was hell as you seem to believe (which leads me to believe that you either don’t know much about it, or, and this is more likely because you certainly seem to be quite well informed at least when speaking about arguments that support your cause, that you simply ignore facts that dispute your view of what life was like because these facts hurt your cause).
“You, however, seem to believe that the Armenians were persecuted throughout their history, while that’s simply not true.”
Did I ever say that? You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I only went as far back as 1895, certainly within the realm of “the bad times”. I agree that compared to many other empires, Ottomans had a superior tolerance policy. I never disputed that nor tried to make it seem like the Ottomans were terrible throughout history. However, we’re talking about, as you said, the later 19th century on and that’s all I ever talked about. Saying “well Armenians were treated pretty well for MOST of Ottoman history” doesn’t somehow make their condition for the last few generations of that history somehow better or more forgiveable. Also, the junta of leaders from 1913 on was totally detached from the Ottoman past. What the Three Pashas did neither tarnishes the tolerance of the early years, nor does it give the Ottoman Empire a free pass. After all they were ruling what was still the Ottoman Empire so we can’t act as if it wasn’t the Ottoman Empire that did it. The Pashas were responsible and that is that- it is neither a reflection on Suleman the Magnificent any more than it is on the current Erdogan government.
The last several? That’s one generation (generation is 20 years) and in that generation it weren’t just the Ottomans who misbehaved, the Armenians did a good job of attacking Turkish Muslims as well.
All of that doesn’t excuse what happened in 1895: that was a terrible crime, nor does it excuse what happened in 1915-1917, but it is important to point out what the historical context was.
Meanwhile, what do you say to Lewis who says that his research has given him the impression that the Ottoman rulers during WWI tried to prevent the slaughter from happening and tried to ensure the safe passage of the Armenians to the best of their abilities?
You say they were in charge thus responsible. To a certain extent you can say that yes they were, but to another extent you have to realize that genocide as defined by courts throughout the decades means that the government must have ordered the killings. If it were officers acting on their own, it’s still a terrible crime, but not a genocide blamable on the ottoman government.
What I find interesting is that some seem to have the impression that calling it ‘genocide’ means that one recognizes and acknowledges the suffering while if one says ‘it’s not possible to call it a genocide just yet’ means that one denies the suffering that took place. That’s of course not true. Whetehr the sultan ordered the killings or whether some Turks acted on their own is irrelevant to the degree of suffering: they suffered tremendously.
In short, Bush worded it quite well.
I still see other levels of responsibility that I believe would still qualify as genocide in that regard, though, Michael. If the govt didn’t directly order killings but also turned a blind eye to them (if they didn’t prosecute officers or soldiers who acted on their own), then the govt should still be held liable. And if the govt ordered these deportations without providing for the care of the people, then they’re liable for that as well. It was there policy for moving these people, and their responsibility to ‘provide them safe passage’. It may well be that these govt officials weren’t motivated by hatred of the Armenians- but if they failed to prevent the inevitable deaths that resulted from their policies, then they could still be considered complicit in genocide.
I agree though that it’s foolish to say that anyone who doesn’t agree with the use of the term genocide is denying that an egregious wrong took place.
Michael,
The fact that the Ottoman Armenians lived relatively peacefully for long stretches, the fact that “the relationship was mostly good”, even the fact that there were Armenian rebels, would not negate the fact that genocide occurred during WW1.
The genocide in Rwanda began after Tutsi rebels invaded Rwanda from Uganda, and senior figures in the governing Hutu regime launched a general call to kill the Tutsi minority.
if they didn’t prosecute officers or soldiers who acted on their own
They did. The Ottomans prosecuted. Poorly, and politically, and then let the Brits extradite away most of those convicted. But they did prosecute. The Brits quietly released them later, and the Armenians sent out assassination squads to take care of those they could find.
I agree though that it’s foolish to say that anyone who doesn’t agree with the use of the term genocide is denying that an egregious wrong took place.
That would indeed be the core of most of the smoke and heat displayed here. And much of the rest is the insistence that the events of the time were simple and one-sided.
Bernard Lewis is acting (for reasons of his own) as a genocide denier.
Ther International Association of Genocide Scholars (and its counterpart in Israel) and Elie Wiesel have all stated publicly that the mass murders of Armenians was in fact genocide by its strict definition according to international law.
International Association of Genocide Scholars open letter to Prime Minister Erdogan
The founder and the president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars Israel Charney is a psychologist specialised on Family theraphy. The Association is a self declared body, meaning that it has no authority and no real importance except for its fancy name.
Besides look at the tone of the letter. Only zealots would insult their fellow historians by calling them so called “historians”