Turkey protests Sweden Armenia 'genocide' vot

dlofnep

Turkey protests Sweden Armenia 'genocide' vote

Turkey has withdrawn its ambassador to Sweden after the parliament voted narrowly to describe as genocide the killing of Armenians in World War I.
The Turkish government condemned the resolution, saying it was "based upon major errors and without foundation".

The Swedish government opposed the opposition resolution but it passed by one vote after some MPs voted against party lines. It comes days after a US congressional panel passed a similar resolution. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan cancelled a visit to Stockholm scheduled next week and issued a statement criticising the vote.
"Our people and our government reject this decision based upon major errors and without foundation," said the statement.

Could someone tell me on what grounds Turkey is protesting? All the evidence that I have read looks like it was quite clearly a genocide. I find myself stumped on why Turkey is throwing a hissyfit about it, and why so many Governments are unwilling to call a spade a spade.

Could you imagine if Germany tried to reject claims that Nazi Germany committed genocide?

Has anyone here studied the genocide, and could they explain why there is such a broad refusal for Governments to accept it?

FlutterinBantam

Because there are two sides to every story.

Mahatma coat

OK so whats the Turkish side then? cos anything I've read about it suggest that it was a Genocide

anymore

" This has been a bad week for Holocaust deniers. I am talking about thoses who willfully lie about the 1915 genocide of Armenian Christians by Ottoman Turks."

This is the opening sentence of the chapter in Robert Fisk's ' The Age of The warrior' in which he deals with the Armenian genocide. There is no doubt that this was genocide.
Fisk says this genocide was the precussor of the Nazi Holocaust and notes the presence of some germans in Turkey in 1915. He also notes that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the modern Turkish state condemned the genocide.
Robert Fisk's credientials include being regarded by many as beong pro palestinian and anti US.

jank

"Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?

The above quote by Adolf Hitler, August 1939 when speaking about Lebensraum for the German people.

jank

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Because there are two sides to every story.

I wonder FB if I said the sky was blue would answer back that the sky was green?

anymore

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Because there are two sides to every story.

Fisk's turkish publishers pointed out to him they would probably be sued under Turkey's Law 301 - which forbids defaming the State - for writing about the genocide. Which rather suggests that telling one side of the ' two sides' you refer to could result in being jailed !

FlutterinBantam

anymore wrote: »

" This has been a bad week for Holocaust deniers. I am talking about thoses who willfully lie about the 1915 genocide of Armenian Christians by Ottoman Turks."

This is the opening sentence of the chapter in Robert Fisk's ' The Age of The warrior' in which he deals with the Armenian genocide. There is no doubt that this was genocide.
Fisk says this genocide was the precussor of the Nazi Holocaust and notes the presence of some germans in Turkey in 1915. He also notes that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the modern Turkish state condemned the genocide.
Robert Fisk's credientials include being regarded by many as beong pro palestinian and anti US.

ROBERT FISK!!!



One of the most virulent anti US/Israeli journalists I have ever heard or read.

wes

What was done to the Aremnians by the Ottomans, was clearly Genocide. I have heard the following book is pretty good, but haven't had the chance to buy it and read it just yet (have to work through my back log):

A shameful act: the Armenian genocide and the question of Turkish responsibility By Taner Akçam

The Turkish government should just admit what happened. I see no reason why they shouldn't. The current government isn't responsible, in fact the Turkish state didn't exists when the Genocide took place. The denial serves no real purpose, other than appeasing Ultra Nationalist in there country.

anymore

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

ROBERT FISK!!!



One of the most virulent anti US/Israeli journalists I have ever heard or read.

He definitely isnt a person I regard as virulent - more like focussed and consistent. And a good writer to boot.

reprazant

anymore wrote: »

.
Robert Fisk's credientials include being regarded by many as beong pro palestinian and anti US.

How exactly are these credentials?

If they are credentials which raise him above the normal commentator, than half of boards should also be raised to the same pedestal.

jank

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

ROBERT FISK!!!



One of the most virulent anti US/Israeli journalists I have ever heard or read.

You do realize that we are talking about Turkey here, if anything he should be siding with the Turks

Cannibal Ox

Genocide must involve intent to systematically destroy a group. The Turks/Ottoman's systematically attempted to wipe out the Armenian population (something like 1mill+ were killed) and there had to have been intent. The Turkish argument is that there wasn't intent but, personnaly, it's very difficult to see how anyone could kill that many people in such a systematic way without having intent. For one thing, Armenians were sent on death marches, the kind of marches the Nazi's repeated when the Russian's closed in on the concentration camps, that were explicity undertaken with the goal of killing as many people as possible. It was rational, systematic, and intentional.

Why not admit it? If you could challenge it, around intent, why wouldn't you? Turkey gets to join Nazis, Hutus, and Serbs. It's not really a list you'd want to join if you could prevent it.

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Because there are two sides to every story.

I think you're the anti-dlofnep. Whatever I propose, you suggest the alternative. I'm pretty sure if I said I like ice-cream, you would dislike it. Just an observation.

Just for the sake of friendly debate, tell me FB - What's the other side of the story? And do you believe that the Genocide is worthy of it's title, or a fabrication on behalf of some scholars?

dlofnep

FB - Care you answer my question, instead of attacking me in other threads that are not even related to this matter?

jank

Don't mind him, I think "attention seeker" is an apt description.

FTA69

Sure in Turkey there is a law against "defaming the Turkish nation", as a result of this you can be imprisoned for advocating Kurdish independence or raising the issue of the Armenian genocide. The fact is there is a highly nationalistic (jingoistic in fact), militaristic and right-wing trend that runs through the Turkish state, particularly embodied in the army which sees itself as some sort of moral and political guardian (hence all the coups and attempted coups.)

This ultra-nationalism manifested itself in the Armenian genocide and later the ethnocide of the Kurdish people; like any other perpetrator of such actions they will seek to deny it to the hilt, hence all the ridiculous laws even preventing its discussion.

FTA69

jank wrote: »

Don't mind him, I think "attention seeker" is an apt description.

I blame the terrorists.

Nodin

O look....

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Because there are two sides to every story.

Yes. The Turks killed the Armenians. The Armenians died en masse.

trapsagenius

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Because there are two sides to every story.

Ah, so young and naive!

*ruffles FB's hair*

Not in this case.

wes

trapsagenius wrote: »

Ah, so young and naive!

*ruffles FB's hair*

Not in this case.

Now, now lets be fair here. There are 2 sides, its just that one of the sides (Turkeys), is complete and utter fabricaitons, that are disproven by there own archives, and by some of there braver historians (those who are brave enough to risk being arrested).

trapsagenius

wes wrote: »

Now, now lets be fair here. There are 2 sides, its just that one of the sides (Turkeys), is complete and utter fabricaitons, that are disproven by there own archives, and by some of there braver historians (those who are brave enough to risk being arrested).

Its because their side is a complete fabrication that I discount it.Why the Turkish government continue to defend is beyond me-they should hang their heads.

Nodin

Indeed. I've never understood that meself.

Sand

Turkey is a highly nationalistic state and as Orwell noted nationalists, even Irish nationalists, tend to not even have heard about the atrocities carried out by their side.

Turkish nationalists are in a wilful denial of reality because they prefer the comforting embrace of their national myth. We can criticise them for that, but I am'nt sure we dont have the same issue with our own nationalists.

This is the opening sentence of the chapter in Robert Fisk's ' The Age of The warrior' in which he deals with the Armenian genocide. There is no doubt that this was genocide.
Fisk says this genocide was the precussor of the Nazi Holocaust and notes the presence of some germans in Turkey in 1915.

If that is an accurate summary of his argument then its laughably childish. Trying to link the Armenian genocide to the holocaust because there were some German in Turkey?

Turkey was a German ally in WW1. It would explain why Germans were there to advise and liase with their allies. Hardly to take notes to prepare for the holocaust 25 years and many political upheavals later.

goose2005

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Because there are two sides to every story.

The side pointing the guns, and the side at whom the guns are pointed?

anymore

Sand wrote: »

Turkey is a highly nationalistic state and as Orwell noted nationalists, even Irish nationalists, tend to not even have heard about the atrocities carried out by their side.

Turkish nationalists are in a wilful denial of reality because they prefer the comforting embrace of their national myth. We can criticise them for that, but I am'nt sure we dont have the same issue with our own nationalists.



If that is an accurate summary of his argument then its laughably childish. Trying to link the Armenian genocide to the holocaust because there were some German in Turkey?

Turkey was a German ally in WW1. It would explain why Germans were there to advise and liase with their allies. Hardly to take notes to prepare for the holocaust 25 years and many political upheavals later.

Does it really need to be explained to you that this genocide may have helped plant the seeds of an idea in Nazi minds ?

Sand

Yes, youd really need to have to explain it to me. With diagrams, and sock puppets.

Nazism wasnt inspired by the Turks. It was inspired by a mixture of traditional European anti-semitism, socialism and an intellectual belief in the power and glory of the state over the needs or rights of the individual. The holocaust was a result of the thinking that called for the sweeping away of the old, corrupt, degenerate, capitalistic, internationalist bourgeouise order and replacing it with a stern, pure, new world order of honest, hard working and patriotic members of the chosen people. The holocaust was seen as a necessary step to achieve this, much as the gulags were seen as a necessary step, as were the killing fields.

wes

Sand wrote: »

Yes, youd really need to have to explain it to me. With diagrams, and sock puppets

If I remember right, as its been a while since I read what Robert Fisk said, his position was that some of the methods used inspired the Nazi's own methods of carrying out Genocide, e.g. the way Ottomans used trains, and how they tried to effeicently kill as many people as possible while expending minimal resources.

Scofflaw

Enough with the handbags already, people. You'll give the young people the idea it's alright to be making personal digs, and then I'll have to ban them all.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Thirdfox

Here is where I got both sides of the story (well, one angle the BBC presented anyway):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7042209.stm

The main arguments for this not being genocidal (in the UN legal sense) seem to be this:

Many aspects of the relocation support this position:

* The large Armenian communities of Constantinople, Smyrna and Aleppo were not relocated and survived the war largely intact. These exemptions are analogous to Hitler failing to include the Jews of Berlin, Cologne and Munich in the Final Solution.
* The relocation experienced much variation that depended on geography and the attitude of local officials. In many places Protestant and Catholic Armenians as well as needed artisans were exempted. The same goes for the large number of Armenians who often were allowed, or even forced, to convert. In the absence of a large Kurdish population, no massacres took place in Cilicia, and a substantial part of the exiles sent to Southern Syria and Palestine survived.

But I haven't read the numerous books on this issue - nor do I have any personal stake in this issue. It just seemed that everyone on this thread seem to suggest that it should be a fact that this was genocide and wondering why only 20 out of 196 countries in the world support that statement. Must be a mixture of reasons I guess (political, economic, historical, factual)...

edit: well I guess I have some stake in this as a law student who has studied human rights law - our South African Professor in the US was keen to stress to us that the use of "genocide" in its non-legal sense serves only to dilute the force and power of the word in the legal world and while our university honours the Dalai Lama, was very critical of his use of the term "cultural genocide" which has no legal standing.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Yes, youd really need to have to explain it to me. With diagrams, and sock puppets.

Nazism wasnt inspired by the Turks. It was inspired by a mixture of traditional European anti-semitism, socialism

Dear me. This is news to the rest of the planet. This isn't the right wing American 'All ur Nazis r belong to left' silliness is it?

Balmed Out

I dont think its strange for someone to think the National Socialist German Workers' Party was in some way inspired by socialism. It does differ from what we see today as capitalism or as socialism.
In national socialism ownership of companies remained in private hands however the state dictated prices, wages, what was being produced, how much of it, at what qquantity etc. The state even dictated how much the owner should make in profit.
Just like socialism the state controlled industry whatever you may say about a non state puppet owners.

Anyway back to Armenia which in no way inspired the Nazi genocides and can be debated as to whether it constituted a genocide......
What is in no doubt is it was an awful case of at the very least mass murder and one wonders if there had been a sort of war crimes tribunal would the events under the Nazi party still have taken place or would the paper revelations and disgust generated during lengthy trials have been enough to stop it.

wes

Balmed Out wrote: »

What is in no doubt is it was an awful case of at the very least mass murder and one wonders if there had been a sort of war crimes tribunal would the events under the Nazi party still have taken place or would the paper revelations and disgust generated during lengthy trials have been enough to stop it.

I doubt it actually, afterall after the Nuremburg trials, we have had Genocide in Rwanda, Darfur, and we even had Genocide in Europe during the conflict in the Balkans. So I doubt trials for the Armenian Genocide, would have stopped later ones.

MarchDub

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Because there are two sides to every story.

This really is a trite platitude. There may be many "sides" to any issue but there are also right and wrong sides - and guilty parties. If all sides were "equal" as I think you are suggesting we would never have criminals and no court would ever return a guilty verdict.

Genocide has been committed throughout history and there are guilty parties to it. Turkey is guilty in this case - the evidence suggests this. The problem frequently for the guilty ones - in many cases - is accepting their guilt.

Thirdfox

MarchDub wrote: »

This really is a trite platitude. There may be many "sides" to any issue but there are also right and wrong sides - and guilty parties. If all sides were "equal" as I think you are suggesting we would never have criminals and no court would ever return a guilty verdict.

Genocide has been committed throughout history and there are guilty parties to it. Turkey is guilty in this case - the evidence suggests this. The problem frequently for the guilty ones - in many cases - is accepting their guilt.

What about the counterarguments?

And if only 20 of 196 countries has deemed Turkey guilty it doesn't seem to be a very strong point to be supporting?

ZorbaTehZ

dlofnep wrote:

could they explain why there is such a broad refusal for Governments to accept it?

Sand wrote:

Turkey is a highly nationalistic state

Turkish nationalists are in a wilful denial of reality because they prefer the comforting embrace of their national myth. We can criticise them for that, but I am'nt sure we dont have the same issue with our own nationalists.

+1, the major reasons for the denial imo:

Nationalism and a type of sentimentality for the greatness of what was the former empire, and the former leaders - also the claim they sometimes make "why should we suffer for the actions of what was effectively an entirely distinct nation"

The associations of the genocide term. Possible claims for reparation.

And the fact that they've being saying for so long that it never happened, they'll look the fool to change their stories now (plus all the textbooks/literature et al!)