Armenian Genocide

jonniebgood1

Writing about a debate he had in Monaghan with a northern journalist, Robert Fisk wrote in todays papers

If the killing of 14 catholics in Derry merits a 10 year inquiry, surely the genocide of a million and a half Armenians is worth 96 years of study

It is an event that does'nt seem to get its due time in comparison with other genocides of the 20th century.

Some introductory information

The Armenian Genocide was carried out by the "Young Turk" government of the Ottoman Empire in 1915-1916 (with subsidiaries to 1922-23). One and a half million Armenians were killed, out of a total of two and a half million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/facts/genocide.html

In 1915-1918 the upper circles of the Ottoman Empire, taking advantage of the conditions of the World War, organized and realized genocide of Turkey's national minorities. During a few years the Ottoman Empire actually completely slaughtered the native peoples of the country: Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks. Nowadays the world is aware of numerous facts and details of these terrible atrocities committed by Turkey's authorities endowed with state power. The world's most progressive countries condemn the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire on the state level and mark mournful data of the Genocide's beginning together with Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians.
http://www.genocidepreventionnow.org/Home/SPECIALISSUE5ARMENIANGENOCIDECOVICTIMS/tabid/101/ctl/DisplayArticle/mid/607/aid/226/Default.aspx

Any suggestions for good sources on this event are welcome.
I would like to look at the events of this tragedy, the people resonsible and also some of the reasons as to why it is under acknowledged in history.

PatsytheNazi

I think that when Hitler was privately asked how he would get away with killing the gypsies, jews etc, his reply would be " And who remembers the Armenians ".

mikemac

I've heard that Hitler quote too and the man had a point. Who remembers the Armenians, the genocide isn't well known at all and certainly if lessons were learned it was only to repeat and upscale it thirty years later

The Armenians do not have a global voice and ability to highlight and make people remember as the Jews have

hivizman

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Any suggestions for good sources on this event are welcome.
I would like to look at the events of this tragedy, the people resonsible and also some of the reasons as to why it is under acknowledged in history.

I recently read A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility, by the Turkish writer Taner Akcam. This is a thoroughly researched and detailed study of both the actions against the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent atmosphere of denial in Turkey. The book made clear why the new Turkish republic didn't simply admit to the killings but blame the defunct Ottoman Empire: among other factors, many of the powerful people in the new republic had benefited, or were supported by those who had benefited, from the confiscation of the property of Armenians.

Nearly a century after the event, the treatment of Armenians is still a matter of controversy in Turkey - many Turks deny that the killings were a systematic government policy, or claim that they were a justified response in a time of war to aggression from Armenians allied to the Russian Empire (parts of north-eastern Anatolia, for example Trabzon and Erzurum, were occupied by the Russian army from around 1916, while Kars was part of the Russian Empire from 1878).

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Writing about his a debate he had in Monaghan a northern journalist Robert Fisk wrote in todays papers


"If the killing of 14 catholics in Derry merits a 10 year inquiry, surely the genocide of a million and a half Armenians is worth 96 years of study"

Yes, genocide should be looked into - and the Armenian issue has been coming aboard for some time, and long overdue.

However, the problem I have with using this as a argument for opening an inquiry is a way of minimizing the what, only? '14 Catholics' killed and somehow overlooking the enormous effort by the families and the community that it took to bring justice there. It wasn't a given in Derry by the authorities - who initially airbrushed the whole thing.

ValJester

It's becoming an increasing area of study in university courses, but I would argue a key reason that it's been so overlooked is that a lot of authorities have yet to fully acknowledge it (The Turkish government is still quite firmly anti-Armenian, and has threatened sanctions,such as forbidding passage through Turkish airspace, against any nation that does acknowledge the genocide.)

MarchDub

This reference cites the Hitler quote as referring to the Poles...

http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/armenian_genocide.htm

Referring to the Armenian Genocide, the young German politician Adolf Hitler duly noted the half-hearted reaction of the world’s great powers to the plight of the Armenians. After achieving total power in Germany, Hitler decided to conquer Poland in 1939 and told his generals: ‘Thus for the time being I have sent to the East only my ‘Death’s Head Units’ with the orders to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish race or language. Only in such a way will we win the vital space that we need. Who still talks nowadays about the Armenians?’

Zebra3

One of the most shameful events surrounding this recently has been the jewish/pro-Israel groups in the US as well as the State of Israel denying the Armenian holocaust.

jonniebgood1

ValJester wrote: »

It's becoming an increasing area of study in university courses, but I would argue a key reason that it's been so overlooked is that a lot of authorities have yet to fully acknowledge it (The Turkish government is still quite firmly anti-Armenian, and has threatened sanctions,such as forbidding passage through Turkish airspace, against any nation that does acknowledge the genocide.)

The current turkish government has not properly recognised the genocide. There is an Armenian perspective that summarises the story quite well

The atrocities committed against the Armenian people of the Ottoman Empire during W.W.I are called the Armenian Genocide. Genocide is the organized killing of a people for the express purpose of putting an end to their collective existence. Because of its scope, genocide requires central planning and a machinery to implement it. This makes genocide the quintessential state crime as only a government has the resources to carry out such a scheme of destruction. The Armenian Genocide was centrally planned and administered by the Turkish government against the entire Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire. It was carried out during W.W.I between the years 1915 and 1918. The Armenian people were subjected to deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation. The great bulk of the Armenian population was forcibly removed from Armenia and Anatolia to Syria, where the vast majority was sent into the desert to die of thirst and hunger. Large numbers of Armenians were methodically massacred throughout the Ottoman Empire. Women and children were abducted and horribly abused. The entire wealth of the Armenian people was expropriated. After only a little more than a year of calm at the end of W.W.I, the atrocities were renewed between 1920 and 1923, and the remaining Armenians were subjected to further massacres and expulsions.

......

It is estimated that one and a half million Armenians perished between 1915 and 1923.

.....

Turkey dismisses the evidence about the atrocities as mere allegations and regularly obstructs efforts for acknowledgment. Affirming the truth about the Armenian Genocide, therefore, has become an issue of international significance. The recurrence of genocide in the twentieth century has made the reaffirmation of the historic acknowledgment of the criminal mistreatment of the Armenians by Turkey all the more a compelling obligation for the international community. http://www.armenian-genocide.org/genocidefaq.html

I would like the Turkish view on this to see the other side. I will also try and find some sources on how the bulk of the killing was carried out. The detail on WWII genocide is horrific but in this case I would like to know how was it carried out, how was it organised, did the public support it, who ordered it, etc.

jonniebgood1

Where did the problems between the Ottoman turks and the Armenians come from? Something like this does not happen for no reason, it has to be stoked up for years in advance to create a circumstance where feelings are so high.

...towards the end of the 19th century. As a result of activities carried out by instigators infiltrating the Ottoman territories from the West, mostly under a clerical guise, Armenians began to pull themselves away from the Turkish community in the religious, cultural, commercial, political and social fields. Armenians who used Turkish as their language, who conducted their religious sermons in Turkish and even those who had attained high positions within the Empire, such as cabinet ministers, undersecretaries and the like, collaborated with the enemy forces in a bid to attain the downfall of the Ottoman State. http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/armenian_issue/index.html

So there were religious differences between the 2 peoples as well as an east -west divide. Armenia appealed to the Russians after the Ottoman-russian war while the turks presumably looked to europe (with Britain supporting them in the war). The resulting isolation of the Armenians within the Ottoman empire would seem to have grown from 1878 until WWI.

jonniebgood1

The turkish point of view is put across quite stridently on their governments culture and tourism website.

The declaration 24 April as the genocide date is as fictitious as the genocide allegations. On 24 April 1915, the Armenian Committee centers were closed, their documents were confiscated, and the leaders were arrested.

...

In the course of history, there are many examples of relocation implementation. The habitants in a war-line could be relocated, and if these habitants are being an obstacle for the security forces, or they are in co-operation with the other side, resettlement is an obligation. Resettlement is a measure taken to protect the civil habitants in a frontline.

In the following years, similar implementations were seen as well. It is known that, the Radical Socialist French government had taken the German speaking Alsazs living in French-German border and resettled them in the southwest of France, especially in Dordogne. In like manner, following Pearl Harbour attack, the American government had taken its Japanese citizens living in Pacific Region and settled them in the Mississippi Valley, until the end of the war it sheltered those people in concentration camps.

The Ottoman Government was sure about her blamelessness and she wanted to prove this fact in the framework of international law. This was a very good example of self-respect.

The British interfered on the Ottoman effort, as if she is hiding the real guilty. If the concerned commission would have been formed, all the accusations directed to the Turkish nation would be annihilated, moreover all the untrue allegations against the Republic of Turkey would be abolished

http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN/belge/2-339/views-against-genocide-allegations.html

The whole piece is taken as a valid alternative view on the events IMO with the understanding that it is from 1 side perspective. It is quite certain in its asertions and raises many points that can be researched in more detail.

losthorizon

Its not a historical investigation by any means but an excellent book dealing with the armenian situation is The Crossing Place By Philip Marsden. It struck such a cord with me that I visited Armenia a few years ago. There is no doubt that the Turks killed and murdered huge amounts of Armenians and that ethnic Armenians are scattered all over the middle east, Italy, Cyprus the USA and other countrys.

kabakuyu

Zebra3 wrote: »

One of the most shameful events surrounding this recently has been the jewish/pro-Israel groups in the US as well as the State of Israel denying the Armenian holocaust.

This is new to me,can you supply sources please.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Any suggestions for good sources on this event are welcome.
I would like to look at the events of this tragedy, the people resonsible and also some of the reasons as to why it is under acknowledged in history.

Jonnie ya love yer genocide

This happened in the last days of the Ottoman Empire which I havent read about in years.

Where was Armenia ?

Were there events and who benefited.

jonniebgood1

Its geographical location is the east of Turkey.

This may have been part of the reason why it is not known, i.e. away from the immediate western influence. This of course allied to its being part of the USSR restricted widespread freedom to discuss the topic.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

Were there events and who benefited.

I think nobody could be said to benefit massively from this. The ottomans lost out on massive areas of territory. The new rep. of turkey would seem to me to be the natural successor state to the ottoman empire and it lost previously controled areas such as Iran, Syria and other areas of the middle east that would have made a significant world power nowadays.

This map is showing 1914 borders: http://www.google.ie/imgres?q=ottoman+1914+map&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=636&tbm=isch&tbnid=IO0yhOnuafWTcM:&imgrefurl=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/maps/ottoman.htm&docid=QXIN_ye_qhvAKM&w=429&h=396&ei=YztSTubUL4exhAeXlJzdBg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=191&vpy=93&dur=6046&hovh=216&hovw=234&tx=112&ty=86&page=1&tbnh=159&tbnw=172&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0

CDfm

How come the Armenian interest Jonnie. ?

Fascinating stuff Turkish/Ottoman/Arab history and their interaction with Europe.

MarchDub

Increasingly amongst those studying the Armenian Genocide the issue of it being a Christian persecution is becoming central to the discussion. Some see it as a Jihad against the Christian Armenians. The so called 'Young Turks' who were in power - and originally regarded as reformers - became motivated to ethnically cleanse the region of Christians. In the Ottoman Empire Christians were traditionally denied full citizenship.

I've seen references to the Armenian Genocide as the 'Christian Holocaust' .

Here is a recent story from the BBC on the still raging topic:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8572934.stm

Besides the Armenians there were others massacred - thousands of Christian Assyrians were also killed.

There was a scholar/professor at UCLA a few years ago who published on the issue but right now I don't recall his name. When I find it I'll post it...

MarchDub

Richard Hovannisian is the guy I'm thinking of. Haven't read it but his book is called : Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide. He's also organized conferences on the topic of the genocide.

I saw him interviewed a few years ago and he is probably one of the most knowledgeable scholars on the subject and has done a lot to bring out the truth of how and why it all happened.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

How come the Armenian interest Jonnie. ?

Fascinating stuff Turkish/Ottoman/Arab history and their interaction with Europe.

Just seems an underacknowledged event in comparison to other mass killings in history. There are some similarities in how they were repressed with Irish history. The young turks movement is also interesting. It is overshadowed by WWI and revolution in Russia. The modern treatment of this era is also interesting as MD highlighted.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

I've seen references to the Armenian Genocide as the 'Christian Holocaust' .

...
Besides the Armenians there were others massacred - thousands of Christian Assyrians were also killed.
...

There is an online series of photos from an event known as the 'adana massacre' here http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/online_exhibition_7.php

The Adana Massacre was the second series of large-scale massacres of Armenians to break out in the Ottoman Empire. The atrocities committed in the province of Adana in April 1909 coincided with the counter-revolution staged by supporters of Sultan Abdul Hamid (Abdul-Hamid) II (1876-1909) who had been forced to restore the Ottoman Constitution as a result of the 1908 Young Turk Revolution led by the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP). A prosperous region on the Mediterranean coast encompassing the old principality of Cilicia, once an independent Armenian state between the eleventh and fourteenth centuries, the province of Adana had been spared the 1890s massacres. The disturbances were most severe in the city of Adana where a reported 4,437 Armenian dwellings were torched, resulting in the razing of nearly half the town and prompting some to describe the resulting inferno as a "holocaust." The outbreaks spread throughout the district and an estimated 30,000 Armenians were reported killed. While attempts at resistance in Adana proved futile, and Armenians in smaller outlying villages were brutally slaughtered, two towns inhabited mostly by Armenians organized a successful defense. Hadjin (Hajen in Armenian) in the Cilician Mountains withstood a siege, while the 10,000 Armenians of Dortyol (Chorkmarzban in Armenian) held off 7,000 Turks who had surrounded their town and cut off its water supply.

The intensity of the carnage prompted the government to open an investigation, but the failure to prosecute dashed Armenian expectations of liberal reforms by the new regime. The reactionary elements of the Ottoman Empire were suspected of instigating the massacres to discredit the CUP, but the Young Turks were also implicated. The Adana Massacre exposed the twin composition of the Young Turk Movement, which consisted of both liberal and radical nationalist elements. It also demonstrated the convergent interests of the nationalists with the reactionary and conservative elements of Ottoman state in their policies toward a progressive-minded minority. For the Young Turks, the Adana Massacre proved a rehearsal for gauging the depth of Turkish animosity in the Ottoman Empire toward Christian minorities and for testing their skills in marshaling those forces for political ends. Despite the restoration of a constitutional government, the specter of mass violence was reintroduced as a mechanism of state power.

Two commissions were set up after the massacres. One of them was formed by the Ottoman Parliament (members of the commission were Hayk Papikyan, Harutyun Mostichyan, Yusuf Kemal, Fayid Bey), the second was formed by the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople. The commissions investigated the causes and consequences of massacres and submitted the official reports. In those reports the Governor Jevad Bey, the Commander Mustafa Remzi Pasha and the local authorities that implemented their orders at the local levels, were mentioned as responsible for massacres. The investigations revealed that more than 30.000 Armenians fell victim to massacres. The total damage of the Armenians was equal to 20 million Turkish Liras. 24 churches, 16 schools, 232 houses, 30 hotels, 2 plants, 1429 cottages, 253 farms, 523 shops, 23 mills and many other public buildings were burnt.

And front page coverage of these events- they were known of at the time:

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

Richard Hovannisian is the guy I'm thinking of. Haven't read it but his book is called : Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide. He's also organized conferences on the topic of the genocide.

The booked referenced is previewed here http://books.google.ie/books?id=kiBHkRtRmIIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=remembrance+and+denial+the+case+of+the+armenian+genocide&hl=en&ei=zRdWTsDzFNKBhQeDr_mlDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The introduction is interesting, particularly the observation that at the time of the early massacres the events were not subject to any rules or agreed conventions of warfare as they were internal to the Ottoman empire.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The introduction is interesting, particularly the observation that at the time of the early massacres the events were not subject to any rules or agreed conventions of warfare as they were internal to the Ottoman empire.

The same argument was made of Nazi Germany - and one of the big issues concerning the Nuremberg Trials was that the crimes were committed before an international code was developed. The words used for the Nuremberg trials by the detractors was 'victors justice'. There is a whole heap of stuff written about this issue regarding the Nazi trials.

Of course it doesn't make the atrocities any less appalling or less evil - it's just a discussion over international law and what was covered back then.

CDfm

So could this be construed as another Imperial Prerogative of what empires do or was it more tribal ?

I do not mean to imply that the Turks were not a developed nation for that time but take Casements grim review of the Belgian Congo as contemporanious or the US treatment of the Native Americans or the British and the Zulu nation or the Japanese and China and it was not that uncommon.

I often wonder too when I see the situations in the developing world today whether the motives are more base than we like to admit.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

So could this be construed as another Imperial Prerogative of what empires do or was it more tribal ?

I do not mean to imply that the Turks were not a developed nation for that time but take Casements grim review of the Belgian Congo as contemporanious or the US treatment of the Native Americans or the British and the Zulu nation or the Japanese and China and it was not that uncommon.

They are excellent comparisons in terms of the exploitation which was another aspect of the Armenians treatment (land and property seized). The genocide, if it is taken, is a big difference though as for the most part in those examples the natives were driven from their homelands rather than widespread killing.
By imperial perogative do you mean they felt their actions were justified? My understanding as I look at this is that is was part of an extreme form of nationalism for Turkey. The division and difference with Armenians was historical, Armenia had previously been the dominant force in the area long before the Turk dominated Ottoman empire. The dominant view is expressed in poetry as in this, Turan by Ziya Gökalp

For the Turks, Fatherland means neither Turkey, nor Turkestan; Fatherland is a large and eternal country--Turan!

. http://books.google.ie/books?id=cGHGPgj1_tIC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=Fatherland+means+neither+Turkey,+nor+Turkestan;&source=bl&ots=OGxZnN9fhC&sig=p8TFiIsP6ttsGTaFozXexZK1teE&hl=en&ei=OqxWTtvgLsfJhAfv6MXBDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Here the term 'Turan' was used for the Turkish people only to the detriment of others within the Ottoman sphere.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

By imperial perogative do you mean they felt their actions were justified?

Yes, was their justification for the genocide at the time that of imperial conqueror and as you indicate the "real" reason was historical.

The historical timeline must have been massive as Turkey would have been the dominant force for hundreds of years.

Was there any racism and how did they regard each other i.e. did the Turks think the Armenians snooty or trecherous with their Russian links and were they just waiting for an excuse and how did the Armenians view the Turks and others.

Did the change of leadership in Turkey influence a change from ,say, benevolent despot to this.