- This topic has 8 voices and 65 replies.
-
Posts
-
The terrain of Northern Iraq and Northern Syria is very similar. Ny analysis of terrain factors still holds.I call BS on the genocide label. Genocide is in fact a label that was coined after WWII. Here is the definition from the US Holocaust Museum: WHAT IS GENOCIDE?. What happened in Armenia is not genocide because the Turks had no intention of Destroying the Armenians as a groupd. The turks did not intend to exterminate the Armenians, they wanted them out of Eastern Anatolia and were indifferent to their fate. Dead or elsewhere was just fine with them. I am not saying mass killings did not happen, they undoubtedly did, but mass killings along with inhumane deportation do not a genocide make. Relocation for the purpose of killing and mass killings are genocide. Indifference is NOT the same as activley trying to eliminate them. We will probably not agree and I would say we have to agree to differ.You think it walks and quacks like a duck, I do not. I am more concerned with gaining a greater understanding of what happened than labeling it and then condemning someone or group.
Yes, we probably never will agree, but I will still defend my position.From your definition:
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
So are you denying these aspects of the deportations? I don't agree, but let's just say for teh sake of argument that they didn't care what happened to them and it was nothing more, they just wanted to get rid of them, according to b.) and c.) this is still defined as genocide. Intent is the key here.Whether the word is new or not is irrelevant. What was it called before? Racial killing or something like that?The facts are this: the Turks purposely targetted ONLY the Armenians, first the males, then the women and children. If this isn't supposed to be called genocide, then I don't know what is.
The terrain of Northern Iraq and Northern Syria is very similar. Ny analysis of terrain factors still holds.I call BS on the genocide label. Genocide is in fact a label that was coined after WWII. Here is the definition from the US Holocaust Museum: WHAT IS GENOCIDE?. What happened in Armenia is not genocide because the Turks had no intention of Destroying the Armenians as a groupd. The turks did not intend to exterminate the Armenians, they wanted them out of Eastern Anatolia and were indifferent to their fate. Dead or elsewhere was just fine with them. I am not saying mass killings did not happen, they undoubtedly did, but mass killings along with inhumane deportation do not a genocide make. Relocation for the purpose of killing and mass killings are genocide. Indifference is NOT the same as activley trying to eliminate them. We will probably not agree and I would say we have to agree to differ.You think it walks and quacks like a duck, I do not. I am more concerned with gaining a greater understanding of what happened than labeling it and then condemning someone or group.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Ski, one question; if the Ottoman government was intent on killing Armenians as a whole, why is there no report of any killings in the west of the Empire. Remember the largest consentration of Armenians were living in Istanbul. Did the Nazi's kill Jews in Aushwitz but not in Hamburg? It's self evident that the Ottoman government did not do its utmost to keep the Armenian refugees alive. But you have to ask yourself would any other nation act differntly? Would you or anyone allocate rare resources that it needs to fight on multiple fronts against enemies much stronger then itself to keeping alive a population that it percieves as a threat to itself? If you consider what happened genocide you have to be able to answer yes to that question.
Whether the word is new or not is irrelevant. What was it called before?
A simple and pithy answer is policy.You are also right that intent is everything, this is the first part of MY definition:
[G]enocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
The Turks did not want to destroy the Armenians, they wanted them gone. They sent them elsewhere by forcible relocation but dead worked just fine too. The key is that the Turks were not interested in killing all the Armenians they just wanted them gone from the area immediately to the rear of an active theater of operations. They did not want the Armenians to be able to disrupt a campaign that was already going badly for the Turks as it was. Agents Provocateur in their rear was something they wanted to avoid if at all possible. The Russians knew this and played the Armenians by promising them autonomy, the Turks reacted to some Armenians reception of Russian offers. It is important to remember that the Armenians had a history of revolting against Turkish rule. They are a proud people with a long history, one that includes a couple centuries of independence in the Middle Ages.Here is a site that gives a pretty good rundown of what happened without trying to make a judgment one way or the other. It is not strictly scholarly but still pretty good. What is historical record of Turkish-Armenian relations?
Did the Nazis kill Jews in America or in England? No they did not, yet what they did is still considered genocide, right?I'm not judging anything or anybody, I'm just saying use historical FACT and call it what it is because it fits IN EVERY WAY the international/UN/Geneva definition of genocide.
eastern and western Anatolia are both in Turkey. Anatolia is the modern name for Asia Minor. so whether the Nazis killed Jews in America is Irrelevant. The Turks removed the Armenians from eastern Turkey but left the ones in Western Turkey alone. I don't see how your analogy fits. It in fact does not fit in every way the un definition. The Turks were not trying to eradicate the Armenians as a people. The fact they left the Armenians in the west alone testifies to that. If the goal was to eliminate the Armenians why did they not attack the ones living in and around Istanbul as well?Yes, I can hear you starting to fume from my intransigent disagreement. ;D
Did the Nazis kill Jews in America or in England? No they did not, yet what they did is still considered genocide, right?I'm not judging anything or anybody, I'm just saying use historical FACT and call it what it is because it fits IN EVERY WAY the international/UN/Geneva definition of genocide.
I never knew England and America was under German occupation in WW2. Since that never took place my question still stands; if the intent to kill Armenians was there why not kill the Armenians living in Istanbul or İzmir or Ankara or any other western part of the country?
Then let's use German-occupied France as an example.
How does conduct in an occupied territory compare to conduct in your own territory? Is that not apples and oranges? I dont see the point here. ???
I dont see the point here. ???
It seems the argument here is there was no genocide because some Armenians in some parts of the empire were left alone.So was there no holocaust because not every Jew in German-occupied or German controlled land was killed?
Sorry, should have responded with one post
How does conduct in an occupied territory compare to conduct in your own territory?
It almost seems like you're saying the Jews killed in Poland or Russia should not be included in the Holocaust count because it wasn't in Germany. ???
Perhaps I am dense, but I still don't see the relevance of the point. For the sake of argument I will give that killings in any occupied territory should be the same as killings within domestic pre-war territory. By that line of reasoning the US was guilty of atrocity in the Indian Wars. I dont want to start that debate here either.I guess the point you are trying to make is that state-sponsored violence is only legitimate when it does not target a specific ethnic group? Help me out here, I am getting lost in the argument. At what point or under what conditions, if any, is the state then permitted to defend itself against insurrection whether real or imagined?I dont see how efforts to put down what the Turks legitimately thought was an incipient rebellion in one specific area of their country becomes genocide. That is why I dont really think that Nazi deportations from occupied territory count. The Nazis did not think the Jews were going to rebel, they just wanted them dead. The Turks had very real fears of an Amrenian fifth-column behind their front. That is the critical difference for me.Lastly, where does intent fit into your idea? The Turks did not intend on wiping out the Armenians the Nazis clearly intended on wiping out the Jews. Again, a critical difference.I am not trying to be a hard-head. I am trying to grasp your line of argument.
Then let's use German-occupied France as an example.
Wasn't there trains full of Jews bound for concentration kamps that left France? And they also had to wear the star of David? Am I missing something? I really don't understand how you can say it's the same? The Armenians living in the western parts of the country were not killed, singled out, driven out of their homes, boycotted or anything. There were only isolated incidents, which happened between all nationalities of the empire.
The Armenians living in the western parts of the country were not killed, singled out, driven out of their homes, boycotted or anything. There were only isolated incidents, which happened between all nationalities of the empire.
Please provide documented proof of this. I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that only Armenians WERE targetted. The fact (IF it is a fact) that they may not have been targetted everywhere does not mean that this can't be defined as genocide. I just don't see "genocide" as an emotional word, I look at it as an legitimate historical term.scout, the only help I can give is that we do not agree on this subject. ;D And, no, I'm not getting into a debate about what is or isn't an atrocity. That very much depends on the historical context and culture. Much of the Greeks and Romans actions would be considered war crimes by today's standards and I'm not even going there because that debate would be ridiculous, IMHO. Let's get into a debate about ancient slavery....NOT!
The Armenians living in the western parts of the country were not killed, singled out, driven out of their homes, boycotted or anything. There were only isolated incidents, which happened between all nationalities of the empire.
Please provide documented proof of this. I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that only Armenians WERE targetted. The fact (IF it is a fact) that they may not have been targetted everywhere does not mean that this can't be defined as genocide. I just don't see "genocide" as an emotional word, I look at it as an legitimate historical term.scout, the only help I can give is that we do not agree on this subject. ;D And, no, I'm not getting into a debate about what is or isn't an atrocity. That very much depends on the historical context and culture. Much of the Greeks and Romans actions would be considered war crimes by today's standards and I'm not even going there because that debate would be ridiculous, IMHO. Let's get into a debate about ancient slavery....NOT!
So if I kill or drive out (insert ethnic group) in one county of the three I control but not the other two that is Genocide? Is that the point you are getting at?Debating ancient morality by contemporary terms is ridiculous, I agree.
