Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWhy does Turkey not recognize the 1915 ge

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
lastbout View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 03-Feb-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Why does Turkey not recognize the 1915 ge
    Posted: 29-Mar-2005 at 14:14
I have recently been studying this topic, and i found out Turkey does not recognize this 1915 genocide. Why? Does it not want to face the facts?
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Mar-2005 at 14:25
I have not had a chance to study this but I know that many neo Nazis deny the halocaust. I do not know why or if they deny it or choose to forget! ??? This is a good question but it would take time to resarch it.
http://www.genocide1915.info/

Armenian Genocide Attention

This site is dedicated to remembrance of the victims of the Armenian Genocide perpetrated by Ottoman Empire. About 1.5 million Armenians were massacred by the Turkish soldiers and gangsters. The world turned its head while a nation was being exterminated. Their memories will serve as a reminder of what prejudice can do if not confronted. During the Armenian genocide, the true Armenian heroes and heroines gave their lives to save Armenia and its people. Thus Armenia survived and it survives still!

To this day Turkey denies the Armenian genocide but history cannot be hidden or rewritten. Our mission is to inform the world about this tragedy. The issue bares no prejudice against the Turkish people or government, but the Armenian genocide needs to recognized by the world population.
Back to Top
dark_one View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-Sep-2004
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 454
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Mar-2005 at 14:25
 I actually don't know. There is no denying that it happenned (although a few Turks have) and many things worse happenned, and the country repsonsible always apologized.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Mar-2005 at 15:31
Turks will answer: because it didn't happen

My theory: I think it was because Turkey wasn't utterly defeated. Quickly after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire a new power emerged (Kemal Atatrk), with roughly the same ideology as the former one, though somewhat more modernist. This government had absolutely nothing to gain with aknowledging the genocide, and so they didn't. The regime stayed stayed solidly in power, so people who did aknowledge the genocide became rare.
Back to Top
Komnenos View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Mar-2005 at 15:33
Originally posted by lastbout

I have recently been studying this topic, and i found out Turkey does not recognize this 1915 genocide. Why? Does it not want to face the facts?


They might have to, if they want to join the EU.
They have been numerous demands that the recognition of the Armenian genocide by the Turkish government should be one of the political criteria for the entry.


[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
Back to Top
iskenderani View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 24-Mar-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 449
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Mar-2005 at 16:52

 Lastabout wrote:

### I have recently been studying this topic, and i found out Turkey does not recognize this 1915 genocide. Why? Does it not want to face the facts ? ###

WHY ??? Here is why...

### 5. Another characteristic of Turkish national identity is the fact that the Turks consider themselves the actual, true victims of history. "We are the nation upon whom actual injustice was inflicted. We are a persecuted nation, but no one recognizes that. We are treated as the "'stepchildren' of history." Two factors have contributed to the evolution of this mental attitude. First, throughout the nineteenth century, the national wars of liberation of Christian groups in the Balkans (Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, etc.) were experienced as massacres of the Moslem population. Secondly, Europe paid no attention to the massacres of Moslems, although European nations were highly sensitive to the massacres of Christians and utilized every occasion to interfere. It is not an exaggeration to say that in the minds of the Moslems had entrenched itself the firm belief that the entire world was poised against them; they considered themselves the victims of history.

6. Two essential factors are responsible for the difficulty of the Turks in coping with this sentiment of collapse and worthlessness. First, there was the deeply rooted belief in the superiority of the Turks over other peoples and the right of Turks to dominate them. There is still talk today of erecting a world empire and of dominating other nations as signposts of Turkish superiority and historical uniqueness. The most important reason for this attitude lies in the fact that the Turks, as a ruling stratum, (even though they themselves were not conscious of their Turkishness), and under the influence of Islamic thought, identified themselves with Islam and felt superior to the empire's other religious groups. The idea of the " ruling nation" (Millet-I Hakime) dominated the thinking of the Ottoman-Turkish ruling elite. At the same time, the Ottoman-Turkish ruling elite was overwhelmed by the greatness of its own past. There was really an enormous gap between the sense of belonging to an empire that ruled over three continents and the current situation, in which national honor was being dragged through the mud. The conflict between these past and present realities intensified the need to 1) reject the present, 2) return to the old days of imperial glory, and 3) punish those who were accused of being responsible for the current malaise. ###

 

Isk.

Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Mar-2005 at 20:17

Another anti-Turkish post by a Greek, hmmmm! This almost begs for no answer from any Turk. Afterall, being on the defensive gets old.

Answers: 

Historical  -  Late 1800's, Russian repopulation of Ottoman lands. Need a christian ally in the caucasus, bring in the Armenians and excile local Turks, Tatars and Azeries. WWI Numerous Russian-Turkish battles. Continued attempts at repopulation. Growth of Armenian Dashnak party. Terroristic methods by members of this party to continue the excile. Followed by revenge uprisings by local moslem inhabitants. This is then followed by the Ottoman order to excile the Armenians only in the six effected vilayets. Move the Armenians to a zone with less potential for treason with the enemy. March is towards Syria and thereabouts. Victorious English after WWI excile many Ottoman military leaders to the Island of Malta. Court proceedings lead to the conclusion that their is no proof of ordered Turkish massacres of Armenians. Armenians in major cities of the Ottoman empire continue with their normal lives. No excile for them ( so long as they are not in the six zones) 

Political and Historical  -  Turkish denial of massacres. Read the history books - Genocide was not a term used back then. Armenian terroristic activities in the 1970's. Asala owned up to killing tens of Turkish diplomats worldwide. Orly airport (Paris)explosion at THY by same gang of terrorists. Claim of Genocide increases from 300,000 to an inflation of 1,500,000 and more. American studies by historians in the 1980,s all agree that there was no proof of Genocide. Every year the Armenian dispora seeks political muscle via lobbying for a claim of Genocide in various countries. It still continues to this day. 2005 - Turkish prime minister suggests a mutual study between Turkey and Armenia. " Open up each countries archives and let the historians do their job". Turkish archives have been open. Armenia rejects the propsal. 

The world seems to want much from Turkey and Turkey will do its best to comply so long as it is not a flat out acceptance of a non proven allegation. Armenian side knows that if the truth continues to come out that their goal will be lost. Armenias hidden goals :  They want financial compensation and they have eyes on the eastern provinces of Turkey. What is the connection between the present day Turkish republic and the Ottoman empire with regards to a disputed allegation that happened prior to its existence?

I know that I will get all kinds of remarkably negative responses from this post from so-called experts (AntiTurks). So have at it and lets see what comes out.



Edited by Seko
Back to Top
strategos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Mar-2005
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1096
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Mar-2005 at 23:16

Well i also have seen many turks in this forum ASK for proof of the genocide, so obviously its not just a small denial. Just because he asks this doesn't mean he is a greek anyways, is anti-turkish post ANYTHING that does not glorify the turk? Come on..

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2005 at 13:41

Pufff!

I am just bored to debate, in fact, fight people with thick skulls   about that issue, in lots of forums. I think it's impossible to teach some facts to some unimproved minds.

Never mind. There are lots of  them, more than I imagined. The only thing I want to suggest you people is to come my country and visit eastern Anatolia. You would make better decisions and judgments then. Maybe then, you can get rid of this propoganda...

Back to Top
strategos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Mar-2005
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1096
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2005 at 13:59

You neither say there was or wasn't one?

Back to Top
dark_one View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-Sep-2004
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 454
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2005 at 17:08
 No, he's just tired, like I am debating with Kaleviopeg over Russia and anything that has to do with it.
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2005 at 23:01
Turks on this issue are like Japanese on WW2, they have brainwashed and their history books are written by nationalists, dont blame them they dont know any better, though certainly in some resppects the Armenian genocide is exxagerated by some for political means.
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
cattus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1803
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2005 at 23:15
Well I would not compare the Turks with the Japanese of WW2. The Japanese are only accused of warcrimes and this they indeed did do. We know this and there is evidence.
The Turks are being accused of fullscale genocide here.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2005 at 23:29

Originally posted by Tobodai

Turks on this issue are like Japanese on WW2, they have brainwashed and their history books are written by nationalists, dont blame them they dont know any better, though certainly in some resppects the Armenian genocide is exxagerated by some for political means.

 

Nationalists, perhaps. Brainwashed? Considering the books I've read on the topic, I don't think so. They were written by Americans. Knowing better is better than not knowing.

Of course it is exagerated. The numbers keep changing. But their old techniques don't. In 1920 Armenia created a short lived republic. They recieved monetary donations by good hearted Christians from all over the Christian world. They recieved arms. What did they do? They attacked Georgia and lost. They attacked Azerbeygan and lost. And at the first side of Russian interferance they gave up their independence to turn communist and joined the Soviet Union without a fight! Today it is a bankrupt country with their own citizens leaving by the droves.

But after the collapse of the Soviet Union they got their independence back and started a war with, gues who? Azerbeycan. They expelled 1,000,000 Azeris from Nagorno-Karabahk. Their old ways sure did not change. They are still trying to bilk the US congress for more free handouts and slander present day Turkey in the process. Now who would want to keep dealing with such nonsense?

Back to Top
strategos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Mar-2005
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1096
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2005 at 23:33

What does this have to do with the topic?

Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Mar-2005 at 00:12
Originally posted by strategos

What does this have to do with the topic?

For you, nothing!

Back to Top
strategos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Mar-2005
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1096
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Mar-2005 at 00:38
Good answer.
Back to Top
Atomic-ache View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 02-Apr-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2005 at 05:42

Catt my thanks for your reasonable response to Rough Rider. Ironically, the one who is brainwashed is the one who speaks loudly and carries a small stick.

"Is anti-turkish post ANYTHING that does not glorify the turk?" Of course not, Strategos. But you know well that the Turks get a bad rap from everywhere and have been the victims of intense propaganda, ever since the days of the Crusades. Nobody's asking for Turks to be glorified. What's sought is these questions should be approached fairly and even-handedly.

Anyone who studies this topic can see there is enough evidence from those who didn't like the Turks, and would have had no reason to lie. On the other hand, "genocide proof" comes mainly from those with conflicts-of-interest: missionaries, bigoted foreign consuls, war propagandists. 

Eaglecap unthinkingly accepts the standard line, "About 1.5 million Armenians were massacred by the Turkish soldiers and gangsters." If he would only look into this with an open mind, he'd see the median pre-war population of Ottoman Armenians truly lay in the 1.3 million area, which happened to be the last Ottoman census figure. Even standard-bearers such as Christopher Walker and Richard Hovannisian settled on 1.5 million-2 million. (The latter "revised" in later years to "approximately 2 million," when he became more hard-line for his cause. The Armenian Patriarch's figure was 2.1 million, and anyone with an ounce of objectivity would conclude the Patriarch's figures were often wildly exaggerated.)

So if the population was truly around 1.5 million, one can see Eaglecap's mindless conclusion would have been simply impossible. Particularly when extremists like Hovannisian, Balakian and especially Dadrian have all conceded one million survived.

Another absurdity in Eaglecap's statement is that all Armenians who died were "massacred." In 1977, the French newspaper "Le Figaro" investigated and concluded only 15,000 died from massacres and other deprivations from the march. In reality, most who lost their lives died for reasons everyone else was dying of: famine, disease and combat. General Harbord is on record for stating 600,000 Turkish soldiers died of typhus. That doesn't include the ones who died of starvation, where Liman von Sanders testified famine claimed the lives of many thousands. Now these are Turkish SOLDIERS -- the last line of defense -- dying of such causes. When nearly every able-bodied man is sent to the multiple fronts to fight superpowers, and few are left to till the fields (as Morgenthau himself reported, adding thousands of Turks were dying daily of famine), and when you add the British naval blockade preventing goods from entering the nation, doesn't it make sense that Armenians would have died of these non-murderous causes as well?

Hovannisian reported some 150,000 Ottoman-Armenians died of famine while accompanying the Russian retreats; 2-3,000 similarly died of the 5,000 who accompanied French retreats at Marash. You can bet these have all dishonestly been added to the "genocide" toll, where the Turks were nowhere in sight.

There are many questions to ask if one wants to lean on the side that the Ottoman government wanted to conduct systematic extermination. One: why were the 200,000 in the west mostly untouched? Did Hitler exempt the Jews of Frankfurt? Secondly: why would the bankrupt "Sick Man" have spent the equivalent of today's millions to have resettled hundreds of thousands of people when surely those resources could have been put to other use during a life-or-death struggle. Lastly, the British held a "Nuremberg" in the form of the Malta Tribunal and searched far and wide for any genuine evidence. None could be found, all of the nonsense passing for evidence (like the Blue Book) was deemed unacceptable, and all the detained Turks were freed. That should have closed the case.

Iskenderani notes the Turks think they're the victims. This is a revolutionary thought in the minds of Westerners, accustomed to think of Turks only as villains. But what happened to the Turks who lived in the Balkan states and in areas Russia conquered? The policy of "Death & Exile" was in effect: massacre as many Turks as possible and scare the rest into leaving. Justin McCarthy's figures were roughly 5 million exiled and 5.5 million killed, in the century until WWI's end. These are figures rivaling the Holocaust mortality, yet the world doesn't know or care.

In fact, internal reports documented 518,000 non-Armenians to have been directly massacred by Armenians when they hoped to clear lands to pave the way for their "Greater Armenia," by WWI's end. (The Armenians implemented this same strategy in 1992; the nearly 1 million Azeris who fled from fear had reason to leave their homes.)

More Turks/Muslims were killed by Armenians than the other way around. This is the tragedy, when mindless and prejudiced folk keep talking about an unproven "Armenian Genocide."

Back to Top
Nomad View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30-Mar-2005
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2005 at 13:39
More Turks were killed by Armenians than the other way around?
I doubt that...
- Have a vision not clouded by fear -
Back to Top
strategos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Mar-2005
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1096
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2005 at 15:50

Where is your proof from? There are countless books and websites proving the genocide that it did happen, and your pulling this information from where? It seems kind of like those historians who try to say the Holocaust didn't happen, what a joke..

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.080 seconds.