Are Armenian dead more important than Turkish dead?

Seko, what makes you think that all those bones are Turkish, and not Armenian? Are the bones in Deir-el-Zor (I have seen some myself) Turkish too?? The Armenians were the ones who deported Turks into the Syrian desert, is that so?

There is plenty of proof, especially in the german archives, and archives around the world.

 http://www.armenocide.net/

How about if we talk about Turkish authors who recognize the genocide, have written books about it, and are labelled as traitors in Turkey. (Orhan Pamuk, Taner Akcam, Regip Zarakolu, etc.)

I find it hard to beleave, theres proof of it everywhere. You type it in a search engine and find 62,100 results on the topic. Theres books on it, countries even today acknowledge it France, Greece, Argentina, and Russia where many of the survivors and decendants went.

The three Turkish men who called for the gencide fled to Germany after WW1 and Turkey wanted them back to stand trial but were killed before they could make it back. You know thousands of people don't just disappear.

I asked this question in a previous post, how would you feel being kicked out of your home land that was your countries for thousands of years before the invaders. Would you fight back in anyways possible or let them take it all away from you?

Armenian survival did a turkish girl say no to you?Is that why you were acting like a c*** su**er

Armenian survival did a turkish girl say no to you?Is that why you were acting like a c*** su**er

Hey, I can also invent a list of names and say that "these were the Armenian killed during the Genocide". The names do not prove anything.

 Armenian votes in most of those countries don't really make a big difference.

Ottoman Statistics and its critics

The Ottoman statistics

While the Ottoman had records of populations prior to the 1830s, it was only in 1931 that it has founded the Office of Population Registers fund(Ceride-i N�fus Nezareti). To draw more accurate data, the Office found itself decentralized in 1839; registrars inspectors and population officials were appointed to the provinces and smaller administrative, recording birth and deaths periodically and to compare lists which indicated the population in each districts. The problem with such records, were that instead of being total count of population, they were rather based on what is known as �head of household,� male family members, ages, occupation, and property.

The Council of States was later founded in 1867 and took the charges of drawing population tables, increasing the precision of population records. The evolution progressed from the new measures introduced in 1874, which lead in 1881/82 to the establishment of a General Population Administration which was attached to the Ministry of Interior, which somehow politicized population counts.

The Historic of Armenian population prior to the Berlin Treaty in 1978 and the 1881/82 statistics.

In 1844, the Ottoman recorded 2.4 million Armenians within the Ottoman Empire, in 1867, this number was maintained; wherever or not it was due to a political move as to not record any Armenian growth for a period of 23 years is unknown. After the internalization of the Armenian question, and what followed as the Treaty of Berlin, and the possibility of an Armenian self governing nation, the first record of the General Population Administration under AbdhulHamid guidance, was lower than half that figure(in 1881/82). While the Ottoman Empire in the 1877-78 lost Batum, Kars and Ardahan, the population of Armenian statistics for those regions would have influenced the �losses� of population, but can not account for the other million or more Armenian that are just missing in the records of 1881/82 during AbdulHamid reign.

The Historic of Armenian population from the 1881/82 to 1905 statistics.

From 1881/82 to the 1905 census, the Armenian population census statistics followed a near constant increase.

The Ottoman statistics, has been used by an American demographer and Ottoman expert, professor Justin McCarthy who mostly relied on those �census� to draw the Armenian population within the Ottoman Empire. The records McCarthy mostly bases himself on are those of 1911-1912, 1905 and 1895/96. By using the Ottoman records of population and applying the population stability theory by using the men half pyramid, he provided the figures of 1,698,301.¹

While McCarthy numbers are the result of extensive studies, they have been highly contested by many specialists. Some of them, like Fr�d�ric Paulin, have severely criticized McCarthy's methodology and suggested them to be flawed methodologically.² Hilmar Kaiser³ another specialist has made similar claims. In the same direction, professor Vahakn N. Dadrian⁴ and professor Levon Marashlian.⁵

The critics not only question McCarthy's methodology and calculation, but as well his primary source which were the Ottoman said �censuses.� They point out to the fact that there was no official statistic census in 1912, but they were rather based on the records of 1905 which were conducted during Abdul Hamid reign.⁶

The �Censuses� conducted under Abdul Hamid regime

It is the fact that the 1912 records are based on a �census� that was conducted under the Hamidian regime that according to the critics, makes it dubious. Turkish records as well suggest that Abdul Hamid might have intentionally undercounted the Armenian population.

The Turkish author K�z�m Kadri for instance writes: �During the reign of Abdul Hamid we lowered the population figures of the Armenians...� He as well add: �By the order of Abdul Hamid the number of the Armenians deliberately had been put in low figures.�⁷

Other evidences suggest such undercounts as to cut in half the actual Armenian population. In the district of Mus(compromising Mus plain, Sassoun, and the counties of Mus) for example, the Armenian official in charge of the census was Garabed Potigian, who presented the official figures as 225,000 Armenians and 55,000 Turks, upon the insistence of his Turkish superiors he was forced to reduce the Armenian population to 105,000 and increase the Turkish population to 95,000.⁸ Lynch himself report similar incidences: �Pursuing our way, we meet an Armenian priest�a young, broad-shouldered, open-faced man. He seems inclined to speak, so we ask him how many churches there may be in Mush(Mus). He answers, seven; but the commissary had said four. A soldier addresses him in Kurdish; the poor fellow turns pale, and remarks that he was mistaken in saying seven; there cannot be more than four ...Such are a few of our experiences during our short sojourn at Mush.�⁹

Abdul Hamid has even considered in 1895 during the �census� period, the under evaluation presented to him of 900,000 as exaggeration...¹⁰ but apparently they have settled to the figures we know as the Ottoman census.

The German chief of staff of the Ottoman Third Army, Colonel Felix Guse, complained that "The Turks knew only poorly their country, on top of that the possibility of getting reliable statistical figures was out of the question."¹¹

Fa'iz El-Ghusein the Kaimakam of Kharpout wrote in his book, that according to the Ottoman official statistics there were about 1,9 million Armenian's in the Ottoman Empire.¹²

Another indication that other statistics might have existed is that Polybius in his book published in 1919, refer to a said �Ottoman Official Census of 1910.�¹³ But Justin McCarthy has questioned the information and considered it fabrication.¹⁴

The Turkish historian Dr. Secil Akgun, claimed: �The Ottomans do not have a definite number. That is, we have in our hands contradictory numbers regarding the Armenian population within the borders of the Ottoman Empire. I would think that Basmac�yan gives the most accurate number. This is to be between two and three million.�¹⁵

Other problem arises, and it is the fact that the Ottoman census statistics have maintained constant increase for the Armenian population from the period where between 1894-1897, an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 Armenians lost their lives during the Hamidian massacres. While the minimum in the range represent the Armenian increases of population over years, the 1905 census hasn't shown any anomaly of Armenian increases, which suggest that there might have been a fixed quota of Armenian population, and that regardless of the census, there was much more Armenians within the Empire.

Another element that add, is that many Armenians, like many Jews and Christians, were considered as foreigners, because they had foreign nationalities or enjoyed the protection of foreign consulates and those for were not counted in those census statistics.

To this, adds that Armenians were as well purposely under counting themselves to escape the military tax by not registering.

The result of all those factors, is that the Armenian population censuses, according to the specialists that criticize them, is an important under counting of the Armenian population, that could have gone as far as misrepresenting it by half. Lynch critic itself regarding including all the Muslim together, when there was probably Armenians in the count, is supported by the Ottoman census, that contain an anomaly that in some region like Van, the Muslim population from one census to the other jumped to about 50%, suggesting that numbers for the Ottoman government could have been used as political tool, and going as far as transferring Armenians in the table as Muslim.

In short, even though the Ottoman records were official data, and that few Western specialists and most Turkish specialists rely on them, most Western scholars ignore those data, because according to them they were unreliable.

Armenian Patriarchate Statistics and its critics.

Armenian Patriarchate figures

Various Armenian Patriarchate figures were presented, but one of those that seemed the most complete was published in Marcel L�art (Krikor Zohrab) book.¹⁶ It is said that the records were supposedly based on records of baptisms and deaths kept by the ecclesiastical officials. Those figures though excluded the regions where Armenian population was not considerable, as well as excluded the areas outside of the six vilayets.

The problem with such numbers, is that there has been no records of whatever or not the statistics were really based on baptisms and deaths certificates kept by the ecclesiastical officials. For those reason, Justin McCarthy and few other Western scholars as well as most Turkish specialists believe them to be fabrication. Just for comparison, the Patriarchate Statistics of Armenian's in the �Six Vilayets� known as Ottoman Armenia, there was a reported 1,018,000 Armenian's against 784,914 for the Ottoman figures.

The Armenian Patriarchate figures revisited.

Another set of Armenian Patriarchate figures were published in 1913. Armenian sources records for this statistic have more ground than the first one in that they are based on actual archival records. In 1992, Raymond H. Kevorkian and Paul B. Paboudjian have published a work which present �precision� to the last digit, for each Ottoman provinces from the Armenian archives. For the figure of the entire Ottoman population, those records indicate 1,914,620¹⁷ closely matching with the Ottoman statistics for the Western part of the Ottoman, but diverge in the Eastern zone, where the Ottoman statistics are suspected to have considerably undercounted the Armenian population. And even in some instances, the actual Ottoman counts after McCarthys correction were higher in some regions than those statistics, indicating that those figures might have been possibly a serious records and might have under-counted Armenian's in some instances.

Western records

There has been various Western records representing the Armenian population, but demographical figures representing the total Armenian population within the Ottoman Empire were few.

Vital Cuinet a French geographer that was charged to survey areas and count their population. His figures were also used to establish the ability of the Ottoman Empire to pay its debts, Cuinet eager to get precise numbers was finaly forced to conclude that it was not possible to get them, he gives two main reasons for this.

1- The limitations imposed by the Turkish authorities made his researches inconclusive.

2- Because of the lack of control of the Turkish authorities for farther provinces, it was impossible for him to complete his work.

An example often referred by the critics, was Cuinet's statistics drawn from Turkish authority numbers and information that they provided him regarding the Vilayet of Aleppo (classified in those works as the sandjak of Marash). The number is an impossible 4,300. While only in the city of Marash the Catholic and Protestant Armenians were numbering 6008, and this without including the Gregorians.

Cuinet at the beginning of his work, cautioned the reader by declaring: "The science of statistics so worthy and interesting, not only still is not used in this country but even the authorities refuses, with a party line, to accept any investigation."

Regardless of what could have been considered as an indirect admission of under counting. Cuinet presented 840,000 for 1891-92, of what was called �Armenian Villayet� a figure higher than the one presented from Ottoman statistics.¹⁸

Henry Finnis Bloss Lynch a British geographer-ethnographer followed by his own studies, he came with 1,058,000 for the beginning of 1890s for �Turkish Armenia.� Lynch indirectly reported as well, like Cuinet, a deliberate Ottoman policy of under counting. Nonetheless, Lynch figures were well worked around, but he as well cautioned the reader regarding the misleading character of the term �Muslim� since many Armenian's converted and were counted as Muslim, while they were still in practice Armenian Christians.¹⁹

The British official figures at the embassy were relied upon careful investigations like those of Lynch, when comparing those figures with Ottoman figures Zamir concludes: "the provinces of Van, Bitlis, Mamuretal-Aziz (Harput), Diyarbekir, Erzerum, and the independent district of Maras, where British figures are 62 percent higher (847,000) compared with 523,065.� For those reasons he was forced to conclude: �The understatement of the non-Moslem figures appears to be intentional."²⁰

The German professor, Herman Wambery, whom was recognized as a Turcophile, and supposedly had good connection with Turkish authorities presented as figures for Turkish Armenia: 1,130,000 in 1896.²¹

Samuel Cox at the American Embassy in Istanbul from 1880 to 1886, estimated the Armenian population within the empire to be of 2,4 million.²²

The problem with such figures is that they do not cover the same regions. For instance, many time �Anatolia� is equalled with the Ottoman empire, other times there are partial statistics, representing one region, like Turkish Armenia, Ottoman Armenia, Asiatic Turkey, Anatolia, Ottoman Empire, 6 Armenian Villeyets, 9 Armenian Villeyets etc.

Another problem with such figures, is that those numbers were drawn in a period of about 20 or even 30 years. Most from 1890 to 1915.

German official figures representing the Armenian population within the Empire was above 1,9 million, to a 2 million.²³

Toynbee settle to between 1.6 to 2.0 million, and states that the real number is probably closer to 2 million. Pushing the median slightly on the right side of 1.8 million.²⁴

Ludovic de Contenson, present the figure of 1,150,000 for Asiatic Turkey, and call them �statistics� without any sources. His numbers suggest that they might actually be the Ottoman census statistics, without correction.²⁵

Most Western scholars believe the totality of the Armenian population within the Empire prior to 1915 to be between 1.8 and 2.1 million.

Footnotes

¹Justin McCarthy, Muslims and Minorities: The Population of Ottoman Anatolia and the End of the Empire, New York Univ Press, 1983.

²Fr�d�ric Paulin, N�gationnisme et th�orie des populations stables : le cas du g�nocide arm�nien, in Herv� Lebras (dir.), L�Invention des populations. Biologie, Id�ologie et politique, Editions Odile Jacob, 2000.

³Hilmar Kaiser, a German expert on the Armenian genocide, also criticizes McCarthy's calculation techniques in an interview with Dirk van Delft published in the NRC Handelsblad, p. 51, Amsterdam, Saturday, 27 May 2000

⁴Vahakn N. Dadrian, Warrant for Genocide: Key Elements of Turko-Armenian Conflict, New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1999. See also his essay: Ottoman Archives and Denial of the Armenian Genocide, in The Armenian Genocide: History, Politics, Ethics, R.G. Hovanissian, ed. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992 pp. 294-7

⁵Levon Marashlian, Politics and Demography: Armenians, Turks and Kurds in the Ootoman Empire, Zoryan Inst for Contemporary Armenian Research & Documentation Inc. September, 1990

⁶Kemal H. Karpat, Ottoman Population 1830-1914: Demographic and Social Characteristics, Madiscon, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985. See also Tableau indicant le nombre des divers �l�ments de la population dans l'Empire Ottoman au 1er Mars 1330 (14 Mars 1914), Istanbul: Zellitch Brothers, 1919. Foreward by Refet. FO 371/4229/86552. May 1919.

⁷H�seyin K�z�m Kadri, Balkanlardan Hicaza: Imparatorlugun Tasfiyesi. 10 Temmuz Inkil�b� ve Netayici, Istanbul: P�nar, 1992. Originaly published in Ootoman Turkish in 1920 in Istanbul by Islam and Askeri Publishers. p. 126, 133; in the original Ottoman version, p. 116, 123. Cited as well in Vahakn N. Dadrian, Warrant for Genocide p. 173

⁸See: Sarkis Pteyani Hushere,' in Harazat Patmutiun Tarono, Cairo: Sahag-Mesrob, 1962 p. 22 for such undercounting examples. Also cited in Vahakn N. Dadrian, Warrant for Genocide [notes 13] p. 187

⁹H.F.B. Lynch, Armenia. Travels and Studies, Vol. 2, Beirut, Khayats, 1965, p. 171

¹⁰Sultan II. Abd�lhamid Han, Devlet ve Memleket G�r��lerim, A. Alaeddin �etin and Ramazan Y�ld�z, eds. (Istanbul: �igir, 1976) p. 158

¹¹Felix Guse, Die Kaukasusfront im Weltkrieg, Liebzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1940, p. 83

¹²Martyred Armenia by Fa'iz El-Ghusein, Bombay, 1916

¹³See "Greek Population" in Justin McCarthy, Muslims and Minorities: The Population of Ottoman Anatolia and the End of the Empire, New York Univ Press, 1983

¹⁴Ibid

¹⁵Interview published in the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet, April 27, 1987

¹⁶Marcel L�art (Krikor Zohrab), La Question Arm�nienne � la lumi�re des documents, Paris : A. Challamel, 1913

¹⁷Raymond H. Kevorkian and Paul B. Paboudjian, Les Arm�niens dans l'Empire Ottoman � la vielle du g�nocide, Ed. ARHIS, Paris, 1992

¹⁸For the entire Cuinet account see: Vital Cuinet, La Turquie d'Asie : g�ographie administrative, statistique, descriptive et raison�e de chaque province de l'Asie-Mineure, 4 vols., Paris, 1890-95. See also a useful description and critic of Cuinets figures by Sarkis Y. Karayan, Vital Cuinet�s La Turquie d�Asie: A Critical Evaluation of Cuinet�s Information about Armenians, Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, Volume 11, 2000

¹⁹For his accounts see H.F.B. Lynch, Armenia. Travels and Studies, Vol. 2, Beirut, Khayats, 1965, or the previous version published in 1901

²⁰Meir Zamir, Population Statistics of the Ottoman Empire in 1914 and 1919, Middle Eastern Studies 17, 1981, p.81

²¹Herman Wambery, published in Deutsche Rundschau, February 1896

²²Samuel Cox, Diversions of a Diplomat in Turkey, New York, 1893

²³An example of such a figure was provided in a report, A.A. T�rkei 183/44. A27493, October 4, 1916. (German archives)

²⁴The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, Documents presented to Viscount Grey of Fallodon, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs By Viscount Bryce, London 1916

²⁵Ludovic de Contenson, Les R�formes en Turquie d'Asie. 2nd ed., Paris, 1913, pp. 10,17