Armenian killings - mutual massacres or genocide?

Originally posted by Alkiviades Probably it's a problem of the fact that Enver, Talaat & gang are viewed as sorts of national heroes (Kemalists before Kemal, sorts of) so people are rather reluctant on viewing them as the horrible monsters they actually were. But from that point to the point of saying that Turks today should accept they are cold-blooded murderers ...well, it's a bit silly, isn't it?

Nobody gives a f**k about Enver, Talat, etc. I'm trying to tell the psychological dimension of the reactions. In Turkey people perceives that themselves are accused for being such murderers just because they defended themselves from annihilation. The continuous foreign pressure makes common people think "Nobody loves us and just like yesterday everybody wants to destruct us!" This pathetic behaviour is fed by foreign  pressure.

So there's a misunderstanding between Turks and foreigners. For example Armenian diaspora wants to put accepting the genocide as a condition to accession to EU for Turkey. However  wtih such a way they strengthen hypernationalists in Turkey. The nationalists manage to persuade the majority that any progress in democracy, etc will serve to Armenian cause.

I am quite sure the Turkish public is not retard and what you describe is retard. What are the people of the country, kids that should be pampered and taken by the hand for around the corner lies the Big Bad Armenian? This is bull... or it is time for the Turks to grow up and accept reality. Either way, I don't think this is the point. I have talked to many Turks and I've read what your fellow countrymen (the vast majority, those that could be deemed as "nationalists") write on this board. Frankly, I haven't seen anything like what you describe. All I've seen is cynicism ("yeah, we slaughtered them, but they started first" or "yah, we've killed many, but it wasn't a genocide, it was just relocation") and similar bull.

So, what you perceive as a psychological barrier does NOT exist among the resident Turks of AE. They perfectly know what happened, but they a)consider the Armenians "had it coming" and b)Don't like to call it "a genocide".

P.S. you/b] might not give a f**k on Enver and Talaat, but I believe others do...

 

I don't know, probably you are right in some aspects, but I still believe this is only part of the picture. The fact that the governments instead of "feeding" the reality to the people on this issue, reproduce the denial syndrome and appeal to the fears of the people, shows that there's more than what you say there.

 

bg_turk, first of all, I don't speak Turkish. I'd love to, but I don't. I suppose you don't speak Greek either. So, what should I do with a pack of documents in Turkish that do not contain any numbers, with a single paragraph in English stating that "there have been atrocities by Armenians and Russians" etc. etc.

The 600.000 figure the article you post... I am afraid you misread it: The two Turkish guys say that McArthy has estimated that 600.000 Armenians died during the genocide. The 3 million figure about the Muslim population is an unnamed official estimation of the Turkish side - with no reference about where, what and when.

As I said before, the lowest estimation on the Armnenian losses is the 600K+ and is probably the one by McCarthy (the next lower is about 65)K). Where are some valid estimations (with the basis of the estimation available and also things as reasoning and exact timeframe) about the "3 millions"? It's a figure those two guys pulled out of their stomach - easily refutable: at the moment the empire was a rather huge place and the Russians/Armenians only acted in a relatively very small area in space. I am sure the whole Muslim population of the small area we talk was way below the 3 millions...

 

P.S. Since you are a turk, why the Bulgarian flag?

Ottoman archives, AFAI can figure out - by the absence of numbers, for instance - do not say anything about "3 millions" or whatever. They just talk about atrocities generally. Even the guys you quoted do not say anything about Ottoman archives - they talk about "estimations" "demographics" and other nebulous nonsequential non-evidence.

Could you underline the specific passages in the archives that talk about specific numbers of Muslim casualties and the point where they say that those muslim casualties have been a)in the area the Russian and Armenian operated and b)have been directly or indirectly a result of those operations.

Sorry for being pedantic, but I don't like assertions out of the blue posted as some sort of official truth, and I'd like some actual proof on that. You don't mind, do you?

P.S. I am fully awary that any Turkish government that accepts the genocide has signed its political death certificate. I was questioning why the Turkish government, instead of playing the card of "poor relative who has never done any harm but is disliked by everyone", instead of trying to break the truth (subtly and slowly) to the public...

Originally posted by Alkiviades  it was just relocation") and similar bull. So, what you perceive as a psychological barrier does NOT exist among the resident Turks of AE. They perfectly know what happened, but they a)consider the Armenians "had it coming" and b)Don't like to call it "a genocide".

I'm sorry, have you managed to prove otherwise-or are you just labelling everything we say bulls***t, and not exactly prove a point

Yes, and you know a lot about the psychology of the Turkish residents of AE don't you?(mine is obvious but the other ones?)

Originally posted by Alkiviades P.S. I am fully awary that any Turkish government that accepts the genocide has signed its political death certificate. I was questioning why the Turkish government, instead of playing the card of "poor relative who has never done any harm but is disliked by everyone", instead of trying to break the truth (subtly and slowly) to the public...

When it has been accepted worldwide and documented-proven true in other words(and there is nothing else to do when you are proven as the bad guy)

Edited by The Guardian

Originally posted by mamikon Most of the proofs that prove the Armenian Genocide are not Armenian sources.While all of the Muslim losses are from Turkey itself, so why the hell can we trust what the government is saying. You say "come to look at our archives", it has been 90 years since the Genocide, what is there to look at, all the documents pertaining to the genocide are gone. Why would Turkey invite people to look through the archives if they can find documents implicating Turks of genocide, come on now...poeople are not stupid, they know that this "all archive" policy is just bull.

I strongly recommend you not to make statements that you just possibly can't back it up.

Plus I never heard of any documents on your account

Okay, some things I've noticed.

     When you say "500,000 Turks died in the Eastern provinces", many of those deaths were due to the Russian invasion, not Armenian gangs (assuming the number is even coming from a reliable source...). If Armenian gangs (notice that I'm not using the word "army", because they were not equipped or organized enough to be considered an army, as well as their small size) can kill 500,000 Turks, don't you think Russia could wipe out at least 10 million or so? What about the Allies? Turks stopped them at Gallipoli but they can't crush an uprising of a few thousand men in the Eastern provinces? That's some sensational reasoning.

     Second...if the only intention was to stop rebellions by Armenians, why did they relocate hundreds of thousands of women and children? Why not exile those who are clearly involved in revolutionary activities, and leave their women and children at home?

     And okay, I understand some Armenians have the backward mentality of the "Big, Bad Turk", but I've noticed some Turks speak of Armenians as if they were all traitors to the Ottoman Empire. That, and they confuse "Armenian traitors", with Armenians who were actually in the Russian army. Eastern Armenia was part of Russia during WW1, and if Russia attacks Turkey from the Caucasus, guess what? Theres going to be a significant amount of Armenians invading under the Russian flag. I'm not saying this to try and prove there was no Armenian gangs, there were. But some of the exaggerated numbers of Turkish deaths come from people who don't even know that Eastern Armenia was part of Russia, meaning that theres going to be plenty of Armenians invading with them.

    

Originally posted by kapikulu I will give you the Ottoman census in 1914, and considering that these records were under foreign control, this census is reliable.

     Ottoman records were under foreign control prior to WW1?

Originally posted by kapikulu Armenian population in Ottoman Empire: 1.221.850 people

     Not according to non-Turkish/non-Armenian historians like Robert H. Hewson:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Images/Chicago/hewsen233.htm l

Originally posted by bg_turk If indeed a complete annihilation was the purpose of the turks, why didn't they finish the job off completely?

     They didn't finish the job because of small pockets of Armenian resistance + Ottoman defeat in WW1. Mainly Ottoman defeat.

Originally posted by bg_turk Why are there still armenians in Turkey?

    
     Why are there still Jews in Germany? The plan wasn't 100% successful.

Originally posted by bg_turk Turks had to defend themselves by all means possible, and their desperation they certainly went too far.

     So how far would the government have to go for us to call the event "genocide"? Tell me exactly what had to be done for us to look back and say "that was genocide"?

Edited by ArmenianSurvival

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival        So how far would the government have to go for us to call the event "genocide"? Tell me exactly what had to be done for us to look back and say "that was genocide"?

In your opinion does the Hiroshima bombing (200,000 dead) deserve to be called a Japanese Genocide? 

This is exactly how I feel about the killings of the Armenians.

Very much like the Japanese in their war against the USA, Armenian extremists threatened the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire and the well being of its subjects, colaborated with invading Russian forces and exterminated many innocent muslims to pave the way for independent Armenia. As a result of the actions of these extremists, who were not a small minority at all,  many innocent armenians paid a very heavy price later when the balance of power was no longer on their side.

All I am saying is that muslims were killed too, each side suffered horrible massacres, so I do not object to the term "Genocide", I object to the term "Armenian Genocide" which gives a one sided portrayal of the events. 

This is my position. I do not want to hurt anybodies feelings, neither do I expect that we will reach an agreement, so i suggest we stop here. We have nothing to contribute but some anecdotal arguments since most of the evidence of the armenian side is already on the table. But there is solid evidence of the muslim massacres during the same period in the form of exhumed mass graves, testimonies, Ottoman archives. Many of these have never been taken seriously in the West, some of them have never even been translated into English.

I sincerely believe part of the truth is not told, and I am determined to bring it to light, 70 million turks simply cannot all be branded to be denialist. Meanwhile I will never accept the one-sided term "Armenian Genocide" to be used for these events. If you truely believe in your cause, then fight for it, I wish you good luck, but I do not believe you are right.

Edited by bg_turk

In your opinion does the Hiroshima bombing (200,000 dead) deserve to be called a Japanese Genocide?

There is a difference... It was the tragic consenquence of a war between two countries, United States and Japan.

In the Ottoman Empire, Ottoman Armenian citizens were killed by their own government which was supposed to protect them during the War...