If Ottoman Turks caused Armenian Genocide in 1915 and this is accepted by US Senate.?

Show all answers

ahanda korama

are you the one in the middle?

I mean Malcolm in the middle

I like that show

Ã§etin

* as to me , firstly and urgently ,us senate must accept IRAQ genocide ,about 2 million Iraq deaths.
http://www.countercurrents.org/polya071007.htm

** and i agree with Dana Milbank,too!
he says:
"Then there was the statute-of-limitations conundrum. If it's within Congress's authority to be the arbiter of the Armenian genocide, will it next confront the Romans for the rape of the Sabine women, or the Greeks for sacking Troy? And if attacking the Ottomans, why not weigh in on the siege of Constantinople in 1453?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002493.html
-------

anlarm

You expressed things quite logically. Except for the word 'invasion'.
According to the Guarantee Agreement Article 4 of the foundation agreements of the Republic of Cyprus, any one of the guarantor powers (Greece, Turkey, UK) has the right to intervene militarily (alone or with others) to establish law and order in case the constitution was changed by force and/or one of the communities was in danger.
The Greek junta of the time attempted to overthrow the government in Cyprus and kill its President. After consulting with UK government which was in vain, Turkey announced that it was going to intervene to stop bloodshed. The Greek Cypriot armed forces opened fire on the Turkish Army which announced that it was coming to establish law and order. The main reason Turkey is still on the island is that there is a cease fire but not a peace agreement between the two communities yet.

Tanju

Dear Malcom,

If you have time, please read it,
Do not just read just only one sided websites ;

Anatolia 1915: Turks died, too

by Professor Justin McCarthy, University of Louisville

During World War I, Anatolia, the Asiatic section of modern Turkey, was the scene of horrible acts of inhumanity between Armenians and Turks. For many decades, the history of the conflict between the Turks and the Armenians has primarily been written from the viewpoint of the Armenians. It is a viewpoint that emphasizes the deaths of Armenians but completely ignores the deaths of Turks.

The Armenian position has been effectively publicized. Every year in Congress, a group of representatives attempts to pass a bill that says the Turks were guilty of genocide. Newspapers feature articles on events in Turkey in 1915 as if they were today's news. Over the weekend, the Public Broadcasting System carried the historical visions of Armenian producers all across the country.

Unfortunately, effective publicity does not ensure accurate history. What has been presented as truth is, in fact, only one side of a complicated history that began more than 100 years before World War I.

Lands occupied one by one

In the late 1700s, Russia embarked on the conquest of all the peoples around it. Those who stood in the way of expansion to the south were Turks and other Moslems. One by one, their lands were occupied by the Russians. In the Crimea and in the Caucasus region, the Moslems were forced to emigrate. Those who resisted, especially in the Caucasus, were slaughtered. The czar wished to have a loyal population in the new lands. Therefore, Russians and other Slavs were imported into lands newly emptied of their Moslem inhabitants.

Justin McCarthy dines with Turkish-American
students from the University of Pennsylvania
after presenting a talk

It was not possible to populate all of the conquered lands with Slavs. The Russian population was hard pressed even in filling the more northerly lands. A different policy had to be adopted south of the Caucasus Mountains. The Russians took the southern Caucasus region from two Moslem powers Persia and the Ottoman Empire. They had reason to fear that the Turks in the provinces that bordered the Ottoman Empire would rebel against their rule. To meet the threat, they adopted native Christians as their proxies. The Armenians, who were scattered throughout the Caucasus and in Anatolia and Persia, were to be used much as the Slavs had been used farther north, as a Christian group that would replace expelled Moslem Turks.

The Russians could promise many benefits to the Armenians. Those who sided with the Russians could hope for better economic conditions as part of a European empire. Like other Middle Eastern peoples, the primary identification of the Armenians was religious. They were convinced of the superiority and ultimate triumph of their Christian faith, and the opportunity to side with a great Christian power was seductive. Perhaps later there would be a chance for independence.

Armenian cooperation with the Russians began when Armenian armed units assisted the invading armies of Peter the Great and acted as spies against their Moslem rulers. Armenians were subsequently to become Russian soldiers and even generals who lead the Russian conquests.

The best example of the effects of Russian Armenian cooperation was seen in the province of Erivan (today the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic). Before the Russian invasion of Erivan, the majority of the population was Moslem. As the Russians defeated the Turks and Persians in 1827 29, 30 percent of the Moslems of Erivan either died or emigrated. They were replaced with greater numbers of Armenians from Anatolia and Persia. Many more Armenians came to Erivan in the years to come, creating what today is Armenia.
Exchange continued for a century

The exchange of Armenian and Turkish populations continued for a century. With each war between the Russians and the Ottomans, more Moslems died, more fled. and more Armenians came. By 1922, more than 1 1/2 million Moslems had emigrated from the conquered lands.

In the late 19th century, Armenian revolutionary movements sprang up in the Ottoman Empire. They sought to create an independent Armenia in eastern Anatolia, in lands that were three quarters Moslem in population. The Russians gave their support whenever they felt they could use the revolutionaries.

After unsuccessful bloody uprisings in 1895 and 1909, the revolutionaries' chance came in 1914, when Russia went to war with the Ottoman Empire. Armenian rebellions broke out all over the empire, and Russian arms and even Russian uniforms appeared from hidden caches. Tens of thousands of Armenians formed themselves into guerrilla bands. The largest city of southeastern Anatolia, Van, was captured by the Armenian rebels in April 1915, and many Moslems in the city and surrounding villages were killed. The city was held until it could be turned over to the invading Russian army. Throughout eastern Anatolia, Armenian bands attacked villagers wherever they found them. In turn, Turks and especially Kurdish tribesmen attacked Armenian villages. It was the beginning of a bloody war.

For five years, Armenian peasants and the Russian army battled Turkish peasants and the Ottoman army. Most of the peasants undoubtedly wanted no part of the fighting but were forced by circumstances to take sides. Starvation and epidemic disease killed many times more people than bullets or knives did.

Because of the rebellion, the Ottoman government decided that it could not trust the Armenians. Orders went out to deport all Armenians from dangerous areas. The Ottomans, who were fighting a Russian invasion and vainly trying to defend Moslem villages from Armenian guerrillas, spared few soldiers to defend the columns of Armenian refugees moving to Syria. Many of the columns were attacked. and many Armenians were robbed and killed by Kurdish tribes or corrupt officials. However, to put the suffering of Armenian refugees into perspective, twice as many Moslems as Armenians were forced from their homes because of attacks by Russian soldiers and Armenian guerrillas.

When the Russian Revolution destroyed the czar's power in Anatolia, a new Armenian Republic attempted to hold the territory that the Russians had conquered. They were defeated by the Turks, and as the Armenians retreated, they killed the Turks who fell into their hands. Cities such as Erzincan were left in ruins, with Turkish bodies filling the streets. Armenians who failed to escape with their retreating army were killed as well.

In Erivan and other parts of the Caucasus under the control of the Armenian Republic, Turkish villages were destroyed. and the inhabitants were forced to flee or die. Two thirds of the Moslems who had lived in the province of Erivan in 1914 were gone at war's end. A similar fate met Armenians in Turkish Azerbaijan.

In the end, almost 600,000 of the Anatolian Armenians had died. Almost 3 million Anatolian Moslems had died, more than one third of them in eastern Anatolia. Mortality in the Caucasus was similarly proportioned.
Why one-sided?

Why have we in the West formed such a one sided view of the Armenian question? It is a matter of sources and prejudice.
The events of World War I in Turkey were seen in the West only through the eyes of American missionaries and Armenian propagandists. American Protestant missionaries had worked extensively with Armenians and had been instrumental in creating Armenian nationalism. The missionaries reported the murders of Armenians by Turks. They did not report the murders of Turks by Armenians that were occurring at the same time. Their reports were collected by the US ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, who disseminated them. Morgenthau believed that the Turks were an inferior race and openly printed his view that Turks had "inferior blood." It is no wonder that his observations were colored by his prejudices. Yet it is his reports and the reports of others like him that have formed our histories.

If it seems odd that Americans of that time were so deeply prejudiced, we should reflect on the general attitude of our ancestors toward non Europeans and non-Christians. Asiatics and Africans were routinely described as inherently inferior to Europeans and Americans. Respect for and knowledge of non Christian religions and peoples was virtually nonexistent. Only in recent years have scholars begun to examine other evidence. There are Ottoman military records that tell of massacres of Turks and Kurds by Armenians, eyewitness accounts by Russian military men of Armenian atrocities against Turks, evidence of Americans who saw the destruction of the Ottoman East by Armenians. Most important, there is demographic evidence that tells us, for example, that 60 percent of the Moslems of the province of Van, where the Armenians began their rebellion, died in war. Such evidence belies claims of a one sided massacre. It does very accurately describe an awful war, one in which both sides were heroes and both sides were villains.

Those who bring forth such evidence are often vilified as unobjective and pro Turkish. But is it less than objective to state that both Turks and Armenians were killers and that both were victims? Can such be called a pro Turkish view? Unfortunately, we have not yet reached a time when the Armenian-Turkish conflict is studied as we would study any other historical event.

A search is on

Today, a search is on for proof that the Ottoman government ordered genocide for the Armenians. What has appeared so far would be unacceptable in any other historical inquiry such as a few telegrams in poorly forged handwriting produced by an Armenian and entered in no telegraph records; reports from trials in which no objective evidence was produced and the accused were not allowed to defend themselves. Evidence that indicates the Ottomans intended no genocide is, like the deaths of the Turks, ignored. Yet the accusations will continue as long as nationalist sentiment guides the studies.

It would be better, I believe, to approach the Armenian-Turkish conflict as a study of the sufferings of the Armenians and the Turks. The nationalist feelings of today, whether Armenian or Turkish, have no place in the study. We should examine the fate of the millions who died in Russia's expansions efforts and consider the effects of revolutionary movements that pursued an ideal over the bodies of their own people and of others. We should study what occurs when a government is too weak to defend its people. The important questions are human questions, not national questions.

On April 24 of ever year, Armenians gather to remember their dead. They grieve for lost family and the lost homes of their grandfathers, as is proper. It should be remembered that Turks, too, grieve for their dead.

The preceding is from tetedeturc.com/Armenien/turks_died_too.h...

Mehmet K

Good question. Starred...

First, its not already accepted by US Senato.. I Hope never will be excepted by US senato. If excepted, Turkey relations with US never will be repaired...

Secondly, this question should be asked Ä±n Travel-Turkey section, otherwise it will be deleted by YA in a very short time due to fact all we know very well... Unfortunately, as Turkish YA users we all just understand the importance of using stars to questions. Deleting starred questions is more difficult than others. I believe, YA not going to delete questions with more star than reports... For this reason Turkish users of YA should ask these type questions in Travel-Turkey section. Timing also important, we should't ask these type question after midnight according to Turkey time zone, best time evening hours.

markguitre

Problem: Only Nos. 3 & 5 are anywhere near ascertainable. Nos. 2 & 4 are gross exaggerations, the figures pulled out of thin air, or someone's butt. Yours? No.1 flies spitefully in the face of settled fact.

No question. Turkey is a member--alongside the Nazis--of the genocide club.
The good thing while the Nazis never got the chance, Turkey has not done anything infamous since. That's moral progress.

ÕŽÔ±Õ€Ô·

you don't even know what genocide is.
"these" are killed by "those" is not a genocide
we always state that Armenians were systemically killed by Ottoman empire forces and not Turks, can you understand the difference? I can't imagine that, but I hope you will.
Saying "Turks killed Armenian"s makes Armenians have bad feelings about Turks and hate them, but we separate the problem of "Ottoman governments" led by "young Turks" party from the ordinary people "Turks".
Secondly, a "genocide" has specific identities, you can find it almost everywhere, on Wikipedia and alos UN website, most easily.

Totally Blunt

You should ask this question to the "scientifically and culturally advanced, enlightened, egalitarian, civilized" Europe and US. Of course, the answers you receive will not be so civilized, egalitarian and enlightened.

And "Turks" didn't "invade" Cyprus. The Turkish army intervened to prevent further ethnic cleansing and stays there because the Cypriot Turks still aren't safe. Just look at the Greek section. There are people who keep talking about ENOSIS.

US Senate has lost one friend and will lose another: Azeris. If you ask me, they should get used to the mess they created. Noone will clean it up for them and they look incapable of doing it for themselves.

cpinatsi

There is a saying "Not even did they owe us, but they wanted to take our ox too". This is what you are doing.

daddylongtrips

First, try to understand WHY this issue is raised today by the United States Senate. The US Senate is trying to divide the relationship we have with Turkey in order to stop supplies reaching Iraq. The US Senate, and all it's liberals are upset that they are not able to loose the war in Iraq for us by stopping funding, so they will try and screw up our relationship with Turkey, a major transportation center for supplies going into Iraq, this shows how low the Democrats will go to help ruin the USA.........

Why would the Senate ever be bothered with this piece of ancient history, with so many other issues on the table. See it's all political. Historically, what happened in Turkey was the result of the Armenians deciding in WW1 that they wanted their own country, so while the Turks fought WW1, the Armenians started a Civil War in Turkey and got there asses really kicked. Yes, it was overkill for what happened, but really today is 2007, and we have more important issues, then pronouncing useless judgments on country's for past issues.........

handsome

they wonÂ´t it takes too much sense

Alex

Firs of all, There was not a Country called Turkey at that time. It was an ottoman empire which was last 700 years.Many people lived under the empire within good conditions.They were happy. When war began armenians take a part with russian and be their spies in Turkey. They were against to Turks and killed many Turks too.I think Russia promise them their own land after the war therefore they did it to Turks.And Turks first started to fight with their enemies inside in their country.Turks accept people killed in both part.Turks were also killed too. It was a war and Turks killed their "inside" enemies first rather than other countries in the war. It was a war and it is what it spoused to be.Would you fight against the other enemies when you have some in your country? Of course not. it is like "cleaning your door first". Many people killed and killed. But it was not all armenians.It was their mistake when being against to country where they have lived.They are treacherous people.They made a big mistake and not accepting results? What would you do to your treacherous enemies? they were also other politicial movements against the ottomon empire. I feel sory for both people but it was A WAR not a normal day.Understood?

Qu'est ce que tu pense?

Cetin, Blunt I-run, Tanju, and Mehmet are right on the money with their answers. Thumbs up to them.

Alana Awareness

Let me simplify it for
the mentally impaired.
There was never a civil war
Armenians=Christians
Ottoman Rulers= Muslim turks
Christians=were treated like crap
Muslim turks=lived off the high taxes
imposed upon the Christians to pay.
Armenians= demanded civil rights
and stopped paying their
taxes.
Muslim turks response=kill all the Armenians
You got it straight now!
add:( Blunt for brains your
such an ignoramus..now your
saying turkey did not invade
Cyprus, who was it then that
invaded the USA? Your defense of
your country brings you to shame
when you have to lick the ground to do it.

Abby lane

I am pretty sure the US Congress will need a little more evidence then just your word on these so called 5 items that you think happened and would constitute Genocide.

I must add you now to the list of the most "extreme illogical attempts to try to downgrade the Armenian Genocide".

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: