2
   

Armenian Genocide & Turkey

 
 
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 08:13 am
Quote:
Turkey is the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, and its official policy on the Armenian Genocide is the denial of its occurrence. Whereas the convening of courts-martial to try the Young Turks for war crimes by the post-World War I Ottoman government amounted to an admission of guilt on the part of the state, the Nationalist government based in Ankara rejected Turkish responsibility for the acts committed against the Armenian population. After gaining military mastery over Turkey, the Nationalists, led by Mustafa Kemal, obtained a series of concessions from France and England which absolved Turkey of any further political or material responsibilities vis-à-vis the surviving Armenians. These concessions were formalized in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne which extended international recognition to the Turkish Republic.

The Treaty of Lausanne marked a watershed because it legitimized the Turkish Nationalist program of ethnic consolidation by expelling or repressing minorities. It reversed all terms agreed upon by the Ottoman Empire in the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres which had legally obligated the Turkish government to bring accused war criminals to justice. It provided for the transfer of populations between Greece and Turkey thus completing the exodus of the Greeks from Anatolia.

Turkey immediately turned its attention to the suppression of the Kurds, whose language was banned in 1924 and whose ethnic identity was officially denied by the Turkish state until the 1980s. By forcefully promoting Turkism, the Ankara government sought to create an ethnically homogeneous state. In the course of the following decades its treatment of the remnant minorities oscillated from neglect to repression. As it remained neutral during World War II and continued trading with Nazi Germany until nearly the end of the war, Turkey used the occasion of the world crisis to impose extraordinary taxes upon Greeks, Jews and Armenians. The discriminatory exactions economically ruined these small minority communities already confined mostly to Istanbul by the 1940s. In a more violent episode, such as the 1955 rampage in Istanbul, the government encouraged the expulsion of the majority of Greeks remaining in Turkey. Many Jews emigrated to Israel after independence, and the Armenian population dwindled from an estimated 150,000 after World War I to less than half that number by the 1990s.

Soon after its founding, the Turkish Nationalist government adopted a policy of denying the Armenian Genocide and in increasingly more strident steps sought to suppress discussion of the Armenian Genocide in international and public forums. In the 1930s it prevented the making of the film version of The Forty Days of Musa Dagh, and successfully stamped out all mention of the Armenian atrocities in any government setting until the 1960s. Since the 1970s Turkey has waged a vociferous campaign to prevent official recognition of the Armenian Genocide or the adoption of commemorative legislation in countries such as the United States and Canada by threatening to cancel business contracts and reduce levels of military cooperation. In view of Turkey's NATO membership in the context of the Cold War, the threats were taken seriously.

Turkey has also sponsored publications challenging the basic facts of the Armenian Genocide in a well-financed campaign to spread confusion and plant seeds of doubt even among informed circles. Turkey's overseas embassies have been engaged as its primary instruments for the dissemination of this denial literature. Its ambassadors regularly challenge mention of the Armenian Genocide by the media. Turkey has also pressured governments in an attempt to prevent the convening of international conferences, such as one planned in Israel in 1982, where despite strong pressures to cancel it, the Armenian Genocide was one of the topics presented. This campaign to rewrite history extends to the point of seeking to influence universities worldwide through sophisticated grant-making programs attendant with the expectation of generating scholarship placing Turkey in a better light. These programs constitute part of the overall design to legitimate internationally the viewpoint denying the Armenian Genocide through purportedly disinterested academic production.

Turkey's policy of denial has had more than an obstructionist character. For example, while Turkey continues to interfere in the construction of memorial monuments by Armenian diaspora communities, it also regularly misinforms its own citizenry by raising the false specter and accusations of atrocities committed by Armenians. Turkey has gone so far as to rehabilitate the Young Turk criminals by according them posthumous honors and reburials. It has repatriated the remains of the masterminds of the Armenian Genocide, Talaat from Nazi Germany in 1943 and Enver from Tajikistan in 1996 after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Indicative of the destructive dimension of denial and the uninterrupted policy of erasing even the record of a once-Armenian presence in Turkey, historical Armenian structures ranging from thousand-year-old churches to entire ancient cities have been subjected to willful vandalism and in numerous instances to complete obliteration. Despite the three-thousand-year existence of the Armenians and their continuous construction of civilization in their historic homeland, no archeological site in Turkey is permitted designation as historically Armenian. While Ottoman Turkey persecuted and sought to destroy the living Armenian population, Republican Turkey has been methodically erasing the physical record of an extinguished civilization with the goal of blotting out even the memory of its existence.


Source: http://www.armenian-genocide.org/turkey.html

I can't understand why Turkey is still denying the Armenian Genocide. Do you?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 3,680 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 12:27 pm
I enjoy my Turkey with stuffing and a side of cranberry. Oh wait a minute! You're talking about something else. Never mind.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 12:32 pm
No, I don't, rick.

When I was just a wee thing, my mother used to admonish me to eat everything on my plate. "Think of all those starving Armenians, " she would say. I never understood how that worked. If I ate everything, how would they get anything?

Now that I am a wee bit older, and have taught history, I understand it all.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 02:37 pm
NickFun wrote:
I enjoy my Turkey with stuffing and a side of cranberry. Oh wait a minute! You're talking about something else. Never mind.


Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 02:43 pm
Quote:
No, I don't, rick.

When I was just a wee thing, my mother used to admonish me to eat everything on my plate. "Think of all those starving Armenians, " she would say. I never understood how that worked. If I ate everything, how would they get anything?

Now that I am a wee bit older, and have taught history, I understand it all.


I did a project for history on the Armenian Genocide, and it was just shocking for me. One of the best ways to describe the Armenian Genocide is the one Hitler (yes, Hitler...) used.

'One day, a young officer came to Hitler. Although risking his life by doing this, he asked: "Führer, aren't you afraid that our offspring will never forgive you for what you are doing to the Jews?" Hitler smiled. "My son" he said "is there anyone who remembers the Armenians these days?" '
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 08:47 pm
Letty -- I, too, have taught history. But I still don't understand any of it.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 09:17 am
I imagine that Turkey has denied culpability for the Armenian massacres for the following reasons:

1. It has been denying them for so long that admitting them now would involve a "loss of face."
2. Admitting responsibility would entail some sort of obligation to make amends (perhaps in the form of financial compensation), which the government is either unwilling or unable to do.
3. Domestic political pressures from influential groups that, for whatever reason, have some stake in maintaining the denial.
4. The government perceives that, by admitting responsibility, it would place the Turks on the same level as the Nazi or Stalinist mass murderers in the eyes of the world.
5. The government does not want to lend additional legitimacy to national minority groups, especially one that might have separatist aspirations.

But there might be an easier way to understand the Turks, and that is to ask yourself: why is the United States still denying the genocide of the Native Americans?
0 Replies
 
Equus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 09:50 am
One of my Sunday School teachers when I was a little boy was an Armenian immigrant who had survived the genocide. He said the Turks had lined him up along with a bunch of other people in front of a firing squad. They pulled their triggers, only to reveal their rifles weren't loaded. Then they laughed at their funny joke.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 09:51 am
Hey, Chicago Joe. Good points on the Armenian question. As usual, Washington, regardless of who is in power, never admits to anything.
0 Replies
 
Maggie5554515
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 04:47 am
I had an exam and my topic was on the Armenian genocide. What i can say is... you know, the only difference between the Jewish holocaust and the Armenian genocide is that the latter, after almost 90 years, still remains unrecognized by the biggest part of the world. Maybe to some people the life of 1.5 million others isn't that important. And Turkey surely feels pretty comfortable not having to take responsibility about the massacres. But what i personally thing is, all the Human Right Conventions and the similar are only a big hypocricy expressed by too many countries if they let political interests deny one of the darkest sides of the history.
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 07:57 am
Re: Armenian Genocide & Turkey
Rick d'Israeli wrote:

I can't understand why Turkey is still denying the Armenian Genocide.


I can´t it, too.

Perhaps soon: Turkey joins the EU. With this opinion....
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 06:34 am
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Images/Chicago/hewsen224.gif

This is a good oversight of the deportations and massacres of Armenians during the Armenian Genocide.

On this site you can watch small videos on the Armenian Genocide and sign a petition (at this moment signed by 56,972 people).
0 Replies
 
nohead
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 01:02 pm
First of all, i want to clarify that there had never been such big Armenia, or Kurdistan(in fact, there is no such country called 'Kurdistan', but it seems there will be one in near future.) in my opinion, you have to see the map of Ottoman Empire (it's not the exact map, but will give the idea of how wide area, the Empire had. i did not put it here, due to the map given above.).
In my humble opinion, "deportation" is what had done to Armenians. Rebellion against government (rebellion of pontos Greeks, Armenians, Kurds Arabs-UK provoked them-, and others). Armenian gangs was attacking Ottoman villages, coordinating Russia (to send informers in the Empire) As a result, Ottoman Government decided to send them, in order not to create further problems. Many people, both Turks and Armenians died during the "deportation".
Turkey opened their government archives about Armenian deportation; unfortunately, (due to lack of interest on this subject-among Turkish people-,) the documents were not translated to English, or another language. I can hardly translate some titles for you.

-Reasons of Deportation and Precautions
-Beginning of Deportation
-The Areas that the Deportation order executed
-The Places where Armenians Sent from&to
-Armenians who have not been sentenced to Deportation
-Problems During Deportation
-Fund for Deportation
...
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 11:22 pm
Often overlooked in the story of the Armenian massacres is what else was going on in the Ottoman Empire at the same time -- (1)The British and French attempt to seize the Dardanelles was underway in the invasion at Gallipoli; (2) The British attempt to organize a rebellion of the Arab tribes of Mesopotamia and Palestine was beginning; (3) Russian forces were threatening the Ottoman border on the east and working to enlist Christian Armenians in eastern Anatolia to their cause. (4) British forces in Egypt (still nominally a part of the Ottoman Empire, but in fact a British protectorate) were directly threatening Palestine.

The Ottomans tried very hard to stay out of WWI but, unfortunately for them, the so-called "Sick Man of Europe" was one of the prizes sought by both sides in this war, and they were literally pushed into it by both the central Powers and the Allies. Indeed at about the same time as the massacres began, the British & French were working out the details of their division of the spoils of the empire they had not yet conquered, and which they memorialized in the Sykes-Picot Treaty.

It is not hard to believe that a bit of Xenophobia and mistrust of their minorities infected the Turks at this time. I offer this not as an excuse for the massacres - for there is no excuse for them. However it is something to consider, particularly by Europeans, as they rise up in self-righteous indignation at this crime.
0 Replies
 
Maggie5554515
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jun, 2007 11:15 am
I bet "nohead" is Turkish, insofar, I'd ignore his arguments. Fact is not only that there was an Armenian genocide, but that the Greek population had to suffer also tremendous losses. As for the Bulgarians - they lost 2/3 of their population in the course of five centuries.
By the way, it is very natural that Armenians would attack Turks. The Armenians were treated like animals in the Ottoman empire, all they wanted was to free their lands. Armenia dates back to III century B.C., so no one wanted the Turks there anyway.
Regarding the xenophobia, I think it's always been there. Most muslims regard Christians and people from other religions as only "half-human". The sparkle of racism was lighted up in times when the Ottoman empire reached the lowest level of its economical condition. What happened can be compared to what happened in Germany in 1933 - the blame was thrown on a minority. By massacring it, they thought they would solve their own problems.
Why Turkey still denies the Genocide is more than obvious - which nation would be eager to confess that its modern history is founded on the savage murder of 1.5 million innocent individuals.
0 Replies
 
alperte
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 02:40 am
Quote:
I bet "nohead" is Turkish, insofar, I'd ignore his arguments. Fact is not only that there was an Armenian genocide, but that the Greek population had to suffer also tremendous losses. As for the Bulgarians - they lost 2/3 of their population in the course of five centuries.


Oh that is gorgeous!!! Why do we even bother to listen to anyone we accuse? History is being told by the winners and by the powerfull. The issue is discussed in many countries because of the efforts of the Armenian lobby. It is only fair to say that these efforts are of noble intentions. Armenian children grow up with the information that Turks killed their grandparents and Turkish children grow up with the information that Armenians lie. So what is the truth? Are Turks innocent when a parliament takes sides with them?
How can we decide under what circumstances a country acts and what the action really was if the facts are so blurry and the information (on both sides) unilateral. What I see in my country (and here) is a big lack of objectivity and a supressed prejudice.
Many questions are not answered or not even being asked!!!
- How long did these cultures live together and how was their relationship before the early years of the 20th century?
- Even though The Ottoman-Empire was the ultimate force for over 300 years, why did it not just eliminate all cultural differences? (Germany tried and was not as powerfull as The Ottoman Empire.)
- Why did the Ottoman Government order to set up aid locations in Syria with European health personnel working in them if they just wanted to kill them all. Hitler did not?! (If you didn´t know this, try to read from some other sources).
- Where did the weapons come from, that the Armenian guerilla used and what were their actions? (I would like to keep the guerilla and the peace loving Armenian people apart)
- Can we call this a civil war or do we have to call it Genocide?
- Where does this stupid map above come from? Under what influence or with what purpose was it produced (People/Countries do that you know...)

PS.: I am not a Turk if that still matters here Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Armenian Genocide & Turkey
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2023 at 06:58:45