Putting ourselves in the other man’s shoes on the ‘Armenian question’

by
MEHMET ÖĞÃœTÇÜ*

What a fascinating but equally unrewarding subject to write on the “Armenian question” is. Everything you say will touch the sensitive nerves and deep-seated emotions of both the Turks and the Armenians.




Neither side will be content with your line of thinking. It is dangerous water into which few people are willing to wade.
Apparently, from the feedback I received in regards to my Oct. 3 op-ed, “How to close the Armenian dossier with a win-win formula,” it appears that bridging the wide gap in the perceptions of “truth” between most Turks and Armenians remains an uphill struggle and will not be an easy task to accomplish for at least two generations. However, I am convinced that the sooner we begin such a process of rapprochement, the better. Otherwise we will continue to live in a constant state of hostility and mistrust, blaming one another and showing no tolerance for those who attempt to show the other side of the story and strive for a historic reconciliation.

With these thoughts in mind and as part of my efforts to contribute to a better understanding of each other side’s thoughts, feelings and “truths,” let me share below, without attribution, as promised, some excerpts from the letters I received from several Armenian readers:

* Your article will be read by Armenians as a threat, and they will not respond by kowtowing. This may not have been your aim, but that is how it will be taken. Unfortunately I used to think the gap could be filled, and I no longer do. I advocated normalization in the 1990s, and have totally given up on it.

Believe me, Armenians -- with a few notable exceptions -- are not a very vindictive people. In my fathers’ papers are the Ottoman deeds to homes in Arapgir, “Polis,” and Izmir. “Justice” would require homelessness for several families living on the plots of land there -- is it “justice” then?

Turkey is too worried about reparations to think through things clearly. I have a home in California; life has compensated us materially. Survivors’ heirs live mostly in wonderful countries like the US, Canada, France, Australia and the like, enjoy high levels of education, and have been able to preserve the identity if not all of its aspects. And there is an Armenian state with the language and the religion preserved as well, all and all, it is not bad.

It is hard to understand how a country of 73 million and a landmass the size of Texas can see itself as a victim -- especially after its imperial history and maltreatment of subject communities. Victim of what: a few self-defense irregulars? The accusation of counter-genocide is not admissible, nor is the accusation of Armenian support for Russia. My family had aghas in service of the Sultan and remained deeply anti-nationalistic until the genocide.

Let us be clear about this, the Ottomans massacred their citizens. Is Turkey the Ottoman Empire? There are only two answers to this question; each has implications that have to be addressed.

* You demand that the reasons for Turkish measures be removed first, before Turkey takes any step towards normalization. In other words, you ask to drop and give away all assets on the mere hope of Turkish good intentions, which were tried, tested and measured in 1909, 1914, 1921 and ... 1942, 1991 (no need to state the details, since you must be well aware of them). You claim that Turkish recognition of the Armenian Genocide may entail other demands. This sounds to me like a borrower saying, “Yes, I owe you, but if I admit it, I may have to pay you.” The criminal, not his son or grandson, has to pay for his crimes. I would like to believe that Humanity abandoned that approach a long time ago.

You resort, in your denial of the genocide, to Ottoman, German and other states’ archives. May I remind you that Ottoman courts, the Bundestag, State department archives and even Mustafa Kemal Ataturk confirmed that fact? What are these archives you mention?

You also refer to the deaths of 157 (according to the first account by Baku authorities) civilians in Khodjaly. Sir, this number may be incorrect. Still, its circumstances can in no way be matched to the Pogroms committed earlier in Baku and Sumgait.

More importantly, I would have urged you to return to the statements given by the then-president of Azerbaijan, Mr. Ayaz Mutalibov, about the true responsibility for the events of Khodjaly, but I am sure that a person with your status and resources must already be aware of them. This leads me to conclude that you choose to ignore them, which in turn brings me back to the very first point, namely, “good intentions?”

* What we want from Turkey is not money or land -- we do not need them. We do need access and we do need recognition, however, because these two things are the guarantee that the evil of 1915 is truly in the past -- otherwise, it will be Russian or Iranian troops, defense treaties, lobbying in the US and elsewhere, and continuous suspicion.

I really cannot understand how Turkey can, on the one hand, dismiss Armenia as unworthy of diplomatic relation yet expect it to participate in a historical commission on demand. The days of Middle East-type bully tactics are gone but not necessarily in Turkey today. To think Turkey is aspiring to join the EU, it just does not add up yet. Hopefully matters will improve as Turkey continues to align with Europe.

Without the pressure generated by the Armenian diaspora Turkey had no incentive to examine the treatment of Armenians. Even now it resists every step of the way. Internal legislation within Turkey reveals the Turkish mindset regarding self-examination. Any concession so far on this matter has been a reaction to events rather than a sincere or genuine interest in the truth.

Constant attempts to paint the Armenian experience at the hands of Turks as being the same as that of the Turks at the hands of Armenians do the Turks no credit. The fact is that what occurred was an attempt to exterminate the Armenians in “Turkish” lands. This was the intention, whether you call it genocide or not. Turkey undoubtedly carries a far greater burden as a result of the events of 1915. Also telling is the fact that 3,000 years of Armenian presence in Anatolia is constantly censored from the historical narrative.

* Internationally, a greater regard is given to the position of Armenia and its unconditional call for diplomatic relations with Turkey. I think Turkey will eventually have to climb down on its many conditions as a result of events beyond its control.

There will be many more “external factors” as time goes on. Turkey’s policy and Armenia’s weakness leave us no other choice. There was an offer from Armenia to normalize during the Levon Ter-Petrosyan years, and your country declined it. A relative of mine, Mr. Jirair Libaridian, was sent to Turkey over 30 times and came back empty-handed.

The bottom line: if we have the blockade, then you must have the diplomatic headaches of genocide recognition -- the two are absolutely linked. If you want Armenian activity concerning the recognition to lessen, you need to remove the blockade.

Bear in mind that the Armenian lobby in America will not give up until there is clear recognition, followed by laws that limit Turkish access to the US. Laws can be made requiring that Turkish officers in US academies be certified to not have served in Cyprus or been involved with paramilitaries. In other words, attempts to punish Armenia for the bill will make things a lot worse for Turkey in America. Even if Turkey carries this round, we will keep coming back until we win.

Concerning motives -- I would like remind you that we just had one of the most moderate Armenians in the world get killed not too long ago. I feel like I am taking a risk even discussing this with you, no matter how honestly and frankly. I feel a lot safer lobbying the US government. Mr. Dink was the best of Christians because he loved his enemies. I had written Etyen Mahçupyan asking him, Dink, and all the remaining Armenians in Turkey to leave, and that was about two years ago.

My family is from Arapgir -- very few survived. I want a memorial for their murder, not revenge. If Turkey continues to confuse the issue, it will be at loggerheads with Armenians for ever -- and it is not a bet Turkey should feel permanently comfortable about.

Also, the threats of war do not sit well with your allies and are likely to provoke a severe Russian response -- remember Shapashnikov’s statements in Dushanbe. Forget about it: There will be no withdrawal from Nagorno-Karabakh, and both Turkey and Azerbaijan -- and, behind them -- their supporters in London (BP), have to get used to that.

Armenia considers the security of Karabakh pivotal to its own security. The outcome of any future conflict with Azerbaijan will determine whether Armenia will continue to exist or disappear at the hands of Turks. I do not think the outcome will necessarily be your foregone conclusion. The risk to the billions invested by the West will undoubtedly bear down on any military decision by Azerbaijan. Money can be a double-edged sword. Also, I do not believe Georgia has any interest whatsoever in allowing Armenia to disappear to the Turks for it will be next.

* It is very much in Armenia’s interest to diversify access to the world. Yes, access through Turkey will be important but not critical as confirmed by Armenia’s recent growth. Turkey’s hostility and Georgia’s improving infrastructure will not be lost to Armenia.

Russia does not need a border to help Armenia. It will do it by opening a front with Azerbaijan, which it accuses of supporting the Chechens. As for the Iranian Azeris, I am afraid they are Iranians before they are Azeris. You have been eating the fruit of the tree planted by Ziya Gökalp -- and it shows.

I received a long stream of letters, some very frank and constructive, some full of anger and hostility. I have responded to them individually as much as possible and to the best of my abilities. In order to help each other see the other side of the coin, the Armenian letters have been faithfully reflected in the foregoing paragraphs with no comments.

Let’s hope that a similar attitude will also prevail on the side of our Armenian friends, colleagues and neighbors, rather than establishing permanent Turkey-bashing.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Mehmet Öğütçü is a former Turkish and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) diplomat currently residing in London. He can be contacted at
12.10.2007

Everybody talks about this matter again and again.They discuss about which side is right , but Historians cannot because they will say the truth.
If somebody believes the Genocide,he should search documentaries and gets the truth.Not articles.....
You can start with the chronology in this adress:

http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/chronology/index.html

No comment on these photos taken after Armenian rebellians' deeds before Relocation:
http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/album/ana5.html
http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/album/ana6.html
http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/album/ana7.html
http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/album/ana8.html
http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/album/ana12.html

By the way,
I dont believe that Armenians in Turkey and in Armenia insist on this subject very much, because they know us very well.I am from a town where many Armenian had lived ,before moving to Istanbul for bussiness.My grandmother and my father have a lot of Armenian friends.Still, we have some Armenian families around us and they are really very nice people.These subject is the problem of just politicians ,who have benefits thanks to the Genocide , not nationalities and History.

Are you rejecting "the concept of genocide" only or any claim of Armenian mass killings? Because only some of the Armenians had a chance to move to Istanbul. Others were either deported and their goods were taken over by Muslims (Turks and Kurds)or died.

Thank you for posting this article, it was very interesting.

I reject because first they killed our women and olds in villages by the guns they got from Russia then we killed them.It was a civil war not a genocide.Did they accept the genocide they did in Van and East of Turkey and also in Azarbaycan in 1995?

AAA but we are Turks we are always guilty!!!!!!!

It is very interesting.

The problem will never go away because there are people who make a lot of money out of being lobbyists for the Armenian side. This is their professional job. For example if I write anything pro-Turkish in my book reviews on Sundays Zaman newspaper (even if the books was nothing to do with Armenian issue) I get mail from Armenian lobbyists saying how can I like Turkey as a foreigner, etc etc and these letters sound exactly like the ones this guy quotes here.

My friend Charlotte McPherson, who does the culture spot on the expat page on Todays Zaman 4 days a week gets exactly the same.

My friend Bea Vanni who writes a wonderful blog on Turkey (www.remarkablesolutionsblog.com) gets the same. She is a bit more agressive and writes sometimes about the Armenian question. Then she gets abusive mail calling her "a whore of the Turkish government" etc.

So, as 3 fairly neutral westerners, who are trying to have an open mind about the issue , we get beaten up by one side but not by the other.

So I conclude:
1. One side is determined not to let the issue go
2. The other (Turkey) would be very wise to ACTIVELY PUSH for an international investigation from a body like the United Nations to look at THE EVIDENCE ON BOTH SIDES.
3. They also would be wise to say the Modern Turkish Democratic Republic is no more responsible for what the Ottoman Empire did (as it is a new nation) than the German people of today are responsible for Hitler, UK people are responsible for atrocities of British Empire, Americans for atrocities against Native Americans etc.

(WOW: No 3 will probably get a lot of angry responses, but what the heck! I will also say that I understand from historical evidence that a lot of the killing in the South East was not done by Ottoman army, but by Kurdish warlords, and the Ottoman army just turned a blind eye and let one of their enemies destroy the other one.)

Atatürk said Yurtta sulh, Cihanda sulh - peace at home and peace in the world. I hope Turkey's politicians will pursue the best policy to achieve this is relation to this Q

Thanks Marion;

It s true, Armenian groups work behind the scenes very well but they are trying to write a history from their side and using policians. I believe that one day everything will be clear because "Cheats never prosper"

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html
http://fotogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/galeridetay.aspx?cid=6754&rid=2

US's Genocide still continues..

"Genocide" is just only belong to USA.. armenian genocide is an imperialist lie..

Very interesting Marion. I didn't know they went that far with harassing people. It appears Turkish politicians may have underestimated the persistence, organization and vitriol of the "Armenian genocide" activists. Most Americans are totally ignorant of the issue and don't find it important enough to pursue. Even then at that, in watching this issue unfold for a few years, I am amazed at how sources (wikipedia) has been edited in favor of the Armenian and Kurdish separatist interests. It is almost a daily event. There is a proliferation of websites advocating the Armenian side.

The issue of others making money off of the issue is serious, but there is another issue and that is one of territory and assets. It seems there are some who even go so far as to claim the Sevr Treaty is still valid.

As always, there is a convergence of interests. Some are up front and visible, some are not. If you look at just what territory they are interested in, you will notice it takes in some very valuable property. Very importantly are Lake Van,the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates, which both the Armenian interests and Kurdish separatists have laid claim to.

This is an important issue that has to be dealt with. It's like a gangrenous sore that is infecting the whole body.

Having been away a few days, I must admit I am suprised to see that there has NOT been deep discussion about the subjects floading our news lately. Have the topics been deleted?

Where is discussion about the Turkish government's request to send the Turkish Army into northern Iraq?

Where is discussion about US House of Representative's vote on Armenians?

Is this it?!?!?!

Yes dear AEnigma III, this is it. I'm surprised it IS being discussed here and not deleted, as I thought politics was one of those forbidden topics here. I must say though given the world situation today, it's hard not to touch on those forbidden topics. :-S

The Turkish Armenians are our real citizens.
The some world Media has no scientific and realistic knowledge about the real Turkish history.
First of all, they must read and learn the true World History .
The uncultured persons effect the world media and governments.
The enemy of the Turks are the enemy of the HUMANITY.

There is no moderation here. I've just a bottle of a decent white. I normally would not consider anything other than a fine red a proper wine but now I have to think again. That's the biggest puzzle I am facing at the moment.
As for this everlasting haggle over who killed those Armenians: I must state I really have nothing against Armenians, I like their music, I like their ways and I had a great Armenian friend during my university years. I detest those who killed them whatever the reason was. I am ashamed of all the mistakes (possible and actual) of my ancestors but I think I cannot be held responsible for the sins they committed in a world full of sins everywhere.

Two articles about 'the armenian question." Please read them if you have time because they show two different historical interpretations.

(I)
The Armenian Taboo and Mustafa Kemal

By Taner Akçam

Yeni Binyil
Sunday, 8 October 2000.

Translated from Turkish by Sayat, EXCLUSIVELY for ANN/Groong

The uproar over the "Genocide Bill" continues. But these developments are no surprise. There is a nice saying: what is going to come on Thursday is obvious from Wednesday. Turkey is already cracking open the last taboo area of the [Turkish] Republic. Despite all the fuss and all the threats, we will have to see that we will, finally, have to start openly discussing the murders committed against the Armenians by the Committee of Union and Progress [Ittihad ve Terakki or Young Turks]. I don't know if they will ever call it a "Genocide" or when it will happen, but the Turkish Government will be forced to accept this historical fact.

Because, the Republic's final taboo is being cracked open. It is a historical process. It cannot be stopped by hurling obscenities, threats, or blackmail. The reason is simple: the Turkish Republic was founded on five taboos. 1) There are no classes in Turkey -- we are a tightly-knit mass; 2) There are no Kurds in Turkey. They are all mountain-roving Turks; 3) We are a westernized and secular nation. The existence of [our] Islamic culture is not even a topic for discussion; 4) There was no Armenian Genocide. The Armed Forces were assigned the duty to be watchful and defend this nation which was founded on these four taboos. It was illegal to discuss the influence of the military over the regime, and this was the 5th taboo.

It was considered a crime to talk about any of these taboo areas. Statutes in the Criminal Law like 142-4, 163, 125, etc. were legislated [for this purpose]. But overseers of each of the taboos made their presence felt and military coops, tortures, and deaths ensued. As a nation we suffered a lot but at the end the taboos disappeared one by one. In fact, through a timetable in accordance with the Helsinki decisions, it was resolved that these were a part of Turkey's realities and that they needed solutions. What we call the democratization package is nothing more than the recognition of these taboo areas and remedying them accordingly. Freedom of thought, steps needed to be taken regarding the Kurdish question, lessening the influence of the military over the regime, etc.... Turkey will become democratic only to the extent that it overcomes the taboos.

Note that of all of these taboos, only the Armenian Genocide issue had remained. Because there was nobody around to bring this issue up internally, there was no criminal law against it. However along with globalization and the membership process in the European Union, this issue will come or be brought before us with increasing intensity. There is a decision that was taken by the European Parliament in 1987. In order to become an EU member, it requires Turkey to admit to the reality of the Armenian Genocide and this admission, it is stressed, will not have binding responsibilities on Turkey's part. Since Europe cannot back away from this decision, it is up to Turkey to decide.

The matter is actually clear. In a nation that wants to be democratic, there can be no subject that would be illegal to discuss. A free society does not tolerate a taboo. In the end Turkey will admit that in 1915 a great human tragedy occurred. Just as the Kurdish reality is accepted [in Turkey] today despite the obstinacy and cries like "there are no Kurds, they are mountain-dwelling Turks", the reality of 1915 will too be accepted. The most important thing is that they must not be put on the agenda by foreign pressures and not come with a high price tag. 30,000 people should not have died for the Kurdish reality to be accepted.

Unfortunately, it is beyond debate that the events of 1915 qualify as genocide according to the 1948 UN definitions. Anyone involved in the issue with even a rough knowledge of the documents in the Ottoman, German, Austrian, Armenian, and British archives knows that the facts in these archives do not contradict, but on the contrary, support each other. And the underlying point is that the Ottoman subject Armenians were systematically murdered and left to die.

The claims that the events of 1915 does not constitute genocide cannot be addressed one by one. Here, I will suffice to say that the thesis put forward by some of our writers that a racist ideology is needed to call a mass murder a genocide can not be taken seriously. In reality, the question has several dimentions that go beyond the dilemma whether to call it genocide or not. Here, I would like to underline and bring forth one of these points I see everyone has forgotten about.

The fact that the Armenians were destroyed by the Ittihad was not even a debate topic.

The fact that what occurred in 1915 was a mass murder is accepted by anyone who lived at that time -- even by the leaders of the War of Independence. It may come as a surprise, but this is the truth. Of course the word genocide is quite new. It came into existence after World War II. During the [Turkish] War of Independence words like massacre, mass murder, and deportation were used. There were tens of speeches in which Mustafa Kemal described what was done to the Armenians as "cowardly [act]" and "savagery" and qualified them as massacre. In September of 1919, the American General Harbord upon visiting Mustafa Kemal said "he [Kemal] denounced the massacre of the Armenians." According to Kemal, "the massacre and deportation of the Armenians was the handiwork of a tiny committee that took over the government" (Rauf Orbay'in Hatiralari, Yakin Tarihimiz [Rauf Orbay's Memoirs, Our Recent History], Vol. 3, s. 179). In the same period, in an interview with the US Radio newspaper he says "we have no expansionist plans....We guarantee there will be no new Turkish atrocities against the Armenians" (Bilal Simsir, British Documents on Ataturk, Volume I, page 171, Ankara 1973). In a telegram he sent to Kazim Karabekir in May 1920, he asks Karabekir to avoid any undertaking that may be construed as another Armenian massacre. In a speech he made at the National Assembly on April 24, he called what the Armenians were subjected to in 1915 as "cowardly [act]" (Ataturk'un TBMM Acik ve Kapali Oturumlarindaki Konusmalari [Ataturk's Speeches in the Open and Closed Sessions of the Turkish Grand National Assembly], Volume I, page 59) and so on and so forth.

In those years whether the events of 1915 were a genocide was not even a topic of debate. In fact, it was being openly stated that the guilty would be punished. In September of 1919 there were a series of correspondances between the Ali Riza Pasha cabinet and Mustafa Kemal. Defense Secretary Cemal, representing Istanbul, asked Mustafa Kemal's Congress of Representatives [i.e. the precursor of the Grand National Assembly] to issue a declaration announcing that "those guilty of all sorts of murders during the War will not escape lawful punishment." In his response Mustafa Kemal says "it is our great aspiration to show that the big and small is equal in responsiblity in our country and that the era of perfect rule of law commenced in an entirely impartial and perfectly just fashion by bringing the wartime misrule into the open and meting out punishment". Moreover, he adds that he saw this punishment would be "more appropriate and beneficial to show it to friend and foe alike if it was actually put into practise rather than remaining as publicity on paper, as the latter case would cause many questions to be raised". In other words, what Kemal expected was punishment not for the sake of paper publicity but a real one (Nutuk [Ataturk's Oration], Volume III, Vesikalar, Vesika 141-2, s. 164-6).

The issue of trials for those guilty of massacre were taken up in Amasya negotiations. During the discussions, five protocols, three open and signed, and two secret and unsigned were agreed upon. In the first protocole from October 21, 1919 "the reawakening of the Ittihadism and the Ittihadist spirit in the country and even the display of some of its symbols is politically harmful.....The legal punishment of the guilty in connection with the deportations is necessary [both] judicially and politically". The third protocol is about the upcoming general elections. An agreement was reached on the necessity of barring the Ittihadists wanted for the Armenian massacres. For that purpose, the Anatolian movement [Congress of Representatives] reserved the right to interfere in the elections. "Since it is not acceptable that individuals assembling as representatives be connected to the evils of the Ittihad and tarnished by the [participation in the] acts of deportation and massacre and other evils against the true interests of the nation and the country, all necessary steps can be taken to oppose such a direction (Nutuk, Volume III, Vesika 159-160, s. 193-4).

It is possible to present pages and pages of [similar] examples. Here is what I want to get across: the fact that the events of 1915 were a mass killing was never a matter of dispute. The main issue of the time was the desire [by the Allies] to divvy up Anatolia on the pretext of punishing the Turks and using the events of 1915 as a justification. What Kemal and his friends were proposing was the punishment of the guilty but without the division of Anatolia. Today, instead of the hysterical cries, if we assumed an attitude as Mustafa Kemal did regarding the subject, we would have made great headway.




(II)

So-called Armenian Genocide

History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey

By Stanford J. Shaw

Stanford J. Shaw is a Professor of History at the University of California, and Ezel Kural Shaw is an Associate Professor of History at the California State University. The excerpt below is taken from their book, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Vol. II (pp. 314-7)

During 1914-1916: "Knowing their numbers would never justify their territorial ambitions, Armenians looked to Russia and Europe for the fulfillment of their aims. Armenian treachery in this regard culminated at the begining of the First World War with the decision of the revolutionary organizations to refuse to serve their state, the Ottoman Empire, and to assist instead other invading Russian armies. Their hope was their participation in the Russian success would be rewarded with an independent Armenian state carved out of Ottoman territories. Armenian political leaders, army officers, and common soldiers began deserting in droves.

"With the Russian invasion of eastern Anatolia in 1914 at the beginning of World War I, the degree of Armenian collaboration with the Ottoman's enemy increased drastically. Ottoman supply lines were cut by guerilla attacks, Armenian revolutionaries armed Armenian civilian populations, who in turn massacred the Muslim population of the province of Van in anticipation of expected arrival of the invading Russian armies.

"Ottoman response was to order the relocation of its Armenian subjects from the path of the invading Russians and other areas where they might undermine the Ottoman war effort. The Ottomans could no longer determine which of the Armenians would remain loyal and which would follow the appeal of their leaders."

The Northeastern Front 1914-1916: "German strategy prevailed at the outset, so that Enver had to concentrate first on his ambitions in the east. Almost as soon as he became minister of war he began to strengthen the Third Army, based at Erzurum, which covered the entire area of northeastern Anatolia from Lake Van to the Black Sea, thus it was ready to attack almost as soon as war was declared. Enver made a last effort to secure the support of the sultan's Armenian subjects, but a meeting at Erzurum with Armenian leaders from Russia as well as the Ottoman Empire was unsuccessful. Russia already had promised the Armenians an autonomous state including not only the areas under Russian rule in the Caucasus but also substantial parts of eastern Anatolia with, presumably, Russian help in finishing the job begun in 1877 of driving out or eliminating the Muslims who still comprised the vast majority of their populations. The Armenian leaders told Enver only that they wanted to remain neutral, but their sympathy for the Russians were evident and in fact soon after the meeting "several prominent Ottoman Armenians, including a former member of parliament, slipped away to Caucasus to collaborate with Russian military officials," making it clear that the Armenians would do everything they could to frustrate Ottoman military action.

"Still Enver decided that the Ottoman security forces were strong enough to prevent any Armenian sabotage, and preparations were made for a winter assault. Meanwhile, Czar Nicholas II himself came to the Caucasus to make final plans for cooperation with the Armeniaans against the Ottomans, with the president of the Armenian National Bureau in Tiflis declaring in response:

"From all countries Armenians are hurrying to enter the ranks of the glorious Russian Army, with their blood to serve the victory of Russian arms...Let the Russian flag wave freely over the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. Let, with Your will, great Majesty, the peoples remaining under the Turkish yoke receive freedom. Let the Armenian people of Turkey who have suffered for the faith of Christ receive resurrection for a new free life under the protection of Russia."

"Armenians again flooded into the czarist armies. Preparations were made to strike the Ottomans from the rear, and the czar returned to St. Petersburg confident that the day finally had come for him to reach Istanbul.

"Hostilities were opened by the Russians, who pushed across the border on November 1, 1914, though the Ottomans stopped them and pushed them back a few days later. On December 21 Enver personally led the Third Army in a counterattack. He aimed to cut the Russian lines of communications from the Caucasus to their main base at Kars and to reoccupy it along with Ardahan and Batum as the first step toward an invasion of the Caucasus. Key to the envelopment operation was the border town of Sarikamis, which lay astride the main route from Kars to the north. The Ottomans managed to occupy the town on December 26, but the Russians then retook it. A subsequent Russian counteroffensive in January caused the Ottoman Army to scatter, with over three-fourths of the men lost as they attempted to find their way back to safety. Ottoman morale and military position in the east were seriously hurt, and the way was prepared for a new Russian push into eastern Anatolia, to be accompanied by an open Armenian revolt against the Sultan.

"In the initial stages of the Caucasus campaign the Russians had demonstrated the best means of organizing a campaign by evacuating the Armenians from their side of the border to clear the area for battle, with the Armenians going quite willingly in the expectation that a Russian victory would soon enable them not merely return to their homes but also to occupy those of the Turks across the border. Enver followed this example to prepare the Ottoman side and to resist the expected Russian invasion. Armenian leaders in any case now declared their open support for the enemy, and there seemed no other alternative. It would be impossible to determine which of the Armenians would remain loyal and which would follow the appeals of their leaders.

"As soon as spring came, then, in mid-May 1915 orders were issued to evacuate the entire Armenian population from the provinces of Van, Bitlis and Erzurum, to get them away from all areas where they might undermine the Ottoman campaigns against Russia or against the British in Egypt, with arrangements made to settle them in towns and camps in the Mosul area of northern Iraq. In addition, Armenians residing in the countryside (but not in the cities) of the Cilician districts as well as those of north Syria were to be sent to central Syria for the same reason. Specific instructions were issued for the army to protect the Armenians against nomadic attacks and to provide them with sufficient food and other supplies to meet their needs during the march and after they were settled. Warnings were sent to the Ottoman military commanders to make certain that neither the Kurds nor any other Muslims used the situation to gain vengeance for the long years of Armenian terrorism. The Armenians were to be protected and cared for until they returned to their homes after the war.

"A supplementary law established a special commission to record the properties of some deportees and to sell them at auction at fair prices, with the revenues being held in trust until their return. Muslims wishing to occupy abandoned buildings could do so only as renters, with the revenues paid to the trust funds, and with the understanding that they would have to leave when the original owners returned. The deportees and their possessions were to be guarded by the army while in transit as well as in Iraq and Syria, and the government would provide for their return once the crisis was over.

"The Entente propaganda mills and Armenian nationalists claimed that over a million Armenians were massacred during the war. But this was based on the assumption that the prewar Armenian population numbered about 2.5 million. The total number of Armenians in the empire before the war in fact came to at most 1,300,000 according to the Ottoman census. About half of these were resident in the affected areas, but, with the city dwellers allowed to remain, the number actually transported came to no more than 400,000, including some terrorists and agitators from the cities rounded up soon after the war began. In addition, approximately one-half million Armenians subsequently fled into the Caucasus and elsewhere during the remainder of the war. Since about 100,000 Armenians lived in the empire afterward, and about 150,000 to 200,000 immigrated to western Europe and the United States, one can assume that about 200,000 perished as a result not only of the transportation but also of the same conditions of famine, disease, and war action that carried away some 2 million Muslims at the same time. Careful examination of the secret records of the Ottoman cabinet at the time reveals no evidence that any of the CUP leaders, or anyone else in the central government, ordered massacres. To the contrary, orders were to the provincial forces to prevent all kinds of raids and communal disturbances that might cause loss of life.

"April 1915, even before the deportation orders were issued, Dashnaks from Russian Armenia organized a revolt in the city of Van, whose 33,789 Armenians comprised 42.3 percent of the population, closest to an Armenian majority of any city in the empire. While the local Armenian leaders tried to restrain their followers, knowing they would suffer in any prolonged communal conflict with the Muslim majority, they were overwhelmed by the agitators from the north, who promised Russian military assistance if only they showed their loyalty to the czar by helping to drive the Muslims out. The Russian Army of the Caucasus also began an offensive toward Van with the help of a large force of Armenian volunteers recruited from among refugees from Anatolia as well as local Caucasus residents. Leaving Erivan on April 28, 1915, only a day after the deportation orders had been issued in Istanbul and long before new of them could have reached the east, they reached Van on May 14 and organized and carried out a general slaughter of the local Muslim population during the next two days while the small Ottoman garrison had to retreat to the southern side of the lake.

"An Armenian state was organized at Van under Russian protection, and it appeared that with the Muslim natives dead or driven away, it might be able to maintain itself at one of the oldest centers of ancient Armenian civilization. An Armenian legion was organized "to expel the Turks from the entire southern shore of the lake in preparation for a concerted Russian drive into the Bitlis vilayet." Thousands of Armenians from Mus and other major centers in the east began to flood into the new Armenian state, including many who broke away from the deportation columns as they passed the vicinity on their way to Mosul. By mid-July there were as many as 250,000 Armenians crowded into the Van area, which before the crisis had housed and fed no more than 50,000 people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Early in July, however, Ottoman reinforcements pushed the Russo-Armenian army back. It was accompanied by thousands of Armenians who feared punishment for the killings that had made possible the short-lived state. "The panic was indescribable. After the month-long resistance to Cevdet Bey, after the city's liberation, after the establishment of an Armenian governorship, all was blighted.

"Fleeing behind the retreating Russian forces, nearly two hundred thousand refugees, losing most of their possessions in repeated Kurdish ambushes, swarmed into Transcaucasia, with as many as 40,000 Armenians perishing during the flight. The number of refugees cited encompassed essentially all those Armenians of the eastern provinces who had not been subjected to the deportations. Those who died thus did so mainly while accompanying the retreating Russian army into the Caucasus, not as a result of direct Ottoman efforts to kill them."

And please read JUSTIN MCCARTY books and articles on the Russian Armenians and the Russian Army against the Ottoman Empire and Turkish People and the real massacre in 1915 and "The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide"...
JUSTIN MCCARTY is an author and historian and university professor in the USA.
And read Dr.CAROLINE FINKEL, an American -the USA- historian on Ottoman Empire...

read these real historians and scientists if you want to learn real history and real historic documents...

"THE ENEMY OF THE TURKS ARE THE ENEMY OF THE MANKIND"...

Are you a historian?
Have you seen these events?
If you are not historian so you should read and learn the real world history and the plain truths.
Dont read false political stuff ...
Read real historians and scientists and their real historical documents...
This is my personal advice...

yes you are right...ı am not a historian, a prime minister or a foreign minister.I only read the real history books and real documents...According to real history, there is no genocide in the Turkish history...

There is a common prejudice about all things Turkish. In many major international conflicts all the world got together and formed an allied front against Turkey. Ultimately beginning from 1071 when Turks entered Asia Minor and then when they captured Istanbul in 1453 they were regarded by Europeans as the common enemy. Consequently, any non Turkish elements existing within them were considered as the natural allies of the West. Greeks were the heroes of Lord Byron who regarded their country as the cradle of civilization and dedicated some of his best poems to urge the West to come to help of Greece to aid its war of independence. Lawrence of Arabia stirred conflicts in the Middle East shedding Turkish blood in attempt to turn Arabic clans into a nation in line with the expectations of his native country to architect a complex system involving tens of weak artificial countries that would remain in a state of constant conflict. Islamic fundementalism was a naturally existing weapon which was used to start revolts or destroy order whenever it was needed. (e.g. Kut war, Afghanistan, Invasion of Iraq).
Russians and Armenians due to religious and cultural reasons collaborated during the invasion of our country by Russian troops. They had been active both before and during the invasion through country wide political organizations the most notable of which was the Tashnak party whose ultimate goal was establishing an Armenian state in Anatolia. After this point no body knows what exactly happened there are claims about Turks forcing Armenians to leave the region which caused many of them to lose their lives as a result of weeks of relentless walking in bad weather. There are further claims blaming Armenian gangs of raiding Turkish towns and killing hundreds of civilians in some cases gathering them in mosques and burning them. There are all sorts of claims from both sides which are equally terrifying.


I as a citizen of this country neither approve of nor support the killing of civilians and would be very ashamed if anyone of my ancestors did anything like that. Nevertheless, we are not certain about exactly what happened there. It is easy to rave about historical events basing on fragments of knowledge. Aram and Mehmet lived on the same soil for nearly a thousand years. They were both humans and it must be equally saddening to hear what they suffered in the past. We cannot turn a deaf ear to the complaints of one and support the other unconditionally. We must leave the task of finding out what really happened there to historians. We have no better alternative than that.

Please read and analyze JUSTIN MCCARTY books and articles on the Russian Armenians and the Russian Army against the Ottoman Empire and Turkish People and the real massacre in 1915..

And see "The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide"...

JUSTIN MCCARTY is an author and historian and university professor in the USA.

And read Dr.CAROLINE FINKEL, an American -the USA- historian on Ottoman Empire...And read the other real historians.

Dont read the false and lie political and unfair thesis.

Please read these real historians and scientists if you want to learn real history and real historic documents...

If you go to Türkiye visit eastern Türkiye, visit Iğdır, Ağrı, Van, Erzurum and other cities...You will see a munument and its museum in IĞDIR city...This is a massacre monument.This is the biggest monument of the world...There are a lot of monument tombs in this districts.

The real history, the monuments, the tombs, the historical documents, the scientific rsearches and the historic books and the Russians officers memories show you and tell you clearly that the the Russian Armenians had killed too many thousants innocent old people, women, children, babies under the Russian Army support in 1915 unfortunately.This is a HUMANITY CRIME.

Then the Turkish Army had come to this districts and won the war against these terrorist groups.Getting the enemy and traitorous and necessary measures is not murder according to the international law and diplomacy and humanity philosophy...

And there is no any genocide in the whole Turkish History.The Turks are noble people...

"THE ENEMY OF THE TURKS ARE THE ENEMY OF THE MANKIND"...

"THE ENEMY OF THE TURKS ARE THE ENEMY OF THE MANKIND"...
We know the answer of this question exactly...
The history knows the answer very well.
Read the real world history.
It is clear.

Yilgun, if you did not include that final statement in your article, some of your readers would get curious about the sources that you referred to. Claiming that the enemy of the Turks are the enemy of the entire world is not only wrong but also utterly ridiculous.

Did everyone base their arguments on nationalistic feelings, there would be no need for science at all. We all want to get rid of the patriotic aspects of history and favour scientific objectivity instead, no matter how difficult to achieve in real life that would be.

If we were to write history with a notion like yours, what difference would there be between that and the legends or annals of the distant past?

The real world history and European History between 1750 -1923 will show and give you and prove the answer together with historical documents clearly...

to stick on history's pages and to use historical materials for the political aims.İf thats an usefull method i think never possible to find an innocent nation or country,Coz history2s pages full with planty similar humanity crimes,and i think sometime to be intellectual gives more harm then to goodness for the falks and i believe that knowladge is nice and usefull when way to peace&friendship.And not easy to understand why some silly people like or prefer to creat discussions with the bad and sad experiences of history while the more peacfull and friendly tomorrows waiting us on the future.peace always better then hate against whatever happened in the deep of history....AND İ BELİEVE THAT TO BE PEACFULL SHEEPHERD ALWAYS BETTER THEN TO BE HATEFULL İNTELLECTUAL....

Why is it significant whether the US government “condemns” the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians?

It is significant because to this day, while most of the rest of the world acknowledges the historical truth of the Armenian Genocide, Turkey continues to deny that it happened. Turkish Penal Code Section 301 actually makes it a crime in Turkey to discuss the murders of the Armenians as an “insult to Turkishness.”

Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was recently gunned down in the street by a nationalistic Turk. Before his death he was prosecuted under section 301 for writing about the Armenian Genocide. His son, as well, was just prosecuted under that same law for publishing some of his father’s writings on the Genocide. You cannot turn a blind eye to a nation that refuses to admit a horrific period of its past.

Denial is the last and final stage of Genocide. To allow a country such as Turkey to rewrite history and deny the truth on a matter of such great magnitude is to allow those who would commit atrocities in places like Darfur to believe that they can get away with their evil. Hitler looked back at the Armenian Genocide and said, “Who today remembers the annihilation of the Armenians?”

When a country such as the US sends a loud and clear statement that any Genocide, even one that occurred 90 years ago, is unacceptable, the world will listen and Turkey may just take an unpleasant yet honest look at its history.

To me the question is Turkey, really, what’s the problem with admitting it was a genocide? It’s not like Japan went under when it admitted the horrendous things they did to the Korean, Chinese, and Japanese “comfort women” from WWII.

we r the citizens of a great country which has a password ''PEACE İN COUNTRY ,PEACE ON WORLD',so who are blaming us with genocide they have to look at theirs today,such a shame to blamed from some countries with a humanity crime while their backrounds full with many tears and bloods????Yes Genocide is a humanity crime and noone never can deny of that,but whats the profit of to creat new discussions and to creat new strong nationalist behaviours?so everyone have to be a bit calm and have to think abit more while talking about history,we all have to work for only peace,no need to be history scientist ,to be a bit loving will fix all problems......

I only want to say:

The wars are created to obtain the power of fews politics people, and never will finish coz the illness of "power and avarice" does not have end...

We must forgive the grandfather's mistakes.

How many generations more will inherit the hatred of the errors of the past?

MAKE LOVE, NO WAR!

What has the House Committee achieved?

by Sahin Alpay



On Oct. 11 the Committee on Foreign Relations of the US House of Representatives decided by a vote of 27 to 21 to adopt a draft resolution that condemns the “Armenian genocide.” A similar draft resolution was adopted by the committee in 2000, but then-President Clinton had succeeded in persuading the Republican speaker to withdraw the measure. President Bush, however, seems unlikely to convince the Democratic speaker of the House, who is expected to take the resolution to the floor of the House before Nov. 22. The Senate is unlikely to pass a similar measure even if it is adopted by the House, and the resolution is non-binding. Still, it is worth asking what the House committee has achieved.
For history: During the World War I Armenian nationalists backed by Russia attempted to establish an independent Armenian state in Ottoman territory. They killed a large number of Turks and Muslims in this effort. The Ottoman rulers responded by ordering forced deportation of all Armenian subjects (with the exception mainly of those residing in Istanbul and Izmir) to the Syrian desert. According to objective sources nearly 650,000 Armenians perished on the way due to diseases, starvation and massacres by security forces and bandits. An equal number survived the deportation and migrated to the West, settling mainly in the US and France. Some were saved by converting to Islam. The committee decision does not prove that the Ottoman rulers ordered mass killing of Armenians. Some historians will still consider the event only as a great human tragedy caused by war, and others will still call it a genocide of the Armenians by the Turks.

For the US: The committee vote shows once more that lobbies play an important role in American politics, that the Armenian lobby is growing stronger and that G.W. Bush is a lame-duck president with dwindling influence over the Congress.

For Turkey: The committee vote indicates that Ankara’s efforts to stop the resolution are increasingly ineffective and that even the Americans who oppose it do so in fear of its potential to harm US interests. The Turkish public is now putting greater pressure on the government to take measures to retaliate against the US in response to the committee vote. Turks will now be less inclined to discuss and learn more about what really happened to the Ottoman Armenians in 1915. The anti-US sentiment in Turkey, the US’s closest ally in the Muslim world -- already strong due partly to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims in Iraq, and partly to the failure of the US to hinder the PKK from staging raids into Turkey from northern Iraq -- will continue to rise.

For Turkey-Armenia relations: Yerevan’s policy of trying to force Turkey to establish diplomatic relations and to open the borders with Armenia by supporting genocide resolutions in Western parliaments is clearly keeping Ankara from considering any such policy change.

Finally, a few words about how those who support Turkey’s further democratization and closer integration with the West should assess the House committee vote. There is no doubt that the House committee has opened the way for further deterioration of Turkish-American and Turkish-Armenian relations. The voices of those in Turkey who are against further democratization and closer integration with the West, those who demand military intervention in Iraq not only against the PKK but also against the Kurdish regional government, are now louder.

Against all odds, those who are for peace and democracy in Turkey have to continue to call on the Ankara to follow a course dictated by reason and not sentiment. Ankara should carefully weigh the costs and benefits of a cross-border operation into Iraq, of measures against the US and absolutely avoid steps that can hurt Turkey’s long-term national interests. Why not leave aside the debate as to whether it was genocide or not and try to seek better relations with Yerevan by establishing diplomatic relations and opening the borders with Armenia? This may not only open the way for a general Turkish-Armenian reconciliation, but also place Ankara in a better position to help overcome the problems between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

"Turkey has already alienated Canada & France and every other country that has called this tragedy a genocide. America will soon be the next, I'm afraid to say..."

you should think the opposite too. France and Canada and now US have alienated Turkish society and they make Turkish people more nationalist. Pelase read my previous post.

By the way , if not Genocide, we should find another term to call the tragedy in Iraq in which more than 2 million people died.

"None of my business" and who nominated you the TC police here."

I said it is none of our business...meaning the US government's business.

" You know nothing about my heritage or personal life, so
please don't assume I have nothing to do with Turkey or Armenians."

Your personal life is not the issue, International relations is the issue. As to your personal heritage or personal life. I don't know anything about it, and I don't care to. It is not the issue here.

"This is a public forum and I have every right to give my opinion. I see you never took your etiquette class yet."

I never stated you have no right to give your opinion. It seems nobody could stop you from inflicting your opinions anyway. Personal opinion is the problem. How about analysis based on a study of all sides of the issue? Hmmm...personal attacks....?

'Not every American is ignorant you would like to think and stated regarding this subject."

I did not say every American is ignorant, but most are quite uneducated regarding history, geography and international relations...and that's a fact.

"I happen to have friends who are Turkish who live here in the states and also are ashamed of Turkey's stand on the geonicide. Thankfully, they are in a country which allows for their opinion to be heard not imprisioned."

Like the free speach in designated "free speach zones"? You have gotten personal. I'm talking about cold facts. In the US we have more than enough issues to deal with. We don't need to be the World Police.

I can see how you must really get your use out of the modify and quote button here. World police? For making a stance against geonicide, finally. Yes, you probably also agree the U.S. should have turned the other way for those poor Jewish people too.

of all countries, I find it ironic that the U.S. feels the need to weigh in on this issue. The genocide against native americans is one of the most brutal and most documented chapters in American history. I think America should deal with its own past before meddling into this complicated matter...

the key word here is genocide. No, America has never admitted genocide to this issue.

I don't wan't to shift the focus of this thread to something else, but calling what happened between americans and native indians in the 1800's can hardly be classified as a war.

KeithL
Taught in very few universities, as the Turkish lobby and its sponsored professors (such as at Princeton) take great pains to paint a revisionist history. Americans can personally voice our outrage at the sins of those who came before us, those involved in murdering Native Americans, profiting from slavery, and any other number of crimes/sins. There may or may not have been official apologies about these atrocities in our own land, but our crimes are nationally recognized. The damage that people in the past did to others can’t ever be undone; but we can recognize the guilt, make laws to try to stop the atrocities in the future, and we can lament and move on, in freedom.

I cant go to the street and protest our policies in the Middle East. I can get a bullhorn, if I choose, and lead a picket in DC against the lack of adequate reparations for Native Americans. I can write emails to the White House saying, “President Bush, you are all wrong on this and that…” and I can do so knowing that I’m not going to get imprisoned for it. They can’t do that it Turkey, or if they do, they do it with great risk of prison.

For one, I lived in Minnesota for almost 20 years. This area was one of the last areas still occupied by majority native Indian and whites were the minority. The brutality of the army's sytematic elimination is clear.
By the way, the Bush White House took a good initiative today in regards to a Palestinian State, so I do not always disagree with President Bush.

Has the US government officially apoligized to Japan for killing more than two hundred thousand people in Hiroshima and Nagazaki?

Have they apoligized to the residents of The Bikini Islands for testing an H-bomb on their island?

This case such as the issue whichever is first chicken or egg I say this because I searched much of the truth in history books , not prevail so far
but one day will come and the truth appears,like the day which Japan apologized to the people whom suffered persecution of the Japanese during the Second World War as well as the Germans from the tragedies caused by the Nazis This shows clearly there is some countries or peoples, which had turned the conditions in periods of its history to barbarism and bullying and then attempt to cancel the other soon to revert to the proper conduct of history,

As you elaborately stated yourself the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was conducted by the Japanese air force against a US military base. The bombings of Nagazaki and Hiroshima on the other hand were targeting hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS who lived in those two cities and who struggled for the rest of their lives to survive the terrible consequences of the bombings. When you take into account those who died of cancer and other diseases caused by the bombings you will realize these two incidents actually claimed the lives of millions of CIVILIANS.

If you ask me those two incidents were the most terrible war crimes ever. First because they were committed by what was supposed to be a very civilized country supposedly fighting against the evil forces of the time. Secondly, although every detail of the bombing action is known, the US government have never apoligized to anyone.

Also interestingrnough, this position would actually implicate the armenians. By your explanation, "they brought this on themselves" by allying with Russia and attacking the Ottomans...

The focus is not on xenophobia. So I can't be the only one guilty of trying to change the focus. Let's assume for a while that you are actually not afraid of this Japanese, German infestation of the world that would threaten the prevailing cultural hegomonia. Even then we would have to come up with another explanation as to how come you can so clearly predict what would have happened had those wars not been fought. All our reasons would still lie in the subconscious which can only be penetrated with assumptions of the kind that I made in my previous message.

Giving up on all those exotic possibilities, I would still like to insist on the presence of this wide-scale xenophobia and I believe that it has been installed in our minds without either our knowledge or consent.

I think we should make something clear here:
-We know that terrible things happened during that time.
-We know that many Turks and many many Armenians died.
-We know that Turkish Governments made mistakes by not opening its archives fully and not being open enough in the past.
But what we dont know that
Weather it should be called a genocide or not.
And it is the job for historians. Not for us. I think the subject should be discussed at the possible highest level and should be sorted out once and all.
Otherwise, the subject wont go away for us Turks. And Everybody will be talking about it with their limited historical knowledge. (one will say oh we have the document , your talat pasa -interior minister I think at the time- sent this order 'X', saying 'terminate them all'. Someone will say, but in this document, it says 'relocate them for their protection' . So it will go on and on. That is the reason, I think it is the best, if it is left for historians)

It happened nearly a century ago..Not everything is well documented as it is now(ie we know very well what is happening in Iraq for example, we all know how American daisy cutter bombs work, we know very well why Americans dropped those bombs in japan-though it was not necessary-, we know very well how many civilians got killed in Vietnam -mainly by the napalms- etc etc) .
There was not even a definition for genocide at the time when those things happened in 1915, if I am not wrong.

My conclusion on the subject is that we Turks should not be afraid of opening our archives fully and discussing it where ever possible. Compensation and giving the land is out of question because Turkish Republic was born in 1923.
And for my American friends, supporting what your government is doing now and what you have done in the past to the other nations is a no go from my part.
I dont think you should support your governments 'war crimes' and at the same time saying 'but 1915 was a genocide'.
I cant see the morality in it.

thats better to take peace pens to write a new history then to stuck on past.To look for who was true and who was right in the past makes bigger to problems and creats new nationalist waves....

femme and thehandsome. On Dardanelles front alone some 250.000 Turkish soldiers lost their lives. The Ottoman Empire was attacked on almost all its fronts and had to deal with a chain of revolts provoked primarily by the UK and Russia. The number of casualties was so large that the medical faculty in Istanbul could not graduate any students for a couple of years since all of its students had died on the fronts.

Ottoman Empire:
Total casualties :1.550.000

Breakdown:
Dardanelles: 253896
Caucasian front: 270.000
Gulf theater: 220.000
Arabia and Yemen: 280.000
The Canal front: 280.000
Iranian front:20.000
Galicia-Bulgaria: 60.000

After the war, the male population decreased significantly and many women could not find husbands. Folk songs that remained from those days tell us about people rushing to fronts never to come back again. In some cities, when no eligible people were available for recruiting to the army they began recruiting 13 year olds. All of this happened in a very short period of time and at a time when the economy was at the brink of bankruptcy due to excessive foreign debts.

Turkish people did not actually want to join the war. The reasons came out of the blue due to Enver Pasha's excessive fondness of the Germans. He wanted to act together with them hoping to restore the country's economy with German help.

On the whole it was a war of total destruction for Turks. It meant long years of deprivation, poverty and misery. The soldiers were inadequately outfitted. They were deployed to the Caucasian front in their summer uniforms and majority of them died freezing rather than by the enemy bullet.

Very informative, Vineyard!

what i dont understand is why people here do not question what armenian state did in eastern Turkey before and after so called genocide? my father comes from Van - east of Turkey...and some of my relatives were killed by armenian soldiers. Thousands of people were killed, some of women were raped by armenian soldiers.does it give me right to claim that Armenia did genocide in eastern Turkey?..you speak like armenians were very poor innocent people and suddenly Ottoman attacked and killed them. of course i am ashamed of what ottoman did to them..but they did the same to us..why we are the only blamed one?

http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/index.html history science so relative and when you try to prove ur intellectualism with historical documents i think thats creat only new hates and hostilities sometime,why we don't try to make more peacfull to new generations for filling their minds with the history's sad events????????Lets plant friendship,forgiveness and love seeds on life garden instead of revenge,hate and enmity seeds....

and has anyone seen any war which made in love?thats opposite of war's nature,so we each one very resposnsible on our each words for don't be reason of new ones..!!

It is clear that this issue is highly politicized and any country's decision to accept it as "genocide" is purely based on political interests. It is quite a shame that so many Western countries have accepted it as a genocide despite the lack of adequate, objective (done by a third party) historical investigation. But the most remarkable phenomenon is that politicians get involved in this to begin with, and decide on what is the "legal" version of events.

At the same time, I don't trust what Turkish people say about this issue, mostly because they are usually not objective when it comes to admitting their mistakes.

The biggest reason that I have for expecting the world community to drop this once and for all is that these events happened technically under another era. This was the end of the ottoman empire. The republic was not formed until 1923. Turkey should be of course responsible for any actions it made after 1923. Turkey as we know is held to a different standard. The Cyprus issue has been unresolved for over 30 years. The Turks have shown every indication of wanting cyprus united and its the rest of Europe that still wants to punish the turks in northern cyprus for "protecting themselves". These are both examples of the extreme anti-turkish bias in Europe...

Oh Catwoman, please read the newspapers a little closer. (There were no Ottomans in 1974!) Northern Cyprus is closed to the world. The Greeks attacked the Turks and it was the turkish army responding to protect their citizens. Should they have left them to die? And look at the last elections. The turks voted over 90% to unify as one country with the greeks. Finally, countries are starting to recognise how outrageous this situation is and are opening their doors to northern Cyprus. The Greeks have behaved very selfishly over this and I hope this all comes to bite them in the ass! As for the rest of Europe, they have turned their back on a key member of NATO to satisfy the greeks unjust position. Yes, this is my example of extreme anti-turkish bias in Europe...

I disagree with you soooooo much. I travel and work with Greeks often. The Greeks hate the Turks with a passion. Turks care very little about Greeks except as how it relates to Cyprus. The greeks are still grieving the loss of Constantinople as if it lost its only lover and agonize that they were unable to get it back after WWI.

OK, not to argue now, but want to give you some accurate history. It was Greece that invaded Turkey after WWI and made it all the way from Smyrna to Samsun. Greece lost land in SW Turkey as the turkish army fought them all the way back and off the main land.
The military events of 1974 were a result of a greek led military coup and the subsequent attacks on Turks on the island. Where we sit today is a result of Greek aggresion, and Turkey defending its citizens.

Anatolia did not belong to Greeks either. They also captured it from Trojans. If everyone were to claim back where they once lived where would the Poles end up for example? Meanwhile, as a person who constantly criticize Turks for all sorts of things, I have never ever for God's sake heard you criticize your own country and culture for once.

The excuse Catwoman is using to justify the Greek invasion of Turkey is very much like Hitler's invasion of Poland at the pretext of Danzig issue. According to Catwoman, Hitler must have had a stronger excuse not belonging to hundreds of years ago but to the near past.

Regarding Cyprus...here's a post I made a while ago...

It might be interesting to look at what else was going on regarding Greece and Turkey at the time.

1955 - Greek Cypriots begin guerrilla war against British rule. The guerrilla movement, the National Organisation of Cypriot Combatants (EOKA), wants enosis (unification) with Greece.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1021835.stm

For more history....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cyprus
>--------------------------------------------------<
Here's another link about the history of who owned Cyprus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Cypriot_history

The Turkish men I know, when I mentioned wanting to visit Greece commented "Why would you want to visit Greece, blah blah blah. They didn't seem to fond of their neighbor, in my opinion.

I wondered?Are there any jurist among our friends?
Maybe you will become a politician or a jurist in your country inthe future; who knows?
Why have not we asked these questions?
According to the law logic and law philosophy we may ask a lot of questions to the political lobbies as young=
1-Have they lived in that time?
2-Have they seen this historic event?
3-Do they have proof, evidence, witness?
4-Are they a lawyer?
5-Are they a public presecuter?
6-Do they have authority to judge the historic events?
7-Are they a law court?
8-Why do not they go to an international law court?
9-Are they a precious historian?
10-Are they a scientist?
11-So then every country can judge every country in the future?Because we know what we are but we don’t know what will we be in the future?
12-Is it a political or scientific way to solve the historic dilemma /conflict?
13-Nothing and no one on earth is perfect and nothing lasts forever?
14-Only GOD knows everything and counts the crimes and sins for the punishment in the other world?
15-Every coin has two sides..

Yilgun, nobody is saying there was "genocide". I just feel it would be better for the matter to be investigated once and for all so that these "rumour" would not continue to flare up periodically.

It seems that Turkish people will not even discuss this matter, so how can the truth ever be found or acknowledged?

Despite wide spread propaganda by others, Turks and Greeks are extremely similar; they physically look alike, enjoy very similar food, dance to similar tunes. Both are hard headed and hot tempered. My own personal experience is that they can become extremely good friends, given a fair chance.

The problem between the two nations has nothing to do with Turks' capture of Istanbul, for we later gave them Athens as a consolation prize.

The real problem revolves on the fact that Greeks insist on referring to the good old Turkish coffee as the Greek coffee: an unbelievable act of lowest form, which no real Turk can swallow.

An interesting point regarding history of disputes between Greece and Turkey is that peaceful times are invariably experienced when Turkey is stronger and holds the upper hand. Trouble starts as soon as others promise support and help to Greeks, whispering into Greek ears that Cyprus actually belongs to Greece or the time has come to reclaim Istanbul and Ionia back from Turks and persuade them that they are actually strong enough to beat Turks on battlefields. Greeks can not resist the temptation and they never learn.

At all other times peace prevails.

Aenigma III friend says =
"Yilgun, nobody is saying there was "genocide". I just feel it would be better for the matter to be investigated once and for all so that these "rumour" would not continue to flare up periodically."
This is a right vision...

AenigmaIII, iyi geceler.Tatlı rüyalar.Sizi fazla tanımıyorum fakat kaliteli ve kültürlü bir kimsesiniz.Teşekkür ederim...

Blood and soil: the global history of genocide

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/visions_reflections/global_history_genocide

to fearless:
if you are grown up, a serious man, not fanatic/nationalistic etc etc, (i guess you re quite young), read the fragment from 'a mysterious book' you posted previous and think a bit if this could be true, or any sane armenian could say this:

'We mutinied against the Turks. We took sides with the Allies, the enemies of the Turks. What we demanded from the Turks was 'an Armenia from one sea to another'. We killed and we were killed. The forced migration was righteous and necessary. We could not see the facts and we were the starters of the incidents. The national struggle of the Turks was righteous. They made the Turkey Armenians subject to a forced migration in summer and autumn of 1915. The Turks knew well what they were doing and there is not a matter they should be regretful about. This was the most proper and certain thing to do.'


do you think that im as naive as the author of this pathetic childish text?
im 100% sure the 21pages book was made up by some uneducated turks (maybe just like you are), not authorised/commented by any significant historian. plus all the refernces are in turkish, which makes it more dodgy.
i also can easily make such fairy tale stories and spread the rumours of its mystery among the poor mentality, to make it more interesting.
i dont buy fairy tales.
i have a big nose to smell it.

cheers

Fearless just to give you some statistics on the misconseption of oil the U.S. gets from Iraq take a look.

Importance of Iraqi Oil to the U.S.

The United States imported 11.3 million barrels of oil from Iraq. In comparison, imports from other major OPEC oil-producing countries included:

Saudi Arabia - 56.2 million barrels
Venezuela 20.2 million barrels
Nigeria 19.3 million barrels
Kuwait - 5.9 million barrels
Algeria - 1.2 million barrels

Leading imports from non-OPEC countries

Canada 46.2 million barrels
Mexico 53.8 million barrels
United Kingdom 11.7 million barrels
Norway 4.5 million barrels

americans have also used vietnamise and korean oils

Yes, and look who the author is. I have little regard for his publishings. Keep doing your research...Maybe fearless can share his book with you.

Hrant Dink responses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ualde25hhd0

I am deeply disturbed by the Iraq War. The justification for the invasion was based on what appears to be fabrications about Sadam having WMD. I am not at all happy with what is going on, and I am not alone in my feelings.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
68% do not approve.
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1162952,00.html

Blix dismisses argument that war was legal
The former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix today rubbished the government's argument that war in Iraq was legalised by existing security council resolutions.
He said Britain and the US would have needed a second resolution explicitly authorising the use of force against Saddam Hussein's regime for the invasion to have been legal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The Iraq war is a disaster. Countless human lives have been destroyed. It is draining the economy, valuable resources needed for education, healthcare and infrastructure maintenance and repair have been diverted. It is causing incalculable damage to the credibility and reputation of the US.

As far as the military being volunteer, I'm sure some choose to join because of high ideals. However, not a few are questioning being sent to a war that is questionable, to say the least. Most are there because of economic problems and the promise of benefits. Not few are questioning the war
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ivaw.org/faq
The Iraq war is based on lies and deception.
The Bush Administration planned for an attack against Iraq before September 11th, 2001. They used the false pretense of an imminent nuclear, chemical and biological weapons threat to deceive Congress into rationalizing this unnecessary conflict. They hide our casualties of war by banning the filming of our fallen's caskets when they arrive home, and when they refuse to allow the media into Walter Reed Hospital and other Veterans Administration facilities which are overflowing with maimed and traumatized veterans
---------------------------------------------------------
General Sanchez:Ex-Commander Says Iraq Effort Is ‘a Nightmare’
WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 — In a sweeping indictment of the four-year effort in Iraq, the former top commander of American forces there called the Bush administration’s handling of the war “incompetent” and said the result was “a nightmare with no end in sight.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/washington/13general.html?em&ex=1192593600&en=43fbd9b586968da4&ei=5087%0A

The war has been outsourced to mercenaries like Blackwater and others who are profiting from it. In fact there reported to be more private contractors there than actual enlisted military.

Petrol was one factor, but strategic location and war profiteering seems to be equal motivations in this disastrous adventure.

its gone back to america-iraq again!

Quoting AEnigma III: Quoting si++: Muslim and Armenians were killing each other, Ottomans decided to relocate the Armenians to save their lives(A good intention) A BAD INTENTION to pretend it never happened and try to say it was for "their own good". I wonder if the Armenians see it that way? Quoting si++: American took their decision of dropping atomic bombs targeting to kill as many civilians as possible At least the US don't deny it happened! Its so typical of Turks to avoid questions about their wrong-doings and just find wrong-doings from other countries as their "defence"

The definitional article included in the 1948 convention stipulates:

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The critical element is the presence of an "intent to destroy", which can be either "in whole or in part", groups defined in terms of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion. Now tell me can you see any "intent to destroy" in the Ottoman decision? But I can see it in the American one.

The Ottoman Empire was not an empire like the others, meaning that it was not built through colonization. It was created by the necessity of self-defense. And Ottoman rulers believed that it was their God-given duty to protect the peoples of the countries they ruled. For example, they reduced taxes in all those countries, abolished taxes in poor countries, and even sent sacks of gold to countries and cities in need, including some European cities. They sent food to Ireland when it was badly needed. They sent aid as far as Indonesia. They treated all citizens equally. When they liberated Cyprus from the occupation of Catholics, they sent gold, materials, personnel, and even drawings to repair Orthodox churches left in ruin by the Catholic occupiers. This is how the Ottoman "Empire" lived for 500 years. Armenians were given the status of preferred people because of their activities useful to all citizens.

After the Ottoman rule's usefulness and power diminished, Western states began dismantling the Ottoman "Empire" for colonizing many of the countries they "liberated." Their main strategy was to promise independence to the non-Turkish citizens and to help them to rebel against the State. This strategy worked well in the Balkans and in the south of Anatolia, because Turks constituted a minority in most cities there.

But, the Westerners and the Russians made the mistake of using the "liberation" strategy also in Anatolia where the Turks constituted the majority. They choose the Armenians as their tool in Eastern Anatolia. For this strategy to work, Armenians had to become the majority, and this necessitated genocide against the Turks. This is how Anatolian genocide began, but it was committed extremely savagely by the Armenians against the Turks, with the help of Western powers and the Russian army invading Northeastern Anatolia. This is the great truth that has to be known by the whole world. Armenians joined Russian troupes in masses and also engaged in sabotage acts behind the Turkish army. The guilty Armenians fled with the retreating Russian forces. This process was repeated several times following the military developments and carried many Armenians outside Anatolia. The same things happened again in Southeastern Anatolia with French forces using the Armenians. Of course, Turks defended themselves but never committed the atrocities like those committed by Armenians. Also, more Turks died than Armenians, because Armenians were trying to realize genocide.

The Ottoman Government, which included Armenian ministers, ended the hostilities in Northeastern Anatolia by relocating the Armenians of the region to other places of the Empire. American missionaries accompanied the migration with the permission of the Ottoman Government. They did not report any act of genocide against Armenians. This is reported in the American journals of that time because the events of Northeast Anatolia have been discussed in the US Congress. The accusations directed to Turks have been manufactured afterwards.

One of the Armenians' reasons for accusing the Turks of having committed genocide is of course to secure material gains. And the Western politicians who support Armenian allegations are after the votes of the Armenian citizens of their countries. But the problem has deeper and less rational roots.

The Armenians who committed genocide against the Turks were after undeserved gains but suffered losses, although they hurt the Turks much. Consequently, they are now obsessed with the idea of genocide and compulsively try to compensate their losses.

Armenians murdered more than 60 innocent Turkish diplomats around the world in several decades in the 20th century. They tried genocide against the Azerbaijan people because they are of Turkic origin. French newspaper Le Monde wrote about those events: "We created monsters."

The French are the most ardent supporters of the Armenians, because France has a large population of Armenian immigrants, which means plenty of votes, and also because the French government has been the first Western government which accepted failure in using the Armenians against the Turks and made peace with the new Turkish government, thus deserting the Western camp.