Last week Chessbase published a portrait of Armenian World Championship candidate Levon Aronian. English journalist Dominic Lawson had interviewed him for the British cultural and political monthly "Standpoint". Lawson´s article contained a reference to a very sensitive historical issue between Turkey and the Armenian minority in 1915.

To the editors of Chessbase:

We have noted that on an interview conducted with Grandmaster Levon Aronian by Mr. Dominic Lawson published in the Standpoint magazine on your website on March 3, 2014 contains some statements that have deplored the Turkish Chess Federation, the Turkish chess community and the Turkish people.

The report mentioned above cited from the Standpoint magazine with following quote: “Levon is of course acutely aware of the fact that the Armenian people have also experienced a history of oppression, with Hitler once citing the fact that the Turks had got away with the genocide of the Armenians as a reason why he could do the same to the Jews. "Yes, this legacy makes you able to deal with setbacks, because you know it is nothing compared with what your peoples have endured."”

It is very perturbing to see such remarks on the occasion of a very important chess tournament, Candidates Tournament for the World Championship 2014. We are aware that on the eve of the 100th anniversary of 1915 Events, this matter is brought to the agenda on every possible occasion and every possible field and we are deeply sorrowful to see chess is being used for these political purposes.

Source: here

Yes, there is a very well organized Armenian community to keep speaking up for Armenians and recognition of "Armenian Genocide". They are well educated, well connected and well placed. They have a strong constituancy group in the USA, they have been working on it for over a century. 

Most people do not realize "Genocide" is a legal term that once it´s determined or admited to, requires certain legal steps follow. Pure and simple, it takes in territorial rights  

The entire population of Armenians are about 5.000.000 in the world. Do you really believe they are asking the recognition of genocide because they have eyes in Turkish land? Do you really think Armenians are genuinely planning to come back and live between 80 million  Turks+Kurds after all this?

Have you ever spoken to a person who said to you that ´she does not have a country where she belongs to´?

In fact, I am very cognizant of the matter, having lived around Armenians most my life, and heard about the matter. I believed it for years, until studying history on my own on unrelated matters. That led me to learning a few contradictory facts.

Yes, I do think they want land, in fact. It is all but impossibble to have a civil conversation with them regarding the matter. Believe me, I am more than aware of the danger they can present if you don´t agree.

...and, I know there are some who most definitly want land and money. 

Armenian homeland may affect Turkey and Georgia 

Until people can converse about the issue in a dispassionate manner, not seeking vengance, nothing can be done. The fact is, the matter of "Armenian Genocide" is nothing in comparison to the African slave trade, the American Indian matters, and there is no country with any right to speak on the matter, until they clean up their own mess. 

I am a bit suspicious of your claim about being knowledable of the matter.

A few Armenians saying ´they want Anatolia´ is NOT a security threat to Turkey. Or in that respect they are not more believable than some right wing Greeks who think the west of Turkey must be part of part Greece, or some right wing Turks who think we should reach to Ottomani borders at some stage. 

The real question is "those Armenians and those Greeks are posing a danger to Turkey´s integrity?".

My answer is "I dont think so". If you ask Turks in generic, I dont think Turkish people think there is such a danger. 

However, the entire incident of 1915 was about "the wealth changing hands"  as much as "Ittihat ve terakki leaders´ murderous, instinctive, darwinist decision of wiping Anatolia from non-muslim members".

I am not sure but I think, people who benefited this wealth exchange is resisting the most about this subject being mentioned.

But the truth is there, even if we dont like it.

Well, we all have our views, don´t we? There are many Armenians in the US, particularly in the NY and CA areas, both areas I´ve spent most my life. It was was presented to me as a fait accompli. As to your suspicions, I don´t give a damn about your suspicions, in fact I have my own suspicions about you. 

In the many claims and discussions from those who claim genocide, regarding "Armenian Genocide" I have yet to hear mention of the Hunchak group, officialy started in 1887 whose stated aims were: 

The Hunchakian program advocated revolution as the only means of reaching the immediate objective. The arena of revolutionary activity was designed as Turkish Armenia. The Party believed that the existing social organisation in Turkish Armenia could be changed by violence against the Turkish government and described the following methods. Propaganda, Agitation, Terror, Organisation, and Peasant and Worker Activities.

Propaganda was to be directed to the people to educate them toward two goals: The basic reasons and the proper time for revolution against the government; The social order that was to be established after the successful revolution.

Agitation and Terror were needed to "elevate the spirit of the people". Demonstrations against the government, refusal to pay taxes, demands for reforms, and hatred of the aristocracy were part of the party´s agitation campaign. Terror was to be used as a method of protecting the people and winning their confidence in the Hunchak program.

This is from their own website. I did not make any of it up. Not only that, a significant amount of Armenians during WWI took up arms against their own countrymen. In any country that is considered treason. 

In my opinion, war itself is genocide, after all, what is it but the organized effort to defeat another group? However in the term "Genocide" is a legal term, with legal consequences. In addition it sets up a demonization of another people, that is Turks, whose ill treatment can then be more easily justified.

This is not an area of study I´ve gotten into by choice, but by having conversations thrust upon me by others, who have made fantastic claims, I felt compelled to followed up on the matter. In doing so, I´ve found much contradictory evidence that disputes the claims of genocide against the Armenians. WWI was a tragic period in human history, many millions died tragic deaths. My own grandfather was a child soldier during WWI, he never recovered as he suffered from witnessing the barbarism, the gasses both nerve and mustard, he died young, but also suffered "shell shock" where he would at times revert to thinking he was in the trenches again. 

The bottom line is, war is ugly,hideous! I am against it, and anything that helps to start, or perpetuate it. 
 

Why does Turkey claim this was not genocide? Do most Turkish people claim this was not genocide?

I am just tying to understand, I have limited knowledge on the subject.

Because we believe we didnt do a programmed ethnic cleansing like Nazis. We sent Armenians to exile. And a lot of people died on the roads because of illness and poor conditions. Armenians say this was a genocide. We say it was an neccessary exile. Because they betrayed us and became allies with our enemies. Of course they dont accept this. It is now impossible to come to an agreement about events. Both sides think they are right. So I leave the judgement to the God. I dont accuse all Armenians and I believe that many innocent Armenians died too like many innocent Turks.

If handsome truely believes Armenians will not want land, all I can say is this would be a very optimistic approach.

Rather, Armenians (and their supporters, some enemies of Turkey, etc.) claim that was a "genocide". Turkey deny it.

Yet they (Armenians) have to prove it on a legal ground. So they have to apply to an international supreme court with their evidence. Since they have not done anything like that yet, probably they have not sufficient evidence to prove their claims.

That is the thing..

As soon as you leave the borders of Turkey, people will tell you about what it was.

In Turkey there is pollution of information about history. The ugly parts of our history have been changed, hidden etc. Many lies have been told by the state. For example as a nation we were told "the state suppressed an uprising in 1937 in Dersim" but later on the truth came out that it was not uprising at all and we gassed thousands in caves  for example. The state told us "there are no Kurds in Turkey". 

I dont think the states can hide historical truths forever.

And I dont think it is important if it is called genocide or not.. The ugly truth is that it did not happen the way it was told officially. (the official version is they rebelled, we had to relocate them for their safty, but the it was a long journey, and they died on the road etc).

There was/is an ideology behind it. It was planned and executed.

Well, well, well,

If there we go again to talk about the dirty laundry of states, we should also know about:

Secrets of a "Cristian" State

For example:

Armenians are taught hate from birth and I know it is
extremely wrong that it has been aimed at the Turkish.

I also read Armenians massacred Turks as well. Is this true?

I´m not trying to use this as a justification. I´m just hoping in my own mind there can be some distance between Nazi Germany and what Turkey did in 1915.

That appears to be the case, however they don´t mention that fact. From what I see, it appears to be a sort of civil war within a war. 

It was NOT a civil war.

You should seriously check your facts and numbers and read more.

There is a whole history behind that incident: Ottomans losing wars; Balkan experiences-ethnic clensing of turks/muslims;1895-96 300.000 Armenians dead; Kizil Sultan Abdulhamit-why is is he kizil?; Hamidiye Alaylari -Kurds involvment; shame of Sarikamis incident; psychology of loosing everything..

The end of all is that, there were  1.2 million Armenians in Anatolia in 1914 and remained around 200.000 end of 1915.

That is the reality and it wont go away.

Armenian  have attempted to extricate and isolate their history from the complex circumstances in which their ancestors were embroiled. In so doing, they describe a world populated only by white-hatted heroes and black-hatted villains. The heroes are always Christian and the villains are always Muslim. Infusing history with myth, Armenian Americans vilify the Republic of Turkey, Turkish Americans, and ethnic Turks worldwide. Armenian  bent on this prosecution choose their evidence carefully, omitting all evidence that tends to exonerate those whom they presume guilty, ignoring important events and verifiable accounts, and sometimes relying on dubious or prejudiced sources and even falsified documents. Though this portrayal is necessarily one-sided and steeped in bias, the Armenian  community presents it as a complete history and unassailable fact.

Armenian losses were few in comparison to the over 2.5 million Muslim dead from the same period.

Reliable statistics demonstrate that slightly less than 600,000 Anatolian Armenians died during the war period of 1912-22. Armenians indeed suffered a terrible mortality. But one must likewise consider the number of dead Muslims and Jews. The statistics tell us that more than 2.5 million Anatolian Muslims also perished. Thus, the years 1912-1922 constitute a horrible period for humanity, not just for Armenians.

The numbers do not tell us the exact manner of death of the citizens of Anatolia, regardless of ethnicity, who were caught up in both an international war and an intercommunal struggle. Documents of the time list intercommunal violence, forced migration of all ethnic groups, disease, and, starvation as causes of death. Others died as a result of the same war-induced causes that ravaged all peoples during the period.

You obviously subscribe to the battering ram school of debate, that is just keep saying the same thing over and over again so as to eventualy tire people, who will then let what you say stand. 

You evidently choose to ignore my post #6 and the Hunchek charter of 1887, or I might add the birth of the Dashnak group? ...Then there is ARF akd Dashnak group.

What do you call it when citizens of one country fight against other citizens of the same country?

Maybe this link will help clarify it for you....." a civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or republic.."

I am not saying the same thing again and again.

On the contrary, what you are saying is the what we were taught in our schools again and again: Armanians betrayed us and we have to relocate them for their own safety  but unfortunately they died on the road..

But now we know that it is not the truth.

I dont know why you think hunchak charter is so important!! what does it prove? what do you think a charter got to do with forcing Armenians from Istanbul? does it prove all the Armenians were thinking like that? (infact I was unfortunate to read many Turkish left wing charters in my life. They had a few thousands or couple of thousands most, people supporters.. Now if you see one of them will you think that all Turks are thinking the same? can you see why hunchaks or dashnaks charters are not important here? )

Anyway..

Just let you know that was not a civil war. Even an average Turk would not call it civil war.

What happened in 1915 to 500 000Muslims (Kurds and Turks)? 

Who is the Dashnak and Hinchak organizations? 

Who was the 1992 Khojaly genocide?

Armenians are not innocent!!!

This guy ( 0.46% ) is just a noise.

He says the same thing again and again but doesn´t answer the question asked.

The question was:

"What do you call it when citizens of one country fight against other citizens of the same country?"

And I cannot see the answer.

I will quote wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war):

A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or republic, or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly united state.  The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies.

The above definition perfectly fits what the Armenians did back in 1915. Their aim was to take control of the region to achive independece.

They drew the first blood, they themselves started it all first but they failed. Now they try to put all the blame to others for what happened thereafter.