Premeditation and Genocide

[ekrem]

Guenter Lewy is professor emeritus of political science, University of Massachusetts, and the author of The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide (University of Utah Press, 2005).

Revisiting the Armenian Genocide
http://www.meforum.org/article/748

It is very long, but please read it, so you know what we are talking about.



Bernard Lewis, Mid-East Professor and expert, from Princeton University:

“This is a question of definition and nowadays the word "genocide"
is used very loosely even in cases where no bloodshed is involved at all and I can understand the annoyance of those who feel refused. But in this particular case, the point that was being made was that the massacre of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was the same as what happened to Jews in Nazi Germany and that is a downright falsehood. What happened to the Armenians was the result of a massive Armenian armed rebellion against the Turks, which began even
before war broke out, and continued on a larger scale. Great numbers of Armenians, including members of the armed forces, deserted, crossed the
frontier and joined the Russian forces invading Turkey. Armenian rebels actually seized the city of Van and held it for a while intending to hand it over to the invaders. There was guerilla warfare all over Anatolia. And it is what we nowadays call the National Movement of Armenians Against Turkey. The Turks certainly resorted to very ferocious methods in repelling it.
There is clear evidence of a decision by the Turkish Government, to deport the Armenian population from the sensitive areas. Which meant naturally the whole of Anatolia. Not including the Arab provinces which were then still part of the Ottoman Empire. There is no evidence of a decision to massacre. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence of attempt to prevent it, which were not very successful.[/b] Yes there were tremendous massacres, the numbers are very
uncertain but a million nay may well be likely. The massacres were carried out by irregulars, by local villagers responding to what had been done to them and in number of other ways. But to make this, a parallel with the holocaust in
Germany, you would have to assume the Jews of Germany had been engaged in an armed rebellion against the German state, collaborating with the allies against Germany. That in the deportation order the cities of Hamburg and Berlin were exempted, persons in the employment of state were exempted, and the deportation only applied to the Jews of Germany proper, so that when they got to Poland they were welcomed and sheltered by the Polish Jews. This seems to me
a rather absurd parallel.”

http://www.ataa.org/magazine/blewis_statement.pdf

The same Bernard Lewis was convicted in France:

Bernard Lewis condemned for having denied the reality of the Armenian Genocide

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/blewisx.htm


The strongest pro Arguments for the "Armenian Genocide" are the so-called Talat-Telegrams. These telegrams appear in a book by Armenian Andonian.
If you have not read the Günther Lewy link, then please do it, as you will see, that these Talat-telegrams are accepted as forgeries.

on March 15, 1921.[46] However the stenographic record of the trial, published in 1921, shows that defense counsel von Gordon withdrew his motion to introduce the five telegrams into evidence before their authenticity could be verified.
(...)
Dutch historian Erik Zürcher, writing in 1997, argued that the Andonian materials "have been shown to be forgeries."[53] British historian Andrew Mango speaks of "telegrams dubiously attributed to the Ottoman wartime minister of the interior, Talât Pasha."[54] It is ironic that lobbyists and policymakers seek to base a determination of genocide upon documents most historians and scholars dismiss at worst as forgeries and at best as unverifiable and problematic.

http://www.meforum.org/article/748

The Ottoman Empire was in that on the decline and in war with almost every imperialistic country.
The armenians, that time residents of Ottoman Empire, were armed by Russia to ease the invasion by Russia into the Northwest of the Ottoman empire.
The Armenians rebelled and killed Ottomans, and even seized the city of Van to give it the invadeing Russians.
So the area where the Armenian Ottomans lived, was war area with moveing forward Russians and Armenian rebels, which revolted against Ottoman Empire.
The Armenians were assured by Imperialistic Powers that they would have an independent Armenia after Ottoman Empire would be defeated.

In Turkey's national archives, Ottoman people killed by Armenian rebels is counted as 512.000 people.
So the Armenians had to move away from that war area. As they were a factor in Russian-Ottoman war, sideing with the Russians in hope of an independent Armenia.
Their destination was the Syrian desert.
And only Armenians from that war area where moved. Not those Armenians in Istanbul or arab provinces of Ottoman empire.

For Turkey World-War 1 was even earlier. Balkan wars etc.
All these areas, which Ottoman empire lost, were cleaned of Turks.
According to Professor Justin McCarthy

Through the whole of Anatolia, in the whole region which extends from the Aegean and the Mediterranean all the way up to the Black Sea and the Caucasus, you had approximately 600.000 dead Armenians. In the same region, you had 2.5 million dead Muslims, most of them Turks.

http://www.ataa.org/ataa/ref/myth/carthy.html

Who is talking about Turkish-Ottoman deads? Noone.

The Armenian case is being instrumentalized against Turkey for political reasons by different states. Like France, in knowledge that Turkey will not accept these allegations, does to avoid Turkey getting into the EU.
The land of Voltaire, where even Professor Bernard Lewis was convicted.

We Turks will never accept such one-sided view of history.
The armenian massacres have to be put in the same sentence with Armenian rebels sideing with invaders and Turkish-Ottoman deads through these rebels.
We do not deny that Armenians died, but we will not accept such one-sided view.

History should be made by Historians and not by Lobbyists and Politicians in Parliament.
Turkey proposed many times an international Historician-committe on this issue.
Turkey has opened its national archives for Historicians, but Armenia, with its people like Andonian who forge Talat-Telegrams deny such a committee.
Armenia has territorial claims on Turkey and therefore Armenia's first goal is to push Armenian Genocide throeugh parliaments in these world by Lobbyists.
And governments like France who have a problem with Turkish entry into EU take this game with joy.

Everyone who wants Turkey to face this part of history has to support such international Historician committee.

Canada Supports Turkey's Call to Establish Joint Committee for Armenian Claims
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=40346

Armenians are boycotting such intentions and Armenia, like France and Russia do not open their archives for Historians on the Armenian issue.
Lobbyists will not make Turkey accept such one sided view of its own history.
But the results of an international Historician commitee we will accept. We even propose such committee.

Do you know, that Armenia occupies 20% of territory from Azerbaycan since 1992?
And Armenian Soldiers cleaned this occupied territory from Azeris?
These territories were occupied by Armenia:
http://www.karabakh.gen.az/headline/header_logo_left2.jpg

----------------

The Austrian citizen, doctor of historical sciences Erik Faygil directed the appellation to the parliament of his state in connection with Hojali genocide.

Appellation reads, Armenia occupied 20% of Azerbaijan territory, more than 1 million of Azerbaijanis driven away from their native hearth, drag out a miserable existence presently.

"Obliteration of city Hojali 26 February 1992 and annihilation of its population was culmination of Armenian crimes. 613 residents were killed, 1275 persons were imprisoned, 1150 persons were heavily wounded and were left on the battlefield with traces of misdeeds on their bodies", - writes professor.

http://www.today.az/news/politics/18777.html


Did you ever heared of this massacres and occupying territory by Armenia, where 1 Million Azeris had to leave their homeland?
Armenia plays the "Victim" card very well, and as long Armenia pushes for "Armenian Genocide" in parliaments through the world, it somehow legitimates its "victim role" and gets a legitimation of occupying territory from Azerbaycan.
And victims of course can not do harm to others.

 

[ekrem]

Fresh evidence emerged today of a massacre of civilians by Armenian militants in Nagorno-Karabakh, a predominantly Armenian enclave of Azerbaijan. (...)
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstr.../News/World/Countries and Territories/Armenia


The Khojaly Massacre was the killing of a large number of ethnic Azerbaijani civilians in the town of Khojaly on 25 February 1992. According to the Azerbaijani side, as well as Memorial Human Rights Center, Human Rights Watch and other international observers, the massacre was committed by the ethnic Armenian armed forces, reportedly with help of the Russian 366th Motor Rifle Regiment.
http://www.search.com/reference/Khojaly_Massacre

Why does Armenia flee away from a international Historician committee to investigate what happened in Ottoman Empire?
Turkey does not run away from such committee.
And after such committee, its results binding everyside, hiostoricians can investigate what happened 1992 in Nagorno-Karabakh, where Armenia occupies 20% of Azerbaycan's whole territory.

Armenia has much to loose from such historician committe. That is why in their philosophy Histroy should be made by Lobbyists, Politicians and Parliaments and not by Historicians.

 

[ekrem]

What i wanted to say is, that for me it does not matter if someone else thinks my grandfathers where Turkish Nazis.
I know they were not.
And there are Professors in the world, who think my Grandfathers were Turkish Nazis, and also there are Professors in this world who think my grandfathers were not Turkish Nazis.

Till this is not definetley cleared with evidence by Historicians and Professors that the Armenian massacres were Premeditation, and in the same sentence Turkish victims are not acknowledged, no Politician or foreign parliament will change my view.

Palriaments and politicians can not make the work of Professors and Historicians.

 

[Annie]

From two previous posts. I'm confused, do you think 'historians' are somehow going to be harder on Armenia than Turkey? Why?

Armenia has much to loose from such historician committe. That is why in their philosophy Histroy should be made by Lobbyists, Politicians and Parliaments and not by Historicians.

another post:

What i wanted to say is, that for me it does not matter if someone else thinks my grandfathers where Turkish Nazis. I know they were not.
And there are Professors in the world, who think my Grandfathers were Turkish Nazis, and also there are Professors in this world who think my grandfathers were not Turkish Nazis.

Till this is not definetley cleared with evidence by Historicians and Professors that the Armenian massacres were Premeditation, and in the same sentence Turkish victims are not acknowledged, no Politician or foreign parliament will change my view.

Palriaments and politicians can not make the work of Professors and Historicians.

 

[ekrem]

From two previous posts. I'm confused, do you think 'historians' are somehow going to be harder on Armenia than Turkey? Why?



another post:

Because when such a historian committee would result in view, that it was not genocide, the "genocide" balloon of Armenia would burst.
So far, the baloon gives enough shadow for Armenia for example occupying 20% of Azerbaycan's territory and haveing claims on Turkish territory.

When this baloon bursts, no shadow will be anymore on these issues and they will be lighten up, instead of the genocide.
I, for myself, would alcknowledge the results of such a committee. One result or the other result.
But as i said, no foreign parliament, politician or Lobbyist will make me accept their view of Turkish history.
Politicians are no historians, so only historians are legitimated to say what really happened.

For Armenia it is risky to accept the establishment of such committee, as you saw in previous posts, that there are Professors who think the masacres were not Genocide.
So Armenia goes the way by foreign parliaments and lobbyists.

 

[Annie]

Because when such a historian committee would result in view, that it was not genocide, the "genocide" balloon of Armenia would burst.
So far, the baloon gives enough shadow for Armenia for example occupying 20% of Azerbaycan's territory and haveing claims on Turkish territory.

When this baloon bursts, no shadow will be anymore on these issues and they will be lighten up, instead of the genocide.
I, for myself, would alcknowledge the results of such a committee. One result or the other result.
But as i said, no foreign parliament, politician or Lobbyist will make me accept their view of Turkish history.
Politicians are no historians, so only historians are legitimated to say what really happened.

For Armenia it is risky to accept the establishment of such committee, as you saw in previous posts, that there are Professors who think the masacres were not Genocide.
So Armenia goes the way by foreign parliaments and lobbyists.

Canavar, I'm sorry I don't see what you are saying or trying to imply. Not from any of your postings. Perhaps it is the language? Perhaps you are wrong? Perhaps you see things only from your own point of view?

 

[ekrem]

Canavar, I'm sorry I don't see what you are saying or trying to imply. Not from any of your postings. Perhaps it is the language? Perhaps you are wrong? Perhaps you see things only from your own point of view?

This is better English:
From American Professor.

http://www.meforum.org/article/748

Don't get me wrong, there are also Professors, who fully support view that it was genocide.

So when you say

Perhaps you see things only from your own point of view?

This means, I chose one point of view.
But there is another view, too.

So which view is the correct one?
Can Politicians decide this, or better Historians between theirsel, legitimated by a internationally supported committee who clears this question once and for both sides.

 

[Annie]

This is better English:
From American Professor.

http://www.meforum.org/article/748

Don't get me wrong, there are also Professors, who fully support view that it was genocide.

So when you say

This means, I chose one point of view.
But there is another view, too.

So which view is the correct one?
Can Politicians decide this, or better Historians between theirsel, legitimated by a internationally supported committee who clears this question once and for both sides.

Being somewhat of a historian, I'd say the historians, in time. Not while any of victims or perps are living. In the meantime, I doubt you have perspective, as I doubt of Armenians.

 

[ekrem]

Being somewhat of a historian, I'd say the historians, in time. Not while any of victims or perps are living. In the meantime, I doubt you have perspective, as I doubt of Armenians.

You must understand, that Turks will not accept putting Turkish history by foreign parliaments equivalent to NAZI's history, like Armenians want it to be.
There are countries who give a shit about Armenians, but only play the Armenian cardin politics against Turkey.

Such country is France. Wanting Turkey stay out of EU because Turkey will have same power as Germany and will have more power than France within EU institutions.
So French provoke Turkey with Armenian Genocide. French have done much in last years to piss Turkey.
They know, once Turkey is in EU once and finally, Turkey will retaliate the same way France does now with Turkey.
So every action of France makes this provocation bigger, that France's politics is holding Turkey out of EU.

So France saying by law, Turks the same as NAZI and the same France saying that Algerian genocide should be left to Histroians is really double-tongued.


Look what France says to Algerian genocide:

Accusations from Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika that France
used similar crematoriums in Algeria as were used during the Nazi
regime have caused tension between two countries. "The occupiers had
chosen the way of genocide and termination. This went on during the
fatal occupation process. Who remembers the shameful crematoriums
that the occupiers built in Guelma? Those crematoriums are the same
as the Nazis' death crematoriums" Bouteflika's messages were read in
a panel in Setif University.

Muselier, visiting Algeria to negotiate over French graves, gave a
statement in Algeria saying, "Clarifying the realities is the
responsibility of historians and researchers. Both governments have
agreed to encourage research on the issue." French Foreign Minister
Michel Barnier had also determined formerly that historians should be
encouraged to examine the period. However France had accepted laws
which blame other countries of being committing genocide. French
politicians had argued that Armenian genocide allegations could not
be left to historians. Dr. Mary Somcan says `French attitude is a
clear double-standard'. `France made many massacres in their
colonies. Algerian example is one of the worst one. However French
politicians never accept their responsibility. Strangely they just
question other nations' mistakes. They blame Americans, British or
Germans. They abuse Armenian issue to prevent Turkey's EU bid.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=10155

President Jacques Chirac insisted in a special address in December that the French state had no intention of promoting an official history. "Laws are not meant to write history," he said. "The writing of history is for historians." France "has known moments of light and darker moments. It is a legacy that we must fully assume ... respecting the memory of everyone."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0104/p01s02-woeu.html

France orders positive spin on colonial era: But historians decry
Chicago Sun-Times, Oct 23, 2005 by Elaine Ganley

PARIS -- France, grappling for decades with its colonial past, has passed a law to put an upbeat spin on a painful era, making it mandatory to enshrine in textbooks the country's "positive role" in its far-flung colonies.

But the law is stirring anger among historians and passions in places like Algeria, which gained independence in a brutal conflict. Critics accuse France of trying to gild an inglorious colonial past with an "official history."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20051023/ai_n16493094


And now tell me, that Turks will adopt French view of Turkish history?

We want this to be cleared. Seperated from politics, only left to Historians.

 

[Gunny]

Looks like it's not just the lefties here in the US revising history.

 

[Annie]

Looks like it's not just the lefties here in the US revising history.

Right or maybe not. Like Greece, Turkey will await the judgement of history, which will really not be issued by the likes of Canavar or myself for another 50 or more years.

Look at the Crusades, truly those are now being reexamined, for the umpteenth time.

 

[Gunny]

Right or maybe not. Like Greece, Turkey will await the judgement of history, which will really not be issued by the likes of Canavar or myself for another 50 or more years.

Look at the Crusades, truly those are now being reexamined, for the umpteenth time.

The way I see it, revising history for the purpose of denial is just delusional BS. We are supposed to learn from our mistakes. We can't learn from them if we are in denial about making them.

 

[ekrem]

Turkey mulls putting genocide claims to intl. adjudication

The New Anatolian / Ankara
16 November 2006

Font Size: default medium large

Behind-the scenes efforts are underway to find a method to bring the Armenian genocide claims before international adjudication, Turkish diplomatic sources said yesterday.

Retired diplomats, respected Turkish and foreign jurists, and Turkish officials are behind the efforts.

Both Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul and main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) Istanbul Deputy Sukru Elekdag signaled Ankara's efforts and willingness to bring the alleged issue to international adjudication after Turkey's proposal for the formation of a joint committee of historians to study the genocide claims failed to bear fruit.

In a letter to Armenian President Robert Kocharian last year, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan proposed the formation of a committee composed of Turkish and Armenian historians, but the proposal was rejected by Armenian president, stressing that such joint work could only be done after the two countries establish diplomatic relations.

Foreign Minister Gul, speaking to reporters ahead of his visit to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), stated yesterday that Ankara is considering bringing the issue to international adjudication but the final decision will be given following detailed work and consultations. "However, this work should not be considered a quick, magic bullet solution to the problem that stems from a period of history," Gul added.

CHP Istanbul Deputy Elekdag, in a speech Monday to Parliament's Planning and Budget Commission, suggested Turkey's application to "international arbitration" to prevent the Armenian genocide claims from becoming legitimate.

"Turkey should announce that it will evaluate the events of 1915 in line with the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and should apply to international arbitration to implement it," Elekdag said. "Armenians will reject this. However, this action will be an indicator showing Turkey's moral and legal just cause and will prevent the political abuse of the issue against Turkey."

http://www.thenewanatolian.com/tna-18142.html

 

[Annie]

The way I see it, revising history for the purpose of denial is just delusional BS. We are supposed to learn from our mistakes. We can't learn from them if we are in denial about making them.

The whole problem with history is that it is written long after the fact, with the current climate impacting. There is no getting away from that, no matter how the historian might wish it to be. Very much related to a true journalist-there is bias, comes with being human. One can acknowledge and try to compensate for it, though haven't seen this in journalism or history for a long time, in any great degree.

 

[Gunny]

The whole problem with history is that it is written long after the fact, with the current climate impacting. There is no getting away from that, no matter how the historian might wish it to be. Very much related to a true journalist-there is bias, comes with being human. One can acknowledge and try to compensate for it, though haven't seen this in journalism or history for a long time, in any great degree.

I agree. History, in the case of war, is written by the victor, but it is always a matter of someone's perspective. The best one can do is to examine as many different views of the same incident as one can.

I actually have a book on the US Civil War written by Winston Churchill. DEFINITELY a different perspective.

As far as canavar goes, he's so ultra-nationalist I don't put past him sweeping an unsavory event under the rug in an attempt to absolve his country. Turkey doesn't have a very good rep where ethnic minorities are concerned.