Skip to comments.Truth and the Armenian genocide
Posted on 08/23/2007 6:05:10 AM PDT by theothercheek
Was there an Armenian genocide during World War I?
While it was happening, no one called the slaughter of Armenian Christians by Ottoman Turks "genocide." No one could: The word wouldn't be coined for another 30 years. But those who made it their business to tell the world what the Turks were doing found other terms to describe the state-sponsored mass murder of the Armenians. ...
Was there an Armenian genocide during World War I? The Turkish government today denies it, but the historical record, chronicled in works like Peter Balakian's powerful 2003 study, "The Burning Tigris," is overwhelming. Yet the Turks are abetted in their denial and distortion by many who know better, including the Clinton administration and both Bush administrations, and prominent ex-congressmen-turned-lobbyists, including Republican Bob Livingston and Democrats Dick Gephardt and Stephen Solarz.
Particularly deplorable has been the longtime reluctance of some leading Jewish organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, to call the first genocide of the 20th century by its proper name. ...
The Armenian genocide is an incontestable fact of history. Shame on anyone who refuses to say so.
[NOTE: This is an excerpt, because Jacoby cites gut-wrenching contemporaneous eyewitness accounts and I wanted people to be prepared for what they would read before they clicked on the link to get the whole story.]
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
I think someone said he would be damned by history for this and Hitler replied words to the effect of "who remembers the bitter criticism of the Armenian killings now?"
Yes, this is so. I also believe that since the Turks never admitted that they committed this crime against humanity - ie, they “got away with it” - every other genocidal murderer who followed Hitler thinks he has a chance of getting away with it too.
Saddam Hussein grossly miscalculated then. Saddam and Co. however are the exception. No other genocidal murderer was held fully accountable post-1945, in other words got their due punishment.
They weren’t killed because they were Armenian. They were killed because they were Christian.
They were also killed because they were Armenian. Call it the double-whammy. But in support of your point, historians are taking a second look at the Armenian Genocide in light of the rise of Islamofascism and - like Jacoby does in this column - have started to apply the term “jihad.”
And the Turks repeated this against the Greeks, particularly in Smyrna in 1924. The nation of Turkey is built upon a foundation of blood.
Before the planning of the final solution Hitler asked, “Who remembers the Armenians?”
I don't believe that the government of the modern Republic of Turkey founded in 1923 (years after the actions of the Ottoman government) denies the massive number of deaths which IMO begs the question why don't we blame the government of modern Germany for the crimes of National Socialists?
Massive civilian casualties among the Armenian enemy of the Ottoman Turks? yes; but a genocide? The Jewish population in National Socialist Germany had no army that was at war with the National Socialists.
Does it matter to a victim, massacre or genocide? No.
(You would think that it does not matter to the victim, but if you read the WSJ article below you'll see that it very possibly may matter to some seeking more than revenge.)
I noticed one news item in a search that reported "Armenia's prime minister says he is ready to negotiate with Turkey's new government after more then 90 years of severed ties." I believe that it is a July 31, 2007 article.
Are you unwilling to accept negotiations unless the modern Republic of Turkey accepts all responsibility for the Ottoman Turks? Should the Turks simply write-off the Ottoman Turk civilians who were massacred by the other side during the war. Is that a condition too?
Armenia joined the communist in 1920 I believe and was a "republic" in the U.S.S.R. The modern Republic of Turkey was a loyal, valuable ally and friend of ours throughout the Cold War.
Obviously the Soviets had much to gain by maligning NATO member Turkey.
It asks, is "genocide" the wrong word?
"Turkey's official position is that, while the deaths were horrific, they weren't genocide."
Let's not ever, ever resolve this if modern Turkey doesn't call it genocide? Let's have laws that mandate that our students be taught that it was genocide? Let's brand opponents "racists" unless the opponents are approved by those who call it genocide? That's what the WSJ article is about. That's what this is all about as Mr. Mark Geragos is quoted "our ultimate goal . . . is for Turkey and the U.S. to officially acknowledge the genocide."
The modern Republic of Turkey does not deny the horrific killings and expulsions, it's labeling the civilian deaths genocide that's the problem. BTW, wouldn't the Ottoman Turks have killed all rather than expel hundreds of thousands if they intended genocide?
I wonder what would of happened if American Indian tribes decided in 1917 that they would have an uprising while we fought World War I. As it was the British didn’t commit genocide against the Irish after the Easter Rebellion but didn’t hesitate to use harsh measures against those who took part.
I'm finding that this is very possibly a no dialog need apply thing. What's this?
"ARMENIA MAY NOT HAVE US AMBASSADOR FOR SOME MORE TIME
"Until the issue of the Armenian genocide is resolved or the adoption of Resolution 106 finishes, it is possible that there will be no U.S. ambassador to Armenia for some more time, Shaharist Melkumyan, member of the Armenian Cause Office, shared her opinion with reporters today.
"'USA understands that this process will still go on since it has raised a lot of noise. They have not decided yet who to send as an ambassador and future developments are unforeseen,' she said.
"'Our disposition on this issue is very clear an anti-Armenian ambassador who rejects the genocide or is prone to do so must not be in Armenia,' office member said."
It appears to be dated 23/08/2007.
So if we don't do it their way the United States of America can pound salt?
This is so incredible perhaps someone out there can correct the impression that this gives. To wit, is Mr. Rudolf Perina the ambassador or the Charge d'Affaires? This Armenian government item says "RA Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan received U.S. Charge d'Affaires in Armenia Rudolf Perina." dated Thursday, 12th of July, 2007.
I still ask if it absolutely was genocide why did the Ottoman Turks chase the Armenians out? The National Socialists would have killed them, especially since there were combatants among the Armenian civilians and it was war.
The modern Turkish government has called the killings and expulsions horrific, they acknowledge that it did happen.
The Wall Street Journal has several Armenian Genocide deniers on its staff, including Dennis Frantz (head of their mid-east bureau, basedin Istanbul), Tunku Varadarajan and James Taranto.
Until the modern Turkish state calls the killings what they were - genocide - they have the blood of their forebears on their hands.
...is built upon a foundation of blood.
Don’t interpret this as support for turkey, but all nations are founded in blood. All freedom is founded in blood. All evil is founded in blood. Everything that matters is founded in blood. If it wasn’t, it wouldn’t matter.
>>>They werent killed because they were Armenian. They were killed because they were Christian.<<<
True. My wife is Armenian. Some of her Christian ancestors were given the ‘opportunity’ by the Turk Islamists to convert to Islam, or die. They refused to convert, so they were murdered.
Islamists are mean, evil SOB’s, with no conscience whatsover. They are true instruments of Satan, who, as we know, was a murderer from the beginning. Best to kill them now before they kill again.