Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This flared up again in the news recently with the French Parliament declaring it illegal to say that the Armenian Genocide did not happen; exactly like it is for the Holocaust. Turkey responded with outrage, declaring it an insult, claiming (with some truth) that the French were trying to get Armenian votes from the substantial Armenian ethnic group in France and was both 'xenophobic' and 'anti-Islamic'. The Turkish position is, and remains, that there was atrocities commited by both sides but that most of the killings were orchestrated by non-governmental authorites and that the then Ottoman state merely orchestrated a mass deportation to curb the violence; not to cleanse the Armenian Plateau of Christian Armenians.

IMO, having studied Armenian history and the genocide at university level this position is simply untenable. Ottoman statesmen were repeatedly clear in their intent and communications make it clear that removal was prefered. There is also repeated evidence of government troops massacring all Armenian men and then moving all the women and children by forced marches; of which there is a battery of photographic and second-hand testimony. Their were of course local and Kurdish groups that attacked the Armenians but these were both tolerated and even encouraged by the Armenians since the Ottomans had turned many of these groups into militia for use on the Russian Empires border. There was also a running history of growing racial violence against the Armenians before 1915. Even if it can be argued that during the early stages there were Armenian groups, there was a revolt in the city of Van for example, it cannot be determined if these were provocked by the attacks; or were simply small groups of outsiders armed by Russia. Even if both of those facts could be maintained, the Ottomans decision to deliberately target Armenian civilians and in particular women and children would still amount to genocide. Just a brief summary off the top of my head.

But more to the point. Why the does it matter to the Turks? This happened nearly a hundred years ago, I would even suspect that most Armenians, Turks and Kurds who lived through the genocide are dead. Since Armenia hasn't (to my knowledge) asked for the land back in any measure, the Turks stance is incomprehensible. Germany killed far more people within living memory yet Israeli's do not blame any living Germans for their crimes. Germany isn't a pariah state because of the Holocaust it has a profound role in Europe and simply grimly accepts its history for what it is. The Turks on the other hand only make themselves look stupid, bigoted and ridiculous by decrying any country or individual as anti-Turk who suggests they did this. How would Turkey possibly lose face. It is mainly the Ottoman Empire, not the Republic of Turkey that is implicated. Whilst it could be argued that events during the twenties by Kemal Ataturk in preventing the Armenians from benefiting from the Treaty of Versailles (part of which promised to create an Armenian state in Eastern Turkey) which of course involved much killing it still wouldn't be that bad. Turkey has an economy growing 8% a year and has far more wealth than Armenia. Even if it came to some sort of compensation it would be a small price to pay. Indeed the Turks would gain considerable merit by showing humanity to their neighbours rather than behaving like the some old Imperial power that believes its above forgiveness.

Like I said I can't understand why the Turks care about an issue that could be so easily solved for the sake of a tiny amount of losing face.

Like I said I can't understand why the Turks care about an issue that could be so easily solved for the sake of a tiny amount of losing face.

I wouldn't call it a small amount.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Like I said I can't understand why the Turks care about an issue that could be so easily solved for the sake of a tiny amount of losing face.

I wouldn't call it a small amount.

Do you think they've just built up this position so much they can't possibly back down from it after almost a century?

But personally yes, the world moves on, at the end of the day Armenia is a tiny country land-locked in the near-east. Britain eventually forgave the Irish for the famine and with the Queens visit tried to reconcile somewhat the countries several century long occupation. Germany, like I said, moved on and can certainly deal with its neighbours like Poland and other Eastern European countries openly. I mean what exactly would they have to lose in accepting this? I suppose the popular mood in Turkey would certainly be against that; the Turks are nothing if not nationalisitic.

I'd reply but this is a family forum.

Totalwar1402 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Like I said I can't understand why the Turks care about an issue that could be so easily solved for the sake of a tiny amount of losing face.

I wouldn't call it a small amount.

Do you think they've just built up this position so much they can't possibly back down from it after almost a century?

But personally yes, the world moves on, at the end of the day Armenia is a tiny country land-locked in the near-east. Britain eventually forgave the Irish for the famine and with the Queens visit tried to reconcile somewhat the countries several century long occupation. Germany, like I said, moved on and can certainly deal with its neighbours like Poland and other Eastern European countries openly. I mean what exactly would they have to lose in accepting this? I suppose the popular mood in Turkey would certainly be against that; the Turks are nothing if not nationalisitic.

Genocide is still genocide. People denied that we wiped out the native Americans for a long time. People still deny the holocaust. It's a very odious thing to be attached too. Ask the russians about what they did to the polish and see what kind of answer you get. Ask the Chinese what they did to themselves or ask the Japanese what they did in Korea.

The only reason the Armenian issue is so important is because France decided it was.

Frazzled wrote:I'd reply but this is a family forum.

Sorry, have I over-stepped the mark with this post?

Its something they don't want to talk about. Turkey's culture has adopted a position where they want to think of themselves as being more European than Middle Eastern. They want to join the EU and builder closer ties to Europe (this has in general been a goal of the region to greater or lesser extents since the mid-Ottoman Empire).

Admitting they committed a genocide is admitting the cultural reasons the genocide happened, which is very not European. That, and genocide is just something people tend not to look back on with pride.

LordofHats wrote:Its something they don't want to talk about. Turkey's culture has adopted a position where they want to think of themselves as being more European than Middle Eastern. They want to join the EU and builder closer ties to Europe (this has in general been a goal of the region to greater or lesser extents since the mid-Ottoman Empire).

Admitting they committed a genocide is admitting the cultural reasons the genocide happened, which is very not European. That, and genocide is just something people tend not to look back on with pride.

That seems pretty European to me. Almost every European nation has genocide in it's history.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:I'd reply but this is a family forum.

Whats the story here? You usually don't care.

ShumaGorath wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Its something they don't want to talk about. Turkey's culture has adopted a position where they want to think of themselves as being more European than Middle Eastern. They want to join the EU and builder closer ties to Europe (this has in general been a goal of the region to greater or lesser extents since the mid-Ottoman Empire).

Admitting they committed a genocide is admitting the cultural reasons the genocide happened, which is very not European. That, and genocide is just something people tend not to look back on with pride.

That seems pretty European to me. Almost every European nation has genocide in it's history.

It was a religious thing wasn't it? The turks were muslim (a more middle eastern than european religion) and persecuted a christian/jewish (both considered very european religions) minority.

I know next to nothing about the topic so I may be pulling this out of my ass but that was my vague recollection.

ShumaGorath wrote:That seems pretty European to me. Almost every European nation has genocide in it's history.

Well sure, but they don't like talking about it either

The biggest problem is that it was a Muslim genocide of Christians. For a country that wants to join the Euro club, and that still thinks of the world with religious lines, killing a bunch of Christians isn't very endearing to the other Christians you're trying to get in bed with (which is what I meant).

corpsesarefun wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Its something they don't want to talk about. Turkey's culture has adopted a position where they want to think of themselves as being more European than Middle Eastern. They want to join the EU and builder closer ties to Europe (this has in general been a goal of the region to greater or lesser extents since the mid-Ottoman Empire).

Admitting they committed a genocide is admitting the cultural reasons the genocide happened, which is very not European. That, and genocide is just something people tend not to look back on with pride.

That seems pretty European to me. Almost every European nation has genocide in it's history.

It was a religious thing wasn't it? The turks were muslim (a more middle eastern than european religion) and persecuted a christian/jewish (both considered very european religions) minority.

I know next to nothing about the topic so I may be pulling this out of my ass but that was my vague recollection.

Most of it was colonial. The natives of Africa and the Americas got a pretty bad deal there. Then there was the nazi thing.

LordofHats wrote:Its something they don't want to talk about. Turkey's culture has adopted a position where they want to think of themselves as being more European than Middle Eastern. They want to join the EU and builder closer ties to Europe (this has in general been a goal of the region to greater or lesser extents since the mid-Ottoman Empire).

Admitting they committed a genocide is admitting the cultural reasons the genocide happened, which is very not European. That, and genocide is just something people tend not to look back on with pride.

To be fair, Germany is part of Europe and commited genocide. Cyprus is a far more pressing issue preventing Turkey entering the EU than Armenia. The genocide was becuase of religious and cultural differences. You had Armenian Christians with a strong sense of identity from their religion and history. Then you had Muslim Turks who were transitioning from a multi-ethnic Empire to a (partially) nation-state with a unitary identity. Its often forgotten in todays multi-culturalism just how racist 19th and early 20th century nationalism was. It was believed that nations had to be united both territorially and socially in order to be 'strong'. This was a European concept. Although there are countless examples of racism and massacres in history; usually a power was fine so long as a people submitted to them. As the Greeks and Armenians had during the Ottoman expansion. However, as several historians I read contended it was these new European ideas of nation which combined with the cataclysmic events of WW1 sealed the Armenians fate. It wasn't that they were Muslim or an oriental culture per sae, although the Empire DID commit atrocities because of this reason it was not their motivating one. It wouldn't be an admittence of oriental barabarism then if the Turks held up their hands, as I said it would probably be a good thing for the region and improve Turkeys image in the eyes of the West.

On an unrelated hypothetical note I'am almost certain that if Turkey did (unlikely) join the EU then this would lead to Armenia and Georgias entry as well.

Totalwar1402 wrote:Britain eventually forgave the Irish for the famine

Are you sure you don't have this backwards?

Maybe Turkey should pass a law making the denial of French genocide during the revolution a crime. It would certainly make for interesting politics.

LordofHats wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:That seems pretty European to me. Almost every European nation has genocide in it's history.

Well sure, but they don't like talking about it either

The biggest problem is that it was a Muslim genocide of Christians. For a country that wants to join the Euro club, and that still thinks of the world with religious lines, killing a bunch of Christians isn't very endearing to the other Christians you're trying to get in bed with (which is what I meant).

But thats the thing. Every European nation knows the Turks did it. They're not altering the EU's stance on that by being proud.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Totalwar1402 wrote:Britain eventually forgave the Irish for the famine

Are you sure you don't have this backwards?

Maybe Turkey should pass a law making the denial of French genocide during the revolution a crime. It would certainly make for interesting politics.

Sorry. What I meant to say was that Britain offered its forgiveness to the Irish for Britain's role in exaserbating the potato blight.

I suppose you could argue aristocrats are a people after a sorts. I mean they always said they were a breed apart.

ShumaGorath wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

It was a religious thing wasn't it? The turks were muslim (a more middle eastern than european religion) and persecuted a christian/jewish (both considered very european religions) minority.

I know next to nothing about the topic so I may be pulling this out of my ass but that was my vague recollection.

Most of it was colonial. The natives of Africa and the Americas got a pretty bad deal there. Then there was the nazi thing.

I mean the Armenian genocide specifically.

corpsesarefun wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

It was a religious thing wasn't it? The turks were muslim (a more middle eastern than european religion) and persecuted a christian/jewish (both considered very european religions) minority.

I know next to nothing about the topic so I may be pulling this out of my ass but that was my vague recollection.

Most of it was colonial. The natives of Africa and the Americas got a pretty bad deal there. Then there was the nazi thing.

I mean the Armenian genocide specifically.

Ahh, sorry.

Totalwar1402 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I'd reply but this is a family forum.

Sorry, have I over-stepped the mark with this post?

Oh no, you're ok.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Its something they don't want to talk about. Turkey's culture has adopted a position where they want to think of themselves as being more European than Middle Eastern. They want to join the EU and builder closer ties to Europe (this has in general been a goal of the region to greater or lesser extents since the mid-Ottoman Empire).

Admitting they committed a genocide is admitting the cultural reasons the genocide happened, which is very not European. That, and genocide is just something people tend not to look back on with pride.

That seems pretty European to me. Almost every European nation has genocide in it's history.

It was a religious thing wasn't it? The turks were muslim (a more middle eastern than european religion) and persecuted a christian/jewish (both considered very european religions) minority.

I know next to nothing about the topic so I may be pulling this out of my ass but that was my vague recollection.

yep

biccat wrote:Maybe Turkey should pass a law making the denial of French genocide during the revolution a crime.

Or indeed during the Holocaust.

LordofHats wrote:
Well sure, but they don't like talking about it either

The biggest problem is that it was a Muslim genocide of Christians. For a country that wants to join the Euro club, and that still thinks of the world with religious lines, killing a bunch of Christians isn't very endearing to the other Christians you're trying to get in bed with (which is what I meant).

But still, its odd. Ataturk directly repudiated the actions of the Young Turks, and surely an appeal to Kemalism while denouncing the genocide would not be unlike Germany passing laws against the denial of Holocaust.

Of course, an appeal to Kemalism would almost certainly piss off the large, and growing, push towards traditional Turkish values.

Totalwar1402 wrote:

Sorry. What I meant to say was that Britain offered its forgiveness to the Irish for Britain's role in exaserbating the potato blight.

Nope, that's still not right! I think what you meant to say is that Britain made a gesture of contrition for its role in exacerbating the Potato Blight.

If the Turks admited to the Genocides they would proberly have to compensate the Armenian family's who lost family members in the Genocide.

Its pretty despicable what the Turks did to the Armenians, I wish they had got what was coming after they lost WW1 but the Allies didn't bother to bring them to justice.

Ironically Hitler justified the extermination of the Jews quoting "No one rembers the Armenians"

Its sad that Turks won't even just appoligies for what they did.

George Spiggott wrote:

biccat wrote:Maybe Turkey should pass a law making the denial of French genocide during the revolution a crime.

Or indeed during the Holocaust.

I'd like to state for the record that I was not the one who went there.

Good call tho.

I think, like any lie (which is what it is), the cost of admitting the truth just gets higher as time passes.

Meaning, not only will they look bad for actually, you know, committing genocide, they'll look ridiculous for denying it for 100 years.