2167) Open Letter On The Armenian “Genocide” Debate by The Van Der Galien Gazette

Nov 3rd, 2007 by Jason Steck

One of the things we try hard to maintain on the Gazette is an environment where disagreement is encouraged while maintaining some civility. This is admittedly a precarious balancing act at times, as it requires us to draw some subjective lines about when someone who is disagreeing with one of us has crossed the line. On the one hand, we may be prone to see those violations more easily than others, leading to a tendency towards oversensitivity. On the other hand, we can’t allow the fact that we are the authors to become license for some others to run roughshod over us, with potential personal and professional consequences on top of it.

But the recent debates about whether the World War I-era mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks should be labeled “genocide” have raised problems to a new level of severity. We concede that the issue is a controversial one that will inevitably raise passionate beliefs. That there were massive numbers of killings of Armenians and forced relocations is unquestionable from the historical data. But since there is not yet evidence of a clear intention to completely eliminate the Armenians as a people and since there is some evidence of Armenian participation in a two-way conflict, we have only been questioning whether the absolutist term “genocide” is appropriate.

Unfortunately, due in part to some organized efforts directed on other web sites, we have been met with a deluge of extreme intolerance in response. Often using duplicate accounts, some commenters have shown up charging that anyone who refuses to instantly and without reservation accept their demand that the term “genocide” be embraced is a “Holocaust denialist” or a paid agent of the Turkish government. They often also include bigoted comments about ethnic Turks as people. When advised to tone down their attacks, they respond instead by escalation.

As a result, we have been forced to ban several commenters. Repeated warnings were given in both comment threads and in emails. These warnings were responded to with further escalation of name-calling and accusations of corruption. All further such comments will be deleted without further warning or note of any kind — the comments and their associated accounts will simply disappear.

We also want to emphasize, however, that sincere disagreement on the issue IS allowed and even encouraged. If commenters want to provide substantive argument on why they believe the term “genocide” is appropriate in this case and/or why it should be labeled as such by the Congress or some other group, that kind of comment is fine and will not be deleted or its author banned. The only thing that is being banned here is name-calling and accusations of payoffs and corruption.

So there is no way that we are banning all Armenians (how would we know who is and is not an Armenian anyway?) nor are we banning everyone who disagrees with us. We don’t even agree with each other on several details of this debate. One of us believes that a term like “ethnic cleansing” might be more accurate, while the other sees a “civil war” with “massacres” as the sad result. Obviously, our purpose is not to endorse or minimize the killings of Armenians. The terms “ethnic cleansing” and “civil war / massacres” call forth more modern comparisons to Bosnia, Kosovo, and Baghdad. Such comparisons could not rationally be seen as endorsements or minimization of what happened to the Armenians. The fact that we disagree between the two of us shows that disagreement on this issue need not be uncivil or filled with recrimination and accusation.

If those who want to argue for the “genocide” label cannot do so without name-calling and accusations, well, they hardly have anyone other than themselves to blame for getting banned.

Michael P. F. van der Galien — site editor

Jason Steck — site administrator

Update: Comments have been closed due to a few individuals using duplicate accounts to spam the thread with personal attacks on other commenters, the site owner, and even their family members. We regret this inconvenience to any of our legitimate readers who might have been interested in the discussion. The individuals responsible should be made aware of the fact that they are undermining their own cause by behaving in ways that alienate potential allies.

---

70 Responses to “Open Letter on the Armenian “Genocide” Debate”
on 03 Nov 2007 at 9:03 pm
1 Banjo

Is there any way to blame it on George Bush?

on 03 Nov 2007 at 9:25 pm
2 Hripsime

Edit by MvdG: it’s unbelievable. Do you ever, ever learn? Note; you’re only hurting your own cause.

on 03 Nov 2007 at 10:18 pm
3 thetruth1001

One has to only read Henry Morganthou’s diary, who was the AMERICAN AMBASSADOR in turkey during the Genocide. As well as the thousands of official US archives concerning the SYSTEMATIC PREMEDITATED EXTERMINATION OF THE INDIGINIOUS EASTERN ANATOLIAN INNOCENT, UNARMED ARMENIA POPULATION. This was not two armys fighting. This was the turkish master races idea to make one homoginized turkish state. WW1 gave a perfect cover for mass murder. I guess to some, official documents, eye witness testimony, countless archival material in multi countries, fist hand converstaions, extensive research by the International Association of Genocide Scholars and pictures aren’t enough. If this wasn’t genocide, what is??

on 03 Nov 2007 at 10:29 pm
4 Michael van der Galiën

TheTruth: Morgenthau (it would help your case if you could actually spell the name of the man whose diary you say you read) admitted later that he was in the Ottoman Empire on a propaganda mission. Furthermore, other documents have been forged (certain telegrams for instance) and… yes, believe it or not, the Ottoman Empire was the enemy of Western Europe (and later America) at that time. They spread propaganda in an effort to rally support for the war back home.

Furthermore, other government documents - namely those in Turkey - imply that the Ottoman government only wanted them to be relocated, and, in the word of Bernard Lewis, tried to prevent the Armenians from being hurt. As he said, “they weren’t very successful at that,” but that’s beside the point.

It’s also important to note that only the Armenians living in a certain part of Anatolia were deported. The ones in, say, Istanbul were allowed to stay and weren’t touched. At all.

Research also shows that Armenians formed militias which killed many Muslim Turks. How about that? Why isn’t that relevant to you? Also; the Ottomans didn’t have a history of hating Armenians. They called them “the loyal nation.”

As for first hand research: it are actually quite some of the historians who have done ‘first hand research’ in the Ottoman archives - which are open to everybody, while the Armenian archives are not - who conclude that what happened was many things, but genocide wasn’t one of them.

This is an issue that should be left to historians to decide, not politicians.

And the notion that ‘it’s clear’ what happened is, quite simply, a lie. It’s not clear at all. It’s time for you and people like you to admit that.

on 03 Nov 2007 at 10:30 pm
5 Michael van der Galiën

If this wasn’t genocide, what is??

What happened to the Jews is, what happened to the Armenians is not (as far as I can tell at this point in time).

on 03 Nov 2007 at 10:49 pm
6 eddy

Before we called a Tree , the Tree was still a Tree !

” That entire debate about whether there was or wasn’t genocide is foolish and ugly. Nobody disputes the fact that more than one million Armenians were murdered during a two-year period, and a million people are not murdered without planning and without organization. The Turks can invent a thousand reasons to explain what happened, but of what importance will that be when the important thing is that people, women, men, children, died strange and ruthless and unnatural deaths?”

Yossi Sarid former education minster in Israel has the answer for the one who deny the Armenian Genocide

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.j…SubContrassID=0
Back from Armenia
By Yossi Sarid

on 03 Nov 2007 at 10:55 pm
7 eddy

thia is commen… the planer a genocide are useing always a “code name” like: “deportation”, “relocation”, “forced exil” etc..
but what was the end result of the action of Turks? the end result can not be called nothing but genocide

even Hitler did allow thaosends of jews to travel to swiss or they bwere able to save thier live in different ways

Before we called a Tree , the Tree was still a Tree !

” That entire debate about whether there was or wasn’t genocide is foolish and ugly. Nobody disputes the fact that more than one million Armenians were murdered during a two-year period, and a million people are not murdered without planning and without organization. The Turks can invent a thousand reasons to explain what happened, but of what importance will that be when the important thing is that people, women, men, children, died strange and ruthless and unnatural deaths?”

Yossi Sarid former education minster in Israel has the answer for the one who deny the Armenian Genocide

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.j…SubContrassID=0
Back from Armenia
By Yossi Sarid

on 03 Nov 2007 at 10:59 pm
8 Michael van der Galiën

even Hitler did allow thaosends of jews to travel to swiss or they bwere able to save thier live in different ways

I get a bit tired of this comparison (which has been discredited time and again).
1. The Jews didn’t form militias in 1925 which went out and killed (hundreds of) thousands of German Christians and occupy villages and cities by force.
2. The Jews didn’t form an alliance with the Russians and rebel against the Germans.
3. Hitler wanted to kill all Jews. He made no secret of that. The Ottomans didn’t.
4. The Nazis didn’t punish those who killed Jews. Many of those who killed Armenians, however, were punished by their own government.
5. Should I continue?

on 03 Nov 2007 at 11:07 pm
9 Areen

“3. Hitler wanted to kill all Jews. He made no secret of that. The Ottomans didn’t.”

The intent to destroy in whole or in part is the criterion for something being called genocide. Whatever the reasons for the massacres, whatever the justifications (gangs, militias, a yearning for independence), the fact remains that the Ottoman Turkish government created a homogeneous Turkish state through the destruction of the Armenians, the Greeks, and the Assyrians.

If you’re tired of the comparison, stop making the same hackneyed response.

on 03 Nov 2007 at 11:09 pm
10 Areen

A destruction in part…but a destruction nonetheless. That’s genocide.

Edit by MvdG: Areen.Areen.Areen. Play nice.

on 03 Nov 2007 at 11:09 pm
11 Areen

As they have no bearing on the issue, and you know that.

on 03 Nov 2007 at 11:13 pm
12 Michael van der Galiën

A destruction in part…but a destruction nonetheless. That’s genocide

No it’s not and especially not considering:
1. The Jews didn’t form militias in 1925 which went out and killed (hundreds of) thousands of German Christians and occupy villages and cities by force.
2. The Jews didn’t form an alliance with the Russians and rebel against the Germans.
3. Hitler wanted to kill all Jews. He made no secret of that. The Ottomans didn’t.
4. The Nazis didn’t punish those who killed Jews. Many of those who killed Armenians, however, were punished by their own government.

on 03 Nov 2007 at 11:17 pm
13 Areen

You just reposted your previous comment.

It can’t be argued that it wasn’t a destruction in part. Take a look at the demographics of Eastern Anatolia today. Majority Kurd, minority Turk, but hardly an Armenian on a vast stretch of the homeland. I would say that’s a very successful partial destruction. How is that not?

on 03 Nov 2007 at 11:24 pm
14 eddy

Open Letter To The One Who Have Still Problem With The Fact of Armenian Genocide

“Let’s face it, we Turks savagely ( vahshiane in Turkish) killed off the Armenians.”

While the Armenian Genocide was going

Millions of Muslim Turks had witnessed the mass deportation of Armenians three years earlier a few, with infinite courage, protected Armenian neighbours and friends at the risk of the lives of their own Muslim families and, on 19 October 1918, Ahmed Riza, the elected president of the Turkish senate and a former supporter of the Young Turk leaders who committed the genocide, stated in his inaugural speech: “Let’s face it, we Turks savagely ( vahshiane in Turkish) killed off the Armenians.”

„…The alternative is on display in Turkey, where the collapse of a war crimes tribunal after World War I paved the way for today’s widespread Turkish nationalist denial of the Armenian genocide…” Gary J. Bass , Try and Try Again, September 26, 2005, NYT.” (Gary J. Bass, an associate professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton, is the author of “Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals.”)

1- We shouldn’t forget that out of six principles defined by Kemal Attaturk one reads as fallow:
“Turkish nation/people is in no way indivisible there are NO non Turkish minorities and languages in Anatolia allowed” (No place for others! ). Is this principle of so called modern Turkey not based of racism and a call for expulsion, ethnic cleansing and massacres and even a call for further genocides like the one committed by Ottoman Turks against Armenians and other No Turkish minorities in the past?

2- Do we have really to be surprised of Turkish denial policy and when Turkish politicians like Mr Tayyep Erdogan announce:
“Even if the Kurds establish a Kurdish state in Argentina the Turks would fight this.” Turkish PM Erdogan, 2004 (No comments)

on 03 Nov 2007 at 11:31 pm
15 Katia

Mr. Michael P. F. van der Galien -

You are not a Genocide scholar nor a historian to claim that “since there is not yet evidence of a clear intention to completely eliminate the Armenians as a people” then what happened to the Armenians in 1915-1922 was not a Genocide.

But the International Association of Genocide Scholars (http://www.isg-iags.org/) has studied the Armenian case and has come to the conclusion that that there was an intent to annihilate the Armenians of Anatolia; and that this was a Genocide. These scholars - non-partisans - did their research of the events that took place more than 90 years ago, and did conclude unanimously that it was a Genocide.

You, however, have done nothing except act like Turkish Government’s parrot in denying that this was not a Genocide.

In fact, Ataturk in August 1, 1926 interview with Los Angeles Examiner, admitted the reality of the Armenian Genocide when he stated: “These leftovers from the former Young Turk Party, who should have been made to account for the lives of millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse, from their homes and massacred, have been restive under the republican rule. They have hitherto lived on plunder, robbery and bribery and become inimical to any idea, or suggestion to enlist in useful labor and earn their living by the honest sweat of their brow.”

This space is not enough to put all the evidence. Check your own Dutch newspapers of the day, and you’ll read just a small fraction of the Genocide in progress.

Edit by MvdG: do that again and you’re banned. And for what it’s worth; I’m not impressed with your rhetoric portraying me and Jason as criminals, etc. I recognize what you do and it’s not working.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 12:18 am
16 Michael van der Galiën

In fact, Ataturk in August 1, 1926 interview with Los Angeles Examiner, admitted the reality of the Armenian Genocide when he stated: “These leftovers from the former Young Turk Party, who should have been made to account for the lives of millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse, from their homes and massacred, have been restive under the republican rule. They have hitherto lived on plunder, robbery and bribery and become inimical to any idea, or suggestion to enlist in useful labor and earn their living by the honest sweat of their brow.”

Again, dishonesty on display. Utterly amazing. Atatürk did, indeed, say that those who killed Armenians were horrible people, that it was terrible etc. I agree. That, however, doesn’t make it genocide.

As for the genocide scholars: perhaps they should listen a bit more to what historians have to say about what actually happened. They’re dead wrong on this one, simply because they don’t listen to what well known historians have to say about this subject.

The other part of your comment has been deleted. We don’t have any patience for attacks like that. Try it again and you’re banned.

K’s comment is deleted and he’s banned immediately.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 12:20 am
17 Michael van der Galiën

What’s even more fascinating is that the people who have commented thusfar don’t respond to the actual post, basically, and only come here to repeat the usual talking points. Fascinating that.

O, and quite some of you do not just ignore the content of this post, you also act completely different than we said you should. This is not up for debate: if you can’t debate civil, you are not welcome at this blog. There are enough forums out there that condemn those who disagree with teh Armenian lobby on this issue. We’re not one of them. If necessary we will close the comment section. Perhaps some of you should learn to behave.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 12:37 am
18 Areen Babajanian

By chastising dissenting comments within your own comments made on this and related postings, you’re only contributing to the atmosphere of having a pointless discussion where the issue itself isn’t addressed.

By saying that genocide historians are allegedly “dead wrong” you make your blog look trivial and one-sided, not only inviting but asking for comments from the multitudes who disagree with your “dead wrong” stance.

Completely unrelated, but I can see why Turkish apologists like using quotation marks and the word allegedly very often, it does feel strangely fulfilling.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 12:37 am
19 Areen

…especially when you’re dead wrong.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 12:55 am
20 Michael van der Galiën

By chastising dissenting comments within your own comments made on this and related postings, you’re only contributing to the atmosphere of having a pointless discussion where the issue itself isn’t addressed.

Have you heard me refer to Armenians as Christian dogs or to those who act as if the Armenian militias caused no harm as criminals or nazis? If so, you’re right.

And as for the genocide scholars; they are dead wrong in my opinion because I rely on information from historians who know more about the Ottoman Empire and Turkey than those genocide scholars combined.

O, and I’m also quite strict in what I consider to be scholarly work / areas, who are scholars and in what, etc. But that’s an entirely different debate.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 1:06 am
21 Areen

Well Michael, I’m glad you know more than genocide scholars and I’m glad you have very strong convictions when it comes to an open and shut historical case. I’m glad you fancy yourself a historian and act as such on your blog. That’s your prerogative and your right.

But when I run a search on “Armenian genocide” on google news and I see the way the history of my people is being represented here, I can’t not post something in response to your lopsided views.

At the same time, I absolutely don’t agree with the substance of some of the comments made here (presumably by Armenians) where Turks are called dogs and Nazis.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 1:07 am
22 Pat

If you wonder why some don’t want to accept that the term genocide should be used, I give you the following.

One of the writers above pointed to a website concerned with Genocide Scholarship and Studies. From this website I navigated to the following site:

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/map-full.html

This is a map of the areas where this event supposedly happened. Notice if you will the pink dots located in the Black Sea. Refering to a map more accurate than the one on the above website, I found there are no islands in these locations. Someone is fabricating data, or simply doing sloppy research. This is unacceptable when the term Genocide and all the exacting nature of this legal term is used and/or required. So, if you want the term used, fine, be exact, make sure your data is correct and meets the detail required of a genuine legal argument. Why is this important? Well, you are requiring the Turks and Turkey to admit to something that they obviously feel they didn’t do. No one is denying alot of innocent people died violently.

I have found more examples of this shoddy research work in the references the Armenian side uses to support its’ case. Why didn’t I look at the Turkish side you may ask. Well they are the accused, you know, “Innocent until proven Guilty” and all that. Besides, their side would obviously be biased against the case.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 1:14 am
23 Michael van der Galiën

Areen: those genocide scholars pretend to know more about Ottoman history then historians like Stone, Lewy, Lewis, the list goes on and on. My main point, actually, is that there still is debate about this matter and that, therefore, it should be left to historians (and no, not genocide scholars) to ‘decide’ upon the matter.

But when I run a search on “Armenian genocide” on google news and I see the way the history of my people is being represented here, I can’t not post something in response to your lopsided views.

The thing is, that’s how I feel as well, but then about how Turks and the ottoman empire are portrayed.

No one here is denying that the Armenians suffered tremendously, they did. Suffering and many deaths, however, doesn’t automatically make it genocide. Furthermore, something that’s often forgotten is that the Turkish Muslims suffered tremendously as well when they were attacked by Armenian militias.

I absolutely don’t agree with the substance of some of the comments made here (presumably by Armenians) where Turks are called dogs and Nazis.

I’m glad to hear that.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 1:20 am
24 Spree

Michael, it is pointless to try to reason with those that name call and continue to make the same arguments without bothering to read your counterpoints. I went through this on the same issue and some cannot separate their opinion from the facts you have listed so eloquently.

I happen to agree with you, the topic is one for historians, not politicians.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 1:37 am
25 P. Connolly

There is really no need for these Genocide “Scholars”. This whole scheme of genocide “Scholars” deciding for us whether a genocide occurred and then having legislative bodies pass “resolutions” based on the “finding” of the genocide “scholars” is clearly a manipulation of systems already existing in society; it circumvents existing channels. Courts are empowered to identify and punish perpetrators of genocides after a due process of discovery is completed in which all sides present their evidence. Historians uncover historical facts. These genocide “Scholars” are entirely self-proclaimed; there was never an established or universally agreed-upon need for them and their methods of operation are entirely different from those of independent impartial historians. They operate like a closed club without proper transparency and they do not uniformly enforce recognized standards of academic rigor. Furthermore, it is quite clear and evident to everyone that there is a conflict of interest in having legislators please voters on the one hand and impartially uncover historical facts on the other.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 1:39 am
26 Areen

Hmmm…so we should leave it to “top” historians , but not to “feigning” genocide scholars, as if the ranks of the former somehow are preferred to the latter. It must take a very special person to have a view on this matter that you would count as relevant.

With that sentiment it’s a wonder if any decision by any panel, which let’s face it, will almost invariably call the events genocide (think ICTJ) would satisfy your crowd.

When it comes to this seminal event in my people’s modern history (as well as that of the Assyrians, and to a lesser extent the Greeks) it seems that we are held to a higher burden of proof for the sole reason that the powers that be have very much invested in the stability, survival, and sanity of Turkey…which is understandable when you look at big picture geopolitics I suppose.

I can also understand how modern Turks have not been taught to view the history of the times through an unfiltered lens and how painful it must be to comprehend the weight of what happened in 1915 to the Armenians, regardless of the term one uses to call them.

But none of this excuses denying the reality and not allowing the Turks, and especially the Armenians, to bury the past and move on to better and brighter things.

Don’t call it genocide, don’t call it holocaust, but accept that some sort of apology and some sort of an honest reckoning of the history is due, particularly in those lands where all this transpired. Everywhere else, thank god, the truth is not on the defense.

I’m done having my blood boil.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 1:40 am
27 T. Mary

I am a decendent of Armenian genocide survivors, when Turkey killed unarmed, peaceful Armenians in a plan which HItler copied in an attempt to exterminate a people. It is so sad for people to not do research and base their opinions on the matter solely from the mouths of the perpetrators, who have a long history of gruesome bloodshed. Please do your research, read the New YorK Times archives from 1915-1917 where it was reported what the Turks were doing to the Armenians (with no reference to the lies of Armenians doing anything or causing any reason to have this tragedy befall on them other than Turkey’s hatred of a nation who they have for years tried to get rid of. 1915 was not the first time!). Please educate yourselves otherwise you are believing the deniers and letting them get away with a crime that there is a mountain full of evidence they committed.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 1:48 am
28 Jason Steck

I am posting a comment here only to point out that those who are making their arguments without name-calling are being left intact while those comments that use name-calling or accusations are being deleted and banned.

Notice that there ARE comments that disagree with Michael and/or myself still remaining on this thread. We are not deleting everyone who disagrees with us.

We are deleting ONLY those who cannot disagree with civility.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 5:43 am
29 JerseyGuy

“Unarmed Peaceful Armenians” ? Are those the same ones that stormed the Ottoman bank and killed dozens of Turks, cut their heads off and threw them out into the street? Are the same Armenians that formed armed militias, sided with the French and Russians and fought against their own country? Are they the same Armenians that massacred entire Turkish villages knowing full well that the Turks will retaliate just win western sympathy for their cause.

Whether what the Turks did is not a clear cut case of genocide. However, it is undisputed fact that the Armenians committed all of the above for the sole purpose of dividing Turkey and carving out an Armenian state.

When a single Armenian, Hrant Dink was murdered in Turkey a hundred thousand Turks protested in disgust. Yet throughout the 70s & 80s when dozens of Turkish diplomats and their families (yes including women and children) were murdered by Armenian terrorists how many Armenians protested? The only time these ruthless acts stopped is after Turkish intelligence assasinated the Terrorists. admin: let’s avoid the ethnic bigotry on both sides

On the one hand Armenians try to buy politicians in every country with a string Armenian lobby to pass laws recognizing the Armenian genocide. They also still to this day do not recognize the internationally recognized borders of Turkey (yes they have a territorial claim). Through these actions they constantly demonstrate their hostility towards Turkey yet are confused why Turkey choses not to trade and keep the border closed?

When Armenia was formed Turkey immediately recognized their independence demonstrating an attempt to reconcile past grievances? How did Armenia receive this good will gesture? By invading large parts of Azerbeijan.

Turkey is taking as fair an approach as possible. Turkey offered to convene an international body of historians and have them investigate every relevant archive and come to a conclusion as to whether what transpired was in fact genocide. Turkey also opened up all her archives for investigation. Armenia has not and Armenia wants nothing to do with any of this. If it is such a clear cut case of genocide why don’t they just agree to this since it should prove their point? What are they so afraid of? Why don’t they bring a case against Turkey in the International Court of Justice if they have the burden of proof is on their side?

There is one and only one reason. They know they will lose and they know it will result in exposing all of the violence they have committed. They prefer approaches with predetermined outcomes such as buying politicians to pass legislation with no research whatsoever. They have always wanted others to do for them what they can’t themselves through trickery. They have not changed through their history. Had the Armenians succeeded in carving out a state out of Turkey, today we would be talking about those “Armenian martyrs”. However, since they lost they prefer to paint themselves as victims to win today.

It is really sad because despite living with and alongside the Turks for the last thousand years they still have not learned the Turks. Turkey will NEVER admit to a crime they did not commit, NEVER EVER give up any territory to the Armenians. In effect their efforts will have one and only one effect which is the continuation of animosity between the two peoples and countries. Who is this hurting? Turkey is a powerful country and does not need Armenia in any way. The same can’t be said about Armenia.

During the span of WWI Turkey’s population shrank from 23 million to 11 million. Millions of Turks were cleansed out of the Balkans, Russia, the Caucuses, Armenia, Greece and Middle East. Despite countless attocities against the Turks by the Armenians, Russians, British, French, Greeks, Australians and Italians are the Turks accusing these countries of genocide? No. Because the Turks are brave and accept that in war you have to be willing to live with the consequences. The Armenians, despite instigating violence by committing barbaric acts of their own have not realized that wars have consequences. They need to accept this and move on.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 7:05 am
30 eddy

@JerseyGuy
Armenian was occupied by ottoman Turks
what happed to the promised reforms regarding Turkish Armenia?

What was the answer of Turkish Reforms for Armenians and for other Christian people

you write : “When a single Armenian, Hrant Dink was murdered in Turkey a hundred thousand Turks protested in disgust. ”

90% of this who protested were Armenian, Kurds or of Armenian origin!

This is a not a crime if a people tried to resists a Genocide! You are just trying to justify the Armenian Genocide nothing else as the US is trying to cover uop its “partnership” with Turkey which is built on the foundation of lies and denial of Armenian Genocide!

A crime a genocide is Okey if one can benefit of it (brings profit to otheres… )
there is always justification to deny or try to cover up a genocide

on 04 Nov 2007 at 7:12 am
31 Eddy

@JerseyGuy

“Turkey will NEVER admit to a crime they did not commit, NEVER EVER give up any territory to the Armenians. ”

this are the words of turkish ultra nationalists but your name doesnt sound Turkish ! You sounds , as if you were member of tukish “gray wolfs” (a fasicst organisation)

to cary a denial policy without to comit the crime itself is almost inposible !

on 04 Nov 2007 at 7:45 am
32 Pat

P. Connolly

You are so right in your post above. Checking into the website for these “International Genocide Scholars” I found that a number of them can’t even agree as to what genocide actually is! Further, the U.N. defined it to some extent in 1951 (according to their own website!)

Just in case you are interested and want to “experience” this confusion for yourself, see the web address posted by “Katia” in post #17.

Eddy

If you ever wonder why more people aren’t interested in your cause, it is because you immediately start accusing them of being “Turkish Apologists” or members of fascist organizations, or being a “Turkish Ultranationalist” or or or….

Well boyo, I’m a U.S. Citizen of Irish descent, and I agree with JerseyGuy that you’ll never get the Turks to bend their knee to your demands. You’ll only harden their hearts against you. Oh yes, didn’t you just say that the protestors protesting Mr. Dink’s murder were Turks of Kurdish and Armenian heritage? Well, that in and of itself should tell you something about the current Turkish Government. That is that the current gov’t in Turkey is esposing freedom of speech for all its citizens. So no matter who did the protesting, the protest was permitted! Try that in present day Armenia and you’ll find yourself imprisoned. It is by no accident that “Reporters without Borders” labels Armenia as having more restrictions on the freedom of press that most other countries in the world and has jailed many of its own journalists. It is really hard to be sympathetic with your cause under these circumstances.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 9:19 am
33 domajot

Reading these comment exchages, it seems to me that the quest to understand what actually happened is actually impeded by getting stuck on the definition of the word ‘genocide’

I understand why the word is important, but it also distorts the debate.
For example, MVDG pointed out that the Jews did not form militias. Is the genocide label reserved only for cases when there is no physical resistance? If so, how does that really change the intent of those responsible for the killings or the outcome for those who were killed?

The problem with discussing atrocious events strictly in temrs of genocide vs. not genocide is exemplified by the actions of the Soviets during and after WWII. Russians had a policy of Russification in all the territories it took over, involving relocation (Russians in, local ehtnical groups out) plus mass deportations to Siberia. No, it didn’t attempt to kill every citizen of the local ethnic group. It was content to dilute the population and to subjugage the rest into obedience. If you joined the Party, you could even live well as long as you didn’t brag about your ethnic background.
This, then, doesn’t qualify for genocide, but the intent was the same, to eliminate ethnic groups by eliminating ethnic identities.

I’m not weighing in on the Armenian’s’ claims because I don;t know enough about it. I do know enough about the regions where Armenians have lived to surmise that that area of the world has been riddled by so much ethnic conflict for so many centureis, that to settle all old scores is apt to give rise to a new round of animosities.

It would help if scholarship could produce a clear story about the events, and then, the genocide word could be used, or not, with more authority. Actually, having a complete story is much more important than what it’s called IMO.

I would just add another lessom from the Russians. They were expert at rewriting history and for making documents disappear and reappear at will. Outside scholars are often easily misled by this magic.
So, while the Armenian scholars clearly have a political agenda, I wouldn’t discount the possiblity of the Turks having one also out of hand.

Ironically, the pressure of calling it genocide might actually be a deterrent to good scholaship, as scholarship requires an ability to distance oneself emotionally from the topic.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 10:36 am
34 Michael van der Galiën

Is the genocide label reserved only for cases when there is no physical resistance?

Resistance to what? They were deported because they formed militias, they didn’t form militias because they were deported.

To answer your question a bit more: yes it is important to argue about what genocide means, because the Armenian side wants Turkey to ‘admit’ to having commit genocide. Not massacres, not ethnic cleansing as Jason says, but genocide.

Now, if there was no government ordered attempt to wipe out all Armenians there was no genocide.

Anyway:

Ironically, the pressure of calling it genocide might actually be a deterrent to good scholaship, as scholarship requires an ability to distance oneself emotionally from the topic.

Agreed. You often hear people say that it’s difficult to say it’s not genocide because of the pressure and bad name you will get.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 1:33 pm
35 Sam3

Edit by MvdG: Too bad. You’re banned.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 3:13 pm
36 sashal

It is all word play.
I think everybody here agrees that mass number of Armenians died in those years involuntarily.
I think to them it did not matter how we will cal it afterwords, genocide or ethnic cleansing.
Both are horrible acts, causing millions of deaths.
I, for once, would not want to be a victim of either.
How about a suggestion for Turkey.
Don’t want to admit to genocide?
Then admit to ethnic cleansing and atrocities.
At least that will be a step to reconciliation.

Nobody has ever claimed , at least on this blog, that all Turks are murderous fascists ( I have a few Turkish friends and Armenians as well).
Another example from history:
In the Stalin’s USSR many nations, like Chechens and Crimean Tatars had been forcefully cleansed from their homes and areas of inhabits. Millions died as the result of harsh treatment , hunger and atrocities.
The excuse has been used -their alleged cooperation with Germany ( like the whole nation is a traitor).
After the Stalin’s death those atrocities were acknowledged eventually, and people were allowed to settle back, which helped to diffuse the tensions somewhat.
BTW , newly independent Baltic states and Poland still waiting for Russians to admit atrocities committed by communists against their nations, even there definitely was no genocide, but I would call it “classicide”( my word) when people of certain class or means had been deported to Siberian camps…with no return ticket..

on 04 Nov 2007 at 3:28 pm
37 Michael van der Galiën

Sashal: Turkey has ‘admitted’ that many people have died. Atatürk himself has condemned those responsible. This isn’t about condemning it as bad, this is about Armenians pushing Turkey and other countries into calling it genocide.

With regards to Stalin: he ordered the killings. The point is, one of the points, that the Ottoman government didn’t order the killings and that quite some of those responsible were later punished. Did Stalin punish those responsible? I thought so.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 4:06 pm
38 sashal

Yes, Michael, I have heard about Ataturk condemning the atrocities.
If by calling it a genocide Armenians hope for the reparations, then they have an uphill almost unwinnable struggle.
If somehow they declare that the money is not a goal, it is just a moral issue, they, imho, may have a better chance of recognition.
Don’t get me wrong, Michael, I love Turkey and Turkish people ( I have been there a few times as well).
This is a complicated problem and I understand the feelings of the Armenians.
I don’t know, hopefully this issue will resolve sooner or later without some of the posters going at each other throats.
Yes,Stalin has ordered the forceful resettlement himself, with the willing apparatus of communist party. There is no question about it.
And it is a shame right now there is a quiet rehabilitation of him going on in Russia on TV and newpapers.
BTW, is anybody sure , can anybody claim with 100% certainty, that Turkish government was not involved in 1915 events regarding Armenians?

P.S. I have voted a few times for your blog as best European blog, hope you will get the win.
Not that it matters much for my personal appreciation of the quality of posts and discussions here..

on 04 Nov 2007 at 4:19 pm
39 Michael van der Galiën

BTW, is anybody sure , can anybody claim with 100% certainty, that Turkish government was not involved in 1915 events regarding Armenians?

No no, don’t turn it around. It are the accusers who have to prove their point. The question should be: “are you sure, can you claim with 100% certainty, that the Tukish government ordered the killings?”

Thanks Sashal.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 4:29 pm
40 sashal

no, I am personally not sure , Michael.
I admit to that.
But my logic and the experience of living under totalitarian government tells me ( of course I could be wrong), that the deportations of such magnitude are hard to impossible to accomplish without participation or at least the knowledge of the governmental apparatus.

Again, I could be wrong and I have no bone in this fight, just the moral issues….

on 04 Nov 2007 at 5:19 pm
41 Michael van der Galiën

No, the relocations / deportations were mostly surely undertaken after the government ordered it. Relocation, however, isn’t genocide. It’s relocation. The question is, did the government ordered the killings of those who were deported?

That what happened is horrible, there’s no question about that, the Turkish government agrees. It’s only fighting off allegations that it’s genocide ánd it’s trying to share with the world its side of the story, namely that the deportations were only carried out because Armenians rebelled and formed militias which killed many Muslims, that the Muslims suffered tremendously as well and that, according to the Turks, the Ottoman government didn’t order the killings and even punished many of those responsible.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 5:49 pm
42 sashal

I understand , Michael.
Hopefully( seriously) your version is correct. And government was not involved in ordering the killings.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 6:06 pm
43 Eliot

If an entire civilian population of one ethnic group is deported by order of the government and sent over hundreds of kilometres into the desert to die, while young women and children are kidnapped into slavery, their personal property is confiscated, and their institutions destroyed, then we must conclude this was intentional. At the time it was called race murder, extermination and holocaust. Today it would be called genocide.

Many Muslims died during that time as did many Germans, Austrians, Russians, etc.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 6:07 pm
44 domajot

“Resistance to what? They were deported because they formed militias, they didn’t form militias because they were deported.”
————————————

That begs the question: why did they form militias? Maybe they had good reason to feel threatened?.
And where dows that lead us? That if a people aren’t totally pure of heart, mass killing is okay?

To answer the question whether or not it was genocide has political consequences tpday,so long after the evemts
When it becomes a political debate, instead of a scholastic one,, there is a tendency to ignore inconvenient factors for the sake of political victory,

As I said, the push to have this declared genocide is having counterproductive consequences The major reason is that past events are affecting today’s international relations. That can be very bad for everyone, including the Armenians.

Another reason is that the reaction is veering dangerously in the direction of trying to have it that it was alll the Armenians fault,and the Turks are totally innocent.
A lot of dirty laundry can be pushed under the ‘not genocide’ argument. To do so would be equally wrong, IMO.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 6:24 pm
45 domajot

“With regards to Stalin: he ordered the killings.”

I have to point out here that this is not entirely true.
When a government sets a certain tone, people have a way of taking matters into their own hands.
A lot of unauthorized, free-lance killing happens in conflicts that are spin-offs emulating the powers that be. The government is then able to claim innocence, and the victims have no way of proving culpability Stalin was innocent, in the legal sense, in these cases.
.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 6:32 pm
46 Areen

Amen. Very well written post Eliot.

But detractors will say, well some Armenians rebelled (how dare they go against a government that had been bloodletting them since the end of the 19th century!) It must mean that Armenians and the Muslim peasants in Anatolia suffered equally!

Give me a break.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 6:42 pm
47 Areen

But alas, there’s no point being reasonable on this website.

“If by calling it a genocide Armenians hope for the reparations, then they have an uphill almost unwinnable struggle.”

I’m of the opinion that it’s not the money that’s important, but the right of return for those who wish, an apology, and the transfer of ownership of all Armenian cultural sites (churches, etc. which are mostly dilapidated and just sitting there waiting to crumble in a vacuum) on the territory of Turkey. That seems reasonable enough, no?

on 04 Nov 2007 at 6:44 pm
48 Michael van der Galiën

Areen; no question that the Armenian suffering started at the end of the 19th century. You conveniently leave out, however, that by at that point in time, Armenians had already organized militias.

It must mean that Armenians and the Muslim peasants in Anatolia suffered equally!

Firstly, thanks for showing your bigotry. We don’t use to accuse people of bigotry, but this one is impossible miss. I’ll leave it up just so people can read that one. “Muslim peasants.” Not Turks. Not Muslim Turks. But “Muslim peasants.” While you refer to the Armenians as “Armenians” and not as, say, Christian peasants.

O, and yes, they suffered equally in so far that with both families were destroyed, innocent people slaughtered, etc. More Armenians probably died, yes, but the Turkish Muslim victims suffered just as much.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 6:49 pm
49 Michael van der Galiën

The right of return? I beg your pardon. The Armenians have what they wanted, no? An independent state. All of their own. If they want to live somewhere they can go to… wait for it… Armenia. That’s what they slaughtered innocent Turks forfought for according to you, no?

And right of return after they rebelled against the Ottoman government and after you argue that they had been oppressed etc.?

That’s never going to happen, nor should it be asked of Turkey.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 7:04 pm
50 Robert

What I find interesting is that while he was alive, Hrant Dink was constantly spitted upon by the Armenian Diaspora for his views on reconciliation and now that he’s dead, he suddenly became an exemplary Armenian Hero…

As for the “Genocide Scholars”, I doubt that ANY of them ever did ANY research in the Ottoman Archives…

Armenian Diaspora think that, the more noise they make about their still unproven “Genocide”, the closer they are getting to a worldwide recognition. The way I see it, is that the more noise they make, the more people will want to learn on the subject therefore, more people will find out that indeed there were massacres, but certainly not a “Genocide”, they will also learn that in fact, it was the Armenians who intended to inflict a Genocide upon the Turks in Eastern Anatolia starting BEFORE 1915, so they could become a majority and then, create an Armenian State by carving it from the Empire.

People will also find out about the implication of the Armenians with the Nazis during WWII as they were part of Germany’s 812th battalion as described in Samuel Weems book, Armenia the great deception.

They will also find out about the implication of the Armenians in the Azerbaidjan Genocide, as reported at: http://human.gov.az/?sehife=etrafli&sid=MTA0ODAzMTA4MTIzMDQ4Mw==&dil=en
and: http://www.khojaly.org.az:8101/

They will also find out about the Armenian forgeries in places like: http://www.geocities.com/t_volunteer/armenian/andonian.htm
and: http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/03/heres-one-more-genocide-forgery.html

and in this more recent one: http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=37997

They will also wonder why are France’s archives about the implication of France with the Armenians CLOSED, why are archives of Armenia CLOSED, why are the Dashnak archives in Boston CLOSED ???

Keep on making noise so that everyone will eventualy know the truth about this “Genocide”.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 7:13 pm
51 Areen

Of course it should. Those that wish to return, should be able to…at their own expense of course.

Michael, I think you put way too much credence into national borders. Armenians are inevitably going to radiate back into their old lands, I can assure you. And they have every right too. The ancestors of the refugee populations spread in the Arab world would be the first to trickle in. AND THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TOO.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 7:17 pm
52 Areen

Hey Robert,

Thanks for your inciteful hate speech. Use quotations for the Armenian “genocide,” yet use the term genocide freely for what happened to the Azeris. You have a lot of confidence about what’s going to happen as far as relates to your version of the “truth” in the future. Hardy har har.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 7:19 pm
53 Areen

Michael, I said Muslim peasants to refer to both Turks and Kurds. It wasn’t meant as a bigoted term. Armenians were peasants, too lol. Hope that makes you feel better.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 7:21 pm
54 John

It is important for people to see the 1948 CBS Interview where Lemkin Discusses the Armenian Genocide. Raphael Lemkin coined the word genocide, so he is a good source who would know what genocide is. Denialism is a dangerous game, one which the government of Turkey is losing over time. Humans have a tendency to seek the real Truth, and as we see today, even more and Turkish friends are willing to come out and tell the truth.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 7:26 pm
55 Areen

Michael, it wasn’t just a larger number of Armenians than Turks dieing that’s the issue. The culture of the Anatolian Armenian was wiped out, with AT THE VERY LEAST (and likely more direct) approval of the Ottoman authorities. Do you really not see the gravity of these events? Do you not see the importance of them being called by a name that elicits the sheer scale of the events and their subsequent results?

You can keep mentioning militias, but I guess one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. The Armenians are tremendously proud of the little resistance that their militias were able to muster up at the time. It doesn’t change the fact that the events happened.

You can also argue that if the Armenians had strength enough they would have wiped out the indigenous Turkish and Kurdish populations, but the facts of what happened DON’T change. We’re not talking in hypotheticals. It was the Armenians who died. It was their culture that was completely wiped off the map.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 7:29 pm
56 Areen

Forgive my manic posts, but I have one more.

Take a look at the map of Armenia. Take a look at the population density indicators. INEVITABLY, Armenians are going to outgrow their land. Armenia doesn’t start and stop within today’s borders, although geopolitically that might be the case.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 7:30 pm
57 Areen

I wonder what Michael thinks of the Kurds…

on 04 Nov 2007 at 7:33 pm
58 P. Connolly

People coming from western cultures generally are led to believe that the Armenians’ motives in demanding that these events be formally labeled a “genocide” are completely humanitarian and that they have no ulterior motive.
1. Every so often they slip up and make these remarks like the mention of a “right of return” above. Anyone who listens to their rhetoric carefully can see that the less wary ones among them make these slips from time to time to time. There is more to this theme…
2. Anyone who reads the posts from Armenians in the various forums on this gazzette can see that the hatred coming from them toward the Turkish People is truly without parallel in our culture. The true root cause of genocide is deep seated ethnic hatred; genocide is really only the malignant fruit of those deep seated ethnic hatreds. Any just person who weighs the facts can see that there is a serious contradiction in these Armenians claims to be demanding this recognition “only for the good of mankind”, “only so that genocide shall be abolished from the earth”, while at the same time they themselves are so full of the hatred that breeds genocide.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 7:37 pm
59 R

Mvdg: You were banned.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 7:42 pm
60 Areen

Umm, let me tell you outright that my comments are no slip. Believe me, a right of return is something that we will fight for. Like any other event where real people and real property were destroyed, questions like this will inevitably come up. This isn’t just a universal humanitarian lovey-dovey struggle that Armenians are waging for mankind.

Who are you P. Connolly to judge the motives of Armenians? What right do you have to criticize something you don’t understand? A people were destroyed, and they will inevitably pick up the pieces and move on, albeit naturally and not by trampling over other cultures and peoples.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 7:44 pm
61 Areen

Connolly, I love how you not so subtly state that the fight for the recognition of genocide breeds feelings that are themselves genocidal aimed against the former perpetrators. What are you insinuating? Ridiculous…

on 04 Nov 2007 at 8:11 pm
62 thetruth1001

Hey were is it written that henry morganthau, (and thank you for the proper spelling, you ar so smart) admitted as you claim to be on a propaganda mission? Also, you say the 126 memebers of the International Association of Genocide scholars is wrong? All of them? But somehow bernard lewis, who gets paid by turkish grants and was accused of hate crimes by a european court, he is the only credible one? He is the only true scholar on turkish history? That’s pretty funny.I think you are either naive or plain wrong. If the relocations was just a matter of proptecting the Armenians themselves, then what happened to the Armenians land and money? Why wouldn’t they be entitled to have their land and money returned to their rightful owners? Last have you ever read a history book about the sheer brutality of the ottomans over any minority it occupied? No wonder the Armenians formed malitias. Any group might have done the same agains barberic occupiers. Rememer the Armenians were there for 3000 years. Mongols turks came off the asian foothills in 1070.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 8:19 pm
63 Michael van der Galiën

“barberic [sic] occupiers.” Umh. Actually, I know enough about Ottoman history to know that this is a lie. You can try to appeal to people’s prejudices, but those who are informed know that the Ottomans weren’t barbaric.

Armenians were treated well for ages. They held great positions, they made nice money, they were protected, should I continue?

There’s no need to spread false propaganda. Those who comment in this thread know better.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 8:24 pm
64 Michael van der Galiën

From, umh, criminals?

Are you arguing that Armenians were persecuted throughout Armenian history.

Freaking hilarious.

Armenians didn’t have much to complain about for centuries. Stop lying.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 8:56 pm
65 Areen

“Are you arguing that Armenians were persecuted throughout Armenian history.”

No, not once…especially not during the late Ottoman period.

Freaking hilarious.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 8:57 pm
66 P. Connolly

Regarding the quote above attributed by Vahakan Dadirans book to General Vahib. As mentioned elsewhere, Dadrian’s book is most definitely not regarded as authoritative outside the Armenian Community and the quote mentioned really amounts to “cherry picking” since there are serious traceability problems with the supportive documentation. Impartial, authoritative historians are very careful to avoid making dubious assertions like this no matter how strongly they may feel that the claim is “probably” correct.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 9:00 pm
67 Areen

Yes, clearly Armenian historians lack the ability to be impartial, but when Halacoglu lists the names of every Turkish man, woman, and child “massacred” by Armenians, you would take it at face value?

Give…me…a…break.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 9:07 pm
68 Michael van der Galiën

Several comments in this post have been deleted because certain individuals were posting with different names. IP research and location research showed this. Michael_the_m is, for instance, the commenter also known as Sam who has been banned. Other comments were deleted for the same reason.

on 04 Nov 2007 at 9:22 pm
69 Peltek

Michael:
you say: “Are you arguing that Armenians were persecuted throughout Armenian history.

Freaking hilarious.”

I wonder if you will find these FREAKING HILARIOUS … check the dates. This is only a very small handful of what is out there in print. Check out your own Dutch newpapers, and you’ll see how EUROPE, allies of Turkey at the time against Russia, reported the non-stop persecutions. At the time, there were no armenian militias. I can provide you with many more ! Unfortunately, I haven’t yet collected the years prior to 1875… one day I will.

• Fresh Turkish Outrages: 700 Christians reported to have been massacred at Erzeroum. (The New York Times – Sept. 27, 1876)
• The Erzeroum Massacre: Armenians slaughtered and the British Consulate stoned. (The New York Times – July 26, 1890)
• Dungeons for Christians: Nearly 2,000 Armenians immured in Turkish prisons. (The Washington Post – April 10, 1893)
• The Armenians: Innocent Christians executed by the Ottoman Authorities. (The Los Angeles Times – Aug. 4, 1893)
• Armenians murdered in Turkey: Hundreds of bodies thrown into the harbor of Constantinople. (Chicago Daily Tribune – Oct. 20, 1893)
• Massacre of Armenians: Horrible tales of butchery perpetrated by Turks – Thousands were killed. (The Halifax Herald – Nov. 20, 1894)
• Massacre of the Armenians: Turkish troops made a solitude and called it peace in Sassoun. (The New York Times – Nov 27, 1894)
• Disturbed Armenia: Massacres Confirmed. (The Times – Dec. 4, 1894)
• He Tells of the Sacking of Hadjin: Another story of the Armenian massacre from an eye-witness. (Chicago Daily Tribune – Dec. 8, 1894)
• Horrible Massacres: Treacherous Turkish troops murder 360 Armenians of all ages and both sexes. (The Halifax Herald – Feb 28, 1895)
• Eight Thousand Butchered: The horrors of the Armenian massacres only just beginning to be realized by the World. (The New York Times – March 25, 1895)
• Turkish Atrocities: Pitiful stories of pillage, burning, torture and murder. (The Halifax Herald – June 13, 1895)
• The Trebizond Massacre. (The Sunday Times – Oct. 27, 1895)
• The Massacres in Erzurum. (The Times – Nov. 16, 1895)
• Plunder and Outrage: Armenian villages for a distance of 200 miles are looted and burned and their inhabitants killed or put to flight. (The Los Angeles Times – Jan. 1, 1896)
• 100,000 Massacred in Armenia and 250,000 Christians rendered homeless. (The Halifax Herald – Jan. 3, 1896)
• Two Thousand Dead: The awful sweep of the ravenous Turk. (The Los Angeles Times – Feb. 12, 1896)
• At Mercy of the Turks: Graphic picture of the suffering of the Armenians – Massacres the result of definite plan devised by the Sultan and his advisers to annihilate the “Hated Christians” (Chicago Daily Tribune – Feb. 22, 1896)
• Armenians Killed at Oorfa: 8,000 victims said to have been murdered. (The New York Times – May 19, 1896)
• The Armenian Outrages: How the Christians were murdered by the cruel Turks – Stories of horror which are unequaled – Mothers killed in the presence of their husbands and children. (The New York Times – June 1, 1896)
• Fresh Disturbances in Van: Renewal of the Armenian massacres – 400 people killed. (The Washington Post – June 25, 1896)
• Deportation of the Armenians – (The New York Times – Sept. 7, 1896)
• Armenians Slain by the Hundreds: British Ambassador Currie makes a protest. (The Halifax Herald – March 27, 1897)
• The Tokat Massacre. (The Times – May 6, 1897)
• Wholesale Massacre: Secret Extermination. (The Halifax Herald – July 13, 1897).

Should I continue with 1990 and onwards?

on 04 Nov 2007 at 9:23 pm
70 Peltek

sorry, typing error at end… I means 1900 and onwards.

Source: The Van Der Galien Gazette