Honorary Member XMod
Posts: 4735
(4/4/06 8:27 pm) Reply
Armenian Genocide Documentary on PDB, April 17
The Ombudsman Column
Coming Soon to Viewers Like You: "The Armenian Genocide"
By Michael Getler
March 17, 2006
On Monday evening, April 17, many PBS-affiliated television stations across the country — including nine of the top 10 TV markets — will air an hour-long documentary on "The Armenian Genocide" produced by the independent, New York-based filmmaker Andrew Goldberg.
The new documentary deals with an old, and very sore, subject: the deaths, mostly between 1915 and 1918, of anywhere from several hundred thousand to perhaps 1.5 million Armenian civilians living in the eastern Anatolia region of Turkey during the rule of the "Young Turks" of the Ottoman Empire as World War I engulfed Europe. The program will air a week before the annual "Armenian Remembrance Day" is marked in this country.
PBS officials, in a statement, said they "accepted 'The Armenian Genocide' for the schedule based on its merits and because the information it presents is an important part of recent world history. Implicit in PBS's decision to accept" the film for distribution, the statement says, is PBS's "recognition that the overwhelming majority of historians have concluded that a genocide took place."
Nevertheless, despite that recognition, PBS also went ahead and commissioned Oregon Public Broadcasting to produce a 25-minute panel discussion — which is already taped and scheduled to air immediately after the documentary — that includes two scholars who support the view implicit in the film's title, and two who question, among other things, the accuracy and use of the label "genocide." The panel discussion is called "The Armenian Genocide: Exploring the Issues." It is moderated by National Public Radio correspondent Scott Simon.
The New York Times quoted Lea Sloan, PBS's vice president for media relations, as saying the network "acknowledges and accepts that there was a genocide." But it ordered the panel discussion, she told the Times, to explore more deeply the question of why the Turkish government and its supporters continue to reject the genocide label. A PBS statement later added that "the specific intent is to examine the question of how historians can come to such radically divergent conclusions about these events. An important part of the mission of public television is to engender responsible discussion and illuminate complex issues."
Turkey has acknowledged that millions of people died — Muslims, Christians and Jews — in the waning years of the Ottoman Empire, which ended in the early 1920s when the Republic of Turkey was established. But it has also always vehemently denied that a planned, systematic extermination, or genocide, of the Christian Armenians took place. A few scholars, including some in the U.S., also hold this view. Turkey is an overwhelmingly Muslim country but, unlike most, it has a strong tradition of separation of church and state.
Turkey is also perhaps this country's most important ally in the Muslim world, although its parliament, when the chips were down three years ago, did not allow the U.S. Army's 4th Infantry Division to use its ports to get to Iraq in time for the invasion. (That action, and the Pentagon's failure to secure Turkish agreement beforehand, remains, in my view, one of the bigger blunders of the war's planning.)
If It's Genocide, What Is There to Discuss?
The addition by PBS of a panel discussion in which people who are described, by their critics, as "genocide deniers" are given air time has provoked an outpouring of outrage from the Armenian-American community. They view it as "perverse," among other things, for PBS officials to acknowledge the historical view of the genocide and then have a panel including those who deny it.
Current.org, the bi-weekly newspaper covering public television in the U.S., reported on March 6 that about 4,000 e-mails protesting the panel show (it's about 6,000 now, according to the latest PBS figures) and 2,000 supporting it had been received by PBS, and that an online petition to cancel the panel had some 16,000 names attached at the time. Pressure to cancel the panel also has come from two Democratic congressmen where there are large Armenian-American communities — Rep. Anthony Weiner from Brooklyn in New York City, and Rep. Adam. B. Schiff, whose California district includes Pasadena and Burbank, just outside Los Angeles.
Several key PBS-affiliated stations have said they do not intend to show the panel discussion. Current.org also reported on March 6 that of PBS stations in the top 10 markets, only those in Chicago and Houston plan to air the follow-up panel.
In New York, the broadcasting director of the high-profile WNET/Thirteen said it would air the documentary, which he described as having "a solid journalistic approach to the subject matter," but that it was decided to reject the panel after it was screened by senior staffers there.
"The follow-up (panel) made no new points to the case outlined in the documentary, added nothing substantive and was, in general a weak program," he said. By the time of their decision, "public opinion and public display had accelerated among other people who had seen neither the documentary nor the follow-up. But we made a conscious decision to stick to our original editorial instincts, despite the pressure we were getting from outside sources both to carry and not to carry either the documentary or the follow-up."
Goldberg, the filmmaker, told reporter Paul Farhi of The Washington Post that he didn't think the panel was necessary, "but I didn't fight it. It wasn't up to me and I had nothing to do with its production." He told Current.org, "I knew that for our film we had done our homework six ways from Sunday. Every fact was quadruple-checked and had been vetted by so many people — historians, journalists — that I knew there was no way that the after-show was an interpretation of our reporting."
Earlier, the Los Angeles Times reported that residents of that city, which has the largest ethnic Armenian community outside Armenia, will not get to see either the documentary or the panel on KCET-TV. Rather, the station has decided to broadcast a new French-made documentary on the subject, "Le Genocide Armenien," a decision that Goldberg described as "bizarre."
Farhi of The Post, who was perhaps the first to call attention to this brewing controversy over the panel, especially, reported that the $650,000 budget for the documentary was partly funded by Armenian-Americans.
Writing, But Not Seeing
In my role here as ombudsman, I've made it a rule to come at issues that are raised by viewers, and as a viewer. I don't write about programs until after they have aired. I watch them as you would. So in this case, I have not yet seen either the documentary or the panel, although both have been recorded for some time now. And with few exceptions, the people raising a fuss — and they are on both sides of this "genocide" issue — haven't seen the actual programs either. The battle is really over whether the panel should be aired at all.
Yet I decided to write about it, in this preliminary stage, because the circumstances surrounding this matter, the decision-making by PBS and affiliated stations, the issues being raised and the pressures being applied by interest groups strike me as concerning free speech and the responsibilities that go with that freedom.
They also remind me just slightly about the journalistic debate in this country a few weeks ago about whether to publish or show those offending cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad to newspaper readers or television reviewers here. This was months after they had been first published by a Danish newspaper and at a time when they had become the rationale for rioting and killing around the world by Muslim extremists and a very big news story.
My feeling about the cartoons, as I wrote in an earlier column, was that readers and viewers who wanted to see them — rather than just have some editor describe them in words — and understand visually what this rioting was all about ought to be able to view them. I thought that those few U.S. newspapers and television networks that did find a way to do that, did so with context and with no disrespect for religion, while maintaining their respect for this country's news values. I thought newspaper Web sites, especially, offered a way to display one or two of the cartoons without putting them in the printed paper so that people who did not want to see them, or who would be offended, would not randomly come across them. I said I thought PBS had also handled the issue skillfully as a news story on the nightly "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer."
The forthcoming presentation of "The Armenian Genocide" and the follow-up panel have not been accompanied by violence or threats. But it does involve some questions and background that seem worth noting and thinking about in advance.
A Pretty Solid Judgment
I am not an authority on this subject at all. But from what reading and research I've been able to do in anticipation of the program/panel, PBS seems clearly correct when it states that "the overwhelming majority of historians have concluded that a genocide took place."
The Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, says that, "In what would later be known as the first genocide of the 20th century, hundreds of thousands of Armenians were driven from their homes, massacred, or marched until they died."
The online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, says that, "Several facts in connection with the event are a matter of ongoing dispute between parts of the international community and Turkey. Although it is generally agreed that events said to comprise what is termed the Armenian Genocide did occur, the Turkish government rejects that it was genocide on the alleged basis that the deaths among the Armenians were not a result of a state-sponsored plan of mass extermination, but from the result of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I.
"Despite this thesis," it continues, "most Armenian, Western, and an increasing number of Turkish scholars believe that the massacres were a case of genocide. The event is also said to be the second-most studied case of genocide, and often draws comparison with the Holocaust" against the Jews in Nazi Germany. "To date 24 countries have officially recognized and accepted its authenticity as Genocide," the Wikipedia reports.
There is also, the encyclopedia states: "a general agreement among Western historians that the Armenian Genocide did happen. The International Association of Genocide Scholars (the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe), for instance, formally recognize the event and consider it to be undeniable. Some consider denial to be a form of hate speech or/and historical revisionism.
"However, this academic recognition has not always been followed by governments and media. Many governments, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Israel, do not officially use the word genocide to describe these events, due in part to their strong political and commercial ties with Turkey, although some individual government officials have used the term."
In her widely acclaimed, Pulitzer Prize-winning book, "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide," author Samantha Power lays out the evidence of the genocide against the Armenians at the time that was headline news in The New York Times, and the strenuous but unsuccessful efforts of the U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau Sr., to get President Woodrow Wilson to intervene. In that book, Power writes that "America's nonresponse to the Turkish horrors established patterns that would be repeated."
The modern American official approach remains strained. Although some 37 U.S. states have, by legislation or proclamation, recognized the Armenian genocide, and in 2000 a resolution made it through a key House of Representatives committee for the first time, a resolution has not made its way through the full House or the U.S. Senate. *See correction at the end of this column.
In 1981, President Reagan was the last American president to use the term genocide referring to the Armenians in a remembrance proclamation. The first President Bush talked about the "terrible massacres" and President Clinton talked about "a great tragedy of the twentieth century: the deportations and massacres of roughly one and a half million Armenians," and the current President Bush talked about "annihilation, forced exile and murder." But they have stayed away officially from the G-word, although Paul Glastris, editor of the Washington Monthly, wrote in The Washington Post in 2001 that George W. Bush, as a candidate, wrote to Armenian-American groups about the earlier "genocidal campaign."
Last June, Glenn Kessler of the Post reported that the American Foreign Service Association had honored the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John M. Evans, for publicly characterizing the mass killings as genocide but then withdrew the honor. Evans' comments stirred such a diplomatic tempest, Kessler reported, that the diplomat had to retract his remarks and later even clarify the retraction.
But Was It Genocide?
The American scholar most associated with questioning the genocide is Justin A. McCarthy, a history professor at the University of Louisville in Kentucky. He, along with a Turkish scholar, will be one of the two panelists challenging the genocide designation. McCarthy does not appear in the documentary. He recently told Farhi of The Post that the history of that period is complex and does not lend itself to simple judgments and labels and that calling the documentary "The Armenian Genocide" is "a false description of a complicated history." He said he could not find evidence of 1.5 million Armenian deaths and also said three million Turks died during that same period. "If saying both sides killed each other makes me a genocide denier, then I'm a denier."
My apologies for the length of this column, but it's nothing compared to what's been written about this. And, at the risk of exhausting your patience, what follows is a list of questions I submitted to top PBS officials and their answers. In some cases the answers are slightly abbreviated, with permission.
Q — One assumes that a documentary by a skilled producer will produce the fullest exploration and informed judgment on an issue, that it would be PBS's statement on this long-running, hot-button issue. So why, exactly, did PBS feel the need to do a panel? What was the reasoning behind it?
That assumption is faulty. No one-hour documentary, no matter how skillfully produced, can be said to represent the fullest exploration of such a topic. This is why PBS's editorial standards have long included the goal to seek a diversity of perspectives on controversial subjects in the national schedule over time. In this case, we judged THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE to be a credible documentary on a significant and little-covered event. We worked with the producer through his final editing to ensure that the program met our standards. We, through Oregon Public Broadcasting, vetted its content with a historian and journalist unconnected with the show. While we were satisfied that it was fair and accurate, because the fact of genocide is still contested in terms the documentary could only mention in brief, we commissioned a panel discussion that could explore the issues in greater nuance and detail.
Q — Whose idea was it to have a panel; what was the process that led to this decision, who was involved in the decision and who made the decision?
There was immediate consensus among the Senior Programming Team that a follow up panel was a good idea. The decision to commission the additional program was made as Andrew Goldberg was finishing the program and as we were in contact with him requesting script revisions. The acceptance of the documentary and the decision to do a follow up was essentially one process. The follow-up program had a carefully articulated goal — not to provide a platform for those interests who deny the genocide, but to explore how serious historians do their work, and how they can look at events and evidence and reach such different conclusions. PBS's chief programmers, John Wilson and Jacoba Atlas, are responsible for the ultimate decision in this case.
Q — Did politics enter into the decision, or pressure from the Turks or from anywhere inside or outside PBS? Did it intrude in any way? Turkey is obviously an important ally, is trying to enter the European Union, is a Muslim country.
No, the documentary was completed and PBS had commissioned the follow-up long before we were contacted by anyone about the program. We obviously knew of the international controversy surrounding the subject and the attention being focused on Turkey's position and internal laws, and the fact that the U.S. stance on the use of the term "genocide" differs from that of many other nations. It is true that this larger present day status of the issues that stem from the history presented in the documentary provided a compelling rationale in our minds for providing the public with more information on the subject.
Q — How common is it for PBS to schedule, in advance, a panel to air immediately after a program? Perhaps you could tell me some other instances and when they took place.
There have been several examples in recent years. The P.O.V. presentation of "Two Towns of Jasper" (about the dragging death of a black man in a predominantly white town) was followed by a Ted Koppel-anchored town meeting, which allowed the further exploration of differing and passionate viewpoints engendered by the killing. Each evening's presentation of AVOIDING ARMAGEDDON (a series we ran over four nights) that looked at the dangers of nuclear proliferation) was followed up by a panel discussion led by Frank Sesno allowing the airing of viewpoints not emphasized in the films. TRADE SECRETS, a Bill Moyers investigation of the chemical industry's knowledge of threats to public and workplace safety, was followed up by a discussion with an industry spokesman.
Q — Jacoba Atlas has been widely quoted as saying that this is "settled history." By having a panel, does this not suggest that PBS is leaving room for doubt?
That a question is generally considered "settled" does not mean that it does not warrant discussion. The fact is there are individuals, organizations and countries (including the United States) that do not see the Armenian Genocide as settled. The panel discussion recognizes that fact and provides, in our opinion, information that should be useful to the public understanding of the issue.
Q — Who funded the documentary and the panel?
The documentary was fully funded from outside sources — individuals, foundations and corporations. A list is provided at the end of this document. They are credited on screen per our normal disclosure requirements. As is the case with all PBS underwriters, none of these had access to program materials or influence over the production. PBS (the National Programming Service budget) funded the panel.
Q — Several news articles have reported, according to Colgate professor Peter Balakian, who was also an adviser on the documentary, that PBS threatened to pull the documentary if he and another genocide scholar declined to participate in the panel discussion. True? **See clarification at the end of the column.
This is absolutely not true. If Balakian declined, we would have sought out other historians to speak as experts in Armenian history.
Q — Officials at WNET in New York say they made the decision not to air the panel because after reviewing it they felt it made no new points beyond the documentary. What was the PBS assessment of the panel that went into your decision to distribute it? Did PBS consider it to be a worthwhile, substantive addition to the documentary — and if so, in what aspect — or was it automatically linked to the documentary and a commitment to distribute it included in the original programming decision however it came out?
We do feel the panel is a worthwhile addition to the documentary — if only because it provided the rare, perhaps unprecedented, occasion for experts holding differing views to be in the same room, let alone a TV studio, participating in a discussion about such sensitively held convictions. Scott Simon did a wonderful job of keeping the discussion on track and asking tough questions of all panelists. And the panelists did provide significant detail beyond that mentioned in the documentary in support of their perspectives.
Neither the documentary nor the panel program was designated for common carriage. We respect local stations' decisions to carry both, or one, or neither.
There was no automatic imperative to proceed with distributing the panel discussion no matter how it turned out. The programming content team screened the panel program shortly after the taping and felt it did the job we had envisioned. Additional executive staff screened the show, and concurred.
Finally, we never believed that this documentary or its follow-up would be the last word on this subject, or bring an end to the generations-old dispute. But, as one of the only institutions in America using media to serve the public, we believe we have to take on tough subjects, even if it means taking heat from both (or all) sides of a given issue. The easier approach — one that most of America's commercial media have employed — is to steer clear of the subject altogether. While easier, we do not believe that approach is in the public's best interest.
Underwriters: THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
ABNOUS, SUZANNE M. AND RAZMIK; ASLANIAN, RICH; AVANESSIANS FAMILY FOUNDATION; BABIKIAN, JEFFREY C.; BALIAN FAMILY FOUNDATION, INC.; BEDROSIAN, MR. JOHN C. & JUDITH D.; CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CLUB; DEMIRJIAN, YERVANT; FALCON MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; GRS MANAGEMENT; HAGOPIAN FAMILY FOUNDATION; HAMPAR, ARMEN AND NORA; HAMPARIAN FAMILY FOUNDATION; KABLANIAN, ADAM; KAZANJIAN BROS.; KECHEJIAN FOUNDATION; KECHEJIAN, SARKIS; KEVORKIAN FOUNDATION, GRGE & ALICE; KHEDERIAN, ROBERT P. AND LORA M.; KOUYOUMDJIAN, HAGOP AND ERANICA; KULHANJIAN STRAUCH FAMILY FDN; LINCY FOUNDATION, THE; MANOOGIAN SIMONE FOUNDATION; MARDIGIAN FOUNDATION; MEKHJIAN, DR. HAROUTUNE & SHAKE FDN; MULLER USA, FRANCK; SIRAN & ANOUSH MATHEVOSIAN CTBL FDN; SOBEL/DUNN FDN, JONATHAN & MARCIA; ST. GREGORY/ ILLUM ARMENIAN CHURCH; UNITED ARMENIAN CHARITIES; VARIOUS; VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS; VARIOUS PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS; WAGNER, JEANETTE S. AND PAUL A.
So . . .
. . . where does this preliminary back and forth about the still unseen documentary and panel discussion leave me? More illuminated but still uneasy about a couple of things, given the intense pressures exerted by both sides.
One is the participation of Armenian-Americans in the funding of the documentary; not because I fear they had any influence or because I don't trust PBS and the producer to prevent any influence, but because it would just be better to not have it. I know money is tight and I don't know how this would get funded otherwise, but there it is; a factor in my head.
Another involves the different assessment of the panel's value by WNET in New York. The panel was funded by PBS and PBS officials offer worthy explanations of why they felt the need for it. My presumption is that the one-hour documentary does explore, at least in some fashion, the case against the genocide label. The officials at WNET, who reviewed the panel discussion, said they didn't think it made any new points to the case outlined in the documentary and added nothing substantive. The producer, Andrew Goldberg, said he didn't see any need for a panel.
So the documentary, that the Armenians don't seem to object to going in, is funded partly by the Armenians. Then the panel, which they clearly don't want, is funded by PBS. So one could argue, as PBS does, that the public is best served by the combination. But if the documentary does indeed explore the other side, and the panel doesn't add anything, as WNET suggests, that would raise anew questions about why the panel was felt to be necessary. My instincts, without having seen anything, are with PBS's desire to have the fullest airing possible of this historic event. But let's wait and see.
____________________________________________________________ _________________________________
* Harut Sassounian, publisher of The California Courier, serving the Armenian-American community, wrote to say that, "Both in 1975 and 1984 the full House adopted resolutions to observe "a day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide, especially the 1.5 million people of Armenian ancestry who were the victims of the genocide perpetrated in Turkey between 1915 and 1923."
** I would like to correct the misrepresentation of my involvement with the Armenian Genocide documentary in your Ombudsman column of 3/11.
In a question you posed to PBS officials you said: "Q — Several news articles have reported, according to Colgate professor Peter Balakian, who was also an adviser on the documentary, that PBS threatened to pull the documentary if he and another genocide scholar declined to participate in the panel discussion. True?"
That is a false description. What I have told several journalists in the past month is the following: I was told (in fact three times) by Oregon PBS producer David Davis that PBS would not run the documentary if a post-show panel with deniers were not made. Mr. Davis made it clear that this was the direct word from Jacoba Atlas at national headquarters. (I had sent her a letter in November appealing to her to drop the idea of a post-show on ethical and historical grounds.)
I never said nor implied that the documentary would not air if I personally were not on the panel. That would be, of course, absurd. Naturally, PBS would find someone else to take my place.
After all my efforts to convince PBS to not produce a post-show failed I decided to go forward with the "debate" because I have experience in discussing this subject on TV and radio and felt I could help shape the conversation in an ethical way and perhaps a way that would expose Turkish denial more fully for what it is . . .
Sincerely,
Peter Balakian
Donald M. and Constance H. Rebar Professor of the Humanities Colgate University
Correction and clarification posted March 22, 2006
Re: Armenian Genocide Documentary on PDB, April 17
Yeah yeah whatever. Instead of being obsessed with Turkey, you should get your a.ss off the couch and do whatever you can to help your country develop. Life is short. Enjoy it. Bye.
____________________________________
Quotes from George Bush:
''We both use Colgate toothpaste." —after a reporter asked what he had in common with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Camp David, Md., Feb. 23, 2001
"It is white." —after being asked by a child in Britain what the White House was like, July 19, 2001
Re: Armenian Genocide Documentary on PDB, April 17
Quote:Definitely going to try and watch this when it comes out. I expect it to be even handed.
Are you serious man? Did you look at the names of the underwriters all ending in the Armenian suffix "ian"?
Having said that I believe that there was an Armenian genocide but don't believe this piece will be unbiased. If I call the killing of 10,000 Albanians in Kosova a "Genocide" then I can't call the slaughtering of hunderds of thousands Armenians by any other name. I would be e hypocrite.
Honorary Member XMod
Posts: 3308
(4/5/06 1:48 am) Reply
Re: Armenian Genocide Documentary on PDB, April 17
Quote:Yeah yeah whatever. Instead of being obsessed with Turkey, you should get your a.ss off the couch and do whatever you can to help your country develop. Life is short. Enjoy it. Bye
What happened ... Don't you want to know how your "great" country became this "great"?
Quote:Are you serious man? Did you look at the names of the underwriters all ending in the Armenian suffix "ian"?
Well, not many people like to talk about this genocide for some unknown reason. So what can they do? If they don't talk about it, it will suddenly be forgoten (Turks would love that) So I guess that's the answer ...
*waiting for mongoloids to come here and say that Armenians were war casualties*
Hajde, hajde we dont have time, pack quick and go, oh and dont forget your barbie dolls too! Direction is North East!
Re: Armenian Genocide Documentary on PDB, April 17
No one cares about the Albanians' opinion. Keep talking and continue to make a mockery out of yourselves.
____________________________________
Quotes from George Bush:
''We both use Colgate toothpaste." —after a reporter asked what he had in common with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Camp David, Md., Feb. 23, 2001
"It is white." —after being asked by a child in Britain what the White House was like, July 19, 2001
...
Erdenay then how do you explain your posting twice in this topic? Who's making a mockery of himself now?
Dijedon Senior Moderator
Posts: 7220
(4/5/06 5:54 pm) Reply
Re: ...
It is precisely the attitude of the likes of Erdenay which puts his nation in worse colors. With this attitude, he makes it clear that Turkey has something to hide. My attention to the Armenian Genocide was awaken by the likes of erdie and their defence mechanisms, suggesting there is a rottening fish below the surface ... not Armenian 'propagandists'.
The fact that the Turks lack an ounce of self-criticism is a dangerous trait that can hurt the democracy in their lands, a democracy that is already fragile, and furthermore open the way to the isolation of particular cultural/ethnic/other minorities and discrimination and persecution against them. The more liberalistic approach of the modern government against the Kurds is more the result of diplomatic pressure from external factors rather that initiatives from ethnic Turks from within.
This lack of self-criticism is also obvious in this forum where the Turkish participants automatically resort to topic ruining personal attacks or other means of deviating from the topic when faced with historical truths that do not shed positive light upon them.
In my opinion this is without a doubt a POLITICAL issue…nothing to do with anyone who died or may have died. No one really gives a shi*t about them.
This is an issue pushed by a powerful and RICH Armenian lobby in the US…similar to the Jewsih lobby. It is used as a political tool by those who oppose Turkey’s entry into the EU…or who want other things from Turkey (whatever the Armenians may want)…and by the US as a tool to put pressure on the Turkish government.
This much should be clear…before any of you BRANIACS come here talking about genocide this and genocide that and think this issue has ANYTHING to do with morals or anything of the sort. This is a POLITICAL issue…
First of all…to make my position on this clear…I DON’T consider the deaths of 10,000 Albanians in Kosova as genocide. Lets be realistic…its not genocide…and we don’t have to call it genocide just to make ourselves feel more of a victim. We were the victims…our land was invaded…we were oppressed…we were ETHNICALY CLEANSED…and in the process of this tens of thousands died. But this is not genocide.
As for the Armenians…the Armenians are a RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALIST people who allied themselves with the Russian Empire to try and dismember parts of the Ottoman Empire. They carried out massacres and ethnic cleansings in their own right against the Turkish and Kurdish muslim population of the area. They openly sided with the Russians during the Russian invasion attempt of the area. So…before we go making them into some sort of poor little defenseless martyrs (like was done with Poland too for example)…lets realize who these people were and what they did to get this sort of retribution.
Now…Turkey decided to forcibly relocate these people out of the areas of fighting to prevent them from collaborating with the Russians. This was done at a time when the Turkish government could barely control its own bowel movements…let alone control what provincial governors and generals did. Majority of these people died not of any planned action…but sheer neglect. They died because the local officials charged with this…could give a shi*t…and could do a shi*t about it. Another factor…was REVENGE actions by muslim sin the area against previous Armenian massacres of them…mainly KURDISH MUSLIMS…not Turks (majority of the population in those areas…is KURDS. Of course no one ever calls this a Kurdish implemented “genocide”
Now…what happened 100 years ago…I don’t think ANYONE gives a shi*t about. Anyone who has any such illusions…is a MORON. Why doesn’t the US take so many measures to recognize for example an Albanian genocide?? Or the genocides of half a dozen other people just in the past 50 years for example?? Or even a Turkish genocide for example…talk a little bit about the hundreds of thousands of Turks massacred by the Greeks during this same time?? And yet…of all the real or made-up genocides of this century….SO MUCH effort into an Armenian one??????? Why?? There’s nothing unusual…there’s nothing that wasn’t repeated about 20 different times in the past century…nothing special about this event. Just 20 years ago a million people died in a war between Armenia and Azerbaijan…nobody even seems to remember that event (maybe beasue the Armenians would rather the world not remember).
So WHY??? Because the Armenina lobby is like the Jewish lobby…..they’r powerful and RICH in the US. They have a lot of ethnic Armenians to back them up…and they try very hard….like the Jewish lobby…to fabricate themselves into the image of a victim…always…and to achieve their political aims. And those countries or individuals or organizations opposed to Turkey’s entry to the EU…have found this issue to be the perfect issue to use.
Think about it…WHY keep mentioning and bringing up and going so far as to take idiotic actions like having US states recognize such an event…something that happened a century ago…where no individual alive today can ever be held accountable…where no government or country today can be held accountable for the actions of a government, and a nation…which doesn’t even EXIST anymore. So why???
There’s onlyone answer…political pressure on Turkey….period.
And 10 years from now…when Albania may start EU talks for example…you can REST ASSURED that PBS will be running similar programs on the North Epirus genocide and ethnic cleansing…or the cultural destruction of the Orthodox Church in Kosovo….because guess what….someone will be paying for them to do it. Made up shi*t…but in political situations it doesn’t matter whether its real or made up…what matters is who has more money to back up their story.
So…spare us the moralistic BS…in WW1 there were at least 20 other parallel events going on all around Europe…lets we forget one of those events was the ethnic cleasning and massacres of our own people…and similar ethnic cleasning and massacres aimed at Turks as well from Greece and others. And yet…THIS issue is somehow SO important…that even the US president has to honor it every year…even US states have to recognize it with legislature. Its pure idiotcy to think this has anything to do with morality or responsabiity ot with the quest of the truth. This is about politics….
----------
"Azem pishtari, hajdari i demokracis!"
Sali Berisha ne miting.
"Keni me pas kompjuter n cdo dhom jo pentium dy e tre por pes!"
-Dr.Rrumpalla, qyteti "Studenti"
"Jam shum i gzue qe po marr pjes nhidherimin tuej"
- Dr. Rrumpalla
Sali! Enver! Jemi Gati Kurdohere!
O Sali, ill i karvanit,
shpetimtari i vatanit;
o Sali, ill i pashuar
ne gjith' boten i degjuar!
Lumturi neve na solle,
ka armiqte na shpetove,
planet ua shkaterrove,
neper plehra i hodhe.
Rrofsh, Sali, me gjith' PD-ne,
Lumturi per Shqiperine!
Me PD-ne dhe Saline
jemi gati kurdohere
Shqiperin' ta zbukurojme,
demokracine te ndertojme.
O Sali, ill i vertete,
te na rrosh njemile vjet!
Honorary Member XMod
Posts: 4742
(4/5/06 9:03 pm) Reply
hmm
Quote:the Armenians are a RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALIST people who allied themselves with the Russian Empire to try and dismember parts of the Ottoman Empire. They carried out massacres and ethnic cleansings in their own right against the Turkish and Kurdish muslim population of the area. They openly sided with the Russians during the Russian invasion attempt of the area. So…before we go making them into some sort of poor little defenseless martyrs (like was done with Poland too for example)…lets realize who these people were and what they did to get this sort of retribution.
This is what the Ottoman claim. It has yet to ben proven, dont act like it has been. What the armenians did can easily be explained as them doing nothing more then retaking the land inwhich the Turks took from them centuries back while building and rebuilding their empires. There was no precedent for what occured. What the Turks did however was clear ethnic cleansing through displacement. Whether it can be considered a complete genocide, well thats what will be discussed.
Quote:And 10 years from now…when Albania may start EU talks for example…you can REST ASSURED that PBS will be running similar programs on the North Epirus genocide and ethnic cleansing…or the cultural destruction of the Orthodox Church in Kosovo….because guess what….someone will be paying for them to do it. Made up shi*t…but in political situations it doesn’t matter whether its real or made up…what matters is who has more money to back up their story.
Lol. What? there would have had to be a claim first. Nobody ever claimed we ethnically cleansed anything. I say we had the right to after the Cham incident and should have. But its too late now. The Armenian genocide claim is far older then WW2 itself. Hitler used it as a pretense for his own genocide. And anyway, Greece seems to back our EU entrace. Cant picture anyone else going against it, except maybe Serbia. but by then.... And any weapon EU can use to keep Turks out of it, they should. they have no place within European society...
Quote:mainly KURDISH MUSLIMS…not Turks (majority of the population in those areas…is KURDS. Of course no one ever calls this a Kurdish implemented “genocide”
Kurds have apologized for their acts against the Armenians. and the relocations were done by armies, not nearby civilians...
---------- "The whole life of man is but a point of time; let us enjoy it." Plutarch, Morals
Dijedon Senior Moderator
Posts: 7225
(4/5/06 9:16 pm) Reply
Re: ...
Kapedan
No doubt that the Armenians display an agenda behind their attempts to acquire a recognition of the Armenian Genocide. The Jews too use the 'victim card' to avoid to much criticism and external intervention in their conflict with the Palestinians. The Holocaust was indeed terrible, but it is used as a tool to eternally portray the Jewish nation as a victim and thus enhance criminal behaviour without much criticism beeing directed towards Israel.
But simultaneously, making alot of sound might prevent the repetition of historical tragedies. The Armenian Genocide was in my opinion deliberate, and it is not justified by the fact that Armenians also committed crimes on a smaller scale against the Muslim population of Eastern Turkey. Acknowledging it might be a first step between a better future, a closure. an end to the particular chapter. People need closure, and if political opportunists have a gain on it, so be it ... the majority will also feel better. Simply neglecting a genocide makes way for its repetitions ... Hitler justified his plans on the extermination of Europe's Jewish population by stating "who remembers the Armenians" i.e. crime does pay.
I was actually not so interested in this particular issue ... but the sh*tty attitude of some Turks here have made people realize that smth is wrong down there - this they conclude in their search for the negative aspects of that nation. For this they can blame themselves ...
P:S Nuk di a i ke vezhguar pislleqet qe shkruanin gabelet, por kjo besoj se i zemeroi shume njerez ketu, dhe kjo i ka angazhuar me teper ne kete ceshtje. Sigurisht qe Armenianet jane oportunista, dhe qe jane fetar radikal s'mohohet, por beso se s'ka kurrfare vet-kritike ne Turqi dhe kjo s'eshte nje trajte pozitive. Kjo s'i lejon njerezit te mendojne kritikisht dhe hap udhen per krime ndaj atyre minoriteteve te mbetura atje, si Kurdet, Lazet, etj - dhe askush s'mendon kritikisht ndaj ketyre akcioneve shoviniste. Madje edhe femrat e tyre jane pa ndjenja dhe duan ta nxisin terrorin mbi "terroristat" ne viset lindore.
Re: hmm
Kapedani your post is a surreal mix of real facts and @#%$ that you created from your head.
Quote:It is used as a political tool by those who oppose Turkey�s entry into the EU�
Correct.
Quote:Now�what happened 100 years ago�I don�t think ANYONE gives a shi*t about. Anyone who has any such illusions�is a MORON. Why doesn�t the US take so many measures to recognize for example an Albanian genocide?? Or the genocides of half a dozen other people just in the past 50 years for example?? Or even a Turkish genocide for example�talk a little bit about the hundreds of thousands of Turks massacred by the Greeks during this same time?? And yet�of all the real or made-up genocides of this century�.SO MUCH effort into an Armenian one??????? Why??
You are correct about the Armenian lobby and her efforts. That though still doesn't erase the very nature of the Genocide.
The Holocaust was also recognized due to the immense efforts of the Zionist lobbies and is used until today as a tool for Israel's political aspirations, but that still doesn't change the nature of the Holocaust.
Quote:
As for the Armenians�the Armenians are a RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALIST people who allied themselves with the Russian Empire to try and dismember parts of the Ottoman Empire.
Name me an ethnic group during the Ottoman Empire that wasn't religious and illiterate.
Quote:
Now�Turkey decided to forcibly relocate these people out of the areas of fighting to prevent them from collaborating with the Russians. This was done at a time when the Turkish government could barely control its own bowel movements�let alone control what provincial governors and generals did. Majority of these people died not of any planned action�but sheer neglect. They died because the local officials charged with this�could give a shi*t�and could do a shi*t about it.
This is where your @#%$ stirring begins.
A correct analysis of the facts are vital on this point.
Between 1915 and 1917 the Russian Army did not pursue an offensive war against Turkey. Throughout WWI, the policy of the Russian forces was on active defense - territorial advances that were made, were made as a result of defeats of offensive Turkish actions, or by pre-emptive strikes made to neutralize the risk of Turkish offensives. The war in the Caucasus Front was always a sideline for the Russian Empire.
After the November 1917 Bolshevik Revolution Russia signed a peace treaty with Germany and its allies which required the withdrawing of its forces. But most had already left anyway - they had ''self-demolished'' themselves - by the summer of 1917, and an unofficial armistice was operating along the Russo-Turkish front.
It was not until February 1918 that the Turkish army renewed the war. The attacking Turks were mostly unopposed by the vastly outnumbered Armenian forces, who were mainly engaged in protecting civilian refugees fleeing from the advancing front-line. Kars was lost in on the 25th April, without a shot being fired.
The Turkish official position is that in 1915 its empire was under immediate threat from Russian invasions and Armenian 5th-columnists, and that is why the ''evacuations'' of Armenians were necessary.
That is though nonsense - there was no aggressive Russian invasion supported by Armenians. In fact, it was Turkey that was always the aggressor - starting in 1914 when they invaded northern Iran, and committed genocide against the Armenians and other Christians living there - an event which, significantly, preceded the Armenian Genocide proper.
The ''Institute for the Study of Genocide'' (ISG) and the ''International Association of Genocide Scholars'' (IAGS) which is composed by very serious mainstream historians - who can not be accused of sympathy towards the Armenians - have recognized the Armenian Genocide.
Quote:They carried out massacres and ethnic cleansings in their own right against the Turkish and Kurdish muslim population of the area. They openly sided with the Russians during the Russian invasion attempt of the area. So�before we go making them into some sort of poor little defenseless martyrs
Not only this is a blatant lie, but it is the exact opposite what took place. Abdul Hamid, the last Emperor of the Ottoman Empire, at 1895 massacred 300.000 Armenians in areas such as Adana before the actual Genocide was perpetuated.
These things are recorded and the Turks don't have any objection about it, since they were committed by the Ottoman Empire and not the Turkish Republic.
Quote:There�s nothing unusual�there�s nothing that wasn�t repeated about 20 different times in the past century�nothing special about this event. Just 20 years ago a million people died in a war between Armenia and Azerbaijan�nobody even seems to remember that event (maybe beasue the Armenians would rather the world not remember).
Kid, the people that you speak of did not died, they were displaced from which 528,000 were ethnic Azerbaijanis while 280,000 were ethnic Armenians in a full scale war.
Quote:
where no government or country today can be held accountable for the actions of a government, and a nation�which doesn�t even EXIST anymore. So why???
The Armenian Genocide was perpetuated by the CUP and the Young Turks, the one's who set the foundations of the Turkish Republic and dragged the Turks into WWI.
Quote:
So�spare us the moralistic BS�in WW1 there were at least 20 other parallel events going on all around Europe�lets we forget one of those events was the ethnic cleasning and massacres of our own people�and similar ethnic cleasning and massacres aimed at Turks as well from Greece and others.
There is a huge difference between a ''massacre'' during a war and a Genocide.
Quote: And yet�THIS issue is somehow SO important�that even the US president has to honor it every year�even US states have to recognize it with legislature. Its pure idiotcy to think this has anything to do with morality or responsabiity ot with the quest of the truth. This is about politics�.
The only correct thing that Kapedani said from his entire post is that the issue is being used by Imperialist forces to put pressure on Turkey.
On another note....
Our Turkish friends should understand that nobody is directly blaiming them for the Genocide. They must understand though that the recognition assists in the better prevention of new Genocides...or at least that is what we want to believe.
Raphael Lemkin (April 1946) on his definition of Genocide stated:
''A ruthless regime finds it easiest to commit genocide in time of war'' ... and this has been the case of the Young Turks.
Whoever denies the Armenian Genocide is either amnesiac, blind or both.
-
I come from times when anywhere you manifested your opinion loudly; you could start a revolution.. that is why they were shutting your mouth.
I go to times that whatever you say, however you say it and to how many people you say it; it doesn't really matter.. that is why they are letting you to speak.
Honorary Member XMod
Posts: 1601
(4/5/06 11:02 pm) Reply
Re: hmm
Quote:Yeah yeah whatever. Instead of being obsessed with Turkey, you should get your a.ss off the couch and do whatever you can to help your country develop. Life is short. Enjoy it. Bye.
if no one cares about albanian's opinions then what the hell are you doing here in the albania forum my friend? You, for a start seem to care.
Re: Armenian Genocide Documentary on PDB, April 17
Quote:I DON’T consider the deaths of 10,000 Albanians in Kosova as genocide. Lets be realistic…its not genocide…and we don’t have to call it genocide just to make ourselves feel more of a victim. We were the victims…our land was invaded…we were oppressed…
Well let's be realistic but not in your "reality" please. I'm not sure what your definition of genocide is but as usual your biases cloud your thoughts way too much. Every one of you comes here making their own @#%$ up like you guys always do in these boards. Why don't we look up the "quasi legal" definition of genocide adopetd over 50 uears ago by The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Article 2 defines GENOCIDE as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:"
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
You realize now Kapedan that the number of killings is irrelevant, it's the INTENT that counts and the resulting deaths. You say that:
Quote:we were ETHNICALY CLEANSED…and in the process of this tens of thousands died. But this is not genocide
How the killings of 10,000 Kosovars is not considered genocide by you is beyond me.
And if you read Art 2(e) you'll realize that the Turks have been practicing genocide since the 14th century when they forcibly transferred children from the Balkans to Istanbul to be trained as yanissaries.
I have nothing against Turkey, in fact it's one of the new countries that I am sympathetic too in the region, but let's call things like they really are.
I am aware of the Armenian lobby's efforts and If you read my first response to Meltdown I made it clear that this documentary will be in no way unbiased.
Re: hmm
Ford ,are you attempting to compare Mount Everest to a pimple on an elephants A$$? Had you smarter than that.
One of the reasons I even read what some of you guys write it's because I have a sick predilection for the unsavory and untoward nonsense that goes on here....
Re: hmm
Canaris, can you say "knee-jerk"?
Seriously though, within the context of the thread, I am merely trying to point out possible double standards to some of my compatriots.
Re: hmm
I would compare Chameria maybe to ethnic cleansing ..population relocation..not too many 'dead'....but it was no genocide..no rawanda..or armenian slaughter.
One of the reasons I even read what some of you guys write it's because I have a sick predilection for the unsavory and untoward nonsense that goes on here....
Re: hmm
The problem about the Armenian genocide is the fact that it only focuses on the losses of the Armenians. However, there were more Ottoman Muslims who suffered tremendous losses prior and after 1915 (The toll ranges between some 6-12 million people died as a consequence of the ethnic cleansing campiangs between 1780s and 1920s). Today, for the Balkan Christians, Bosniaks are the Turkish leftovers that must be cleansed off. Albanians are the Albo-Turks who mixed with the Turks and lost their European heritage. That is why, there are many Bosniak and Albanian towns in various places of Turkey. In fact, the emigration of muslims started as early as the II. Vienna Campaign. Following the Ottoman retreat in Vienna, the Austrians came as close as Bosnia, and burned many villages there. As a consequence, the first migrants from Balkans arrived and settled in Istanbul around Unkapani suburb. Later, Crimean Tatars of Ukraine, Crimea, Moldova and Romania were deported and were killed in masses. In 19th Century, the Turks and Muslims (mostly Albanians) of Morea were forced to migrate to Anatolia after the Greek Independence. After the Crimean War, more Tatars arrived. In 1878, another wave of 1.5 million people arrived from Balkans following the Russo-Turkish War. After the Balkan Wars, millions of Balkan Muslims migrated to Anatolia. Even after the establishment of Turkish Republic, more than 2 million people migrated to Turkey from Balkans mostly from former Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, some from Greece and Romania.
Similarly, Caucasus had some identical trend. In the beginnig of the 19th Century, Russia moved to Caucaus and started ethnic cleansing campaigns. Later, those campaigns were coupled with forced migration targeted Ingush, Chechen, Adyghe, Karachay, Balkar, Kumyk, Nogar, Tatar, Laz (Georgian), Abkhaz, and Azeri peoples. Just in 1860s, more than 1.5 million Circassians arrived to the Ottoman Empire, another wave of 500 thousands arrived in late 1880s, and millions in between early 1900s and 1920s. Interestingly, the ones who were settled in Balkans were later forced to migrate during the Balkan War. Today, it is estimated that more than 5 million people of North Caucasus origin live in Turkey. On top of those, it is believed that about two million muslim Georgians (like Tayyip Erdogan) live in Turkey who migrated to Turkey after the Russo-Turkish War of 1878. Hence, it is believed that some other 400-500 thousand Abkhaz people of Caucasus also live in Turkey. Finally, it should be noted that the migration wave from Caucasus even continued after the establishment Turkish Republic.
Today, near Istanbul, there is place called Cerkezkoy (Circassian Town) at where the Circassians from Balkans were settled the after 1878. That is why, this place is known as Cerkezkoy. Similar settlements exist as Yeni Bosna (New Bosnia) and Arnavutkoy (Albanian Town). Nevertheless, Anatolia is full of places of evidencing the great ordeal experienced by all those ethnicities that used to form the "Ottoman Muslim Millet". In general, it is believed that at least 20-25 per cent of the population of Turkey are the descendants of migrant families who arrived to Turkey after 1855 (the year that the Ottoman Government established the Migration Office). As one could envisage, the forced migration applied against the Ottoman Muslims sealed the fate of the Ottoman Empire. Within last 70-80 years, the Ottomans allocated enourmous amount of funds to relocate the migrants arrived from Balkans, Crimea and Caucasus. The result was a disaster since the amount allocated was even more than the whole Ottoman Debt occurred due to wars, loans and penalties paid to the civilized "Western Governments". Nevertheless, the demographic changes in Crete is a good example of what happened. In 1821, there were 160.00 Muslims and 129.000 Christians, however in 1911, the Christian population was 307.000 where as the muslims was only 28.000. Similar trend is also applicable for Greece, Former Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Madedonia, Romania, Crimea, and Caucasus. Of course, it should be stressed that such trend had some reverse effects in Anatolia related to the Christian Armenian and Rum peoples. As whether those are deemed as a genocide or not is pure political debate.
For example, the Circassian were the inhabitants of Caucasus long before the Russians. They had their alphabets, and their states, trade and everything. Why do the surviving ones reside in Turkey now? Why their population is not even as many as the Armenians now? Let us read what happened to the Ciricassian of Caucaus:
The Circassian Genocide
A professor of the university of Munich (München), Karl Friedrich Neumann (not to be confused with the later Naumann), wrote in 1839 a book titled "Russland und die Tscherkessen" (published in the collection "Reisen und Länderbeschreibungen", vol. 19, in 1840). He describes, how Russia settled Christians to the parts of Armenia gained from Persia in 1828 - actually, Neumann had written about the issue already in 1834. (p. 68-69) Neumann considered this a very sound policy and predicted, that all Caucasus would become under firm Russian rule within the next decades. (p. 125) European powers would not intervene, because it was the destiny of all Europe to rule over the lands of Turks, Persians, and Hindus. (p. 129-130)
Neumann was no racist, but he certainly advocated colonialism and was a Russophile in relation to the southern lands. He had a Darwinist approach many years before Charles Darwin or Herbert Spencer presented their ideas. This appears to have been more typical to 19th century German thought than any anti-Armenian sentiments. Neumann makes it clear in his very first words of the preface: "The European humanity is selected by divinity as ruler of the earth."
Although Neumann respected the bravery of Circassians, he anticipated their destruction by Russia, because in a modern world, there would be no place for chivalrous "uncivilized" people. Neumann estimated the total number of Circassians, including the Kabardians and Abkhaz, at 1.5 million persons, or 300.000 families. (p. 67) Both the Russian figure of 300.000 persons, and the Circassian figure of four millions, were exaggerated.
Neumann divided the Circassians into ten tribes: Notketch, Schapsuch, Abatsech, Pseduch, Ubich, Hatiokech, Kemkuich, Abasech, Lenelnich, Kubertech (in German transliteration). They formed a loose confederation very much like old Switzerland, with democratic majority votes deciding the affairs of villages. Their princes had no privileges, and were regarded only as military commanders. Women were more free than anywhere in the Orient. There was no written law, and death penalties were unknown. Many Circassians were Muslims, but there were also Christians and pagans, all completely tolerated.
Russian prisoners-of-war were used as slaves, but if they were of Polish origin, they were regarded as guests. Therefore, Poles recruited in the Russian army, deserted en masse at every opportunity, and even Russians often declared themselves to be Poles. (p. 123) Slavery as such included no shame. Circassians used to sell their own family members as slaves to Turkey and Persia, and many went to slavery voluntarily, returning later on back home as rich and free men. (p. 124) This system could be compared to the Gastarbeiter emigration from Turkey since the 1960s. We should also remember, that in those times, slavery or serfdom existed in Romania and Russia as well.
The Circassians had been fighting against Russia already for forty years when appealing to the courts of Europe in a "Declaration of Independence": "But now we hear to our deepest humiliation, that our land counts as a part of the Russian empire on all maps published in Europe... that Russia, finally, declares in the West, that Circassians are their slaves, horrible bandits..." (p. 140-141)
The fight continued for two more full decades, until a national Circassian government was set up in Sochi. In 1862, Russia began the final invasion, annihilation and expulsion, as predicted by Neumann well in advance.
According to Kemal H. Karpat, "Ottoman population 1830-1914" (Madison 1985), "Beginning in 1862, and continuing through the first decade of the twentieth century, more than 3 million people of Caucasian stock, often referred collectively as Cerkes (Circassians), were forced by the Russians to leave their ancestral lands..." (p. 27)
Salaheddin Bey mentioned, in 1867, a total of 1.008.000 refugees from the Caucasus and Crimea, of whom 595.000 were initially settled in the Balkans. (p. 27) Half a million followed by 1879, and another half a million until 1914. (p. 69) Most of them were Circassians, although there were Crimean Tatars, Chechens, and other Muslim people among them. Hundreds of thousands Circassians perished on their way.
Neumann’s estimate of 1.5 million Circassians corresponds to 1/30 ethnic Russians, or 1/3 Czechs, or 3/4 Slovaks. (p. 66) According to Neumann, there were over two million Armenians in the world. (p. 69) Now, according to the Soviet census of 1989, the number of Russians has increased to 145 millions, whereof 1/30 would be almost five millions. There are 10 million Czechs and 5 million Slovaks, which would lead us to assume that there should be over 3 million Circassians. Armenia alone has a population of over 3 million Armenians, despite of the past ordeals; 2 million Armenians live elsewhere. The number of Czechs, Slovaks, and Armenians has more than doubled in 150 years, while the number of Russians has tripled; but where are the missing millions of Circassians?
"The Encyclopaedia Britannica", 11th edition (Cambridge 1911), divided the Armenian population equally between Russia and Turkey (little over a million in each empire), and numbered 216.950 Circassians (including Abkhaz etc.) in Russia. Again we must conclude, that about 1.5 million Circassians had been massacred or deported. This disaster exceeded both absolutely and proportionally whatever fell upon Armenians in 1915. Was it intentional? Yes. Was it ideological? Yes. The conquest and Christian colonization of the Middle East was expected not only by Germans, but by most Europeans during the 19th century, and the expulsion of Muslims from Europe was considered a historical necessity. Russia had practicized massacres and mass deportations in the Crimea and Caucasus, and "ethnically cleansed" Circassia specially in 1862-1864. During that period, Panslavists like Mikhail Katkov provided the Russian public with nationalistic excuses for what had started as imperial ambition ["Third Rome"] and strategic interests ["Access to sea"].
A vicious cycle was created and increased the stakes at both frontiers: the Caucasus, and the Balkans. Circassian refugees settled in the Balkans were provoked to commit the "Bulgarian atrocities", that inspired some of the Armenian revolutionaries. After the Balkan Wars, Muslim refugees were roaming in Anatolia, thus spreading terror, and hostility. This was exploited by Russia, at the cost of many innocent Armenians. The massacres of 1915 were a tip of the iceberg - the part best visible for Europeans, who had been actively seeking and expecting horror news to justify anti-Muslim prejudice, and to prevent interventions on behalf of Turkey, as had happened in the Crimean War of the 1850s.
Was it a genocide? That depends on the definition. Rather than of separate, selectively researched genocides, we should speak of a general genocidal tendency that affected many - both Muslim and Christian - people on a wide scene between 1856 and 1956, continuing in post-Soviet Russia until today.
Did Russia recognize this one? What about France and Belgium? Could anyone tell?
Of course, I believe that Turkey has every right to accept or deny anything related to political recognition of a genocide as long as our great ordeal is denied by the parties who recognize the genocides occurred as a result of their own imperialistic policies. Does it bother anyone that I bring the "Western Hypocracies" for tackling the genocides that they were involved for centuries? Does it bother that we dont credit France, Belgium or Russia as some benchmark of humanity?
In fact, I have no problem in terms of recognizing some mass killings as a genocide. Hence, I believe that all the wars are the major tools of genocide. One entity cant not say that it was not one's intention to kill specific group of people when that entity nuces the cities of those, destroy their infrastructure and their homes together with their rights to exist. However, political recognition of such concepts differs from conceptual ones in the real world as countries like the British Empire, Belgium, USA, Holland, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Australia, Canada, and many others proved pretty well with the denial of the genocides that they executed for centuries in their colonial lands. When they tackle those issues one by one, and when they compensate all those countries suffered from European Genocides, and when they reach the compromise with their own history, then we will be delighted to follow the path of that "highly advanced civilization" of Western Europe.
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies