WOW!

Paul, your analysis is impressive. I am truly delighted that we have you in the discussion. Thank you also for the more factual corrections of my quote of the lunatic perpetrator you quoted.

AMViennaVA and a few others have made the points necessary to counter what we have been reading by the historical revisionists to the debate so far and I believe the more information we have on the historical aspects, the more we affirm our concern about the present ongoing nationalist intentions by the descendants of those who's crimes are at issue. Certainly the Kurdish matter must be addressed very quickly since the time to act and prevent yet another irrational act of human suffering is now.

I am delighted you have raised the matter of the Assyrians. I have to admit that I am shamed in not having discussed the inhuman treatment of this great and ancient nation since they are so bound up on the whole debate of the Armenians and Kurds. The descendants of this great ancient civilization are now spread throughout a region encompassing Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Just for the record, whatever violence we should expect toward the Kurdish people in the next little while, will also result in an untold suffering of the Assyrian people who also occupy roughly the same little piece of muddy and bloodied rock in Iraq.

Last year I came across a website that has answered a lot of questions for me about this great nation that cannot be forgotten due to our lack of attention. Indeed, we must admit that their few numbers and lack of voice in the West has precluded their isolation and the lack of attention we have shown to their cause.

Anyone who wants to learn more about their ongoing struggle can go to this website:

http://www.aina.org/

Paul, you are a great voice of reason and insight. I thank you again for your contribution. I hope to read more from you in the discussion.

Sincerely,
Spiridon,
Montreal Canada

For those still in denial, I'd like to give a few quotes:

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, at the opening of the Turkish parliament on 24 April 1920: "The massacres against the Armenians were a shameful act."

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, 1926 on an interview with the Los Angeles Examiner: "These left-overs from the former Young Turk Party, who should have been made to account for the millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse, from their homes and massacred, have been restive under the Republican rule"

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, 1919 in a conversation with major general Harbord, head of the American military mission to Armenia: disaproving of the Armenian massacres, he quoted the number of 800.000 victims.

Cemal, Ottoman interior minister at the end of the war: 800.000 Armenians were actually killed.

Apart from these obviously unbiased reports, there were numerous reports from American, but especially German and Austrian ( wartime allies of the Ottoman empire) witnesses, among them German and Austrian military advisers.

Several officials were in postwar trials in Turkey, during the years 1919-1920, were convicted, some even executed for the atrocities commited on Armenians and others. Some of these tribunals, military and others, didn't finish their job, some did.

I never see any remarks going into these trials, quotes from Ataturk etc.

In this exchange of posts, you can see a lot of incoherent remarks of the negationists. To give a few: Greek and Armenians and other "enemies of the Turks" are by definition disqualified to write sensible things about this question, and are by definition biased against teh Turks. Well, in that case, one should follow one's own logic and realize that Turks are by defintion biased when wrtiing about their own past. So should all your comments be dismissed?

Accroding negationists, the Turks offer to open their archives so that all can study them, and they claim they are the only ones to do so. Well, German, Austrian, American, British, French and even Armenian archives o this matter have always been open. There are no legal restrictions anymore - because this all hapened so long time ago - on Western archives. As a result, all these mentioned archives are studied and used extensively. The only problem until now was the Turkish archives, were it was not always possible to get admission.

The Turks were stabbed in the back (be carefull when people start talking about being stabbed in the back) while they had to defend their country to the rest of the world who were trying to destroy them. Of course, failing to mention that Turkey signed a treaty with Germany after the war already started and that they were the first, with German help, to attack Russia in the Black Sea, puts this portrayal of the Ottoman victim of foreign aggression in a whole new perspective.

According to some negationists, the Ottoman empire was in no state to commit genocide because they were attacked on al fronts. According to others, the Armenians were committing large scale attrocities. In other words, a complete state apparatus with an army and police force at it's disposal was not able to do what a minority ethnic group, treated as second class citizens, of at best 10 % of the population was accused of doing: mass scale ethnic cleansing. Sounds very convincing, make up your mind which line of defence you want to take, will you.

According to what some negationists are writing, former adversaries of the Ottoman empire are, under pressure of rich Armenian lobbies, formally recognizing the Armenian genocide. So how come former ally Germany, with a huge Turkish presence, very good political ties with Turkey and hardly any Armenians living in the country officially recognised the genocide?

According to negationists, Armenians got what they deserved by betraying the Ottoman empire wheere they lived in harmony for hundreds of years. Odd behaviour, I would say, especially because it would just have meant changing the Ottman autocrat for the Russian autocrat. So, if even there was a mass uprising (which was by the way disputed by the Turkish prosecutor in the aformentioned tribunals) by the Armenians, there must have been a reason for this. Maybe this had something to do with the pogroms and massacres taking place afainst the Armenians at the end of the 19th century. Or maybe it was something in the Armenian genes. Which brings me to the next observation:

According to statements made above: Armenians form a powerful international lobby. They are able to buy support in several countries and use that support to hijack the politics of any given country and direct it against Turkey. They manipulate the world in believing they were victims of genocide, but instead committed huge massacres themselves. In the end all wthey want is monetary compensation by the Turks and a part of Turkey. In the end only the Armenian greed is responsible for all this uproar. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Especially if you would change the word Armenina by Jew. I mean, this is the kind of argument which is played out here: pure and simple anti-Armenian racism.

There is one question which I would like to see discussed as well. Prior to the World War 1, there were several hundreds of thousands of Assyrians living in what is now Turkey. They were another christian group. Now there are still 5000 of them. Would anyone care to explain me where they all went? Indeed, there was not only the Armenian genocide, there was also the Assyrian genocide. You don't here much about them because now they are a tiny people, spread over several countries without their own state. Their fate is nonetheless as tragic as the Armenian fate.

I'd like to finish wiht a quote of one of the leading experts on genocide. Not a scholar but a perpetrator. This quote is just to put things in perspective of the real meaning of this debate: "kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of the Polish race or language" and concluded by asking "Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?". This quote was made one week before the invasion of Poland in a speech to Wehrmacht generals by Adolf Hitler.

Spiridon, MJC and Amviennava,

Spiridon's response to MJC was not only polite but intelligent and admirable. Reading all of these responses, it has been interesting to observe how often contributors fall back on tragically stereotyped characterizations of each other in order to dismiss competing arguments. How many times do we see posters argue such examples: "Turks are ignorant...Armenians are conniving liars...Greeks are biased...Americans are arrogant and hypocritical." Of course none of these simplifications accurately depict people's complicated efforts to sort out the tragedies and injuries their countries face. When we look a little closer we see evidence that difficult and fruitful debates about these issues DO go on in all of these communities as people try to work it out. Turkey is not an exception. Turks too struggle with this issue extensively, even though Turksih public faces may seem staunchly unreasonable to many. I will say the same for many Armenians. It is important that we encourage peoples' willingness to struggle with themselves, not put them on the defensive with innaccurate characterizations. Amartya Sen has written a wonderful must-read about this called "Identity and Violence."

When it comes to genocide, doesn't stereoptyping lay the groundwork for the violence? Isn't wrongful and dismissive imaginings of each other how this whole genocide tragedy started? I guess it's not surprising then that we revisit the flawed tendency to use stereotyping to justify our dimsissal and rejection of each other's positions. But such alienation is dangerous, and genocide is the ultimate example of that danger.

What I admired about Spiridon's last post is that he would not indulge in a dismissive anti-American characterization of MJC's argument. Spiridon made this clear by insisting that he would stick to "the polite argument". Unfortunately it's not hard to imagine the impolite argument. I don't value Spiridon's politeness as much as I do value his integrity for adressing MJC as a person, not an unfortunate characterization about what Americans are.

MJC, You have been sufficiently challenged to avoid the stereotype trap, in so many ways. If you are willing to accept the challenge, it's probably the best thing you could do for America's interests.

Amviennava, I'm glad you're appreciating all of this. It is fascinating.

-Yabanci

I am not so sure what positive results can be achieved in a discussion populated by anonymous posters.

Mr Konstandaras has addressed a current issue in the most eloquent and restrained manner possible. I have read and reread the article and addendum to be certain that his position is not coloured by his cultural heritage, which to be fair, could have happened: It did not.
I am not writing this because Mr. Konstandaras and I share the same cultural heritage, I am simply pointing out a fact that I am not alone in establishing. The many responders, when they are not heavily bound to their nationalistic and affected views, have said in fewer words what I am saying now. I am hoping that given the anonymous nature of the heated discussion, some restrain will be exercised by those who will 'shoot the messenger' because they do not like the message. There was even a subtle threat issued to Mr. Konstandaras near the top of this discussion that is really alarming.

So far we have patiently entertained a variety of Turkish opinion, some of it implicitly interested in researching the historical 'facts' from other than their current, mainstream and nationalistic position. I think there is hope in asking a question to which the answer may not fit our present thinking. I think that complacency is the first premise of ignorance and if we are to communicate with each other and our divergent views we must be very actively working toward addressing a view that is opposing our own. This is the first premise of progress and growth; progress in our understanding of ourselves and the resulting maturity and growth we experience in the simple exercise.

There is a lot of hurt in this discussion and to be fair, it is not always a bad thing; I am only glad that I am neither Armenian or Turkish at this moment. As Greek, I have also experienced hurt for some of the stories I have heard and read. I have also experienced regret for some of the undeniable faults and historically proven crimes committed by Greeks toward others: There is an endless amount of tales to tell on this point alone but the issue is not about the tales and the historical facts.

None of the contributers to this discussion will admit that the human suffering was one-sided in the event in question here. Nobody doubts that a great many Turkish and Kurdish people lost their lives in the struggle to preserve their homeland; we all have an appreciation for our cultural and our natural attachment to nation and state. The time lapse of 90 or so years will not permit us to condemn individuals, but it does permit us to condemn notions of nationalism that will often result in atrocious crimes of human indignity.

I am sorry to say, (and I mean that I am sorry in a personal way) that while we discuss an event that has happened so long ago, we are missing the opportunity to discuss events in our present time. I am sorry to say that while we make excuses for a horrifying and indignant act, against a nation that was almost extinct on account of the act itself, we are sitting here and being lulled into an intellectual exercise, of mostly patient review of the various versions of the tragedy, while the apologists are actively working on the propaganda and strategic approach toward doing it to another nation.

While the Kurdish people are not guilt free, as we have established neither are the Greeks or the Armenians, I believe that WE, regardless of our cultural and national allegiance, become part of the guilt 100 years from now if we do not intervene.

I invite my Turkish friends in this discussion to offer some insight on the ongoing drama planned in the very near future. Where do you stand personally on the matter? We have heard the views of the Turkish media and government: This is not my question.

I want to know where my Turkish friends stand on the matter of the present struggle as PERSONS.

Spiridon
Montreal, Canada

to GARAK:

as for your argument:

"John Aidiniantz: What conditions have the Turks attached to this? And how do we know the Ottoman archives are still intact? How do we know incriminating documents haven't been purged? Turkish historian Taner Akcam, in his book "A Shameful Act," shows how the Ottoman archives conclusively demonstrate the Armenian Holocaust"

answer: because the british have copies of the originals from the invasion in 1921..

That goes for the above argument. On the turkish-armenian issue, let me state first that i am a turkish man living in the US. saying that and gone, i must also say that i don't really care whether the genocide had really happened or not.. it wouldn't make a difference to me one way or another.. and very sadly, i must admit i feel that way because i'm not any one of the descendants of victims.

i have sympathy for people who claim to be victims. truth is, the issues being discussed have taken place literally 90-95 years ago or so, a time when even our fathers weren't born. so first, comparing this to germans affirming the jewish holocaust and moving on is not quite the same, since the germans who affirmed it had actually took part in the very holocaust itself when it had happened, so there was nothing to discuss.. however, all we discuss today, if we do any, besides the stories told from generations to generations, are documents of one side against documents of the other side.. all historical documents, claims, stories, and such..

saying all that, i, for myself, think this is a good opportunity for turkey to look back and examine the past, and even better, turks and armenians to work out this issue. i think this issue must be thoroughly worked out between involved parties.. i don't think turkey can live forever avoiding this issue. the facts must be brought out, laid out in the open and discussed. if such things happened, then perhaps some restitution could be paid and moved on. if not, same.. point is, both parties should move on.

obviously something happened 100 years ago. however, none of the armenians and turks that live today and argue over it are not participants of the tragic events being fought over..it's good. it's good because nonparticipants of tragedy have a better shot at working things out than direct participants. unfortunately, a lot of us from both sides approach the issue fanatically, but i think it would be for the benefit for our future generations that both armenians and turks seek constructive resolution to get over with it and move on.

i think turkey really needs to see this as an opportunity rather than a threat. otherwise, it will remain a threat forever, a threat as long as the nation avoids to face it.

as for the nondemocratic environment in turkey: you must remember. democracies aren't born perfect, they grow slowly.. there was no turkey 100 years ago, it was an empire ruled by the sultan and khalifa for about 500 years.. it was changed into a western style republic almost over night, and had to stand on it feet that way by military control for decades until it started figuring out what to do on its own, because of lack of any previous experience in such a system. when i was born in turkey 35 years ago, it was still a semi-police state. and look how far turkey has come now with its democracy. it's easy to criticize a nation like that when you're born in a society with a democratic tradition established for centuries.. give it time.. the democratic traditions in the west weren't as mature as they are today when they were young either.

Spidon: When Turkey's EU application began to move, I was hopeful, as I am sure everyone of Turkey's neighbors was. The requirements that the EU places on applicants are designed, among other things, to lessen the influence of the military on the civilian authorities.

By now I am no longer hopeful. I believe that too many Turks want their military to dictate to the civilian authorities. Ir is unfortunate, mostly for the Turks themselves.

Consider, after WW2 Greece was literally in ruins (having won the first voctories for the allies; been occupied; and fought a civil war afterwards). But by the mid-70's had reached the economic stage where Turkey is today; and by now it is a full member of the EU. As is Cyprus (that includes the Muslims in the occupied part who hold a Cypriot passport - many do and can even run for office). Even Bulgaria is a full member of the EU. The laggard is Turkey, as a result of which it is the condition of the Turks themselves that worsens in comparison to Turkey's neighbors.

Soon, Turkey will compare favorably only against Iraq, Syria, and pehaps Iran.

The choice is for the Turks to make; all anyone else can do is point out the possibilities. One of these, by the way, is for the Kurds to break-off, as have the other groups that Turkey oppressed, that is always a possibility, no matter how 'illegal' it may be in the eyes of Turks.