Ortouch's website. Yes that is what the holocaust deniers say, there were concentration camps but everything is exaggerated. The Jews died in the camp by accident, lack of food, etc.

Ortouch there is good solid evidence and that is I wrote about, the vast collection of personal experiences, photographs, forensic evidence, admissions by Turks, documents, etc.

Plus on a personal note my grandmother told me all about it and I lived with her painful accounts all my life. I am not going to trivialize her life or the genocide of my people by further discussing the matter with you if you do not read my posts.

Originally Posted by Lilmissflamethrower

Ortouch's website. Yes that is what the holocaust deniers say, there were concentration camps but everything is exaggerated. The Jews died in the camp by accident, lack of food, etc.

Ortouch there is good solid evidence and that is I wrote about, the vast collection of personal experiences, photographs, forensic evidence, admissions by Turks, documents, etc.

Plus on a personal note my grandmother told me all about it and I lived with her painful accounts all my life. I am not going to trivialize her life or the genocide of my people by further discussing the matter with you if you do not read my posts.

Ortouch might have. I however posted strong evidence (such as from the WWI German government) that cannot be ignored. This evidence generally supports the Armenian claim of genocide. It does not however offer what historians would really like to find: the Turkish order to wipe out the Armenians. That is a matter of academic debate. Do I agree with the debate? No. I wanted to demonstrate how ridiculous such arguments actually are.

I (and most people here) am in your corner. Nor are we trivializing anything. How about reading my large post? I was only trying to be careful in explaining (1) that there is a debate concerning the subject, and (2) demonstrate why I take the Armenian side. It is not our fault that this subject is currently being hotly debated by historians. And, anyway, discussion will help clear up any doubts concerning the Armenian tragedy and ultimately help vindicate your grandmother's death.

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

Ortouch might have. I however posted strong evidence (such as from the WWI German government) that cannot be ignored. This evidence generally supports the Armenian claim of genocide. It does not however offer what historians would really like to find: the Turkish order to wipe out the Armenians. That is a matter of academic debate. Do I agree with the debate? No. I wanted to demonstrate how ridiculous such arguments actually are.

This is what I meant by archival evidence. When the Ottoman Empire fell, many of the archives seem to have been badly compromised, particularly with regards to crimes committed and the punishment thereof. As a result, any references to the Armenian massacre cannot be found in the Turkish Archives. Of course, this opens another conumdrum, this being that the present-day Turkish government is loathe to admit any responsibility given that responsibility cannot be proven using their own archives.

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

I (and most people here) am in your corner.

As am I.

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

Nor are we trivializing anything. How about reading my large post? I was only trying to be careful in explaining (1) that there is a debate concerning the subject, and (2) demonstrate why I take the Armenian side. It is not our fault that this subject is currently being hotly debated by historians. And, anyway, discussion will help clear up any doubts concerning the Armenian tragedy and ultimately help vindicate your grandmother's death.

The only problem with your post, Ollie, is that most of us here cannot read German. As a result, we could not catch the main points of the argument, or (in my case) your intended humour. However, I am very happy that you also mentioned the ridiculousness of the debates. This was why I said that concrete, rather than archival evidence should be used when discussing this whole question. As it is, I now refuse to consider any second-hand evidence when reading about the Armenian massacre, simply because the vast majority of such documents are good only for lining bird cages or as kindling.

Dean.

Something else that I should have mentioned 'way back when at the beginning of the thread. The Question that the original poster asked was whether the the whole incident should have been classed as a genocides, or as a war. There is no way that this could have been considered a war for a number of reasons. First of all, the obvious point, there never was a declaration of war either by Armenia or by the Ottoman Empire. Many will scoff at this but at that time, countries did not march until the declaration was delivered. In addition, most Armenians werwe actually part of the Turkish military, and they were apparently disarmed and in many cases arrested and or executed, depending, of course, on whom you choose to believe. Either way, this left the Turks without someting you need very badly for a war, this being an enemy force. Now according to the Turks, there were some battles, but they have passed mostly unnoticed by history, and even the Turks themselves are silent on the Turkish casualties. Usually there are monuments to the dead of the victorious glorious army, websites that tell about them, historical organizations that keep the memories alive, yadda, yadda, yadda... this seems to have been the least publicized war in history. So, if it was not a war, I guess it must have been something else, this being an organized attempt by government forces to remove an indiginent population from a large geographical area. At best, we call it ethnic cleansing, at worst genocide.

Dean.

<<This is what I meant by archival evidence. When the Ottoman Empire fell, many of the archives seem to have been badly compromised, particularly with regards to crimes committed and the punishment thereof. As a result, any references to the Armenian massacre cannot be found in the Turkish Archives. Of course, this opens another conumdrum, this being that the present-day Turkish government is loathe to admit any responsibility given that responsibility cannot be proven using their own archives. >>

Most countries to try to keep evidence of their crimes lying around! I am glad to hear you are on my side. I have lived with too much love for my grandmother to hear her slandered. She was a sweet innocent lady who kept faith in God and a cheerful spirit all her life (which defies belief in my mind - I would be one pissed off bitch if I lived through that). I have seen the photos myself way before photoshop was invented.

A friend of mine who grew up in Germany told me in the class room where she sat with Turkish kids, the boys would deny the genocide on one hand, and brag about how their grandfathers gang raped Armenian women in the next breath. Those boys better be thankful I wasn't in that classroom to hear that is all I can say.

Originally Posted by Lilmissflamethrower

A friend of mine who grew up in Germany told me in the class room where she sat with Turkish kids, the boys would deny the genocide on one hand, and brag about how their grandfathers gang raped Armenian women in the next breath. Those boys better be thankful I wasn't in that classroom to hear that is all I can say.

Originally Posted by Dean

The only problem with your post, Ollie, is that most of us here cannot read German. As a result, we could not catch the main points of the argument, or (in my case) your intended humour. However, I am very happy that you also mentioned the ridiculousness of the debates. This was why I said that concrete, rather than archival evidence should be used when discussing this whole question. As it is, I now refuse to consider any second-hand evidence when reading about the Armenian massacre, simply because the vast majority of such documents are good only for lining bird cages or as kindling.Dean.

(1) Turkish Sadism: There is something genuinely evil in the way children learn cruelty from their parents and are fed the myths of the dominant cultural system. But the Turkish children (then and now) are not to blame. The Turkish myths perpetuate the belief that the Armenians represented a real problem and that the Turkish state simply reacted with necessary force. This is the brutal illusion behind all genocidal or ethnic cleansing actions.

(2) Ollie's German Sources: Some posts wanted non-Armenian descriptions and I offered links to German sources in response. I translated a bit of the stuff. Most people will not be able to verify my translations, but that's life. The links do at least demonstrate the dimensions of the evidence. By the way, my "humour" was actually more sarcasm than anything else.

(3) Holocaust Studies? Useless?: I want to return to what I think is a severe problem. The central lesson of Holocaust studies is aimed against the future repetition of genocide. Lilmissflamethrower's comment concerning the attitudes of Turkish children brings up an interesting point. If Turkish children can live in Germany, or Canada, or anywhere in the west and still maintain the normal illusions of genocide, what does this tell us about Holocaust education? Sort of on the failed side, huh.

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

Lilmissflamethrower's comment concerning the attitudes of Turkish children brings up an interesting point. If Turkish children can live in Germany, or Canada, or anywhere in the west and still maintain the normal illusions of genocide, what does this tell us about Holocaust education? Sort of on the failed side, huh.

Can this be expanded to a broader acceptance(or non-acceptance) of the Western values?

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

(3) Holocaust Studies? Useless?: I want to return to what I think is a severe problem. The central lesson of Holocaust studies is aimed against the future repetition of genocide. Lilmissflamethrower's comment concerning the attitudes of Turkish children brings up an interesting point. If Turkish children can live in Germany, or Canada, or anywhere in the west and still maintain the normal illusions of genocide, what does this tell us about Holocaust education? Sort of on the failed side, huh.

Actually, I disagree with that. Human nature is difficult to predict at best, but when you combine human nature with an ancient hatred, it does leave us with very easily visible weaknesses. If you stay with the Turkish example, the incredible hatred that Turks have for the Armenians can easily blind them to the reality of the crimes that they committed. In that regard, we are all the same; we would rather see the violence that we have perpetrated as justified rather than face the uneasy truth that we are, or that we are harbouring, murderers. But if we take the personal factor out of it, for example, ask the Turks about Rwanda, then even they could see a genocide for what it is. The reason that they can see that is precisely because of holocaust education. As an aside, this is, I believe, the main reason that the Turkish government does not want to admit that a genocide occurred. It would mean that many of their heros and great historical figures were, in fact, guilty of crimes against humanity. As long as the government carries on the charade, heros remain heros, important figures remain glorious, and the painful internal examinations never take place. And of course, it is business as usual in the classrooms.
Kinda scary, actually.

Dean.

Originally Posted by Dean

Actually, I disagree with that. Human nature is difficult to predict at best, but when you combine human nature with an ancient hatred, it does leave us with very easily visible weaknesses. If you stay with the Turkish example, the incredible hatred that Turks have for the Armenians can easily blind them to the reality of the crimes that they committed. In that regard, we are all the same; we would rather see the violence that we have perpetrated as justified rather than face the uneasy truth that we are, or that we are harbouring, murderers. But if we take the personal factor out of it, for example, ask the Turks about Rwanda, then even they could see a genocide for what it is. The reason that they can see that is precisely because of holocaust education. As an aside, this is, I believe, the main reason that the Turkish government does not want to admit that a genocide occurred. It would mean that many of their heros and great historical figures were, in fact, guilty of crimes against humanity. As long as the government carries on the charade, heros remain heros, important figures remain glorious, and the painful internal examinations never take place. And of course, it is business as usual in the classrooms.
Kinda scary, actually.

You hit the nail so hard on the head that you smashed it through the wood.

Since we are also talking about genocide as a general problem, what does your assertion tell us about the following people and cultures:

(1) Churchill: "I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race, has come in and taken their place". (1937)

(2) F.D. Roosevelt: "With the exception of the English colonization of North America, Roosevelt viewed the European race for colonies as a manifestation of the forces of imperialism, militarism, and reaction. Roosevelt portrayed Spanish colonization on behalf of “His Most Catholic Majesty” as “a false glory,” bent solely on “exploitation” and producing only a hybrid race that was “part cavalier, part Indian, later on in part negro.” Similarly, Roosevelt portrayed French efforts prior to the establishment of English colonies in North America as little better, afraid of competition and focused on fishing, fur trapping, and trading with Indian tribes. Roosevelt observed that the French left few historical records and nothing that he could characterize as “sound and permanent colonization.” He noted that, in sharp contrast to Spanish and French imperialistic exploitation, the English came to North America as permanent colonizers whose efforts advanced the course of civilization." (various dates)

[Holocaust Studies still aims at fighting this type of perspective. "Never again" is the dominant phrase. If, however, cultures justify their own genocidal "activities" using a subjective emphasis on the actions of "others", what does this mean for Holocaust Studies? Holocaust Studies, and the over-concentration on a single example, might be making the problem worse rather than better. Has Washington concentrated on their horrible treatment of Native-Americans or African-Americans? No. They build Holocaust memorials instead. Similarly, Turkish nationalists use the Holocaust to downplay, minimize or even deny the Armenian tragedy.]

Michael S. Bell, "The Worldview of Franklin D. Roosevelt" (PhD) (2004).
http://learning.lib.vt.edu/slav/genocide.html#index
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/3149_52.asp

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

You hit the nail so hard on the head that you smashed it through the wood.

Since we are also talking about genocide as a general problem, what does your assertion tell us about the following people and cultures:

(1) Churchill: "I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race, has come in and taken their place". (1937)

As I said in my previous post, we all have a blind spot when it comes to crimes against humanity and genocides committed by our own countrymen. I have a hard time considering the subjugation of North American Indians as a genocide because I am Canadian and also because I live near various different Aboriginal reservations where today, there are many thousands of Mohawk and Algonquin living. While the culture as it once was is well and truly gone, the same thing could be argued about those who did the actual subjugation; the culture that existed in the early 1800's has also changed beyond recognition. It can be very successfully argued that the changes that have occurred to the North American Aboriginal population and culture are as much due to the needs and pressures of living in the modern world as they are to the actions of the white colonizers. I know that they are specious arguments, but that is how we in North America rationalize it. To counter that argument, I always use the same point: What about the Beothuk? After I explain who the Beothuk were, the argument is usually over.

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

(2) F.D. Roosevelt: "With the exception of the English colonization of North America, Roosevelt viewed the European race for colonies as a manifestation of the forces of imperialism, militarism, and reaction. Roosevelt portrayed Spanish colonization on behalf of “His Most Catholic Majesty” as “a false glory,” bent solely on “exploitation” and producing only a hybrid race that was “part cavalier, part Indian, later on in part negro.” Similarly, Roosevelt portrayed French efforts prior to the establishment of English colonies in North America as little better, afraid of competition and focused on fishing, fur trapping, and trading with Indian tribes. Roosevelt observed that the French left few historical records and nothing that he could characterize as “sound and permanent colonization.” He noted that, in sharp contrast to Spanish and French imperialistic exploitation, the English came to North America as permanent colonizers whose efforts advanced the course of civilization." (various dates)

He was dead wrong about the French. I live in Québec, and I see signs of sound and permanent colonization every single day. It is no accident that I speak French fluently, as it is the principal language of eight million people here in this corner of North America. In Montreal and Quebec, the recordsstill exist, and buildings, architecture, language, culture, even our civil law are directly influenced by the French colonization; so in that regard, Roosevelt had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. The English simply won a war, and in doing so tool over a flourishing colony. Roosevelt simply never read about it.
As for the rest of his comments, it perfectly fits my other example. Roosevelt glossed over the actions of his own ancestors (the English) and justified their actions using an argument that I could blow huge holes through.

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

[Holocaust Studies still aims at fighting this type of perspective. "Never again" is the dominant phrase. If, however, cultures justify their own genocidal "activities" using a subjective emphasis on the actions of "others", what does this mean for Holocaust Studies? Holocaust Studies, and the over-concentration on a single example, might be making the problem worse rather than better. Has Washington concentrated on their horrible treatment of Native-Americans or African-Americans? No. They build Holocaust memorials instead. Similarly, Turkish nationalists use the Holocaust to downplay, minimize or even deny the Armenian tragedy.]

The reason that the holocaust is used as an example is due to the fact that it was so well documented that it can be studied in the smallest degree, and from many different fields. You can easily study the mechanics and organization of large and small units, the economic costs and benefits of exterminating the Jews, the psychology of both the victims and those who carried out the murders, how mob psychology was used to turn ordinary Germans against the Jews, etc. etc. In every other example of a genocide, people were not stupid enough to leave such detailed documentation, and the perpetrators could never be questioned. If you take the example of the Armenian genocide, there is little if any valid archival evidence, all of the eye-witnesses are dead, all of the perpetrators are dead, and all of the memories of the victims and the perpetrators are second-hand. Hardly a good example to teach others about how to avoid another such occurance... But there is (unfortunately) another example that will be very useful for education, particularly in Africa, and that is the Rwandan genocide. As more and more evidence comes to light, we see the repetition of the same patterns that led to the genocides in Germany and Armenia. And it happened, what, ten years ago?
The trouble with normal is that it always gets worse.....

Dean.

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

Michael S. Bell, "The Worldview of Franklin D. Roosevelt" (PhD) (2004).
http://learning.lib.vt.edu/slav/genocide.html#index
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/3149_52.asp