OPINION
• CONTRIBUTOR
Tuesday, February 09 2010 20:01 GMT+2
Your time is 
 

A new interpretation of the Armenian deportations in World War I

Font Size: Larger|Smaller
Prof. EBERHARD DEMM

During World War II, some 5 to 6 million Jews were murdered to destroy them as an ethnic group – the paradigm case of genocide. Now imagine for a moment that the Nazis had spared three categories of people: Jews willing to be baptized, pretty women in order to marry them and children to be brought up as “Aryans” in German families.

Would you still define this as genocide? Certainly not. Yet the German diplomats who compiled the most trustworthy and comprehensive documents about the Armenian deportations mentioned many such cases.

First of all, they reported that not only Armenians, but also members of other Christian groups – Nestorians, Jacobites, Chaldees, Catholic Syrians and Protestants, though no Orthodox – were deported as well. They also observed that during the deportations, “women disappeared in harems and children would grow up as Muslims.” In several places, Armenians could avoid deportation and probable death if they converted to Islam. Sometimes they were even forced to do so.

For instance, in Gemerek, near Sivas, 30 of the prettiest girls were rounded up and told: “Either you become Muslims or you die!” Although they refused to convert, the governor ordered that they be integrated into Turkish families. Such attitudes cannot be compared with the Shoah genocide, but are reminiscent more of medieval Christian crusades, when, for instance, in 1147, the abbot Bernard of Clairvaux, later sanctified by the Catholic Church, proclaimed for the war against the pagan Slavs “death or baptism.”

To avoid any misunderstanding: I do not deny nor excuse the tragedy that several hundreds of thousands of Armenians either died from starvation or were massacred during the deportations, mostly by Kurdish and Cherkess bandits and by the death squadrons of Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa, the secret police at the time, whose ranks were recruited from released convicts. I also do not deny that some of the more radical Young Turks intended an ethnic cleansing. But most of the murderers had different reasons: Apart from pure lust for slaughter and booty, they were motivated by a profound hate of Christians, reinforced by the first proclamation of modern jihad in November 1914 by Sultan Mehmed V and Essad Effendi, Sheikh-ul-Islam. To be sure, this had never been practiced in medieval jihad and traditional Islam, which tolerated Jews and Christians. Only the modern jihad has degenerated into indiscriminate killings of Christians and Muslims alike.

We must also not forget the political reason for the deportations. In spring 1915, the Ottoman Empire was in the deadly grip of a double menace – the Allied operation against the Dardanelles and the Russian invasion of eastern Anatolia – while German and Austrian support for Turkey was still blocked by neutral countries in the Balkans. At the same time, the threat of an Armenian “Fifth Column” seemed very real: A few isolated Armenian revolts had broken out, and tens of thousands of Turkish Armenians, led by the former Armenian deputy of the Ottoman parliament, Armen Karo, fought as traitors in the Russian army against their own country, with the special task to stir up revolts in eastern Anatolia.

Approximately one year ago, 200 Turkish intellectuals started the “özürdiliyoruz” Internet campaign apologizing for the Armenian massacres, and more than 30,000 people have signed this declaration since. In spring 2006, I had in vain, through Turkish diplomatic channels, suggested such a step to the Turkish authorities, in order to ward off the forthcoming Armenian resolution by the German Bundestag, but the time was not yet ripe. However, I wonder now if the Armenian diaspora would be ready to offer an apology as well, because their people were not totally innocent either.

During the Russian offensive against Van, Armenians also committed atrocities in some Turkish villages, although on a much smaller scale. In the 1920s, they executed several Young Turks held responsible for the massacres, amongst them Ahmed Cemal Pasha, who, as governor of Syria, had been opposed to the deportations and had saved hundreds of thousands of Armenians in order to resettle them in Syria. In the 1970s and 1980s, they assassinated approximately 80 people and wounded 400, most of them innocent Turkish diplomats.

The international repercussions of the whole problem are sometimes underrated in Turkey. Most French politicians, partly under Armenian influence, are determined to block full Turkish membership in the European Union. In 2006, the French parliament even passed a law against the denial of an Armenian genocide. In light of a petition of protest signed by 800 historians from around the world, amongst them myself, harsh sanctions such as prison time were waived, but the law itself was not abrogated.

I sincerely hope that the new commission, set up according to the recent treaty between Turkey and Armenia, will reach an internationally acknowledged agreement on this hotly disputed question and pave the way for a definite reconciliation of Turks and Armenians.

* Eberhard Demm is a retired history professor based in Germany. The views expressed here are the author’s own..


 

66 Comments   Bookmark and Share  printer friendly PRINTER FRIENDLY

READER COMMENTS

Guest - sam (2010-02-06 14:48:15) :

Mmmmm ... maybe we should have given them blankets (as per the US with their Indians) or restore democracy ... or have numerous crusades ... or destry their cities and exterminate all living as per the Greeks ... THEN WE WOULD NOT HAVE THIS TODAY. what a joke this Christian EU is ...


Guest - Vahan (2010-01-18 05:43:09) :

It is sad to know how people try very hard to conceal the truth about the horrible crime that befell the Armenian people. It is even sadder to read excuses used by people as if in some way trying to legitimize the crime. The fact of the matter is, Genocide did take place. --- The fact of the matter is, it was all orchestrated by the Ottoman (Turkish) government. --- The fact of the matter is 1,500,000 Armenians were butchered in many horrendous ways. --- The fact of the matter is some Armenians did put up a resistance to the slaughter. --- The fact of the matter is the Turkish children are brought up by lies about the Armenian Genocide and presumably about anything Armenian. --- The fact of the matter is most of the Turkish society does not believe about the validity of the Armenian Genocide. --- The fact of the matter is people in Turkey who believe in the truth are very few and scared. --- The fact of the matter is people who deny it are either extremely ignorant, just simply full of hate or after financial gains. The only way for ignorant people and race haters to understand our pain who deny, lie, deceive about the fact of the Armenian Genocide is simply by inflicting the same horrible tragedies on to them starting from the Adana massacres. Just imagine this for a minute... **1** The Armenian government starts butchering 300,000 Turks thus orphaning close to 50,000 Turkish children. **2** The Armenian government again starts butchering 30,000 Turks orphaning countless Turkish children. **3** Then the Armenian government starts the deportation and butchering of 3/4ths of the entire Turkish population (56,000,000 souls, at current population figures) which at the same time you have the option of converting to the Christian faith or face certain death. We also will take your beautiful girls and adopt your orphaned kids as our own and raise them as Christian Armenians, as some people here have stated. How would you feel about this picture if I were to give the same excuses you are giving here that Genocide did not take place? Worse yet, what if I was to tell you that you deserved it, how would you feel? What if I was to tell you that the Turkish people also killed Armenians so that is why we had to butcher and deport you to a desert? What if I were to deny the crime?


Guest - Krikor Zohrab (2010-01-04 23:41:42) :

The Dashnagtsutyun terrorist organization started to "terrorize the peasants for the purpose of a Marxist revolution" back in 1880s. This is from their current website. Its founders were Russian Armenians, and they had never stepped on Ottoman soil. By 1915, they had literally armed the Armenian populace to teeth, and they had acted provocatively to spark ethnic hostilities. And when you reach 1915, when the relocation orders escalate this ethnic conflict to ultimate levels, the ethnic group with the lower population suffers for it. This is actually what happened. You don't need Enver's or Talat's actions or telegrams to explain what happened. Dashnagtsutyun's actions are more than sufficient for that purpose. They wanted a bloody rebellion, they got a bloody rebellion, but it got out of control. They thought they could copy the Bulgarian revolution, but Russia was in no condition to annex Armenia, as it had annexed Bulgaria in 1878. Obviously, if you take biased circumstantial evidence, and hand-pick written accounts, the way Dadrian does, then you have a case for a genocide. There are no credible academicians (there are no credible American academicians, let alone Turkish) that support such an absurd claim.


Guest - Ragnar Naess (2009-12-26 11:47:47) :

YOU WRITE @Ragnar - First, genocide is a "crime against humanity". Thus, it is a legal question that is decided based on competent evidence admissible in a court of law. If such evidence existed, Armenia would have long ago presented it instead of locking up its Dashnak archives from public view. COMMENT: Today the word genocide has at least three different main meanings: 1) the meaning outlined in the definition in the 1948 convention, 2) the meaning in mainstream genocide research which implies “government orchestrated mass murder of a certain grioup of people”, 3) the popular meaning which is something like “killing all people in a group in the same way as the Nazis did”. Needless to say I have tried in many debates to make people distinguish between these meanings. To accuse the ittihadists of being Nazis is wilful slander. But if there are three meniangs in circulation you must admit that “genocide” is not only a juridical term. Apart from this, nobody can be convicted according to a law if the action was done before the passing of the law. So Turkey will never be convicted of genocide according to the Convention. YOU WRITE: While you recount, from Justin McCarthy's book events that occurred in the southeast, you conveniently leave out the occupation of the northeast corridor of the Black Sea coast and the events that occurred there. Try reading some of the more recent reports translated from Russian archives in which the ruthless massacre of Turks by Armenians are described in detailed reports submitted by Russian military officers (e.g., Brigadier General Leonid Bolhovitinov). COMMENT: First – you write that I “conveniently leave out….”. Why this hostile tone, Sammy? Are we enemies? The theme launched by professor Demm was the deportation/relocation of the Armenians. But of course I agree with you that there has been too little mention of the atrocities committed against Turks. But think about this for a moment. In criminal investigations the police work looks for a motive and what you write about Armenian killing of Turks can be taken as documenting a motive on the part of the ittihadists to get rid of the Armenians. They were in a terrible spot and the Armenians made the foolish decision to rebel - or defend themselves – it more or less meant the same for them given the experiences of 1895-96 – believing that their Big Brother would come and rescue them. So if we contextualize the happenings and stick to the juridical language we might say that there were extenuating circumstances in the killing off of Armenians. But why do you insist that Armenians attacked Turks and still deny that Turks then decided to kill them off? Excuse me for the blunt language. To my mind Armenians have to realize that the powers preyed on the Ottoman Empire and even if Armenians saw themselves as few and powerless, their power was in their powerful so-called friends. Turks did not put Armenians in a life endangering situation or killed Armenians just because Turks were evil, which is what the anti-Turkish fundamentalist genocide people hold. But why then deny the possibility that Turks retaliated – after Bulgaria, after the Balkan war – and tried to reduce Armenian presence in Anatolia to a minimum? What was done to the Armenians was a crime, a huge crime, whoever was responsible on the Ottoman side, but one cannot say that it was a crime simply done out of evilness. Why not try to see both sides of the coin? I will come back to your other points. Only I am surprised that You write the following:YOU WRITE: Reality, Ragnar, you need to think about the reality and not just view these events from the safety of an academic ivory tower as comforting as that might seem. COMMENT: What do you mean? If you talk about your personal experiences – even if your relatives were killed by Armenians 90 years ago – let us meet and cry together about our misfortunes. I will be the first to support you. But if you talk about the question of what exactly happened 90 years ago, then we are both talking abut history, about documentation, about explanation. Don’t mix the two or jump from the one to the other when you get into trouble! Finally, there was a time when Turks complained that no outsiders cared to listen to Turks. I believe everybody needs sympathetic outsiders which is what I try to be from my friendly relations with Turks for 25 years. If we had met personally I hope I would have been able to show this.


Guest - Ragnar Naess (2009-12-16 17:20:36) :

Sammy, I am sorry I have not been able to return to your posts the last days. However, I will answer now. You write: Ragnar: You write "For me this is a serious question. What do you think?" I think that it is very easy to sit in front of your computer during a time or peace when neither you nor your countries' borders are under attack and think up "serious questions". Comment: I was referring to the question posed by Fuat Dündar. It is a serious question because it is hardly contested that a great number of Armenians, probably several hundred thousands, were housed in tents along the Euphrates in an area in which they could never be resettled. The area of Zor sustained a population of 60.000 at the time. This area is mentioned as a destination for Armenians in several documents, but it would have been impossible to settle them all there. Further a number of eyewitness testimonies and testimonies from survivors, and documentation by digging in the sand in later years prove beyond reasonable doubt that there were large scale massacres of the Armenian deportees in these areas. When you combine these facts with the fact of a very explicit plan for resettlement, documented by Dündar, which obviously did not answer the question of what was to become of the three quarters of the Armenians who were in excess of the numbers covered by the plan, you naturally ask what was the plan for all these Armenians? Taner Akcam answeres that they were not supposed to live. Now I prefer to ask the question. What you write about sitting at one’s computer and thinking up serious questions strikes me as being not up to par, Sammy! I take the question of Armenians killimg Turks seriously because it obviously affects you. Should I not take the question of Turks killing Armenians seriously? For me what you say here does not really belong to our discussion. I have been a friends of Turks for 25 years, and worked in Amnesty International Norway for ten years as Turkey coordinator. At that time I used some 50% of my time defending Turkey against prejudices and misinformation regarding Cyprus, regarding the actual progress in Turkey in the field of human rights, regarding the obvious misinformation in many things regarding the Kurds. I suggest you stick to our issue. ………………… You then describe the relocation. While there are details here I might comment, the description is to my mind fairly correct. Then you write that the leaders were incompetent and not able to plan out a relocation. But Sammy this is hardly an answer to the question of what were the plans of the leadership at the time when they sent so many people to a place in which it was impossible to survive. Some years earlier they refused to send muslim refugees to these areas because they were said to be inhabitable. Is this only incompetence? Yes, possibly it was neglect and not intention to have all these people die. But why then the massacres, apparently done by local cherkess people? Did they do it on their own, or in collusion with the government (Contrary to greater Syria the mutessariflik of Zor was directly subordinated to the Ministry of Interior. )Why massacres of a deported population mainly consisting of emaciated women and children? Were they dangerous enemies? the question remains. I will come back to your other points.


Guest - Sammy (2009-12-08 01:15:48) :

@Ragnar - First, genocide is a "crime against humanity". Thus, it is a legal question that is decided based on competent evidence admissible in a court of law. If such evidence existed, Armenia would have long ago presented it instead of locking up its Dashnak archives from public view. As I'm sure you know, the Dashnak party led most of the revolts against the Ottomans and the massacres committed against the Turks. While you recount, from Justin McCarthy's book events that occurred in the southeast, you conveniently leave out the occupation of the northeast corridor of the Black Sea coast and the events that occurred there. Try reading some of the more recent reports translated from Russian archives in which the ruthless massacre of Turks by Armenians are described in detailed reports submitted by Russian military officers (e.g., Brigadier General Leonid Bolhovitinov). As for Boghos Nubar's admissions, the same statements are made by Garegin Pasdermajian in the memoir he wrote in 1918 in which he outlines how Armenians were betrayed by the Russians. By claiming that Nubar's numbers are gross exaggerations, you also outline the other problems Armenian genocide claimants have created for themselves. I'm sure you are aware of the Andonian forgeries and now we can add to that Nubar's "exaggerations". How can you be so sure that Armenian leaders were lying then and are not lying now? This, you see, is a credibility problem for which Armenian genocide claimants are solely to blame. Nubar's statements are admissions against interest and entirely admissible as evidence. Such admissions are given great weight in court. Also, please advise, are you claiming that the Entente Powers did not promise Armenian militants the eastern third of Anatolia if they rose up against the Ottoman Empire? Also, if a historian asks me if the Ottoman Empire committed a genocide against the Armenian, I would ask them for the verdict. The accused in any modern system of jurisprudence is innocent until proven guilty. Now, let me ask you, why would Armenia and the Dashnak party refuse to open the Dashnak archives for public viewing? Is it because they contain evidence that Armenians waged a civil war against the Ottomans in response to promises by Britain, France and Russia? Is it because they establish the number of belligerants armed, who supported the militants, the militants' strategy etc.? Have you read General Harbord's report in which he concludes, after receiving eye witness testimony from Ottoman Turks throughout eastern Anatolia, that Armenians committed grave atrocities? You also write: "Boghos Nubar claimed that Armenians were belligerents from the start, but that was an obvious exaggeration " No, it was not. Pasdermajian writes that the Ottoman govt sent a delegation to meet with Dashnak leaders in August 1914 and the Armenians told them point blank they would not side with the Ottoman govt if war broke out. Also, while uncovering documents and placing them in context is the proper task of a historian, forming conclusions concerning legal issues is not. Did you know that Armenians now claim there are anywhere from 1 to 2 million "closet" Armenians living in eastern Turkey now, as in TODAY, that are descendants of Ottoman Armenians. Apparently, math is not the strong suit of Armenian genocide claimants, for if such numbers of "hidden" Armenians exist, there is no way the numbers they claim could have died during the relocations--oh my, more credibility problems. By the way, according to surviving members of my family, what was whispered among them and down through history was that the Armenians were relocated to save them because the Dashnak militants were hiding among the civilian population and when civilian Armenians refused to help, the Dashnak militants massacred them in worse ways than they did the Turks. There was also retribution by mobs of wholly uneducated village men who came home on leave from the front to find their families massacred-- such is not the stuff of organized genocide, but mob rule in a disintegrating empire. Reality, Ragnar, you need to think about the reality and not just view these events from the safety of an academic ivory tower as comforting as that might seem.


Guest - Sammy (2009-12-08 00:41:46) :

@ Ragnar: You write "For me this is a serious question. What do you think?" I think that it is very easy to sit in front of your computer during a time or peace when neither you nor your countries' borders are under attack and think up "serious questions". While academic thinking can give rise to many philosophical questions resulting in endless debate, it is important to also consider reality. Relocation orders where issued when the Ottoman Empire was under attack all around its periphery. The Brits were trying to reach Istanbul and the Ottoman military was so low on munitions that they were retrieving mines planted by the Russians in the Black Sea and re-planting them in the Aegean. As we all know, the battle of Gelibolu cost the lives of half a million men and took up the greater part of the Ottoman military's effort. Also, the Ottoman army had just suffered a catastrophic loss at Sarakamis due to the incompetence of its then leaders and the sabotage wrought behind the front by Armenian militants (there are many publications, including those published by the ARF that admit this). Ottoman soldiers were dying of starvation and disease due to famine, lack of medicine and gross neglect, if not due to the outright indifference of their leaders. Now, in the midst of all of this, you are asking me if I think if it is important to consider whether a thirty-something year old incompetent leader should have thought about what he was going to do with those he ordered relocated. Do you have any idea how ridiculous your question comes across? No one claims that the trio of Cemal, Talat and Enver were geniuses, but everyone readily accepts they were inept, incompetent and incapable of ruling the Empire or making strategic decisions that comported with the reality they faced. Yet, you ask me whether those fools, who could not even feed or cloth their own soldiers (arguably their most important priority) or protect citizens who remained loyal to the Ottoman government were organized and methodical enough to plan out a relocation. What do you think my answer is?


Guest - Ragnar Naess (2009-12-06 17:40:51) :

From where do you have the idea of 200.000 attacking Armenians, Sammy? According to Justin McCarthy the areas where the Dashnaks were strong and where they systematically armed the Armenians from the autumn of 1914 and onwards were the city of Van, the area south of Van, The Mush plain, Sasun, Dersim and the Erzinjan area. These areas from their population could hardly muster 200.000 armed men. Further, he claims that only 12.000 Ottoman Armenians in all went to Russia to be trained for action in Anatolia (“The Armenian Rebellion at Van”, page 188). The only militarily organized armed Armenians apart from these were those fighting in the Russian army. I then do not count armed Armenian villagers without training, these obviously existed, but I believe not in the numbers you indicate. And it is moreover misleading to say that the Armenians and Russians attacked Turks. It was the ittihadists, mainly on the bad advice of Enver, who attacked Russia in autumn 1914, and thus joined the Germans in WW1. Boghos Nubar claimed that Armenians were belligerents from the start, but that was an obvious exaggeration in order to get a better bargaining position with the allies after the war. Now Yusuf Halacoglu states that some 25.000 deported Armenians were massacred if I remember right. This is a much lower estimate that almost anybody else. My point is that if historians ask you to agree that massacres of Armenian deportees were ordered by the state in 1915, to say that “Armenians murdered Turks” is no answer. In this sense the two questions are separate. Did the ittihadist leadership order massacres of Armenians? This is a distinct question, and the theme Eberhard Demm deals with. Are you trying to avoid this question by talking about attacking Armenians?


Guest - Ragnar Naess (2009-12-05 23:02:10) :

Hovhannes, regarding what you found puzzling, I may have expressed myself not clearly enough. I say yes it may be called genocide because obviously many Armenians were targeted as such. This is in line with the 1948 definition. But the 1948 definition says nothing about the category of perpetrator, it may be a government, and it may be a single person as in the case of Krstic, (see http://www.unwire.org/unwire/20010802/16426_story.asp), convicted for genocide in connection with the massacre of Srebrenica. In genocide research, on the other hand, it is much more usual to equate genocide with state-sponsored killings. This is another definition. Regarding 1915-16 one may say yes it was genocide because obviously many Armenians were targeted as such, as Armenians, and in order to destroy part of the Armenian group. I find it hard to deny this, and neither should Turks deny it. But at the same time the question of the genocidal role of the state is obviously a much more complicated one. To my mind there is nothing puzzling in this. In your last post, with all due respect, I am afraid you introduce a so-called deaf debate, deaf because you fail to comment on my examples. I mentioned Gilles Veinstein, and invited you to comment on him and the College de France. Is this institution financed by the Turkish government which is what you claimed for all institutions who employ scholars who doubt or deny the genocide thesis? Further, to say that scholars who have a different opinion are insincere and voice their opinion because of Turkish money is a weak approach. Obviously there is no documentation for this. Excuse me but isn’t this slander? But please explain more about the peer reviews you mention. Do you have any references?


Guest - Ragnar Naess (2009-12-05 23:00:15) :

From where do you have the idea of 200.000 attacking Armenians, Sammy? According to Justin McCarthy the areas where the Dashnaks were strong and where they systematically armed the Armenians from the autumn of 1914 and onwards were the city of Van, the area south of Van, The Mush plain, Sasun, Dersim and the Erzinjan area. These areas from their population could hardly muster 200.000 armed men. Further, he claims that only 12.000 Ottoman Armenians in all went to Russia to be trained for action in Anatolia (“The Armenian Rebellion at Van”, page 188). The only armed Armenians apart from these were those fighting in the Russian army. And it is moreover misleading to say that the Armenians and Russians attacked Turks. It was the ittihadists, mainly on the bad advice of Enver, who attacked Russia in autumn 1914 by bombarding Russian Black Sea military installations, and thus joined the Germans in WW1. Boghos Nubar claimed that Armenians were belligerents from the start, but that was an obvious exaggeration in order to get a better bargaining position after the war. Now Yusuf Halacoglu states that some 25.000 deported Armenians were massacred if I remember right. This is a much lower estimate that almost anybody else. Justin McCarthy puts it higher. My point is that if historians ask you to agree that massacres of Armenian deportees were ordered by the state in 1915, to say that “Armenians murdered Turks” is no answer. In this sense the two questions are separate. Did the ittihadist leadership order massacres of Armenians? This is a distinct question, and the theme Eberhard Demm deals with. Are you trying to avoid this question by talking about attacking Armenians?


Guest - Ragnar Naess (2009-12-04 22:47:16) :

Sammy, regarding the question of the genocide I would like you to reflect on the writings of the Turkish historian Fuat Dündar in “Toplumsal Tarihi” for june 2008. The policies regarding the Armenians deported to Syria in spring and summer 1915 implied that resettled Armenians should not exceed 10% of the population. But 10% of the population makes only 100.000 and it is generally agreed that 500.000 Armenians reached Aleppo and other places in Syria. The ittihadists followed the population movement very closely and were very specific about this resettlement plan. But Dündar says that he has found no documents that explain what was to be the policies towards the 400.000 Armenians who exceeded the quota for Armenian settlement. What was become of them? (“Ermenilerin sürüldükleri bölgenin Müslüman nüfusunun %10’unun, en fazla 100 bine karşılık geldiğini hesaplamıştım. Oysa mevcut bilgilerimize göre bu bölgeye 500 bine yakın Ermeni ulaşmıştı.Bu durumda, kalan 400 bine yakın Ermeni’ye ne olduğu sorusuna, başvurduğum hiçbir kitap ve belgede cevap bulamamıştım). For me this is a serious question. What do you think?


Guest - Ragnar Naess (2009-12-04 21:57:31) :

Hovhannes, regarding what you found puzzling, I may have expressed myself not clearly enough. I say yes it may be called genocide because obviously many Armenians were targeted as such and it is difficult to interpret extensive and well documented massacres like those in Kemah gorge close to Erzinjan and those south of Malatya (Kanli Dere) as anything else than inteding to kill off large numbers of Armenians as such.This is terrible and in line with the 1948 definition. But the 1948 definition says nothing about the category of perpetrator, it may be a government, and it may be a single person as in the case of Krstic, (see http://www.unwire.org/unwire/20010802/16426_story.asp), convicted for genocide in connection with the massacre of Srebrenica. In genocide research, on the other hand, it is much more usual to equate genocide with state-sponsored killings. This is another definition. Regarding 1915-16 one may say yes it was genocide because obviously many Armenians were targeted as such, as Armenians, and in order to destroy part of the Armenian group. I find it hard to deny this, and neither should Turks deny it. But at the same time the question of the genocidal role of the state is obviously a much more complicated one. To my mind there is nothing puzzling in this. In your last post, with all due respect, I am afraid you introduce a so-called deaf debate, deaf because you fail to comment on my examples. I mentioned Gilles Veinstein, and invited you to comment on him and the College de France. Is this institution financed by the Turkish government which is what you claimed for all institutions who employ scholars who doubt or deny the genocide thesis? Further, to say that scholars who have a different opinion are insincere and voice their opinion because of Turkish money is a weak approach. Obviously there is no documentation for this. Excuse me but isn’t this slander? But please explain more about the peer reviews you mention. Do you have any references?


Guest - Sammy (2009-12-04 19:18:28) :

@RAGNAR, You write "But one crime cannot legitimize another crime". This is where your logic falters and the law does not support you. Defending one's self against deadly force is lawful. Moreover, using deadly force to defend one's self against a potentially deadly attack is also sanctioned by all modern jurisprudence. Hence, if gun-wielding militants wage an attack on my home, the law permits me to use whatever force is needed to protect my family and my life. Self-defense is not a crime unless you propose different standards for Muslims than you do for Christians. And, it was not "some Armenians" that took up arms, but over 200,000-- for perspective, that's more troops than the U.S. sent to Iraq. Boghos Nubar proudly proclaimed Armenians were belligerants from the very outset of WWI when Armenians were refused entry at the Paris Peace Conference. Garegin Pasdermajian admits the same in his 1918 memoir. Hence, the answer to your question is a vehement NO, these are not separate questions--unless of course you are willing to separate the issues and call the atrocities and massive massacres visited upon Ottoman Muslims by the 200,000 Armenian militants a crime/genocide. The illogic, racism and hypocrisy that has been the hallmark of the manner in which Christian nations have viewed the events that occurred in southeastern Anatolia during WWI are not acceptable, no matter how well intentioned the proponent.


Guest - Phantom (2009-12-04 00:53:03) :

Sorry to hear about your ancestors from Erzurum Sammy. But let's not equate isolated vengeance with Genocide. Erzeroum is still full of Turks isn't it. And how many Armenians still live there? At least 10% of the pre-WWI population of Erzurum was Armenian, and that's even after surviving the Hamidian massacres during which thousands of Armenians were butchered by Turks. There were numerous Armenian schools and churches there and even the provincial residence of the Archbishop of the Armenian Apostolic Church was in Erzurum before WWI. But by the time the Russians entered it in 1916 barely 100 Armenians were still alive in the city. And today there are no Armenians in a city that housed the Archbishop! There is a word for this unique crime, and that word is Genocide.


Guest - Marat Hagopian, PhD (2009-12-03 06:47:31) :

For your information, Mr. "Professor," Nazis also made "exceptions" during the Holocaust. In particular, they did not target so-called "mischlings" (Jews who had two non-Jewish grandparents and who were not members of a Jewish synagogue at the time the Nuremberg Racial Laws were adopted in 1935). In fact, some "mischlings" (or half-Jews) made to the top echelons of the Nazi army and state, including Field Marshal Erhard Milch, Generals Helmut Wilberg and Johannes and Karl Zukertort. The Nazis also did not target the Karaite Jewish communities in the occupied Lithuania and Crimea. In general, the arguments made by this "professor" are exactly the same that are made by people who deny the Holocaust: a) Armenians / Jews were not the only ones who "suffered" during the war, large numbers of Turks / Germans also died during World War I / World War II, b) Armenians / Jews themselves are not blameless, they made the "fifth column" inside Turkey / Germany and some of these "traitors" fought on the Allied side against Turkey / Germany, and c) Armenians / Jews hunted down, abducted and executed masterminds and high-ranking perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide / Holocaust, like Talaat, Cemal, Eichman, and others. The difference between Germany and Turkey is that if this "professor" repeated exactly the same arguments about the Holocaust in Germany, no one would treat him as a "history professor" but most likely he would end up in court, while it Turkey his garbage arguments denying the Armenian Genocide get the frontpage of a major newspaper and instantly make him a hero of the Turkish public. And Turks claim that they belong to Europe and want membership in the European Union - how pathetic!


Guest - Hovhannes (2009-12-03 01:08:39) :

Ragnar, with all due respect one either agrees with those who fabricate history and call themselves historians, or one discredits them. You cannot have it both ways. You say it was a genocide but then you mention the names of fabricators such as; Norman Stone, Guenter Lewy, and Justin McCharthy, (which incidentally have failed miserably in peer-reviews prior to publishing their thesis. They all are well-known hired guns of the Turkish government.


Guest - ragnar naess (2009-12-02 23:25:33) :

Sammy I am sorry to hear about your relatives that were killed. Regarding your question about the right to defend yourself against Armenian violence I of course agree that you have such a right. I think it is documented beyond reasonable doubt that when the Russians conquered Erzurum and parts of Bitlis in early 1916, many Turks and Kurds were killed by Armenians, presumably many innocent people. 1,2 million muslims fled from Russian occupied territory. I have Turkish friends whose families are from Erzurum, and of those relatives who stayed in Erzurum in these years very few survived. I agree that the story of Muslim and Turkish suffering in the last 100 ottoman years was practically unknown to Western historians before Justin McCharty’s “Death and Exile” which of course is a very important contribution for a balanced picture of the circle of violence in the last Ottoman years. But one crime cannot legitimize another crime, and the facts that SOME Armenians collaborated with Russian armies (which according to neutral sources happened both in 1829, 1853-55, 1877-78 and 1915-18) cannot tell us whether the ittihadists intended a huge Armenian mortality in 1915 or not, and it cannot legitimiza atrocities committed against Armenians by Turks. These are separate questions. Don’t you agree?


Guest - Ragnar Naess (2009-12-02 20:41:02) :

To Hovhannes, I am surprised that you have information on the peer reviews of my 38 historians even before you have heard their names. To take one: Gilles Veinstein was voted into the prestigious College de France by colleagues who disagreed with him on the genocide question, but disagreement is part and parcel of historical research. College de France is no Turkish financed institution. Obviously they respected his scholarship and the disagreement thus was recognised as a legitimate disagreement. My point is also that the existence of a pre-planned extermination program, or an intent to exterminate that gradually developed and embraced more and more CUP members,(there are actually many alternative views here) must be argued, not answered by appealing to a fictitious unanimity or ranking among historians. To try to discredit people like Norman Stone, Guenter Lewy, Erikson or Justin McCharthy rather than arguing against them is poor strategy to my mind. However, in a Turkish newspaper I prefer to focus on what we obviously agree on and what the majority of Turks to my mind unfortunately has not realized: 1) that the term genocide applies even if the question of responsibility is controversial, (1915-16 represents scores of “Srebrenica”s) 2) that the ittihadist leadership anyhow had a heavy responsibility, 3) that Armenian assets were expropriated and never returned or compensated, 4) that Armenian monasteries and churches were destroyed in hundreds both in 1895-96 and in 1915-18, 5)that Turkish historywriting, sanctioned by the state, is far from acknowledging the catastrophy of 1915-16 and the responsibility of the leaders regarding the great Armenian mortality, 6) that dissident Turks run the risk of prosecution for their wiews, and that this is against human rights.


Guest - Emir Soler (2009-12-02 20:23:38) :

Christoph@ becareful what you say. ''Turkish state sponsored programs of terror'' Isn't what Makarios did in Cyprus between 1963 to 1974? Dont throw stone if you live in a glass house


Guest - david n. usa (2009-12-02 20:05:23) :

turkey is a great nation, a great democracy. your people are allowed to question or diagree with your government. you have many freedoms including freedom of religion. all nations have the right to self determination. no one should be forced to be a part of an empire and no one should be force to convert their religion. respect for all. thank you turkey you are a great people


Guest - Phantom (2009-12-02 19:45:20) :

I just read the UN definition of Genocide after reading this article. If I wasn't convinved it was a Genocide before reading this article, I am now.


Guest - Sammy (2009-12-02 19:40:16) :

@Hovhanes - Clearly you are a relic of the communist censored education machine. Don't you know that Garegin Pasdermajian, who was a member of the Ottoman parliament and an Armenian militant leader during WWI, admits that the Ottomans came to the Ottoman Armenian leadership before WWI broke out and asked the Armenians to confirm they would support the Ottoman govt if war broke out? Don't you know that Pasdermajian admits the Armenians refused and clearly stated they would support Russia if war broke out? Don't you know that Boghos Nubar publicly wrote in the London Times, when Armenians were refused entry at the Paris Peace Conference, that Armenians "were belligerants from the outset" of hostilities? Don't you know that Hovhannes Katchaznouni, Armenia's first PM, wrote that the Turks were justified in what they did to defend their lands and their lives because the Turks knew what the Armenian militants' goals were? The ignorance carefully bred into you of your own history dooms your people to repeat their catastrophic mistakes over and over and over again. Do you know exactly how many times Armenian militants who've waged war/terror against Turks have relied on Russia to support them, only to be betrayed by Russia in the end? I'll tell you this: your people have been betrayed by Russia more than once in the past and Pasdermajian even writes about it.


Guest - Ludvik Ayvazian (2009-12-02 18:43:52) :

Allow me ,first,to congratulate The HDN for allowing its readers to discuss their opinions and viewpoints openly and freely. Such free discussions in the turkish press were out of most optimistic dreams 2 years ago. With my full respect to the freedom of expression and speech,allow me also to express my disappointment for this "low level" article. I am interested in knowing PROF. Demm's real age ,to check his mental awareness ,because unwillingly he confessed the commiting of the Genocide of Armenians in 1915. It seems that the author does not know the definition of Genocide ,because the facts he mentioned (forced conversion of religion,forced marriage of large number of women,forced changing the real identity of a large number of children is also classified as Genocide). The author also forgot to mention: Did the Armenian lands ,assets ,churches and money were also forced to Islam? I hope ,to see a more serious approach to the issue of the Armenian Genocide. The only positive approach is that the author condemns the "incidents of 1915". Respectfully yours


Guest - moris (2009-12-02 18:40:37) :

!!! “Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group” !!!!!! Prof. EBERHARD DEMM is "right" Germany doesn’t want to share the responsibility for one more another genocide- this is the Armenian Genocide As Prof. EBERHARD DEMM tries to mislead the readers genocide has to be like the "Jewish Holocaust" in order to be called“genocide! This Prof writes: “…Now imagine for a moment that the Nazis had spared three categories of people: Jews willing to be baptized, pretty women in order to marry them and children to be brought up as “Aryans” in German families. … Would you still define this as genocide? Certainly not” Prof. EBERHARD DEMM should better first inform himself about “United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG)”. Turkish gov. was responsible for the security of all Armenians living in Ottoman territory


Guest - Hovhannes (2009-12-02 18:10:30) :

To Ragnar Naess...Although I agree with your assessment of the reality of the Genocide, I am puzzled that you on one hand correctly agree with the Genocide thesis, and then question the reality of the genocide by saying "38 historians" doubt that it was genocide. I would like to bring your attention to the fact that those historians who doubt the reality of the genocide have all but failed to pass peer reviews in publishing their "views". They mostly are employed by Turkish-Chairs in Western Universities that have been funded by the Turkish government, rendering there views as opinions instead of real historic research. I hope your views and your gentle persuasion for Turks to look at history the way it is, especially coming from someone who is a friend of Turks, does not fall on deaf ears.


Guest - Hovhannes (2009-12-02 17:59:46) :

Turks continue to push an idea that fundamentally is unattainable. The so-called Armenian killing Turks (here by "killing" Turks want to imply mass-murder, which is a red herring) is used purely as propaganda. The news of "violence" or "mass revolts" of Armenians against the Empire has been proven as false statements issued by the central Ittihadist authorities to incite anti-Armenian pogroms and give reasons for brutal exterminations of entire villages and towns. Were there Armenian self-defense units? of course there were and what would Turks expect Armenians do, sit and wait for your turn be slaughtered? Armenians also did fight in the Russian Armies, in majority they were Russian citizens serving in Russian armies, need I remind you that Russia was the country that bordered the Ottoman Empire, and not an independent Armenian entity. There were thousands of Jews serving in Allied armies who fought and died in WWII, should the Germans now use that to "justify" the Holocaust? As a son of a survivor of the Armenian Genocide all I, and children of survivors, ask Turks is to look at history in an honest and non-cowardly manner, instead of repeating usual government-stamped views (lies) in an intolerant and nationalistic manner.


Guest - Sammy (2009-12-02 17:30:20) :

@Ragnar - What have you to say about Armenian violence and terrorism against Turks during the late Ottoman years all the way up through and including the massacres and bombing of Turkish targets in the 1990s? Do you have anything to offer on what the 200,000 Armenians armed by the Russians, Brits and French were doing in eastern Anatolia before the Armenian relocation away from the war front was ordered by the Ottoman government? Dear "Friend of the Turks", please tell this descendant of a survivor of Armenian attacks and terrorism perpetrated against Turks during WWI what you have to say about our rights to defend ourselves from Armenian violence.


Guest - Ragnar Naess (2009-12-02 17:19:48) :

As a Norwegian and lecturer in Oslo University on the violence of the late Ottoman years I welcome professor Damm’s article as a contribution addressing the core issue. However, according to the definition of the 1948 convention the fact of sparing Armenian converts to Islam and women taken into muslim households hardly suffices as an argument against the events being classified as genocide. However, it testifies to the fact that the Young Turks did not entertain any bogus racist theory. Armenians were massacred or put into life endangering situations solely by force of their being Armenian. This is a good reason to refer to the events as a genocide. However the question of a premeditated program of extermionation coming from the top leaders is more difficult. I counted some 38 historians who doubt or deny this. There is a substantial disagreement that calls for more research and dialogue. But the responsibilily for launching a life endangering deportation of a million people in 1915 and, more importantly, the failure of the government to prevent massacres and punish local perpetrators means that the government at the time has a heavy responsibility for the enormous mortality and for removing people from their ancestral lands. The failure to protect the Armenians is even acknowledged by Talaat Pasha in his posthumous memoirs. The Turkey today is vastly more democratic than the Turkey of 20 years ago. However, to my mind Turkish historians generally still have a long way to go to go in order to adress this question in a serious scholarly manner, and there is still too dangerious to hold non-official points of view on 1915 in Turkey. Please take this as a criticism coming from a friend of Turks who has followed Turkish affairs with interest for 25 years and has defended Turkey many times against unreasonable attacks.


Guest - James (2009-12-02 15:31:26) :

Forcedly deporting an entire population into the desert which will obviously cause the majority to die and exterminating many along the way is most definitely Genocide. What Armenian atrocities are you speaking of? You refer to Van, an Armenian city where some of the population fought back against the Genocidal Young Turk government. You compare this to the killing of millions of people? This article reeks of concealed racism on the part of Mr. Demm. Shame on you.


Guest - homo sapien (2009-12-02 12:12:12) :

I just don't understand why this article is headlined "A new interpretation". It is revealing that the Turkish genocide deniers can't deny that it happened. They just play with semantics or give excuses. This article's semantic nonsense is offensive claiming that it was not a genocide because pretty women were spared! Was that supposed to kindness? The excuse in this article is also the typical old excuse; the Armenians were fighting for independence from the Ottoman Empire and so, according to this article, they deserved what they got! The article lables them as traitors! Would this so called professor also call Gandhi a traitor against the British Empire? Why are the Turks so proud of their own independence struggle but unable to understand that any other national group in Anatolia should have similar aspirations? If you read this article carefully you can only conclude that the genocide did happen because the writer gives the evidence but for nationalist reasons does not want to use the word genocide.


Guest - suleyman (2009-12-02 11:30:10) :

guest-the truth, may i say that your questions were answered, but obviously, this site has refused to publish. Regards


Guest - senben (2009-12-02 10:04:31) :

Its time to finish the era of the omnipotent anglo/american & franco/german classic history describtion. And this can only happen with historians from this countries. Prof. Demm thank you for your honest words. History is a last mental sophisticated tool from special countries to show countries like Turkey , China etc. how many sins they have and that they have to pay for their sins. To bad that they themselves are "innocen"t like angels. France is a very good example for this bigot and arrogang behaviour. The massacres in Indochine, Algeria and other African countries are not forgotten. The massacres in Kongro from Belgium is also not a case for the EU. The so called "genocide" at Armenias are a tool to hold Turkey in trouble only to stop their way to a regional power.


Guest - Alexander Vassiliadis (2009-12-02 09:11:41) :

Should we say more: www.genocide-museum.am ? Turkey, please wake up, face the truth, make up with your neighbours, and become a part of the European family of nations!


Guest - suleyman (2009-12-02 08:41:45) :

cluelessoglu, no i am not that foolish, but a word of advice, truth is not always found in history, written against people that are not christian. If you people admitted to 10% of your atrocities against the turks, than you will learn that the genocide claim will be laughed at.


Guest - suleyman (2009-12-02 08:21:23) :

Richard murphy, you dont have to go back 100 years to spread your propaganda, just go back 5 or 6 years, western media were reporting that iraq had weapons of mass desruction, and that they could be deployed in 45 minutes to hit places as far away as london. As it unfolded poor saddam did not even have a chopper never mind WMD. It is just an article, and thats all it is, and it is far from the truth. Maybe the author had some armenian connection or was propogating the western worlds views on any country that is not christian or jewish.


Guest - why (2009-12-02 01:26:56) :

Killing unarmed people, women, children and babies is NO excuse! It was genocide! Genocide has been happening for a long time in Turkish history! Look at the Hammid massacres! WHy? Armenians wanted equal rights! What is wrong with that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Hamid_II


Guest - greg (2009-12-02 00:11:16) :

In response to Richard Murphy's extract from the NY Times, 1914. Here is an extract from the NY Times, 1894 - Entitled "MASSACRE OF ARMENIANS; Equals the Bulgarian Butcheries Which Led to War." The URL to the full article is "http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D01E6D61131E033A25754C1A9679D94659ED7CF". Or you can search the title in the NY Times archive. Point is - I ask for civil rights. You kill me. My compatriots kill two of you. You respond by killing the neighborhood. We then fight to be free (not the american colonists of britain but the armenian subjects of the Sultan), you kill our country. That is the whole history of Armenian Ottomon relations from the 1890s until the republic was established - period and finished.


Guest - BilgeTonyukuk (2009-12-01 22:09:25) :

Not referring to Turks as Mongols would be a good start. In regards to the so called genocide..........guess we missed a few. Turkuler susmaz.


Guest - Hamik C Gregory (2009-12-01 20:17:39) :

Prof. Eberhard Demm excuse for the destruction of Armenian and Christian population in eastern Anatolia is exactly in parallel with the justification used by Committee of Union and Progress ninety five years ago. I am not surprised, after all, during the First World War, Germans encouraged their ally, the Ottomans, to get rid of the Armenian nuisance so they could get to the Caucasus oil faster. In addition, after the war, many Germans who were attached to the Ottoman army and were witnesses to the Anatolian tragedy returned to Germany and joined the Nazi party. Nazis found them useful! I wonder why!


Guest - TB (2009-12-01 20:06:48) :

ataharry- You are correct in saying that all those countries you named (one of which is my birth country, although I now live in Turkey) are guilty of acts that, as defined earlier, constitute genocide. Most every country on the planet has some form of blood on its hands and needs to come to terms with its own past. This is also applies to those responsible for the millions of Balkan Muslims who were massacred/deported/subjected to a number of other terrible atrocities at the hands of Christian groups during the 19th and early 20th centuries. You are also right to suggest that the massacres and deportations of Armenians during WWI must be understood within the context of the threats that the Ottoman Empire faced and the previous atrocities that many Turks and Muslim civilians had endured in the past. However, let me be clear, that while these events all provide context, they should not and cannot be used as excuses or justifications for the horrible acts committed against Armenian civilians. Yes, the Ottoman Empire faced a number of threats at the time, but no amount of civil unrest, resistance, or 'traitorous' behavior (is it right to call people traitors if they did not want to be a part of said country anyways?) justifies the actions that the Ottoman officials put forth. In the end I think the debate over whether or not to call these acts 'genocide' is a bit useless; people will keep debating vehemently over the details and arguing about the legal definition of genocide and in the end nothing will change. Both Turks and Armenians have been the victims of mass killings/deportations/forced cultural assimilations because of their ethnicity and religion. Maybe a sincere, open heart and a shared sense of loss can somehow reforge the long since ruptured bonds.


Guest - greg (2009-12-01 19:49:52) :

Dear Mr Demm, I am almost 100% certain that the legal definition of genocide does not make the biological death of the targeted ethnic group a pre-requisite. Genocide of a group means their elimination as an identifiable ethnic entity. Forced conversion, kidnapping of children and detention and rape of women, if done with the intent to "breed" the targeted ethnic group out of existence all qualify as methods used to affect genocide. And the turkish/armenian commission you mentioned needs to be run by ANY third party that is NOT turkish or armenian. otherwise the end result will bear no resemblance to an objective, fact based conclusion.


Guest - There is that "deported" word (2009-12-01 19:46:24) :

I'm curious, do denialist Turks and their global agents own a dictionary with another meaning for the word "deport". Armenians were "deported to Lebanon, Syria and Iraq". Armenians were not then, nor ever indeginous peoples of those regions. Armenians were living on Anotolian lands 1000 years before the first Mongol came galloping into the region. The reason Turks cannot accept the reality of the Genocide is that the very foundation of their history (what they are racially, and where they come from) is built on lies. The utterly farcacle nature of their state-run indoctrination system (ie Turkish Education) has them believing that they sprouted out of the ground somewhere outside Ankara.


Guest - Gavur (2009-12-01 19:39:03) :

Far too much verbiage in order to push the usual Turkish thesis. 1) Nothing happened 2)If something happened the Armenians deserved it.


Guest - Hakan (2009-12-01 19:14:39) :

According to the Ottoman records the Armenian population of Anatolia was about 2 million. How did they all disappear? Let's face the ugly truth and recognize that a genocide was committed 90 years ago and show the world that we are capable of apologizing and moving forward.


Guest - Richard Murphy (2009-12-01 17:46:47) :

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9B03E0DC1738E633A25750C1A9679D946596D6CF Turkish Armenians In Armed Revolt The New York Times Published: Novembver 13, 1914 Were Ready to Join Russian Invaders, Having Drilled and Collected Arms SEE DAY OF DELIVEREANCE Native Paper Says They are Prepared for Any Sacrifice - Refuse to Join Turkish Army. PETROGRAD, Nov. 12. - Reports reaching to Russian capital from the Turkish border attach increasing importance to the part the Armenians are playing in the Russo-Turkish war. In the several towns occupuied by the Russians the Armenian students have shown themselves ready to join the invading army, explaingin that they had prepared themsleves for the Russian approach by constant drilling and by gathering arms secretly. All along the line of march, according to these dispatches, the Armenian peasants are receiving the Russian troops with enthusiasm and giving provisions to them freely. An Armenian newspaper, referring to this crisis in the history of Armenia, publishes the following: "The long-anticipated day of deliverance for the Turkish Armenians is at hand, and the Armenians are prepared for any sacrifice made necessary by the performance of their manisfest duty." From this border country there have come to Petrograd further reports of armed conflicts arising from the refusal of Armenians to become Turkish conscripts and to surrender thier arms. It is now rumored that the important City of Van is now besieged by Armenian guerrila bands in great force. In Feitun the number of insurgents is said to exceed 20,000m and they are reported to have defeated all the Turkish troops sents against them, causing heavy losses to the Turks.


Guest - Azadi (2009-12-01 17:28:04) :

One should not forget that Armenians and Russians started the invasion of the Ottoman empire in 1914, and killed many Muslims in the Caucasus. The Ottoman side, led by Kurdish irregulars, responded in the only way possible in such circumstances. In the process, some 600,000 Armenians and up to a million Muslims were killed from 1914-1923.


Guest - The Truth (2009-12-01 13:28:01) :

I am glad that, from time to time, by writing this kind of “articles”, some Turkish historians prove how absurd their historical arguments are. The Holocaust was just one of the genocides of the twentieth century; it is neither a model nor a standard pattern with which all the other genocides must be compared. The notion that the Holocaust is a unique event and the definition of the term ‘genocide’ must be restricted to it is the brainchild of a handful of Jewish historians who see the recognition of other genocides as a threat to the so-called “Holocaust industry”, this idea has later been nurtured in Turkey, a country which is so obsessed with the historical myths it has created about the bravery and generosity of its Sultans and Pashas that finds it hard to face the truth. In fact, the term ‘genocide’ has its own legal definition (as it is mentioned in another comment) and there is ample documentation to prove that what happened to Armenians was genocide. a few words to Suleyman: you(Turks) didnt do anything to Armenians??!!! so could it be that they suddenly decided to leave their homes, lands and property and go on a picnic to Syrian desert??!!!!


Guest - Sam Body (2009-12-01 12:51:55) :

"Now imagine for a moment that the Nazis had spared three categories of people: Jews willing to be baptized, pretty women in order to marry them and children to be brought up as “Aryans” in German families. Would you still define this as genocide?" Certainly yes!!!! What kind of twisted logic is that? So, if in some cases, some certain categories of people were spared (for whatever reason), all is well??? I expected something better from a history professor...


Guest - Ali (2009-12-01 11:06:53) :

This is just incredible. What this gentleman tries to tell us is that ethnocide is less problematic than genocide. Or perhaps that if genocide is partially only ethnocide, it is pretty ok. Surely this old, retired German professor whose vita is not even made public on his own website is a real expert for this topic...


Guest - Cluelessoglu (2009-12-01 10:07:38) :

Suleyman are you really that foolish? You obviously #1 think for some reason that what was once true must always be true and #2 have never heard of the Devshirme.


Guest - suleyman (2009-12-01 08:56:23) :

hovhannes, you outline the un definition of a genocide, and i totally agree with you on the definition, but us TURKS did not commit any of the crimes outlined in the definitions, so what is the problem here? People of armenia are propogated to claim that there was a genocide, and now this nutty professor is suggesting that we forced these people to convert to islam, and that we spared the good looking women etc. How absurd, tell me if we forced you guys to convert after the war, why we never forced you to convert for 600 years under the ottoman rule? DOES NOT ADD UP. Even a 5 year old could work that out.


Guest - ataharry (2009-12-01 06:37:52) :

Hovhannes If the definition of genocide is strictly adhered to then will you agree that the USA, UK, France, Spain, Netherlands, Bulgaria and Russia to name a few are ALL guilty of genocide. If the greatest military force in the history of the world, the USA, can't win in Afghanistan, how could you expect an impoverished Ottoman Empire to control a vast Empire dominated by warlords, traitors and the European allies who were only interested in winning their share of the spoils?


Guest - Armand (2009-12-01 06:34:38) :

Mr. Eberhard Demm, if you speak out Jewish Holocaust and competing Armenians with Jewish then try to get lesson from Germans and act like Germans after all. Let turks admit their ancestors guilt and recognize The Armenian Genocide. Then you can compete turkish nation with Germans as a civilized nation who brave enough to be face with truth and truth history, even more you can join them in their union! Or deny and stay out of circle and help for future GENOCIDEs .


Guest - Ian IAN (2009-12-01 06:24:07) :

This is the line of reasoning that will be followed by the newly set up commision and this will become the truth.


Guest - Ian IAN (2009-12-01 06:14:32) :

And this is the line of reasoning is what be followed by the set up commision and this will become the result truth, a comprimise will have to me made, there is no other truth.


Guest - Engin (2009-12-01 05:46:03) :

Excellent analysis Professor Demm. Thank you! Turkey is regional power and getting more stronger. 100% Russian dependent bankrupt Republic Armenia needs Turkey. Radical Armenian Diaspora members, get over with “genocide and land claim” psychosis. Face with reality or continue your dream.


Guest - name withheld (2009-12-01 04:40:42) :

I am not sure that this will be posted; however, I will quote a Kemalism: "For as long as you can honorably do so, keep Turkey out of war. But if you must go to war, don't fight on Germany's side. With Germany you lose if you win." I think Germany's role in the Armenian ???? is being overlooked by this history professor. If you are taking responsibility for the Jewish genocide, why not look back further to German involvement in WWI and the Armenian ?????


Guest - AtheistTurk (2009-12-01 04:36:47) :

It was a genocide. I'm Turkish and I recognise it.


Guest - How foolish can you be? (2009-12-01 04:06:11) :

Those exceptions you mentioned occurred in only a small minority of cases and are only used by deniers like you to draw attention away from the overwhelming policy of the outright killings of the Armenians. Your article is also very biased because it does not consider features which were present at the Armenian Genocide but not in the Holocaust. Mainly I am talking about the fact that Armenians were driven off their ancient homeland but Jews in the Holocaust were not. Does this make the Armenian Genocide "worse" then the Holocaust? Does this simply mean what happened to the Armenians during WWI needs to be categorized as something else? How can you talk about a "new interpretation" when your argument does not touch upon anything new or un-researched, such as what I just wrote in the past few lines, but only regurgitates the traditional Turkish denial?


Guest - Anej Papos (2009-12-01 03:17:08) :

"During the Russian offensive against Van, Armenians also committed atrocities in some Turkish villages, although on a much smaller scale. In the 1920s, they executed several Young Turks held responsible for the massacres" So, executing those who are held responsible for the massacres is put in the same level as killing 1.5 million people beacause they were not pretty and not "arians?" This article is full of it. Show me a single case where the Turkish Government went and prosecuted those who are responsible for killing so many people. Also, go and read the history of Van and see who attacked who and which side was on the defensive. This article is full of it.


Guest - name withheld (2009-12-01 03:13:06) :

Dear Mr. Eberhard Demm: I have a book I saved from a friend of the family that lived in Turkey. I quote from his book: "The First World War broke on a weak and corrupt Ottoman Empire. German ober-officers were everywhere with the Turkish forces. By the spring of 1915 the Russians were pouring their troops through the Caucasus to launch their offensive against the eastern Ottoman from where lived many of the Armenians. The usual war propaganda was pushed over on these unfortunate people by the Russians. They were encouraged to betray their brutal rulers and help in their liberation by their Christian Russian brothers. Weapons of war were provided. Indeed to many Armenians it seemed their only hope. Armenian resistance became a real menace to the Turkish defense. German officers and civilians scattered throught the Armenian districts. They instigated with Prussian thoroughness the wholesale deportation of the Armenians from hear the front. The Armenian massacres, historians agree, were not an impetuous act of fanatical Moslems bent on exterminating Christians. They were the result of the cold-blooded political policy of a weak Ottoman govt. influenced by the Prussians. It was the Prussians' secret conviction that this was the logical time to eliminate a talented people whose functions in the Empire they intended to take over entirely after military victory had been achieved. This combination of cruel circumstances led to some of the worst crimes committed in the 1st WW. The Armenians were nearly exterminated. ..." (from Turkey-Key to the East). I read another book that placed blame on the Germans for the extermination policy. Anyone who wishes to place a comment about this book's views is welcome too. This is written by someone who was in Turkey in the early 1920's. It was genocide of the Armenians and later genocide of the Jews.


Guest - Christoph (2009-12-01 02:44:17) :

Weakest argument I have heard yet from the Turkish side on the question of Armenian Genocide. So some Armenians-children and attractive women-were offered life if they converted or joined a harem? Is this supposed to denote a sense of compassion on the side of Turks that places their actions at something less then formal 'Genocide'. In a little over a century Turkey has gone from a nation where there were several million minority Christians to one where there are only a few thousand left. What happened to the rest? Forced emigrations, Pogroms, murders and yes, Genocide. The real surprise many non-Turks have is how little regret and/or contrition is observe from Turks for what happened to these Christians. What you hear mostly is "Sure, a lot of Christians died but it was not Genocide and a lot of Turks died too!". The difference between Turkish state sponsored programs of terror and those perpetrated by small terrorist groups of Armenians doesn't appear to have made much of an impression on Turkish opinions on the subject. Turks as a nation have yet to come to terms with this part of their history, mostly because it was illegal to discuss it for over a century. Maybe over time we'll see a mature viewpoint develop that isn't in existence now? One can only hope.


Guest - Ergun Kirlikovali (2009-12-01 02:16:13) :

If one cherishes values like fairness, objectivity, truth, and honesty, then one should really use the term “Turkish-Armenian conflict”. Insisting on a question like “Do you accept or deny Armenian Genocide” shows anti-Turkish bias. The honorable approach should be “What is your stand on the Turkish-Armenian conflict?” Turks believe it was an inter communal warfare mostly fought by Turkish and Armenian irregulars, a civil war which is engineered, provoked, and waged by the Armenian revolutionaries, with active support from Russia, England, France, and others, all eyeing the vast territories of the collapsing Ottoman Empire, against a backdrop of a raging world war. Armenians, on the other hand, totally ignoring Armenian agitation, raids, rebellions, treason, territorial demands, and Turkish victims killed by Armenians, unfairly and unethically claim that it was a one way genocide. For more: www.ethocide.com .


Guest - Minas (2009-12-01 01:38:47) :

It absoloutly was a genocide this professor is a fool and so are the people who reason this way. There are Turks who are part Armenian that don't even know it, this is still genocide because their identity was stolen or kept from them. Genocide is Genoicde no matter how you pretend to reason or justify your case.


Guest - Hovhannes (2009-12-01 00:48:03) :

The moral bankruptcy of the above article is truly mind-boggling. As a history professor Mr. Demm should know the following: ***The UN definition of genocide: "Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, 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; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.*** For a retired professor Mr. Demm writes like a high-school student, who in defending an idea proves the exact opposite, thus destroying his own thesis. Such LAUGHABLE extend to go do deny the undeniable that even Hurriyet Daily is compelled to add a disclaimer. I'm thinking maybe a historians' commission is not a bad idea after all, if it weren't an insult to Truth.


Guest - Armen (2009-12-01 00:34:46) :

I think both side have a right to know whole truth. I believe it will come very soon and our people will start to build new future together without fear to tell the truth, without suspicious, and any nationalistic propaganda from both side will be rejected by the masses. Thanks for your article.


WRITE A COMMENT

Verification code
E-mail is required in case we need to communicate with you. It will not appear on the website and will never be used for any other purposes.
Comments policy: The Daily News seeks and supports freedom of expression and this commitment extends to our readers. Constraints include comments judged to be in violation of Turkish press law. We also moderate hate speech, libel and gratuitous insults.












Home | To Top | User Agreement and Privacy Policy | Rights and Permissions | Contact Us | Company | About News Room| RSS RSS Feed
diabetic desserts recipes recipes Diabetic Soups Holiday Pizza Recipes Popcorn Recipes Recipes For Microwave Pasta Recipes Casserole Recipes Chili Recipes Curry Recipes Crockpot Recipes Apples Recipes Bread Recipes Vegetarian Recipes Vegetable recipes Desserts Recipes Appetizers Ethnic Recipes Meat Dishes Barbecue Recipes Sauces Recipes Marinade Recipes Low Fat Recipes Frugal Gourmet Kitchen Classics Recipes On The Grill Cook Books Seafood Recipes Cajun Recipes Breads Low Fat Low Fat Breads Bread Machine Recipes Yeast Breads Quick Breads Fat Free Vegetarian Salad Recipes Eggplant Recipes Radish Recipes Tomato Recipes Jalapeno Recipes Potato Recipes Lettuce Recipes Cabbage Recipes Beans Ambrosia Recipes Biscotti Recipes Desserts Low Fat Cookie Recipes Cheesecake Recipes Cake Recipes Pie Recipes Muffin Recipes Custard Recipes Best Appetizers Appetizers Low Fat Salsa Recipes Dip Recipes International Recipes Afghan Recipes Alaska Recipes French Recipes German Recipes Greek Recipes Italian Recipes Spanish Recipes Thai Recipes Korean Recipes Chinese Recipes Mexican Recipes Indian Recipes Beef Recipes Pork Pork & Ham Pork Butts Pork Chop Recipes Pork Ribs Rulled Pork Poultry Recipes Stews Recipes Ground Beef Barbecue Grill Barbecue Smoker All Purpose Sauce BBQ Sauce Barbecue Sauce Carolina BBQ Sauce Pickle Recipes Marinades Smoking Low Fat Appetizers & Dips Low Fat Breakfast Low Fat Cakes Low Fat Cheesecakes Low Fat Cookies Low Fat Desserts Low Fat Fish & Seafood Low Fat Meats Low Fat Pasta Low Fat Pies Low Fat Salads Low Fat Sandwiches Low Fat Sauces & Condiments Low Fat Sides Low Fat Soups Low Fat Vegetarian Baker's Dozen Taste of Home Recipe Book Bon Appetit Cookbook Blacktie Cookbook Buster Cook Book Martha Stewart Cookbook Cookbook USA Cook Book Cook Book Sara's Cookbook Sara's Cookbook Appetizers and Dips Poultry recipes Diabetic recipes Holiday recipes Miscellaneous recipes 110 recipes 1986 Usenet cookbook 2900 recipes Cyberrealm recipes Great sysops of world Specialty recipes Ceideburg recipes Cheese recipes Chili recipes Fruits recipes Garlic recipes Great chefs of NY Londontowne recipes Raisins recipes Recipes for kids US Food Vegetarian recipes Bread recipes Drinks Meat Dishes Brisket recipes Caribou recipes Chicken recipes Filet mignons recipes Pork recipes Swordfish recipes Turkey recipes Pasta recipes Uncategorized recipes Ethnic recipes Canada recipes English recipes Ethiopia recipes Germany recipes Greece recipes Mexican recipes Philippines recipes Welsh recipes Microwave recipes Soups recipes Vegetable recipes Asparagus recipes Barley recipes Brown rice recipes Lentil recipes Mushrooms recipes Salads recipes Wild rice Desserts recipes Cakes recipes Chocolate recipes Cookies recipes Ice cream recipes