I want to add one thing. It is results that matter, and Turkey could admit alot more about the numbers that died and admit that their evacuations were poorly planned, negligently executed, and often times certain officials let warring bands attack innocent people. However what has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt is a central plan to exterminate an Armenian nation as a whole. The term genocide rests on that categorization, and there is by no means a historical consensus on that issue. So I can't fault Turks who don't like the word genocide. I do wish on the other hand that they would not see something that the dying Ottoman Empire did in the midst of a war (not out of the blue like the deporation of Jews by Hitler) as a stain on the gains made by the Turkish Republic. Turkish people are too sensitive when they need not be.
I suggest your diaspora stop looking to mother Russia, who is becoming less of a friend of the US these days. Then again your other ally is Iran, not something that the US is happy about. Yes, Nagorno-Karabakh is messy, and that is the fault of both sides (though I think anti-armenianism is more institutionalzed in azerbaijan than vice versa). US is tight with Azerbaijan however, and we are also tight with Georgia (I didn't realize that 54% of Armenians view Georgia as an enemy). Armenia needs a paradigm shift. They need Turkey to open the border, they need to not be a client state of a country that's going to hell and openly supports dictators (Russia). I feel for the Armenian people, but you need new leadership. Kocharian and his Karabakh friends are something of country bumkins who don't understand the nuances of foreign policy. Why are the mountain people running your country, that will only isolate you.
You don't get my point, which is that the members were thrown out for not supporting the party line. What's that to do with bigotry? Whether you agree with said party or not is irrelevant. It's standard procedure to throw out a party member who doesn't support party views. Turkish people who deny the massacre aren't thrown out of the country or anything. Denying it is not illegal. It's just these parties' official view. If the party members who were thrown out want to start their own party which promotes the denial of the massacre, they're welcome to. You only need two thousand Euros and a thousand signatures of people who support you to start a political party in Holland. That's how our political system works: of course you have a right to dissent, but there would be little point in being a member of a party whose views you don't support, wouldn't you agree? Again why do you consider these parties bigots? It seems to me that you confuse the two issues at play here: one is domestic, and the other is European. Again from a domestic point of view, I see no wrong doing. From an international point of view, it'll be interesting how important the EU will make the massacre denial in talks about Turkish EU membership.
2 SHASH: You are saying that it was an evacuation? Iam sorry evacuation from what or from who? and why only Armenians were evacuated why tuks didnt evacuate their own people? " WE ARE GOING TO LEAVE ONLY ONE ARMENIAN AND ONLY IN THE MUSEUM" those are the words of Attaturk(BURN IN HELL) Turkish government found guilty Attaturk, Kemal Pasha and 7 others. Even in Germany when Soghomon Tehleryan killed that basstard(attaturk) in the court they found him not guilty. And you wanna say that it wasn't pinpointed to Armenians? it wasnt a genocide? yea at that the WORLD didn't have the word genocide till the hollacaust but whatever happened to Armenians they do match the standarts of the word genocide. You are saying that Turkish soldiers were dying in the marches with Armenians? only one difference they were in the marches and they only had guns and horses to kill starving people. Why do you think Armenian diaspora is 5 time bigger than population in Armenia? because people don't like Armenia? I guess you understandwhat I mean. And about foreign writers, you can also read Morgentaus book about Armenian Genocide, who was a embasador of US in turkey during that period.
And why do you think that Armenia should choose alyy's from the countries who US is recomending? About Nagorno Karabakh its a totally other storry which can take days of discussions. US is tight with Azerbaijan because they have OIL and Georgia bacause Sahakashvili is from Washington, and about 54% thing, where did you read that? Georgias government even in the past betrated Armenia a lot for example 1918. Armenia is a small country and in that region we need to have an powerfull ally US can't be an ally for Armenia because US has more profit in Turkey and in Azerbaijan, so there for Armenias best allys right now are Russia,Iran, France. Pretty soon pipeline Iran-Armenia is going to be finished and we wont need Goergias pipeline, which is getting terorised very often. For Russia Armenia is the last hope in the region in that intersection because Azerbaijan and Gerogia turned their faces to west.
I've read Morgenthau's book, but also Mark Bristol's memoirs, and they conflict as to how much was actually planned. Look, I don't think that a lot of Turkish officials cared necessarily if the marches were humane. I think they are more guilty of gross criminal negligence, not planned mass murder. That quote from Ataturk doesn't exist, and neither does the notion that he was killed in Germany. The Ottoman Empire did not try Ataturk, they did censure him for treason because he did not surrender. Yes, something like 500,000 Turks died in the east in World War 1, some initially due to Armenian attacks (the massacre in Van), others due to starvation, disease, Russian attacks. Yes, a lot more Armenians died, more than the Turkish government wants to recognize. I feel bad for Armenians in Anatolia because they were outnumbered. An Armenian state could not be formed in lands where Armenians were demographically a minority (albeit a large minority). The results were tragic for Armenia, but until there are more impartial sources showing a planned extinction of a state (not one or two comments from Enver Pasha), I am uncomfortable with the word genocide. Armenia can look to whomever it likes, but it is funny how they rely on their christian history to look for western support and then cozy up to nations so far from the west. Russia is internationally a supporter of tyrants and thugs. They are proping up Lukashenko in Belarus, aiding Karimov in Uzbekistan and supporting Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan. If you want these nations to be your friends, go ahead. Russia's instability is a problem too, and that is why they want more land and support the terrorists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Iran will always view you as dhimmis, 2nd class people, and will only use you as anti-Turkish fodder. The few Andranik Teymourians of this world do not make Iran a friendly state for non-shi'ites. Armenia needs a paradigm shift, and you had a better chance of that under Petrossian than you did under this quasi-redneck, Kocharyian. The Karabagh people running Armenia is a disaster because they are not smart about foreign policy, way too provincial and backwards on those issues. You do have an impressive diaspora though. I was very impressed with the Armenians I have met in Aleppo, Syria, they are doing well there despite Assad's butchery (just staying out of politics). I was amazed how popular Turkish music and TV are amongst Aleppo Armenians. I think this more open attitude could be a lesson for the Kocharyians of this world. Turkey has to admit some of its wrongs too, but right now I am more comfortable with Turkish-Georgian-Azeri foreign politics than I am with Russian-Iranian-Armenian foreign politics.
And once again you didn't answer mya question why only Armenians were getting evacuated? Armenians they were citizens of Ottoman empire they paid taxes more than turks and so on. Young guys were serving in the army they were Armenians in parliament, what they did they got the muscle out first, guys who were serving in the army they got baisicly destroid. This story didn't begin on 1915 is started from 1890's. On April 24th, turks killed on the main square of Istanbul Armenian writers, poets,priests,senators and so on, baisicly they killed the brain, and in the marches was much easier to rape and kill starving people. About Ataturk he did say that and Tehleryan did KILL him and was found not guilty, you might feel uncomfortable when they use the word genocide I feel uncomfortable when they not use it. You are sayin turks they made some mistakes, you are talking like they made a mistake on some kind of a math test or something. THEY KILLED UP TO 1.500.000 ARMENIANS. Thats not just a mistake it was systematic. And about "massacares" in VAN village people they just tried to defend themselves against ottoman army thats just radicilous. About politics its your own opinion thats your right to have one, and I have my opinion which doesnt have to necesseraly match yours so I wont answer to that. But historic facts I will discuss with you.
Ataturk died in Dolmabahce Palace in Turkey of natural causes. And I have never seen him say anything about the only Armenians he wanted around to be in museums, that is simply not true. Enver Pasha did make some pretty anti-armenian statement. But don't confuse him with Ataturk. Ataturk was actually personally not very active on the eastern front where the conflict with the Armenians was going on. As for the intellectuals and everything being rounded up, I am not defending Turkey's response. But there were Armenian concurrent with these Turkish attacks. The blowing up of the Ottoman Bank, unprovoked attacks on Turks in Van and other such things. The Young Turk leadership badly mishandled the response. They feared total insurrection on their eastern borders and they knew what Russian soldiers were like. Was this fear justified? Not to the extent that they reacted. But the term genocide implies that someone wants to wipe out an entire race, and there is simply not conclusive proof that the Ottoman government wanted that. I am not denying large numbers of deaths, I am just saying that the intent is not the open and shut case some make it out to be. More historical discussion is needed on that part of the equation. But yes, Turkey could admit more than they are admitting right now.
1. You are right it was Taliat Pasha not Attaturk, I was very emotional and didn't realize about that mistake, all of the things that wrote I meant Tliat Pasha. 2. You are talking about FEDAYINS partizan groups, and the biggest fight was at Sardarapat and Bashaparan, on May 28 1918 they defeated Turkish organized army and then we had independence for 2 years, all world was surprised how they managed to comeout victorious from that battle, but it was after the genocide and thanks to that battle we now have whatever we have 30.000 sq/km. They feared Russian soldiers? you wanna say they cared about Armenians and took them to that death marches in der-zor desert? They were afraid only that Russians are christians and Armenians are christians also, and they might cooperate. I agree about historic disscosions but guess which side doesn't want have them
That's not quite true. But the military are there to overthrow any government that threatens the secular state... Which is exactly what Ataturk had planned and which is the very essence of the Turkish state. Now, wether that is a good or a bad thing is open to debate. Of course, imagining yourself and Turkey in a perfect world, this would be a bad thing, period. But it's not a perfect world and issues need to be dealt with. In this case, I see no other way in which Turkey can remain secular. Joining the EU would be a first step. However, the influx of Turks to the west would be a problem. This is something that should be dealt with one way or another. As far as I'm concerned, this is the only problem with having Turkey in the EU. The Armenian issue is a sensitive one. Pherhaps we should look at the facts first, to decide if we can actually speak of a 'genocide' and to what extent the Turks were the only ones to resort to ethnic violence. Once we're clear on that, we can talk.