5 ms·

It's interesting how some genocides become more politically charged than others. Japan has trouble acknowledging their genocides, but they rarely complain when

by scythe 6y ago

It's interesting how some genocides become more politically charged than others. Japan has trouble acknowledging their genocides, but they rarely complain when other countries do. America is generally similar. Germany has conducted a massive campaign to root out genocidal sympathies. But it's particularly surprising with Turkey, because, unlike Japan or the US, the Republic of Turkey replaced the Ottoman Empire by a violent revolution. They have more of an excuse than most countries to claim they are not the direct political descendants of the genocidaires. So it seems reasonable to infer that Turkey's rationale for denying the Armenian genocide is not to save face, but rather is rooted in resentment for what Turks see as a long campaign by France and England to weaken them and constrain their influence in the Mediterranean. Turks point to the discrepancies in how we see Christian genocides of Muslims in the Balkans and the Caucasus vs the reverse in Anatolia. For example, nobody mentions the Circassian genocide 40 years earlier, even though it occurred on a similar scale. The original version of the Treaty of Sèvres, which cut Anatolia into pieces, is a particularly sore point.

fakedang 6y ago
Your premise is incorrect though. The Ottoman Empire was not directly responsible for the genocide - the Sultan didn't give orders one fine day in WW1 to massacre all Armenians. But the Turkish military men who eventually went on to depose the powerless Sultan and form the modern-day Republic of Turkey were the ones who instigated the genocide, including Ataturk himself. So yeah, the modern Republic of Turkey has every reason to fight against all allegations of genocide, even though it was an integral element in its independence movement.
- scythe 6y ago
  The general consensus seems to be that the genocide was ordered by the Three Pashas, especially Talaat Pasha, who were the de facto rulers at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Pashas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Pashas https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Circular_on_April_24_1915 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Circular_on_April_24_1915 None of them survived to see the end of the Turkish Revolution. Ataturk was a mere lieutenant colonel at the outbreak of WWI and did not reach the Caucasus theatre until January 1916, eight months after the outbreak of genocide -- he went on to win a few crucial battles and was then shipped to the Levant. However, Turkey did go on to deny their crimes and venerate Talaat Pasha, who played some role in the development of modern Turkish institutions. Kieser, who is likely the source of your claims, does not implicate Ataturk directly, but does emphasize the influence of Talaat on modern Turkey: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uGW1DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9 https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uGW1DwAAQBAJ&oi=... but see also the counterpoint: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2019.1613829 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2019.1...
  - fakedang 6y ago
    Yes, this is what I was referring to. The Three Pashas were all military men who very much influenced the Turkish independence movement and modern Turkey itself. The genocide wasn't just limited to the World War though. A lot of significant damage happened between 1919-1923, when the Turkish were fighting for independence. And by 1918, Ataturk was already a general in the Ottoman Army.
    - nickik 6y ago
      While the Young Turks clearly had some more interest in making the empire more Turkish, before WW1 pretty much anybody in the government called themselves Ottomans, not Turks. Turk was mostly use for the poor elements. And they were not military men, they were the civilian government of the empire.
      - fakedang 6y ago
        > And they were not military men, they were the civilian government of the empire. > Mehmed Talaat Pasha (1874–1921), the Grand Vizier (prime minister) and Minister of the Interior; Ismail Enver Pasha (1881–1922), the Minister of War; and Ahmed Cemal Pasha (1872–1922), the Minister of the Navy. I don't know about you, but their positions sound very military to me. AFAIK, they are military or quasi-military departments in every country I've visited.
        nickik 6y ago
        You are simply embracing yourself at this point. Prime minister and minister of the interior? Clearly not military positions. Minister of War and Minister of the Navy is a civilian position as well. Armies are lead by Generals, Navy by admirals, the civilian positions overseeing these institutions in the name of the civilian government. Again, the Young Turks were in control of the whole government. Whatever their individual positions were, they are simply the government. Denying that is is simply not defensible.
        6y ago
mikewarot 6y ago
Tangentially I became aware of the Genocide committed against Germans after WWII that the Allies had a hand in, which isn't well known. I'm looking for a copy of a book about it Road of Suffering of the Carpathian-Germans 1944-1946 Here's a hint of it from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czechoslovakia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czec...

by scythe 6y ago

fakedang 6y ago

Your premise is incorrect though. The Ottoman Empire was not directly responsible for the genocide - the Sultan didn't give orders one fine day in WW1 to massacre all Armenians. But the Turkish military men who eventually went on to depose the powerless Sultan and form the modern-day Republic of Turkey were the ones who instigated the genocide, including Ataturk himself. So yeah, the modern Republic of Turkey has every reason to fight against all allegations of genocide, even though it was an integral element in its independence movement.

scythe 6y ago
The general consensus seems to be that the genocide was ordered by the Three Pashas, especially Talaat Pasha, who were the de facto rulers at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Pashas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Pashas https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Circular_on_April_24_1915 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Circular_on_April_24_1915 None of them survived to see the end of the Turkish Revolution. Ataturk was a mere lieutenant colonel at the outbreak of WWI and did not reach the Caucasus theatre until January 1916, eight months after the outbreak of genocide -- he went on to win a few crucial battles and was then shipped to the Levant. However, Turkey did go on to deny their crimes and venerate Talaat Pasha, who played some role in the development of modern Turkish institutions. Kieser, who is likely the source of your claims, does not implicate Ataturk directly, but does emphasize the influence of Talaat on modern Turkey: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uGW1DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9 https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uGW1DwAAQBAJ&oi=... but see also the counterpoint: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2019.1613829 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2019.1...
- fakedang 6y ago
  Yes, this is what I was referring to. The Three Pashas were all military men who very much influenced the Turkish independence movement and modern Turkey itself. The genocide wasn't just limited to the World War though. A lot of significant damage happened between 1919-1923, when the Turkish were fighting for independence. And by 1918, Ataturk was already a general in the Ottoman Army.
  - nickik 6y ago
    While the Young Turks clearly had some more interest in making the empire more Turkish, before WW1 pretty much anybody in the government called themselves Ottomans, not Turks. Turk was mostly use for the poor elements. And they were not military men, they were the civilian government of the empire.
    - fakedang 6y ago
      > And they were not military men, they were the civilian government of the empire. > Mehmed Talaat Pasha (1874–1921), the Grand Vizier (prime minister) and Minister of the Interior; Ismail Enver Pasha (1881–1922), the Minister of War; and Ahmed Cemal Pasha (1872–1922), the Minister of the Navy. I don't know about you, but their positions sound very military to me. AFAIK, they are military or quasi-military departments in every country I've visited.
      - nickik 6y ago
        You are simply embracing yourself at this point. Prime minister and minister of the interior? Clearly not military positions. Minister of War and Minister of the Navy is a civilian position as well. Armies are lead by Generals, Navy by admirals, the civilian positions overseeing these institutions in the name of the civilian government. Again, the Young Turks were in control of the whole government. Whatever their individual positions were, they are simply the government. Denying that is is simply not defensible.
        6y ago

mikewarot 6y ago

Tangentially I became aware of the Genocide committed against Germans after WWII that the Allies had a hand in, which isn't well known. I'm looking for a copy of a book about it Road of Suffering of the Carpathian-Germans 1944-1946 Here's a hint of it from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czechoslovakia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czec...