FULCRUM UPON WHICH ISSUE SITS

[khodja]

Bulent Akarcali is trying to dismiss Genocide claims.

Bottom line for all of this is fact that Turkey voided all property right to ANY survivors of the Genocide. This is the "smoking gun." Was EVERY Armenian living in Ottoman Turkey automatically an enemy of the state? How the Turkish Republic approached the SURVIVORS of the Genocide vis-a-vis property rights is a dead giveaway of the motives of the Turkish leaders. Ditto Talaat trying to get American insurance companies to pay the death benefits of massacred Armenians directly to the Turkish state, as related by Morgenthau.

[khodja]

The Armenian Forum, a quarterly publication, recently had an article on this subject. Hilmar Kaiser from Germany has also done studies on this. I do not know of a scholarly work on this subject.

[Guest Fadi]

quote:

---

hagarag,

 

is there any study of the armenian properties appropriated by the turkish state after the events? if i remember correctly, there was a law back in 1920 that stipulated that the "abandoned goods" of the armenians be returned to them or their inheritors. that law was repealed by another law in 1922, which practically confiscated that property and later on distributed it (sold?) to turkish citizens.

 

i am asking this because even though i keep hearing of these claims (most of which are no doubt true), i have yet to see a claim that rests on either documented evidence or gives reference to a study of the subject. i would be grateful if you can clarify.

 

thanks in advance,

 

yours,

---

Yes in fact you are right, the Law that was revoqued was not supposed to be respected... it was during the military tribunal, and to please the allies Ottoman Turkey accepted to return the said "abondonned properties" the Law introduction was asked by Riza, he was ignored... then a promess(it was more a promess then a Law) about returning these properties was given... but once the Kemalist took power, it was evident that there was no way of returning it, the first national assembly and the proposition of the Art.1 supposed that the minorities have no right, and right given to them by anyone before are entirly abolished, with this, the promess of the return of the properties.

 

About the study of Armenian properties, yes in Hilmar Kaiser has studies on this, while Sarafian and him were at the Ottoman archive, one of his main purpouses was to search about this.

 

German references talk about one hundred million Gold Mark transfered to Berlin Central Bank comming from Armenian belongings...

 

Lepsius himself established at that time, that the government confiscated properties, for one billion German gold mark, here we are talking only about the proerties taken by the government, not the one directly redistributed on the spot, to this, there is the hundreds of millions of the German gold marks that have been transfered and secured in Germany, that should be added. From it, there was in the Central Bank alone a 100 Billion.

 

The total lost is behind believe, near 2 billion of German gold mark of that time is a resonable number.

 

This is exaclly why Himlar Kaiser, when he adventured in these files, he was kicked out even before Sarafian... because the War British debts, and well as the construction of the republic of Turkey has been made possible entirly by the belongings consfiscated from the Armenians... the renovation the Kemalists started, the nationalisation all were already the Plans of the Young-Turks, from the nationalisation of the economy, the Young-Turks and later the Kemalists dreamed of a Turkish state...

 

This was the main reason of the genocide, it was not an act of racism like the Holocaust, it was a nationalist act, the Young-Turks came to power with the idea of destroying the Milleti system and institutionalising a kind of Citizenship, modernise the empire... the Armenian revolutionary movements supported this, because they though that destroying the Milleti system was to make everyone equal... but this was wrong from the start, this ment that the protection the Milleti system was given to different ethnic groups was to be destroied, the nationalistion should have passed first, after the Balkan war, there was 2 major milleties left, the Armenians and the Arabs, the young Turks dreamed to nationalise the economy... the problem ? The Armenians, nationalising the economy and destroying at the same time the Milleti system ment the confiscation of Armenian belogings and their nationalisation.

 

I may sound out of subject, but the confiscation, was one of the main idea of the genocide... the idea was to expulse and kill the Armenians to be sure they will never return, and then take what belongs to them and use it to build their new "Empire" their new ideal... Akcan in his work write specifically about this, the construction of the Turkish republic has been made on the graves of an exterminated people. And this is exaclly why the denial is so intense, for Germany it was more easy to recognise, because the Holocaust didnt served for the construction of Germany, on the other side, the genocide was the main way that the Kemalists were able to found the republic of Turkey, I can even go further and say that the construction of the Republic of Turkey has its hearth, the extermination of the Armenians, and for Turkey to recognise the Armenian genocide, is specifically to recognise this, now how a republic could recognise that its existance and as well as its constrcution has been made possible by the extermination of a people, and then using what they had to build it.

 

Even the majority of Armenians dosnt understand this, this is why they do not understand why Turkey deny so intensly the genocide, the intensity of the genocide is a proof itself that the Republic Hearth is the genocide.

 

[ May 26, 2002, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[aurguplu]

hagarag,

 

is there any study of the armenian properties appropriated by the turkish state after the events? if i remember correctly, there was a law back in 1920 that stipulated that the "abandoned goods" of the armenians be returned to them or their inheritors. that law was repealed by another law in 1922, which practically confiscated that property and later on distributed it (sold?) to turkish citizens.

 

i am asking this because even though i keep hearing of these claims (most of which are no doubt true), i have yet to see a claim that rests on either documented evidence or gives reference to a study of the subject. i would be grateful if you can clarify.

 

thanks in advance,

 

yours,

[bellthecat]

I remember seeing lots of abandoned and derelict or semi-derelict old houses in Trabzon on my first two visits to that place in the late 1980s, early 1990s. Presumably they were all Greek owned properties. When I revisited Trabzon in 1993 I found that they were all either being renovated or being demolished, which suggested to me at the time that some sort of time limit had passed and they were now considered to be abandoned property, but I never found out anything specific.

 

However, I consider this emphasis on property rights to be very distasteful. It is just another example of rich and powerful wanting to remain rich and powerful and to hell with the poor. The vast majority of Armenian victims had no fixed property and had very little wealth, and I think that most of the diaspora stories about the vast estates and mansions they left behind in Turkey are at best just rose tinted memories - (or did only the rich survive?)

 

Rich Jewish relatives of rich Jewish holocaust victims get their art treasures back yet the millions of dollars paid in compensation to the descendents of ordinary Jewish victims lie undistributed in the bank accounts of Jewish pressure groups. American relatives of victims of the pan-am flight blown up over Lockerbie are going to get millions in compensation from Libya, yet America pays nothing to the relatives of Iranian victims on the airliner shot down by the American navy a year earlier. It's all about power, and showing that the powerful have a God given right to remain eternally powerful, and nothing at all to do with justice.

 

Steve

[Twilight Bark]

True. See, Steve, we are on the same page.

While I do think that provable claims must be compensated for, they are a near-irrelevance to any true reparation. The true loss was the eradication of an indigenous culture in a most ruthless manner. As I said earlier, the only rational way to address the issue of material reparation is to direct it towards re-settling the descendants of the survivors in their ancestors homeland. Those that would pass up such an offer are then by definition too far removed from the original crime to be paid "reparations". The pragmatic side of this is that it would keep the resources going to reparation inside the Turkish economy, and make it economically affordable and even beneficial.

[Guest Fadi]

quote:

---

The vast majority of Armenian victims had no fixed property and had very little wealth, and I think that most of the diaspora stories about the vast estates and mansions they left behind in Turkey are at best just rose tinted memories

---

Steve, I found your above quote very offensive and highly unaccurate.

 

Moslem "mohajir" from Thrace and the Balkans, perhasp only from Bulgaria thousands and thousands "relocated" in Armenian homes, from Russian front as well. The number of "702,900" Muslims relocated, pratically all of them were relocated in Armenian properties... the Turkish Historian Avioglu tell that the liquidation of the Armenians mostly benefited the Muslim Emgrants.

 

You can not just allege that in 1980 you only found abandonned Greek properties and suppose that Armenian richness stories are Armenian survivers missing or lacking memories, like some sort of "allusination" I really am surprised of your replic here Steve. The difference between the Armenian properties confiscation and those of the Greeks, is that one was planned and executed methodically, and the other was as a "plus"(in the case of the Greek properties), so these Greek abandonned properties were just left there, in fear that the newly armistice and Treaties may force to return them to their... Lepsius carefull lists, you seem to like old manuscripts and documents, maybe should I ask you to read lespius rather interesting Armenian properties losses worthing a billion of German Gold Mark, or few German works, that I will be glad to give you titles, about how millions of Gold marks were transfered then returned in Turkey ?

 

Was this only the fruit of the imagination of old "cracpots" that were able to survive, and that the sun has affected their brains and they started to allusinate ?

 

If Armenians had not the economic influence and power they had in the empire, it would have been very surprising that the genocide would have happened, I posted in the past in a forum, a publication in a Turkish newspaperof a commitee formed to study the possibility to buy vaccins to eradicate the propagation of the epidemia of 1910 against farm animals, and the non equality between the Armenians/Greeks(specialy separeted), I will not post this again anymore, because even if comming from Turkish sources, I found it may be seen as anti-Turkish.

 

I do not believe my grandparents were lying about what they possessed, and when I say this, it is not because I am expecting anything, in the contrary, I just found offensive your remark and found the need to answer to it.

 

[ May 10, 2002, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Twilight Bark]

Dear Domino and Steve, you are both making points that are worthwhile to consider. I wish those points were made with less offense. Steve is correct in saying that vast numbers of Armenian peasants didn't have much wealth. Domino is also correct that many Armenians did indeed have sizeable wealth. However, putting great emphasis on personal, monetary compensation is both in poor taste and is impractical to the degree of being counterproductive. Pragmatic approaches are called for.

 

Domino, trying to explain the genocide in terms of large-scale robbery is too simplistic. Lust for wealth explains nothing without the underlying chauvinism. It was not a class revolution.

[khodja]

Twilight Bark,

 

Hilmar Kaiser would disagree with you. He feels that pursuing the restoration of Armenian properties is critical to Genocide Recognition. If a robber kills his victim and steals from his victim, why is it in poor taste for the victim's family to expect that property returned?

[Guest Fadi]

Twilight Bark

 

I suggest you to study the Ittadist National Unity pact... and tell me after if it is as simplistic that it sound first.

 

As for compensation, I am against this, I just though that Steve comparaison of finding abandoned Greek properties vs Armenian ones was worthless because the majority of Armenian proteries were already prepared to be given to Muslim immigrants.

[khodja]

Domino,

 

You confuse reparations with legal efforts to restore properties, bank accounts and insurance proceeds to the legal hiers. Any nation which claims to be a democracy can not arbitrarily confiscate the properties of it's citizens. The Turkish Republic distributed the confiscated Armenian properties to it's Moslem citizens. Funds in Armenian accounts at the Ottoman Imperial Bank were transferred into German Banks and eventually ended up in England to recompense the UK for losses incurred during WWII. American and European insurance companies NEVER paid on insurance policies of the Armenian dead. Some of us have the legal papers to prove our claims.

[Guest Fadi]

quote:

---

Domino,

 

You confuse reparations with legal efforts to restore properties, bank accounts and insurance proceeds to the legal hiers. Any nation which claims to be a democracy can not arbitrarily confiscate the properties of it's citizens. The Turkish Republic distributed the confiscated Armenian properties to it's Moslem citizens. Funds in Armenian accounts at the Ottoman Imperial Bank were transferred into German Banks and eventually ended up in England to recompense the UK for losses incurred during WWII. American and European insurance companies NEVER paid on insurance policies of the Armenian dead. Some of us have the legal papers to prove our claims.

---

Hagarag, have you just some idea of how much Turkey worth to Armenians ? Take an amount of 2 Billion German Gold Mark(this is only the personal belongings) of the time and then make a simple calculation of what it worth now... compar it with the Total Turkey's republic debts contracted... then you should understand why I am against reparation, because even if reparation would be fair, it is an imposibility... because the losses here do not take also in account the destruction of the Republic of Armenia, the Kemalist intrusion that from Russian uncompleat statistics made 198,000 vistims...

 

Insurence compagnies reparation etc... are another story, they have nothing to do with what I am talking about.

[Twilight Bark]

Hagarag,

As you know, I have said many times that the provable claims must be paid. With the proper interest at that. However, I suspect the vast majority of the descendants of the survivors do not have the proper documentation. Then it becomes impossible to give the heirs specifically their due. Even proper documentation leads to awkward results. A large plot of relatively cheap land in the Ottoman times might have become a huge industrial park, or a business district with a current value running into billions of dollars. It would be problematic to decide what to pay.

 

The distasteful way to address the reparations would be to give every living Armenian lacking documented property rights a check of an "average" amount. If the amounts are going to be meaningful, it would put a huge burden on Turkey, and would start brewing a new wave of resentment. And "finishing the job" might start looking like a good way out to many. In the ever-elusive event of recognition and reparation, I would say paying provable claims and channeling "development funds" towards re-settling willing Armenians in their ancestral homeland (with very broad cultural rights) would be the decent thing to do. Not that very many Armenians would be queing up to take up the offer.

[aurguplu]

dear everyone,

 

i think it would help if i specified the question a bit further: for practical purposes, the wealth of the armenians could perhaps be divided into two categories: the immovables in istanbul and those in anatolia (i am exluding from the discussion movable property because it is a good deal harder to trace unless insured). as far as i know, a plot of land in a decent part of istanbul has always been vastly more valuable than a plot of similar size anywhere in anatolia (correct me if i am wrong, please). i am asking this because i want to know where reparation efforts would concentrate in case of recognition of the genocide and reparative measures taken about it. such a study would show quite clearly which segments of turkish society would oppose it most.

 

and, as for the previous question, i would appreciate titles if there are any published works that are available, preferably over the net.

 

i am asking all this because i do harbour some strong suspicion that the bulk of the claims filed will end up to be about plots in istanbul (which i have nothing against, but i think that that would be the case, and the value thing is an important factor in my thinking).

 

expecting comments,

 

cheers,

[Guest Fadi]

Ali, why are you so interested about this ? You seem to be a little afraid of the word reparation.

[THOTH]

Ali - I think that you have a good point. And while I agree with Domino - that most do not consider the economic motivations of the CUP in liquidizing the Armenians - I believe this is only one of the several factors that they (and their predecessors) undertook to massacre Armenians. I understand and sympathize with Twilight Barks concerns regarding concentrating on material wealth & such - when the bigger picture - that is what is most important - is the human tragedy - the savagery of the acts against individuals (the murdring of them) and the wide spread depopulation and current dearth of Armenians in their historical homelands. In this context any property losses etc are clearly secondary consideration. Of course I do think we must understand this aspect of CUP motivation (it helps to complete the picture) and I support pursuance of individual claims. Alas - though our family - on my Grandmother's side (also wealthy Constantinoplians like Hagarags) eventually lost all - I am not aware of much documentation surviving. In any event it is not my principal motivation for seeking justice. My Grandfather's family was as poor as my grandmother's was rich - yet their suffering was certainly greater (loss of life of all except my grandfather) - so how is value placed on this?

 

[ May 12, 2002, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: THOTH ]

[THOTH]

Ali - super post - IMO. All of us need to consider these issues and understand the difficulties (they present) in achieving Genocide recognition (and anything else along these lines) due to these Turkish perspective(s) and situation. Sure - it is easy for Armenians to say - "recognize the Genocide" and to expect justice - but as we have seen - this tactic has not worked. We need to understand why - and we need to approach the recognition issues more sytematically - IMO (resolutions from foriegn governments are all well and good - and they keep the issue alive - but in the end they do not force Turkey to do much of anything). Armenians need to much better understand both the Turkish position(s) (true and false & whatever else) and we must understand how these beliefs and the real situation over there have responded, and how they will likely respond, to overtures and further attempts at Genocide recognition and pursuance of any claims - etc.

 

So first - IMO - it is imperative that the Armenian side do a much better job articulating everything - beginning with the "charges" (the best articulated thus far - but stuill could be done better - IMO) continuing on to what "we" want/expect - recognition (specifically of what? etc), apology (?), and compensation (?) - or whatever. And while I agree that aquiring land - at this point - is extremely unrealistic - I can perhaps envision an arangement where Armenians (Diaspora and from Armenia itself) may be granted certain economic incentives to do business in Turkey and perhaps eventually to settle and reaquire property (?) as individuals (and perhaps as non-Turkish citizens?) etc etc. I think we must be creative here as the "standard solutions" clearly will never work. I think that this sort of thing is a long time off of course - but it might eventually be pitched as something mutually beneficial for Armenians/Armenia and for Turks/Turkey. And I understand that there are many complexities even to a much more basic understanding.

 

So - on to your post -

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

ok everyone,

 

here is my motive for inquiring about the reparation business:

 

there are x main obstacles on the turkish side for recognition of the genocide:

 

1. national pride. turks just don't want to be braceketed together with the nazis, serbs and the like, and the foundations of the republic were built about us being a honourable nation awfully wronged by people from within our ranks (you guys) as well as by enemies from outside (the great powers).

---

I agree that this is a tremendous "problem" to overcome. Ataturk & Co did their "jobs" well in this regard unfourtunatly. Of course the fever pitch generated leading to WWI with the fall of Empire and in the face of the last throws of colonialism are also much to blame - as they are to blame for the possibility of such excesses as led to Genocide.

 

Turks must understand that the CUP are not their heros - instead they did tremendous harm. Likewise - decision made by Ataturk must be understood in proper context. He perceived certaina actions as necessary for Turkey's survival - while some or all may have been - some things he condoned were also clearly excessive in regards to the minorites - this has to be understood (as "wronging" people - regardless of results etc)...and a little less "Ra Ra" regarding the founding of the Republic - always difficult - but this is presenting an objective examination of this time...

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

[QB

2. the political legacy. many of the prominent people who took part in the deportations and liquidations were later incorporated into the political and administrative structures of the republic, and their direct decendants still survive.[/QB]

---

Yes - as much as Turks today who somewhat understand the issue but who claim it was Ottomans/CUP - not "us" like to believe...

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

[QB

3. the territorial question. not much of a question at all for turks, it is nevertheless still being kept alive by hardliners on both sides, principally for domestic political purposes rather than itself. [/QB]

---

IMO - this is mostly use to drum up opposition. "Those Armenians just want 'our' lands!" etc and by Armenians who lack a sophisticated understanding of the situation. The latter are not the mainstream - IMO - or if they are I don't think they have really thought it through - anything beyond just some emotional response.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

[QB

4. the confiscated weath. a number of industrial concerns, mostly family businesses, thrived on confiscated armenian wealth, mostly immovables. any solution that incorporates reparation is likely to meet resistance from them, and these guys are strong enough to make and unmake governments in turkey. to avoid them as enemies, one has to find a solution that will satisfy the armenian side, and not unduly harm the turkish side. [/QB]

---

Very difficult issue. I don't know the solution to this one. I see a corallary though - Corporations (Eurpoe/West/elsewhere) don't naturally enact policies and procedures to protect the environment - to control their impact - it costs money - affects the bottom line - they must be forced to do so - by Government rules/enforcement or by public outcry. These interests in Turkey may have to be forced (in some way) - ultimatly...

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

[QB

now about 1), there is now growing awareness that our past does contain dark pages, and the armenian question is so recent, the after effects so obvious, and has been brought to the fore so many times, that the version many turks are prepared to accept is not that different from the armenian one anymore. turks still feel their skin creep when they hear the g-word, but i reckon it is a matter of time before they get reconciled to the notion that some amongst their ranks might have planned such a thing. [/QB]

---

Can only hope. Still the mental block is huge.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

[QB

about 2), most of these guys are dead by now. and since the issue has reached such international proportions, especially with the coming into being of an armenian republic, that whatever political gain obtained from protecting the memory of these guys will be far outweighed by the political losses that any further attempts at burying the issue will cause, and people are well aware of it. [/QB]

---

Turks must come to realise this - hopefully sooner - rather then later. Unfourtunatly I doubt that they will - until some Armenians again resort to terrorist type tactics - to make them feel the pain and to further publisize the issue. However this time with biological weapons & such - and it will become to painful to ignore. I really think it may have to come to this before Turks really wake up and understand that being big & striong as a nation is no assurance against certain devestating vunerabilities. Not in this day and age.

 

So Turks - how painful do you wish to make this? Because the issue will not go away - no matter how difficult it may seem. The choice is - negotiated solution - where each side gives and gets - or a forced solution - where no one will be happy. I mean - look at Palestine/Israel today....who wants that?

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

[QB

about 3), this has always been a romantic rather than a realistic approach. i understand the net majority of armenians are aware that turks simply will not yield an inch of territory, as can be expected from any sovereign state. so it is unrealistic to bring this issue about as if it were a serious, fulfillable desire. [/QB]

---

Agreed - as you have stated it. This is truly a non-issue - IMO. It is only made an issue by ignorance/misunderstanding - and by intentionally focusing on it to rile up defensiveness...

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

[QB

this leaves us with 4). the wealth appropriated from the armenians - and greeks - is vast, and much of it is in private hands now. so any move at reparations will put you at loggerheads with a number of very powerful business magnates in turkey. one must understand the scale of the dispute (the amount of wealth) involved and its present whereabouts and status before one can embark on this in an intelligent manner and get results. that was the reason why i was asking this question. [/QB]

---

A major dilema. Of course - if Armenian "terrorist" efforts were directed to put economic hurt on these corporations (not just through violent means perhaps - but disruptions, protests etc etc - enough to shave those profits and make things difficlt....) - well you never know what might suddenly begin to sound reasonable. No easy solution though - I agree.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

[QB

comments expected.

 

cheers, [/QB]

---

Comments given...

[aurguplu]

ok everyone,

 

here is my motive for inquiring about the reparation business:

 

there are x main obstacles on the turkish side for recognition of the genocide:

 

1. national pride. turks just don't want to be braceketed together with the nazis, serbs and the like, and the foundations of the republic were built about us being a honourable nation awfully wronged by people from within our ranks (you guys) as well as by enemies from outside (the great powers).

 

2. the political legacy. many of the prominent people who took part in the deportations and liquidations were later incorporated into the political and administrative structures of the republic, and their direct decendants still survive.

 

3. the territorial question. not much of a question at all for turks, it is nevertheless still being kept alive by hardliners on both sides, principally for domestic political purposes rather than itself.

 

4. the confiscated weath. a number of industrial concerns, mostly family businesses, thrived on confiscated armenian wealth, mostly immovables. any solution that incorporates reparation is likely to meet resistance from them, and these guys are strong enough to make and unmake governments in turkey. to avoid them as enemies, one has to find a solution that will satisfy the armenian side, and not unduly harm the turkish side.

 

now about 1), there is now growing awareness that our past does contain dark pages, and the armenian question is so recent, the after effects so obvious, and has been brought to the fore so many times, that the version many turks are prepared to accept is not that different from the armenian one anymore. turks still feel their skin creep when they hear the g-word, but i reckon it is a matter of time before they get reconciled to the notion that some amongst their ranks might have planned such a thing.

 

about 2), most of these guys are dead by now. and since the issue has reached such international proportions, especially with the coming into being of an armenian republic, that whatever political gain obtained from protecting the memory of these guys will be far outweighed by the political losses that any further attempts at burying the issue will cause, and people are well aware of it.

 

about 3), this has always been a romantic rather than a realistic approach. i understand the net majority of armenians are aware that turks simply will not yield an inch of territory, as can be expected from any sovereign state. so it is unrealistic to bring this issue about as if it were a serious, fulfillable desire.

 

this leaves us with 4). the wealth appropriated from the armenians - and greeks - is vast, and much of it is in private hands now. so any move at reparations will put you at loggerheads with a number of very powerful business magnates in turkey. one must understand the scale of the dispute (the amount of wealth) involved and its present whereabouts and status before one can embark on this in an intelligent manner and get results. that was the reason why i was asking this question.

 

comments expected.

 

cheers,

[THOTH]

Ali (and others) - I'm surprised my previous post on this thread got no comments...perhaps it was missed?

[aurguplu]

dear thoth,

 

i was a bit busy lately, here is the reply:

 

in general i agree with most of what you have said. my major points of disagreement are:

 

1. the position of ataturk. most armenians maintain that the CUP started the "cleanup" of armenians, and mustafa kemal and his forces finished it off, with the implication (so i gather) that the whole thing was a premeditated plan.

 

i beg to differ. please understand as i start (i guess that's clear by now) that i am neither a denialist nor an apologist, but someone who coldly pursues the truth. first of all, there was tremendous dissent within the CUP on a great many issues, including, but not confined to, the handling of the various minority demands and problems. second, the CUP was not a uniform body in itself, and as many impartial (not turkish) historians asserted, the genocide was premeditated, planned, and executed by a secret inner clique within the CUP, without the majority of the CUP members' knowing and/or consent. my knowledge of the workings of the nazi party is limited, but my impression is that from its ascent to power all the way to the actual holocaust there was little doubt about the motives and activities of the nazis within the party, germany and abroad. it was simply common knowledge that one of the raisons d'etre of the nazis was to get rid of the jews for good, and it must have been obvious to all but polyanne that their "transfer" to some homeland in the east was a mere figleaf. this was not the case with the cup. i doubt most sincerely that they had the idea of exterminating the armenians at the outset (back in 1909) when they took power. it seems to me that at that time they were still thinking that some aspects of the multiethnic empire could be saved. it appears to me that disturbances caused by some armenian factions - which although at that time did not represent the majority of armenians in any way, were growing in both numbers and effects - made them to take that sort of desperate decision, and once the decision was taken, the material gain to be gained from such an operation must have been obvious to them. but i doubt that the plan to exterminate the armenians had its roots much before our entry into the war, and i had also expressed my conviction - which most forum members agree with as far as i understand - that it was most likely the germans who had instilled the idea in cup minds.

 

now as far as ataturk is concerned, 1) he was never an actual member of the cup, although he was following them very closely, and 2) he was busy in gallipoli when the genocide was taking place. i had listened to a conference two years ago in turkish tv where some professor (or was it someone else?) maintained that one of the main reasons why mustafa kemal was chosen to lead the independence movement was that he was not tainted with war crimes in anatolia (we know what the were, don't we?). to me this sounds not like mere propaganda but actual historical fact, for it is becoming increasingly well-known that he conducted the independence campaign with the knowledge and consent of both the palace and the british, and a former war criminal was unlikely to get such consent, especially from the british.

 

we must also be careful to istinguish between the genocide in 1915 and the further ethnic cleansing that took place in the independence war 1919-1922: in 1915, an entire nation, by then largely composed of defenceless women, children and the elderly, were treacherously concentrated, marched, put into conditions that would obviously result in their deaths, and in a number of cases, were killed outright. in 1919-1922, the turkish army, having had lost the great war and with it practically the empire, was fighting armed militia within anatolia, of which armed armenian groups also formed a part. many of the atrocities committed by the armenians that the turkish side publicises ever so often date from this period. i hope we are agreed that atrocities are atrocities no matter who commits them, just as i agree that the armenians did have a moral right to defend themselves against the incoming turkish army after what had transpired in 1915, but we must understand that while the situation in 1915 was largely as a result of the perpetrators' own doing, that in 1919-1922 was a situation that the kemalist forces had inherited. if my elder brother kills your whole family without my knowledge and consent, i can understand your indignation and desire to kill my whole family (blood feud), but that does not mean that i will not defend myself. his is what i understand of the episode in a nutshell.

 

as far as the argument that the turks wee planning to establish a purely turkic state and eventually reunite with the central asian turks, enver and talat (especially enver) had such ideas, but apparently as a last resort now that the empire had failed, and not ideas cherished from early youth as frequently claimed (i may be wrong on that). but one thing is certain, mustafa kemal certainly had a very dim view of such ideas, and made no secret of that fact during his lifetime, and was wise enough to stick to those borders he secured during the independence war once peace was established. after the war, he was one of those who had condemned the cup for their deeds (the 1926 interview with the swiss reporter).

 

i am not a kemalist in many respects, but let's give god's right to god, and caesar's right to caesar.

 

more later,

 

cheers

[THOTH]

Ali - I have only time for a quick response to your (very nice) post - I both agree and disagree with points you have made here (based on the extent of my knowledge)-

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

dear thoth,

 

i was a bit busy lately, here is the reply:

 

in general i agree with most of what you have said. my major points of disagreement are:

 

1. the position of ataturk. most armenians maintain that the CUP started the "cleanup" of armenians, and mustafa kemal and his forces finished it off, with the implication (so i gather) that the whole thing was a premeditated plan.

 

i beg to differ. please understand as i start (i guess that's clear by now) that i am neither a denialist nor an apologist, but someone who coldly pursues the truth. first of all, there was tremendous dissent within the CUP on a great many issues, including, but not confined to, the handling of the various minority demands and problems. second, the CUP was not a uniform body in itself, and as many impartial (not turkish) historians asserted, the genocide was premeditated, planned, and executed by a secret inner clique within the CUP, without the majority of the CUP members' knowing and/or consent. my knowledge of the workings of the nazi party is limited, but my impression is that from its ascent to power all the way to the actual holocaust there was little doubt about the motives and activities of the nazis within the party, germany and abroad. it was simply common knowledge that one of the raisons d'etre of the nazis was to get rid of the jews for good, and it must have been obvious to all but polyanne that their "transfer" to some homeland in the east was a mere figleaf. this was not the case with the cup. i doubt most sincerely that they had the idea of exterminating the armenians at the outset (back in 1909) when they took power. it seems to me that at that time they were still thinking that some aspects of the multiethnic empire could be saved. it appears to me that disturbances caused by some armenian factions - which although at that time did not represent the majority of armenians in any way, were growing in both numbers and effects - made them to take that sort of desperate decision, and once the decision was taken, the material gain to be gained from such an operation must have been obvious to them. but i doubt that the plan to exterminate the armenians had its roots much before our entry into the war, and i had also expressed my conviction - which most forum members agree with as far as i understand - that it was most likely the germans who had instilled the idea in cup minds.

---

While Ataturk was clearly a CUP member (earlier at the very least) - he certainly was not of the inner circle - mostly I think because of Enver's suspicions and concerns about him (and Ataturk certainly expressed his distaste for the ruling triumverate and their actions at various times).

 

I believe that the evidence points that the ruling CUP were very concerned regarding the "Armenian Question" well prior to WWI - and having worked with Armenian revolutionary parties (as well as understanding their own rise to power) were very concerned about the possibility of real revolutionary action from even small (but determined and potentially well funded) bands. They were also familiar with the Armenian wealth. They were resentful of the relationship between the Armenians (and other Christian communities within the Empire) - with the Europeans (incl Russians). In particular the Armenians were succesfully apealing to outside Christian powers for political considerations vis a vis the Sultan and the repressive Ottoman policies. For all of these reasons and for the fact that their policies were failing to aliviate the problems of crumbling Empire they looked to the Armenians as both a scapegoat and a means of salvation. I think that you will find that anti-Armenian rhetoric well predates the war. The only issue for the CUP was how to act without consequence - the war provided the cover. The Germans provided the concept of deporting peoples to move in ones own (though this had been being practiced in a sense by the Sultan's for quite some time - moving various Muslims into Armenian areas to reduce the Armenian claims to the territory - etc.

So in many ways I think the German influence might be overstated - though, of course, they also were concerned about stability in areas where their railroad was traversing - and this may have hastened this idea of deporting Armenians (who were at least potentially hostile) from these areas. I also still beleive that Pan-Turanism was an important concept to Enver and many of the CUP. Golkap was very influential and was an upper party member. Enver's intitial incursion into the Caucusses - and his wrath at defeat - and again scapegoating of Armenians - were all factors that lent support to the drastic measures being contemplated against the Armenians.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

now as far as ataturk is concerned, 1) he was never an actual member of the cup, although he was following them very closely, and 2) he was busy in gallipoli when the genocide was taking place. i had listened to a conference two years ago in turkish tv where some professor (or was it someone else?) maintained that one of the main reasons why mustafa kemal was chosen to lead the independence movement was that he was not tainted with war crimes in anatolia (we know what the were, don't we?). to me this sounds not like mere propaganda but actual historical fact, for it is becoming increasingly well-known that he conducted the independence campaign with the knowledge and consent of both the palace and the british, and a former war criminal was unlikely to get such consent, especially from the british.

---

I understand that Ataturk was not involved in/tainted by the Genocide proper in any way shape or form but was functioning strictly as a military officer - and a very very good one - who perhaps did much to save the Empire from defeat. BTW - I don't think he had the Brits blessing at all in running off and forming up the National Pact & such - nor the Sultans - I think it was trickery/deception and very good fortune/Kismet.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

we must also be careful to istinguish between the genocide in 1915 and the further ethnic cleansing that took place in the independence war 1919-1922: in 1915, an entire nation, by then largely composed of defenceless women, children and the elderly, were treacherously concentrated, marched, put into conditions that would obviously result in their deaths, and in a number of cases, were killed outright. in 1919-1922, the turkish army, having had lost the great war and with it practically the empire, was fighting armed militia within anatolia, of which armed armenian groups also formed a part. many of the atrocities committed by the armenians that the turkish side publicises ever so often date from this period. i hope we are agreed that atrocities are atrocities no matter who commits them, just as i agree that the armenians did have a moral right to defend themselves against the incoming turkish army after what had transpired in 1915, but we must understand that while the situation in 1915 was largely as a result of the perpetrators' own doing, that in 1919-1922 was a situation that the kemalist forces had inherited. if my elder brother kills your whole family without my knowledge and consent, i can understand your indignation and desire to kill my whole family (blood feud), but that does not mean that i will not defend myself. his is what i understand of the episode in a nutshell.

---

Agreed (I have many many times in other forum acknowledged these acts and expressed sympathy for the victims) - however Ataturk & his minion Karrebakir were clearly aware of what befell the Armenians and relised that with any kind of Armenian state the issue of the earlier/recent Genocide would be very much alive - and that this itself could be a back breaker for the new Turkish State. Thus they conspired to crush the remaining Armenians. We must not also forgett the amnesty Ataturk provided the CUP criminals and his (partial) reliance on them against the Greeks and in establishing order and government after the founding of the Republic. There are many nasty skeletons here I think - and he was clearly aware of this and accepted this.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

as far as the argument that the turks wee planning to establish a purely turkic state and eventually reunite with the central asian turks, enver and talat (especially enver) had such ideas, but apparently as a last resort now that the empire had failed, and not ideas cherished from early youth as frequently claimed (i may be wrong on that). but one thing is certain, mustafa kemal certainly had a very dim view of such ideas, and made no secret of that fact during his lifetime, and was wise enough to stick to those borders he secured during the independence war once peace was established. after the war, he was one of those who had condemned the cup for their deeds (the 1926 interview with the swiss reporter).

---

Yes of course. Ataturk was always a realist and not a dreamer. He however refined the Pan-Turan concept to one of "Turkey for the Turks" - and his lesson from the prior Century was that with nationalism (including his own) there would be no peace in Turkey unless the Turkish identity was all that would be allowed in the new State called turkey. We see his later supression of the Kurds and Circassians and the push to rid Anatolia of Greeks as clear evidence of this philosophy - so to was his continued ruthless campaign against the Armenians.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

i am not a kemalist in many respects, but let's give god's right to god, and caesar's right to caesar.

 

more later,

 

cheers

---

Fine - I answered you quickly - so I know that there is much more to discuss - and I hopw what I wrote all makes sense. Take care friend.

[aurguplu]

dear thoth,

 

here is a hasty and partial reply to one of the points you raised:

 

i doubt very much that ataturk seriously had a pan-turanian ideal, he was too much of a realist for that. the reason why he said turkey for the turks was that at the end of the empire it was quite clear that the TURKISH component of the empire was under attack from the west (exposed crystal clear by the infamous sevres treaty). by then, the notion that non-turks (even other muslims) could not be trusted anymore was no longer the product of some xenophobic imagination but observable (and observed) reality. the arabs had rebelled following a welshman (lawrence), the kurds had started with their independence movement (though these were also heavily mixed with islamic aspirations), and the local greeks had fought on the side of the invading greek force in 1919-1922. so could you trust them if you were a turk? he used the cruel but effective method of population exchanges, the greeks of turkey and the turks of greece were exchanged. cruel but effective, and in the final analysis, kind: no-one died.

 

and at the end, turkey ended up with a population well over 80% kurdish, most of the remainder being a pacific arab minority and a rebellious kurdish minority. the empire was gone, the caliphate was gone, ataturk at any rate was a westerniser with open contempt for things religious (though his contempt for religion itself was obviously more tacit) and he had to build a country from scratch, for this you first have to find somethingto glue the nation together. as ottomanism, islam, socialism (the CUP were socialists of sorts) had all failed, and the only visible thing on the ground was turkish nationalism (after all, this was the only thing the vast majority of the population had in common) what else in your opinion could he use?

 

allow me to add one observation that i made about turkey that western educated people find a bit hard to understand:

 

in the west, you have had pronounced political identities for quite some time. people embraced ideas and not people. there were relatively well educated populations, the principles and foundations of the states were reasonably well laid out, and people tended to follow them to varying degrees. not so with turkey. when you look at the last century of the empire, especially the last decades, you see quite clearly that people who proclaimed themselves adherents of this or that political idea had in fact very little sound knowledge of the ideas they said - and thought - they were embracing. these people typically took some of the more salient features of various western ideological currents, and pretty much ignored the rest. i hope i am not straying from the subject, but i am a historical linguist by training, and an avid reader of the world's classics (though i have not raed them all yet: this is a lifetime project). islam ceased to be an intellectually productive civilisation at about the time the ottomans came on the scene (they don't have to do anything with it, the thing just got ossified) and the ottomans were in a sense the romans of islam: very effective soldiers, brilliant organisers, and no innovators: no ottoman philosopy, no ottoman science, no original ottoman literature etc. by the 19th century ottoman intellectual life was a desert, and it was getting pretty obvious that a return to the glorious islamic past was no solution. so we turned to the west. but we took the mechanical achievements of the west (military technology, the exact sciences etc.) and paid scant attention to the deeper philosopical undrecurrents that made the west the west. throughout the ottoman period, there was a great dearth of the translation of the western classics for instance (and imagine that there was practically no printing activity prior to the 1870s). learning foreign languages, unless they were arabic or persian, was never the turks's forte or inclination, and consequently you had a largely monolingual elite with only very partial and heavily censored access to western ideas. these people could not have absorbed various western ideologies and grasped their principles thoroughly. and indeed, they hadn't. so it is pretty dangerous from the point of accuracy to use the suffix -ist within the turkish context.

 

instead, when you look at the problems they faced and the "solutions" they came up with, you see a very strong ad hoc component there: "this failed, let's try that. oh sh*t, we are in a fine mess, c'mon let's get out of it as soon as we can. we cannot have the luxury to make long-term plans, let's save the day (and our face)" and you see this pervasive ad hoc dominated and unprincipled approach to any problem, not only the major things like the armenian question, but minor affairs like the everyday running of some state department.

 

this is one of the main reasons why i oppose expanations such as the young turks planned the genocide way before, and that the war served as a cover. the war may indeed have served as a cover, but for god's sake, enver sent 90,000 troops to sarıkamış in the dead of the winter in summer clothing! and this is the minister of war of the ottoman empire! as we say in turkish, he was so maladroit that he could not guide two geese to the water and come back with both of them! what could this guy plan in advance?

 

frankly, even though the above might be an exaggeration, the fact that they were not particularly good planners stands from their record. and i despise these guys so much that i cannot bear the though of them being given credit for abilities they decidedly did not possess, such as planning. they sank the six centuries old empire in six years, a**eholes! what was the point of getting into wwi?

 

sorry i got heated up a bit, an in the excitement of the moment, some of my assertions might have been slightly exaggerated and a bit wanting in accuracy. but the gist of my position, i hope, is clear.

 

i'll address your other points later on, with a cooler head.

 

take care friend,

[Guest Fadi]

Ali, concerning Ataturk...

 

For someone that you describe as a realist, I wonder how a realist would have such theories as the "Sun Theory" "Turkishness" etc... take a look of whome he has chosen as his right hand, the majority were fantasist ideologist.

 

[ May 16, 2002, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[THOTH]

Ali – excellent discussion points. But of course – I must present my views that perhaps differ in some respects from your conclusions (though we are perhaps less far apart then it may seem)….

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

dear thoth,

 

here is a hasty and partial reply to one of the points you raised:

 

i doubt very much that ataturk seriously had a pan-turanian ideal, he was too much of a realist for that.

---

Agreed – If I said/implied such I had not meant to – just the opposite in fact.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

the reason why he said turkey for the turks was that at the end of the empire it was quite clear that the TURKISH component of the empire was under attack from the west (exposed crystal clear by the infamous sevres treaty). by then, the notion that non-turks (even other muslims) could not be trusted anymore was no longer the product of some xenophobic imagination but observable (and observed) reality. the arabs had rebelled following a welshman (lawrence), the kurds had started with their independence movement (though these were also heavily mixed with islamic aspirations), and the local greeks had fought on the side of the invading greek force in 1919-1922. so could you trust them if you were a turk? he used the cruel but effective method of population exchanges, the greeks of turkey and the turks of greece were exchanged. cruel but effective, and in the final analysis, kind: no-one died.

---

Understood. Obviously nationalism was in the air – for everyone – and what is unusual about subject peoples wishing to be free of (essentially foreign) Empire? And while there certainly was the presence of Armenian Nationalists prior to the war – I would argue that they had much less of an impact on their communities than other nationalist forces did with theirs. Bottom line – and most Armenians knew it well – they were intertwined with the Turks – there was little real hope of any kind of independent Armenian State (prior to the war) – and most all Armenians realized this – thus the issue was not even worth considering. Sevres – though certainly a harsh treaty – and one filled with colonialist’s intentions – was a treaty imposed by victors against a (seemingly) vanquished enemy. This enemy (Ottoman Turkey) initiated hostilities by attacking one of the victor nations in pursuit of territorial expansion. Additionally the Ottomans had clearly proven themselves incapable of governing their own minority population – I mean come now – you don’t just exterminate a substantial minority group within your midst’s and expect no consequence. Obviously Sevres was an extremely harsh treaty (overboard even – I understand – particularly from the Turkish perspective) – and it did little to hide the Imperialist ambitions - but it should have been harsh – just somewhat more realistic and understanding of the suffering experienced by the Turkish people as well – and the allies should have understood that a treaty that was so wholly unacceptable to the Turks – who after all were still a highly militarized nation – would have no chance of success – particularly when the Allies were disarming and were well tired of war.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

and at the end, turkey ended up with a population well over 80% kurdish,

---

I assume you mean Turkish…

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

most of the remainder being a pacific arab minority and a rebellious kurdish minority. the empire was gone, the caliphate was gone, ataturk at any rate was a westerniser with open contempt for things religious (though his contempt for religion itself was obviously more tacit) and he had to build a country from scratch, for this you first have to find somethingto glue the nation together. as ottomanism, islam, socialism (the CUP were socialists of sorts) had all failed, and the only visible thing on the ground was turkish nationalism (after all, this was the only thing the vast majority of the population had in common) what else in your opinion could he use?

---

Hey – I highly admire the man – he was a genius (and a great leader of men). He obviously did exactly what he needed to do (including court & play off the Russians against the Brits – etc). However I could also argue that Stalin did what he needed to do to keep the Soviet Union alive, victorious over the Nazi’s and competitive with the West (not to mention keeping himself in power)…and I could say that I admired him for his strength and insight – but that does not mean that I condone (any or) all of his methods…etc. And I certainly cannot condone the measure Ataturk took against the remaining Armenian population in Anatolia (incl Smyrna) – nor the measures taken against the Armenians of the Caucuses and Easternmost provinces under their control. If he was a greater man than he was he would have sued for peace with the Armenians and begged their forgiveness – then – in my eyes – he would have been one of the greatest men in history.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

allow me to add one observation that i made about turkey that western educated people find a bit hard to understand:

 

in the west, you have had pronounced political identities for quite some time. people embraced ideas and not people. there were relatively well educated populations, the principles and foundations of the states were reasonably well laid out, and people tended to follow them to varying degrees. not so with turkey. when you look at the last century of the empire, especially the last decades, you see quite clearly that people who proclaimed themselves adherents of this or that political idea had in fact very little sound knowledge of the ideas they said - and thought - they were embracing. these people typically took some of the more salient features of various western ideological currents, and pretty much ignored the rest. i hope i am not straying from the subject, but i am a historical linguist by training, and an avid reader of the world's classics (though i have not raed them all yet: this is a lifetime project). islam ceased to be an intellectually productive civilisation at about the time the ottomans came on the scene (they don't have to do anything with it, the thing just got ossified) and the ottomans were in a sense the romans of islam: very effective soldiers, brilliant organisers, and no innovators: no ottoman philosopy, no ottoman science, no original ottoman literature etc. by the 19th century ottoman intellectual life was a desert, and it was getting pretty obvious that a return to the glorious islamic past was no solution. so we turned to the west. but we took the mechanical achievements of the west (military technology, the exact sciences etc.) and paid scant attention to the deeper philosopical undrecurrents that made the west the west. throughout the ottoman period, there was a great dearth of the translation of the western classics for instance (and imagine that there was practically no printing activity prior to the 1870s). learning foreign languages, unless they were arabic or persian, was never the turks's forte or inclination, and consequently you had a largely monolingual elite with only very partial and heavily censored access to western ideas. these people could not have absorbed various western ideologies and grasped their principles thoroughly. and indeed, they hadn't. so it is pretty dangerous from the point of accuracy to use the suffix -ist within the turkish context.

---

Super points – and understood.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

instead, when you look at the problems they faced and the "solutions" they came up with, you see a very strong ad hoc component there: "this failed, let's try that. oh sh*t, we are in a fine mess, c'mon let's get out of it as soon as we can. we cannot have the luxury to make long-term plans, let's save the day (and our face)" and you see this pervasive ad hoc dominated and unprincipled approach to any problem, not only the major things like the armenian question, but minor affairs like the everyday running of some state department.

 

this is one of the main reasons why i oppose expanations such as the young turks planned the genocide way before, and that the war served as a cover. the war may indeed have served as a cover, but for god's sake, enver sent 90,000 troops to sarıkamış in the dead of the winter in summer clothing! and this is the minister of war of the ottoman empire! as we say in turkish, he was so maladroit that he could not guide two geese to the water and come back with both of them! what could this guy plan in advance?

 

frankly, even though the above might be an exaggeration, the fact that they were not particularly good planners stands from their record. and i despise these guys so much that i cannot bear the though of them being given credit for abilities they decidedly did not possess, such as planning. they sank the six centuries old empire in six years, a**eholes! what was the point of getting into wwi?

---

Understood. While the ultimate actions may have been somewhat ad hoc and developed as they occurred – I still believe that these men planned their violence/aggression upon the Armenians – even if its final form developed as it went (and I could argue the same even for Hitler and his “Final Solution”)

 

And remember these same men somehow successfully planned and executed a revolution and take over of an Empire. These same men managed to seize control of the State apparatus throughout the Empire. These same men managed to place their people in charge of Villyets and of towns and such and these same men managed to clear the entirety of Anatolia of 2 Million + Armenians in a matter of what - 4 or 5 months? These same men managed to hold the Western Powers at bay while they did this deed and they managed to do so in a manner to largely avoid prosecution and punishment after the fact – even though they also lost a very ill conceived war. And these same men managed to profit greatly from these events and put themselves in position to be necessary factors for the Kemalists - politically and economically – and they well entrenched themselves after this point. So I argue that these men were not entirely incapable. In fact they have done a fair job escaping justice and making out like bandits and continue to basically thumb their noses at the rest of the world. So if you think you are angry (and you well should be) – imagine how we Armenians must feel.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aurguplu:

sorry i got heated up a bit, an in the excitement of the moment, some of my assertions might have been slightly exaggerated and a bit wanting in accuracy. but the gist of my position, i hope, is clear.

 

i'll address your other points later on, with a cooler head.

 

take care friend,

---

No problem – you always raise good points. And it is valuable for Armenians to be exposed to Turkish viewpoints – we see enough totally uniformed and inflexible ones – so yours is a welcome relief – and we all have very much to learn. Cheers!

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Domino:

Ali, concerning Ataturk...

 

For someone that you describe as a realist, I wonder how a realist would have such theories as the "Sun Theory" "Turkishness" etc... take a look of whome he has chosen as his right hand, the majority were fantasist ideologist.

---

Yes - it is interesting how he glommed onto some fairly outrageous racial theories regarding the turksih people & such - but then i think the granduer of it all (and the alchohol) eventually went to his head...I mean consider the fantasies of Alexander the great, Napoleon & others....