HITLER: WHO REMEMBERS ARMENIAN GENOCIDE?

[MosJan]

HITLER: WHO REMEMBERS ARMENIAN GENOCIDE?

 

- So we might as well carry out the Holocaust!

 

Turkey, which persistently and principally rejected the fact of Armenian Genocide in 20-th century and had the support of both Kaiser and Nazi Germany, had certainly played a serious role in the Jewish Holocaust. But what stance exactly did the Turkish authorities hold in those years?

 

To find out about this, we refer to the article written by Melissa Radler in the Jerusalem’s official newspaper. The article is about the documentary film on Jewish history, which was shot in New York in February 2002.

 

The author of the film, Michael Berenbaum, is an expert in Jewish Holocaust. In the documentary movie he puts forward facts showing what courageous steps Turkey made in order to save Turkish-Jews from the bloody hands of Nazis before and during the World War II. Naturally Turkey, which was a Muslim neutral state, would enjoy the praise and thanks of Jews for saving 20,000 Turkish and German Jews and helping them to find shelter in Palestine.

 

The beginning of the film shows how the Turkish-Jews of France were saved. The dark part of the fact, though, makes one wonder how Turkish diplomats and clergymen managed to rescue all the Turkish-Jews and managed to transport them to a third country.

 

Worth mentioning here is the fact that the Turks did not treat the Romanian-Jews with the same care- rejecting to take 760 people on the board of ‘SS Struma’ ship and take them to Turkey. The ship, though, was attacked and blown to pieces by Russian submarine, and only one passenger survived.

 

Columnist Melissa Radler finds that the shortcoming of the film is the part when the author notes about the alleged genocide of 1,5 million Armenians, referring to which Hitler stated that nobody would respond to Jewish Holocaust, as a proof wondering: ‘Who remembers about the Armenian genocide now?’

 

So the Turks were interested especially in saving the Turkish-Jews of France. The film says that when French authorities decided to introduce a distinguishing mark (a yellow star) which the Jews should wear on their clothes in France, and started the confiscation of Jewish property, Turkish diplomats raised a loud protest. They helped the Turkish-Jews to securely pass to Turkey. Turkish president Kemal Ataturk accepts 200 German and other foreign intellectuals in 1933, provides them with shelter and job, thus using their knowledge and skills. Among those intellectuals was the architect of present day Turkey’s presidential palace, parliament, opera, ballet and defense ministry’s buildings. Thanks to these intellectuals the University of Istanbul became the best foreign German university- outside of Germany. By getting acquainted with the film via the article of Jewish columnist, it becomes clear that the philanthropy of Turkey is expressed only in rescuing Turkish and German Jews. It is clear that Turkish diplomats had close ties with Nazis in those years, otherwise Turkish authorities would not be able to transport Jews under the strict regime that Nazi Germany had.

 

In the long run, if Kaiser Germany helped Ottoman Turkey to commit the Armenian Genocide, the Nazi Germany would as well help its ally Turkey to take 20,000 Turkish-Jews to the country and win the heart of Israel.

 

Whereas Turkey is still running from the responsibility of recognizing the Armenian Genocide…

 

By Rouzan Poghosian

 

 

© Copyright AZG

 

[ March 27, 2002, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: MosJan ]

[THOTH]

Ali - as usual your post consists of a great deal of truth. While I do understand the (German) philisophical roots of (racialy based) population deportation from contested regions, the role of the German military ome of the initial nervousness concerning Armenians (and their possibly suggesting deportation as a course of action), and the early German decision to turn the other way even when it became clear that deportations were only a screen for genocide -- I think it is till a streach to place the blame on the Germans to such a degree.

 

Consider - did the "Red" Sultan consult with Germany prior to his massacre of Armenians? Dis Talat confer with the Germans before sending out his secret orders (perhaps we will never know) and did the local officials who with the assistance of the "special organization" (of B. Shakir) rely on Germans in any way to carry ourt their horrific deeds? The answer by and large (IMO) is "no". In fact German military reported that the Armenians were peaceful unless provoked and reported outrage over their treatment on a number of occasions. Prominant German civilians -most notably Lepsius and Wentger - the photographer - (both probably spelled incorrectly - sorry) both documented and reported out from under strict censorhip conditions (under penalty of death). Even the German officials (including Von Limon) eventually condemned the atrocities - albiet too late...

 

Thus I feel that we can certainly aknowledge the influence of the Germans on several levels and their lateness - as Ottomans #1 ally (and an allegedly Christian nation) - to do anything...but I do not think that the CUP and their supporters should be given an "out" per se by blaming others - even the (always nasty/despicable) Germans...

 

And as for the Hitler quote you are quite right. Not only is the truth of the quote fairly well proven - but the circumstances for Hitler to have known about the Armenian Genocide occur from several reasons - one by him being in Berlin in 1921 during the sensational trial of Telerian for the murdur of Talat. Another is the presence - in Turkey - during the previous war (WWI) of several of his key advisors...

 

If I can find my expose on this issue I wil post it. In the meantime I am off and will be away for a few days - though look foreward to your response.

[THOTH]

Hitler & the Armenian Genocide

(the following was written by myself several years ago)

 

In his 1985 book “Hitler and the Armenian Genocide” Dr K.B. Bardakjian thoroughly establishes the credibility of Hitler’s statement “After all, who remembers now the extermination of the Armenians?” (note: we often see this quote stated in slightly different manner due to latitudes in the translation from the German – however, the gist of the quote is accurate in all versions) Additionally (and in doing so) Dr Bardakjain illustrates Hitler’s knowledge of the Armenian Genocide, through:

 

1) his trusted advisor Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter (stationed in Turkey during WWI),

2) as a result of the Tehlirian trial for the murder of Talat (which was held with much fanfare in Berlin in 1921 while Hitler was also there), and

3) through general knowledge of the plight of the Armenians in WWI which was well known by the Germans as a result of the hundreds of correspondences and publicity from Turkey to this regard during the First World War.

 

The following is an excerpt from the “Contents of Speech to the Supreme Commanders and Commanding Generals, Obersalzberg, August 22, 1939” which I have constructed based on one of the translations of the text of the original document delivered to Louis Paul Lochner days after the Speech. Lochner, an American Journalist in Germany with well known ties to the German resistance (to the Nazis) was known to have passed on many accurate German military and policy documents to the Americans and British in the early part of the war. He was present, and was interviewed (under oath) concerning the validity of the document, at the Nuremberg trials after the war and he testified that his source, Hermann Maassz had passed onto him a number of documents during these period which were all accurate and useful. The originator of the original text is Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of the Abwehr, Hitler’s military intelligence, who was witnessed (by another German officer at the speech – who later testified to this) too be taking notes. These two, who were horrified by its contents, conspired to preserve the notes and pass a copy along to other members of the German resistance. While the original notes have been lost – various translations and subsequent versions are known to be in existence. (and their source with Adm Canaris has been independently verified by Winfried Baumgart, a well known researcher in Nazi documents) One of these translations (from which I quote) now resides in the American Archives.

 

Note the two other versions which were entered into evidence at the Nuremberg trials are now thought (by objective historians) to be less accurate than the version smuggled out by Maassz & published Lochner. The speech (or speeches – might have been two – were not scripted – so only notes which were taken during its/there recitation document the contents. Admiral Canaris was known to be an accurate transcriber of early Hitler speeches at the time. The Nuremberg prosecutors considered also including this version as evidence but thought that the other two were more verifiable (at the time) as their source was more direct and not through a journalist. They wished no doubts as to the veracity of evidence produced. Additionally, this version (with the Armenian reference) had no additional details needed by the prosecutors in the trial. (they were not interested in the Armenian situation). It should be further noted that neither Lochner nor any of the others involved had any sort of connection to any Armenian issues – thus there was no agenda – only an accurate reporting of what was said by Hitler.

 

The following are relevant excerpts from the speech:

 

“Our strength consists of our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter – with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state.”

 

“I have issued a command….that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head (SS) formations in readiness…with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

 

“Poland will be depopulated and then settled by the Germans.”

 

“The little states cannot scare me. Since Kemal’s death Turkey is being governed by cretins and semi-idiots.”

 

“Be tough! Be without compassion! Act more quickly and more brutally than the others! The citizens of western Europe must shudder in horror.”

 

“The new method of conducting war corresponds to the new draft of the frontiers….”

 

And there you have it – what I consider to be the relevant passages.

[THOTH]

More on Hitler, Armenians, Jews & (Nazi views of) Pan-turanism (another brief essay following the previous)

 

Alferd Rosenberg, Chief ideologist of Nazism (the German Gokalp) stated: “Armenians are even worse than Jews” and called Jews and Armenians “the people of the wastes”

 

Hitler is quoted as saying: “Considering that only a pure consciousness of racism can ensure the survival of our race, we were constrained to introduce racial legislation in such a clear way that such legislation could eliminate all alien racial infection, and this infection is not caused only by Jews. In enlightening the German people with regard to this racial legislation, we should conceive of it as having the task of protecting the German blood from contamination, not only of the Jewish but also of the Armenian blood”

 

Seems strange that he would single out the Armenians – but there is much in common between the two peoples and the Nazi’s were into this Eugenics thing where they measured characteristics (& twisted them around something fierce)

 

Hitler also is quoted as saying: “One of the most famous examples is the downfall of that people who were once so proud, the Persians, who now lead a pitiful existence as Armenians”

 

Apparently Hitler believed that Armenians were once the original Persians – and although they were clearly “Caucasian” they had fallen low by blending with Semitic peoples etc. – thus he saw Armenians as somehow “fallen” Caucasians.

 

It is also interesting how the Nazis saw Pan-Turanism as a threat (and of course an inspiration). Remember – it was the Nazis who returned Talat’s body in 1943 – attempting to curry favor with the Turks (many of whom were very interested in sharing Hitler’s vision). At the same time, the Nazi’s wished to use Pan-Turanist aspirations of the Turks to draw off Russian divisions in defense of the Caucuses (which never materialized) they were fearful of the potential for Pan-Turanism.

 

On 8 May 1942 Rosenburg, then minister of Axis occupied territories in the east reported on a series of discussions with Hitler:

 

“The Fuehrer…asked my opinion about the Armenians. I stated that Armenia was the best bolt between Turkey and the Aserbeidschan and thus could stop a Pan-Turanism movement towards the East. Generally speaking the Armenian people themselves are stationary, a people of farmers who had considerable industrial skill.”

 

Thus, the Nazi’s schemed both with the Turks (Ultimately unsuccessful due to considerable U.S. and British pressure) while fearing the potential competition of Pan-Turanism.

[THOTH]

Hitler's first mention of Armenians

(and another)

 

Adolph Hitler interview with Richard Breiting (who was poisoned by the Gestapo in 1937) , editor of Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten (a German daily newspaper) 4 May 1931: (excerpts)

 

“We must already be thinking of resettlement of millions of men from Germany and Europe. Migrations of people have always taken place”

 

“Are we really going to remain a nation of have-nots forever?” “ We have the capacity to rouse and lead the masses against this situation.”

 

“We intend to introduce a great resettlement policy;”

 

In 1923 little Greece could resettle a million men. Think of the biblical deportations and the massacres of the Middle Ages and remember the extermination (some texts translate as eradication) of the Armenians (some texts translate as Armenia).”

 

This proves that Hitler was both aware of the Armenian Genocide and was influenced by the Turkish success at "eradicating Armenia" and "exterminating Armenians"

[aurguplu]

thoth

 

i think there are grounds to think that i) the hamidian massacres and the 1915 genocide are linked, and ii) the germans might have been the inspirators at least to a certain degree.

 

the usual ottoman response to any real or anticipated threat would be large-scale killing to "chastise" the rebellious element. this had been applied throughout ottoman history to a number of different peoples, ironically most commonly to fellow turks (consider the treatment of the kızılbash (alevis) by yavuz sultan selim (selim the grim, regebat 1512-1520) and later instances when entire turkish tribes were deported from anatolia to the balkans). but usually these were applications of a "heavy hand" to chastise people and break their back so that they would see the error of their ways and not attempt to rebel again. as for the innocent being killed together with the "guilty", the "justification" can be found in the turkish proverb "kurunun yanında yaş da yanar" (next to the dry one, the wet one also burns). but until 1915, there was no conscious attempt to systematically eradicate an entire ethnicity.

 

the germans were very much influential in the ottoman empire starting with the reformation (tanzimat) and kaiser wilhelm had formed better relations with sultan abdulhamid than either the british or the french. the sultan himself had no respect for human life, be it turk or armenian or anything else. he is a very controversial figure, in him one sees at the same time an awareness of turkish ethnicity together with the tendency to crush any nationalist sentiment, including turkish. it is no coincidence in my opinion that the party that ultimately carried out the genocide was the one which had deposed him six years before.

 

as to the pan-turanian motives of the young turks in killing the armenians, i do not think it was the major one: the young turks appear to me to have resorted to pan-turanism only as a result of their understanding that the multi-ethnic ottoman empire was not going to last, and that it had to be replaced by something else for the sake of the turkish nation which had formed its backbone. here one must add that the fever of nationalism had affected the ottoman christians first, and muslims second, and turks were not the first muslims to be affected. so to ascribe the genocide to racist tendencies of the turks appears to me as an over-simplification, and runs the danger of overlooking other factors.

 

also, german culture was quite influential with the turks, especially among military ranks, from the time of abdulhamid and actually a good deal before that. most of the founders of turkish nationalism were german-influenced, some had even had their education in germany. enver was trained in germany as an officer. the germans produced some of the strongest scholars in the field of turkic studies in the 19th century, and many of our nationalists were their pupils. on a different note, ziya gökalp, chief ideologue of the c.u.p., is most noteworthy for his introduction of durkheim into turkish philosophy. so one should by no means underestimate german influence in turkey, and there are at any rate works (such as dadrian's) that study german responsibility in the genocide.

 

it looks after all that germans might well be responsible for the two major genocides of 20th century that inspired later ones such as those in cambodia, rwanda, bosnia, and tibet. it must be difficult for conscious german to sleep in that.

 

cheers,

[khodja]

Even when I have dealings wih third generation Germans in America, I can still sense something in their psyche which I find abhorrent. Under the veneer of a high culture still lies the heart of their ancestors who stormed the Roman Empire centuries ago. The heart of a barbarian!

 

So Dadrian's book about who were the masterminds behind the Genocide was no surprise to me. The Turks are now "holding the bag," dealing with a perennial diplomatic issue which the Germans, working with the Ittihadists, initiated.

[aurguplu]

hello

 

there are some points that needs to be addressed in the above posting:

 

1. the jews are one of the very few peoples that the turks had good relations throughout history on a more-or-less consistent basis: a medieval turkic kingdom, that of khazaria, adopted judaism in 740 AD and became a shelter for many jews, and a - small - part of askenazim jews are partial descendants of this turkic nation. tukak, the father of seljuk, the founder of the seljuk sultanate, was a commander in the khazar army, and one of the first-degree relatives of seljuk (a brother/son/uncle(?)) was called israel.

 

later on, when the spanish inquisition gave the jews a choice between conversion and expulsion in 1492 (the year columbus "discovered" america), the ottoman sultan bayezid ii gave them shelter in ottoman turkey, and our sephardic jewish community stems from that time. also, jewish pogroms, which are characteristic of european history, are generally absent from turkish history. this attitude continued throughout turkish history, for instance, the ottoman government did not oppose the settlement of jews in palestine after the start of the zionist movement in the 19th century, and saved turkish jews (and, if i remember correctly, some non-turkish ones as well) from the nazis. turkey was also the first muslim country to recognise the state of israel, and that without delay, in 1949 if i remember correctly. to this day we are the only muslim country that had consistently good relations with israel. it is something the more intelligent of us cherish and we intend to keep it that way.

 

2. the turks could only save turkish jews, and not non-turkish ones, because germany wanted turkey as an ally in war (which turkey carefully avoided), and so could make certain concessions to turkey, but turkey on the other hand could not ask for more than that, as that would amount to a declaration of war to germany, and turkey was in no position to militarily afford that at that time. turks did their best to save what they could, and their best was not that bad at all (this at a time when the other countries of europe, who denigrate germany freely now, either turned a blind eye to german atrocities or actually collaborated with them in the extermination of the jews).

 

3. the sinking of the struma was a tragedy that we could not avert, because taking them to turkish soil would mean war with germany. as stated above, we did our best to save as many jews, but we were in no position to engage in a war effort against germany at the time.

 

a word on the hitler quote: much ink has been spilled on that, whether it was verified or not, but a point is being missed: who remembers the armenians now? well, hitler certainly did, as he was a german, and one who had fought in wwi. his nation is squarely to blame for the armenian genocide almost as much as the turks are, if ambassador morgenthau's story (which may be partly, but not totally, dismissed as wartime propaganda) is to be trusted. it is quite possible that the actual idea of genocide was a german invention, and the turks such as talat and enver, and a good many balkan muslim refugees who had flooded anatolia then, had good (!) reasons to hate christians, became unwitting collaborators in the realisation of german plans for the ultimate german aim of middle eastern (and then world) domination.

 

i for one believe that if it weren't for the germans, the armenians would have suffered a good deal less and there would be a viable armenian population in turkey today.

 

cheers,

[Twilight Bark]

It should not matter by whom they were inspired. I personally don't care if they were inspired by the tooth fairy.

 

The Genocide was simply an exaggerated and extended instance of that time-tested tradition.

Because the simultaneous occurrence of "the perceived need" for it and the opportunity to carry it out had been lacking until it happened.

 

True. But the intellectual roots of the Young Turks can be traced not to Germany but France.

 

I tend to agree. The Ottoman Palace wished to keep the ethnicity genie in the bottle, and tried to suppress any talk of ethnicity. Since the Turks were de facto the dominant component of the empire, the Sultan thought, talking loudly about Turkishness would only irritate the oppressed and restive minorities further. With the loss of the Balkans, the Young Turks decided that there was no point in continuing the charade. For a long time they had been using the word "Ottoman" as a code word for "Turk" anyway.

Of course it was a replacement. That doesn't minimize its role in forming the psychology of the perpetrators. While the big-wigs (except Enver) did know that it was impossible to form a pan-Turkic empire right then and there, the ideal of Turan certainly was a central one. The Young Turks were not merely a bunch of practical, pragmatic, and ruthless men trying to salvage an empire. They had a theoretical framework through which they saw the destiny of the Turkish nation they were about to synthesize. There is no other "rational" explanation for commiting a genocide for an area whose population was less than 50% Turkish, and had practically no economic value. Do not confuse the diplomatic pragmatism of Ataturk with what the Young Turks were thinking. Not that Ataturk disliked the pan-Turanian ideal; he was just too smart to chase it before its time. He had no qualm about being expansionist when the time was right. Remember that place special to your heart, the Hatay province? And trying to erase the pathetic remnants of the "independent Armenia" from the map was also not beyond his earlier ambitions. I am sure being direct neighbors with Azerbaijan provided no motivation whatsoever .

 

Please do not lump the Balkan christians with the Armenians. Not even for rhetorical convenience or advantage.

 

It was undiluted arrogance, not "racist tendencies". The scary thing is that the same arrogance persists to this day.

Not so fast. While the Germans gleefully watched Armenians get murdered and are accomplices by way of inaction, they are not "responsible" for the Genocide. "Bearing responsibility" and "being responsible" are slightly but importantly different. However, I do agree that a German chancellor, on his knees, begging for forgiveness (once again) is probably justified. And their supplying some of the funds needed to re-settle willing Armenians in their ancestral lands is also probably justified. Not that any of this is going to happen; how do you say "fat chance" in German .

 

As for the discussion about German national character, it perhaps belongs in a different thread. It is hard for one to make such generalizations without being a bigot oneself.

[khodja]

Twilight Bark,

 

You allude to the fact that my statements about German national character amount to bigotry. I do not look to the activities of the Third Reich in this regard but to my personal experiences. At the Protestant church I attended in my youth, we were looked at as interlopers. Those of British and Scandinavian backgrounds may have questioned why we were there, but the nastiest comments came from those descended form German immigrants. Surprisingly, the Jews whom I befriended at school never treated me poorly, in spite of the fact that I was Armenian, or even when they realized that I was part Assyrian.

[Twilight Bark]

I didn't say it was bigotry. I said it is hard to talk about it without crossing the line into the bigotry zone. I know what you are talking about; I have often sensed it myself. However, I have also met absolutely wonderful, humanistic people with germanic ancestry. The Germanic culture may have carried very ancient scars into the modern era. If you think about what it takes to "purify" a population with recessive genetic traits, you are forced to conclude that systematic and generations-long elimination or forcing out of individuals with "unwanted" traits must have occurred at some distant point in time. In other words, the origination of a Nordic race must have involved pretty unpleasant "events". That doesn't make their descendents evil. And I don't even know if today's people of nordic ancestry harbor xenophobic tendencies more often than others.

When I was little, I briefly made good friends with a Jewish girl in the neighborhood. Of course it was completely innocent, both in terms of "gender" and "ethnic group". When her mother saw her daughter riding in the back of my bike, I remember sensing that she was profoundly disturbed by what she saw. "Mortified" is an apt description I think. Needless to say, she was called into the house and we never talked beyond "hello" after that day. I have seen similar attitudes by Jews over the years. I have also seen attitudes completely opposite to that. So where does it leave us? Nowhere in particular, except where we started. No need to generalize.

[Guest Fadi]

TB... beside some little details... I agree with you...(I think its the first time )

 

But just a little thing, Pan-Turanism was not really a central etc...

 

You forget the real central reason of the Armenian genocide I believe... and that is the nationalisation of economy and the "living space", I tough before that Pan-Turanism was one of the two branchs and one of the two main reasons, but now I see it as a plus etc...

 

With the Armenians all the plans set by the Young-Turks was impossible, the nationalisation of the economy was one of the prime targets, or maybe even the prime target of the Young-Turks, and with the Armenians, that was impossible... Pan-Islamism and Pan-Turkism(different then Pan-Turanism) then were other major ellements, Pan-Turanism was then the plus needed...

 

But Enver was not the only one that believed in this, many major intellectuals, with Tartar orgine etc.... believed its possibility, the Ittihadist branch responsable of the genocide, were fondamentalist Pan-Turanist believers...

 

Halil is an example, Karabekir, and even Emin himself, that was seen as a "modern" Turk had "Panturanist" ideal.

[Twilight Bark]

Come on now. It's not that bad

Economic greed and living space does not explain it at all. If greed were the central reason, the slaughter would have targeted the well-off. It didn't. It was across-the-board. Also, there are politically (and otherwise) less expensive ways to confiscate property and money. For example, you "nationalize" everything, and then re-distribute it according to "national priorities". No, that wasn't it.

 

As for "living space". That doesn't cut it either. Armenians from areas that had no chance of secession were also murdered wholesale (again, rich or poor didn't make a difference). The few eastern provinces that had at least a remote chance of one day seceding from the empire had little resources or population, and did not comprise such a big chunk as to limit the "living space" per se. Even today, the region is sparsely populated. If you cut away the territory that could have been possibly incorporated into an independent Armenia at the time from today's Turkey, its impact would be negligible in every way except "ego". Armenians were thoroughly cowed at the time, and no serious rebellion was imminent anyway. And even if it did happen, and miraculuously succeeded, its economic effect would be a big zero and its territorial effect would be minimal. Certainly nothing that justifies a genocide (as a "tool", for the supposedly panicked leaders, concerned about the future of their nation; huh!). The only remaining answer, to which we arrive by elimination, is that it must have been the arrogance and hatred produced by a pan-Turkic psychology a la Gokalp.

 

[ March 26, 2002, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[Guest Fadi]

Well, then I have to desagree with you

 

The nationalisation of economy was not only based on taking properties away, but the turkification that goes with it, sorry TB, thats not only my opinion but has been even recognised by Turkish sociologues and historians and recognised the fact... Avioglu is an example here.

 

Trowing away the nationalisation and centralisation, you trow away the hearth and main reasons of the genocide, The Young-Turks had these plans, there was just no place for the Armenians, just take a look at their ideals, all were based on this nationalisation of economy, when I say nationalisation I am putting the accent on the word "nation" taking away Armenian proterties was not the solution for many reasons, once the war is over, and once Turkey could have lost the war(This was considered after their defeat at Russian fron early in the war), These Armenians would reclaim their properties, no Armenian no claim over them... and this is exacly why the plan was set on Feb. 1915, after the serious defeats in Russian fronts...

 

Just events speaks themselves...

 

As for leaving space, I wonder what I can add, pratically all the works covering about any genocide put this as a central reason.

[Twilight Bark]

Dear Domino,

 

All I request is logic, not references.

 

Why on earth would the Armenians be allowed to get back their wealth is mysterious. They certainly would work and start building wealth once again; that is for for sure. But they didn't want them there did they? Hence the chauvinistic (pan-Turanic psychology) motive. It wasn't just the money. They just did not want them there.

 

About "living space". Come on now, you mean those few provinces were so important that they were part of a critical "living space"? Without them the new Turkey would be crippled? That is ridiculuous. They just did not want Armenians there.

 

I am sorry, but you haven't addressed any of the logical contradictions that I pointed out.

 

[ March 26, 2002, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[Guest Fadi]

O.K I understand, you do not understand what I mean by living space.

 

Now first the nationalisation of economy was against ottoman law, and we know a good Ottoman Senator that has pointed out the illegality of taking others properties. Don;t we ?

 

Now we can only bases our analyse of the curent chornology and what happened and the political motives behind that... and then we use logic.

 

The extermination policy with the evidence at hand was decided at Feb. 1915, after the major defeat in Russian front. The Ottoman nationalisation plan was impossible on the current Ottoman laws, this is why the alleged return of constitution never happened during Young-Turks reign, it was supposed to happen, then they talking about modifications of the Laws, the it was after 1911, and various problems that have lead to the Balkan war that the living space theories have been formulated, and the nationalisation of economy was the main bases of this ideals... Pan-Turanism was a more wide thing, a plus, that after the defeat early in the war that the Ottoman realised it was impossible (but then later saw it possible, with Halil excurtions)that they could lose the war... the Ottoman economy was devasted already, and the only millties left(the Arabic independence started to be evident at that time) that would have controled the Ottoman after the empire would have been ruinated would have been the Armenians. The nationalisation was ment to balance... then the defeat and the realisation that they could have lose the war... the long waited opportunity to eradicate the Armenians appeared, the thinked the opportunity, first the living space, a Turkish republic, without foreign powers(Armenians and their economical influence), and then the nationalisation(nationalisation, mean taking off the economical power of foreigners(Armenians considered also as such) and give it to the Turkish people)

 

The special tax in WWII, and the plan of the evacuation of the Greeks, Armenians and Jews during WWII, was also destinated to take away minorities power from Istambul and give the entire power to the Turkish people...

 

So I stick with my opinion

 

[ March 26, 2002, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Guest Fadi]

And another thing, if you think that Pan-Turanism alone was the central... then you believe some sort of racism... and I would desagree with you on this.

[Twilight Bark]

Pan-turanism was a central factor, not the central one. As I said before, the Young Turk chauvinism was not "racist" in the German sense. However, they had a deep sense of who was assimilable into the soon-to-be-synthesized Turkish identity, and who was not. Armenians were not assimilable, so they had to get rid of them. And they despised them even more for daring to suggest that they should have equal rights. That is where the "arrogance" comes in. Again, the facts on the ground compels me to discard any "explanations" based on "need" of any sort. They didn't need the land, and they could get the money by other means. They ruled the country, and they could pass any necessary laws they wished. Or they could simply raise taxes and apply it selectively, as the Turkish republic did decades later. I can assure you that genocide was orders of magnitude farther outside of the Ottoman legal system formally. That did not stop it from happenning. Those people that pulled off a genocide were too timid to pass through a nationalization scheme, or some other tax scheme to be applied selectively. Right.

 

[ March 26, 2002, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[Guest Fadi]

I understood for your others posts you found Pan-Turanism as the central point or a central point. Even if you do not put it as the only central point, still it dosn't make sense. Because you you trow away the Pan-Turanistic ideologies, still the genocide would have happened. The Pan-Turanism idea was hardly affected after their early defet, then considering Pan-Turanism as one of the centrals, then it should not have been any genocide, since after their early defeat, they consentrated on the West, from that time and before the end of 1917, the Pan-Turanist ideal was vanished, but it was on that specific moment that the important part of the genocide happened... The Pan-Turanism explain the campagnes for example in the Armenian province of Persia and other excurtions of that sort, but do not explain the total eradication when already their ideal was vanished early in the war.

 

Now about nationalisation... I am starting to believe that you are contradicting me for the plesure of contradicting me I have no dough that the nationalisation was the central point of the genocide, all the other cosncequences derived from it. Now you say that the government that they had, they didn;t needed to respect any laws... I do not agree with you here, not respecting laws would lead rebellions and foreign interventions, it is only in the case of war that they could have dissimulated this... before the Balkan war the Ottoman was preparing already plans for their nationalisation of economy as early as 1911, they introduced the second version of the Penal code 166, that was supposed to "kill" rebellions from those that would act against Ottoman policy, on the other way they changed the constitution to permit minorities to serve in the Ottoman army, that was a part of the nationalisation, nationalisation do not only mean taking money from one and give it to others, it mean a kind of equality, then there was the plan of the destruction of the millety system(that was supported ignorently by Armenians, thinking that its destruction ment equality), but we know after study why all these plans were set, it was the same plans that the Kemalists continued with, the nationalisation of ecnomy and this even after WWII, only now for some descades that this plan has worked.

 

Now the destrcution of the millety and the assimilation of the milleties to form a ki9nd of Turkish nationalism was the aim of the Ittihadists, and the nationalisation of economy was the central point that hav't worked and would not have worked without the extermination of the Armenians, I also believed before, and had some discussion with MJ, about the Pan-Turanism being one of the central of the genocide, I do not believe anymore, it dosn;t work, it dosn't explain the central of the genocide, without this Pan-turanism the genocide would have happened, it was just a plus that served them in the killing of the Armenians out-side of Ottoman borders.

 

Now again, you say there was other aims to nationalise the economy, they just had to take away their properties and increase taxes... nope I'm sorry but here is where your argumentation fall the most I think. They could not just increase the taxes and take away their properties, it would have created rebellions, and reasons of foreign interventions, and that problem would have continuated long and long, what if the Armenians refuse to pay ? What if they under-register and excape taxation(what many did already), the war presented itself, and gave the opportunity to do what they wanted a Turkish homeland a Turkish nation, and the nationalisation of economy that meant the return of the "return" of power in the hand of the Turks, when I say nationalisation I am talking about the nationalisation of economy for the Turks, since the millety system had to be abolished, the only ellement that would have existed were the Turks... so for this you could not have only taken more taxes from these minorities, because the Millety system was to be abolished, and these minorities had to be considered as Turks, and since Turks, from the new constitution they could not have been taxed more. And add to this, the war permited it to be possible, not only deporting them, but killing them, because after the failure in Russian front, they considered that they could have lost the war, the nationalisation of the economy would have returned in the favour of the Armenians, and since only their presperity would have permited them to survive when on the other side would have ruined the Turks, then it was evident that there would have been the construction of an Armenian state at the East, and all this "richness" would have disapeared.

 

Now about living space... I still wonder how you can diseagree with this, when it is one of the main branches of the reasons of the known genocides of the last century, the Turks needed that soil and was considered to be their homeland, there was no place for the Armenians, how can you disagree with this ? Its one of the basic of known genocides... and without this ellement a genocide would have been near impossible.

[Twilight Bark]

Dear Domino,

 

I believe we are both getting tired of this discussion, not least because the terms that we use mean somewhat different things to each of us, and their breadth of generality varies crucially as well. While we do have significant differences in our interpretations, we are closer than our rhetoric implies.

 

I define Pan-Turanism as a fuzzy ideal, and not as some immediate plans to form a territorial empire. It is a state of mind. It is saying "We come from a long line of glorious Turkic states, and we will make Turkey the last and only independent Turkic state. We are the flag-bearers of of all Turkic people on the planet. We will once again be an 'ordu-millet' (nation-army)". A multi-ethnic confederation simply did not fit into this self-image at all. Armenians were the primary spoilers. That is why they viewed Armenians as "alien". In other words, you must ask why they felt compelled to make sure that any "alien" elements did not have any serious presence in the new, synthetic nation. If they did not have that romantic, pan-Turanic state of mind in their heads, they would view the Armenians as useful allies within the system and would take advantage of their industriousness and considerable expertise in numerous areas. They wounded the Ottoman remnants fatally by committing the genocide. They inflicted overall damage to satisfy their obsession with accomplishing a culturally "pure", new nation worthy of being called the flagbearer of all of the Turkic world. That is what I mean by "pan-Turanic motivation".

 

As for the miraculuous timidity about imposing unfair taxes. Again, if wartime provides good cover for genocide, it provides an even better cover for "funny taxes", as we all know. If they didn't care about purifying the new nation into one that is worthy of representing all of Turkic world, they would target those Armenians that had significant possessions, and would have left the Armenian peasants alone. They could have arrested all the community leaders everywhere (as they did in Istanbul), and accuse them with trumped up charges and confiscate their properties. The arrest of intelligentsia in Istanbul was enough to turn the Armenians into a headless chicken already; we all know how much resistance Armenians put up in the face of obvious oblivion. They could be made even more helpless. But the Young Turks didn't want them there, did they? The "need" for wresting economic power from the "aliens", and defining their "living space" as one that is cleansed of "aliens", and similar attitudes are hard-wired into the "romantic" pan-Turanic self-view of the Young Turks. There was no other factor that can explain the transformation of their identity from that of "Ottoman" to "the last and only representatives of Turkic glory". I am surprised that you don't see the obvious.

[Twilight Bark]

Yes Domino, just as a fish needs a bicycle.

 

Hardly. They "needed" that land for two reasons:

1. To maximize their territory at any cost, and have it free of "alien" elements.

2. To be geographically as close to the rest of the Turkic world as possible.

 

I don't. And the reason there was no place for Armenians was that they did not fit at all into the image of the new state being the flagbearer of the Turkic world, the new "ordu-millet".

 

Really? How about the Tutsi genocide? Was it about territory? How about the Jewish genocide? Was it about territory? How about the Cambodian genocide? Was it about territory?

 

Come on now, Domino. I appreciate your encyclopaedic knowledge, but I am afraid your your analysis could use some improvement, especially in the self-consistency area.

[Guest Fadi]

Hardly. They "needed" that land for two reasons:

1. To maximize their territory at any cost, and have it free of "alien" elements.

2. To be geographically as close to the rest of the Turkic world as possible.

 

You just described the definition of Living space here TB, and this from your own words.

 

As for Tsusi genocide, well it was also about Living space... as for the Cambodgian, O.K here you may have a point, but the Cambodgian genocide is not considered a genocide by many specialists, it is some sort of autogenocide, and the Kmer Rouge ideal... that is different then other genocides.

 

Now about the Holocaust... sorry TB, But the Living space theory was one of the center of Rosenberg ideologies and the NAZI, it was the center of Hitler ideal... the Living space was the Hearth of the Holocaust and even more then the Armenian genocide... because the "Living Space" theory was first time described with the introduction of the "Living space" By Hitler himself even in Interview he gave himself.

 

I dont know if Thoth posted that quote about Hitler interview somewhere on the quotes... but he exposed it clearly in 1933, and it was his regime that gave this specific name and the word "Living space" you can hardly find(I never found one) work covering the Holocaust that will not dedicate at least one chapter conserning Hitlerian "Living space"

 

Now before this the conseption pf living space was more Vague, but if we take the definitions given by the NAZI themselves, then the Living-Space would be like in the case of the Holocaust what lead to the Armenian genocide... Living space is not only about not space to live, here I am talking about the ideology of the "Living space" described by the NAZI...

 

Its like Fascism, Fascism the word itself was first given by Mussolini, and there is definitions that goes with it, now if the definitions fit with a precious event, then we can use the word Fascism etc...

[Guest Fadi]

Just to add...

 

I forgot an ellement, the "Lebensraum" the one kind of proves that still were not destroyed(other then the list of the Concentration camps), and were centered about the Living Space ideology, that without it, the NAZI would not have been the NAZI that we know they are.

[Twilight Bark]

What I would like you to see is that the "living space" nonsense is "needed" only when there is a substratum of a theoretical, exclusivist ideology. You are looking at the symptom and declaring it as the cause, as if it sprang into existence out of thin air. Why on earth would Armenians, Jews, or Tutsis become "alien" in the absence of such new, "romantic" ideologies? That is the question you have been avoiding to answer. If we agree on the definition of "living space" that I offered, then we would have a hard time avoiding to agree on the reason why the concept exists in the first place.

[Guest Fadi]

TB, I do not understand what you are trying to say... you desagree with me, then you bring the exact arguments that proves my point, just read.

 

The living space is tha outcome the last stage before all known genocides we know, of course many lack of some ellemts compared with the "Lebensraum" of the NAZI, and the growing German "race" but still the majority of the other ellements are present, and more the Armenian case on this term is very near to that.

 

The nationalisation of economy was what emerged all this in the last years... the conscenquences was ----> the Living space, the Pan-Turanism was a plus, something that was not necessary for the genocide itself, but more its continuity and an argument.

 

But you cant reject the living space, without it there could not be any genocide at all... because the Armenians being Armenians and not Turks, trying to get rid of them would without any dough directly be linked with the ----> living space because you admit there was no racism. So what can it be ? Even you argument of the Pan-Turanism being one of the centers, would lead ---> Living space... because the ideal of the Pan-Turanism is based on the Living space.