Uh the Armenian genocide was before Hitler..

Mike Jacobs, also are you aware what Armenians are doing today in Azerbayjan? I am open to all sort of criticism, but not to blind propoganda. What makes me sad is the hypocrisy of the West/Christian pact about such issues. If it is againt Christians, it is unacceptable, but if it is against a Muslim population, West/Christian pact is completely blind. Never forget what happened in Bosnia& Herzogevina.

MAIA ALEXANDROVA,
(By the way, my name is Sefer Tan and not Safer Tan….)

More than a hundred years have elapsed since the outbreak of the First World War. Armenian-Turkish relations during those four years are politicized that mis-colour historical facts. Exclusively one-sided views, reflected in the sways of some third party parliaments, only convey rash pre-arrangements serving power politics instead of justice. In some Western mainstream media and legislative organs one perceives calls for “coming to terms with the past”. The presumption is that the TURKS WILL HAVE TO DO THAT.

Justice dislikes double standards and lies, and historical fact-finding demands balanced recording. Many safety measures are involved in thorough exploration. Probing into the past cannot be restricted only to a nation, region, date, or to an ethnic/religious group. No nation can demand from another to examine solely the past of the latter. No nation may be singled out by others and made a scapegoat. Moreover, no nation may be forced to serve the interests of another under the label of “coming to terms with its past”. If need be, the records of all countries, without any exception, and no veto privilege operating in favor of anyone of them, should be open for close scrutiny. Coming to terms with the past can only have a universal and comprehensive proportion, leaving no room for power politics.

Many Armenian argument ignore a mass of crucial facts. They throw aside the dimensions of their armed revolt, they count out the deaths that they have caused, they skip the frequent wars in which they participated, they overlook the memoirs of their own commanders who admit Armenian bloodshed of non-Armenians (e.g. The Manifesto of Hovhannes Katchaznouni, First Prime Minister of the Independent Armenian Republic made in 1923), they ignore the destructive effect of contagious diseases especially in war conditions, and they withhold a series of facts that weaken their case. This ensemble of facts are indeed troubling for the Armenian version of events.

Remember! Every battle, every war is a genocide when you count only the deads of one side!

Let all nations, including the Armenians, Turks, and the rest, come to terms, with their past. If all agree, without exception, to do so, I dare to state that the Turks will be among those with the whitest records, as much as possible, of all times gone by. The Ottoman administration implemented the millet (semi-autonomous religious communities) system, fair and progressive in those days, within its vast domain. When the Christian churches condemned the Armenian Monophysite (single nature of Christ) belief as a heresy, it was none other than the Turkish Sultan who in 1461 recognized this community giving it the basic freedoms of worship, the use of the national language, and the right to live, work, trade, and (later) to hold public office. Ottoman Kindness towards the Jews during the notorious Inquisition era many parts of Europe should be common knowledge by now. The Turks rescued the Jews from almost total extinction then and opened their frontiers once more during the Nazi era in Germany and saved many from the Holocaust. These were not isolated phenomena. The Ottoman society frequently became a haven for individuals or peoples, including the Russian Old Believers, and the refugees fleeing after the failure of the Calvinists and when the Jews faced all-out annihilation.

According to the Convention on Genocide adopted in 1948, we are facing a genocide when certain acts are committed against a “national, ethnical, racial or religious group” with “the intent to destroy [it] in whole or in part”. The Armenians doubtlessly constitute such an (ethnic and religious) group; however, did the Turkish perpetrators really act with the required intent to destroy? Is it even possible to designate prior conduct using a legal category that did not exist at the time said conduct occurred?

These are by no means mere juristic objections. The prohibition of genocide constitutes so-called peremptory international law. The “prevention and punishment” demanded by the Convention is thus directed not only at the perpetrating and territorial State, but at all States on our planet. They are all called to prevent genocide and – if prevention is unsuccessful – to punish it. The extraordinary degree of wrongdoing inherent in genocide – the attack on one of the above-mentioned groups and the denial of its right to exist implicit in this attack – makes it the “crime of crimes”, to which particular stigma is attached. Thus it is quite understandable that a State should try to defend itself against the stigmatization associated with genocide.

A person can only be held responsible for a conduct on the basis of the criminal law applicable at the time that the events took place. This is why the perpetrators of the Nazi Holocaust could not be convicted of genocide – at least not by German courts – but “only” of mass murder.

Nor could the Turkish perpetrators have been convicted of genocide for their acts (which predated the Holocaust), even if genocide had been defined as an offence and a court set up immediately afterwards. To be sure, however, the legal standards of the Genocide Convention must apply, at least if the aim of blaming a given group of persons or a nation with genocide is to achieve the legal consequences and moral stigmatization. “Genocide” is nothing but a legal term; otherwise it will degenerate into a vague concept of political combat.

None of this excludes at the outset that the crimes committed against the Armenians may indeed merit a genocide verdict based on a comprehensive review of the available sources. However, in light of the difficulties demonstrated above, the charge of genocide is not one to be brought lightly.

We should also remain aware of the differences between the Armenian case and the Holocaust perpetrated by the National Socialists. The latter’s classification as genocide is based upon DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (especially the infamous document of the Wannsee Conference on the Final Solution to the Jewish Question) that clearly proves the Nazis’ intent to destroy the Jewish people. Furthermore, this intent was confirmed in a large number of trials, such as the Jerusalem Eichmann Trial and the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials, even though in the German trials the prohibition of retroactivity meant that genocide – subsequently incorporated into German law – could not be applied as a criminal offence. In Nuremberg, the Nazi perpetrators were actually charged with genocide – despite the prohibition of retroactivity and the lack of a clearly defined offence – and some of them even convicted of it (as a crime against humanity!) in the famous Jurists’ Trial (on this see Kevin J. Heller, The Nuremberg Military Tribunals, OUP 2011, pp. 249-50).

To Conclude…..

Every word of the assertion that “the Armenians were loyal citizens, deprived of their right, but living in their homeland, where they constituted a majority that became a target of genocide” is no more than orchestrated misrepresentations. The complete truth cannot be such a distorted simplification that may be carbon-copied by one spokesperson after another.

Judgment should rest on collection of facts. Censoring of one side may only be described as a political game that serves the urge to revenge (like you have been demonstrating here!!). Moreover, the question is not the agonies and grievances of some Armenian and some Turkish families in the past. There is no doubt that several families on both sides suffered. There are recollections of survivors on both sides. Eastern Anatolia is full of mass graves, recently unearthly, that covered the dead bodies of thousands of Muslims. But to conclude that the loss of some Armenian lives is an incontestable fact of genocide on the part of the Turks is an outrageous contention.

“Historians have examined the evidence and recognized the truth of the facts. Information is available for those who want to learn”, you wrote. There exist absolutely no reliable documents that prove Ottoman Government complicity. Who are those ‘historians’’? Where is that evidence of ‘the truth of facts’? Yes, I do want to learn… Prove it!

Do you understand what this statement means: “Concerning the question of Armenia, we can conclude from all of this that NO FINAL JUDGMENT SHOULD BE MADE BEFORE A REPORT HAS BEEN PRESENTED BY AN ‘INDEPENDENT HISTORICAL COMMISSION’ DULY ADVISED BY INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAWYERS!”

If popular organs, such as some Western parliaments, suppress the voice of full facts, who can the public turn to? If responsible institutions help certain crucial facts to be held back, what can be the value of the conclusions of the political decision-makers? If preconceived notions overwhelm fairness, what will be the effect of false ruling on the discriminated party? How trustworthy may an examination of Armenian-Turkish relations be if even the mere expression of Turkish views are prohibited?

Those who venture to ask a nation to investigate its past and moreover attempt to dictate to it the conclusions it should reach are demonstrating a monstrous partisanship. If need be, let no nation be exempt from scrutiny. Especially the imperialism of late 19th and the early 20th centuries was not a scheme of “crisis management” but the cause of that crisis and its escalation. Failure to recognize that role makes the issue only more complicated. The Turks also have their own case.

The fancy that the Turks may only be victimizers is a deceptive delusion; it is an unjust partiality; it is wrong to the core; it is a denial of the accumulated gains of human struggle for equity; it is a careless brush-off of justice for all. The past cannot be changed to suit the present interests of a party to a dispute. To give a categorical stamp of approval to Armenian presentation is to change history. It is a prejudice that needs rereading, re-examination, revaluation and revision.

Now I will leave you alone with your hatred towards Turks! But, do realize that if the Turks did so badly towards the Bulgarians as you claimed they did over the 5-600 years of ruling them, you would in no way be in a position today to pour out your hatred and poison towards the Turks!

You are so much full of hatred towards Turks that I am no more going to waste time on giving clear explanation. I will leave you alone in your own world. The deafest person in the world is the one who does not want to hear…..

If you dream of a peaceful world, start with yourself first…. All the best!

Apologies and remorse are needed where there are still wounds to be healed, in order for the pain from the past to be finally overcome, to achieve forgiveness and closure of this heavy and traumatic period in history and move forward towards a better future. Mongolia doesn’t need to apologise for Ghengis Khan because his actions are not hurting anyone at present and all wounds have been closed. Mongolians have corrected themselves and have adopted the most peaceful religion – Buddhism, which transformed them from fierce and brutal killers into harmless shepherds. Balance in this case has been restored, so nothing further is needed.

Stop evading the problem – your ancestors caused a lot of pain and suffering to Christians under their rule. The correct thing to do is apologise for their actions and state your readiness to be different from the Ottomans, to treat Armenians with respect like human beings and be on friendly terms. Instead, all you do is denial and arrogant talk – very, very wrong! It won’t help!