NationStates Jolt Archive

After taking part on the Ottoman Empire thread, i thought it might be cool to gauge peoples opinions on the massacre of the Armenains. Do you agree with the turkish governments continued denial of the holocaust? or do you believe that the international community should put more pressure on turkey to come to terms with its past? or perhaps you feel that it should be forgotten?

It should not be forgotten and Turkey should face up to it's brutal treatment of the Armenians which included the slaughter of 800,000 to perhaps 2 million people and the selling of many Armenians into slavery in the middle east.

When the Holocaust is forgotten and dismissed, then they can dismiss the Armenian Holocaust (as well as any others committed by Turkey and other nations).

Agreed DCD. It might be forced on them if they want to join the EU so desperately.

Agreed DCD. It might be forced on them if they want to join the EU so desperately.
Hah, when I see that happening I will leave the EU indefinitely. Norway is a nice alternative. In any case, I hope (and doubt) that Turkey will ever be allowed entry, and it will have to eventually face the repercussions of its past actions.

its seems so ludicrous that a nation can perpetuate a lie despite the rest of the world knowing its a lie, and the turkish governements treatment of armenian historical remains (churches, basilica's, khachkar's, etc) is nothing short of criminal.

its seems so ludicrous that a nation can perpetuate a lie despite the rest of the world knowing its a lie, and the turkish governements treatment of armenian historical remains (churches, basilica's, khachkar's, etc) is nothing short of criminal.
Welcome to the world :rolleyes:

After taking part on the Ottoman Empire thread, i thought it might be cool to gauge peoples opinions on the massacre of the Armenains. Do you agree with the turkish governments continued denial of the holocaust? or do you believe that the international community should put more pressure on turkey to come to terms with its past? or perhaps you feel that it should be forgotten?
Truth is vital. The Turks need to acknowledge the genocide...as do many other nations that have committed terrible genocides. You can't begin to heal until the truth is told. Turkey isn't the only one hiding from the truth.

its seems so ludicrous that a nation can perpetuate a lie despite the rest of the world knowing its a lie, and the turkish governements treatment of armenian historical remains (churches, basilica's, khachkar's, etc) is nothing short of criminal.
Why is it ludicrous? Japan's been doing the same thing for years. Among others.

Why is it ludicrous? Japan's been doing the same thing for years. Among others.

True to bloody true

Why is it ludicrous? Japan's been doing the same thing for years. Among others.

Indeed, this explains my less than charitable attitude toward Japan and Turkey.

Indeed, this explains my less than charitable attitude toward Japan and Turkey.
Japan has reformed remarkably though...Turkey seems to want to prolong its oppression of minority groups. It even illegally holds part of another EU member state. Way to go :rolleyes:

Even if Turkey reforms, it has no place in the EU, and won't ever. Maybe it should start its own club for countries. I would hate to see Russia (or Norway) opting out of joining the EU one day due to its distaste for Turkey.

Japan has reformed remarkably though...Turkey seems to want to prolong its oppression of minority groups. It even illegally holds part of another EU member state. Way to go :rolleyes:
'Reform' should not be an excuse to deny the past. If anything, reform should be the catalyst for uncovering hard truths.

Japan has reformed remarkably though...Turkey seems to want to prolong its oppression of minority groups. It even illegally holds part of another EU member state. Way to go :rolleyes:

But japan is yet to face up to the legacy it has left in the Philipines, China and Korea, it may have changed socially but the legacy of the war is alive and kicking, japns neighbours distrust and dislike Japan regardless of the social changes it has made.

As for Turkey you have reminded me about Cyprus god now i feel exasperated, why the hell does the EU want this country to join!

'Reform' should not be an excuse to deny the past. If anything, reform should be the catalyst for uncovering hard truths.
Indeed.

But japan is yet to face up to the legacy it has left in the Philipines, China and Korea, it may have changed socially but the legacy of the war is alive and kicking, japns neighbours disturst and dislike Japan regardless of the social changes it has made.

As for Turkey you have reminded me about Cyprus god now i feel exasperated, why the hell does the EU want this country to join!
China is hardly amiable though, definitely not an example of a "poor, innocent" country.

Add to that its terribly low GDP and all the problems Turkey will bring along with it, and you have a recipe for disaster. The EU is being an idiot with regard to Turkey, hopefully it will realise this soon enough.

is there nobody out there willing to defend turkey!?!?!

Here ( http://www.usip.org/library/truth.html) is a list of some countries who have undergone some form of truth and reconciliation. Morocco, Timor-Leste and Fiji are missing from that list, though they've also gone through a similar process. This alone does not 'fix things'...but it's an difficult, and necessary step. The nations notably absent are Japan, Turkey, Cambodia, Russia (the former Soviet Union, for the Holodomor, assorted other purges, and Afghanistan), North Korea, Ethiopia, France (Algeria), Pakistan (for Bangladesh), Burundi, Haiti (Papa Doc), Spain (Franco), Syria, China, Iran and so on. All of these nations, at one time or another, have committed purges against their own people, or people of other nations, based on ethnicity, religion, or political background...and have yet to admit openly to these crimes.

Not to mention the western nations, (most recently the US) who have directly or indirectly intervened in the affairs of sovereign nations in order to promote economic stability. What part should they play in uncovering the 'truth' of their actions?

I wouldn't hold my breath with any of those countries, least of all the USSR.

I wouldn't hold my breath with any of those countries, least of all the USSR.

I know in spain there is the stirrings of debate in regard to the victims of Franco's regime, the last statue of Franco was dismantled in his hometown of ferrol not so long ago but Spain remains split regarding the fascist years.

I wouldn't hold my breath with any of those countries, least of all the USSR.
The US will in time acknowledge that it's involvement in Central and South America was anti-democratic and cost many lives. That's because we're getting alot of immigration from Latin America and those people, like the Native Americans and the Blacks did with their historical oppression, will bring those injustices to light.

China is hardly amiable though, definitely not an example of a "poor, innocent" country.

What has that have to do with anything? Were the lives of those slaughtered in Nanjing somehow less important because of what Mao and his successors have done from the 70's?

That's an attitude I am strongly against. It is widely spread and therefore rather dangerous. Examples of this are numerous... The terror bombings of Germany in the WW2 beeing perhaps the best of them.

Crimes made against another "criminal nations" are just as bad as those made against "poor and innocent" ones (assuming there's a nation/people that's perfectly safe from any accusations), because people, the population, the civilians must be kept separate from the governments they have.

The US will in time acknowledge that it's involvement in Central and South America was anti-democratic and cost many lives. That's because we're getting alot of immigration from Latin America and those people, like the Native Americans and the Blacks did with their historical oppression, will bring those injustices to light.
I really hope you're right DC...this strong stand on "we did what we had to" really alienates people...and when the US is one of the loudest voices calling for other nations to recognise the truth, it is galling that they ignore their own. I suspect the catalyst will be, as you've said, immigration. It's not a case of "the US is solely responsible for all the ills of the world"...but rather, the US made mistakes, like many nations have, and it's time to admit it, and move on. It is hard to move on, for victims, and families of victims, when the truth is denied. That's true regardless of who is responsible.

Crimes made against another "criminal nations" are just as bad as those made against "poor and innocent" ones (assuming there's a nation/people that's perfectly safe from any accusations), because people, the population, the civilians must be kept separate from the governments they have.
Agreed.

its seems so ludicrous that a nation can perpetuate a lie despite the rest of the world knowing its a lie, and the turkish governements treatment of armenian historical remains (churches, basilica's, khachkar's, etc) is nothing short of criminal.

While I know international organizations and world leaders acknowledge "Something" happend, There is still a bitter debate over weather or not it can be labeled Genocide. Besides, rather then debate what happend nearly 100 years ago, we should be more concerned with what is happening today in Rwanda and Sudan.. and how the UN has failed to label this clear cut genocide (and failed to properly address the problem itself)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1132336.stm

While I know international organizations and world leaders acknowledge "Something" happend, There is still a bitter debate over weather or not it can be labeled Genocide. Besides, rather then debate what happend nearly 100 years ago, we should be more concerned with what is happening today in Rwanda and Sudan.. and how the UN has failed to label this clear cut genocide (and failed to properly address the problem itself)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1132336.stmAh....so if you deny something long enough, you never have to actually face it?

Truth and reconcilliation is not about appeasing foreign powers. It's an inward looking process. The international label of genocide need not be proven in order to admit wrongdoing. That label, by the way, does not allow for persecutions based on political ideology or class...something the Soviet Union strongly lobbied to prevent. That doesn't mean purges and executions based on class or ideology aren't wrong.

I really hope you're right DC...this strong stand on "we did what we had to" really alienates people...and when the US is one of the loudest voices calling for other nations to recognise the truth, it is galling that they ignore their own. I suspect the catalyst will be, as you've said, immigration. It's not a case of "the US is solely responsible for all the ills of the world"...but rather, the US made mistakes, like many nations have, and it's time to admit it, and move on. It is hard to move on, for victims, and families of victims, when the truth is denied. That's true regardless of who is responsible.
The reason you get those "we did what we had to do" attitudes out of most Americans is because we aren't really taught much about Latin America in our schools. Most Americans don't know the history of our involvement in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, et cetera. I didn't learn any of that stuff from my text books. I had to find out on my own.

I really hope you're right DC...this strong stand on "we did what we had to" really alienates people...and when the US is one of the loudest voices calling for other nations to recognise the truth, it is galling that they ignore their own. I suspect the catalyst will be, as you've said, immigration. It's not a case of "the US is solely responsible for all the ills of the world"...but rather, the US made mistakes, like many nations have, and it's time to admit it, and move on. It is hard to move on, for victims, and families of victims, when the truth is denied. That's true regardless of who is responsible.

Well one example of the US ignoring its own transgression is the Philipines, during a liberation war in which native forces defeated the spanish colonial opressors only to have the spanish sell the islands (that they did not effectively hold) to the US who promptly invaded and devastated the archipelagop, around one million civilians died as a result of american policy as they tookno prisoners, scorched whole villages, and routinely shoot surrendering Filipinos. Much worse were the concentration camps that civilians were forced into, after being suspected of being guerrilla sympathizers. Thousands of civilians died in these camps. In nearly all cases, the civilians suffered much worse than the actual Filipino fighters..Since those times the US and the Philipines have been through alot together and despite a massive Filipino diaspora in the US the american government has consistently failed to acknowledge this, a factor that has lead to mild anti-yankee'ism among sections of society in the philipines, it was certainly a factor that led to the Philipine government failing to aloow the US to renew its leases on Clark and Subic bases (mind you mount Pinotubo's eruption kinda sealed that).

The reason you get those "we did what we had to do" attitudes out of most Americans is because we aren't really taught much about Latin America in our schools. Most Americans don't know the history of our involvement in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, et cetera. I didn't learn any of that stuff from my text books. I had to find out on my own.
Well, I don't recall learning about those things in school either...and I can see how where you get your information finally, and the slant it may have, could affect your perception of it. I know plenty of Canadians aren't too aware of those things either unless they had direct contact with the situations, or political refugees. Then again...we didn't learn about Japanese internment camps or Residential schools when I was in school, but those things are finally being taught now. That's part of the process too...admitting what happened, and talking about it.

But you've brought up a good point...that some support is out of ignorance. Yet the ones I have a real problem with are those that KNOW, but justify it anyway.:(

Ah....so if you deny something long enough, you never have to actually face it?

Truth and reconcilliation is not about appeasing foreign powers. It's an inward looking process. The international label of genocide need not be proven in order to admit wrongdoing. That label, by the way, does not allow for persecutions based on political ideology or class...something the Soviet Union strongly lobbied to prevent. That doesn't mean purges and executions based on class or ideology aren't wrong.

No, the reality is there is a lack of information. When turky claims 300,000 killed and armenians claim 1.5 million killed and no facts substanciate either side.. it is difficult to take a stance. Also little if any evidence is readily avalible to show a systematic process in place which was excuted to eliminate armenians as opposed to them being victims during war (revolutionaries fighing imperialistic powers). Germany was clear cut... and today, the same can be said about Sudan.

So unlike you, I wait for undeniable evidence before throwing out strong labels like Genocide

No, the reality is there is a lack of information. When turky claims 300,000 killed and armenians claim 1.5 million killed and no facts substanciate either side.. it is difficult to take a stance. Also little if any evidence is readily avalible to show a systematic process in place which was excuted to eliminate armenians as opposed to them being victims during war (revolutionaries fighing imperialistic powers). Germany was clear cut... and today, the same can be said about Sudan.

So unlike you, I wait for undeniable evidence before throwing out strong labels like Genocide
There is evidence that the Armenian holocaust took place. There are letters from foreigners in Turkey at the time who witnessed the massacre of Armenians and the rape of their women. There are photographs of the bodies. There are accounts of Armenian women and children being sold as slaves after being shipped to Syria.

The deliberate nature of this slaughter was admitted by the then Turkish leader, Enver Pasha, in a conversation with Henry Morgenthau, the US ambassador in Constantinople, a Jewish-American diplomat whose vivid reports to Washington in 1915 form an indictment of the greatest war crime the modern world had ever known. Enver denounced the Armenians for siding with Russia in its war with the Turks. But even the Germans, Ottoman Turkey's ally in the First World War, condemned the atrocities; for it was the Armenian civilian population which was cut down by the Turks. The historian Arnold Toynbee, who worked for the Foreign Office during the war, was to record the atmosphere of horror which lay over the abandoned Armenian lands in the aftermath of the savagery. Men had been lined up on bridges to have their throats cut and be thrown into rivers; in orchards and fields, women and children had been knifed. Armenians had been shot by the thousand, sometimes beaten to death with clubs. Earlier Turkish pogroms against the Armenians of Asia Minor had been denounced by Lord Gladstone. In the aftermath of the 1914-18 war, Winston Churchill was the most eloquent in reminding the world of the Armenian Holocaust.
from http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27/057.html

No, the reality is there is a lack of information. When turky claims 300,000 killed and armenians claim 1.5 million killed and no facts substanciate either side.. it is difficult to take a stance. Also little if any evidence is readily avalible to show a systematic process in place which was excuted to eliminate armenians as opposed to them being victims during war (revolutionaries fighing imperialistic powers). Germany was clear cut... and today, the same can be said about Sudan.

So unlike you, I wait for undeniable evidence before throwing out strong labels like Genocide

There is many facts to prove this, not just the testimony of armenian survivors scattered across the caucasus and the middle east but the formation of the 'Special Organisation' or Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa, an organisation made up of freed criminals to deal with the expulsion of armenians does not strike me as a measure of the governments intention to deal with the armenian population fairly.

The dissappearance of the armenians from eastern Anatolia by 1918 after a presence in the region since the 5th century BC strikes me as a little strange as well.

No, the reality is there is a lack of information. When turky claims 300,000 killed and armenians claim 1.5 million killed and no facts substanciate either side.. it is difficult to take a stance. Also little if any evidence is readily avalible to show a systematic process in place which was excuted to eliminate armenians as opposed to them being victims during war (revolutionaries fighing imperialistic powers). Germany was clear cut... and today, the same can be said about Sudan.

So unlike you, I wait for undeniable evidence before throwing out strong labels like Genocide

Did the Germans kill 2 or 7 million Jews? Did the Stalin "purge" 3 or 4 million Caucasians? DOES IT MATTER THE SLIGHTEST BIT? No. Intentionally killing unarmed people, reason beeing their nationality, in attempt to make effect by reducing the population, is genocide. And that's what happened, with very little doubt.

Did they already fight the Turkish government? No matter. They were civilians, and they were killed for the reason mentioned above, =genocide it was.

Or perhaps you have some sort of a calculator that determines the % of the population of a people that has to be killed so that it can be called with its right name?

Did the Germans kill 2 or 7 million Jews? Did the Stalin "purge" 3 or 4 million Caucasians? DOES IT MATTER THE SLIGHTEST BIT? No. Intentionally killing unarmed people, reason beeing their nationality, in attempt to make effect by reducing the population, is genocide. And that's what happened, with very little doubt.

Did they already fight the Turkish government? No matter. They were civilians, and they were killed for the reason mentioned above, =genocide it was.

Or perhaps you have some sort of a calculator that determines the % of the population of a people that has to be killed so that it can be called with its right name?

The difference between Germany and Russia and the Ottaman empire being documentation of government organized programs designed specifically to exterminate a certain population (or in russia's case) purge political dissidents are readily avalible. As far as I know from the documentaries ive seen, this is not the case with the Armenian "genocide". This is why a debate is still held on the issue. One stumbling point being that archives from the Ottoman empire have been sealed and not subject to scrutiny.

The difference in the number of dead only served to show how a lack of documentation easily skews the argument.

And accounts from civilans do not speak to the background (or planning) of the crimes committed. I dont argue killings didnt occur, but rather, the government role, planing, and scale of those murders.

Perhaps in the long run it is really unimportant if the label genocide is applied.. but what country has clean hands, what group of people havn't fallen victim to some mass crime

The difference between Germany and Russia and the Ottaman empire being documentation of government organized programs designed specifically to exterminate a certain population (or in russia's case) purge political dissidents are readily avalible. As far as I know from the documentaries ive seen, this is not the case with the Armenian "genocide". This is why a debate is still held on the issue. One stumbling point being that archives from the Ottoman empire have been sealed and not subject to scrutiny.

The difference in the number of dead only served to show how a lack of documentation easily skews the argument.

And accounts from civilans do not speak to the background (or planning) of the crimes committed. I dont argue killings didnt occur, but rather, the government role, planing, and scale of those murders.

Perhaps in the long run it is really unimportant if the label genocide is applied.. but what country has clean hands, what group of people havn't fallen victim to some mass crime


I still sya you're just beeing pedant. The government sent troops in there, and knew perfectly what they were doing. Even if there never was a written and signed order saying "Turkey Officially Slaughters Armenian Minority" they still have the responsibility over the actions of the armed forces sent in there, just like Soviets have responsility over the crimes conducted by the pillaging Red Army when it entered East Prussia and Germany '44 and '45.

If they'd wanted, they'd stopped it. In neither cases (except few occasions (some individual officers of the Red Army), which actually just help to prove my point) this happened, so the governments are guilty to what happened.


The reason for the fact Russians aren't in this case accused for Genocide is that the reason those troops were sent to there wasn't kill as many Germans as possible, which was the case with Armenia.

No, the reality is there is a lack of information. When turky claims 300,000 killed and armenians claim 1.5 million killed and no facts substanciate either side.. it is difficult to take a stance. Also little if any evidence is readily avalible to show a systematic process in place which was excuted to eliminate armenians as opposed to them being victims during war (revolutionaries fighing imperialistic powers). Germany was clear cut... and today, the same can be said about Sudan.

So unlike you, I wait for undeniable evidence before throwing out strong labels like Genocide
No, apparently you attach a specific number to the word genocide. What number is that, by the way? Because even if the Turks say 300,000, that's still bloody genocide (or attempted genocide if you will). Or are you seriously saying that even 300,000 people murdered doesn't warrant an investigation?

Or perhaps you have some sort of a calculator that determines the % of the population of a people that has to be killed so that it can be called with its right name?
Thank you...I'm glad I'm not the only one who found the argument that 'if it was only 300,000 AS THE TURKS ADMIT it isn't genocide'...as rather stomach turning.

Perhaps in the long run it is really unimportant if the label genocide is applied.. but what country has clean hands, what group of people havn't fallen victim to some mass crime
The first part of this quote finally makes sense...and then you go and through this into the mix. It doesn't matter who has clean hands or not...when crimes are committed, there needs to be an accounting for them. You're right...the label genocide is not nearly as important as finding the truth...and the truth doesn't get to be shunted aside just because 'someone else did bad things too'. Case in point....Mao's treatment of dissidents does not excuse the Japanese at Nanjing. Who gives a flying SHIT if someone else did something worse, or equal to the massacre of Armenians? That in no way absolves the Turks of that particular crime.

In any case, which definition of genocide are you using, anyway? The official UN version? Or the one that makes more sense:

Main Entry: geno·cide

-the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Thank you...I'm glad I'm not the only one who found the argument that 'if it was only 300,000 AS THE TURKS ADMIT it isn't genocide'...as rather stomach turning.

Agreed despite the lack of documents left by the ottomans there is plenty of testimony to point to the fact that this was a deliberate policy to cleanse eastern anatolia of armenians, and regardless of the figure killed and exiled the fact that it happened must be beyond doubt, if the Nazi's had murdered only half a million would it have made the crime anyless better, i think not due to the fact that the intentions were beyond doubt without morals, in this sense the actions of the Ittihadists (the faction in control of the ottoman governemt at the time) were reprehensible.

No, apparently you attach a specific number to the word genocide. What number is that, by the way? Because even if the Turks say 300,000, that's still bloody genocide (or attempted genocide if you will). Or are you seriously saying that even 300,000 people murdered doesn't warrant an investigation?

actually I made no such attachment... the word genocide dosn't even apear in the sentence in which i qoute those stats. In fact that statement I made illustrated the lack of reliable factual evidence which is why we coudlnt' know if genocide occured.. we dont even know how many people died (not even a rough estimate) let alone of systematic processes were constructed souly to facilitate the purging of Armenians.

To that same note, I would thank you kindly to make more effort to properly read what Im typing before jumping to conclusions. Im not saying if only 300,000 died then genoicde didn't occur.. I only mentioned that number to show no reliable evidence is avalible. And the accounts and testimonies of Armenians themselves are irrelevant unless they were otherwise in a position to know these were government sanctioned efforts (as in apart of a larger systematic effort). They only confirm killings occured, and are in no position to inform us if government systems were in place facilitating this. Unless of course they were being carted off to concentration camps and other government run facilities mandated by law.

actually I made no such attachment... the word genocide dosn't even apear in the sentence in which i qoute those stats. In fact that statement I made illustrated the lack of reliable factual evidence which is why we coudlnt' know if genocide occured.. we dont even know how many people died (not even a rough estimate) let alone of systematic processes were constructed souly to facilitate the purging of Armenians.

To that same note, I would thank you kindly to make more effort to properly read what Im typing before jumping to conclusions. Im not saying if only 300,000 died then genoicde didn't occur.. I only mentioned that number to show no reliable evidence is avalible. And the accounts and testimonies of Armenians themselves are irrelevant unless they were otherwise in a position to know these were government sanctioned efforts (as in apart of a larger systematic effort). They only confirm killings occured, and are in no position to inform us if government systems were in place facilitating this. Unless of course they were being carted off to concentration camps and other government run facilities mandated by law.

What about the criminal gangs set up, the findings of the Ottoman commission in 1918, the remains of the camps on the present border of Syria, testimony of not only armenians, but kurds, arabs, turks, etc, the disapperance of very large numbers of people from eastern anatolia???

actually I made no such attachment... the word genocide dosn't even apear in the sentence in which i qoute those stats. In fact that statement I made illustrated the lack of reliable factual evidence which is why we coudlnt' know if genocide occured.. we dont even know how many people died (not even a rough estimate) let alone of systematic processes were constructed souly to facilitate the purging of Armenians. You're the one who said the Turks admitted to at least 300,000. If that isn't genocide, what word would you prefer to use? No, we don't know the exact number of people who died, but if the people accused of perpetrating these crimes themselves admit to a certain number, we can be reasonably sure that that number, is an accurate MINIMUM.

To that same note, I would thank you kindly to make more effort to properly read what Im typing before jumping to conclusions. Im not saying if only 300,000 died then genoicde didn't occur.. I only mentioned that number to show no reliable evidence is avalible. And the accounts and testimonies of Armenians themselves are irrelevant unless they were otherwise in a position to know these were government sanctioned efforts (as in apart of a larger systematic effort). They only confirm killings occured, and are in no position to inform us if government systems were in place facilitating this. Unless of course they were being carted off to concentration camps and other government run facilities mandated by law.Again...what definition of genocide are you using? And the accounts of testimonies of the Armenians are EXTREMELY relevant to a truth and reconcilliation commission...which if you'd actually read any of my posts, you would have realised was my focus...not necessarily justifying charges of crimes against humanity. Again...who cares if it is genocide according to the UN...mass killings of a certain group based on their ethnicity, relgion, political beliefs, etc is the definition of the word genocide.

As well, don't suddenly change your tune...you began this discussion with the idea that we shouldn't even worry about the Armenians because it was so long ago. While I know international organizations and world leaders acknowledge "Something" happend, There is still a bitter debate over weather or not it can be labeled Genocide. Besides, rather then debate what happend nearly 100 years ago, we should be more concerned with what is happening today in Rwanda and Sudan.. and how the UN has failed to label this clear cut genocide (and failed to properly address the problem itself)

And I'll restate:

Ah....so if you deny something long enough, you never have to actually face it?

Truth and reconcilliation is not about appeasing foreign powers. It's an inward looking process. The international label of genocide need not be proven in order to admit wrongdoing. That label, by the way, does not allow for persecutions based on political ideology or class...something the Soviet Union strongly lobbied to prevent. That doesn't mean purges and executions based on class or ideology aren't wrong.
Go ahead and deny it was a genocide. Go ahead and say, 'we shouldn't worry about it any more'...that has NOTHING to do with Turkey admitting wrongdoing and looking inward in order to deal with these atrocities.

has the US apologized yet for wiping out the natives here?

has the US apologized yet for wiping out the natives here?

That was 'too long ago'. Apparently there is some sort of statute of limitations on genocide.

has the US apologized yet for wiping out the natives here?

One of the reasons USA would and should not be let in the EU neither...

I agree with you, mostly. Not really sure about the guilty-issue. Russians need to apologize and recognize what they did to Caucasians when they ruled the Soviet Union, and modern Germans need to apologize and recognize holocaust. Still, as they haven't conducted those crimes, they should not be punished, but they should apologize and admit. Untill they do that, I do not think they are ready for EU.And it's not necessarily about taking personal blame. The Truth and Reconciliation commission of 1990 in Chile was not the actual perpetrators of tortures and disappearances 'fessing up...nor did the criminals who murdered 30,000 Argentinians plead for forgiveness there. It is a people, or a nation, who want the truth, struggling to uncover that truth. The Soviet Union no longer exists...does that mean that Russia never needs to investigate, and apologise for the Holodomor? The new Cambodian government never needs to investigate and uncover the horrors perpetrated by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge? No one is saying that 'modern day' Turks committed these atrocities...but to pretend that the Armenian massacre is in the distant, distant past, is foolish. We humans are short-lived, and consequently short-sighted, but this is less than a century ago.

As well, investigating this shameful history does not preclude dialogue about the current supression of Kurdish culture in Turkey.

I agree with you, mostly. Not really sure about the guilty-issue. Russians need to apologize and recognize what they did to Caucasians when they ruled the Soviet Union, and modern Germans need to apologize and recognize holocaust. Still, as they haven't conducted those crimes, they should not be punished, but they should apologize and admit. Untill they do that, I do not think they are ready for EU
Germans have pretty much recognised and apologised for the Holocaust.

As for Turkey entering the EU, lets just say the Armenian Genocide is just one of many reasons it should not be allowed entry into the EU.

But japan is yet to face up to the legacy it has left in the Philipines, China and Korea, it may have changed socially but the legacy of the war is alive and kicking, japns neighbours distrust and dislike Japan regardless of the social changes it has made.

As for Turkey you have reminded me about Cyprus god now i feel exasperated, why the hell does the EU want this country to join!

Absolutely. Most Japanese don't know what happens till they visit other countries, especially war memorials.

Modern day Turks did not commit genocide against the Armenians.

The Ottoman Empire did, as did the early Turkish state under Ataturk. The current Turkish government should not have to take the blame for something their predecessors did. They should, however recognise something that is a historical fact.

While I wouldn't blame Turks for the genocide (any more than I would blame modern Germans for the Holocaust), I think it necessary that the world be told about what happened. People simply don't know about the Armenian genocide, and even fewer people know about Turkey's snatching of the 6 provinces of Western Armenia after the first world war. It was Adolf Hitler that said "Who remembers the genocide of the Armenians", while planning his own horrific genocide. People simply need to be educated, inside Turkey, and across the world.

I should declare my slight bias... I study Modern Armenian language and Literature alongside Arabic and Middle Eastern History at university, I have many Armenian friends, and have just returned to Scotland from a fortnight's trip to Armenia. I have, however travelled extensively in Eastern Turkey, and spoken to many Turks (and Kurds...a people still oppressed by the Turkish government) about the matter.

Thats the problem, there continued denial of the holocaust makes the turkish governemtn and i am sorry to say turkish society look like a laughing stock. If turkey and its citizens want to join europe then they are going to have to re-evaluate there history.

Turkey seems to want to prolong its oppression of minority groups. It even illegally holds part of another EU member state. Way to go :rolleyes:
Can you say more about this, please? :)

This message has been deleted by Madnestan. Reason: After considering and reconsidering, I have no clue what I think anymore

Ahhhh! An honest man! :)

Can you say more about this, please? :)
It holds part of the island of Cyprus. Cyprus is Greek land. Turkey is occupying part of the island illegaly. BTW, one of my cousins, her husband, and their kids live in the Greek part.

After taking part on the Ottoman Empire thread, i thought it might be cool to gauge peoples opinions on the massacre of the Armenains. Do you agree with the turkish governments continued denial of the holocaust? or do you believe that the international community should put more pressure on turkey to come to terms with its past? or perhaps you feel that it should be forgotten?

Meh, communists deny their holocausts all the time. What difference does it make if Turkey denies theirs?