Originally posted by molly bloom
The action against Armenian and Assyrian Christians encompassed mass killing, forced relocation and destruction of cultural centres, such as churches.
Sounds like a 'genocide' by any standards.
The action against Armenian and Assyrian Christians encompassed mass killing, forced relocation and destruction of cultural centres, such as churches.
Sounds like a 'genocide' by any standards.
It's not enough, therefore if it sounds like genocide, unless of course one has other subjective criteria. The implication here is that each end every act of mass killing cannot be defined as genocide. The extent of loss of life is NOT enough to put that label on an event.
What's more, as I have pointed out in this thread before, the relocation was by no means unprovoked and evidence as there is points out to explicit government orders for the local governers to provide for the relocees. The relocation (a measure employed by European powers like Russia at the time) was a desperate measure, taken in the urgency to keep the Eastern front from collapsing (such was the extent of the inter-ethnic carnage started by Armenian nationalist bands during which untold thousands of Turks died too), and therefore had imperfect planning. Actually, the government prosecuted hundreds and hundreds of officials in 1918 (before the end of the war) for their failure to prevent deaths as occured.
Originally posted by molly bloom
However other nations did commit genocidal acts- from the Germans in Namibia against the Hereros, to the Manchu Empire against the Zungar, as a matter of state policy.
If you don't think that Ottoman forces weren't committing a form of genocide, you'd have to explain why the German representatives in Istanbul tried to pressure the Sultan to stop the massacres in the Eastern Ottoman Empire- why on earth would they be interested in what went on in an ally's territory?
However other nations did commit genocidal acts- from the Germans in Namibia against the Hereros, to the Manchu Empire against the Zungar, as a matter of state policy.
If you don't think that Ottoman forces weren't committing a form of genocide, you'd have to explain why the German representatives in Istanbul tried to pressure the Sultan to stop the massacres in the Eastern Ottoman Empire- why on earth would they be interested in what went on in an ally's territory?
One can naturally sympathise with the human suffering on such a scale, but using the terminology of today, disregarding the context and liberally applying a legal term out of definition leads to subjectivity. As such, many choose to say (and I don't mean you here) "I don't care about legal definitions of genocide, what happened sounds disgusting enough to me, so I'll call it genocide".
Comment