Talk:Armenian Genocide denial

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon denialism.svg

This Denialism related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Cenk Uygur ... I am disappoint. --Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)--Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

A disappointing article[edit]

This has been a pet topic of mine for years, and I'm disappointed that this article takes the traditional line spouted by the West.

The accusation of "genocide" is heavily based on Christian vs Muslim lines. If you read up on everything, this subject is much messier than the clean "Christian Armenians good/Muslim Turks bad" line which is so heavily promoted today.

The death toll on both sides of this dispute are largely similar, and there is considerable evidence that Armenian militias regularly conducted massacres of Turks. The balance of badness definitely still tilts towards the Ottomans, but there is no grounds to claim the Armenians were "innocent victims". Bottom line, both sides behaved in despicable ways and committed outrageous atrocities (with, as previously acknowledged, the Ottomans scoring more points). Turkey's main line of objection is not that nothing happened, but more along the lines of the "well he hit me too" angle. Morally dubious sure, but not the same as outright denialism.

Finally I'm NOT saying the Genocide didn't happen. What I'm saying is that the topic is much murkier than this article suggests, and that even after a couple of years of looking at it closely I still can't make up my own mind. Disclaimer - my wife is Turkish. We've never discussed it but that is how I got interested in this topic the first place. VOXHUMANA 04:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Where is the proof that it was systematic? Why in the hell would the Young Turks give the order to erase Armenians from existence, when in 1911, Armenians were actually IN THE GOVERNMENT AS MINISTERS? Imagine that for a second.

Not only that, but it is not very hard to imagine that all those killings happened spontaneously, as a result of resentment by the soldiers and civilians. It's more like Stalin's Red Army raping German women and Stalin not giving enough of a damn about it. The argument about relocations aren't fictional either. You can "relocate" people and kill some of them while doing it as well. Oh and if you have crappy transportation system like the Ottomans, wherein Armenians are being forced into trains where they died of diseases, heat etc. That added to the ones killed intentionally of course...

Finally, why would Ataturk, a man who hated the Ottoman Empire since he was sentenced to death by them, DEFEND the Ottoman Empire, from accusations he HAD to know where true? I mean, Ottomans didn't consider themselves Turks you know that right? He could've pulled a GDR and condemned the Ottoman regime since the Republic is seperate from that royal family. Instead he chose to lie and defend the honor of a regime which literally sentenced him to death. Yeah, right.

Oh and I find it amusing that Ataturk telling the western powers to fuck off as anything but inspiring. This was a case of a variety of nations forcing a ridiculous contract on Turkey which basically allowed them to invade it whenever they pleased. Ataturk led Turkey to victory in that war and became a Muslim, but secular country. They were too strong to be "held responsible". — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Hmmm, OK I certainly don't agree with all of the comments above. Certainly there WERE Armenians involved in the Ottoman government, they were also responsible for organising some of the Armenian attacks on Turks that occurred. However while it is true that Kemal (Ataturk) was eventually given a death sentence by the remnants of the Ottoman regime, this had nothing to do with his opposition to the Ottoman regime in general, but a lot to do with the fact that by 1918 Ataturk had become the figurehead of anti-Ottoman sentiment in Turkey. Ataturk had had a very successful career as an officer in the Ottoman Army prior to the collapse of the regime.
Another issue that bothers me about this whole debate, is that anyone who attempts to ask questions that even permit the possibility of there being any legitimacy to the Turkish counter-argument is instantly labelled a "denialist". This includes any academics (see Wikipedia article).
One more thing that bothers me is the constant attempt to correlate this event with the Nazi Holocaust, as if to question one is to deny the other. Here's a quote: "Given the indisputable documentary record of the Armenian genocide, it would appear that at least some of those who refuse to go on record recognizing Turkey’s genocide of Armenians are, like those who refuse to recognize Germany’s genocide of European Jews, motivated by ignorance and bigotry" - Stephen Zunes.
Now, the Jewish Holocaust HAS an indisputable documentary record, and I'm very comfortable labelling anyone who argues with that as a "denialist". But I'm still far from convinced the same applies here. And I generally distrust anyone telling me I am ignorant and a bigot simply because I want to ask some questions.
Now as noted in my original comment above, some really awful stuff definitely happened. And a LOT more Armenians died than Turks died. However all of the evidence I've seen points to a botched civil uprising followed by an excessive response, combined with a famine which affected both Turks and Armenians. I'm far from convinced there was any specific campaign of extermination, and I'm definitely convinced there is no basis to compare this with the Nazi Holocaust. I'll also note there are some prominent Turks who insist *nothing* happened, and I regard this argument as utter bollocks.
Now as noted, I have a Turkish wife, and am arguably a "Turkish sympathizer". This is part of the reason I have refrained from editing the article to any extent. But I still believe there is far more to this than just the Armenian version of the story. VOXHUMANA 23:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Eegh. This is a topic I should stay away from, and yet... In my time in Turkey as a grade-school kid, some of us were homeschooled for a couple of years with the aid of a correspondence course and an English-speaking Armenian girl who came to the house. On the whole, I found the Turks to be a hospitable people. Some I liked better than others, as you might expect of any kid that age. There were times when I stayed away from conversations about Armenians, Kurds, the English, and Cyprus.
Now I live in a northeast US city with fair Armenian representation. We somehow latched on to one old fellow at the pub, whose grandparents survived the genocide and came to America. He never shuts up about it. He figures that hearing their stories formed his attitude in such a way that he needs to be proactive about surrounding himself with a caring community. One of the ways he does that is attend the local Irish concerts and seisiúns, where we met.
The other Armenian I talk to regularly is a recent immigrant, and runs the package store on the corner. (That's an off-license, to UK English speakers.) He is a raging anti-semite, but he stocks decent microbrews and the vinho verde that I like. There you go, with some anecdotes showing a few of the echoes of that complicated chapter. I will probably not be much help with the history. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
All fair comments. The only thing I can say with any confidence based on the research I have done, is that the truth is far more convoluted than any of the versions (Turkish OR Armenian) being promoted. VOXHUMANA 01:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Convoluted it is, and receding into the mists of time even as we sit here. I guess one point I missed making is that the post-Soviet-era immigrant isn't vocally anti-Turk. I haven't asked him or his brother about that. He always has something unflattering to say about Jews, though; I am not sure how much his opinion is formed by his interaction with the Hasids in the neighborhood right now. My elderly friend, on the other hand, reminds me of folks from the Scots diaspora earnestly clutching one another's sleeve, saying things like "What a time we had, at the Battle of Largs!"
FFS, that was in the thirteenth century. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Modified the article and added a lot more content[edit]

This article seemed to be lacking a lot of contextual details and seems very biased towards dismissing anyone who attempts to be skeptical about the genocide conclusion.

I'm an American political historian that studies various Middle Eastern regions. I took some time to add some context and details to the topic. I cited my references, but I could cite more if there is dispute about what I wrote.

Though I feel this article should be deleted because while there is large quantities of information on Climate Change, making climate-change-denial so frowned upon; and mountains of evidence of the Holocaust, making holocaust-denial a toxic-subject--the amount of evidence contradicting the conclusion that there was an Armenian genocide is very large. Thus they shouldn't be lumped together with the derogatory anti-intellectual, anti-debate term "denialist".

In academia, we are free to debate these topics without backlash or suspicion, simply based on the evidence. It is upsetting to see that a wonderful site like has an "armenian genocide denial" unverified article.

These sections were written by someone who goes as far as to accuse the Turkish republic of also being involved in the genocide--which is blatantly false. Then cites authors like Peter Balakian, an English-creative-writer of Armenian-descent (as well as the only other references are to wikipedia, which cite ex-convict sociologist Taner Akcam). Further, the rationalwiki member argues that the Turkish republic violated the Treaty of Sevres and I'm paraphrasing wrote something like: "was not held accountable by the international community." I suppose he didn't realize the Treaty of Lausanne supersedes the Treaty of Sevres. Anyway, I just think there was a lot of bias and missing details in the article.

If you have any particular dispute about the things that are written, please let me know, I'll be happy to cite any further sources.

Anthrax (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits referred to above were reverted by PowderSmokeAndLeather. Reason given was "These edits transform the entire argument and meaning of the article, and are largely based on the fallacious argument that it's not "genocide" somehow because the Armenians were rebellious."
It might be of interest to read this source on the issue:
Specifically, the source states this:
"Whereas Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term "genocide" in 1944, and who was the earliest proponent of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, invoked the Armenian case as a definitive example of genocide in the 20th century;
Whereas the first resolution on genocide adopted by the United Nations, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96(1), dated December 11, 1946, (which was adopted at the urging of Raphael Lemkin), and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, done at Paris December 9, 1948, recognized the Armenian Genocide as the type of crime the United Nations intended to prevent and punish by codifying existing standards;
Whereas, in 1948, the United Nations War Crimes Commission invoked the Armenian Genocide as "precisely ..... one of the types of acts which the modern term `crimes against humanity' is intended to cover" and as a precedent for the Nuremberg tribunals"
Nullahnung (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Raphael Lemkin's basis for the term is irrelevant because genocide has legal meaning now and not everything can be named genocide without a huge amount of evidence to prove INTENT, as outlined in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II. Otherwise, everyone can declare genocide on wars they lost. Without serious evidence of intentions, such as in Nazi regime they had the Wannsee Conference to talk about a Final Solution, then the argument of genocide cannot be made retroactively when the terminology wasn't even established yet. Those who agree with the genocide conclusion cannot even find hate speeches by the leadership of the Ottomans at the time. Thus, the debate about the subject is a real one in academia and erasing content that you don't agree with is not fair or rational. I did not create any "fallacious arguments", you are free to cite the fallacies but that user PowderSmokeAndLeather is simply a nationalist, not someone who rationally found any flaws in the article.
It simply doesn't make sense when understanding the position of those who reject the genocide conclusion, to delete all this evidence, information just because that person doesn't like the possible conclusions someone might draw on this information. Like it or not, there are respected historians who reject the genocide conclusion, and there are those who support it. So it isn't at all like holocaust denialism. Anthrax (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
"Raphael Lemkin's basis for the term is irrelevant because genocide has legal meaning now" What does that have to do with the price of fish? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Like ... really? The price of fish? Wut? Explain yourself! Nullahnung (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This is what Armenian propagandists do, they simply delete verified information and cannot provide a legitimate argument as to why... they just "know" and "feel" that the genocide cannot be debated so they don't like anyone to post the details of the history of the region, because it might not make Armenians look like innocent angels as they want to portray. They are free to argue and debate the subject but this is a highly debated subject in academia and they have no right to flat out delete the article, now twice in a row they have done this here.
What a joke though, the guy even put up artwork of a map made by Armenians that "proves a genocide" (when in fact it is just that, artwork with zero corroborated evidence) and then wrote in the caption "Nope, not genocide!" in a sarcastic tone. That's how unprofessional and childish these Armenian nationalists are. Anthrax (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
When people want professional and unchildish, they don't go to RationalWiki, as you have no doubt realized by now, they go to Wikipedia. If you were expecting to fight your battle of truth on a neutral and unbiased ground, then you are clearly on the wrong battlefield. You might want to consider taking your battle to Wikipedia instead. You might wanna start here:
Typically Wikipedia is much better than RationalWiki at providing a detailed account of things, so typically people, even RationalWikians, will consider a Wikipedia article to have more weight than whatever is written on RationalWiki. So take your battle there, eh. Then when you've managed to convince Wikipedia, people here might be much more open to change as well. Nullahnung (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
That is very unfair of you to say. In Wikipedia it is dominated by teenagers who know nothing about history but insist that they do. There is a large number of organized Armenian nationalists who continuously patrol those pages and even administrators there will side with them because they don't know any better and are probably teenagers as well with no historical background. So I thought RationalWiki would be more accepting to rational skepticism and more professional, than "anyone-can-edit" wikipedia. I had similar battles with Armenian nationalists as well because of my historical work being not favorable sometimes (and other times favorable) to their indoctrinated narrative of the history.
Imagine that you are trying to classify Pluto not a planet without authority; it is an impossible task because of how so many people grew up with Pluto as a planet. People are incredibly hostile to this as well. And the only people who have an interest in the topic are nationalists, so it becomes difficult to convince any outsiders when there is a large group of English-speaking Armenians screaming about genocide because that is what they were taught in school, by their parents, and by their churches. Anthrax (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I thought the consensus has long been changed to Pluto not being a planet? Anyways, RationalWiki is definitely not as professional as Wikipedia. While Wikipedia is not as good as more serious encyclopedia and scientific papers, it does try to be unbiased (unlike RationalWiki which doesn't) and some articles especially in the Wikipedia natural science department are trustworthy. Nullahnung (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
It was, as will the public's understanding of Ottoman-Armenian history, as more historians have said that this cannot be classified as genocide. Luckily the scientific world has a much better way of orchestrating consensus and disseminating it to the media and the media went on a rampage talking about it. So this helped spread that information. This is harder for historical topics. How does RationalWiki not try to be unbiased?? I thought that was the point of RationalWiki to portray the skeptical evidentialist side of things. Am I wrong? It's just about who has more authority? So if Osaka Sun starts believing in fake moon landings, we have to bow to his will because he is a sysop? Anthrax (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
You are not wrong. RationalWiki tries to be as biased as possible towards the skeptical evidentialist side of things, which is why I said it's biased. Here, read this:
Also read this:
Now, as you can see, RationalWiki abandons Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View in favour of its own Snarky Point of View as described in the above link, which is why you see childish things like said image and said caption on our site. (also, sysops are a dime a dozen around here. just because someone is a sysop, that doesn't mean anything) Nullahnung (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
It shouldn't be neutral. We should be skeptical whenever someone calls something genocide and look at the evidence for and against or lack-thereof. Osaka Sun's edits offer nothing in terms of evidence, skepticism, or information---all he did was delete tons of content, and I am shocked that few have stood up for me when it was blatant vandalism by Osaka Sun--the deletion of information, the taking sides of something without any ounce of skepticism, the refusal to debate, use the Talk Page, or be rational.
It is EXACTLY like your article describes where people who think they are rational, are instead behaving irrationally. Anthrax (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry about that. I kinda wish people had the patience to discuss their issues with your edits, however stupid they may think that your edits are. Nullahnung (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, it might interest you to read this:

For something to be considered genocide, it doesn't have to possess official intention. See, even if it didn't possess official intent from the beginning, they couldn't just pretend that they weren't aware of the ongoing killing of 1 million Armenians that they were allowing to happen. They were very much aware what was going on. They allowed it to happen, which in itself counts as some form of intent, wouldn't you say? Nullahnung (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does have to possess intention and it does have to have happened with significant evidence. So whether it's from low-ranking officers being involved to high-ranking, genocide is usually perpetrated from a top-to-bottom approach. The link you cited is discussing that whether it was more of an idea from the lower ranks. However, it is clear from Mein Kampf that Hitler hated the Jews. Such similarities don't exist for the Ottoman Empire. It is unthinkable to assume that Hitler who controls these death camps, would have not had control over the soldiers who did the mass murders and plopped those gas pellets into those stone chambers. It was specifically designed for killing with Zyklon B. They robbed the Jews, they burned them, they put them to slave labor, they gassed them, they shot them. They cannot even use the reasoning of a rebellion as there was no Jewish rebellion of any significant size (unlike the massive well-documented Armenian revolution). Regardless, whether intentionalists or functionalists are right, the intentions of Hitler are apparent, and it satisfies the genocide legal definition. In contrast, the Ottomans had no such intentions. There's no hate speeches. No ways to identify and isolate out Armenians.
The Armenians were killed either in battles, attacks by Kurdish tribes, disease that was rampant in a rural area, starvation that had also decimated the Ottoman army (especially due to food shortages during WWI), local Muslims who sought revenge for the massacres that Armenians committed (and vice-versa), and bandits attacking convoys of Armenians being relocated to Syria territory. 1 million Armenians didn't even die, because if you look at the immigration records of France, Russia, and USA at the time, they had a huge influx of Armenians, but these are sometimes counted as part of the death toll (despite there being millions of their descendents there today).
Besides that, Hitler was winning WWII when the holocaust was underway so he had the resources to expend (usually most genocide happens when there is no bigger pressing threat). In contrast, the Ottomans were losing a war on 3 different frontlines and the constant Armenian attacks which are well-documented, wreaked havoc on the Russian-frontline as it disrupted telegraph communications and supply routes. Further than that huge armies of Armenian forces (ARF and Hunchaks), and many volunteers to the Russian-Armenian divisions, and many more volunteers in the Armenian-French Legionaire, make them very much a solid participating ally of the Triple Entente in WWI. That also explains a part of their death toll, especially after the Russians retreated due to the Bolshevik revolution abandoning their allies, leading to many countless defeats.
To your claim that "They allowed it to happen" counts as a form of intent, is the lack of acknowledgment of the many Ottoman officers put to death by the Ottoman military for failing to protect Armenian citizens of the empire. Clearly they were trying to prevent the local violence that was plaguing the lawless, war-torn, Anatolian region. In fact, if it was genocide, why did they spend so much money for tools, housing, and food for Armenian relocated persons, if all they cared about was killing them off? Anthrax (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of protection on this page.[edit]

RationalWiki admins should remove the protection on this page and remove User:Osaka Sun from "sysop". This person just deleted tons of well-documented citations and plenty of interesting historical knowledge, and instead inserted this joke of a page: . Where he even uses a sarcastic childish tone as you can see in the Caption.

Then he protected the page with added insults in the edit summaries and talk pages. He didn't argue or discuss anything. If this is the way RationalWiki works then it is not very rational at all. Just any old Armenian nationalist can come along and wipe out everyone's writing just because they don't like facts and don't want to face the reality of history due to their upbringing.

Just read the part where he wrote as part of denialism: "The Ottoman leadership didn't intend to exterminate the Armenians, so it can't be called a "genocide." " (implying that intent is not needed; which is a falsehood that any lawyer can clarify) -- In other words, he doesn't even understand that you cannot call something genocide until you prove intent, otherwise it would be called simply "a massacre" or "a battle" or a "catastrophic natural disaster." The specific purpose of using the word genocide is to punish those responsible for ordering / orchestrating it. There is no evidence of these orders and orchestration, therefore, it cannot be called a genocide. Every genocide in history has orders, orchestration, coordination, by singular source that can be brought to international court to try. This one does not. It was once thought to have orders (but when they opened the Ottoman archives and still did not find any evidence, academics changed their views on the history; the public has yet to catch up) Anthrax (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, genocide does not have to be top-down, it can also be bottom-up, as per the link I showed you above (functionalism as opposed to intentionalism is what I mean). Even if Ottoman leadership had no official intentions, that only eliminates the official top-down aspect of it. SUPPOSEDLY (I don't know the details of it), the Armenian massacres carried a more targetted intent (specifically at Armenians) than the Nanjing massacre, where Japanese soldiers just massacred the Chinese population by the millions just because they were inhabiting the city. It is in the discussion of these details onwhich the discussion currently hinges. You are not allowed to put your (well-cited, I'm sure) work into the article until such time as those details have been sufficiently discussed on the talk page. But good luck getting someone knowledgeable to discuss this with you in detail around here. I doubt it will happen. Nullahnung (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
It cannot be bottom-up, it has to be organized. The link you provided is about whether the idea originated from the lower ranks and Hitler went along. Either way Hitler was involved in the decision making and so were his top leadership. There has to be a central authority or dissemination of information that encourages people to massacre/mass-murder with intent. Otherwise, what's the point of using the word genocide if you can't punish small groups of people responsible for the events? Might as well call it massacre and call it a day, since genocide and massacre would then be equivalent with the same equivalent meaning.
Here's a thought exercise for you... Try to differentiate between genocide and massacre of a group of people that number 10 total. So 10 people were killed in an event, they are part of the same group. What's the main difference? How do you determine 10 people were mass-murdered vs 10 people experienced genocide. Anthrax (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I shall try to patiently answer you. You say that Hitler going along is not bottom-up because it's basically endorsement by him, therefore it is still top-down. Well, I still consider that to be bottom-up genocide, but that is just semantics.
Let's go through your thought exercise. Now, if 10 people of the same ethnic or national group were killed by someone, then unless those 10 people were a majorly significant portion of their ethnicity/nation, that wouldn't count as genocide, it would count as "just" mass murder.
Here's another thought exercise: If a whole bunch of people from Turkey, for whatever reason, targeted specifically Armenians with violence and a majorly significant portion of the Armenians died as a result, is that genocide?
Additionally, before we assume that there was never anything official (that there wasn't any top-down stuff) that led to the deaths of all those Armenians, please address this: Nullahnung (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


Is there a reason the word "genocide" is capitalized? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Should We List The Countries That Officially Recognize The Genocide?[edit]

Here they are in order of when they officially recognized it for the first time:

Uruguay      1965
Cyprus       1975
Armenian SSR 1988
Russia       1995
Canada       1996
Lebanon      1997
Belgium      1998
France       1998
Greece       1999
Italy        2000
Vatican City 2000
Argentina    2003
Switzerland  2003
Germany      2004
Netherlands  2004
Slovakia     2004
Lithuania    2005
Poland       2005
Chile        2007
Sweden       2010
                     --Naked Mongoose (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Your date for Canada is wrong. It was in 2004. The Quebec government recognize it in 2001. TeenageWasteland (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Turkish Nationalism and its consequences[edit]

The best evidence pointing to this catastrophe as being a genocide is without doubt the actions of the Ottomans and later the Turks towards other (usually non-Muslim but not always) minorities in what is now modern day Turkey. Turkey is a Nationalist state, Turkish Nationalism looks and awful lot like Zionism when you compare the two (with some big differences). The Greek-Turkish population exchange depopulated Ionia, Cappadocia and the Pontus. While Turks were expelled from Greece too there were far more Greeks in Turkey than there were Turks in Greece. Furthermore this turned into a religious issue because anyone who was Greek Orthodox was defined as being "Greek" even if they didn't see themselves as such, and any Muslim in Greece was defined as a "Turk" even if they didn't see themselves as such. A considerable number of Greeks remained in Turkey, primarily in Istanbul after the Greco-Turkish War. In 1955 that changed when there was a pogrom in Istanbul. Nowadays the Greek population is pathetically small. Does any of this anti-Greek sentiment make sense in Turkey? Of course not, the Turks are facing the nightmare scenario that they want have enough Orthodox Greeks in the country and therefore won't be able to find a Bishop suitable to become the Patriarch of Constantinople. Destroying the Patriarchate, which is what that appear to be trying to do is the single stupidest action the modern Turkish state could possible carry out and yet they are doing it anyway in the name of "nationalism" and "secularism". I digress back in the day (before World War I) in the days of the Ottoman Empire the Southeastern portion of what is now modern day Turkey was populated by Aramaic speaking Assyrians as well as Kurds. Hundred of thousands of them were massacred. Heaven must have been a busy place since at the exact time the Bolsheviks were killing Russian priests and Bishops the Turks and the Kurds were busy killing Assyrian priests and Bishops, though not even the Bolsheviks went so far as to actually kill the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Turks never felt constrained and killed Shimon XXI Benyamin. Ataturk denied that these catastrophes took place not because they were done by Muslims but because they were done by Turks in particular. The Turkish Republic as a state which advocated Nationalist policies they didn't take to kindly to people in the country who didn't identify as Turks. The Christian minorities were the easiest target and that is why they were destroyed first but they were by no means the only target. A considerable portion of Turkey's population is descended from Muhacirs- Muslims from territories in the Russian Empire and countries in the Balkans. They were not "Turkish" and they did not speak Turkish, they left because they were Muslims. The Ottoman Empire controlled the Balkans for half a millennium the reason why you only find Muslims in countries like Albania, and Bosnia is because they were the only ones who stayed behind (or weren't forced out a the point of a bayonet) when the Ottoman Empire cleared out. Were these instances of genocide? In the case of the Circassians, yes it was. The Russian Empire moved to destroy the Circassians as a people and nearly succeeded. When the Ottoman Empire began Massacring and deporting Armenians it was ethnic cleansing but it wasn't a genocide. However one could argue that they began to try and start a genocide particularly during the Caucasus Campaign when the Ottomans attempted to seize Yerevan but were defeated by an Armenian Army at the Battle of Sardarabad (which happened AFTER the collapse of the Russian Empire, and AFTER the signing of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk by the Ottoman Empire and the Central Powers). If there is any evidence that is more damning then the historical accounts of the what happened in Anatolia it is how the Turks treat minorities in Turkey decades after the conclusion of World War I. Linguists consider the Kurdish Language (technically languages) to be "Iranian" languages, in other words closely related to Persian. The modern Turkish state instead preferred to call the "Mountain Turks" and made every attempt to suppress them and every last part of their culture that could possibly support the narrative of Turkey being populated in part by people who aren't Turkish. What conclusions can be derived from these facts? Well for starters what happened in Anatolia, Ionia, Cappadocia, and the Pontus was ethnic cleansing. The Christian minorities WERE targeted for ethnic cleansing if only by virtue of the fact that they were the most vulnerable targets. In the very narrow definition of the word "Genocide" there wasn't an Armenian Genocide but in the broader sense of the word "Genocide" there was. If any Muslim refuses to call what happened in Anatolia during World War I a genocide ask them what they think of the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. Ask them what they think of Al-Nakhba. If he or she calls that a Genocide but not what happened to the Armenians a genocide than the person in question is a hypocrite.

Anti-Semitic Inversion?[edit]

While I don't doubt that some anti-Semites use the good old "the Jews control the media to tell us X,Y and Z", I think that there is a tendency to downplay other genocides as "not as bad as the Holocaust". Robert Fisk provided an example of Tony Blair's government rejecting a suggestion to include the Armenian Genocide in Holocaust Memorial Day ( to "avoid the risk of the message becoming too diluted if we try to include too much history."(?!?!) This seems to include strains of both denial of the Armenian Genocide as well as downplaying it by contrasting it with the Holocaust. Indeed, Fisk criticises the tendency to write write of the "Holocaust", but only of the "Armenian holocaust" (without a capital H) as part of his criticism in The Great War for Civilisation, and repeats some of this criticism here: A similar criticism or at least cautioning about the danger of such "one-upmanship" in genocides has apparently also been made by Israeli historian Yair Auron, as mentioned here: ScepticWombat (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

In the case of Blair, any concern about "dilution" may have been a fig leaf for political considerations. Nazi Germany was vanquished and modern Germany acknowledges the Holocaust, while the Armenian genocide is a... touchy subject in modern Turkey.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree with you, ZooGuard, that the bizarre "explanation" by the Blair cabinet was in order to avoid raising hackles in the Turkish government. I certainly think that it was the strongest strain in the response; but it's nevertheless telling that it's apparently considered an OK strategy to claim that the Armenian Genocide/Holocaust is somehow a "less concentrated" genocide, so that it may "dilute" the (Jewish) Holocaust. Basically, this is a strategy of using the example of the Holocaust to downplay the importance of the Armenian Genocide/Holocaust. The current section in this article which deals with the Holocaust vs. Armenian Genocide/Holocaust issue seems to imply that this strategy is just a figment of the imagination of "[c]ertain bigots" who "have accused Jews of deliberately not giving the Armenian Genocide (as well as other genocides) enough attention in the media". My point is that such a strategy is not only used by anti-Semitic bigots, but also by more "respectable" parties. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
While it may have been used in an antisemitic conspiracy theory, I have heard that the state of Israel and Eli Wiesel (a Holocaust survivor and prominent author) have both fought recognition of the Armenian Genocide. The Holocaust is apparently deemed by some as an exceptional event that has no comparison, and therefore recognizing other genocides would dilute it.Mcc1789 (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has cited sources on Weisel saying:

Wiesel has become a popular speaker on the subject of the Holocaust. As a political activist, he has advocated for many causes, including Israel, the plight of Soviet and Ethiopian Jews, the victims of apartheid in South Africa, Argentina's Desaparecidos, Bosnian victims of genocide in the former Yugoslavia, Nicaragua's Miskito Indians, and the Kurds. Conversely, he withdrew from his role as chair of the International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide, and made efforts to abort the conference, in deference to Israeli objection to the inclusion of sessions on the Armenian genocide.

But also:

In 2007, Wiesel was awarded the Dayton Literary Peace Prize's Lifetime Achievement Award.[36] That same year, the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity issued a letter condemning Armenian genocide denial, a letter that was signed by 53 Nobel laureates including Wiesel. Wiesel has repeatedly called Turkey's 90-year-old campaign to downplay its actions during the Armenian genocide a double killing. So take from that what you will? Asarelah (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that this HuffPo article gives a better idea of Wiesel's gradual movement to a stronger stand on the Armenian Genocide. Btw, here's a link to an original story on the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity/Nobel laureates letter for anyone who's interested. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


Here's what I cut from the section:
"...conveniently overlooking the fact that unlike the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust had the benefit of the occupation of the Allies who made sure to scrupulously document, photograph, and film as much of it as they could, as well as put as many perpetrators as they could find on trial, thus creating a lot more information to study. But who needs things like logic when you can blame the Jews for everything?"
The reason I cut is that it's BS. The Armenian Genocide was well-documented while it happened, as Robert Fisk also pointed out by pointing to stories flourishing in newspapers at the time based on reports from the many foreigners from states neutral in WWI who observed the Armenian Genocide (incl., at the time, U.S. witnesses). Likewise, there was plenty of pictorialWikipedia and testimonialWikipedia evidence (during the genocide mainly from the various foreign missionary and charity staff working in the Ottoman Empire) and some of the responsible parties were indeed prosecutedWikipedia (though the ineffective/haphazard/slap-on-the-wrist outcomes prompted the vigilante Operation NemesisWikipedia) and with more trials planned,Wikipedia so the claims here are simply factually wrong. Also, Israeli officialdom has been careful about not drawing any parallels to the Holocaust, but more so as not to offend Turkey than in order to preserve the "unique horrors" of the Holocaust. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Genocide of Pontics/Greeks, Assyrians, Kurds, etc[edit]

Around this time the Ottoman Empire was committing genocide against various other groups as well. 300,000 Assyrians, 800,000 Greeks, and unknown how many Kurds. Should they be included in this article, or seperately? CorruptUser (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

In this one- except for the Kurds, if that actually happened.Summa Atheologica (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

If You Are Truly A Rational Wiki[edit]

I would like to see an article about Native American Genocide which is by far the largest genocide in history even in comparison with the Holocaust, but I guess that would be against the fake freedom of speech, liberalism and rationalism of America.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

1: "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
2: American Indian Holocaust FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 11:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I missed that, thank you, you really earned my respect now.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Armenian Genocide is the Fact with abundance of evidence - but....[edit]

why is that I can't find anything, here - at least on RW, since the following was never a subject or topic of discussion, west of Bosporus anyway - on the fact that genocide against Ottoman subjects of all etnicities of Islamic faith and Ottoman Turks took place on Balkan peninsula during First Balkan War and Second Balkan War.
Some two million of these people were destroyed during two Balkan Wars, between 1912 and 1913 - some killed, some raped, some expelled/ethnically cleansed, all villages and towns razed and burnt to the ground, of course with all historic and monumental heritage in form of sacral and cultural buildings of Islamic faith and culture destroyed.
Of all Ottoman Muslims of all ethnicities of Balkans only Bosnians in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Sandzak Muslims in what is today Sandzak in Serbia remained. These two populations were saved because of the fact that they were under Austria-Hungary sovereignty at the time, so Serbian genocidal campaigns could not touch them,... at the time, at least.
Sadly enough, these Bosnians suffered genocide, perpetrated against them by Serbia, eventually, almost century later, when Serbs decide to finish the job of 1912, and even though it is the best documented genocide in history, culture of denial is unprecedented.--ʘ౪ʘ °°° 01:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Er, because no one wrote anything about it? Hipocrite (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
You can add information on it if you like, so long as it's sourced and the sources are reputable. CorruptUser (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware of this to an extent - the Serb rebels grew to be particularly vicious in their fight for independence, and were known to massacre villages the Ottoman army had abandoned. I'm not familiar enough to confirm or disprove if discrimination was simply because they were Muslims, though, which is what you're implying. The European approach is that they were aggressively increasing their territory towards the size they were at prior to their annexation, and that everyone living there was 'in the way' (or if fighting Turks, revenge).-- Forerunner (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This entry wasn't fair on my part, but I am glad that replies are. By the way thanks for signature notice.--ʘ౪ʘ °°° 01:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


May I add, whoever said the killing of Turkish children by Armenians was justified because "the kids were gonna grow up into evil butchers anyway" are making me feel real bad for Turks, and I'm a hardcore-evangelical. Don't say that. That violates every standards of human rights and non-Caanite related biblical right out there. It also makes the Turk nationalist argument way stronger, especially when this piece actively gloats about killing the loved ones of Turks. You wanna know leads to ethnic hostility? People who can't save any Armenians, and who can't kill any Turks, writing about how it was good that Armenians killed Turkish women and children on a platform potential jihadist can access at any moment. Or actually, any Turkish person with a backbone could access at any moment. This is not only cruel, but may I add, retarded. — Unsigned, by: ThisSiteRuxExDee2 / talk

  • There's my little baby text. You're a good boy, you, yes you are. OK, seriously, are the women and children killing polemics in this article going to stand? (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I took it out. A very strange argument to make. Section could use some work from somebody knowledgeable about the subject--Hastur! (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
What's the problem? Your whole website is dedicated to "justifying" (through pseudoscience and pseudohistory) the genocide of white people. Jewish Supremacist (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah, yes. So what's "white?" Are Turks white? Are Armenians white? I've not found a single article justifying the murder of anyone for their race, unless you believe that the presence of a single Muslim in a neighborhood somehow sterilizes the whites living there, or "preverts" them into not being white. IveBeenFrank (talk)
The "It's OK to kill enemy civilians if any women at all were involved in war crimes" argument is back. This article in general starts out as a RationalWiki essay, and then gradually turns into anti-Turk political screed. I'm absolutely not defending the massacres of the Armenian and Greek people of the Ottoman Empire, but the tone and quality are just gone by halfway through. Vivisectionist (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

On the Turkish Killings[edit]

I understand the desire to discuss Turkish-Armenian violence in the perspective of Armenian self-defense. However, the current phrasing of this seems to justify murdering Turkish children, because they would themselves become Islamist extremists. This logic is severely twisted, and should not be portrayed in a positive, or even sympathetic, light. This violence only further fostered anti-Armenian hate and violence, as Turks would view Armenians as baby-killers, and become even more devoted to slaughtering them. This passage has been deleted and reverted, and I'd like to suggest an edit to prevent this conflict. IveBeenFrank (talk)

Bullshit. The Turks were committing a genocide at the time and couldn't care less about the innocence of their victims. That's a bit like saying impeaching Trump caused him to be a worse president or resisting the Nazis caused them to increase their atrocities. Note, also, that the Islamic extremists of the 1910s grew up during the Hamidian massacres of the 1880s, and so that logic is correct.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 13:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Pointing out that some Armenians were wrong to kill kids in no way justifies the genocide of the entire group. Of course the Turks were far worse than anything the Armenians could have done. However, by killing children who were at the time innocent, it is only natural that their parents and the ethnic group of the children would become more vicious in their killings of Armenians. Regardless of whether your logic is true, killing children (who I assume to be noncombatants) is wrong. The passage should reflect at least this. IveBeenFrank (talk)
Yeah, that bit was gross and it should stay gone. The article's argument is in no way weaker without it. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
You are wrong in assuming they were noncombatants, as some of the citations and Mardiganian's book show. Give me a citation for how retaliating against genocidal maniacs makes them "more vicious".𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 14:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Those source state that there were child soldiers, not that nearly every child was a soldier to the point that killing would be somewhat justified (as Armenians could assume that the children were combatants). As for your request for citation, it's human nature. When a bully beats someone up, harming something important to them will only further enrage them, motivating that bully to pursue their victims with increased ruthlessness. IveBeenFrank (talk)
Still no citation. If your logic were accurate, we shouldn't arrest and punish criminals, just leave them alone so they don't become "more ruthless".𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 14:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
There's a difference between arresting known criminals and killing their children. One is already guilty. The other is being killed simply on a supposition that they could become killers in the future. Not to mention that your current suggestion argues that by killing Turkish children, Armenians could help Turks "see reason." Pretty sure people who've just had their kids murdered aren't going to behave calmly and rationally. IveBeenFrank (talk)
There's a broad difference between 'the Armenians did this bad thing for a strategic reason' versus 'killing kids was good actually because they'd have been butchers and you need to kill the loved ones'. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
As I pointed out earlier, the butchers during the 1910s had been kids during the Hamidian massacres, so, yes, they would have been butchers. And given the circumstances (defending themselves from a genocide by a colonialist power), doing basically anything for a strategic reason would have been "good". Also, notice I used the word "justified" not "good", which has a totally different meaning. Need I mention that the Turks were killing people's loved ones and could have used a dose of their own medicine?𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 15:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Violence begets violence, not peace. By responding in kind, the Armenians solve nothing, and only sink to the level of the Turks. As to your mention of the Hamidian massacres, the actions you support create a self-fulfilling prophecy, and a never-ending, always-escalating cycle: Turks massacre Armenians, Armenians kill Turkish children, Turks become more hostile to Armenians and kill them in greater numbers when violence breaks out, and Armenians respond by killing ever more Turkish children. IveBeenFrank (talk)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You're lying and concern trolling again. In the Hamidian massacres, the Armenians didn't kill Turkish children, and the Turks took that as a licence to be even more violent. If your logic was true, Hitler could have been defeated by hugs, kisses, and the Jews, Roma, Slavs, French, Brits, etc.., peacefully submitting to being shot, starved, and gassed.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 15:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Regrettably, violence is sometimes necessary. As such, it should only be directed against those posing a severe and immediate threat. Hitler falls under this category, declaring an open war against those ethnicities. But German children, like Turkish children, aren't an immediate threat. Mass murder of German children, or terrorist attacks targeting them wouldn't have stopped the Holocaust; if anything, it would have increased the rate at which Hitler perused his ethnic cleansing, out of a desire for revenge. Killing children is morally wrong, and a stupid strategy. I don't know why you're trying to make it seem perfectly justified, almost as if the Armenians should be complimented for it. IveBeenFrank (talk)
But they didn't have to be an immediate threat. The Turks had been at the genocide business for thirty years, and it was reasonable of the Armenians to assume they would be at it thirty years later, when those children would have already reached middle age. With regards to Hitler, he would have perhaps wanted to increase the pace of the Holocaust, but would inevitably been forced to slow the pace to deal with the threat to his children.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 17:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
So it's perfectly good to kill an innocent on a presumption on future guilt? You're fine with condemning to death thousands of children, even the few (or many, you really don't know) on a hunch? If anything, Armenians would prove some of Turkish lies part true: that they are bloodthirsty and violent. And in regards to Hitler, no way! Since the oppressed groups (Yugoslavs, Roma, Jews, Slavs, etc.) killed German people, Hitler would have the perfect propaganda tool. He could now kill those groups at an even faster rate, as no German would object. Furthermore, he could entice German citizens into forming their own roaming bands of murderers. Targeting innocents always makes the enemy more ruthless. If you can find a counterexample to this, I'd be happy to hear it. IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
A counterexample is WW2, where after the Rape of Berlin the Germans basically didn't resist soviet domination until after 1985, or Rwanda, where now the Hutu militants are quite quiet.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 17:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
So the widespread fleeing of the country and espionage don't count in Germany's case? On the Rwandan case, I can't find any reference to counter-genocide by the Tutsis. And even then, the current success of Rwanda isn't due to a mass slaughter of Hutus, but through a comprehensive peace process designed to unite the country and encourage love for one's countrymen. (Turns out you can defeat genocide through hugs and kisses). I'll leave you with another example that proves my case: Germany's eastern front during WWII. The Soviet Union was widely hated by occupied Ukrainian and Slavic peoples; in fact, there were several partisan uprisings against them. If the Germans were to befriend these ethnicities, they could have utterly destroyed the Soviet Union with ease. However, by killing their children and burning their crops, they made fierce enemies out of the now fully-radicalized partisans, and the Soviet Union received unity the likes of which it never obtained before or since. Now that I've addressed the tactical uselessness of this total-war-esque doctrine, you still haven't discussed its moral implications. Are you a "end justifies the means" person, or a relativist, perhaps? Because I see no way to morally justify this. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The edit in question is gross and bloodthirsty, and I will take this to a mob vote before I allow it to go back into the article. Saying that kids would 'grow up to be butchers' and that 'slaughtering loved ones' is a legitimate tactic is frankly disturbing. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
You are correct in doing so. I will certainly not edit this page for a week or so and allow other people to sort this out.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 18:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


Incredibly missional, and decent article. I'd say this is a coinflip, but I'm leaning towards Silver... CorUser (pester) 02:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Somebody needs to comb through and make sure there isn’t any more “kill all Turks” rhetoric from Summa left in here. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Committed by secular Turks ?[edit]

"The article also claims that the genocide, which was committed by the secular Young Turks, actually had been done out of Islamism." The Turks had engaged in mass rape of women of Christian ethnicities, while kidnapping children and forcibly converting them to Islam. How can this be motivated by "secular" turks ? Indianfreethinker (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Forced conversions are usually about religion, but in Turkey's case they were about the elimination of foreign peoples. It'd be like someone banning Islam, *cough*China*cough*, even if the Muslims didn't have to convert to your specific religion. CorSock (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)