Armenian Genocide

Many contemporaries of that time said that they did not meet a single Armenian who would not know the Turkish language. It just shows how closely the Armenian people were tied to the Ottoman Empire.The Ottoman Empire never renounced the invention of the Great Turan - pan-Turkic state, which was to extend Turkish territories by occupying the Caucasus, North Caucasus, the Crimea, the Volga region, Central Asia up to the Altai and partly Mongolia. The Armenians had always prevented implementation of these plans; in addition, the Armenians had ties with the Russians. Therefore, it was one of the leading aspects to exterminate the Armenians. The plans for the extermination of the Armenian population were developed in October 1911 at a congress of the party "Union and Progress" ( "Ittihad ve Terakki") and took shape in the World War First. In September 1914, at a secret meeting chaired by the Minister of the Interior Talaat Pasha was established the leaders of the Young Turks Nazim, Shakir Behaetdin and Sukru. Nazim claimed; “If we remain satisfied with the sort of local massacres which took place in Adana or elsewhere ...if this purge is not general and final, it will inevitably lead to problems. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to eliminate the Armenian people in its entirety, so there is no further Armenian on this earth and the very concept of Armenia is extinguished”.The same attitude had other participants in the

The actions made by the Ottoman Empire during the World War one were a contribution and establishment of a genocide. The Armenian genocide resulted in 1.5 million deaths of Armenians that were caused by starvation, exhaustion, dehydration, and mainly from being slaughtered. " The decision to carry out a genocide against the Armenian people was made by the political party in power in the Ottoman Empire" (Full of Facts: Armenian Genocide). Since the Committee of Union and Progress came to a conclusion to organize this event, it proves that the decrease in the Armenian population was intentional.

The definition of a genocide correlates with the actions of the Turkish people to the Armenians because the acts violated human rights and the harmful actions taken towards the group were intentional. The Armenians have been abused for their offensive decisions made during World War I to the Turks and the Ottoman Empire. The Turks looked down on the Armenians for not being Muslim therefore Armenians were not permitted to hold government jobs and forced to pay higher taxes. Armenians did not find this fair and protested for basic human rights.

Between the years of 1915 and 1918 the Ottoman Empire, under the Young Turks began a deliberate program of removing and exterminating the Armenian population; a population already dismantled through previous massacres. The Armenians were a minority in both population and religion. Because most Armenians were Christians, they were made an easy scapegoat in an empire that was mostly Islamic. With the world’s eyes on the First World War, the Armenian Genocide went mostly unnoticed and there were no punishments such as ones received by Germany after the Holocaust. The United States has deliberately avoided the recognition of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 in order to maintain an ally in the Middle East and to avoid American genocidal policies,

On the positive side, this brought about international attention to the crisis at hand. On the negative side, that attention did not amount to any actual reform in the Ottoman Empire on the behalf of the Armenian people. There is also the matter in which American activists worded the problem that has caused the Armenian people to struggle with self-identity in the United States; I will talk more about this later in this paper. To gather aid for the Armenian cause the ABCFM sat down and devised a plan on how to present the Armenian people in the United States. What came about was that the United States had a duty to intervene in order to save the Christian Armenians because of familiar religious ties. Somehow the Armenians were “unique in the world for their long-standing devotion

I have selected to look at the Armenian genocide as the central topic for my Senior Project. The Armenian Genocide is the term given to the systematic killings of the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire during the first World War. This event is important because it is argued to be the first modem genocide and was one of the events studied in the attempt to define what a genocide is. The Armenian genocide is so important for study because of it's close relation to the creation of the nation of Turkey and the national identity to Armenian diaspora found around the world. The hundred years sense the start of the killings in 1915 have been a rocky road. The Turkish government refuses to recognize the event as a genocide and this has had

Since his book focuses so strongly on the conflicts of the Balkans, Dadrian is able to concentrate much of his argument on the basis that the Turks used to war, both the Balkan wars and World War I, as a way of hiding the deportations and the slaughters of the Armenian people that eventually lead to genocide. Here Dadrian excels against his fellow three scholars who have not centered their arguments as heavily around this detail. Dadrian discusses the Ottoman Empire's long history of power and war and how the Ottomans used this as a way to hide their violent actions. Through the use of the Balkan War conflicts the Armenian Question was slowly formed in order to deal with the massive population of Armenians in the Ottoman territory. The Ottomans who were unable to separate to separate religion from their state affairs and eventually dragged the Armenians into these issues. Through harsh and unreasonable forms of victimization, the Turks began to take out their frustration on the Armenian population for their losses and hardships. the hatred of the Armenians steadily grew as reforms were formed in order to rid the land of the

Some argue, “ there was no official policy of genocide. The claim is based on the fact that the comprehensive Ottoman archives contain no documents suggesting such a plan” (Stamford University Turkish Student Association). The idea of intent is a minute variable of the whole situation. According to an article found in The New York Times, titled, “Turks Accused of Plan to Exterminate Whole Population” in 1915 explained a letter they obtained from Constantinople in July of 1915: “We learn, besides that the roads of Euphrates are strewn with corpses of exiles, and those who survive are doomed to certain death, since they will find neither house, work, nor food in the desert. It is a plan to exterminate the whole Armenian people” (The New York Times, 1915). This evidence shows proof of government intent. Although, maybe there was no documentation saying they are trying to kill these people, the government had to know that putting the Armenian people in the desert would kill them. It’s absurd that the government used the justification of self defense and intent because, since they put them through the desert with knowledge of their inevitable deaths, that isn’t keeping them safe at all. They are separating two groups-- one subjected to torture of at the very least starvation and the other isn’t moving at

Approximately one and a half million Armenians were killed from 1915-1923. The remaining part was either Islamized or exiled.” The Armenian Genocide was a horrific event that caused the Armenians to have a major loss in population. From this, the Armenians should have been given reparations, but were not and that still affects them to this day.

With the aid of influential superpowers such as America and Soviet Union, Ottoman Turkey claimed ownership of some of Armenia’s ancient lands near the end of the 19th century. The whole conflict itself was consistently compounded by more and more factors that complicated matters. Within time, Turkey imploded with success and good fortune while Armenia suffered the after effects of the early 1900’s for the next century to come. Armenians and Turks once actually co-existed in the Ottoman Empire centuries ago; however they are now troubled with the past. While 500 years ago, both Armenians and Turks exerted equal efforts to expand their empire in battles such as the Battle of Chaldiran, their powers are no longer parallel: “Turkey holds 780,000 square miles and Armenia is no larger than the state of Rhode Island” [1]. Turkey now is skyrocketing in the economic sector with a surplus of jobs, housing, and overall government wealth while most of Armenia’s inhabitants are almost the polar opposite; jobless and stricken with poverty. The issue is if there is a direct relation between the huge success of one country and the rapid decline of another. Armenia believes their low population and land area is a result of a genocide carried out by Turkey, while Turkey claims that it was war: Armenia also deliberated violent atrocities against Turkey. Taking into consideration the time period, the onset of World War 1, there is

In the article "The concept of genocide" by Paul Boghossian, the author tries to understand how legitimate is the use of the term "genocide" in our daily language and how the concept that it is hidden may be imposed in the past and in the present-day realities. Today, the author of a statement must explain what the interpretation of the concept he knows and how he himself sees and interprets the situation. Although the author is Armenian, and the article itself contains a large number of references to the genocide of the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians (who lived thousands of years in its place), we have difficulty understanding how he considers this crime as genocide or not. Since the proposed definition of genocide is not clear (can be read meaningfully) author's reflection are extremely interesting for understanding the essence of the genocide, and the possibilities of its determination and consolidation in the international legal field.

Simultaneously, the Ottomans managed to eliminate the more dangerous Armenians, as the ones that are truly violent and hateful were massacred in these miniature killings. “commisioned write articles for publication in the Sura- yi Ummet, demonstrating that Britain was no longer pursuing friendly policies as she had done in the past, in particular, in the 1830’s and 1840’s. On the contrary, she was now inciting the Armenian, the Macedonians revolutionaries, and even the Arabs against Turkish rule” (Unal) To the Ottomans, Britain meant Christianity, so to hear that Britain didn’t want to be allies anymore meant that Christians didn’t want to be with the Ottomans either. That the Ottomans would connect the Easter Orthodox church of the Armenians with the Protestant Church of England, two very different sects of Christianity, is bizarre. This connection ultimately hurt the Armenians. “The CUP was always at pains to disguise its Turkish nationalist an, by implication, anti-Christian leanings particularly in its Ottoman-Turkish publications.” (Morganthau) By hiding the fact that they are anti-Christian, the subliminal messages attacking the subconscious are much more effective than a conscious message. The CUP was a very effective propaganda making machine, and very effectively caused Ottoman to be polarized into two groups, Muslim

The Ottoman Turks perpetrated the first genocide of the 20th century against the Empire’s Armenian population. 100 years later, the utter failure to punish the perpetrators has led to the contemporary cycle of genocide.

The new power of the Young Turks brought hope to all of my community, and for the first time in forever I saw smiles on the faces of my friends and family. We all believed that the Young Turks would help alleviate our social grievances, giving us social and political rights, eventually valuing the Armenians as equals with the Turks. To support the new government, my village and many other Armenians joined together with Turkish people, rallying for equality, justice, and freedom. I couldn’t wait for the change promised by the new government, for I have faced injustice my entire life. The Armenians have always been the religious minorities, practicing Christianity in an empire full of strictly Muslim overlords. Because of this difference in religion, we are considered infidels, and receive unjust and unequal treatment. Currently, we have to pay higher taxes strictly because we follow Christianity, and we cannot vote. This repressive regime that I live in today is something I wouldn’t wish even upon my worst enemy. (Gavin, The Armenian Genocide, The Armenian Genocide (1915-16): In Depth)

A large focus of the academic literature is an examination on how the Armenian genocide is contemporarily viewed and depicted, as it is engulfed in cultural bias. The widespread denial of the genocide in Turkey and among Turkish people indicates the high level of cultural bias that exists. The Turkish government denies that this was genocide, and it is a criminal offense in Turkey to discuss it. The denial of genocide is especially