Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 6

message: I see Orhan Pamuk's words are being abused in support for the alleged genocide in the following section. 
During a February 2005 interview with Das Magazin, Orhan Pamuk, a famous Turkish novelist, made statements implicating Turkey in the Armenian Genocide and persecution of the Kurds, declaring: "Thirty thousand Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody but me dares to talk about it".
Orhan Pamuk never supported a thesis that the armenian massacres constitute a genocide, and his stance does not deviate from what many other turkish intellectuals accept as well, namely that  massacres and killings of armenians did actually occur in revenge for previous massacres against the muslim population. Orhan Pamuk never implicated the Ottoman state of an organized campaign of genocide. 
Please, either give an exact quote of Orhan Pamuk where he calls the massacres explicitly by the name "genocide", which I doubt you will find, or remove the reference to Orhan Pamuk from the "Support for the Genocide Thesis" section. 
Thank you. --Hasanidin 23:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orhan Pamuk 

message: Thoth, you proposed that article should be changed, after researching a little bit, to find an article that it's structure and order be used to make this article more ordered. 
The Armenian Genocide of 1915–1916: Cumulative Radicalization and the Development of a Destruction Policy by  Donald Bloxham, published in Past and Present, Nov 2003
This way of presentation can be used for the article. I did find more about the claims about racism, ironically from two works written by ethnically Turkish authors. The origins of Turkish Republican citizenship: the birth of race by Bora Isyar and Imagining the Turkish nation through 'othering' Armenians by Ayla Göl, both published in Nations and Nationalism.
I am in the process of starting footnoting, but I think the article do need some restructuring, without loosing the information that is already in it. There is also a new section that I was working on, regarding German implications, since as we speak, the materials and publications are now considerable enough.
So, what I do propose, is that you read Donald Bloxham work, if you can not find it, I will provide you a PDF version.(if you want, I'll do the same, for the work of the two turkish authors) Fadix 19:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thoth, I did not post that work, for its title, I just refered to it, because it was a good resume of what happened, simplified etc., and its structure could be used for the article. We can obviously not use structures of any of Dadrians works, because they are either about a specific thing, or it's too big to be a resume. As for the racism stuff from the Turkish authors, both are written in English, and i brought them because of your position that there was racism in the act, but I still disagree there, but now we have three authors who researched the matter and could be used. But those again are positions and should be presented as such. Now, I am ready to email you the work, I will be restructuring the article, but I will first present the possible changes in the talk page and discuss them. Fadix 23:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References, and modification 

message: This section will be used to collect references for the footnoting process.
First, for the claim of most Western scholars. The Association of Genocide Scholars official recognition. Holocaust and Genocide Studies publications, the Armenians cases is cited in 139 articles, Rwanda 78, Cambodia 69, etc. From the most important Journals about genocides, the Armenian cases is the second most used(The Holocaust being the first), which also goes in the same direction as what Rummel say in his book. The Armenian cases also is used in various Journals, like "Journal of Conflict & Security Law,"  "International Journal of REFUGEE LAW," "Journal of International Ciminal Justice" etc... Also, the Armenian genocide in the past years has even made some people like Yahuda Bauer, adherent to the hypotheses of Uniqueness of the Holocaust, to rethink. In fact, Bauer wites in his The rethinking of the Holocaust published in the Yale University Press. "In the Armenian genocide, arguably the closest parallel to the Holocaust, the motivation was political and chauvinistic, that is, it had a pragmatic basis." Using various database, we come to a clear disproportion in the Western literature, between those that support the theses of genocide, and those that do not. Fadix 17:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not talking about the massacres, or deaths, but the number of people having been evacuated from 1915 to 1917. This excudes, the losses during the evacuation. I was already aware of the figures you presented, but again, they say basically what I have said, that the figure of over a million having been evacuated is something that has been established, and that part about not having been clearly established could lead people to believe that that much having been evacuated is still not established. Fadix 22:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: If you think, it can be more clear, do propose alternatives, as to how to write that sentence. Fadix 22:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnoting process 

message: Please see:
A Letter from The International Association of Genocide Scholars
— Davenbelle 08:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am wondering if it isn't more appropriate to add this in the wikiquote. Fadix 00:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not opposed, it's rather long... I've not looked much at wikiquote... — Davenbelle 04:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think such material is supposed to be at Wikisource. So I added it there. -- Karl Meier 09:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: BTW, I've sent you the three articles. Fadix 00:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: THOTH, that is my hope; see: this proposal and this comment. — Davenbelle 04:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Feel free to post a comment — this case is not yet over... — Davenbelle 03:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Letter from The International Association of Genocide Scholars 

message: More concerning the legitimacy of the use of the word "genocide" for the Armenian Genocide - from a very recent interview of German scholar Hilmar Kaiser. I suggest that all who doubt the proper use of the word in this instance take head. This interview apeared in the Lebanese newspaper Aztag on Saturday, 24 September, 2005. K.M. is Khatchig Mouradian. This is not the entire interview which primarily covered the issue of the openess of the Ottoman Archives.
K.M. - You mentioned the issue of `abandoned property'. Some scholars
who have studied that aspect of the Armenian genocide consider the
theft of fixed and moveable assets as an integral part of the genocide
and maintain that that theft was organized by the leadership of the
CUP.
H.K. - It was the state. It was from the top of the government, from
Talat and Ali Munif Bey. The Armenian genocide is the Ottoman
government's answer to the Armenian Question: Deportations can only be
analyzed in terms of expropriation. It was grand theft. It was the
surgical separation of Armenians from their movable and immovable
property. The Ottoman government was very careful of not wasting any
assets while being not concerned about the fate of the Armenians.
To make the expropriation permanent, you have to replace the
Armenians. The expropriation was part of a settlement program; this
process created a surplus population and this surplus population was
taken care of. The Armenians were mathematically a surplus
population. Killing or, in the case of children and women,
assimilating them solved that problem. What took place was genocide,
not massacres.
In 1990, I spoke about the `so-called Armenian genocide.' I was a
student in Germany and the library wasn't good enough and for that
reason, I wasn't good enough myself. After I started my archival
work, in one month, I spoke about the genocide, not the `so- called
genocide'. I'm not just a believer in the Armenian genocide; I'm
someone who has acquired that knowledge from his own work. No one
taught me the Armenian genocide and no one taught me to use the
word. It's a result of my own work. I use the word because it's the
appropriate term that covers the phenomenon. The more I study the
Armenian genocide, its various aspects and its systematic nature, the
more it becomes evident that there is only one word. It's not a
question of having preferences; if you want to present yourself as a
scholar, you have to use the word. If you want to talk about the
massacres of Armenians in one village or the deportations in another
village, you don't have to use genocide, but the moment you want to
put the wider perspective, you have to use the word. And every scholar
that wants to play games, like some people going to Yerevan and
telling everyone `don't use the `G' word', have a political agenda.
K.M. - Some Turkish scholars refrain from using the `G' word because
they say that it's highly politicized and that they do not want to get
involved in the war between Turkish and Armenian nationalists.
H.K. - I don't care about the Armenian and Turkish nationalist, no
matter who my friends are and who are not my friends. I use the word
`genocide' because it adequately describes the phenomenon. It's the
only term we have that describes it. If one day we have a better word,
fine. The English, German, and Turkish languages have only one word to
describe. That this has a negative consequence on the Turkish
government is something I can't change; I can't change history. I'm
not prepared to haggle over it. If a Turkish scholar says its too
politicized and he or she doesn't want to use the word, then let
him/her take a different subject. If you want to be part of this
debate, apply proper terminology and if you don't want to do it, you
aren't a scholar. I don't like the fact that I get trouble from some
Turkish quarters because I use proper terminology; but you have to
face the music. If you don't want to face the music then don't
play. That certain people living in Turkey had to take certain
precautions at least in the past is unfortunate, that's why I don't
provoke them, but I'm not dealing with people who have no academic
knowledge on the issue suddenly turning up and trying to renegotiate
academic terminology.
--THOTH 01:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legitimacy of the word "genocide" in the case of the Armenian genocide (again) 

message: As an American citizen currently residing in Armenia, I thought I could currently offer some insight into some false claims on this page.
1) Unconditional talks are occuring between the Armenian and Turkish Governments concerning re-opening the borders between the two countries, Armenian recognition of the 1921 Kars Treaty, and the formation of a bilateral parlliamentary comission to study the Armenian Genocide 
2) There have been no demands for monetary reimbursement or territories from the Turkish Government on behalf of the Armenian Government. (The only reference to this that I can find is from the ultra-nationalists publications, which are in the minority, this is not the official stance of the Armenian Government)
3) U.S. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) has been recently accused of accepting $500,000 dollars on behalf of the Turkish lobby to kill the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide bill in the US house in 2000. (This came as part of the Sibel Edmonds controversy, The ACLU has appealed Edmonds' case to the Supreme Court)
4) A new Armenian Genocide recognition has passed the house commitee on foreign affairs and is coming up for a vote in the U.S. House
5)"Turkey vs. Western countries, but Azerbaijan agrees with Turkish position" There is a good reason for this. Currently Azerbaijan and Armenia are at war. There is no actual fighting, but a peace treaty has never been established. Add this to the fact that Azeris are ethnic Turks, and I would not present the Azeri position as unbiased. 
6) Venezuela can be added to the list of countries who officially recognize the Armenian Genocide of 1915
Is there really any reason to list the Armenian Genocide site as "Disputed"?83.217.229.146 11:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Disputed will have to remain, until the article is source, even though, nearly of of the things there were source in the talk page. It still need work. I will footnote it, and propose and make some changes, and then, will request from some to read it, and ask for their opinions on if the disputed banner be removed. And then, probably I will pass it to a vote, so that there is no rv war between those removing it, and those adding it. Fadix 18:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide Debate 

message: I have no information on what happened,nor any comment about it.But there is something disturbing me;
When a country (for example switzerland) "accepts" this case,it becomes illegal to defend your own toughts;which is totally anti-democratic.EU wants Turkish Republic to be "more" democratic,but they raze the system to the ground.
And have another question also; if Turkey accepts this so called genocide,what does genocide-supporters want in return? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wounded Knee (talk • contribs) 17:54, September 27, 2005 (UTC).diff
:First of, we still don't really know that it is illegal in Switzerland, we should wait and see what will happen with the present cases. Also, it is not illegal to deny the Armenian genocide in most or maybe all of the countries that recognize it. I am personaly against making illegal taking position, unless it is for reasons such as racism etc. And some times, it is hard to say the motivation of the person that take position. Now concerning the differences between trialing someone that support the genocide theses in Turkey, and someone who does not in an European country, is that in the first cases, the person is trialed for supporting a theses that most of those scholars that have written about the topic support. There are other differences, but if you'd like we could discuss about them in our respective talkpages. For your last question, no one can answer to this one clearly, because there is no absolute answers. What I want, is the burial of my encestors and the preservation of their memory. This has no monatery or territorial price. But here, I am talking about myself. And lastly, while you ask legitimate questions, they don't have much to do with the article, so we must continue this discussion elsewhere, email, or member talkpages. Regards. Fadix 18:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian Genocide and Democracy 

message: :Turkish government was also shows the criminal cases opened and concluded against the Ottoman administrators and military personal for their wrong doings, under the sight of Allied forces. Turkish government also brings the agreements signed during that time and new republics efforts to compensate the issues not just covering Armenians but/and all other ethnic groups affected during the WWI. Turkish government claims that it is willing to share the pains of Armenians, but this process is impossible if other side does not show the same sensitivity for an issue that runs as deep as Armenian feelings for them.
Last sentence is clearly POV, so shouldnt be included. Possibly you are making a point by the references to criminal cases, but the formulation as is is not encyclopedic. Anybody know what he might mean or intend to say? Thought i'd include it here just to make sure. --The Minister of War 00:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what he is trying to say. Fadix 01:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree - there is no clear point to this addition - it does not really present any information whatsoever - it is entirely too cryptic and has no place in the artical or in any artical and requires elaboaration and explanation in these talk pages to be addressed - if in fact it warrents such. --THOTH 01:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting changes by [[User:Tommiks|Tommiks]] 

message: October 18, 2005
In the Fall 2005 issue of Middle East Quarterly, Professor Guenther Lewy of the University of Massachusetts examines the mass murders of Armenians in Turkey before, during and after World War I and concludes: "The three pillars of the Armenian claim to classify World War I deaths as genocide fail to substantiate the charge that the Young Turk regime intentionally organized the massacres. Other alleged evidence for a premeditated plan of annihilation fares no better."
Dr. Vahakn N. Dadrian, the world's leading authority on the Turkish genocide of the Armenians and author of The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus, has drafted this comprehensive reply, and kindly given us the privilege and honor of posting it exclusively here at Jihad Watch: 
By its very nature historiography can neither be expected to be complete in every respect, nor be free from any number of other shortcomings. This truism is even more pertinent to the study of such a subject matter as the Armenian genocide the historical reality of which for one reason or another is presently being degraded to the level of dubiousness. The principal vehicles used hereby are the publications of a rather small group of authors purporting to be detached and disinterested investigators. Upon closer scrutiny, however, these very same authors reveal themselves as committed partisans boldly pushing certain denialist agendas that are subtly and skillfully woven into texture of their discourses. Hence the denial is attempted indirectly rather than directly; the historical reality of the World War I Armenian genocide is called into question by casting doubt on the appropriateness of the use of the label “genocide.” 
When by recourse to a variety of techniques he is decrying as unwarranted the use of such a label with respect to the Armenian case, Professor Lewy is thereby providing a measure of confirmation in this respect. In the process he also is betraying his very limited familiarity with the subject. His article is replete with factual errors, misinterpretations that are accented by some outright falsehoods. On top of all this, he further betrays lack of an adequate level of knowledge of Turkish, not to speak of extinct Ottoman Turkish, on both of which he is significantly relying as primary source medium. One is prompted to wonder as to the origin and nature of the outside help he may have received.
What follows firstly is -- given exigent space limitations -– some samples only of the type of errors mentioned above:
The Yozgat trial series were not conducted in Yozgat but in Istanbul; Kemal was Kaymakam of Bogazliyan county only but not of Yozgat district of which he subsequently became an interim mutassarif by way of transfer and promotion; Cemal Pasha was not the governor of Aleppo, but the commander-in-chief of Ottoman’s IVth Army deployed in Lebanon and Syria (all these on p. 2); Dr. Liparit Nasariantz was not a German missionary (p. 5) but an Armenian political activist who later became a member of the Armenian National Council, an émigré political outfit. Moreover, Lewy’s claim that “there is no indication that German colonel Stange had any role in the Special Organization” is flatly contradicted by several authentic sources. Foremost among these is Dr. Ernst Kwiatkowski, Austria-Hungaria’s Consul at Trabzon, the port city where the Special Organization had its center for logistics. In one of his several reports to Vienna he revealed that “convicts were also enrolled” in Stange’s detachment which actually was the 8th Regiment of the 10th Army corps of the Ottoman III Army operating in the eastern province of Turkey. [1] Even more compelling is the disclosure of a Turkish officer who not only participated in Stange’s military operations, but kept a record of them in his notebook. According to him “Stange was in charge of the Special Organization Regiment that was named ‘Teshkilati Mahsusa Alayi’ ” and that it encompassed the notorious killer bands of two noted chieftains, Topal Osman and Deli Halit, who played a paramount role in the implementation phases of the Armenian genocide. That regiment consisted of eleven battalions (tabur) and was thereafter called the Lazistan Detachment (Lazistan Mufrezesi). [2] Unable to strictly control the secret and covert operations of these contingents of this Detachment, Stange at the end blasted them in his “secret” report to his German superiors in which he expressed his contempt of these “chettes” by calling them “scums.” [3] 
According to professor Lewy, the Armenian claim of genocide is predicated upon the “the pillars,” namely, (1) the Turkish Courts- Martial of 1919-20, (2) the role of the Special Organization (Teshkilati Mahsusa), and (3) the memoirs of Naim Bey (p. 6). This highly inaccurate description again is reflective of his seemingly limited familiarity with the literature involved. [4] Notwithstanding, they call for scrutiny to “set the record straight.”
Of these, the one involving a lengthy discussion, based on his claim that they are “forgeries,” covers the Naim-Andonian documents. That claim is mainly, if not exclusively, based upon a book produced by two Turkish authors who, following an extensive examination, maintained that the documents are forgeries. Even though at the end of his discussion he finds it expedient to hedge somewhat by allowing that these documents are “at best unverifiable and problematic,” the bulk of Lewy’s arguments with emphasis focus, however, on the forgery angle. Yet, as far as it is known, the two non-Turkish scholars cited by him for support of his claim did not themselves conduct any comparable research, including Zürcher who was content to state that the documents “have been shown to be forgeries.” But on the other end of the spectrum, a German author having very recently uncovered a number of authentic Ottoman documents from the Interior Ministry Section of Turkish state archives, established that these documents 
confirm to some degree the contents of two other telegrams ascribed to Talaat in Andonian’s book. Thus the dating of telegrams nos. 840 and 860 as January 1916 appears to be correct…[The two Turkish authors] Sinasi Orel and Süreyya Yüce who have agued that Andonian forged his material, did not consider the source under scrutiny here. Thus their thesis is to be put into question and further research [on this matter] is necessary. [5]
Equally significant in this regard is the fact that Lewy is either unaware or he chose to ignore completely the existence of a very extensive analysis of the validity of these documents which I undertook and which in its entirety was published in the peer reviewed official journal of the Middle East Studies Association of North America. [6] In the light of all this, Lewy’s standards of research are cast in stark relief, especially with respect to his conclusion that “most historians and scholars dismiss ‘these documents’” (p. 5). When dismissing another “pillar” mentioned above, he criticizes the Ottoman criminal justice system as having subverted the basic principles of such justice. Evidently he is unaware of the fact that the Ottoman Penal Code and the Ottoman Code of Criminal Procedure were compendiums essentially modeled after their French counterparts. The entire system is inquisitorial. The judges take the lead in getting the facts in the pre-trial investigative stage as well as in the subsequent actual trial, whereas in the Anglo-Saxon common-law system, called adversarial, lawyers develop the facts thereby consigning the judges to a neutral role. Accordingly, the pre-trial investigation and the preparation of prosecution are conducted in privacy, namely, in secrecy. Defense counsels are denied access to the resulting files and the right to accompany the accused in these pre-trial examinations. Even though in the law of evidence the principle of the “intimate,” i.e., “a deep seated conviction” was adopted in the Ottoman Code of Criminal Procedure whereby the judge freely accords credence to the best of his conscience, for proof of guilt, however, he depends on concrete evidence, as well as defense’s counter-arguments. The composite ingredients of such evidence involve confession, witness testimony, the writings and records of officials, evidence secured through discovery, judicial notice, searches and seizures, and expert testimony (Articles 232 and 233). In all the trial series by and large those conditions obtained, especially with respect to massive testimony provided by dozens of Turkish and Muslim witnesses. [7] Furthermore, contrary to Lewy’s declaration that its text, along with the text of other proceedings, is “not preserved in any source” (p. 3), the fact is that the text of General Vehib’s deposition was not only read into the record in its entirety at the second sitting of the Trabzon trial series (March 19, 1919), but that entire text was published also in several newspapers of the period. [8] 
Lewy further complains that the indictment “is not proof of guilt” (p. 3), whereas in the present case it legally served as a major source of evidence-in-chief, unlike in the case of all the other subsidiary indictments. Articles 130, 214 and especially 222, section, 1 and 2, of the Ottoman Criminal Code of Procedures spell out this function of the indictment. [9] The forty two pieces of authenticated documents attached to the key indictment comprised twelve cipher telegrams, three memos, two “communications,” ten signed (and three unsigned) statements obtained by the prosecution in the course of pre-trial interrogations, three depositions, two letters, and “several” other documents relative to the role of the “Special Organization.” 
Lewy’s references to three Western High Commissioners, serving in Istanbul following its occupation by the victorious Allies in 1919, as supporting material for his thesis are such as to beg the question. It may be true for example, that U.S. High Commissioner Lewis Heck was critical of some of the procedural aspects of the trials in question. But it is also true that on several occasions he unequivocally recognized and denounced “the great crime” as when he declared, “The great majority of the Turkish officials in the interior either actively participated in, or at least condoned the massacres of the Armenians.” On another occasion he reinforced his view by stating that “…the vast majority of the Turkish race heartily approved” of these massacres. [10] As to the other two, in this case, British High Commissioners, viz., Vice Admiral Sir S.A. Gough Calthorpe and Admiral Sir J. de Robeck, their disapproval and derogation of these trials was, as I have in detail explained elsewhere, [11] primarily derived from their belief that in prosecuting the authors of the massacres the Military Tribunal was lax and inept, and hence the trials were “a farce” and “a failure,” to the detriment of the Armenians, the victims. Nor was Malta, a mere temporary detention center, in any way intended to serve as a venue for any kind of “trials” (p. 3). 
Apparently determined to by all means discredit and invalidate the findings of this Tribunal, Lewy proceeds to dispute the method of authenticating the official documents used in the trials -- in complete disregard of the fact that almost all of these officials of the Interior Ministry in charge of verifying these documents were holdovers of the defunct and banished Young Turk Ittihadist Party, i.e., the CUP. In other words the residual partisans of the organization, whose top leaders were being prosecuted for a capital crime, are being accused of assisting the prosecution by way of accommodative dishonesty-because, as Lewy puts it, they are “period officials” (p. 3). What is the definition of the term “stretching an argument”?
Lewy rightly deplores “the loss of all their [i.e., the military courts’] documentation” (p. 3). The fact, however, that this loss remarkably coincides with the seizure of Istanbul by the Kemalist forces in 1922 when the huge archive of the Turkish Military Tribunal vanished without a trace, raises an abiding question: 
Did the documents disappear by themselves, or having been collared and despoiled by interested parties, mainly the new masters of Turkey, they met the fate of a “loss”? [12]
His discussion of the Special Organization is no less marked by a plethora of errors and questionable assertions. They were briefly touched on in notes 1 and 2. Unfortunately, Lewy’s sources and data are wanting in some critical respects. The Turkish Military Tribunal through documents attached to the main indictment on four occasions, noted on pp. 4 and 5, of that indictment, reveals the close and very intimate links between the Special Organization and the top leaders of the Ittihad party, CUP, who are characterized as the organization’s central authority. On pp. 6 and 7, there are specific details about the wide-spread massacres the brigands of that organization have committed against the Armenians; on pp. 5, 6, and 7, there are further details as to how these perpetrators were released from the empire’s prisons and deployed in the provinces for massacre duty. Still on pp. 5 and 7, there are six specifications as to how two army commanders and the military governor of the Ottoman Capital, Istanbul, combined their resources to streamline these lethal operations of the Special Organization with the help of Dr. B. Chakir, one of the chief architects of the wartime genocide. [13] These disclosures independently and decades later are largely corroborated by the two most competent Turkish authors and authorities on the subject. [14]
Lewy’s bold contention that “there is no evidence beyond the indictment of the main trial that the Special Organization, with large number of convicts enrolled in its ranks, took the lead role in the massacres,” (p. 4) is flatly contradicted by first-hand Turkish evidence. A prominent editor and close associate of Atatürk in his memoirs reveals that when he at the start of World War I applied for reserve-officer training under a special program initiated by Dr. Nazim, another architect of the Armenian genocide, the latter ended up shocking the young volunteer when revealing that the task did involve commanding para-military units which consisted of ex-convicts, the so-called ”chettes.” Indeed Jevad, the military commander of the Ottoman capital, in the course of the second sitting of the Cabinet Ministers trial (May 4, 1919) testified that Dr. Nazim was in charge of recruiting volunteers (gönüllüs) for operations that were “non-military.” (askerlik haricinde) (T.V. 3543, p. 27). The young applicant wrote that he was repulsed by the idea of such an “army of massacrers” (Katiller Ordusu). [15] In a subsequent article in his newspaper, he went so far as to suggest that the massacres against the Armenians could well be characterized as “genocide,” using exactly this composite Latin-Greek term. [16] Another reserve officer with duties in the Department II, Intelligence, Ottoman General Headquarters, at the start of World War I, and subsequently with duties as deportation official, in a book published in the wake of that war with great compassion lamented the nightmare of the Armenian genocide. In doing so, he singled out the brigands, the “chettes” of the Special Organization who, he said “committed the greatest crimes,” (en buyuk cinayetteri) during that genocide. [17] Still another Turkish publicist and author of several volumes, referring to the same “chettes” of the Special Organization, testified that these criminal bands “directly pursued the goal of extermination” by attacking and destroying countless Armenian deportation convoys. [18] In another book he stated that these deportations “…meant the extermination of the Armenian minority in Turkey.” [19]
Furthermore, it is inaccurate to say that “the Ottoman government released convicts…in order to increase its manpower pool for military service” (p. 4). Available evidence points to a different direction. The most striking testimony contradicting this assertion is provided by Colonel Behic Erkin, the chief of the department for procurement of supplies (Ikmal Subesi) in the Ottoman War Office. In his testimony before the Ottoman Parliament during the war he declared: “The majority of the convicts is not being sent directly to the frontlines but rather to the Special Organization thereby [affording them a chance] to render patriotic services.” [20] As to his argument that there is no evidence that these Special Organization brigands “took the lead role in the massacres” (p. 4), here is a documented evidence ascertained by the Turkish Military Tribunal -- beyond the confines of the Indictment. Harput (Mamuretul Aziz) Verdict “In his capacity as a member of the Central Committee of Ittihad party (CUP), and as Chief of the Special Organization, Dr. Chakir personally oversaw the release of the convicts from the prisons of the empire’s capital, and of Trabzon and the Erzurum provinces. The criminals were subsequently organized into brigand units during the Armenian deportations. These “chettes” then proceeded to engage in killing operations under his leadership” (Takvimi Vekayi, [thereafter T.V.] no.3771, p. 1). A similar condemnation with respect to the murderous role of the same organization is recorded in the Responsible Secretaries Verdict (T. V. no.3772, p. 3). 
Even the top leaders of the S.O. did reluctantly admit during their trials the fact of the engagement of those ex-convicts and their cohorts in the operations of “Armenian deportations.” What is so remarkable about this development is that these admissions were made following the abrupt production by the prosecution of documents mostly cipher telegrams, bearing their signatures. The surprised and startled defendants, who until this uniformly [21] and persistently had been denying the involvement of the S.O. in these deportations, reversed themselves and confessed. These defendants also revealed in the course of these trials, and for the first time that the S.O. had two divisions and missions for the purpose of combating external but also internal enemies (T.V. no.3549, pp. 59-60). At the next, i.e., the fifth sitting, S.O. leader Yusuf Riza finally conceded that indeed there were two S.O.s, the second of which was involved, he said, in Armenian “deportations” (tehcir) (T.V. no.3553, p. 88). Of all these S.O. leaders, Atif Kamcil was the one who was most aghast when being forced to face the set of these surprise cipher telegrams. As a result, in two different sittings, the 5th (p. 86) and the 6th (T.V. 3557, p. 103), especially in the latter, he went so far as to admit that he sought and obstained the help of CUP’s Secretary General for the enlistment of CUP’s provincial party cells in the engagement of S.O. cadres and operations. Atif, after indicating that the terms chette (brigand) and “volunteer” (gönüllü) were more often than not coterminous and hence interchangeable, further admitted that Talaat’s Interior Ministry was involved not only in recruiting and deploying the S.O. convict-brigands, but assisted in the enactment of the law allowing their release from the prisons. (T.V. 3557, p. 104).
Three noted Turkish specialists of the S.O. explicitly declare that the Central Committee of CUP served as both the brain and the actively involved organizer of the S.O. [22] Moreover another student of CUP concluded that the S.O. was the creation of CUP’s Central Committee and that while Interior Ministry Talaat chose the operational commanders of the S.O. units, the Central Committee itself specified its modus operandi. [23] Reference may also be made to the biographer of Talaat who referred to the latter’s penchant for illegal undertakings by way of “nurturing and exploring CUP’s secret designs though the creation of a separate organization.” [24]
Lewy evidently failed to understand all these sinister and criminal missions of the S.O., all recorded in Ottoman and modern Turkish, because of the failure to understand the underlying and hence more consequential mission motivating the top leaders of the S.O. The nature of that mission was exposed by a Turkish author investigating it. He wrote “The Special Organization and trustworthy Ittihadists (i.e., CUP), pursued the goal of radically solving (temelden cözülmesi) the Armenian question…they [in fact] organized and carried out the deportations on a large scale and systematically. Dr. B. Chakir championed this policy at the councils of the CUP’s Central Committee.” [25] In fact the same reference to radical, i.e., “final solution” is found in Interior Minister Talaat’s petition to the Ottoman wartime Cabinet when he went through the formalities of seeking authorization for the deportation of the Armenians. The critical import of this formula of radical solution is evinced by the fact that in practically all Turkish works, including that of Y. H. Bayur, the dean of Turkish historians, citing this document, the passage referring to this formula is carefully excised-except in one. [26] Perhaps the most devastating rebuttal of this assertion that the S.O.’s main mission was “covert operations behind Russian lines” (p. 4), which Lewy makes by relying on two American authors, [27] is offered by two most authoritative sources. One of them Arif Cemil (Denker), an insider who singularly chronicled the minute details of these operations on the Caucasus front, stated that “the activities relative to reconnaissance and brigandage (istihbarat ve cetecilik) imputed to S.O. were a cover for the pursuit of such “lofty ideals as the Islamic Union and Turkism.” An almost identical statement is presented by Esref Kuscubasi, whom Lewy identifies as “the leading Special Organization official” (p. 4). Speaking of “the basic objective” (temel gayesi) of the S.O., he disdainfully dismisses “the belief and the supposition that the S.O.’s mission consisted in securing unadulterated information, reconnaissance, and in triggering uprisings and incidents in enemy countries….” He goes on to say that objective in reality consists in “enabling Islam, which we embody as the essence of our moral order, to become an effective force in our foreign policy.” [28] When elaborating on the threat, which these S.O. leaders claim the non-Muslim minorities of the Empire, especially the Greeks on the Aegean coastline, were purportedly posing, this S.O. chief proceeds to offer the following confirmation of the existence of a secret decision to eliminate these minorities.
The S.O., operating outside the sphere of the government but through the agencies of the War Ministry and the CUP’s Cental Committee, primarily became concerned, as a result of a series of secret meetings at the War ministry, about the goal of liquidating (tasfiyesi) the non-Turkish masses of populations which were located in strategic areas and were under foreign and negative influences. [29]
In categorically declaring that this very same S.O. chieftain, Esref Kuscubasi, was in no way involved in the Armenian massacres and, as he puts it, “closer inspection reveals Esref made no such admission” regarding involvement (p. 4), Lewy, inadvertently perhaps, is exposing the stark possibility of his lack any knowledge of Turkish. If so, was he abused or misled by interlopers or any other kind of outside help? The fact is that “closer inspection,” on the contrary, reveals exactly that and then through Esref’s own words as recorded by his biographer, Cemal Kutay, and subsequently verified in writing by him, Kuscubasi. Indeed, in vehemently reacting to wartime Grand-Vizier Said Halim’s assassination by an Armenian avenger in Rome 1921, Kuscubasi voluntarily inculpated himself while exculpating the Grand Vizier. The latter had emphatically denounced “The Armenian massacres” twice in his testimony before the Fifth Committee of the Ottoman Chamber of Deputies investigating the wartime Armenian “deportations and massacres,” and in the same vein had decried the sinister role of the Interior Minister Talaat. [30] The admission by Kuscubasi in question reads:
The assassination of this martyr as a guilty party is a crime and an injustice without example. I categorically reject this accusation in my capacity as a person who performed secret duties in the events [i.e., the Armenian deportations and massacres] that transpired in this respect. [31]
Moreover, he also confirms that the S.O. performed tasks that went beyond “intelligence gathering” and involved the resort to secret operations that served to effectively deal with those non-Turkish elements who were suspect in terms of their fidelity and attachments to the central authorities. “It is certain that these truly secret operations were kept secret even from Cabinet Ministers. They were operations that the regular organs of the government and even security organs could absolutely not handle.” In the same vein he castigated these targeted victim populations as “separatist microbes.” [32]
In the light of all this, Lewy’s apologia that not the Special Organization but “more likely the perpetrators were Kurdish tribesmen and corrupt policemen out for booty” (p. 5), speaks volumes about the level of seriousness with which he evidently has approached this gruesome event in modern history that two prominent eyewitnesses in so many words denounced as genocide. U.S. American Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, on duty in Turkey during the genocide, for example, called it “The Murder of a Nation,” [33] and the German-Jewish Zionist leader, Richard Lichtheim, who throughout the stages of that genocide was also on duty in Turkey. He compared “this act of liquidation” of “a people, the majority of whom were peaceful and diligent peasants,” with “the first phase of Hitler’s campaign of extermination against the Jews…. Organized by Interior Minister Talaat, it was the result of a deliberate, cold-blooded policy of mass murder, claiming over one million victims.” [34]
Notes
1. Altay Yigit. Dogu Karadeniz Muharebeleri (The Battles in Eastern Black Sea Regions). v.1, Trabzon: Istikbal Publishing House, 1950, pp. 80-85. For the brigand activities of the Special Organization see the analysis of the late dean of Turkish political scientists and his reference to the brigands, i.e., “chettes”and “the convicts” (hapishanede bulunan mahkümlar). Tarik Zafer Tunaya, Türkiyede Siyasal Partiler v.III, Ittihat ve Terakki (Political Parties in Turkey. Union and Progress) Istanbul: Hürriyet, 1989, pp. 285-6.
2. Austrian State Archives (HHStA), PAI 942, Krieg 21a Türkei . Zl.79/ pol, November 8, 1914; 83/ pol, December 12, 1914; PA21, XL 272, no.56, February 2, 1915. For more details on the activities Stange’s Detachment see Wolfdieter Bihl, Die Kaukasus- Politik der Mittelmächte. Part I. Vienna: 4 Bohlaus, 1975, p. 351, n-24.
3. German Foreign Ministry Archives, Botschaft Konstantinopel (thereafter Vo’kon) 170, J. no.3841, August 23, 1915.
4. The following list is but expository in this regard. Richard G. Hovannisian, The Armenian Holocaust (A Bibliography Relating to Deportations, Massacres, and Dispersion of the Armenian People. (1915-1923) Cambridge: HeritagePress, 1980; Vahakn N. Dadrian, Documentation of the Armenian Genocide in Turkish Sources in Genocide; A Critical Bibliographic Review, v.2, Israel Charny ed., London: Mansell, 1991, pp. 86-138; ibid., Documentation of the Armenian Genocide in German and Austrian Sources in The Widening Circle of Genocide. Genocide: A critical Bibliographic Review, vol.3, Israel Charny, ed., 1994, pp. 77-125. And most recently the massive compendium of official documents assembled in the national archives of Imperial Germany (During World War I), then the political and military ally of the Ottoman Empire, whose civilian and military representatives, deployed in wartime Turkey, besieged Berlin with an unending stream of official reports on the ongoing Armenian genocide. DerVolkermond an den Armeniern 1915/16. (Dokumente aus dem politischen Archiv des deutschen Auswartigen Amts), Wolfgang Gust, ed. Hamburg: zu Klampen, 2005, pp. 675.
5. Hilmar Kaiser, “The Baghdad Railway and the Armenian genocide, 1915-1916.” In Remembrance and Denial. The Case of the Armenian Genocide, Richard G. Hovannisian, ed. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999, p. 108, n. 78.
6. Vahakn N. Dadrian, “The Naim- Andonian Documents on the World War I Destruction of Ottoman Armenians: The Anatomy of a Genocide, “International Journal of Middle East Studies” v.18, no.3 (August 1986): 311-360.
7. In the Yozgat trial series, of the twelve witnesses five were Turks, including a parliamentarian, one lieut-governor, three colonels and one customs inspector. In those of Trabzon, of the thirty eight, twenty nine were Turks including one ex-governor-general, one Appellate Court judge, one judicial inspector, one police chief, one customs inspector, three MD’s, three colonels, one major, two captains, and two lieutenants. In addition, there were introduced as evidence two lengthy depositions from two army commanders. Moreover, some dozen other Turkish witnesses testified in the Harput trial series (Takvimi Vekayi [hereafter T.V.] no.3771, pp. 1-2), Bayburt (T.V. 3618, pp. 6-7), and Responsible Secretaries (T.V. no.3772. pp. 1-2).
8. These publications were Vakit, March 31, 1919; Le Courrier de Turquie, April 1 and 2, 1919 issues (this was the official organ of the patriotic Turkish Association for the Defense of the Fatherland (Müdafai Vatan). The same text is available also in Hayat Tarih Mecmuasi, v.11, no.3, (November 1981): 53.
9. George Young, Corps de Droit Ottoman, v. VII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905, pp. 248, 259, 260, 261, 262.
10. See Vahakn N. Dadrian “The Specifics of the Documents Lodged with the Key Indictment” in The Armenian Genocide in Official Turkish Records. Collected Essays by Vahakn N. Dadrian, in Journal of Political and Military Sociology (Special edition), v.22, no.1 (Summer 1994):165-171.
11. U.S. National Archives, For the first report of January 9, 1919 see R.G. 256, 867.4016/2, pp. 2 and 3; for the second quotation report to Washington see R.G. 256, 867.00/59, p. 3, January 20, 1919.
12. Vahakn N. Dadrian, “The Armenian Genocide: an interpretation” in America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915. Jay Winter ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 54-56.
13. Dadrian, The Specifics of the Documents [no.10], pp.156-57, 161-62.
14. Galip Vardar, Ittihad ve Terakki Icinde Dönenler (The Inside Story of Ittihard ve Terakki [CUP] party) Istanbul: Inkilâp, 1960, pp. 313-24. The basis of this disclosure is an exchange between an S.O leader and Dr. B. Chakir in which the latter is indicating that he is in charge of the Armenian deportations and is inviting that the leader to join and benefit from the attendant spoilage and booty. Samit N. Tansu is the editor, who also edited the memoirs of the other author, Hüsameddin Ertürk, Iki Devrin Perde Arkasi (Behind the Curtain Relative 
to two Eras) Istanbul: Hilmi, 1957, on p. 146 Interior Minister and party boss Talaat is identified as the instigator of Chakir’s approach to the S.O. leader mentioned above. On p. 217 once, and on pp. 325 and 327, four times he refers to “Armenian deportations and massacres” as a twin phenomenon, and identifies a captain, belonging to the S.O., as the savior of a principal genocide suspect who with the latter’s help escaped from the prison before he could be court-martialed by the Military Tribunal. 
15. Falih Rifki Atay, Zeytindagi (The Olive Mountain) Istanbul: Ayyildiz, 1981, p. 36.
16. Ibid., “Pazar Konusmasi” (Sunday Talk) in Dünya December 17, 1967.
17. Ahmet Refik Altinay, Iki Komite, Iki Kital (Two Committees, Two Massacres) H. Koyukan, ed., Ankara, 1994, p. 27.
18. Ahmed Emin (Yalman), Yakin Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Gecirdiklerim (The Things I Saw and Experienced in Recent History) v.1 (1888-1918), Istanbul: Yenilik 1970, pp. 331-2. 
19. IVID. Turkey in the World War New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930, pp. 217-220.
20. Meclisi Âyan Zabit Ceridesi (Transcripts of the proceedings of the Senate) v.1, 3d Period, 15th sitting, December 12, 1916, p. 187, right column. For details of this role of Colonel Behic especially his active involvement in seeking legislative approval for the release of convicts through several cipher telegrams, see T.V. 3543, especially pp. 28-29 for the one marked “secret” and dated December 25, 1914.
21. Turkish political scientist Tunaya explains how these defendants while in prison agreed among themselves to “unanimously” (oybirligi) deny any relationship between the S.O. and their political party, the CUP, and deny also any role of the party in the creation of the same S.O. Turkiyede Siyasal Partiler [n.2], p. 281. Author Yalman who shared prison life with these leaders, in his memoirs describes how they would gather in the large room of the prison for their “Cabinet Council” meetings to discuss, with the help of another inmate, Osman Interior Ministry’s Legal Counselor, defense strategy and common grounds Yakin Tarihte [n.18]. pp. 339-41.
22. Ertürk, Iki Devrin [no.14], pp. 297-98, 306; Vardar, Ittihad ve Terakki [n.14]. pp. 244-46, 274.
23. Mustafa Ragip Esatli; Ittihad ve Terakki Tarihinde Esrar Perdesi (The Curtain of Mistery in I. ve T.’s History) Istanbul: Hürriyet, 1975, p. 258.
24. Tevfik Çavdar, Talat Pasa, Ankara; Dost, pp. 190, 210.
25. Dogan Avcioglu, Milli Kurtulus Tarihi. 1838 den 1995e (The History of National Liberation. From 1838 to 1995) v.3, Istanbul: Istanbul publications, 1974, p. 1135. It should be noted that an identical revelation with details about Chakir’s trip to Istanbul from Erzurum is made by an insider. Chakir is laying down and pressing for its acceptance his respective plan during a special meeting with the members of CUP’s Central Committee. Arif Cemil, Ici Dünya Savasinda Teskilâti Mahsusa (The Special Organization in World War I) Istanbul: Arba 1997, pp. 233, especially 245-46. On pp. 73-4, the author likewise reveal’s Talaat’s order to release convicts from Trabzon. 
26. Muammer Demirel, Birinci Dünya Harbinde Erzurum ve Cevresinde Ermeni Hareketleri (1914-1918) Ankara: General Staff Publication, 1996, p. 53. In converting to modern Turkish, the author substituted and thereby slightly modified the original Ottoman term “Külliyen izalesi” when using the words “solving [the Armenian Question] in some essential way” (“esasli bir sekilde cözümlenmesi”).
27. One of them, Gwynne Dyer, relied mainly on the work of Philip Stoddard to be commented upon in the next paragraph. Notwithstanding, Dyer repeatedly acknowledged the fact of the Armenian genocide in the following two articles, namely, (1) “Turkish ‘Falsifiers’ and Armenian Deceivers’: Historiography and the Armenian Massacres,” Middle Eastern Studies v.12, no.1 (January 1996). On p. 100 he speaks of “a policy of extermination” in 1915 by “the Ottoman Government;” on p. 107, he even refers to the “final solution” inflicted upon the Armenians. In an earlier piece, he likewise is emphatic about the historical reality of it by arguing that “the Armenian deportations were…. Official Turkish Government policy… used as the cover for a semi-official and ruthlessly applied policy of extermination.” Middle Eastern Studies v.3, (October 1973): p. 379. As to Stoddard, The Ottoman Government and the Arabs, 1911 to 1918: A preliminary Study of the Teskilati Mahsusa Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1963, University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, there too the story is incomplete. Indeed, even though he never explicitly acknowledges the perpetration of massacres against the Armenians. Stoddard, nevertheless, acknowledges the “disdainful…activities…of ‘groups of brigands’ ” In the same vein, he refers to the seditiousness of “certain ethnic groups,” to their “separatist movements that eventually came under the purview of the Tieskilâti Mahsusa,” i.e., the Special Organization (p. 50), which was established “in part to ride herd on all separatist and nationalist groups” p. 6). On p. 157, he admits that the S.O. role consisted “in carrying out the decisions of CUP …,” and on p. 54 he identifies some of its top leaders as having been centrally involved, such as Drs. Chakir Nazim, and CUP’s Secretary General Midhat Sükrü. Even Erik Zürcher, cited by Lewy (p. 5), had, as noted earlier, to rely upon someone else’s work rather than produce his own research results when he wrote that Andonian materials “have been shown to be forgeries.” In the same work however, he wrote that “an inner circle within CUP under the direction of Talât [carried out] the extermination of the Armenians [using] relocation as a cloak.” Turkey A Modern History, London: Tauris, 1994, p. 121.
28. Cemil, Ici Dünya [n.25], p. 11
29. Quoted in Celâl Bayar, Bende Yazdim (I Too Have Written), v.5, Istanbul, Baha, p. 1573.
30. Ittihad- Terakki’nin Sorgulanmasi ve Yargilanmasi (The Interrogation and Trial of CUP). Istanbul: Temel publ. No.98. pp. 82, 84; the verification by Kuscubasi in writing of the accuracy of the material, produced by Bayar, is on p. 1572, in note no.1.
31. Cemal Kutay, Birinci Dünya Harbinde Teskilât-I Mahsusa (The Special Organization in World War I) Istanbul, 1962, n.p., p. 78.
32. Ibid. pp. 18, 44. His criticism that I resorted to “inaccurate paraphrasing” and “selective ellipses” (p. 4) are, I am afraid, just unsubstantiated, hollow declarations revealing once more his lack of knowledge of Turkish.
33. Henry Morgenthau, Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, NY: Doubleday, p. 301.
34. Richard Lichtheim, Rückkehr, Lebenserinnenungen aus der Frühzeit des deutschen Zionismus, Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlays- Anstalt, 1970, pp. 287, 341. In an effort to further question the genocidal quality of the mass murder of the Armenians, Lewy invokes the “Nuremberg trials” and the massive documentation involved. But a whole host of Holocaust scholars, thoroughly familiar with those trials, went out of their way to recognize the Armenian genocide in an effort to contest its denial. The most recent example of it is the proclamation of the 127 Holocaust scholars who declared that “The Armenian Genocide is an Incontestable Historical Fact.” Among the signers was Nobel Laureate Elvie Wiesel, as such prominent Holocaust scholars as Yehuda Bauer, Israel Charny, Steven Katz, Irving Greenberg, Irving Horowitz, Zev Garber, and Richard Rubinstein the proclamation appeared in the June 9, 2000 issue of the New York Times. Equally important, the chief assistant to U.S. Justice Robert Jackson at Nuremberg was Robert Kempner, a German Jew. He was the one who discovered in German Foreign Ministry files the original copy No.10 of the notorious Wannsee Protocol that encapsulated the Final Solution. On numerous occasions especially in a law journal article, he emphatically asserted the fact of the Armenian genocide. He stated, among others, “For the first time in legal history, it was recognized that other countries could legitimately combat… genocide without committing unauthorized intervention in the internal affairs of another country.” He was referring to the public declaration on May 24, 1915 of the three Allies, Great Britain, France, and Russia, that “These new crimes of Turkey against the Armenians constitute crimes against humanity for which Turkish officials will be held responsible for these massacres.” Specifically he was referring to “1.4 million Christian Armenians who by order of the Turkish government were subjected to the first genocide of this century.” “Der Völkermord an den Armeniern” in Recht und Polotik, v.3 (1980): 167, 168. Kempner, upon arrival in America, became professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Two other Holocaust scholars reacted even more pungently to the denials mounted against the recognition of the Armenian genocide. Noted author Deborah Lipstadt wrote: “Denial of genocide whether that of the Turks against the Armenians or the Nazis against the Jews is not an act of historical reinterpretation. Rather, the deniers saw confusion by appearing to be engaged in a genuine scholarly effort….The deniers aim at convincing third parties that there is ‘another side of the story….” Lipstadt letter to Congressman Chris Smith, Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Relations, House of Representatives. 106th Congress, 2nd session, September 2, 2000. Under consideration was HR 398, a Resolution Commemorating the Armenian Genocide. Conceivably these intercessions by so many Holocaust scholars on behalf of the victims of the Armenian genocide have, in addition to a pathos for truth, elements of identification and projection. That sentiment was cogently and concisely articulated by Holocaust scholar Katherine Bischoping when she wrote: “The future of Holocaust denial may be foreshadowed by the persistent denial of the Armenian genocide.” “Method and Meaning in holocaust-knowledge Surveys.” Holocaust and Genocide Studies v.12, n.3 (Winter 1998): 463.
--Maral79 13:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vahakn Dadrian responds to Guenther Lewy 

message: I have been starting with the footnoting process. Footnote 9(for now, the number will change, since the first part is still not footnoted), report the burning. Eitan Belkind was a a Nili member, who infiltrated the Ottoman army as an official. He was assigned to the headquarters of Camal Pasha. He claims to have witnessed the burning of 5000 Armenians, quoted in Yair Auron, The Banality of Indifference: Zionism and the Armenian Genocide. New Brunswick, N.J., 2000, pp. 181, 183. Lt. Hasan Maruf, of the Ottoman army, who discribes how a population of a village were taken all together, and then burned. See, British Foreign Office 371/2781/264888, Appendice B., p. 6). Commander of the Third Army, Vehib's 12 pages affidavit, which was dated December 5, 1918, presented in the Trabzon trial series (March 29, 1919)included in the Key Indictment(published in Takvimi Vekayi, No. 3540, May 5, 1919), report such a mass burning of the population of an entire vilage near Mus. I also will be adding the reference to Dadrian and to Ye'or, also Obstacles to Peace by S. S. McClure; Houghton Mifflin Company, 1917. pp. 400-401. 
    
Bitlis, Moush, and Sassoun: The shortest method for disposing of the women and children concentrated in tile various camps was to burn them. Fire was set to large wooden sheds in Alidjan, Megrakon, Khaskegh, and other Armenian villages, and these absolutely helpless women and children were roasted to death. Many went mad and threw their children away; some knelt down and prayed amid the flames in which their bodies were burning; others shrieked and cried for help which came from nowhere. And the executioners, who seem to have been unmoved by this unparalleled savagery, grasped infants by one leg and hurled them into the fire, calling out to tile burning mothers: "Here are your lions." Turkish prisoners who had apparently witnessed some of these scenes were horrified and maddened at remembering the sight. They told the Russians that the stench of the burning human flesh permeated the air for many days after.
Museli, now perhaps, you could understand why I think he should be in the footnote, because, of all others, I don't see why him should be on the main article, when he is more of a reference. Fadix 19:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Fadix/Armenian_Genocide]] 

message: I wondered, why hasn't the idea of making a separate Armenian Holocaust denial article been cultivated, if not even mentioned so far, instead or ruining this article with flame and edit wars? EpiVictor 10:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, things seems to be under control. As for the idea, I have apready presented the idea of an article, about what is termed "Armenian genocide denial." It is in my list of projects. Regards. Fadix 19:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian Holocaust Denial article? 

message: I've made many changes, which does not really remove informations. User:Fadix/Armenian_Genocide
I need input, and also participations on that version. Thoth, present your propositions. And I have also started the footnoting process, taking that direction, I won't be surprised that near 100 footnotes. :( But I have no choices, since the subject at hand, every bit of stuff should be sourced. Fadix 22:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My working version 

message: Maral has posted the answer to Lewy, like I already told Cansin, I will tell this to Maral, and anyone that want to do copy-past job. The talk-page is not there for that purpouses, long materials existing elsewhere, there link should be provided, they should not be copied here, it is increasing the size of the talk pages, and makes the talk page harder to follow. The next time it happens, I will revert it back and replace it with the link to the material. Fadix 17:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thoth, that was a friendly warning for everyone copypasting long articles, when the articles are in the web. In future, only links should be posted, copypasting is increasing the sizes of the talk pages considerably, and since I have to at least maintain a month of material posted there befpre archiving, it makes the talk page bigger than it should be. Fadix 05:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting an end to it 

message: This info has been added, but the Armenian quarter does not exist as a consequences of the Armenian genocide, it exosted long before. Fadix 18:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem Armenian quarter 

message: Just to let know, if people are wondering, that I stopped working on the current article, since I believe that I must finish an article about the denial, which is also important for the evolution of this current article. Fadix 19:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article about the Armenian genocide denial 

message: Is it only me or is this page is seriously biased towards one side? The general language is all from the Armenian POV.
Not only that, but the section titled "Stances of Turkish intellectuals" only had the views of a _very_ minority part of turkish intellectuals. This was made to look like it is the majority view. I corrected that section somewhat. I will put more effort into this once I have bit more time.
: Thanks for your help. But I would like to comment about few things. The reason why I gave a section for some of those intellectuals(in this cases only those that recognize the genocide), is because the very large majority of the Turkish intellectuals that have written works supporting the republics official position were either diplomats, ex-diplomats, from the military attached to the Assembly, pre-ministers or post-ministers etc, head of the Turkish historical societies(like Halacoglu) or members, which is attached to the general Assembly etc, member of the newly formed Armenian studies institutes(which has been founded and financed by the Turkish government, and has unboard diplomats etc.). And even people such as Ataov, who in practice is a political scientist is. So, I believed that they'd go on the Turkish government section, but E.A. has a fetish over that section and would delete anything he proclaimed not, "official positions writting in official documents." I had no intend there to "hide" others, in fact, I had planned to add a section covering the intellectuals that do not accept the genocide thesis, I just believed that the Turkish intellectuals who accept the thesis of genocide should have had their places, if you disagree, I'm fine with that, it isen't really a big deal.
: About the 1.5 million killed by Armenians, this isen't mentioned for decades now, the only over a million lastly was the 1.1 million, which isen't in any major Turkish work and isen't mentioned at least over a decade, the most recent ones are the 500 thousand or something, from the Belge files. Note that, I actually already pointed to those figures on the section I wrote about Halacoglu, since he is the principal adherant to that figure and also that only 80 thousand Armenians died.
: BTW, there is probably one thing you ignore, the minority of Turkish intellectuals that have written anything about it, who are neither attached to the Turkish government or societies, and who deny the genocide, more than often place the number of victims between 500,000 to 800,000. 300,000 to 600,000 is more the range comming from the Turkish government, more particularly, 200,000 to 600,000. The 600,000 really originate from Jemal memoires, he had to drop the 800,000 killed official figures after being slandered by his peers(even thought the figure was later reconfirmed by others, including the major Bayur work (even thought the term killed was later replaced by perished)). For an example of a Turkish scholar who has no link with the Turkish government and who denies the genocide, I can name, Ahmet Akgunduz, who places the number of victims between 600,000 to 800,000. (Migration to and from Turkey, 1783-1960: types, numbers and ethno-religious dimensions, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 24, 1998)
: Even those from Turkish associations do somtimes provide higher than the range between 300,000 to 600,000. I can cite here, Demir Delen, who places the number of Armenian deaths in his article Perpetuating the Genocide Myth, to 700,000. The work was published by the Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations and available from ATAA(Assembly of Turkish American Associations).
: I'm for now in a wikibrake for now, so I pass only few times here, until Christmass vaccations, which I will be using to work on this article and two others. BTW, yes this article is not OK, but that is why it has a neutral tag. Fad (ix) 16:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I understand now, someone changed the title of the section, Turkish Intellectuals Who Support The Theses Of Genocide to Stances of Turkish intellectuals. Which was for sure misleading. I thought you did the change. Fad (ix) 16:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Provide me the transcript of any Internation genocide conference which mention an Azeri genocide, any Western legal work, or any article published in a legal journal, or a war crime Journal, or yet the Holocaust and Genocide studies journal etc. And, I will be the one creating an article here in Wikipedia about an Azeris genocide. Regards. Fad (ix) 19:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As I told you, I am ready to creat such a page myself if you [p]rovide me the transcript of any Internation genocide conference which mention an Azeri genocide, any Western legal work, or any article published in a legal journal, or a war crime Journal, or yet the Holocaust and Genocide studies journal etc. And, I will be the one creating an article here in Wikipedia about an Azeris genocide. Regards. Fad (ix) 19:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Anonymous user and Thoth, sort this thing somewhere else. I will be deleting anything that has nothing to do with the article by either of you. Fad (ix) 20:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page has serious NPOV issues 

message: ... as long as I do not source every bit of elements on this article, it should remain there, since Turks do dispute the article, and that keeping this tag there, I believe, willl reduce the number of revert. Fad (ix) 16:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding the POV tag back, 

message: I removed this image for obvious reasons. Anyone object? --Khoikhoi 22:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman Empire history image 

message: The article contains line with "...some EU countries believe that the massacres were..." (or Western Europe or so, depending on current revert). 
I would like to remind "country" doesn't believe anything since it is not human. Country may have policy, interests and other standard politological terms. I am not really into mixing inside edit war so please check it. TIA Pavel Vozenilek 11:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To the above anon-IP. How about "NO". John Smith's 12:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well quite apart from the fact that some European countries do accept what went on in their colonies, whether or not they do acknowledge what goes on does not make the Armenian tragedy any less severe. I know that it's a useful smokescreen for you, but wiki doesn't like to cloud issues with smokescreens. John Smith's 11:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I will not answer to what you have raised, since it has been fully covered here previously and that I am not engaging myself in this worthless debate since it has nothing to do with the content. I will just say that stigmatizing entire peoples like this is plain and simply racistic. But, again, as I said, such a discussion is worthless. The question to ask, is what you think should be changed in the article? Before answering, keep in mind that what you or I think is irrelevent and that articles should be written according to what is said about the topic and not what the truth is. Now having this in mind, reread the article and tell what you think is not said about this topic. Regards. Fad (ix) 20:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antropomorphisation of a country 

message: 30KB is not too long an article. I'm going to put the references back again! - Ta bu shi da yu 16:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was working on a version with the notes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fadix/Armenian_Genocide Besides, one of the reasons for what I have changed the 'references' of place, is because they aren't real references, people dumped links there, and most have nothing to do with the material in the article. References section is used to include the references of subjects brought in the article. For this reason, I separated resources from references, because they were resources rather than reference. I have decided that a note section is a better thing to do, since references are more used in subjects treating about science, etc. while historical works more often uses [foot]notes, because they are not based on an overal paper from an author, but quotes etc. But for the time being, if you think it is better to leave it this way, go ahead, but once the noting process is over, I plan to remove the reference, since I doubt that there are really someone who opposed its inclusion, and beside, it doesn't qualify as reference. Regards. Fad (ix) 17:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... if the reference was not used in the article then it shouldn't be there. What will you be using for the notes?  and ? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have used the ref, that is because it was the only I've learned and it worked fine, but I would change it. Fad (ix) 17:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: In 1916, the Russians, lead by General Yudenich, captured the cities of Erzurum and Trebizond (February through April). The Turkish forces, under a new leader, Kerim, tried to recover their cities in a summer offensive, but their armies were defeated, despite some success by Mustafa Kemal. The Russians won another battle at Erzincan in July. Fighting around Lake Van continued throughout the summer and fall with towns such as Mush and Bitlis taken and re-taken. The fighting was inconclusive.
In 1917, due to the chaos caused by the Russian Revolution, both sides ceased military operations in this area. The Turks sent most of their forces south to fight the British in Palestine and Mesopotamia. The Russian army slowly disintegrated.
In the early months of 1918, the Russian army in the region had essentially vanished and Turkish forces launched an attack which rapidly recaptured all their lost territory and more (Turkish forces captured Baku on the Caspian Sea from the British in September of 1918). By the end of the war, the Turks, defeated on nearly all fronts, were solidly in control of Eastern Anatolia. However, the Armenian inhabitants were no longer there. 
I really fail to see how this has anything to do with the subject of the article. Fad (ix) 20:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing few sentences 

message: They were really required to keep the article I want to source, up to date. There are many corrections (grammer etc.) in the article made repeatedly, and since I am slow to make the changes to note the sources, when I start working on them, the article has been already changed. I tried to correct the grammer of my version according to the article, and if I missed some, please correct them.
About the deletion of the Martial court added recently, I have deleted it, because I think two sources are enought to make a point, and that an article can be dedicated for the martial court which will provide more details. I have also deleted sections regarding the war(the one above), I tried to incorporate it in the article, but without success, it just can;t be anywhere with the current form of the article.
I also deleted many parts that including them would be misrepresenting them. Mostly many will be included in the notes. And I have provided a link to a page in my userspace, which shows them being included in the notes, those will be added, others can start adding those in the article to help me. Fad (ix) 22:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the changes