VEX8 wrote:So yet again this is another case in history of Who Can You Believe???
From what i have read on the subject it could have been nothing more than a targeted eradication of a 'people'.
The whole episode seems so familiar.
Or is someone goin to tell me that what i have read is biased and that all it was was a missunderstanding?
most of the sources you will read will in any case be biased . especially turkish and armenian ones. even if you choose to read someone without a turkish or armenian name, you are not safe either. the armenian lobby is one of the strongest ones. and turkey supports a number of turkish studies abroad
my opinion (without having studied that much...so it is also biased
)
the armenians tend to forget that they revolted , and revolutions inevitably lead to them being crashed by empires. that is what empires do.
the turks on the other hand, never gave a satisfactory answer as to why suddenly there were no more armenians in a region that used to be over a million. they kept silent for many years and were never interested really in any dialogue. some progressive turks today are in favor of dialogue or have accepted that killings took place (nationalist deny even that!) , but in generally do not accept the term genocide. so any serious debate evolves around :
- the number of deaths.
- if deaths were all a concequence of killing. (even in that case there is the claim of forced starvation)
- if there was an intention from the ottoman state to make a genocide (difficult to prove)
- and concequently (considering all the above) if the term (that was invented after 1945) genocide applies to this case.