[Variable]

Originally Posted by Arabesque

Not to justify the massacres against the Armenians, but the fact that these random killings were a reaction to what the Armenians had done to the Muslim population in these areas tends to get glossed over by Armenian rhetoric. Yes, massacres happened. On both sides.

So goes the Turkish side of the debate. But those weren't random killings on Turkey's part, it was an organized forced relocation. It's acknowledged that massacres were conducted against the Turkish population by the Armenians, but the disproportionate number of casualties on the Armenian side raises doubts on the Turkish claims.

I'm not going to pretend to be well-read enough on the topic to know who's estimate is most accurate, but point to it as a reason for the continued debate.

The European powers, and especially England and Russia wanted to intervene in the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire and used the non-Muslim millets as an excuse. They wanted to supposedly protect and promote the rights of their co-religionists (namely the Armenians and Greeks), and mistakenly gave them a sense of empowerment.

They helped the Muslim segments of the population fight the Ottomans too. They were intervening in Ottoman affairs because they were at war with them.

Sultan Abdulhamid II sent the army "to curb down rebellion." He did not order the killing of Armenians. He totally considered them Ottoman citizens and they had already gained so much rights unknown to them and other millets before the Sultan's reign. The fact that the army went overboard in trying to control the rebellion is what makes this a debatable question of "massacre" or "genocide".

Again, though I admit I don't have a thorough understanding of the structure of the Ottoman government at the time, it would seem to me that the Sultan wasn't the key player in this. Instead the nationalistic government based around the Young Turks movement was calling the shots. This combined with legislation regarding the forced relocation, and seizure of Armenian property is enough to show that it wasn't simply the military getting carried away.

The debate I've always thought arose from whether or not the Turks knew that their actions would have the effect they did. Armenians point to the fact that no measures were taken to limit action by the armed forces or provide any sort of support necessary for their survival once they were evicted and their property was confiscated. According to them, the scale of the atrocity is enough to satisfy the condition for genocide.

If you don't think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasai was an act of genocide, then I don't see why the Armenian massacres should be referred to as such.

Dropping the atomic bombs on those cities wasn't genocide. Neither was Dresden. They weren't trying to wipe out the Germans or Japanese as a people, niether in whole nor in part. They were trying to win a war, a total war unique to the planet's experience. There are plenty of debates on the morality of strategic bombing during the Second World War, but it's separate from this one. They don't fit the profile for genocide... not in any definition I've scene.

On the contrary... Albano... you are arguing that what happened to the Armenians wasn't genocide and then immediately describe these strategic bombing campaigns, and sanctions as genocides. I'm questioning which definition of the term you are using; because if it's cast as loosely as this, then what was committed against the Armenians certainly fits the bill.

It's not like they were ethnically-cleansed or anything.

Based on many of the casualty estimates out there, it could be said that a sizeable portion of the Armenian population was killed, on account of them being Armenian.