1914-18 : The Great Slaughter - Challenging A Year Of Myth Making.

[CNT36]

You really need to back this up if you're going to say it.

On top of what FNG and others have posted? The little I know is from books. There are articles, videos and books on the subject of German involvement only a few clicks away. Henry morgenthau talks about German involvement quite extensively. There is also a biography Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter who was in Turkey
at the time who was well versed in what was happening. He was also an influence on Hitler though he was killed during the Munich Putsch so not directly involved in the Holocaust. VN Dadrain has a book on the subject of Gwrman involvement which is available for download if you search for it. Appendix A is about Germans present in Turkey at this time who went on to be big players in Nazi Germany.

 

[Casually Red]

Anyways, thisll make the Irish well popular . Prior to the German assisted 1916 uprising in Dublin the german high command acceded to Roger Casements request to recruit British army volunteers held in German POW camps to join a small Irish contingent who it was envisaged would participate in hostilities back at home.

Heres a few of them .

Anyways, the guy second from left stayed on in Germany post war . And ended up saving Hitlers life around 1919 when an enraged mob of German troops beat the living daylights out of him following a political lecture and were just about to run the bugger through with a bayonet .

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/the-irish-man-who-saved-hitler-26713584.html

World history might have been very different if hed just let them at it

 

[toggle]

i suppose the theory is that when you stir up enough trouble in an imperial conflict, small nations can end up with independence in the peacekeeping to surround and limit the power of the big guys. and casement sure as hell would have held no sympathy for the belgians. but the 'enemy of my enemy' thing can get carried a little far.

 

[Casually Red]

without envisaged german military and diplomatic assistance its doubtful whether an uprising would have gotten off the ground . Britain was the biggest empire in the world at the time, Ireland barely a speck on the big pink map . With the majority of political opinion supporting the imperial war effort to one degree or another. Without German assistance there could be not be even the remotest hope of any type of success . And without even a glimmer of hope it would be impossible to gain any traction .
More important than the direct military aid was the diplomatic aid . The german promise that if the Irish were able to even hold out for a while, and demonstrate the Irish people did actually want freedom...the Germans understandably were very reluctant to believe that was the case..then at wars conclusion acceptance of an Irish republic would be part of the terms Germany would impose on a defeated Britain . And in 1915 1916 it looked very much like Germany was going to win .

For better or worse Germany and Ireland were essentially allies in that particular conflict . The 1916 proclamation of the provisional government making that pretty clear , although not mentioning Germany specifically .

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

And the Armenians killed hundreds of thousands of Turkish and Kurdish civilians.

Do you deny that?

The following countries officially recognize the historical events we're discussing, as being genocide:

1.Argentina12. Netherlands
2.Belgium13. Poland
3.Canada14. Russia
4. Chile15. Slovakia
5. Cyprus16. Sweden
6. France17. Switzerland
7. Germany18.Uruguay
8. Greece19. Vatican City
9. Italy20. Venezuela
10. Lebanon
11. Lithuania

The US hasn't formally recognized the events as genocide, but Obama said this:

One day after paying a solemn visit to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, President Barack Obama on Tuesday called the mass killings of Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Turks in 1915 "one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century" but again broke a 2008 campaign promise to label the tragedy "genocide."
"We honor the memory of the 1.5 million Armenians who were brutally massacred or marched to their deaths in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire," Obama said in a written statement on Armenian Remembrance Day.

"A full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts is in all of our interests. Moving forward with the future cannot be done without reckoning with the facts of the past," Obama said in a implicit appeal for vital American ally Turkey to move closer to recognizing the massacre.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...mmemorate-armenian-genocide/story?id=16202151

However, 43 US states have independently recognized the Armenian Genocide.

In terms of regions, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland recognize the genocide, as do New South Wales, Basque Country, Catalonia, and the Balearic Islands

 

[phildwyer]

Catalonia, and the Balearic Islands

Governments recognize all sorts of things, for all sorts of reasons.

The fact that governments say one thing or another has no bearing on any case.

In any case, most governments do not call the massacre of Armenians a "genocide," so your own argument works against you.

You know all this already, do not give a shit about the topic of discussion, and are just trying to wind me up.

Why not come and laugh at Pickman's Model instead?

 

[phildwyer]

World history might have been very different if hed just let them at it

Oh what has made that sudden noise?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You would also have to establish that Armenian troops committed no comparable atrocities against Kurds or Turks.

You make it sound as if Armenia was at war with Turkey.

Armenia's six provinces [vilayets] were provinces of the Turkish Ottoman Empire.

The Turks caused somewhere between 1 and 2 million of its Armenian citizens to be killed, starve to death etc.

There was no war between sovereign states, as pertains to the Ottoman Empire and Armenia.


Even if you were right about that, your distinction regarding armed resistance, is specious. Poland, a sovereign country, took up arms to defend itself against Germany in WW2. After the defeat of Poland, the aim of the Reich was the destruction of Poland as a country, and of the Poles as a people.

The magnitude of this atrocity isn't somehow alleviated by pointing to the fact that the Poles had fought against the Germans.

 

[phildwyer]

On top of what FNG and others have posted? The little I know is from books. There are articles, videos and books on the subject of German involvement only a few clicks away. Henry morgenthau talks about German involvement quite extensively. There is also a biography Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter who was in Turkey
at the time who was well versed in what was happening. He was also an influence on Hitler though he was killed during the Munich Putsch so not directly involved in the Holocaust. VN Dadrain has a book on the subject of Gwrman involvement which is available for download if you search for it. Appendix A is about Germans present in Turkey at this time who went on to be big players in Nazi Germany.

Yes, I know.

The part of your claim that you need to justify is your assertion that it was in Turkey that these German officers learned the killing techniques that they later applied in the Jewish Holocaust.

In your own time please.

 

[phildwyer]

You make it sound as if Armenia was at war with Turkey.

Armenia's six provinces [vilayets] were provinces of the Turkish Ottoman Empire.

The Turks caused somewhere between 1 and 2 million of its Armenian citizens to be killed, starve to death etc.

There was no war between sovereign states, as pertains to the Ottoman Empire and Armenia.

You're making this up on the fly, Johnny.

The Armenians allied with Russia, and fought in the field against the Ottoman state, both as part of the Russian army and as guerrilla irregulars. It was war. No comparison with the Jewish Holocaust then.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You know all this already, do not give a shit about the topic of discussion,

I very much give a shit about the covering-up of genocide. To the extent that large sovereign nations attempt to pull it off, it in my opinion empowers smaller nations, like Sudan, to attempt similar things in places like Darfur, and then lie through their teeth about it, as they've seen their senior Imperial bretheren-states do in days and years past.

 

[phildwyer]

I very much give a shit about the covering-up of genocide.

As I said, you do not give a shit about this subject.

 

[phildwyer]

Even if you were right about that, your distinction regarding armed resistance, is specious. Poland, a sovereign country, took up arms to defend itself against Germany in WW2. After the defeat of Poland, the aim of the Reich was the destruction of Poland as a country, and of the Poles as a people.

Hang on a second, this is new.

Now you're alleging that Germany carried out genocide against Poland?

Just how many genocides have there been, in your opinion?

 

[phildwyer]

Turks are still pretty angry if you mention it

Hmmm.... I wonder why?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

.

The Armenians allied with Russia, and fought in the field against the Ottoman state, .

The Ottoman Turks worried that Christian Armenia would ally with Russia.

 

[phildwyer]

The Ottoman Turks worried that Christian Armenia would ally with Russia.

Yes. So?

Are you denying that Armenian volunteer units fought as part of the Russian army in WW1?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Hang on a second, this is new.

Now you're alleging that Germany carried out genocide against Poland?

Just how many genocides have there been, in your opinion?

Part of Poland was subsumed into Grossdeutschland. The remainder became part of a territory called the General Government, controlled by a German administration, with the ultimate aim for it to become a province comprised of ethnic Germans. The previous inhabitants were to be removed, worked to death etc - thus ultimately erasing Poland.

Poland suffered the highest civilian death rate in the war as percentage of population, mostly as a result of German atrocities, starvation etc.

Call it what you will.

Attempting to belittle other atrocities in other wars, other areas, doesn't somehow strengthen your denial of the Armenian genocide.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Are you denying that Armenian volunteer units fought as part of the Russian army in WW1?

What would Armenian volunteer units justify in terms of carrying out a genocide against Armenia?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Hmmm.... I wonder why?

Some Japanese get pretty mad if you mention Nanking.

 

[stowpirate]

The Ottoman Turks worried that Christian Armenia would ally with Russia.

Resulting possibly in the Tehcir Law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehcir_Law

In May 1915, Mehmed Talaat requested that the cabinet and Grand Vizier Said Halim Pasha legalize a measure for relocation and settlement of Armenians to other places due to what Talat called "the Armenian riots and massacres, which had arisen in a number of places in the country" are a threat to national security.[8]"

Maybe international pressure and threats about crimes against humanity had some impact on the outcome?

 

[phildwyer]

Maybe international pressure and threats about crimes against humanity had some impact on the outcome?

Certainly the "terrible Turk" has been Europe's Bogeyman since the C16th. The caricature of Turks as cruel, lustful etc can be seen right up to Midnight Express (which was hailed as a masterpiece in the West despite being flagrantly racist--just watch it if you don't believe me).

Unfortunately, this racism has distorted people's view of WW1 and its aftermath in Anatolia.

Iirc you are the one who first raised this subject. Sorry if I was irate with you. All I can advise is that you read widely on the subject with an open mind. If you do that you'll find that the tue story is very different from what you've been led to believe.

 

[frogwoman]

Hang on a second, this is new.

Now you're alleging that Germany carried out genocide against Poland?

Just how many genocides have there been, in your opinion?

Hold on, three million polish jews and three million polish non-jews died in WWII, there is certainly evidence that once they were done with the jews the Nazis wanted to start on the poles and they certainly were quite open amongst themselves about the fact they wanted to kill and starve enough of them to turn them into a slave population, it's something Himmler spoke about a few times, i wouldn't necessarily call what happened genocide because they weren't setting about at that point to kill every single polish person, but fuck me whatever it was it wasn't exactly a vicars tea party was it?

that doesn't change the fact that some poles collaborated willingly with the nazis during the war, even SS regiments etc, but fuck me i'd certainly understand why polish people today would call what happened genocide, the nazis usually viewed poles (at least the ones that werent collaborating with them) as subhuman and worthy only of slave labour

 

[phildwyer]

Hold on, three million polish jews and three million polish non-jews died in WWII, there is certainly evidence that once they were done with the jews the Nazis wanted to start on the poles and they certainly were quite open amongst themselves about the fact they wanted to kill and starve enough of them to turn them into a slave population, it's something Himmler spoke about a few times, i wouldn't necessarily call what happened genocide because they weren't setting about at that point to kill every single polish person, but fuck me whatever it was it wasn't exactly a vicars tea party was it?

that doesn't change the fact that some poles collaborated willingly with the nazis during the war, even SS regiments etc, but fuck me i'd certainly understand why polish people today would call what happened genocide, the nazis usually viewed poles (at least the ones that werent collaborating with them) as subhuman and worthy only of slave labour

Look, if you're going to call what Germany did to the Poles "Genocide," in addition to what they did to the Jews, then you will very soon have so many Genocides on your hands that the term will lose its specific meaning, and just come to mean "massacre."

Thus the unique nature of the Jewish Holocaust will be forever obscured and lost to historical memory.

I'd have thought that you would be reluctant to see that happen.

 

[frogwoman]

Look, if you're going to call what Germany did to the Poles "Genocide," in addition to what they did to the Jews, then you will very soon have so many Genocides on your hands that the term will lose its specific meaning, and just come to mean "massacre."

Thus the unique nature of the Jewish Holocaust will be forever obscured and lost to historical memory.

I'd have thought that you would be reluctant to see that happen.

i don't think it was genocide but the holocaust wasn't the only genocide in history, its unique for other reasons, mainly cos its the only example of industrialised mass murder and it was ultimately aimed at wiping out every jew everywhere rather than in specific areas the nazis happened to invade, but surely you can't be saying it's the only example of genocide in general?

 

[phildwyer]

i don't think it was genocide but the holocaust wasn't the only genocide in history, its unique for other reasons, mainly cos its the only example of industrialised mass murder but surely you can't be saying it's the only example of genocide in general?

That's exactly what I think.

The Jewish Holocaust was a unique and unprecedented event (essentially because of its bureaucratic-industrial nature, as you suggest).

Many (not all) people who try to deny this, as for example by insinuating that there have been many such events, do so for anti-semitic reasons.

I can't believe you don't know this already.

 

[frogwoman]

That's exactly what I think.

The Jewish Holocaust was a unique and unprecedented event (essentially because of its bureaucratic-industrial nature, as you suggest).

Many (not all) people who try to deny this, as for example by insinuating that there have been many such events, do so for anti-semitic reasons.

I can't believe you don't know this already.

It's unique because it was industrialised, and because the nazis wanted to kill every jew in the world, in fact as part of their peace deals with various countries they asked for jews to be handed over afaik, they wanted their allies like japan to start on it as well, but that's not the same as saying that there haven't been other genocides ffs! can you stop saying this? there are cultures that were completely destroyed by colonialism etc, like the native americans, how is that not genocide, of course it fucking is!

is my synagogue's website anti-semitic then in its holocaust memorial when it includes a section about rwanda?? of course not! It's saying that other events need to be remembered and commemorated!

coming from someone who goes on all the time about usury as well ffs, not funny phil

 

[frogwoman]

Oh no you don't.

The massacre (not genocide) of Armenians after WW1 can in no sense be compared to the Jewish Holocaust.

To mention only the most obvious difference: the massacre (not genocide) of Armenians took place during a war in which Armenian troops were heavily engaged against the Kurds (who mostly carried out the massacres) and Turks. The Jewish Holocaust was inflicted upon an unarmed civilian population who had never threatened anyone.

Please think carefully before making this comparison again, because it can give serious offence.

They did fight back. They did kill German troops, they did blow up bridges etc, some of them resisted the Nazis until the end. It's also seriously fucking offensive to say that they just let the Nazis do it to them.

 

[stowpirate]

i don't think it was genocide but the holocaust wasn't the only genocide in history, its unique for other reasons, mainly cos its the only example of industrialised mass murder and it was ultimately aimed at wiping out every jew everywhere rather than in specific areas the nazis happened to invade, but surely you can't be saying it's the only example of genocide in general?

The word Hollocaust historic meaning from online dictionary:

Middle English, burnt offering, from Old French holocauste, from Latin holocaustum, from Greek holokauston, from neuter of holokaustos, burnt whole : holo-, holo- + kaustos, burnt (from kaiein, to burn).

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/holocaust

Looking at some of the atrocities in the Armenian Genocide would suggest both definitions are true? Drowning, burning, gassing, concentration camps and death marches are mentioned in most of the information available online?

 

[likesfish]

I think it says something that the turks are still trying to deny bad things happened or excuse them.
Over a million dead armenians and how many dead turks phil?

 

[stowpirate]

They did fight back. They did kill German troops, they did blow up bridges etc, some of them resisted the Nazis until the end. It's also seriously fucking offensive to say that they just let the Nazis do it to them.

Interesting contribution to the argument here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Jewish_Americans#World_War_II