Turkije zou Armenie moeten aanklagen voor het uitvoeren van genocide

[Turkse Nederlander]

"The Dashnak revolutionary society is working to stir up a situation in which Muslims and Armenians will attack each other, and thus pave the way for Russian intervention "

General Mayewski, Russian Consul General in Bitlis and Van, December 1912; source: Kara Schemsi, Turcs et Armeniens devant l'Histoire, Geneve, Imprimerie Nationale, 1919, p. 11

JE ZIET HET ZELF DAMES EN HEREN!!! HET DOEL VAN DE ARMENIERS WAS HET STARTEN VAN EEN BURGEROORLOG TUSSEN MOSLIMS EN ARMENIERS ZODAT DE RUSSEN ZOUDEN INGRIJPEN

[Turkse Nederlander]

"'Do you believe that any massacres would have taken place if no Armenian revolutionaries had come into the country and incited the Armenian population to rebellion?' I asked Mr. Graves [The British consul]. 'Certainly not,' he replied. 'I do not believe that a single Armenian would have been killed.'"

Sydney Whitman, "Turkish Memories," London, 1914, p. 74

[ArmeenNL]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Turkse Nederlander

Ik geef toe dat Turken veel Armeniers vermoord hebben. Waarom geef jij niet toe dat Armeniers veel Turken vermoord hebben?

Geef jij toe dat het een genocide was? of is dit weer zo'n ''ik erken dat er Armenen zijn vermoord maar er zijn ook turken vermoord want het was een burgeroorlog'' ontkennings techniek?
Anderehalf miljoen Armenen zijn systematisch vermoord door turken gewoon omdat we Armenen waren, de Armeense vergelding was heel laag en niet te vergelijken wat de turken deden. Wat de turken deden was een genocide.

[ArmeenNL]

En hou op met copy/paste van al die onzin het heeft toch geen zin, ik kan ook heel veel plakken maar doe ik niet is te kinderachtig.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Turkse Nederlander

(Bitlis wordt vooral bewoond door Koerden, lees jij dit Koerd?)

Zoals ik zei de Koerden erkenen hun deelname aan de genocide, ze hebben meerdere malen hun spijt betuigt voor hun rol in de genocide.

[Turkse Nederlander]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door ArmeenNL

Geef jij toe dat het een genocide was? of is dit weer zo'n ''ik erken dat er Armenen zijn vermoord maar er zijn ook turken vermoord want het was een burgeroorlog'' ontkennings techniek?
Anderehalf miljoen Armenen zijn systematisch vermoord door turken gewoon omdat we Armenen waren, de Armeense vergelding was heel laag en niet te vergelijken wat de turken deden. Wat de turken deden was een genocide.

Ik geef toe dat er een burgeroorlog was waarbij Armeniers moslim dorpen hebben aangevallen en de bevolking hebben uitgeroeid. Ik geef toe dat de Armeniers een vooropgezet plan hadden om onrusten te creeeren zodat de Ottomanen zouden reageren waardoor buitenlandse mogendheden zouden ingrijpen. Ik geef toe dat de Ottomanen Armeniers hebben gedeporteerd en dat er tijdens deze deporatie Armeniers zijn vermoord door Turkse soldaten en officieren. Ik geef toe dat de Ottomaanse overheid tientallen moslim officieren heeft berecht en opgehangen voor misdaden tegen Armeniers. Ik geef toe dat de meeste Armeniers omgekomen zijn door honger en ziekten (dit geven de Armeniers zelf ook toe maar ze beweren dat dit bewust was gedaan door de Turken).

Waarom antwoord je niet op mijn vraag? Hebben Armeniers moslim dorpen aangevallen en daarvan de bevolking uitgeroeid?

[Turkse Nederlander]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door ArmeenNL

En hou op met copy/paste van al die onzin het heeft toch geen zin, ik kan ook heel veel plakken maar doe ik niet is te kinderachtig.

Waarom?? Kun jij niet tegen onafhankelijk bewijs? Jij wilt niet dat hier bewijs geplaatst wordt? Jij wilt dat we hier discussieren zonder bronnen te plaatsen?

Zoals ik zei de Koerden erkenen hun deelname aan de genocide, ze hebben meerdere malen hun spijt betuigt voor hun rol in de genocide.

Geven de Koerden ook toe dat ze afgeslacht werden door Armeense opstandelingen?

[ArmeenNL]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Turkse Nederlander

Ik geef toe dat er een burgeroorlog was waarbij Armeniers moslim dorpen hebben aangevallen en de bevolking hebben uitgeroeid. Ik geef toe dat de Armeniers een vooropgezet plan hadden om onrusten te creeeren zodat de Ottomanen zouden reageren waardoor buitenlandse mogendheden zouden ingrijpen. Ik geef toe dat de Ottomanen Armeniers hebben gedeporteerd en dat er tijdens deze deporatie Armeniers zijn vermoord door Turkse soldaten en officieren. Ik geef toe dat de Ottomaanse overheid tientallen moslim officieren heeft berecht en opgehangen voor misdaden tegen Armeniers. Ik geef toe dat de meeste Armeniers omgekomen zijn door honger en ziekten (dit geven de Armeniers zelf ook toe maar ze beweren dat dit bewust was gedaan door de Turken).

Waarom antwoord je niet op mijn vraag? Hebben Armeniers moslim dorpen aangevallen en daarvan de bevolking uitgeroeid?

Daar gaan we weer, ik weet niet of je gemerkt hebt maar je hebt bijna alle 12 van de ''Twelve Ways To Deny A Genocide'' gebruikt en dat allemaal in 1 bericht, je kon beter wat anders bedenken wat daar niet in stond dan had ik nog moeten debunken maar nu hoeft het niet meer.

En antwoord op je vraag heb ik al gegeven, lees dan goed.
Na de genocide was een kleine vergelding, en niet tijdens of voor de genocide.

[ArmeenNL]

The Key Distortions and Falsehoods in the Denial of the Armenian Genocide.
Alternate Use of the Words "Ottoman" and "Turkish"

In the period in question here, all diplomatic correspondence as well as publications by many historians and political scientists continued the tradition of previous centuries to use the words "Ottoman" and "Turkish," and "Ottoman Empire" and "Turkey" interchangeably; nor were officials and learned men of the Ottoman Empire itself always exempt from this practice. The objection to this practice is in this sense, therefore, unwarranted. Moreover, the ostensible effort to dissociate the Turkish Republic of today as a new and separate entity from the imagery one has about the Ottoman Empire is contradicted by the recent statements of a Turkish Minister of Culture, Istemihan Talay. In an interview with two Turkish journalists he publicly declared that "the Republic of Turkey is the continuation of the Ottoman Empire whose legacy is part of our history." He was speaking on the occasion of the festivities celebrating the 700th anniversary of the founding of the Ottoman Empire. He further stated that "to be embarrassed on account of that empire's legacy is tantamount to denying one's very own being."1

The Allegation of "Inter-Communal Clashes"

This description denotes the idea of a kind of civil war supposedly resulting from the relative collapse of the authority of the central government. It implies that the Armenians, an impotent defenseless minority, were able to engage in armed conflict with the omnipotent and dominant Turks and the other Muslims ruling over them. The patent fallacy of such an allegation can be recognized by considering the following facts. On August 3, 1914, i.e. three months before Turkey precipitated the war with Russia, all able-bodied Armenian men in the 20-45 age categories, and later in sequences those in the 18-20 and 45-60 categories, were conscripted in the Ottoman army. What was left behind in the Armenian community was a mass of frightened, if not terrorized, old men, women and children still haunted by the memories of the cycle of the massacres that were committed in the decades preceding World War I. The question poses itself: how could these wretched people be in a position to contemplate, let alone mount, armed clashes against a population identified with and supported by a mighty empire, the Ottoman Empire? The might of that Empire was manifested in its ability to wage for four years a relentless multi-front war in alliance with two other mighty empires, the German (Hohenzollern), and the Austro- Hungarian (Hapsburg). According to Vice Marshall Pomiankowski, Austro-Hungary's military plenipotentiary, who throughout the war was attached to Ottoman General Headquarters, the Young Turk regime first liquidated the able-bodied Armenian men "in order to render defenseless the rest of the population" which, according to him, paved the ground for "their annihilation."2

The Redundancy of the Argument of Armenian Rebelliousness

The four instances of uprising were not only isolated, local, and disconnected incidents but, above all, they were improvised, last-ditch acts of desperation to resist imminent deportation and thereby avert annihilation. Being strictly defensive undertakings, practically all of the insurgents involved perished in the course of the operations regular Turkish army units launched against them to suppress the insurgency. By sheer chance and fortuitous circumstance only the insurgents of the Van uprising managed to survive when at last they were liberated by the advance units of the Russian Caucasus Army, which overwhelmed the surrounding Turkish defense positions and captured the city of Van. The term "chance" calls for emphasis, for but for the timely arrival of the Russian military units, the insurgents of Van were likewise doomed, given the inevitable depletion of their meager resources of defense, including ammunition and weapons, and the mounting casualties they were sustaining. A delay of two or three days in the arrival of the Russians would surely have sealed the fate of the desperate defenders. The following testimony of Vice Marshal Pomiankowski, mentioned above, succinctly encapsulates this plight of the Armenians. He characterized the Van uprising as "an act of despair" because the Armenians "recognized that the general butchery had begun in the environs of Van and that they would be the next victims."3 A similar judgment was expressed by Metternich, German ambassador to Turkey, and a Venezuelan military officer of Spanish extraction who was in charge of the artillery battery relentlessly bombarding and reducing the Armenian defense positions in Van. His eyewitness testimony has extraordinary value because, as he put it, he was "the only Christian who witnessed the Armenian massacres and the deportations in an official capacity...."4

The Charge of Armenian Treachery

Reference is made to "the Ottoman Armenians' violent political alliance with the Russian forces." One is prompted to ask, "what alliance" and "by which Ottoman Armenians?" In the annals of violent behavior inflicted upon defenseless human groups by tyrants, apologists have often taken refuge behind such utterly senseless generalizations. It is a matter of historical record that the leaders of the major Armenian political party, the Dashnaktzoutiun, as early as August 1914, publicly declared their allegiance to the Ottoman state and vowed as citizens of the state to fight for the defense of the country should the government, against all advice, decide to intervene in the war. It is likewise a historical fact that the religious head of Turkey's Armenian community, the Patriarch, through an encyclical, enjoined all the Armenian faithful in the provinces as well as the Ottoman capital to obey the governmental officials everywhere and loyally discharge their duties as Ottoman subjects. Nor can one dismiss the ancillary fact that the leaders of the above-cited Armenian political party did all they could to stop the Armenian volunteer movement that was gaining momentum in the adjoining Russian Trans-Caucasus, but failed. Still, the fact remains that the bulk of these volunteers eager to fight against the Turks in the ranks of the Russian army were either Russian subjects or citizens of various countries in Europe and North America. In any event, how could the presence of some Ottoman subjects, past and present, among these volunteers in any way justify the resort to the sweeping indictment of "Ottoman Armenians?" By the same token, why is the fact being ignored that thousands and thousands more Azeris and Kurds were likewise fighting against the Turks in the ranks of the Russian army? The same may be said about thousands of xxxs from Russia and Europe who in 1915 served in the columns of the British Expeditionary Force at the Dardanelles and again in 1918 in the army of British General Allenby at the Palestine front. Does it not follow that there were other abiding and strategic considerations, than the participation of contingents of Armenian soldiers on the side of the Russians in the war against Turkey, in the genocidal selection and targeting of the Armenians?
Against this backdrop, the assertion that the anti-Armenian measures were but limited to the eastern theaters of war, and as such were strictly regional in thrust and scope, is simply astounding. It is belied by the grim realities of the Armenian genocide, whose sweeping compass engulfed Armenian population clusters in all corners of the vast Ottoman Empire. As one high-ranking wartime Turkish counter-intelligence officer in his post-war memoirs movingly lamented, "among those Armenians who were atrociously wasted, despite the fact that they were most innocent, guiltless, and who had committed no crime whatsoever, were the Armenians of Bursa, Ankara, Eskiehir, and Konya."5 These involved regions and provinces that were far removed from the war zones!

The Utter Fiction of the Claim of "Relocation"

The U.S. Congress is invited to lend credence to the transparently incredible assertion that the deported Armenian population was being merely exiled to the deserts of Mesopotamia where they were being "relocated." The brutal and utter cynicism of this assertion is exceeded only by the insolence with which the intelligence of the Congressmen, for that matter the intelligence of any thinking person, is thereby being insulted. Responding to this official claim at the time, Lewis Einstein, the Special Agent of the U.S. State Department at the American Embassy in Istanbul, mocked this brand of "official euphemism...the grim humor of paternal solicitude which usually covers the most barbarous massacres in Turkey...an armed policy of deportation, and the implied sequel of extermination."6 Another U.S. official, Leslie Davis, wartime American consul at Harput, in his report to the State Department described how huge clusters of Armenian deportee convoys on their way to Mesopotamia were rerouted to Harput "only to be butchered in this province...the Slaughterhouse Province."7 The candid testimony of a Turkish general with military jurisdiction over the Mesopotamia regions in question is even more telling in this respect. In his post-war memoirs he emphatically declared that "there was neither preparation, nor organization to shelter the hundreds of thousands of the deportees."8

[ArmeenNL]

"Disloyal Ottoman Armenians killed 1.1 million Muslims and 100,000 xxxs"

The recklessness of this statement is matched by the sordidness attending it. More important, it reveals and punctuates the ineptness with which the picture of 100,000 entirely invented xxxs is injected into the controversy. The attempt to play on xxxish sensitivities already exacerbated by the impact of memories of the Holocaust and thereby to coopt the xxxs in the ongoing game of denialism is as transparent as it is lurid. Even by official Ottoman statistics, this falsehood emerges as absurd as one may be able to imagine. Moreover, the figure represents a magnitude that would have provoked reaction and intense inquiry a long time ago. Nor is there any reference to any record or credible source on this matter in the entire literature respecting the whole episode at issue here. Indeed, as far as official Ottoman statistics are concerned, in the areas in which, according to Turkish claims, the Armenians committed atrocities in the course of "inter-communal clashes," the number of xxxish residents did not exceed 4,000. The question begs itself: where did this charge and the associated figure come from and how?
The figure of "1.1 million Muslims" killed roughly corresponds to the total number of the Ottoman Armenian population as presented by several Turkish sources. Like so many other, similar assertions, this too borders on the fantastic, as expounded earlier in the section "The Allegation of 'Inter-Communal Clashes.'" As the French essayist Montaigne once observed:

no one is exempt from talking nonsense;
the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
- Essays v. III, i.

On the Number of Armenian Victims

Without providing specifics, the Memorandum states that "the number of Armenians claimed to have perished has tripled over the last 80 years." Far from such being the case, however, that number more or less remains constant as far as credible sources are concerned. In March 1919 the then Ottoman Interior Minister relying on statistical data which the staff of the ministry had been compiling during the previous two months, publicly declared that "during the wartime deportations some 800,000 Armenians were killed."9 Excluded from this figure are the Armenian conscripts who, in the wake of their conscription, were liquidated in stages by fellow Turkish soldiers, and countless children, young girls, and brides who were forcibly Islamised and absorbed into the mainstream of the Turkish national entity. If one discounts French and British sources, identified as they were with the enemy camp, the available German and Austro-Hungarian sources involving civilian and military officials of all ranks, and serving as wartime allies of Turkey, supply much more inclusive figures. According to these sources, the number of victims of the Armenian genocide ranges between 1.2 and 1.5 million.10

The Legal and Political Import of the May 24, 1915 Declaration of the Allies (The Entente Powers)

In that declaration France, Great Britain and Russia accused the Young Turk regime of "connivance and often assistance" in the perpetration of the mass murder of the Armenians, at the same time warning that "in view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity..."11 the Allies propose to prosecute and punish after the war all the perpetrators involved. This declaration is dismissed out of hand as wartime propaganda. Quoting author David Fromkin, the ambassador likewise dismisses "the British official accounts" as untruthful propaganda reflecting the exigencies of the war. Yet historian Arnold Toynbee, who in 1916 produced the official and most comprehensive British documentation of the Armenian genocide, some half a century later in his memoirs reconfirmed his findings and reaffirmed the historical reality of that genocide. He wrote, "the massacre of Armenian Ottoman subjects [during the Sultan Abdul Hamit era, 1894-1896] was amateur and ineffective compared with the largely successful attempt to exterminate...in 1915...[That undertaking] was carried out...under the cloak of legality, by cold-blooded governmental action."12
The depositories of the state archives of the German Federal Republic and of Austria are replete with official documents attesting to the complicity of the Young Turk regime in the enactment of the genocide.13

The Non-Existence of "Malta Tribunals"

In the Memorandum in question, on three different occasions reference is made to so-called "Malta Tribunals" which in fact never existed and accordingly are nowhere in the respective literature cited. The British camp and affiliated domiciles were strictly a detention center where the Turkish suspects were being held for future prosecution on charges of crimes perpetrated against the Armenians, Ottoman citizens. The envisaged international trials on the new penal norm "crimes against humanity" never materialized, however - largely because of political expediency. The victorious Allies, lapsing into dissension and growing mutual rivalries, chose to strike separate deals with the ascendant Kemalist insurgents in Anatolia. One such deal concerned the recovery of some British subjects who were being held hostage by the Kemalists and who were to be released in exchange for the liberation of all Malta detainees. Commenting on this deal for the exchange which he later deplored as "a great mistake," British Foreign Affairs Minister Lord Curzon wrote the following, "The less we say about these people [the Turks detained at Malta] the better...I had to explain why we released the Turkish deportees from Malta skating over thin ice as quickly as I could. There would have been a row I think...The staunch belief among members [of Parliament is] that one British prisoner is worth a shipload of Turks, and so the exchange was excused."14
It is, therefore, inaccurate to state that they were released because "the charges were exhaustively probed, investigated, and studied." Nothing of the sort happened. The Allies, especially the British, studiously avoided getting judicially involved at that juncture of developments. Everything was deferred for an eventual, anticipated international trial. To an incidental, single inquiry from London, Aukland Geddes, the British ambassador in Washington, D.C., on June 1, 1921 responded saying that the U.S. archives at that time already contained "a large number of documents on Armenian deportations and massacres"15 but that under existing conditions it was not possible to assign and charge specific culpabilities to the Turkish detainees at Malta as the Allies were not involved in the specific task of prosecution that would require pre-trial investigations, the administration of interrogatories, and the application of other methods of evidence gathering. Nor did the British "exhaustively search the archives of many nations," not in 1919, not in 1920, or ever! Like so many other statements noted above, these are purely fabricated declarations to confuse the issue and confound third parties.

The Juxtaposition and Equating of Armenian Losses with Turkish Warfare Losses

Turkish historians and others identified with Turkish interests continue to resort to this artful device in order to minimize the scope and import of the Armenian catastrophe. Two distinct and separate categories of losses are cleverly collapsed into a single and undifferentiated category where one may readily play the numbers game through simple additions and subtractions and come up with wholly deceptive figures. What is involved here is, on the one hand, the category of victims of organized mass murder and, on the other hand, essentially the dead resulting from warfare with foreign armies and from other war-related causes. This is clearly stated in the report of American Major General Harbord, to which reference is made in the ambassador's Memorandum. Harbord stated that "Not over 20 percent of the Turkish peasants who went to war have returned...Six hundred thousand Turkish soldiers died of typhus alone...and insufficient hospital service and absolute poverty of supply swelled the death lists." Counterposed to this account is Harbord's other account dealing with the conditions of the Armenian victims. He referred to "the wholesale attempt on the [Armenian] race...," at the same time underscoring "the evidence of this most colossal crime of all ages [involving] mutilation, violation, torture and death...Testimony is universal that the massacres have always been ordered from Constantinople." After announcing that "the official reports of the Turkish Government show 1,100,000 as having been deported," Harbord estimated the number of the Armenian victims of the genocide to be "about 800,000."16

[ArmeenNL]

The Legitimacy of the Turkish Military Tribunal Prosecuting the Authors of the Armenian Genocide

This tribunal was created through a series of Imperial Rescripts in late December 1918 and early January 1919. The issuing of them was an exercise of the type of sweeping powers with which reigning sultans were invested by the Ottoman Constitution. It was only natural that the occupants of the many Cabinet posts of successive post-war Turkish governments were enemies of the defunct Young Turk regime. So were those sitting in judgment of the Nazis at Nuremberg. One cannot just dismiss the resulting findings and judgments simply because of the presence of an animus of hostility against the accused. Given the enormity of the crimes involved, such hostility often simply becomes inescapable, but there are other yardsticks with which to assess findings and judgments in judicial proceedings.
The statement "why a government allegedly intent on eliminating a portion of its citizenry would try and convict those who committed crimes against those very citizens" is an exercise in sophistry. One needs only consider the fact that not one unitary government but disparate governments identified with disparate regimes are at issue here. Indeed those trying to administer retributive justice in the post-war era were in design and function the very antithesis of those who enacted the genocide during the preceding war.
Moreover, several aspects of the court-martial proceedings merit attention for their quality of judiciousness, despite the consideration of the fact that these trials were urged on by the victorious Allies under whose shadow they took place.
a. Using judicial discretion, the panel of judges decided to hold public trials in order to "help the defendants and facilitate their defense" and, "in a spirit of impartiality and lofty justice"17 as avowed by this panel.
b. Led by Istanbul University law professor and president of the Turkish bar association, C. Arif, a battery of sixteen lawyers was engaged as defense counsel. These attorneys frequently and vigorously challenged the prosecutors, their witnesses, and often the panel of judges, at the same time raising many constitutional questions.18 It is, therefore, astonishing that the ambassador, through the Memorandum, dares to declare that the defendants were tried "with almost no presentation of evidence." One wonders indeed whether he and/or his staff had ever heard of Takvimi Vekâyi and if so, had ever perused its many issues. The official gazette of the Ottoman government, its supplements regularly carried many portions of the proceedings of the court-martial, including the presentations of the defense counsel.
c. Before being introduced as accusatory exhibits, each and every official document was authenticated by the competent staff personnel of the Interior Ministry who thereafter affixed on the top part of the document the notation: "it conforms to the original."19
d. The series of verdicts pronounced by the Tribunal were based almost entirely on these authenticated official documents which had a wartime provenance and had, therefore, nothing to do with post-war "politics." As at Nuremberg, so at Istanbul, courtroom testimony was given minimal significance. This deliberately designed procedure was announced by the Deputy Attorney General on March 29, 1919, at the 16th sitting of the Yozgad trial series.20

The Conviction of Top Young Turk Leaders by the Turkish Military Tribunal

The categorical declaration that "according to the trial transcripts" none of these leaders "were convicted of organizing and executing massacres against the Armenian people," is again belied by the text of the verdict. As principal ground for conviction and sentencing, which was death on the gallows, the Tribunal cited "the massacres against the Armenians" in various parts of the Ottoman Empire. Continuing, the Tribunal further asserted that these bloodbaths were "organized and executed" by "the Ittihadist [the Young Turk] leaders," a fact which was "investigated and ascertained" by the Tribunal. Among those convicted and sentenced to death were Interior Minister, later Grand Vizier, Talât, and the two top military leaders, War Minister Enver, and Minister of Navy and Commander-in-Chief of the Ottoman IVth army, Cemal.21 It is likewise untrue that the "Tribunal did not convict Dr. Behaeddin akir and Cemal Azmi." The former was convicted and sentenced to death at the end of the Harput trial series;22 the latter, who was governor-general of Trabzon province, was convicted and sentenced to death at the end of the Trabzon trial series.23

On the Value of the Turkish State Archives Relative to the Task of Documenting the Armenian Genocide

It is maintained by Turkish authorities that the evidence contained in these archives, civilian as well as military, does not in any way support the charge of genocide. Before accepting such a conclusion, however, one has to ask the cardinal question: how reliable, intact, and complete are these depositories that purportedly cover the entire evidence on the wartime treatment of Ottoman Armenians. The facts listed below cast in stark relief the dubious aspects of these archives, especially those of Yldz, the Prime Ministry, and the General Staff.
a. For more than six decades the Turkish authorities had made these depositories containing material on the Armenian question inaccessible to most researchers. In fact a regime of preferential treatment was instituted. Those well-known for their pro-Turkish proclivities or open partisanship were allowed access; others were denied it.24
b. After the archives, i.e., some parts of them, were finally opened up to the public with great fanfare in January 1989, access to them remained, and still remains, restricted through the imposition of a host of conditions. Indeed, the government, i.e., the authorities administering the archives, reserve the right to control and, when necessary, to deny access on three grounds: (1) risk to national defense, (2) risk to public order, and (3) danger to Turkey's relations with other states, or to the need for maintaining normal relations between two foreign countries.25
c. Beyond these restrictions, deliberately framed general and vague terms to allow the indulgence in arbitrary interpretations, there is the practice of selectively withholding documents under a variety of excuses. This practice is applied to those researchers who are suspected of not being in line with Turkish national interests.26
d. Despite great impediments, the post-war Turkish Military Tribunal had been able to seek, locate, and secure an array of documents, including formal and informal orders for the elimination of the bulk of the empire's Armenian population. These documents implicated the Ottoman High Command, the Ministers of Interior and Justice, and the top Young Turk leadership.27 Yet, nowhere can one find a trace of these archives of the Military Tribunal, which seem to have simply vanished. Nor is there any credible account as to who made the vast documentary corpus attesting to the facts of the Armenian genocide disappear, and how.
The conclusion becomes inescapable that what one may be able to glean from the Turkish archives is circumscribed and limited by what the authorities involved are arbitrarily and selectively willing to offer.

[ArmeenNL]

Did the Ottoman Authorities Really Punish the Perpetrators of the Massacres of the Armenians During the War?

The Turkish Memorandum sent to the U.S. Congressmen maintains that "1,376 individuals were sentenced to varying degrees of punishment...62 officials were sentenced to death and were executed...." As far as it is known former Turkish diplomat Kamuran Gürün who, citing documents from the archives of the Ottoman Interior Ministry, released these figures for the first time in his book denying the Armenian genocide. He was persuasive enough to induce noted Ottomanist and Arabist Bernard Lewis to embrace this claim in his latest work, presumably in an effort to fortify the rationale for the revising, if not retracting, of his earlier recognition of the Armenian genocide which he had seen fit to characterize as a "holocaust."28
In advancing this argument an obvious effort is made to once more deny the reality of the Armenian genocide by denying the rationale of it. Indeed, why would a government organize a mass murder and then turn around and punish some of the actual perpetrators? To the extent that there is some truth to it, the argument is neither baffling, nor devoid of an explanation. But, as explained below, the greater truth is that the limited trials that were set in motion were nothing short of being farcical. Here are the reasons.
a. Following the completion of their criminal deeds against their Armenian victims, many of the perpetrators began to be viewed as distinct liabilities for the regime. For one thing, they knew too much regarding the lethal secret operations conducted against the victim population, and some of them started to drop hints that unless they were accommodated in certain respects, they may "spill the beans." Referring to the decision of the Central Committee of the Young Turk Ittihad party to hang two such prominent mass murderers, actually a major and a lieutenant who were part of the Special Organization's killer squads, a Turkish general in his post-war memoirs confirms this occurrence. Describing them as "bloodthirsty brigands," he offers this explanation for their demise through hanging. "When deciding to get rid of them, the party's Central Committee most probably reasoned as follows: 'Indebtedness to [recruited] executioners and murderers is bound to be heavy...Those who are used for dirty jobs are needed in times of necessity [in order to shift] responsibility. It is likewise necessary, however, not to glorify them but to dispose of them just like toilet paper, once they have done their job.'"29 On the same occasion, party boss and then Interior Minister, Talât, in a cipher telegram is quoted as having declared with respect to the execution of one of them, Major Ahmed - "His liquidation in any case is necessary. Otherwise he will prove very harmful at a later date. Talât."30
There were several such cases where top Young Turk leaders are seen ordering the liquidation of all kinds of massacrers on account of the same, or similar considerations.31
b. Far more significant were the circumstances under which the authorities did indeed conduct investigations and trials with a view to punishing the offenders only, however, in the end to reduce these trials to sheer travesty. A Muslim witness i.e., a Turkish peasant, for example, who insistently wanted to describe the scenes of the massacres he personally had witnessed, was put down and summarily dismissed by the presiding judge with the swear word "dog." Furthermore, those gendarmes who were less cruel towards the Armenians but still robbed them, were found guilty and were punished. "Their cases served as the basis of embellished reports about the punishment of the perpetrators who had victimized the Armenians."32 This fact was confirmed and became public at the 11th sitting of the Yozgad trial series (March 3, 1919). Aziz Nedim, an Ottoman civil inspector, and a personal friend of Talât from the earlier days of Saloniki, had been sent to Boazlyan, a county in Yozgad district in Ankara province, to investigate the abuses against Armenian deportees. But, in his testimony he admitted that he had received specific orders not to investigate the incidence of massacres but to limit himself to economic crimes. Attorney General Sami in that sitting concluded that "when inspectors came to the area, they confined their investigations to...plunder and fraud."33
In other words, the authorities were not in the slightest interested to prosecute and punish massacrers, but to stop the massive embezzlements. By virtue of these abuses the vast riches of the Armenian victim population were being personally appropriated by the organizers and executioners of the massacres instead of being transferred, as was their duty to do, to the Treasury of the state.
The whole picture is summed up by a noted Turkish publicist with a Ph.D. in sociology from Columbia University. He had close ties with the Young Turk leaders during the war, and for two years after the war in Malta where he, along with the former, had been detained by the British. He wrote, "a commission of investigation composed of inspectors of the Ministries of the Interior and Justice, was formed...to punish those guilty of excesses. Some minor offenders were really punished; but those favoring the deportations being very influential in the Government, the whole thing amounted more to a demonstration rather than a sincere attempt to fix complete responsibility."34

Hitler, the Holocaust, the Nuremberg Trials and the Armenian Genocide

Hitler's reported reference to "the annihilation of the Armenians," the veracity of which is being questioned in the Memorandum, is but one of the indices that describe the historical and legal interconnections between the Armenian Genocide and the xxxish Holocaust.35 Nor is that reference the only one that portrays Hitler being inspired and encouraged by the impunity accruing to the authors of the Armenian Genocide. Eight years earlier, in June 1931, Hitler is reported to have included in his list the case of "the extermination of the Armenians," among the mass murders in history that he perceived to have been successful operations.36
Even though it is true that the 1939 document in question was not ultimately used at Nuremberg, where it was introduced as a prosecution exhibit, because of strong objections by German defense counsel, that does not mean that it is invalid. At the time of the Nuremberg trials there were uncertainties regarding the provenance and venue of the document containing Hitler's statement. However, noted American specialist in this field, Gerald L. Weinberg, explained in his book and subsequently in a communication to the New York Times that the provenance and the source of the document was later identified to be the main note taker of Hitler's secret speech, namely, Admiral Canaris, the chief of the Counter-Intelligence Department of the German Armed Forces High Command (Abwehr). Weinberg gives credence to the authenticity of the document by emphasizing the more solid reliability of Canaris as a source compared to the other two sources in which Hitler's respective words are missing.37
The organic character of the links between the two foremost genocides of this century is a recurrent theme in the works of some prominent experts of international law. These links are treated as the byproduct of the failure to prosecute the first of the two genocides. But as Bassiouni pointed out, "the fact that a crime is not prosecuted does not negate its legal existence."38 Still, through this type of existence it may help generate and sustain the existence of other crimes emulating it. This is the sense in which Bassiouni links the mass murder of the Armenians "now commonly referred to as genocide [and which] remained unpunished," to the calamity of World War II. "The crimes against the laws of humanity" attending the World War I Armenian genocide, were "prosecutable and punishable international law crimes...The reluctance [to deal with them] came back to haunt" the world.39
The summary judgment of another international law expert is more trenchant as it links the two genocides even more closely by suggesting that the second genocide was conditioned, if not pre-conditioned, by the first genocide, on account of it having remained unpunished. He wrote, "Nothing emboldens a criminal so much as the knowledge he can get away with the crime. That was the message the failure to prosecute for the Armenian massacre gave to the Nazis. We ignore the lesson of the Holocaust at our peril."40 Middle East historian Howard M. Sachar concurred when in his respective book he wrote, "The [Armenian] genocide was cited approvingly twenty-five years later by the Führer...who found the Armenian 'solution' an instructive precedent."41

[ArmeenNL]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Turkse Nederlander

Waarom?? Kun jij niet tegen onafhankelijk bewijs? Jij wilt niet dat hier bewijs geplaatst wordt? Jij wilt dat we hier discussieren zonder bronnen te plaatsen?

Er is bewijs zat, turkije is schuldig als de pest.
Een historische feit ontkennen maakt jou alleen belachelijk.

[Kodo Kodo]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door ArmeenNL

Er is bewijs zat, turkije is schuldig als de pest.
Een historische feit ontkennen maakt jou alleen belachelijk.

Door het te ontkennen maak je je medeplichtig. Door het ontkennende Turkije in de EU op te nemen zou de EU zich medeplichtig maken. Voor mijn part hoort Armenië bij Europa en Turkije niet.

[ArmeenNL]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Kodo Kodo

Door het te ontkennen maak je je medeplichtig. Door het ontkennende Turkije in de EU op te nemen zou de EU zich medeplichtig maken. Voor mijn part hoort Armenië bij Europa en Turkije niet.

Mee eens, ontkennen maakt je medeplichtig je verdedigt de moordenaar en ontkennen hoort dan ook altijd bij de laatste fase van genocide, de genocide ontkennen is dan net zo erg als de mensen die het georganiseerd, uitgevoerd en bevel hebben gegeven.

The eight stages of Genocide

By Gregory H. Stanton
April should be a month of reflection for humanity on the atrocities committed throughout our history. We should all reflect on the Armenian Genocide, commemorated April 24, and on the Holocaust Yom Hashoa, commemorated April 15.
When Hitler was asked about what will the rest of the world do about his ‘final solution’ (his attempt to exterminate the Jews) he replied that it will be forgotten, like the Armenian Genocide.
History has shown that all genocides have something in common. All start with classification and end by denial, stage seven which is extermination...
As long as nothing is done to cut a genocide off as early as possible, at the first stage, humanity will have more genocides to commemorate...
It is imperative to know the signs of these stages that lead to the extermination of our fellow human beings.
1. CLASSIFICATION:
All cultures have categories to distinguish people into "us and them" by ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality: German and Jew, Hutu and Tutsi. Bipolar societies that lack mixed categories, such as Rwanda and Burundi, are the most likely to have genocide. The main preventive measure at this early stage is to develop universalistic institutions that transcend ethnic or racial divisions, that actively promote tolerance and understanding, and that promote classifications that transcend the divisions. The Catholic church could have played this role in Rwanda, had it not been riven by the same ethnic cleavages as Rwandan society. Promotion of a common language in countries like Tanzania or Cote d'Ivoire has also promoted transcendent national identity. This search for common ground is vital to early prevention of genocide.
2. SYMBOLIZATION:
We give names or other symbols to the classifications. We name people "Jews" or "Gypsies", or distinguish them by colors or dress; and apply them to members of groups. Classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily result in genocide unless they lead to the next stage, dehumanization. When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups: the yellow star for Jews under Nazi rule, the blue scarf for people from the Eastern Zone in Khmer Rouge Cambodia.
To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden (swastikas) as can hate speech. Group marking like gang clothing or tribal scarring can be outlawed, as well. The problem is that legal limitations will fail if unsupported by popular cultural enforcement. Though Hutu and Tutsi were forbidden words in Burundi until the 1980's, code-words replaced them. If widely supported, however, denial of symbolization can be powerful, as it was in Bulgaria, when many non-Jews chose to wear the yellow star, depriving it of its significance as a Nazi symbol for Jews. According to legend in Denmark, the Nazis did not introduce the yellow star because they knew even the King would wear it.
3. DEHUMANIZATION:
One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder.
At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group. In combating this dehumanization, incitement to genocide should not be confused with protected speech. Genocidal societies lack constitutional protection for countervailing speech, and should be treated differently than in democracies. Hate radio stations should be shut down, and hate propaganda banned. Hate crimes and atrocities should be promptly punished.
4. ORGANIZATION:
Genocide is always organized, usually by the state, though sometimes informally (Hindu mobs led by local RSS militants) or by terrorist groups. Special army units or militias are often trained and armed. Plans are made for genocidal killings.
To combat this stage, membership in these militias should be outlawed. Their leaders should be denied visas for foreign travel. The U.N. should impose arms embargoes on governments and citizens of countries involved in genocidal massacres, and create commissions to investigate violations, as was done in post-genocide Rwanda.
5. POLARIZATION:
Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Laws may forbid intermarriage or social interaction. Extremist terrorism targets moderates, intimidating and silencing the center. Prevention may mean security protection for moderate leaders or assistance to human rights groups. Assets of extremists may be seized, and visas for international travel denied to them. Coups d'¢etat by extremists should be opposed by international sanctions.
6. PREPARATION:
Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity. Death lists are drawn up. Members of victim groups are forced to wear identifying symbols. They are often segregated into ghettoes, forced into concentration camps, or confined to a famine-struck region and starved.
At this stage, a Genocide Alert must be called. If the political will of the U.S., NATO, and the U.N. Security Council can be mobilized, armed international intervention should be prepared, or heavy assistance to the victim group in preparing for its self-defense. Otherwise, at least humanitarian assistance should be organized by the U.N. and private relief groups for the inevitable tide of refugees.
7. EXTERMINATION:
Extermination begins, and quickly becomes the mass killing legally called "genocide." It is "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human. When it is sponsored by the state, the armed forces often work with militias to do the killing. Sometimes the genocide results in revenge killings by groups against each other, creating the downward whirlpool-like cycle of bilateral genocide (as in Burundi).
At this stage, only rapid and overwhelming armed intervention can stop genocide. Real safe areas or refugee escape corridors should be established with heavily armed international protection. The U.N. needs a Standing High Readiness Brigade or a permanent rapid reaction force, to intervene quickly when the U.N. Security Council calls it. For larger interventions, a multilateral force authorized by the U.N., led by NATO or a regional military power, should intervene. If the U.N. will not intervene directly, militarily powerful nations should provide the airlift, equipment, and financial means necessary for regional states to intervene with U.N. authorization. It is time to recognize that the law of humanitarian intervention transcends the interests of nation-states.
8. DENIAL:
Denial is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern until driven from power by force, when they flee into exile. There they remain with impunity, like Pol Pot or Idi Amin, unless they are captured and a tribunal is established to try them.
The best response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts. There the evidence can be heard, and the perpetrators punished. Tribunals like the Yugoslav, Rwanda, or Sierra Leone Tribunals, an international tribunal to try the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and ultimately the International Criminal Court must be created. They may not deter the worst genocidal killers. But with the political will to arrest and prosecute them, some mass murderers may be brought to justice.
http://www.chomedeynews.ca/articles/...TCN150808.html

Dit is hoe een genocide wordt uitgevoerd, het bestaat uit 8 fases, die bij elke genocide voorkomen. Alleen laffe mensen ontkennen zulke gruwelijke gebeurtenissen.

[Samuray]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door ArmeenNL

Ze werden niet berecht was niet omdat er geen bewijzen waren maar omdat Groot-Brittannië gechanteerd werden door de nieuwe Kemalist Turkische regering die Britische officieren en soldaten gijzelde en later een ruil plaats vond tussen de Britten en turken.

De zogenaamde 'Malta tribunals' heeft nooit plaats gevonden, dit is wat de minister van buitenlandse zaken van Groot-Brittannië Lord Curzon zei:
"The less we say about these people [the Turks detained at Malta] the better...I had to explain why we released the Turkish deportees from Malta skating over thin ice as quickly as I could. There would have been a row I think...The staunch belief among members [of Parliament is] that one British prisoner is worth a shipload of Turks, and so the exchange was excused."
British Foreign Office Archives, FO 371/7882/E4425, folio 182


Britse ambassadeur Aukland Geddes zei ook op 1 juni , 1921: that the U.S. archives already contained "a large number of documents on Armenian deportations and massacres."
British Foreign Office Archives, FO 371/6503/E6311, folio 34

Jij laat zien waarom die wet er niet hoort te komen.

Malta-tribunalen geven namelijk aan waarom de Turken geen blaam treft in deze kwestie. Jij hebt geprobeerd om dit zware feit die onschuld Turken toont te discrediteren op basis van bedrog.

De door jou getoonde citaten hebben beide hebben wat kenmerkend is wat door de Armeense aanhangers wordt gedaan om hun claim aan de man te brengen: Liegen en bedriegen van het publiek.

Ik zal eerst met het tweede citaat beginnen.
Waarom vertel je niet het gehele citaat en slechts alleen een stukje? Omdat dan zal blijken dat je de boel probeert te belazeren.
De hele tekst van dat citaat luidt:

I have made several enquiries of the State Department and today I am informed that while they are in possession of a large number of documents concerning Armenian deportations and massacres, these refer rather to events connected with the perpetration of crimes than to persons implicated.”

Er staat dat de Britse ambassadeur Geddes in de Amerikaanse archieven naar bewijzen zocht maar dat in die documenten wel gerept werd over massacres op Armenen, maar dat deze slechts hadden over dat die zouden zijn gepleegd, maar nergens werden specifiek personen genoemd die dit zouden hebben gepleegd.
Zulk materiaal is dus in rechtszaken waardeloos.

Hierna deed het Britse ministerie van Buitenlandse zaken een tweede verzoek en gaf namen van Turken die in Malta werden gevangengehouden door en verzocht Geddes om naar documenten te zoeken die hun alsnog aan de vermeende misdaden konden koppelen.
Tenslotte volgde het teleurstellende telegram vanuit Washington op
13 juli 1921:

“I regret to inform Your Lordship that there was nothing there which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial at Malta.’

Dan het eerste citaat.
Die is van een ergere nivo. Het vorige bedrog betrof weglating waardoor beweerde in een ander daglicht kwam te staan (een gebruik in de Armeense propaganda). Dit tweede citaat is een verzonnen citaat (hetzelfde bedenkelijke handelswijze: de Armeense genocide-beschuldiging wemelt ervan, zie bv de uit de duim gezogen Hitlercitaat).

Waar is namelijk de datum van eerste citaat? Je geeft 2 citaten, van de tweede is datum gemeld, maar bij de eerste ontbreekt die.
Deze citaten komen van wikipedia waar de Armeense roddelaars de boel gijzelen en de Turken met hun oplichterspraktijken door slijk proberen te halen.
Dit verzonnen citaat is van de hand van een Armeen die zich Fadix noemt. Hij heeft zelfde geraffineerde handelswijze als de Armeense fraudeur die Dadrian heet (oftewel: Dadrian opereert op wikipedia onder de naam Fadix om de boel te belazeren).
Je zult dit verzonnen citaat van Curzon nergens in een boek die als wetenschappelijke geldt (voorzover men publicaties Armenen en hun aanhangers als wetenschappelijk kan benoemen) tegenkomen, omdat datumloze citaten slechts alleen aan sukkels of lieden die in christelijk middeleeuwen zijn blijven hangen zijn te verkopen.

[Samuray]

Dan je conspiracy-bewering van dat de kemalisten de Britten zouden chanteren met hun Britse gijzelaars:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door ArmeenNL

Ze werden niet berecht was niet omdat er geen bewijzen waren maar omdat Groot-Brittannië gechanteerd werden door de nieuwe Kemalist Turkische regering die Britische officieren en soldaten gijzelde en later een ruil plaats vond tussen de Britten en turken.

Deze ruil kwam pas na niet kunnen staven beschuldigingen van de Malta-gijzelaars in beeld bij de Britten.

Waarom werden halverwege 1919 Turken naar Malta gedeporteerd? Om veroordeeld te worden. En hoe doe je dat? Met bewijsmateriaal.
Maar waar hebben de Britten die bewijzen gevonden? Nergens, ook niet in archieven VS, niet hun eigen ‘bewijzen’ (Bryce Report), Andonians documenten, enz. De Turken konden niet veroordeeld worden omdat op leugens gebaseerde aanklachten niet bewezen kan worden. Wat doe je dan? Dan laat je ze vrij. Omdat de kemalisten Britse gevangenen hadden, gingen de Britten daarom onderhandelingen beginnen voor een onderlinge ruil gevangenen.

En onthoud dit goed voor je met zulke conspiracy-theorieen aankomt over Malta:
Als je vanaf maart 1920 mensen hebt die de kemalisten gevangennamen en je een jaar later nog bezig bent om bewijsmateriaal te zoeken (zie Geddes telegram van 1 juni 1921 die jij ook aanhaalde), dan is je focus niet de Britse gevangenen van kemalisten, maar de bewijsvoering proberen in orde te krijgen voor de aangeklaagde Turken die in Malta werden gevangengehouden.
Pas na falen overleggen bewijzen voor een veroordeling van de Turken gingen de Britten hun focus op hun gevangengehouden manschappen richten.

[Samuray]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door ArmeenNL

Weer een zielige poging, ben je een turk?
Als je persoonlijk de Armeense genocide ontkent is dat niks meer dan domheid, je kan dan net zo goed de Eerste Wereldoorlog ontkennen.
Je mag blij zijn dat je hier over de Armeense genocide mag spreken in turkije kun je dat niet eens, wordt je opgepakt wegens het beledigen van turkishness(wie heeft die bedacht), het is wereldwijd erkent jullie zijn ontmaskerd.
Doe geen moeite om onzin hier te plaatsen, iedereen weet de waarheid al, je manipulatie technieken werken hier niet(Clearly). Je zult ooit de waarheid accepteren want ik heb ook turken ontmoet die de genocide erkenden.

Dus iedereen die hier het opneemt voor de Armenen is een Armeen...

Het is geen domheid om deze Armeense bewering te bekritiseren. Juist omgekeerde. Wanneer van kant van de Armeense aanhangers zoveel fraude en bedrog wordt gepleegd om deze beschuldiging te onderbouwen (jij nota bene hebt dat ook laten zien met die 2 citaten om Malta te discrediteren), dan kan elk persoon met 2009-nivo slechts 1 ding doen: verwerpen deze kwalijke praktijken.
In middeleeuwen kon men mensen wel van alles wijsmaken, maar in 2009 kom je niet echt ver mee. Dat zouden de Armenen en hun volgelingen moeten weten.

Over Turkije:
Als je de Belgische koning beschuldigd zonder bewijzen te tonen, dan wordt je ook juridisch vervolgd.
Als je iemand beschuldigt van een genocide, dan moet je bewijzen overleggen. Zolang die niet zijn overlegd is dat laster. Dat is wat Turkije doet tegen deze kwalijke praktijken.

En: als men in Frankrijk of Zwitserland deze megabedrog aan de kaak stelt beland men in de bak. Stalinpraktijken.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door ArmeenNL

Het is wereldwijs erkent

Een andere praktijk aanhangers Armeense genocide: overdrijven.
De hele wereld bestaat uit bijna 200 landen, een handjevol ervan (15-20 landen) staan achter deze Armeense bewering. Dat is de hele wereld, zeker weten.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door ArmeenNL

Doe geen moeite om onzin hier te plaatsen, iedereen weet de waarheid al, je manipulatie technieken werken hier niet(Clearly). Je zult ooit de waarheid accepteren want ik heb ook turken ontmoet die de genocide erkenden.

Alleen sukkels en middeleeuwse lieden zullen de Armeense fabel geloven. Wie in 2009 leeft niet.

[1207]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Samuray

Een andere praktijk aanhangers Armeense genocide: overdrijven.
De hele wereld bestaat uit bijna 200 landen, een handjevol ervan (15-20 landen) staan achter deze Armeense bewering. Dat is de hele wereld, zeker weten.

Het doet er niet toe hoeveel landen al dan niet achter bepaalde beweringen staan. Feiten zijn wat ze zijn en moeten op hun merites beoordeeld worden. Turkije heeft zich schuldig gemaakt aan genocide en dat jij alleen maar hamert op Malta is ruim onvoldoende.
er zijn heel wat elementen die meespelen dan jouw vermeende onschuld

het politieke ruilaspect en andere politieke aspecten, geallierden die het toen vertikten deftig samen te werken, Turkse overheid die grotendeels alle documentatie omtrent de genocide had vernield en bvb alles in het werk stelde zodat getuigen niet konden vertrekken uit Anatolië.
Men heeft bijzonder veel informatie omtrent de genocide en de systematiek maar in Malta stonden een paar individuen. er is een verschil tussen algemene bewijzen en concreet materiaal tegen individuen. de echte topschuldigen zijn uiteraard nooit voor gerecht gekomen
Uiteindelijk is het nooit tot een proces gekomen dus is er uiteraard, integenstelling tot wat jij beweert, nooit een vrijspraak geweest
Malta aanhalen als bewijs voor de Turkse onschuld is puur bedrog.

[Turkse Nederlander]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Kodo Kodo

Door het te ontkennen maak je je medeplichtig. Door het ontkennende Turkije in de EU op te nemen zou de EU zich medeplichtig maken. Voor mijn part hoort Armenië bij Europa en Turkije niet.

Armenie ontkent dat er een Armeense opstand is geweest en dat er Turken zijn vermoord door Armeniers.

"The Dashnak revolutionary society is working to stir up a situation in which Muslims and Armenians will attack each other, and thus pave the way for Russian intervention "

General Mayewski, Russian Consul General in Bitlis and Van, December 1912; source: Kara Schemsi, Turcs et Armeniens devant l'Histoire, Geneve, Imprimerie Nationale, 1919, p. 11

[Turkse Nederlander]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door ArmeenNL

The Non-Existence of "Malta Tribunals"[/b]

In the Memorandum in question, on three different occasions reference is made to so-called "Malta Tribunals" which in fact never existed and accordingly are nowhere in the respective literature cited. The British camp and affiliated domiciles were strictly a detention center where the Turkish suspects were being held for future prosecution on charges of crimes perpetrated against the Armenians, Ottoman citizens. The envisaged international trials on the new penal norm "crimes against humanity" never materialized, however - largely because of political expediency. The victorious Allies, lapsing into dissension and growing mutual rivalries, chose to strike separate deals with the ascendant Kemalist insurgents in Anatolia. One such deal concerned the recovery of some British subjects who were being held hostage by the Kemalists and who were to be released in exchange for the liberation of all Malta detainees. Commenting on this deal for the exchange which he later deplored as "a great mistake," British Foreign Affairs Minister Lord Curzon wrote the following, "The less we say about these people [the Turks detained at Malta] the better...I had to explain why we released the Turkish deportees from Malta skating over thin ice as quickly as I could. There would have been a row I think...The staunch belief among members [of Parliament is] that one British prisoner is worth a shipload of Turks, and so the exchange was excused."14
It is, therefore, inaccurate to state that they were released because "the charges were exhaustively probed, investigated, and studied." Nothing of the sort happened. The Allies, especially the British, studiously avoided getting judicially involved at that juncture of developments. Everything was deferred for an eventual, anticipated international trial. To an incidental, single inquiry from London, Aukland Geddes, the British ambassador in Washington, D.C., on June 1, 1921 responded saying that the U.S. archives at that time already contained "a large number of documents on Armenian deportations and massacres"15 but that under existing conditions it was not possible to assign and charge specific culpabilities to the Turkish detainees at Malta as the Allies were not involved in the specific task of prosecution that would require pre-trial investigations, the administration of interrogatories, and the application of other methods of evidence gathering. Nor did the British "exhaustively search the archives of many nations," not in 1919, not in 1920, or ever! Like so many other statements noted above, these are purely fabricated declarations to confuse the issue and confound third parties.
[b]

HAHAHAHAAHAAA. Ik moet echt lachen om deze leugens en verdraaiingen. Als er geen Malta tribunaal is geweest, waarom zochten de Engelsen dan tevergees naar bewijsmateriaal om de Turken te berechten?

Het staat in de Engelse archieven. HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA !!!!!!! JULLIE ZIJN KEIHARD DOOR HET IJS GEZAKT !!!!!

“There are in hands of Majesty’s government at Malta a number of Turks arrested for alleged complicity in the Armenian massacres. There are considerable difficulty in establishing proofs of guilt. Please ascertain if the United States government is in possession of any evidence that would be of value for the purpose of prosecution.”

BritishArchives. PRO—F. 0. 371/
6500/ E.3552, Curzon to Geddes
Telegram No 176, dated March 31,
1921.