The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Max Parry Archive
Armenian Genocide Resolution Reaffirms the ‘g-word’ Is a Tool for U.S. Interests
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Last month, the U.S. House of Representatives voted in an overwhelming bipartisan majority to officially recognize the Armenian genocide more than a century after the atrocities were committed. The motion was a departure from decades of U.S. government refusal because of its ‘realpolitik’ considerations of regional ally and fellow NATO member, the Republic of Turkey. The Ottoman Empire’s successor state and the Turkic state of Azerbaijan remain the sole nations in the world that explicitly deny the mass extermination and expulsion of 1.5 million Ottoman Armenians constitutes “genocide.” While the U.S. had previously acknowledged that war crimes were committed beginning in 1915, Washington refrained from using the ‘g-word’ to avoid fallout with Ankara despite the international community consensus. President Donald Trump would be the first commander-in-chief to utter the term if he follows suit, but that scenario is unlikely as the proposal came in reaction to his green-lighting a Turkish invasion of Kurdish-held Northeastern Syria with a U.S. troop withdrawal that was unpopular with lawmakers.

In 2015, WikiLeaks revealed Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton’s email exchanges on the issue with her foreign policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, during the 100th anniversary. The disclosure gave a rare look inside the suspected cynical reasoning behind Washington’s longstanding lack of formal acknowledgement. Sullivan wrote:

“Friday is the 100th Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day. I presume the Armenian groups will be looking for a statement or a signal from the campaign on whether she will call it a “genocide” if she is elected president. As a Senator and candidate, she was unequivocal in recognizing the genocide. As Secretary of State, she did not use the term genocide but rather focused on future reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia. The White House has studiously avoided using “genocide” so far. There is an internal debate now about whether to change that posture given that it is the 100th anniversary. But in all likelihood they won’t change. Two questions: Do you all agree that she should embrace the position she took as Senator and candidate, even though she did not take it as SecState? Do you all agree that we should just wait until we are asked as opposed to doing something proactive? Sorry to bother with this, but as you all know this matters enormously to Armenian-Americans.”

Campaign manager John Podesta replied, “quote the Pope.” Just two years into his papacy, Francis had described the mass killing of Armenians as the “first genocide of the twentieth century” which drew Turkey’s ire, but Clinton would never recite the Argentine holy father’s words despite her team’s encouragement. Her decision speaks to the power of the Turkish and Azeri lobbies which have spent millions bribing and extorting U.S. politicians for decades to prevent recognition of the Ottoman crimes against humanity by the legislature and any such proclamation by an American head of state. What an insult to the Armenian-American community which waited generations only to see the step finally taken under such dishonest circumstances. The measure has since been blocked in the Senate by neocon warmonger Lindsey Graham of South Carolina shortly after his meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, but the changes that brought about the ill-fated resolution should not go unexamined.

Turkey is often said to be the ‘bridge between East and West’, as its transcontinental territory extends across both southeastern Europe and western Asia. An ally during the Cold War with NATO’s second largest army, it was the U.S. placement of Jupiter ballistic missiles in Izmir which sparked the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 after Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev retaliated by deploying intermediate-range nuclear missiles to Havana in an effort to thwart Washington from gaining the upper hand. Turkey has remained vital to geo-strategic interests as the point connecting Europe and the Middle East, but the rise of Moscow under Putin on the world stage has threatened to throw the Atlanticist alliance into disarray along with Washington’s reckless disregard for Ankara with its incorporation of the Kurds into the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) coalition in the Syrian war. The U.S.’s arrogance that it could maintain an alliance while supporting Kurdish militants regarded as terrorists by Ankara marked a turning point in their relations with the prospect of Turkey exiting NATO suddenly no longer an impossibility.

When the neo-Ottoman sultan Erdoğan signed on with the U.S.-Saudi-Israeli attempt to oust the secular Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, he did not anticipate it facilitating a potential Kurdish state on Turkey’s doorstep. The likelihood of U.S. involvement in the failed 2016 coup d’etat attempt against him and Washington’s harboring of rival Islamic cleric Fethullah Gülen did not help matters, nor did Turkey’s retaliation by purchasing Moscow’s S-400 missile defense system in noncompliance with its NATO commitments. It is ironic that it took Trump’s throwing the Kurds under the bus queueing the Turkish offensive to result in the house finally acknowledging the ‘other holocaust’, as many Kurds themselves were participants in the slaughter of the Armenians a century ago. Nevertheless, the resolution is further sign of the geopolitical alignment shifting and the inevitable decline of U.S. hegemony with its plans to redraw the Middle East derailed by Moscow. No one should be fooled into believing that Congress is motivated by anything other than a desire to punish Turkey for making the U.S. look bad while rebuking Trump for deviating from the bipartisan consensus of endless war.

 

Coincidentally, just as the row between the traditional allies of Washington and Ankara resulted in U.S. legislators affirming the Armenian genocide, the Nobel Prize in Literature has been mired in controversy for having awarded an accused “denier” of such atrocities in the Balkans. The Austrian-born playwright and novelist Peter Handke, perhaps best known for penning the screenplay to Wim Wenders’s art house classic film Wings of Desire, was the recipient of the 2019 prize for his body of work. Despite such career achievements, Handke has been plagued by scandal for his political activism, namely opposition to the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia during the 1990s. An Orthodox Christian convert, Handke was a member of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milošević when the former Serbian president was held for war crimes in the Hague Tribunal and even spoke at his funeral after he mysteriously died while in custody in 2006.

Long before the U.S. opportunistically declared what was done by the Young Turks to the Ottoman Armenians to be genocide, they were using the label to mischaracterize the Yugoslav wars as the basis for NATO’s Orwellian-styled ‘humanitarian intervention’ against Serbia. Even though ethnic cleansing was committed on all sides in what was fundamentally a civil war, the heroes and villains were preselected based on the Serbian alliance with Moscow and the time-honored anti-Russian strategy of aligning with Islamists designed by Zbigniew Brzezinski that began with the arming of the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets. After instigating the ‘USSR’s Vietnam’ in Afghanistan, the Atlanticists applied this same strategy to the Balkans and the North Caucasus to undermine post-Soviet Russia.

Winston Churchill famously referred to the Balkans as the “soft underbelly” of Europe during WWII when it was under Axis occupation. During the Yugoslav Wars, it once again become Europe’s ‘weak spot’ as the West supported the al-Qaeda elements in Bosnia and Kosovo against the Serbs. Mass media would never report the war crimes by the Bosnian mujahideen and Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) nor the ethnic cleansing of thousands of Serbs from Krajina in Croatia. When the Srebrenica massacre of military-age Bosniaks made international headlines in 1995, it became a PR-managed event designed to fixate world attention exclusively on one of many such killings that took place in the enclave by both sides in order to give grounds for NATO intervention without approval from the UN Security Council.

The late, great media critic Edward S. Herman, who proved to be more principled on the matter than his Manufacturing Consent co-author Noam Chomsky, summed it up in his final column before his death in 2017:

“Milošević had nothing to do with the July 1995 Srebrenica massacre, in which Bosnian Serbs took revenge on Bosnian Muslim soldiers who had been ravaging nearby Bosnian Serb villages from their base in Srebrenica under NATO protection. The several thousand Serb civilian deaths were essentially unreported in the mainstream media, while the numbers of Srebrenica’s executed victims were correspondingly inflated.”

In the years since, the inter-ethnic war has been widely referred to in the West as the “Bosnian genocide”, with Srebrenica a microcosm to misleadingly summarize the entire conflict. Thankfully, Moscow has vetoed efforts by the UN Security Council to condemn it as such. The truth is that the dice were loaded from the very beginning, as NATO’s kangaroo court, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), was initiated as a U.S. policy option to disproportionately prosecute Serbs for war crimes with a clear bias against them, as revealed in a declassified CIA document from 1993 which states:

“11. Establish a War Crimes Tribunal. Serb paramilitary leaders charged with war crimes might attempt terrorist operations in the West. The Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian Governments might harbor some high-ranking war criminals while turning over those considered expendable. They may even rid themselves of war criminals to cover up war crimes. Most West Europeans — with the exception of Greece — probably woigld support this option. Muslim states would approve a War Crimes Tribunal and publicizing Serbian atrocities. Even treatment of Bosnian transgressions, however, would be regarded as tilting in Belgrade’s favor.”

This would explain why a Bosnian war criminal like Naser Orić, who commanded the assaults on Serb villages that resulted in the retaliatory killings of Bosniaks in Srebrenica, was acquitted while Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladić received a life sentence. Meanwhile, the Bush administration made it clear that the U.S. would respond with military force if the Hague ever attempted to charge U.S. personnel with war crimes in the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, also known as the ‘Hague Invasion Act’, an astonishing display of bullying of the international community even for U.S. imperialism. The ICTY would be one of two rigged judicial organs created by the UN Security Council before the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the other being the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in 1994.

Although NATO did not directly intervene in the small African country’s civil war, it spun a similar one-sided account where the Tutsi heroes and Hutu villains were predetermined even as mass slaughter was committed by both factions. Rwanda had been a Belgian colonial territory following WWII where the favored Tutsi minority ruled the landlocked country under a monarchy that subjugated the ethnic Hutu majority until they revolted in 1959 and expelled more than 300,000 Tutsis to neighboring countries. Decades later, Tutsi refugees based in Uganda seeking to repatriate formed the Rwandan Patriotic Front army led by Paul Kagame and in 1990, the RPF invaded the small nation in a guerrilla campaign. The assault came following the assassination of Rwanda’s Hutu President, Juvénal Habyarimana, after his plane was shot down in a probable ‘false flag’ operation that was pinned on Hutu extremists. Despite the fact that the RPF started the armed conflict, the West transposed reality and painted the Hutus as pure villains in the violence that would follow.

No one disputes that anywhere from 800,000 to 1 million Rwandans were killed in the ensuing bloodshed. However, the figures of a “genocide” of Tutsis debunks itself, given that there were significantly less than a million of them in the country at the time with the highest estimate at 600,000. The simple fact is that the majority of the victims could only have Hutu, considering there were at least 400,000 surviving Tutsis in the country after the war was over, thus the remaining number of victims in all probability were Hutu. Since the war began with an offensive by the RPF, that the lion’s share of victims would be their opponents is only to be expected except perhaps to Western propagandists and their newspeak that Kagame was conquering the country to “stop a genocide” while committing one himself. Even though the Kagame regime would go on to commit further atrocities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire), this would not prevent the media from maintaining its portrayal of him as a hero. However, the BBC of all news organizations would produce a must-see documentary, Rwanda: The Untold Story, that challenged the official story in 2014 but not without stirring controversy.

Historically, the politicization of “genocide” began from its earliest implementations. Coined by Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, he devised the term from the Greek word “génos” (group or race)and the Latin append “-cide” (killing), supposedly with the Armenians in mind. It was said that if the Genocide Convention of 1948 been ratified during the inter-war period following the annihilation of the Armenians, it could have prevented future atrocities against European Jews in WWII, citing a reputed quote by Adolf Hitler, “who after all, remembers the Armenians?” from a speech just prior to the invasion of Poland in 1939. Of course, for the Zionists this was at the exclusion of other, inferior groups victimized by the Germans whose sins the Palestinians are still paying for many decades later.

From the get-go, the g-word was a political football during the Cold War in order to legislate history with a pro-Western bias. In spite of having survived Nazi persecution himself, Lemkin argued in his writings that the Soviet Ukrainian famine of the 1930s qualified despite the myth of deliberate starvation having been concocted by their Ukrainian nationalist collaborators who fled to Western Europe and North America in order to escape penalty for their war crimes. Stories of the “man-made” hunger were then publicized in the pages of American sensationalist newspapers owned by media tycoon William Randolph Hearst, a Nazi sympathizer who ran columns by Hermann Göring and Adolf Hitler himself, as well as the yellow press of his UK equivalent, Lord Viscount Rothermere, an open supporter of Nazi Germany and British fascist Oswald Mosley. Nevermind that Moscow had liberated both the European Jews and Armenians in both world wars, respectively. The post-war attempt to classify the Holodomor hoax as “genocide” instead of the mass destruction of indigenous peoples across the world by European settler colonialism was the beginning of the West’s conflation of Nazi Germany with the USSR in order to separate the former from its own legacy.

Ultimately, the Genocide Convention is as politicized with a pro-Western partiality as institutions like the Nobel Foundation. While its literature award is accustomed to controversy, so too is its peace laureate which has repeatedly bestowed its honor to questionable choices, if not outright war criminals. In 1973, it infamously awarded then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for negotiating a cease-fire between the U.S. and North Vietnam, even though he was by all accounts responsible for prolonging the Vietnam War, along with a laundry list of other destructive policies in his tenure that many feel warrant prosecution for crimes against humanity. This includes the secret U.S. bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War which facilitated the CIA-backed Khmer Rouge’s rise to power. The tens of thousands of deaths from Operation Freedom Deal would not be included with those attributed to the “genocide” by Pol Pot whose regime would be used to demonize communism, despite his Western support and that Phnom Penh was liberated by Vietnam. Later in 2009, just a year into his first presidential term Barack Obama became the Peace Prize recipient not for anything he had actually done but in a vacuous gesture as “a call to action.” The first African-American to hold the office would go on to drop hundreds of thousands of bombs on seven different nations. Then again, the accolade itself is inherently paradoxical considering that among Alfred Nobel’s list of accomplishments was success in arms manufacturing.

When Slobodan Milošević was being slowly murdered in custody in the Netherlands, Peter Handke was one of the few public figures brave enough to come to the former Serbian president’s defense, but he was not alone even amongst his fellow Nobel Laureates. The late British playwright Harold Pinter, one of the most influential dramatists of the 20th century, also lent his name as a signatory to the Slobodan Milošević International Committee. During a five decade career, Pinter was a dedicated anti-war activist in his private life and used the occasion of his accepting the literary honor in 2005 while still in poor health to deliver a powerful, scathing indictment of U.S. foreign policy in his Nobel Lecture. Since his name was announced, Mr. Handke has been the subject of relentless, unjustified attacks as a “genocide denier” and should be granted the same relative level of respect Pinter was paid when he was its honoree. It is likely geopolitical factors at play making Handke the subject of a smear campaign, with the restart of the Cold War and the need to demonize all things Russia-related with whom with the Serbs share a brotherhood. Be it the case of Mr. Handke or the congressional exploitation of the Armenians, it is clear “genocide” is nothing more than a political construct earmarked for the usage of empire.

Max Parry is an independent journalist and geopolitical analyst. His work has appeared in Counterpunch, Global Research, Dissident Voice, Greanville Post, OffGuardian, American Herald Tribune and more. Max may be reached at [email protected]

 
Hide 122 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Svevlad says:

    The entire Handke thing is really funny, we have been mining salt in quite nice amounts from our n*ighbors

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
  2. The “Armenian genocide” began just a few months after the Dardanelles campaign. Turkey had a mutual defense treaty with the Central Powers, then at war with England. First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill decided that opening a second front in the east might undo Germany’s advances in the west.

    Accordingly Britain planned an amphibious invasion of Turkey, which had done it no injury. For the first time since the Crusades, a mighty Christian army launched an unprovoked attack on a strong Moslem nation. The Ottomans repelled the first ill-planned operation, but the emerging new nationalist leadership realized it was no longer safe to tolerate a sizeable Christian minority in Turkey. The province of Armenia was ancient Cilicia, the home of Paul the Apostle. It still harbored a large Christian population, who the Turks naturally assumed would welcome their coreligionist invaders and side with them against Turkey.

    At the same time the Armenian massacres were taking place, the Czar’s troops, in full retreat before the German advance deep into Russia, were systematically butchering all non-Russian ethnic minorities they encountered, lest they remain to become collaborators with the German occupiers.

    It is easy for us, safe and well fed in our comfortable homes, to condemn such acts, but for a people suddenly thrust into a life and death struggle with the world’s most aggressive empires, what had to be done for national survival looked far different.

    War is cruelty, as our General Sherman observed: you cannot refine it. In all the wars of the last century, civilian casualties far outweighed military losses. And in America’s founding wars, the great majority of the slaughtered were Native American women and children and old people, hunted down for sport and butchered like animals after their protectors were slain in battle.

  3. Rich says:
    @Observator

    How much nonsense can you spew in a few short paragraphs? To say that Whites hunted down Indian women, children and old people is a lie worthy of only the most deranged leftist. Whites never hunted down Indians for “sport”. Was that in ‘Dances With Wolves’ or something? Many of the Indian nations were friendly to Whites and were absorbed into the more modern culture, those that fought, lost. Usually after attacking, murdering and abusing innocent White farmers or ranchers.

    I’m not a big fan of redressing wrongs through meaningless congressional votes, but I don’t think any unbiased historian can doubt that the Turks were overly brutal to the Armenians. Whether or not Russians did something similar at the end of WW1, is irrelevant.

    • Agree: the grand wazoo
  4. @Observator

    More anti-white propaganda, including the phony “Native American genocide” idea. Most Native Americans died from European diseases, not violence by the white invaders. Many others died when attacking white settlements. In my view, America’s biggest crime against the natives was the Trail of Tears, the dispossession of those who had actually settled down and adopted white culture. It’s an object lesson for those whites who think that being tolerant and polite will save us from the Great Replacement.

    • Agree: Old and grumpy, utu
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Chris Mallory
  5. Cato says:

    We first learned about the terrible events in Eastern Anatolia through the filters of war-time propaganda and sympathy for fellow Christians. The story has since been framed as similar to the Holocaust: A strong and efficient state butchering helpless and innocent civilians. A better frame would be to draw the similarities with the communal violence that characterized much of the 20th century in South Asia: Ethnically homogeneous mobs attacking each other within a weak and disorganized state.

    Justin McCarthy has written some good books about this period. Worth a look.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
  6. @Cato

    Justin McCarthy is a well known openly pro-Turkish academic.

    It’s hard to imagine anything more hypocritical than Muslims going on about the “Bosnian genocide” and whining about Srebrenica (especially when Muslims were the ones that started all the violence, massacres and ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War by striking first against Serbs) while claiming that they dindu nuffin to the Armenians.

    • Replies: @Cato
  7. Here’s a video on a real genocide that almost no one outside of the Balkans has ever even heard of:

    Note the careful, meticulous and logical presentation of facts, evidence and context compared to the Srebrenica and “Bosnian genocide” nonsense. Really, Srebrenica is nothing more than a bad meme to insult Serbs and gaslight them despite everything they suffered in the 20th century.

  8. Cato says:
    @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Dude, I’m sympathetic to the Serbs — a proud people, great warriors — “lions” the Turks called them — who America attacked mostly because they were the friends of Russia (who the Deep State unfairly maligns). But the particular Serbs at that particular place — Srebrenica — did something terribly wrong.

    “Pro-Turkish”, “Pro-Armenian” — how about “Pro-Truth”? Isn’t McCarthy a Scottish name? Why are so many of the angry screeds written by people whose surnames end in “-ian” or “-yan”? Wouldn’t a “Mc” be a better bet for the truth?

  9. Cato says:

    And Max — If you want to be read here, you have to be more concise. Maybe 1/3 the length of this post would be about right.

    • Replies: @Max Parry
  10. @Cato

    “Pro-Turkish”, “Pro-Armenian” — how about “Pro-Truth”? Isn’t McCarthy a Scottish name? Why are so many of the angry screeds written by people whose surnames end in “-ian” or “-yan”? Wouldn’t a “Mc” be a better bet for the truth?

    I’ve never come across any any “angry screeds” written by Armenians on the subject matter. Even if they do write them, so what? Take a look at the ethno-graphic data of so called “Eastern Turkey” or Western Armenia. No one has to be a genius to figure out that barely any Armenians exist in so called “Eastern Turkey” in which they once used to be a majority.

    Care to tell me how many Armenians there are now in modern day Turkey?

    One could easily do a similar analysis for Asia Minor and Pontic Greeks that shows similar results, but it shouldn’t even be necessary.

    the particular Serbs at that particular place — Srebrenica — did something terribly wrong.

    So Srebrenica was genocide against Muslims while Turks dindu nuffin to Armenians in the early 2oth century? Seriously?

    • Replies: @Cato
    , @Reg Cæsar
  11. Armanen says:

    Justin McCarthy is on ankaras payroll. He shouldn’t be cited as a serious source in regards to anything to do with the Armenians. As much as turkophiles like McCarthy and Cato would like, Armenians are not going to stop demanding and fighting for recognition of the Genocide nor proper restitution.

    • Replies: @Begemot
  12. Cato says:
    @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Armenians made up less than 30% of the 1915 population in ALL of the provinces they wished to sever from the Ottoman state. Look at a map of the territory claimed by Kurds — it is the same land as that claimed by Armenians. To create their ethno-state, Armenian activists resorted to ethnic cleansing, anticipating the support of Russia during the war (essentially imitating the strategy of the Bulgarians). Kurds are not exactly the kind of people to accept being ethnically cleansed. Villager killed villager, and neither the Ottoman state nor the Russian state was able to maintain order.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
    , @Lo
  13. @Cato

    Armenians made up less than 30% of the 1915 population in ALL of the provinces they wished to sever from the Ottoman state.

    Again, care to state the percentage and number of Armenians present in those same areas right now?

    It’s obvious that you don’t want to, because then you would have to try and explain how all the 1.5 million Armenians that used to live in “Eastern Turkey” magically disappeared.

    After all, there are only around 70,000 Armenians, almost all based in Istanbul, in present-day Turkey according to wiki.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians_in_Turkey

    Look at a map of the territory claimed by Kurds — it is the same land as that claimed by Armenians.

    Perhaps because the Kurds were eager and willing collaborators in the effort of the Turkish state and Mustafa Kemal Attaturk to eliminate the Armenian population from this land and take it for themselves?

    Kurds are not exactly the kind of people to accept being ethnically cleansed. Villager killed villager, and neither the Ottoman state nor the Russian state was able to maintain order.

    This is the best you can come up with? It was all just the Kurds because “Armenians started ethnic cleansing” and the Turkish state had nothing to do with it?

    • Replies: @Cato
    , @Carlton Meyer
  14. Cato says:
    @TheTotallyAnonymous

    You yourself point out that Armenians were not massacred in Istanbul, which happens to be the only place in the Ottoman Empire where the state maintained good control.

    The Ottoman state ordered the population transfer to Syria, due to the collaboration of Armenians with the Russian enemy. The migration occurred after the decimation of the Ottoman Army in the East in the 1914 Battle of Sarikamish, and the Ottoman state was not able to protect the forced migrants from furious Kurdish clans and Turkish villagers. The role of the state was in first, ordering the deportations, and second, failing to protect the migrants.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
  15. @Cato

    In 1915 there were 161,000 Armenians living in Istanbul while there are only around 70,000 today. Since there’s less than half that number of Armenians in present day Istanbul, what happened to the 90,000 and more Armenians?

    It’s obvious I’m not going to change your opinion. It’s interesting to come across the Turkish perspective, or that of pro-Turkish lobbyists. I can frankly understand why Turks would be cynical about acknowledging the Armenian genocide given present geo-politics. As it is, Serbia doesn’t actually recognize the Armenian genocide, so that’s where it stands.

    Anyway, i found it interesting in the article to learn the truth about the “Rwandan genocide”. I always knew there was something dodgy about that whole thing from the very start given how close Bill Clinton was to Paul Kagame.

    • Replies: @Lo
    , @Fox
  16. Max Parry says: • Website
    @Cato

    I’ve seen much longer pieces on this site. If you feel the quality of my writing doesn’t warrant the length, just say so. The subject matter does, however.

    • Replies: @Lo
    , @Wally
    , @anonymous
  17. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    This is a key point, the saintly Kurds were big participants in this genocide. Google for lots of references, such as this: https://sfi.usc.edu/events/usc-shoah-foundation-center-advanced-genocide-research-kurds-and-armenian-genocide

    The Kurds cleansed entire towns of Armenians and stole their land. Survivors fled to Turkish cities. Several top Ottoman leaders were from Albania, so that nation should also be condemned.

    On the other hand, I’ve never accepted the insane idea of condemning people for things that occurred before they were born.

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
  18. Lo says:
    @Max Parry

    I do. Show the evidence that:

    1. There used to be 1.5 million+ Armenians in Anatolia at the time,
    2. Explain why Armenians in Western regions and Istanbul were exempt from relocations,
    3. Point the written original source of Hitler’s quote,
    4. Point the mass graves that must exist,
    5. Explain why Armenian national archives are not open to independent researchers,
    6. Explain why Ottoman government hanged officials for their failure to protect Armenians against armed bandits,
    7. Finally, show the official documents ordering killings of Armenians,

    Go ahead, I am waiting.

  19. Lo says:
    @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Dude be honest, you have no answers so you just “blame” anyone who disagrees with you as being pro-Turkish. McCarthy has done meticulous work in population statistics and no one managed to discredit his work. Show the evidence that he is on Turkish payroll, otherwise you are a liar and slandering an innocent man.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
  20. Begemot says:
    @Armanen

    “proper restitution”

    Ah! Is that what official US government “recognition” of the Armenian genocide is really about? Creating an opportunity for getting hands on somebody’s money?

  21. @Fidelios Automata

    In my view, America’s biggest crime against the natives was the Trail of Tears

    when they removed Indians to make room for more Africans. This was not a win for whites!

  22. Lo says:
    @Cato

    People with no answers will try to lol, but it is exactly like you said. Armenians were minority in each of the cities they claimed. As most healthy Turkish males were serving in the army, Armenian gangs had fun decimating villages and towns without males, but in the end Kurds who were hard to draft due to nomad lifestyle started punishing them. Armenians forgot that Bulgarians were at least slightly above Turks as far as numbers are concerned, and brought their own calamity. Now their descendants crying foul and appealing to Christianity. Funny considering they probably would be assimilated/exiled by Orthodox Greeks over time if Turks never came East Anatolia.

    • Agree: HEREDOT
  23. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    No one has to be a genius to figure out that barely any Armenians exist in so called “Eastern Turkey” in which they once used to be a majority.

    “Western Turkey” used to be eastern Greece.

  24. @Observator

    Rubbish. The genocide against the Christians of Anatolia began in the 1890s.

    https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Thirty_Year_Genocide.html?id=THSPDwAAQBAJ

    • Agree: Alden
  25. Half-Jap says:

    I agree with the thesis.
    However, I always wonder about the the quality of the evidence underlying any claim, and those grave claims of genocide would especially require at least clear and convincing ones. I prefer disinterested accounts and forensic evidence whenever possible, and logic and reason where there are gaps or are circumstantial.
    I read an old tribunal report by the British (who was on the victorious side of that war btw), as well as Toynbee and some other contemporaries that suggest that there was official ethnic cleansing, spurred by interethnic conflict and Armenians rebelling and joining Russia, while total of missing Armenians was perhaps upwards of 600k, by death or displacement.
    I may have not had access to all primary or secondary sources and evidence to support the claim of genocide (incidentally a legal term with specific elements to establish), but what I have was not convincing. Plenty of massacres, quite a lot of forced removals, but, as with great many claims of massive and systematic atrocities during war, so far unsubstantiated.

  26. Medvedev says:
    @Observator

    How much more garbage can you fit into one comment?

    Ottomans were allies of Central Powers, enough to drag country into a war with Allied Powers. But they, Ottomans, were the first to attack:

    The Black Sea Raid was an Ottoman naval sortie against Russian ports in the Black Sea on 29 October 1914, supported by Germany, that led to the Ottoman entry into World War I. The attack was conceived by Ottoman War Minister Enver Pasha, German Admiral Wilhelm Souchon and the German foreign ministry.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Raid

    Totally unprovoked.

  27. viktor says: • Website

    The article is a brutal lie and propaganda. It seems that the author is an extended arm of the Serbian secret services and is written in coordination with them. The author devoted much of the text to the Serbian issue instead of the Armenian-Turkish one. Obviously, the UNZ is under Russian financial and intelligence control.

    • Replies: @Max Parry
    , @tomo
  28. Wally says:
    @Observator

    – I have yet to see actual proof of this alleged “Armenian genocide”, do you have such proof?

    – Same for your Hollywood scripted nonsense about “butchered Indians for sport”.
    And no, they are not “native Americans”.*

    – No doubt you’re a True Believer in the fake & impossible “holocaust” narrative as well.

    * Stone-age Europeans were the first to set foot on North America, beating American Indians by some 10,000 years, new archaeological evidence : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9110838/Stone-age-Europeans-were-the-first-to-set-foot-on-North-America.html

  29. Wally says:
    @Max Parry

    Without citing old & debunked, biased Zionist dominated Wikipedia references:

    – What is your proof of the alleged “holocaust” narrative that you believe in? … as indicated in your writing above.
    – After all, so called “holocaust historians” claim that many millions of “holocausted” human remains exist in supposedly known locations, yet they do not.
    Can you please show them to us?
    – Can you also explain to us how the alleged ‘Nazi gas chambers’, that you believe in, supposedly worked?

    – Per the your bogus “reputed quote by Adolf Hitler, “who after all, remembers the Armenians?”, that silly nonsense has been demolished:
    Hitler’s quotation regarding the Armenians – A myth: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3222
    Holocaust myth parallels with alleged Armenian genocide: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7781
    The ‘Who Remembers Armenians’ Lie Debunked / forgery’: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=943
    ‘Who today remembers the Armenians?’ canard: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=624

    Thanks,

  30. @Rich

    “On April 10, 1818, the Town of Amherst was officially created by an Act of the Senate of the State of New York. This new town was named for Sir Jeffrey Amherst, an English lord who was Commander-in-Chief of the British troops in America in 1758-1763, before the American Revolution.

    Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them.

    “An additional source of information on the matter is the Journal of William Trent, commander of the local militia of the townspeople of Pittsburgh during Pontiac’s seige of the fort. Trent’s entry for May 24, 1763, includes the following statement.

    We gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.

    Lord Jeffery Amherst’s letters discussing germ warfare against American Indians
    http://people.umass.edu/derrico/amherst/lord_jeff.html

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @Alden
  31. gotmituns says:

    I’m tired of all the talk of slaughter – it’s just what men do.

  32. From the beginning of its coinage by Raphael Lemkin and its attachment to Hitler and the Third Reich, “genocide” has been a tool of cynical ideologues used in the service of self-interest.

    In a review, of Stalin’s Genocides by Norman Naimark (Princeton University Press) Aaron Rothstein writes in “Bodies Count”:

    “Norman Naimark, the Robert and Florence McDonnell Professor of East European Studies at Stanford, wonders why Lemkin, and those who followed his analysis at the United Nations in writing the Genocide Convention, created a concept that incorporated Hitler’s killings—the attempt to extirpate the Jews was an attempt to exterminate an ethnic group (and nation)—but did not extend as far as Stalin’s murders. Naimark points out that Lemkin’s 1933 argument, unlike his 1944 book, included a reference to the extermination of a “social collectivity.” Such collectivities include political parties or groups organized around particular ideas; they could be almost any group considered to be a political opponent. In Lemkin’s earlier analysis, the attempt to exterminate such groups would also have been considered genocide. But not in 1944. And not in 1948, either, when Lemkin’s work influenced the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. That document also leaves out social and political collectivities, stating that genocide includes the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” Naimark suggests that the reason for this alteration in the concept was simple, but it has had large consequences: Lemkin did not want to upset Stalin who, despite brutally exterminating political groups in the Soviet Union, was vital to the Allied war effort against Hitler.”

    Yes, it was extremely important not to “upset Stalin” which meant that his mass-murders – millions of Ukraine peasants, the Katyn Wood massacre, as well as his extensive mass-deportations and ethnic cleansing during WWII, and the million-plus slave-laborers in the Gulag – would have to be conveniently overlooked. Lemkin himself in a recent study by Anton Weiss-Wendt, who directs research at the Center for the Study of the Holocaust and Religious Minorities in Oslo, Norway, emerges as an unsavory opportunist. In a review:

    “Rather than the ‘saintly figure’ of popular accounts, Weiss-Wendt instead presents Lemkin as ‘a rather odious character— jealous, monomaniacal, self-important, but most of all unscrupulous’, complicit in the gutting of his own creation. As early as 1947, Lemkin himself favored the exclusion of political groups in order to secure adoption of the treaty, and enlisted the World Jewish Congress in this effort.” (Holocaust and Genocide Studies, September, 2017)

    Genocide as a moral and legal concept from its establishment by the United Nations Genocide Convention in 1948 has been selectively applied and politically manipulated so as to make its current application a dubious polemical ploy that certifies victimhood with an exclamation point.

    http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2018/10/my-victimhood-is-bigger-than-yours-or.html

  33. @Lo

    Dude be honest, you have no answers so you just “blame” anyone who disagrees with you as being pro-Turkish.

    I’ve repeatedly placed an emphasis on facts about the ethno-graphic data of the Armenian population in the early 20th century Ottoman Empire. Even the 1914 Ottoman population census lists a specific total of 1,161,169 Armenians in the Empire, mostly concentrated in “Eastern Turkey”, obviously.

    Again, care to explain how at least 1 million Armenians magically disappeared? It’s hard to believe that a bunch of Kurdish villagers/raiders by themselves “dealt” with 1 million+ Armenians.

    You’re the one that has no answers.

    McCarthy has done meticulous work in population statistics and no one managed to discredit his work. Show the evidence that he is on Turkish payroll, otherwise you are a liar and slandering an innocent man.

    I never stated he was on a “Turkish payroll”. It’s a fact that Justin McCarthy is pro-Turkish, which is really common knowledge among everyone that bothers with the subject matter.

    Anyway, this isn’t directly my business. The facts and evidence more than clearly speak for themselves on this subject matter.

    • Replies: @Lo
  34. Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians but no one dares to say it as the zionists in Israel are the untouchables, they are the killers in the room but one one can say in fear of their life.

    • Agree: Max Parry
  35. So 100 years ago, one group of Asians murdered another group of Asians. Nothing the US government should be voting on or about. But as an even handed gesture, both Turks and Armenians should be deported from the US so we don’t get dragged into this crap again.

    • Agree: MikeatMikedotMike
    • Replies: @lysias
  36. anonymous[356] • Disclaimer says:

    I once met a Kurdish youth in Europe who said an ancestor of his was involved in killing Armenians and that indeed all in the village were killed. It seemed to be a family memory if not exactly a proud one. I have little doubt something happened to the Armenians that made US treatment of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor seem positively benevolent by comparison.

    • Replies: @Wally
  37. Alfred says:

    The “Young Turks” were led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. He was essentially a Jew dressed up as a Muslim. This movement was started in Smyrna (now called Izmir). The population was divided between Greeks, Armenians, Jews and Turks. The Jews financed the “Young Turks”. The Great Fire of Smyrna only destroyed the Greek and Armenian quarters. It was deliberate.

    Great fire of Smyrna (Wiki)

    Later, the Greeks and Armenians were expelled – to the great benefit of the Jews.

    One of the reasons Ordegan is against Atatürk’s memory is because he is not of similar descent. One of the reasons that the USA is shielding and hosting his great enemy Muhammed Fethullah Gülen is because he is part of the same package as Atatürk.

    • Replies: @AB_Anonymous
  38. Ram says:

    Turkey’s purchase of the S-400 system was what convinced the US politicians.

  39. Article: [[The Ottoman Empire’s successor state and the Turkic state of Azerbaijan
    [Turkey] remains the sole nation in the world that explicitly deny the mass extermination and expulsion of 1.5 million Ottoman Armenians constitutes “genocide.”]]

    Dissenter: “Explicitly deny” is weasel-words. Try “refuse to recognize”, then you can include ISRAEL!

    • Replies: @Max Parry
  40. Jews had the lucrative genocide market cornered. They won’t be happy.

  41. anonymous[297] • Disclaimer says:
    @Max Parry

    The attention span of a lot of people is rather low these days. They’re used to tweet length writing/reading. Article is not long at all, at least not for people who still read books.

  42. Wally says:
    @anonymous

    said:
    “I once met a Kurdish youth in Europe who said an ancestor of his was involved in killing Armenians and that indeed all in the village were killed”

    – That would make for one helluva mass grave loaded with human remains, yet we do not see massive human remains anywhere.

    said:
    “I have little doubt something happened to the Armenians that made US treatment of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor seem positively benevolent by comparison.”

    – Yes, it is called a civil war where there were losses on all sides. The Turks are right on this.

    – Please present your proof of the alleged “Armenian genocide”.

    – With the comparison you are making to “the US treatment of Japan” that should be easy if what you faithfully believe is fact.

    Show us proof.

    • Replies: @Max Parry
    , @anonymous
  43. Max Parry says:
    @viktor

    Still waiting for my cheques from Putin to clear…

  44. @Observator

    For the other readers: Do not waste your time with reply. Straight to the ignore list with this one.

  45. Fox says:
    @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Inasmuch does today’s population of Armenians in Istanbul relate to that of 100 years ago?

  46. nor did Turkey’s retaliation by purchasing Moscow’s S-400 missile defense system in noncompliance with its NATO commitments

    The main reason wannabe Sultan purchased S-400 was the US involvement in the 2016 coup that almost costed him his life. S-400 is his “insurance policy” that the US won’t be able to “democratically” bomb him, as S-400 will readily target the US aircraft, rather than recognizing it as “friendly”, like the US-made systems would. That’s why the US is livid about this purchase. The fact that S-400 are superior to the US-peddled Patriot or THAAD systems was of secondary importance.

    • Replies: @Lo
    , @lysias
    , @Max Parry
  47. Lo says:
    @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Yeah sorry I was on a mobile device. Post you quoted was meant for another commenter

  48. Lo says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Not true. Turkey has been trying to buy missile defense systems since the first gulf war. America neither sold them nor allowed Europeans to sell them. It was a matter of time before Turkey bought them from a third country. Senate members should sanction themselves for their short sightedness.

  49. lysias says:
    @AnonFromTN

    It was a warning from Russia that saved Erdogan’s life in 2016.

    Why did U.S. relations with Erdogan deteriorate so drastically in 2016? Surely it was because his relations with Israel had deteriorated to such an extent.

  50. There is a constant stream of articles on the exploitative behavior of Jews in Christian Europe prior to the WWII leading to the holocaust but one is hard pressed to find any on Armenian business methods in Muslim countries where they were dominant in commercial activities. Can anyone shed light on it or is it just that one day the Turks woke up and decided to massacre the Armenians because they were simply Christians? Don’t the goose and gander have something in common?

  51. lysias says:
    @Chris Mallory

    The fact that Asian Muslims killed large numbers of Christian groups (not only Armenians, but also Assyrians and Greeks) mattered a lot to Americans at the time. The fact that it no longer does is due to the fact that our ruling class is now made up of Jews and secularists.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
  52. Max Parry says:
    @AnonFromTN

    I literally stated that in the omitted first half of the sentence. Indeed, the Patriot system was a failure in the Gulf War and continues to be unsuccessful to this day, as the Saudis recently learned in the attacks on their oil fields which were no false flag like many assume.

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  53. Mr. Hack says:

    The post-war attempt to classify the Holodomor hoax as “genocide” instead of the mass destruction of indigenous peoples across the world by European settler colonialism was the beginning of the West’s conflation of Nazi Germany with the USSR in order to separate the former from its own legacy.

    What a truly large amount of mularkey. So exactly what “European settler colonialists” do you have in mind, perhaps, ethnic Russians sent to diplace native Ukrainians (but I kind of doubt that is what is intended)? We are to believe that the Holodomor within Ukraine was only a part of some larger “mass detruction of indigenoujs peoples” perpertrated by whom? Lemkin was a very critical scholar who examined the facts of what happened within Ukraine in the early 1930’s, and came up with the only conclusion possible:

    the famine in Ukraine was indeed a prime example of genocide

    .

    • Replies: @Max Parry
    , @utu
  54. Another bullshit artist.

    Of course that Young Turks committed a genocide; perhaps a more correct word would be ethnocide.

    As for Serbs, Handke etc.-I’ve already said what I meant in the comments section of another bullshit article at Unz: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/drazha-mikhailovich-the-man-upon-which-the-future-serbia-will-be-rebuilt/

  55. Max Parry says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Your username is an accurate self description.

    • Troll: Mr. Hack
  56. @lysias

    No, no it doesn’t. It means we should go back to minding our own business and not searching the world for monsters to fight. Armenians are not Americans and should not be in this nation. Since they are not Americans they are no business of the US government or responsibility of the American tax payer. Like I said, Asians killing Asians.

  57. @Fidelios Automata

    American Indians should be grateful that the merciful white man let some of the bloodthirsty savages live. The Trail of Tears was the right thing to do to remove an alien group from our lands.

  58. @Max Parry

    It is my opinion that the attack on the Saudi refinery was done either by the ZUS or Israel, to be blamed on Iran, Iran has not started a war in over 300 years.

    This was in the same playbook as the attack on the USS Liberty and the attack on the WTC on 911, both of which were done by Israel and zionists in the ZUS government.

    • Replies: @Max Parry
  59. Rich says:
    @Dr. Moreau's Biographer

    I’ve grown tired of correcting these different stories about “germ warfare”. If you read the full Trent letter it refers to giving blankets to friendly Indians as a gift in honor of the support they gave against hostiles. Smallpox is contracted by inhalation and with a 12 day incubation period is less communicable than the measles. It is extremely unlikely that smallpox was used as a weapon by this method.

  60. Alden says:
    @Dr. Moreau's Biographer

    Interesting, but it’s from a university of Massachusetts website. University websites are about as trustworthy as the NYCTimes, WAPost, MSNBS, CNN and the rest of the liars.

    I’ve learned not to believe any lies a university puts out or that’s found in textbooks and teaching materials.

  61. Max Parry says: • Website
    @DESERT FOX

    I am usually one to go along with false flag narratives and Israel does have such a history of deception, but in this instance it seems more likely to be a successful attack by the Houthis against a poorly designed missile defense system.

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  62. Max Parry says: • Website
    @Wally

    Only if you provide evidence of an Ottoman “civil war”, something which had not occurred since the 1500s and a claim not even made by the Turks themselves. I’m honestly surprised by the amount of right wing troglodytes defending the Turks here given that Armenians are Christians persecuted by an Islamic empire.

  63. And yes, I forgot- as I commented elsewhere: Serbs are assholes & Handke is a moron.

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-nobel-prize-in-literature-and-the-politics-of-selective-outrage/

    • Replies: @utu
  64. utu says:
    @Mr. Hack

    What actually did this Parry person try to say? That Holodomor is a hoax? That only Hitler fan boys talk about it?

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    , @Epigon
  65. The people behind the massacre of Christians in Russia were the same behind the massacre of Christians in the Ottoman Empire: the utmost vile Kabbalist-Masonic evil degenerates.

    All part of the (Neo-Venetian) British Empire’s quest for world hegemony.

    Who were the Young Turks? The Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), the official name of the party, had grown up in Salonika, which served as the headquarters for many secret societies seeking to elude control by the Turkish author- ities. Mehmed Talaat, the most important figure in the CUP, had his headquarters there, along with Djemel Bey, an army recruit, and army officer Ismail Enver. The CUP organized a revolt in Salonika, taking over administrative offices there and elsewhere, and established power in 1908-09. The Sultan abdicated in favor of his brother, and the Young Turks as- sumed important government posts.

    The key figure in the Salonika operation was Emmanuel Carasso, who was not a Turk, but an Italian offical of the B’nai B’rith and founder of the Italian freemasonic lodge known as “Macedonia Resurrected.” It was Carasso who provided the premises for Talaat’s group to meet. All the Young Turks were members of the secret masonic lodge, which had been set up by Giuseppe Mazzini and Emanuele Veneziano. Talaat became Grand Master of the Scottish Rite Masons in the Otto- man Empire, in 1907. The man who ran their newspaper, The Young Turk, was Vladimir Jabotinsky, a Zionist movement leader who would later found the infamous Irgun terrorist gang in Palestine. An associate of Carasso was multi-agent Alexander Helphand (Parvus), financier of the 1905 and 1917 Russian revolutions. After 1905, Parvus became the economics editor of the Young Turk newspaper The Turkish Homeland.

    THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
    True Justice Requires The End of Geopolitics

    by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach

    https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2005/eirv32n18-20050506/eirv32n18-20050506_058-the_armenian_genocide_true_justi.pdf

  66. @Max Parry

    That is a possibility but in my opinion, the Houthis do not have the capability. I would like to recommend these books, Blood in the Water by Joan Mellen, Remember the Liberty by Philip Nelson, and By Way of Deception by ex Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky, all three point out the deceit of Israel and the ZUS.

  67. utu says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    And yes, I forgot- as I commented elsewhere: Serbs are assholes & Handke is a moron.

    That’s why you Croats invented Srbosjek or Serbcutter, right?

    Bardon Kaldian , did your Ustashe daddy leave you his personal srbosjek ? Petar Brzica must be your hero.

    While [Petar Brzica] is known for having beaten an inmate to death in March 1943, he is notorious for having won a contest in which he used a curve-bladed knife, also called a srbosjek, to kill newly arrived concentration camp prisoners. Brzica boasted of winning the contest by killing the largest number of prisoners – 1,360 people. – Wiki

  68. @Max Parry

    Only if you provide evidence of an Ottoman “civil war”, something which had not occurred since the 1500s and a claim not even made by the Turks themselves. I’m honestly surprised by the amount of right wing troglodytes defending the Turks here given that Armenians are Christians persecuted by an Islamic empire.

    Care to explain how Christians lived – albeit as second class citizens – in the Ottoman Empire for centuries; to then be massacred with the arrival of the Brits?

    While you’re at it, please explain the similar situation in Russia: the massacre of Christians with the arrival of the British-backed Bolsheviks.

    If you can’t, it’s okay, continue blaming it on “Religion”. In this case, an Islamic Empire.

    • Replies: @Max Parry
    , @Avery
  69. Is it really just Turkey which opposes recognizing the event as a holocaust. I don’t believe Turkey has such pull, or power over the decision. It’s the jews who covet the word holocaust, claiming it only for their selves. After all it’s a billion dollar industry, and they don’t want to share. And, what happens if historians begin asking to debate this holocaust and that holocaust? Could be trouble. The Armenian holocaust and the Houthi holocaust may be the only true holocausts in the 20th century. Sorry Morrie.

  70. @utu

    wiki is just jewish promotion of the jew narrative. don’t believe me, try to post truth to any entry on wiki and it will be erased. wiki isn’t worth the effort to capitalize a word.

  71. @utu

    This so called Serb-cutter is an urban legend-it never existed. No one could work with it, especially in a drunken state, to cut anyone’s throat. The knife was used only in agricultural work:

    Serbian ideology is chock full of lies. For instance, lunatic Serbian ideologues (Milojević, Lukin Lazić, Pjanić Luković, Deretić), from the 1870s to the 2010s, have claimed that:

    * Mesopotamians are actually Serbs
    * Siberia got the name from Serbs (S-b-r..well, it’s like S-r-b)
    * half (at least) of Egyptian pharaohs & Roman emperors were Serbs
    * Jesus was a Serb
    * Homer, Aristotle etc. wrote in Serbian
    * all Slavs are actually Serbs, as well Germans etc.
    * all ancient civilizations, except yellow races (Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, Rome, Greece,..) were Serbian
    * etc. etc.

    As far as WW II is considered, official censa from 1931. (the last census in Royal Yugoslavia) and from 1948. (the first in Communist Yugoslavia) show that there are c. 700,000 more Serbs in all of Yugoslavia- and 3,500-14,000 less Croats, despite annexation of Croatian areas formerly held by Fascist Italy (Istria, Rijeka, 5 islands with exclusively Croatian population).

    So, Serbs who are supposedly the greatest victims in Yu WW II show a growth in absolute numbers by 700,000 & Croats who are supposedly perpetrators, or lesser victims- are diminished in absolute numbers by 14,000 (despite adding a significant Croatian-only territory)?

    The whole Yugoslav & Serbian narrative about WW II is one big, fat lie.

    Just- I don’t care. Serbian obsession with us, Croats, has no bounds. Serbs make movies about ustaše soldiers where they show them as some diabolical slickers. This is a scene from a recent Serbian film about ustaše CC Jasenovac:

    And I don’t have anything with ustaše movement, my ancestors have been mostly Communists.

    Assholes & losers.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @anon
  72. Mr. Hack says:
    @utu

    It was no hoax, brother. My mother and my step father and my 87 year old roomate lived through it. The only ones trying to make it into a hoax are the Putler fan boys. 🙁

    As far as what this Parry waas tring to say, I don’t know?…I quoted him and tried to get a clarification, and he started his ad hominem response. He sounds like the ultimate looser to me.

    • Replies: @Max Parry
    , @Epigon
  73. Max Parry says: • Website
    @Hiram of Tyre

    The Ottomans were increasingly hostile to the Armenians as their empire collapsed and blamed them for it. Care to explain how the British “backed” the Bolsheviks yet literally invaded the USSR on the side of the Whites during the Russian Civil War?

    • Replies: @Hiram of Tyre
  74. utu says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    The ecstasy Bardon Kaldian. Let’s hear from your hero Petar Brzica.

    “[I] waged a bet on who would slaughter more prisoners that night. The killing started and already after an hour I slaughtered much more than they did. It seemed to me that I was in seventh heaven. I had never felt such bliss in my life. And already after a few hours I slaughtered 1,100 people, while the others only managed to kill 300 to 400 each. And then, when I was experiencing the greatest ecstasy I noticed an elderly peasant standing and peacefully and calmly watching me slaughter my victims and them dying in the greatest pain. That look of his shook me: in the midst of the greatest ecstasy I suddenly froze and for some time couldn’t make a single move. And then I walked up to him and found out that he was some Vukasin [Mandrapa] from the village of Klepci near Capljina whose whole family had been killed, and who was sent to Jasenovac after having worked in the forests. He spoke this with incomprehensible peace which affected me more than the terrible cries around us. All at once I felt the wish to disrupt his peace with the most brutal torturing and, through his suffering, to restore my ecstasy and continue to enjoy the inflicting of pain.” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petar_Brzica

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    , @Epigon
  75. Epigon says:
    @utu

    If Holodomor is a Ukrainian genocide, then why did Russian areas such as Kuban, Volga, Rostov got hit very hard – not to mention Kazakhstan?

    Why does Holodomor get the genocide label while the equally bad famine of 1921-1922 does not get it?

    It’s really something to blame Russians for events that devastated historical regions of Muscovy, Tzardom and Russian Empire – in reality, exactly what the author is aiming at – no one is interested in the truth or responsobility, but trying to score compassion and geopolitical points.

    Observing Galician Catholic and Uniatic descendants cry crocodile tears about the deaths of Russian Orthodox former citizens of Russian Empire and framing it as targeted destruction of “Ukrainians” is eye-opening.

    • Agree: AnonFromTN
    • Replies: @utu
  76. Max Parry says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack

    Your previous comment contained various misspellings and was generally unintelligible, hence the resort to an ad hominem reply…

  77. Epigon says:
    @Mr. Hack

    How many self-professed Ukrainians died in Holodomor?

    How many Russians died during the same time?

    Will you go ahead and play the game of Bolsheviks and their political nation building – that each inhabitant of Ukrainian SSR was Ukrainian?

    How about 1921-1922 famine in USSR?

    And the 1917-1920 Civil War and Red Terror?

    You are literally proving the point of the article’s author – that the designation is entirely political and does not correspond to reality.

    Russians were murdered on a massive scale, systematically by Bolsheviks, while an entire nation rose in core Russian lands over which the Russians fought bitterly for centuries against numerous invaders and occupiers.
    And then some diaspora, Poles and Jews in USA start going around and telling the Russians were genocide perpetrators and responsible for USSR.

    • Agree: TheTotallyAnonymous
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  78. tomo says:
    @viktor

    What this author says is consistent with an interview I read on the 10th anniversary of Srebrenica massacre in Canadian Globe and Mail (or maybe Toronto Star – I am not 100% sure) with then commander of NATO in Bosnia I forgot his name. I wish I kept the article but I did not.
    That was the first time I read a story about what happened that made sense to me as a Serb (who lived in London at the time ).
    I used to read BBC and other BS media – and I believed everything even though it did not make any sense to me as a Serb (what I was reading was completely contrary to my experience and I was born there and spent 23 years there before I moved to London).
    Only after I read this Canadian general’s interview – what happened in Srebrenica made perfect sense. And I come from about 30 or less miles away from Srebrenica.

  79. @utu

    This guy never existed. But- you’re still running, eh….

    Sissies.

  80. Epigon says:
    @utu

    No need to read either Serbian or Croatian accounts, primary sources.
    I have found contemporary (1941-1943) German and Italian ones to be preferable.

    They definitely remove the potential pro-Serb bias accusation.
    No point in widening the discussion subject, though. Especially with a particularly disingenous and deranged Croat specimen.
    The article is a good overview of politicization of genocide term, victimology and how little do facts matter in statecraft – propaganda and historical narrative production.

    • Replies: @TheTotallyAnonymous
  81. anon[120] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    This is a scene from a recent Serbian film about ustaše CC Jasenovac:

    Don’t see what’s your problem with it, that female camp guard looks really cute in her uniform, would bang immediately.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    , @utu
  82. @anon

    No problem at all. Serbs are obsessed with us, Croats, so that they make movies about ustaše guards in a CC – actually a rather rough & fugly bunch of people – where they show them to be some magnetic, diabolical & sadistic cutthroats, but physically mostly handsome manly men & seductive female guards (these actors are exclusively Serbs).

    I agree that this actress is hot, but the whole idea is extremely absurd & has nothing to do with reality (as is the case with most of official Serbian narrative).

  83. utu says:
    @Epigon

    That Bolsheviks were also engineering famines in other regions of the USSR that killed millions of people is not a consolation for Ukrainians. The famines and the role of Bolsheviks are undeniable facts. Are you trying to say that Ukrainians should not take it personally, that Bolsheviks had nothing against Ukrainians, that it was just a class warfare? People were starved to death not because who they were but because pf what they did, they were kulaks, exploiters,…? This is an irrelevant distinction. If Nazis said that they were killing Jews because Jews did not fit their new society they were building because Jews historically were bloodsuckers would the Holocaust no longer qualify as a genocide?

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  84. utu says:
    @anon

    Bardon Kaldians in action:

    • Replies: @anon
  85. anon[120] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    Thanks, but I’m not interested in such atrocity movies (so people can behave atrociously to their fellow man…boohoo, what a profound insight), I’d just like to have sexual intercourse with that hot camp guard.

  86. Avery says:
    @Hiram of Tyre

    {Care to explain how Christians lived – albeit as second class citizens – in the Ottoman Empire for centuries;}

    Armenians (and other Christians (Assyrians, Pontic Greeks) were not, quote, ‘citizens’: they were second class subjects: Clear?
    Christians existed in the Ottoman Turkey, because Turks did not want to kill the golden goose. Despite being second class subjects, Armenians were very industrious and nomad Turks from East and Central Asia who came to occupy Asia Minor needed them.

    { to then be massacred with the arrival of the Brits?}

    Prior to the Armenian Genocide (1915-1923), there were other large scale massacres of Armenians.
    The Hamidian massacre in 1984-1986 murdered up to 300,000 Armenian civilians.
    The Adana massacre in 1909 murdered ~30,000 Armenian civilians.

    There were endless massacres of the indigenous, sedentary civilized peoples of Asia Minor (Christian Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontic Greeks (late comers)) over centuries by the nomad Muslim Turkic tribes that invaded the Armenian Highlands and Asia Minor.

    Turks, who had planned the genocide of Christians for a very long time, used the cover of WW1 to exterminated the remaining Christians.

    • Replies: @Hiram of Tyre
  87. Mr. Hack says:
    @Epigon

    Estimates range from 3 million to 10 millon People in Ukraine died during the Holodomore between 1930 -1933, as a result of a manmade famine perpetrated by the Bolshevik government. And yes, there were several other famines within Ukraine and other parts of the Soviet Union.

    Meanwhile, Stalin, according to Applebaum, already had arrested tens of thousands of Ukrainian teachers and intellectuals and removed Ukrainian-language books from schools and libraries. She writes that the Soviet leader used the grain shortfall as an excuse for even more intense anti-Ukrainian repression. As Norris notes, the 1932 decree “targeted Ukrainian ‘saboteurs,’ ordered local officials to stop using the Ukrainian language in their correspondence, and cracked down on Ukrainian cultural policies that had been developed in the 1920s.”

    https://www.history.com/news/ukrainian-famine-stalin

    In January 1933 Ukraine’s borders were sealed off preventing Ukrainian peasants from fleeing to other republics to search for food. Why was the whole border between Russia and Ukraine sealed off during this extremely difficult period for Ukrainians, if it wasn’t somehow tied to a larger national genocide of Ukrainians? Villages just on the other side of the border were not starving to death in Russia, but close bye in Ukraine people were stumbling around the countryside searching for birds, cats and dogs to eat, returned to Ukraine to starve to death if caught trying to cross the border.

  88. Mr. Hack says:
    @utu

    I would also add that there was a huge increase in anti-Ukrainian operations targeting Ukrainian language and cultural institutions that coincided with this government induced famine:

    At the 12th Congress of the Communist Party of Ukraine (CP(b)U), Moscow-appointed leader Pavel Postyshev declared that “1933 was the year of the defeat of Ukrainian nationalist counter-revolution.”[54] This “defeat” encompassed not just the physical extermination of a significant portion of the Ukrainian peasantry, but also the mass imprisonment or execution of Ukrainian intellectuals, writers, and artists.

    By the end of the 1930s, approximately four-fifths of the Ukrainian cultural elite had been eliminated.[55] Some, like Ukrainian writer Mykola Khvylovy, committed suicide.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian
  89. @Carlton Meyer

    On the other hand, I’ve never accepted the insane idea of condemning people for things that occurred before they were born.

    Individuals cannot be responsible for deeds or actions that occurred before they even existed. It would be obviously absurd.

    However, collective groups can be. Collective groups are composed of individuals and they usually have much and longer life-spans. Even though the boundary is usually blurry, it only makes sense to condemn a collective for past atrocities, not the individual members of the collective that were personally not involved in anything, especially if they take care to disapprove of it.

    Of course though, in practice this leads to an almost endless cycle of retribution, revenge and conflict that never really ends. Such is life, I guess.

  90. @Max Parry

    The Ottomans were increasingly hostile to the Armenians as their empire collapsed and blamed them for it. Care to explain how the British “backed” the Bolsheviks yet literally invaded the USSR on the side of the Whites during the Russian Civil War?

    Why are you deflecting with “as their empire collapsed” when my question was “for centuries” and why are you deflecting with another question before answering any of mine?

    To answer your question: the Brits played both the Reds and Whites.

  91. @Avery

    Armenians (and other Christians (Assyrians, Pontic Greeks) were not, quote, ‘citizens’: they were second class subjects: Clear?

    Christians existed in the Ottoman Turkey, because Turks did not want to kill the golden goose. Despite being second class subjects, Armenians were very industrious and nomad Turks from East and Central Asia who came to occupy Asia Minor needed them.

    { to then be massacred with the arrival of the Brits?}

    Prior to the Armenian Genocide (1915-1923), there were other large scale massacres of Armenians.
    The Hamidian massacre in 1984-1986 murdered up to 300,000 Armenian civilians.
    The Adana massacre in 1909 murdered ~30,000 Armenian civilians.

    There were endless massacres of the indigenous, sedentary civilized peoples of Asia Minor (Christian Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontic Greeks (late comers)) over centuries by the nomad Muslim Turkic tribes that invaded the Armenian Highlands and Asia Minor.

    Turks, who had planned the genocide of Christians for a very long time, used the cover of WW1 to exterminated the remaining Christians.

    • I am aware who/what the Armenians were.

    • The usage of “citizen” was colloquial.

    • True, there were mass-killings of Christians (especially Armenians) before WW1. The topic being the Armenian Genocide, I focused on that specific era. I don’t know that Turks planned the Genocide. When Egyptian leader, Mohammed Ali (who had made allies across the land and secured technologies that had made of Europe an advanced continent) wanted to modernize the region, he threatened the Ottoman Sultan but most importantly: the British East-India Levant Company and its hegemony in the region. The Brits offered to take care of Ali in waving a bloody war on him (that subsequently spread to Mouth Lebanon to foment tensions between the Druzes and Maronites (conveniently getting rid of French influence)) in exchange for a diplomatic post in Jerusalem (which the Sultan agreed). The Brits have meddled in the region for centuries in supporting chaos on both sides of the fence. The Young Turks leadership – responsible for the Genocide – was Masonic and closely tied to Britain. Anything “Young” (e.g. Young Germany, Young Italy, etc) was part of Lord Palmerston’s hegemonic strategy. It is not to justify, excuse or belittle the role Turks (and mostly Kurds who are often omitted) played in the massacre of Christians but to provide an explanation. You can read about it here (p.58-63):

    https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2005/eirv32n18-20050506/eirv32n18-20050506_058-the_armenian_genocide_true_justi.pdf

    • Replies: @Avery
  92. anonymous[356] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wally

    My experience is apparently not unique – people who get to know Turks or Turkish Kurds tend to find, alongside official denials of genocide, people who have some memory of what an ancestor did. The man I spoke to said it was remembered as the day all the Armenians in the village were killed. Multiply that by hundreds of villages in Turkey and not surprisingly many refer to it as a genocide. He made no mention of any Turks or Kurds being killed in the village and it would appear the Armenians were defenceless and perhaps deliberately caught at a disadvantage.
    Calling it a “civil war” may suit you but not even Sherman murdered every white Southerner as he marched through Georgia.
    You resist the notion and will probably continue to resist the notion, because Jewish holocaust denial is a big issue with you and the Nazis reputedly asked “Who now remembers the Armenians?” The man I spoke to, a Turkish Kurd, said what he said and that is proof enough for me. Believe it or not as you wish.

  93. @Max Parry

    Only if you provide evidence of an Ottoman “civil war”, something which had not occurred since the 1500s and a claim not even made by the Turks themselves.

    Actually, the Ottoman Civil War occurred in the early 15th century after the death of Sultan Bayazid at the Battle of Ankara in 1402. It ended in the year 1413 with the victory of Sultan Mehmed I. The period of years from 1402-1413 is also known as the Ottoman Interregnum, by the way.

    I’m honestly surprised by the amount of right wing troglodytes defending the Turks here given that Armenians are Christians persecuted by an Islamic empire.

    Some people have become seriously convinced that the Jewish Holocaust was a hoax (regardless of the legitimate basis they have to do so) and because of that have started to think that everything and anything called a genocide is a hoax. That is, without having the patience to bother to research for the facts, evidence and context of the matter.

    Of course, there’s also all the people that are simply Turks or pro-Turkish.

  94. @TheTotallyAnonymous

    Actually, the Ottoman Civil War occurred in the early 15th century after the death of Sultan Bayazid at the Battle of Ankara in 1402. It ended in the year 1413 with the victory of Sultan Mehmed I. The period of years from 1402-1413 is also known as the Ottoman Interregnum, by the way.

    My bad. Shouldn’t have been careless with some details here. Sultan Bayazid I died in captivity after the Battle of Ankara.

  95. @Epigon

    Here are a bunch of testimonies from German sources on the Ustashe and what they did to Serbs:

    http://www.jhmf.org.uk/testimonies

    As for Italian sources, this letter in particular stands out:

    Proving that the collaborators and descendants of Ustashe perpetrators go out of their way to destroy the evidence:

    http://dengalnaserben.weebly.com/history-1900-to-1949/1941-bih-prebilovci-hiding-genocide

  96. Wally says:
    @Max Parry

    LOL

    So now you are saying that the Armenians & Turks didn’t fight.

    IOW, you have no proof for the alleged “Armenian genocide”, nor the laughably impossible “holocaust” narrative.

    Your dodges are noted.

    • Replies: @Avery
    , @Max Parry
  97. Wally says:
    @TheTotallyAnonymous

    – So then you too are saying that the Armenians & Turks weren’t fighting in 1915. LOL

    said:
    “Some people have become seriously convinced that the Jewish Holocaust was a hoax (regardless of the legitimate basis they have to do so) and because of that have started to think that everything and anything called a genocide is a hoax. That is, without having the patience to bother to research for the facts, evidence and context of the matter.”

    – Indeed, the so called “holocaust” has been easily debunked and shown to be a fraud for power & cash. You nor anyone else cannot refute serious Revisionist research on the subject.

    – Please stop the childish strawman arguments, Revisionists do not claim “anything called a genocide is a hoax”. You appear desperate.

    – Like all rational, logically minded, we do insist on proof. Something that so far does not exist for the so called “Armenian genocide”.

    I challenge you to present proof for the “Armenian genocide”.

  98. Avery says:
    @Hiram of Tyre

    { I don’t know that Turks planned the Genocide.}

    That’s right: you don’t know.

    I could list a whole series of references and books for you, but it would be pointless.
    And you must be joking if you think I am going to use a La Rouche organization website to learn something new about the Armenian Genocide.

    The reason it was Genocide*, is because it was planned, organized, and then carried out by Turk leadership: The three Pashas” Enver Pasha, Talaat Pasha and Djemal Pasha.**
    It was carried out by Turk governors, Turk officers, Turks soldiers, and with enthusiastic help of Kurds and various other bashi-bazouks.

    __________________
    * Dolus Specialis – Specific Intent to Destroy.
    ** All three were hunted down and executed in the field by Armenians.
    I call it ‘execution’, because a Turk courts-martial in 1919-1920 found them guilty of various charges, including massacring Armenians and Greeks, and sentenced them to death.

    • Replies: @Lo
    , @Hiram of Tyre
  99. Avery says:
    @Wally

    {IOW, you have no proof for the alleged “Armenian genocide”, nor the laughably impossible “holocaust” narrative.}

    IOW, no amount of proof will be sufficient for the likes of you.
    In the delusional world that your ilk inhabit nothing is real: only your (plural) hallucinations are ‘real’.

  100. Max Parry says: • Website
    @Wally

    There’s a difference between saying there were small amounts of Armenian volunteer units in the Russian imperial army and arguing there was a full-fledged “civil war”, but I wouldn’t expect someone as provincial as yourself to know such historical details.

    • Replies: @Lo
    , @Wally
  101. Lo says:
    @Max Parry

    Armenian terror groups Dashnak & Hinchak were established long before 1915, and before Hamidian Kurdish units as well. Their explicit goal was the establishment of an independent Armenia. So fights were not only between Turks and Russian army, but also Turks/Kurds and Armenian terror gangs. However, thanks for pointing that Armenians were indeed allied with enemies of Ottomans at a time of war. Anywhere in the world it is called treason, and relocations happened after the event. Now you know why Ottomans wanted to send Armenians to a different region away from the Russian front.

    • Replies: @Max Parry
  102. Lo says:
    @Avery

    Where is the evidence? Also noted genocide claimers avoid any questions about document evidence even in this thread.

  103. The author’s approach is one-dimensional, tendentious & unsubtle. Not that there is anything wrong with that….

    One should take into consideration history, verifiable numbers, serious historical works etc, not just third-rate gossip as presented by publicists, ideologues, filmmakers, journalists..

    What is genocide? Is there an empirical way to establish anything about it? If I kill 10 million Chinese just because I hate them- did I commit a genocide (considering that there are 1300 million of them)? Perhaps it is better to use other words like democide, politicide, ethnocide,….

    1. there was an ethnocide committed by Young Turks against Armenians. You check the stats, figures don’t lie. Of course, Turks don’t need to “apologize”, these are useless rituals; great revolutionary reformer Kemal Pasha Ataturk has changed the face of Turkey & history. What will be with this pompous prick of Erdogan remains to be seen..

    2. Did Kurds participate in Armenian ethnocide? Sure, massively. But this has nothing to do with their national right to form their own nation-state from parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran… with as much territory as possible.

    3. was Ukrainian famine a genocide? It definitely was an ethnocide, wrapped into ideological warfare against peasants & nomads. Kazakhs were, per capita, a people which suffered the most; Russians, White Russians, Georgians…too. In the case of Ukrainians, additional element was obviously wish of Soviet leadership to weaken & de-nationalize & Russify, to a significant extent, the most numerous Soviet people after Russians. So, this was not a classical genocide, but ethnocide it definitely- was.

    4. Jews in Europe- it is a genocide by every definition; some 3-6 million of them perished, just check the stats. Figures don’t lie.

    5. Did ustaša regime of NDH commit genocide against Serbs in WW2? It certainly did against Jews- check the stats; as for Serbs, it tried ethnocide by a combination of killing, deportation etc. Just-it failed. Serbs were more numerous in Yugoslavia territory than before. Check the stats.

    6. Did Yugoslav regime commit a genocide against Croats in the period following WW2? It did commit a partial ethnocide, motivated by politicide, because there are literally less Croats (even counting emigration) than before the war. Check the stats.

    7. Did various European countries commit ethnocide against Germans at the end of WW2? Absolutely- yes. Germans not just fled; they were forcibly deported with mass killings & similar methods. There were more than 13 million Germans ethnically cleansed from Czechia, Poland, parts of Russia, Yugoslavia, Romania etc

    8. Did Serbianized Yugoslav Army commit genocide against Croats & Bosnian Muslims, and what about Serbian Army & Albanians? Yugoslav Army definitely tried ethnocide, but were stopped by Croats & Muslims, and in the end Serbs even profited from British/American plotting, because Serbs were reduced to 44% of Bosnia & Herzegovina (and had not Americans stopped Croatian and Bosnian Muslim forces, they would have ended at 25% of BiH); and later in Dayton, cynically, their victims had to give them 5% of BiH back. As for Kosovo, it definitely was an attempted ethnocide of Kosovo Albanians, which NATO had forcibly stopped. Then, most Serbs just fled- they were not deported or massively forcibly removed, they just ran to security areas.

    9. Did Croatian Army commit a genocide, or ethnocide of local Serbs in 1995? No, Serbs fled from previously occupied territories even before contact with Croatian Army; even in peacefully integrated eastern Slavonia region, c. 70% of Serbs moved to Serbia proper because they couldn’t bear the thought of living in a sovereign Croatia.

    10. Rwanda? I don’t know enough.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  104. Max Parry says: • Website
    @Lo

    Thank you for admitting the genocide’s Russophobic origins

    • Replies: @Lo
  105. Mr. Hack says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    In the case of Ukrainians, additional element was obviously wish of Soviet leadership to weaken & de-nationalize & Russify, to a significant extent, the most numerous Soviet people after Russians. So, this was not a classical genocide, but ethnocide it definitely- was.

    Lemkin is quite convincing in characterizing the Holodomor as a classic case of genocide, including not the least of which was the destruction of the Ukrainian intelligentsia:

    These have been the chief steps [read the entire article for all of the “chief steps”] in the systematic destruction of the Ukrainian nation, in its progressive absorption within the new Soviet nation. Notably, there have been no attempts at complete annihilation, such as was the method of the German attack on the Jews. And yet, if the Soviet program succeeds completely, if the intelligentsia, the priests and the peasants can be eliminated, Ukraine will be as dead as if every Ukrainian were killed, for it will have lost that part of it which has kept and developed its culture, its beliefs, its common ideas, which have guided it and given it a soul, which, in short, made it a nation rather than a mass of people.

    See pgs. 31 – 36 https://mfa.gov.ua/mediafiles/files/misc/2017-11-01/book10.pdf

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  106. @Mr. Hack

    I know all that, but it doesn’t sound convincing to me. For instance, I think that what Chinese government is doing now to the Tibetans & Uighurs is much worse than Soviet-Ukrainian case-and even Nazi-Jewish example. Due to population distribution, Nazis could eliminate, at most, c. 30-35% of world Jewry; on the other hand, Chicoms can ethnically flood & completely destroy the entirety of Tibetan & Uighur peoples. And these are real historical peoples, unlike Sioux, Ostyaks, Samoyeds,… which are bound to be reduced in territory & way of life- if they fail to adapt to the modern world.

    In the case of Ukrainians, it was a “partial genocide”, which doesn’t make much sense; that’s why I call it ethnocide. Stalin had tried to weaken Ukrainian nation (in the broader context of collectivization); on the other hand, he expanded Ukrainian Lebensraum (before and after WW II), which has never been so big in any moment in history. Soviet national policy operated on different levels, and sometimes it was for, and sometimes against different peoples; collectivization was, in reality, a democide, with strong elements of ethnocide in the case of Ukrainians. Genocide would mean that Soviet leadership meant to destroy Ukrainians, either as whole or a significant number (which one is significant?); from all we can see, Kazakhs got the worst of it, and there is not much talk about them in the public; ethnic Russians suffered as much as Ukrainians- but, it was more a class, Cossack-type thing. What complicates the issue is that there is a very strong element of de-nationalization & intentional weakening of the Ukrainians as a nation.

    But it cannot be treated like Nazi policy toward, say, Czechs or Poles (which were slated for complete annihilation in near future); no one in his right mind considers that Nazis would have thought of expanding Polish or Czech countries, even as dependent colonies; nor to retain, even at rudimentary level, Polish or Czech intelligentsia & school system.

    So, having all that in mind, I think that Stalin & his collaborators had committed an ethnocide against Ukrainians in that period; I think that Chicoms are trying to execute a complete genocide of Tibetans & Uyghurs, now -and more sinister & complete than Nazi genocide of world Jews . These are/were different things.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    , @Wally
  107. @Alfred

    According to Wikipedia the fire began on 13 September 1922.
    The sum of all letters (as “a”=26, “b”= 25, …. “z”=1) in the following expression:
    “thirteen September nineteen twenty two, Ottoman Empire, Great fire of Smyrna”
    makes to think that W. Faulkner ‘s “The past is never dead. It’s not even past” doesn’t
    need any interpretations.

  108. @Avery

    { I don’t know that Turks planned the Genocide.}

    That’s right: you don’t know.

    I could list a whole series of references and books for you, but it would be pointless.
    And you must be joking if you think I am going to use a La Rouche organization website to learn something new about the Armenian Genocide.

    The reason it was Genocide*, is because it was planned, organized, and then carried out by Turk leadership: The three Pashas” Enver Pasha, Talaat Pasha and Djemal Pasha.**
    It was carried out by Turk governors, Turk officers, Turks soldiers, and with enthusiastic help of Kurds and various other bashi-bazouks.

    __________________
    * Dolus Specialis – Specific Intent to Destroy.
    ** All three were hunted down and executed in the field by Armenians.
    I call it ‘execution’, because a Turk courts-martial in 1919-1920 found them guilty of various charges, including massacring Armenians and Greeks, and sentenced them to death.

    Don’t be cunning. Here again, my choice of word was colloquial. I do know. My maternal grandmother was Armenian from Harpoot (Kharpourt). Her family fled to Lebanon where my other three grandparents were from.

    No, I am not joking about the article I presented. You need to be less emotional and read it before negating it for not good reason other than “a La Rouche organization website”. How is that a serious argument? The article clearly state that the Genocide did happen. The difference is that – unlike virtually all mainstream narrative – it sheds light on the masonic organization behind the massacre. I understand you prefer to keep it simple (i.e. Muslims vs Christians), but there is more to it.

    There is absolutely no denying on the role the (vile) Pasha trio played in the Genocide. What is unknown, and the point of my comment(s), is the role of the (Neo-Venetian) British ruling class – via secretive masonic networks* – to push the massacre of Christians in order to later collapse the Ottoman Empire and bring forth the partition and control of the region (Sykes-Picot). On a side but related note, the secretive Sykes-Picot agreement was originally known as the Sazonov-Sykes-Picot. Russia was promised the Turkish Strait (something the Tsars have wanted for centuries) if it helped Britain win the war. Russia helped. Britain won. But Britain backstabbed Russia with the Bolshevik Revolution – which, like the Armenian Genocide, mass-killed millions of Christians. Coincidence?

    *

    The key figure in the Salonika operation was Emmanuel Carasso, who was not a Turk, but an Italian offical of the B’nai B’rith and founder of the Italian freemasonic lodge known as “Macedonia Resurrected.” It was Carasso who provided the premises for Talaat’s group to meet. All the Young Turks were members of the secret masonic lodge, which had been set up by Giuseppe Mazzini and Emanuele Veneziano. Talaat became Grand Master of the Scottish Rite Masons in the Otto- man Empire, in 1907. The man who ran their newspaper, The Young Turk, was Vladimir Jabotinsky, a Zionist movement leader who would later found the infamous Irgun terrorist gang in Palestine. An associate of Carasso was multi-agent Alexander Helphand (Parvus), financier of the 1905 and 1917 Russian revolutions. After 1905, Parvus became the econom- ics editor of the Young Turk newspaper The Turkish Homeland.

  109. Mr. Hack says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Ethnocide…genocide…

    I’ve always felt that people get too hung up about the numbers and the terms. What’s most important is that innocent people die for no other reason than that they’re of the “wrong” nationality or religion or politival view.. It’s all wrong, and one example isn’t really more/less objectionable than another, especially if you’re within that specific group that’s being eliminated?…Does one Jewsih death somehow count for more that one Ukrainian or Armenian death? Man’s inhumanity to man knows no boundaries and neither should these crimes against humanity.

    • Agree: Begemot
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  110. Wally says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    said:
    “But it cannot be treated like Nazi policy toward, say, Czechs or Poles (which were slated for complete annihilation in near future)”

    That’s laughable.

    You have no proof whatsoever of that. You just recite what your Zionist brethren mandate.

  111. Wally says:
    @Max Parry

    You are a pathetic, disingenuous clown.

    Armenian civil uprisings were numerous. Even they admit that in 1915 they were engaged in an another insurrection.

  112. @Cato

    But the particular Serbs at that particular place — Srebrenica — did something terribly wrong.

    They didn’t tho

  113. @Mr. Hack

    Does one Jewsih death somehow count for more that one Ukrainian or Armenian death? Man’s inhumanity to man knows no boundaries and neither should these crimes against humanity.

    Agreed- but that’s not the point. If emotional or humanist attitudes interfere with the discussion, better leave it. One should be able to discuss the topic replete with most graphic & nauseating details with the same dispassion as rules of the higher algebra. If not, then it is emotional confession or something similar, not the quest for truth, and I’m not in that game.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  114. Mr. Hack says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    If one doesn’t step back from it all and really analyze what’s going on in all of these various “genocides”, “holocausts”, “ethnocides”, “holodomors” and try and figure out the pernicious underpinnings of it all, what’s the research good for? The taking of innocent lives is really what it’s all about. The details, as you put it, should include photos replete with human suffering, diaries that tell of the emotional carnage etc. Otherwise, it only becomes a parade of figures that somehow lose their importance, in spite of trying to convey the massiveness of these outrageous and tragic events. One goes with the other, but we should never try to remove the “emotional and humanist” element from the analysis, otherwise human lives risk the outcome of being looked upon as soulless creatures on a par with drones and robots.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  115. @Mr. Hack

    I don’t get what do you want. Words like genocide & similar are primary a tool for political & legal issues. There is not more than that. For instance, in modern world, all collectives try to sell publicly their sufferings to accomplish something practical for their collective (people, tribe, religion, race)..- Ukrainians, Jews, blacks in America, American Indians, Armenians, Russians, Serbs, Muslims, Palestinians ….

    This is the race in the Olympiad of Suffering.

    And what is new about it?

    I understand these things are a powerful tool in battles of human collectives to achieve their aims (statehood, preferential treatment in multi-racial societies etc.), but that doesn’t mean I think it is anything new or special.

    Human nature is as it is, and even civilized people can be made to do anything imaginable to “others”.

    Peoples were doing atrocities all the time, and such is human life: before Mongol conquest, China had c. 100 million people; after- 60 million; in 1258 Mongol Army under Hulagu Khan had killed, in a weak, c. 800,000 inhabitants of Baghdad, perhaps up to 1.5 million.

    And? Are Mongols of today somehow “guilty” of that?

    Posting pictures of atrocities may be emotionally effective, but only for some time & for some audience. There always is a saturation point & people get bored with that stuff. What is more important than emotional blackmail is to stick to the legal terms, universal legal practice- with awareness that there is plenty of space for manipulation there.

    I think that every people should have the right to exist, but also not to be not only uprooted, but to retain their national identity on their piece of land. And now, that could mean stopping the invasion of Euro-lands by colored races by all means imaginable. In comparison with that threat, all that happened 50, 80 or 100 years ago is dwarfed in importance.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
  116. Mr. Hack says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    What I want is for people to realize that “the taking of innocent lives is really what it’s all about.” beyond sectarian and narrow interests. Human consciousness needs to continue evolving so that it embraces the great precept espoused within the Bible:

    Therefore whatever you desire for men to do to you, you
    shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets

    Matthew 7:12

    • Replies: @Svidomyatheart
  117. The Russians did not come to the rescue of the Armenians; once the Bolshevik Jews gained power, they retracted the Russian troops that had been protecting the Armenians and advancing against the Young Turks (Donmeh Jews). Those bastards proceed to force Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan to become soviet states. One Attaturk(another Donmeh Jew) came to power the Boshevik Jews conspired to continue to decimate the Christian Armenians and give away more Armenian provinces under the bogus treaty of Kars. Meanwhile back at the ranch, Hertzl was working overtime to suppress knowledge of the Genocide in the western media as they were grooming Balfour to issue his proclamation in exchange for blackmailing Wilson into WWI. The Armenians Question represented a challenge to Khazar/Rotschild attainment of Palestine with Jerusalem as the prize. This can be traced back to Sabata Zevi the moslem “convert” in the 1600s and his protege Jacob Frank, who recruited the Rotschilds in the 1700s to proceed with the zionist plan (though it wasn’t labelled that at that time). People that read have caught on to the falsehood of history that is portrayed for the goyim. Now you know about this barbaric primordal modern state genocide..just awaiting Christ’s return to mete justice and destroy the spawn of satan once and for all.

    • Agree: utu
  118. @Mr. Hack

    True, violence should never be required but Africans and others pushing into Europe claiming it like its their continent greatly disturbs me. And this is where I agree with Bardon Kalidan on people needing their own national identity on their land.

    for shits and giggles I goggled an “african cultural forum”. Here they wallow in their own “pity” and pat themselves on the back. I scanned their threads for like 5 minutes finding gems like these aka We Wuz Euro Kangz . Its all so tiresome…

    https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/british-people-salty-that-their-history-is-becoming-more-accurate.1939736/

    and i clicked one thread in their “Afro-Europe disapora Forum”. Here are some excepts

    “Trust! Now that brexit is getting nearer white people think they have god on their side when really it just gives brown people an excuse to beat their ass ”

    “connected and know some revolutionary black British people that are woke, marry and support other black British people, but even they tell us they are in the minority and many times get just as attacked by other black British people because they love and support white people so much. No revolution when you still put white people on a pedestal.”

    “I don’t see italians, irish or portuguese abadoning their culture even though they lived outside europe for decades.Why can’t black people do the same if we respect the law”

    “Africans need to take note of the Sentinelese. They have the right idea. Kill on sight, don’t let them in even as friends lol”

    “If you want to live off whites you should consider Canada, way better and cheaper than europe with more opportunities’”

    “We know white people are racist.
    We know white people uphold white supremacy”

    “Most Europeans/Whites are racist”

    “Bullsheeeet.No one should have to abandon their culture and identity for NOBODY”

    Well you get the idea….this is supposedly the more “upper class variant blacks” and they generally consider all whites racist, will refuse to integrate, have an alien culture, want to leech off welfare, want a mutliracial europe etc..basically what Bardon Kaldian summed up in a few sentences in some of his previous posts.

    This is what we european whites fear. Whites…whatever that means….i find the “White Identity” a disgusting multicultural abomination no self respecting Eastern European would use but im still extremely dissapointed seeing anglos and bright minds of Western Europe self suiciding in their deluded multiculti disaster but atm that is their problem and at this moment im concerned about Eastern Europe in particular.

    Especially us Eastern Europeans who just recently went through a race war ourselves we all know to well that different ethnicities/races dont usually cooperate well. And there isnt much of us left. What also worries me is that even at this moment If you stack up all races together the whites(im being generous here even counting those in Argentina and the more swarty variants like in Spain,etc) are already the minority making up only about 10% of world population.. not the blacks who are already at about 16-17% and rising.

    [email protected] Bardon Kaldian Your comments are always a pleasure to read

  119. Mr. Hack says:

    True, violence should never be required but Africans and others pushing into Europe claiming it like its their continent greatly disturbs me. And this is where I agree with Bardon Kalidan on people needing their own national identity on their land.

    And this is where I agree with you too. Had the Armenians, Jews and Ukrainians had real (as opposed to a puppet state, as in Ukraine’s situation) nation-states, then undoubtedly these people would not have experienced the tragedies that befell them. In the case of the Africans emigrating to Europe, it’s up to the people of their individual states to enact laws that limit such intrusions, like Hungary has done. If they don’t like what’s going on, vote out the Merkel’s and others that go against their wishes. If they don’t, “they have what they have”, and can’t complain.

  120. Mr. Hack says:

    University of Alberta students call on school to fire assistant lecturer who denies the Holodomor:

    Dougal MacDonald, a sessional instructor in the Department of Elementary Education, called the Holodomor a lie perpetuated with fake photographs and news stories spread by former Nazi collaborators…Mr. MacDonald has previously run for the Marxist-Leninist Party in Edmonton-Strathcona in the past two federal elections. (CTV Edmonton)

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-university-of-alberta-students-call-on-school-to-fire-assistant/

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Max Parry Comments via RSS