Pope Francis Sparks Diplomatic Incident With Turkey After Calling WWI Slaughter Of Armenians A 'Genocide'

Turkey says it is "greatly disappointed" with the Vatican and had lost trust in relations, after Pope Francis called the slaughter of Armenians by Ottoman Turks "the first genocide of the 20th century."
Francis sparked a diplomatic incident on Sunday with his comments at a Mass marking the centenary of the slaughter from 1915, when the Ottoman government killed Armenian subjects living in what is now present-day Turkey.
The event is not recognised as a genocide by some countries, such as Italy and the United States, who avoid using the word as they are close allies with Turkey. But Pope Francis, who has close ties to the Armenian community, urged the international community to recognise the killings as a genocide.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/12/pope-francis-armenian-genocide-turkey_n_7049594.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

I think its appalling that countries are not recognising this genocide and even worse how Turkey poorly attempts to deny it.



An interesting point I disagree with is this:

Historians estimate that up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turks from around 1915, an event widely viewed by scholars as the first genocide of the 20th century.

Surely this has to be the first of the 20th century:

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

Or even this event should really be see as the first genocide:

http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/women-children-white-concentration-camps-during-anglo-boer-war-1900-1902

The Armenian slaughter was genocide, full stop, no doubt. I really have trouble seeing why Turkey doesn't deal with this and move on.

Of your other two examples for earliest 20th century genocide, I would cast a little more doubt on the Boer concentration camps; it's a bit harder to make the case that ethnic cleansing was the goal on that one.

Ben_Reilly wrote:The Armenian slaughter was genocide, full stop, no doubt. I really have trouble seeing why Turkey doesn't deal with this and move on.

Of your other two examples for earliest 20th century genocide, I would cast a little more doubt on the Boer concentration camps; it's a bit harder to make the case that ethnic cleansing was the goal on that one.

Starving people to death is not genocide?
I beg to differ and its effectiveness worked so well, it brought about the defeat of the Boers.

Anyway to me the first real genocide of the 20th century is in Namibia by the Germans.

Genocide is common in history

yep Both those are earlier in the 20th century

Isn't modern Turkey separate from the Ottoman?
I cant see the value in raising these century old events when 'the powers' that perpetrated the crime no longer exists..

Honestly still think the Catholic Church Can STFU and repay for some of it's crimes, Strip every bit of gold from every Catholic church and you will still not have enough to compensate for it's crimes

veya_victaous wrote:Genocide is common in history

yep Both those are earlier in the 20th century

Isn't modern Turkey separate from the Ottoman?
I cant see the value in raising these century old events when 'the powers' that perpetrated the crime no longer exists..

Honestly still think the Catholic Church Can STFU and repay for some of it's crimes, Strip every bit of gold from every Catholic church and you will still not have enough to compensate for it's crimes

That is just about the most abusrd thing you have ever said, because the Armenians have never seen justice for this appalling crime.
It was carried out by Turks, so to say it is seperate from the Ottomans is again absurd.
The value is recognising that it was a genocide of which because of wanting to keep Turkey as an ally, Western nations are pandering to Turkey and not doing what is right.

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:The Armenian slaughter was genocide, full stop, no doubt. I really have trouble seeing why Turkey doesn't deal with this and move on.

Of your other two examples for earliest 20th century genocide, I would cast a little more doubt on the Boer concentration camps; it's a bit harder to make the case that ethnic cleansing was the goal on that one.

Starving people to death is not genocide?
I beg to differ and its effectiveness worked so well, it brought about the defeat of the Boers.

Anyway to me the first real genocide of the 20th century is in Namibia by the Germans.

Starving people isn't necessarily genocide; at least not in the Rome Convention definition, which takes intent into consideration:

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I'm just not so sure the British intended that in the case of the Boers.

I have to disagree with the idea that the Boer's were subject to "ethnic" cleansing. The purpose was to stop the Boer's getting food and shelter from Boer farmers.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Starving people to death is not genocide?
I beg to differ and its effectiveness worked so well, it brought about the defeat of the Boers.

Anyway to me the first real genocide of the 20th century is in Namibia by the Germans.

Starving people isn't necessarily genocide; at least not in the Rome Convention definition, which takes intent into consideration:

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I'm just not so sure the British intended that in the case of the Boers.

Then it shows how cleuless you are, as the intent was to kill and thus bring the Boers to defeat of which it succeeded.
You do realise over a million people starved to death in the concentration camps by the Nazi's, are you going to claim that is not genocide?

Oh and the answer is found here in your link Ben:

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;


This certainly happened with a scorched earth policy and forcing many people into appalling condtitions of these camps.

The Ottoman Empire entered World War I (1914–18) on the side of the Central Powers and was ultimately defeated. During the war, major atrocities were committed by the Ottoman government against the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks.[14] Following WWI, the huge conglomeration of territories and peoples that formerly comprised the Ottoman Empire was divided into several new states.[15] The Turkish War of Independence (1919–22), initiated by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and his colleagues in Anatolia, resulted in the establishment of the modern Republic of Turkey in 1923, with Atatürk as its first president.

they went from a monarchy Caliphate to a Secular democracy.. Modern Britain has far more in common with Colonial Britain than Modern Turkey has with the Ottoman empire.

The Ottoman Empire Fell and there was civil war and Major socio political change, Why should modern Turks be responsible for something done while they still had a Monarch?
the UK doesn't take responsibility and it still has a monarchy...

Exactly... HOW can the Armenians get justice off someone that is dead?
If you think modern Turks should pay recompense than the UK should too even more so as it has continuation from the period it committed the crimes

veya_victaous wrote:

The Ottoman Empire entered World War I (1914–18) on the side of the Central Powers and was ultimately defeated. During the war, major atrocities were committed by the Ottoman government against the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks.[14] Following WWI, the huge conglomeration of territories and peoples that formerly comprised the Ottoman Empire was divided into several new states.[15] The Turkish War of Independence (1919–22), initiated by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and his colleagues in Anatolia, resulted in the establishment of the modern Republic of Turkey in 1923, with Atatürk as its first president.

they went from a monarchy Caliphate to a Secular democracy.. Modern Britain has far more in common with Colonial Britain than Modern Turkey has with the Ottoman empire.

The Ottoman Empire Fell and there was civil war and Major socio political change, Why should modern Turks be responsible for something done while they still had a Monarch?  
the UK doesn't take responsibility and it still has a monarchy...

Exactly... HOW can the Armenians get justice off someone that is dead?
If you think modern Turks should pay recompense than the UK should too even more so as it has continuation from the period it committed the crimes

Who gives a shit about the above you dipshit?
Again that is like arguing the Nazi's have come and gone and we should not bother remembering the holocaust even though it was carried out in the main by Germans.
Seriously stop making yourself look an idiot.
The modern Turks should for s start recognise this as an attrocity and it proves that you are an appeaser now to genocide trying to deny this.

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Starving people to death is not genocide?
I beg to differ and its effectiveness worked so well, it brought about the defeat of the Boers.

Anyway to me the first real genocide of the 20th century is in Namibia by the Germans.

Starving people isn't necessarily genocide; at least not in the Rome Convention definition, which takes intent into consideration:

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I'm just not so sure the British intended that in the case of the Boers.

Then it shows how cleuless you are, as the intent was to kill and thus bring the Boers to defeat of which it succeeded.
You do realise over a million people starved to death in the concentration camps by the Nazi's, are you going to claim that is not genocide?

Certainly not, since Hitler wanted Jews gone. Did the British want to wipe Boers off this planet, or did they just use a cruel method to win a war?

Mind you, I'm not necessarily even saying what was done to the Boers was NOT a genocide -- I just think it's harder to make a cut-and-dry argument that it was.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Then it shows how cleuless you are, as the intent was to kill and thus bring the Boers to defeat of which it succeeded.
You do realise over a million people starved to death in the concentration camps by the Nazi's, are you going to claim that is not genocide?

Certainly not, since Hitler wanted Jews gone. Did the British want to wipe Boers off this planet, or did they just use a cruel method to win a war?

Mind you, I'm not necessarily even saying what was done to the Boers was NOT a genocide -- I just think it's harder to make a cut-and-dry argument that it was.

I made the view that it can be argued that it is, hence why if you read my first post this is very clear. Again you even provided the evidence for it:

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;


This clearly was British policy in the Second Boer war, where they used a scorched earth policy and rounded up the women and children in the most appalling conditions.
The intent was the destruction as the Boers as a postential threat anymore. Genocide was the outcome of these measures.