[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by voodoo:
...

Language, history, religion etc allowed us to integrate fast and well into the modern European country Spain is today.

Turkey has been a 'democracy' for almost a century now. We made mode progress in 2 years than they've done in all that time. We have in fact much more in common with the East European countries, because they share the culture and desire and the capacity to develop fast into modern European countries like Spain did. Turkey has shown nothing of the sort.

You are living in some fantasy world when it comes to Turkey.

If you take a look at the other 10 countries that have recently joined or will join the EU, in particular Romania, Bulgaria, then I can't help but think that there is a double standard. Turkey is far, far ahead of those countries and their joining the EU didn't cause a stir like this.

Maybe you know better about Spain, but I don't think this is true of MOE and SOE countries. What you call capacity to develop into modern European countries does not exist as you wish to perceive it. Even under the best circumstances imaginable (the unification of East and West Germany), democratic traditions needs at least two generations. But in those countries, people do not have a rich neighbor that can improve the living conditions by thirty years or so.

Another thing that Spain and Turkey have, but those countries don't: an own national identity. Just take a look at Poland: they are starting to discover it now. Communism has suppressed that development.

Mostly the arguments boil down to what you mentioned: religion. It's none of the other stuff. Some mention the territorial conflicts about the Kurds and Cyprus. Britain has such a conflict in its own backyard: Northern Ireland. Some quote that until recently, cheating on a husband/wife was a crime. This is also true of Germany until the 60s and 38 (38 I believe) US states even today.

I don't mind when people say that strict criteria are to be met, as long as they are the same, regardless of language, culture and religion.

(Just an interesting remark: there are countries in the EU whose language has nothing to do with our own: Finnish and Hungarian for instance --and Turkish (some scientist claim they are related).)

[undotwa]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Hmmm, don't get me wrong, but this is how Hitler came to power, too. He was preferred to a communist revolution.

By your argument, Franco is a `good dictator', because some of the things he did benefitted the country? Because he was no communist? He kept Spain from becoming a democracy and he would have preferred if things would have stayed this way (Franco thought his successor would continue the road he walked all along).

People that stand it the way of democratic reforms deserve no praise.

Franco was 'comparatively' good. Were the communists to have taken over, there would have been no 'Spanish Miracle' in the 1950s. Spain would have never received the much needed aid and trade from the United States were it not for Franco. Franco had 'reasonable' economic policies and transformed Spain into a functioning capitalistic society; and the capitalistic society he built was ripe for democratic reforms under Jaun Carlos. The Catholic Church would have been utterly destroyed (at least persecuted) by the Republicans; as the Orthodox church was in Russia.

Originally posted by voodoo:
It was a lose / lose situation in many ways I fear

He was the lesser of two evils.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Not much to be proud of there- besides fighting off occupiers and their oppression, Spain ended up eliminating most of the Jewish population at the same time. There is the centuries-old synagogue in Toledo with the one lone Jew left tending to it. I visited him in 1992. The lack of population in what was once a vibrant community in Spain is pretty representative of the leftovers of the Inquisition even 500 years on.

The Inquisition was, from some perspectives, not incredibly dissimilar from later European acts of 'liquidation.' Spain at least left converts alive, for the most part. Spain, controlling Sicily and Sardinia, expelled Jews from those territories rather than killing them outright. Portugal, Italy (Rome specifically), and Crete were safe Havens. France invades Italy in 1494 and expels Jews from Florence and Tuscany, and in 1495 takes over Naples and expels Jews that it had taken in as refugees from the Inquisition. 1510 rolls around and King Ferdinand takes Rome and expels Jews again.

No, I wouldn't use the Inquisition to present a positive case- it dealt with the occupiers and then managed to go on with the kicking around of and oppression of natives who'd been there for centuries.

Very sad years indeed As Pope John Paul II said about us Catholics "We are all spiritually Jews"; how could we persecute our kin? We share the same heritage and consider ourselves the successors of Israel (12 apostles - 12 tribes of Israel etc.).... Shameful years.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
If you take a look at the other 10 countries that have recently joined or will join the EU, in particular Romania, Bulgaria, then I can't help but think that there is a double standard. Turkey is far, far ahead of those countries and their joining the EU didn't cause a stir like this.

I believe allowing too many underdeveloped countries in the EU would stretch budgets and destablize the institution. Perhaps one day the EU could safely include Turkey but I think really the institution is not ready. I even think half of those newly joined Eastern European countries shouldn't have joined the EU IMHO.

Another thing that Spain and Turkey have, but those countries don't: an own national identity. Just take a look at Poland: they are starting to discover it now. Communism has suppressed that development.

Poland always had a very strong national identity. For the Poles though it was always since the 18th century a struggle against its domineering and suppressive neighbours. How the Poles longed for Napoleon, their supposed liberator from the Russians. But Poles have always looked upon important nationalistic events such as the constitution of 1812 (the first in Europe I believe) with great sentiment and emotion even during the communist era. The poles never lost their nationalistic sentiments; fervent Catholicism was always a defining aspect of Polishness separating them from the Lutheran Germans and Orthodox Russians and thus despite the suppression of the church during the communist era religiosity grew. How could the polish people 'discover' nationalism when it was already a central part of their being and kept them going while during the dark years of communism as they dreamt of mother Poland stretching from sea to sea again?

(Just an interesting remark: there are countries in the EU whose language has nothing to do with our own: Finnish and Hungarian for instance --and Turkish (some scientist claim they are related).)

Didn't the Turks come from the east where the Huns resided and then migrate to Anatolia? That would explain the possible correlation between Hungarian and Turkish.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Not much to be proud of there- besides fighting off occupiers and their oppression, Spain ended up eliminating most of the Jewish population at the same time. There is the centuries-old synagogue in Toledo with the one lone Jew left tending to it. I visited him in 1992. The lack of population in what was once a vibrant community in Spain is pretty representative of the leftovers of the Inquisition even 500 years on.

The Inquisition was, from some perspectives, not incredibly dissimilar from later European acts of 'liquidation.' Spain at least left converts alive, for the most part. Spain, controlling Sicily and Sardinia, expelled Jews from those territories rather than killing them outright. Portugal, Italy (Rome specifically), and Crete were safe Havens. France invades Italy in 1494 and expels Jews from Florence and Tuscany, and in 1495 takes over Naples and expels Jews that it had taken in as refugees from the Inquisition. 1510 rolls around and King Ferdinand takes Rome and expels Jews again.

No, I wouldn't use the Inquisition to present a positive case- it dealt with the occupiers and then managed to go on with the kicking around of and oppression of natives who'd been there for centuries.

Yes vmarks, it was unfortunate since the Jewish population living in Spain at the time weren't occupiers. They didn't deserve to be deported like the Muslims. However queen Isabel's vision of a unified Christian Spain was unflinching. If the Muslims or Jews converted to Christianity they were spared and could live their lives in Spain as before. Comparing this to other more organized anti-Jewish ethnic cleansings is comparing apples to oranges. The discrimination was equal no matter your religion as long as it wasn't Christianity. I don't know what you are trying to claim about the Spanish Inquisition..? Rather open ended comment there from you. In fact I don't know what your point was, except a nice story about the synagogue in Toledo. There was a Jewish expulsion from Spain in late 15th century/early 16th century as well as Muslim expulsion and heretics, yes. Those who converted could stay and live their lives as before. This wasn't racism.

The Inquisition was very very different from any sort of ethnic cleansers. I don't think you know the history of the Spanish Inquisition or you just like to make blanket statements for the ignorant. The difference lies in the targets, the methods, the execution and the purpose. I suggest you take that comment you made about the Spanish Inquisition back.

Originally posted by undotwa

He was the lesser of two evils.

Yep, that's what I call a lose/lose situation. When there is no non-evil choice.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Very sad years indeed As Pope John Paul II said about us Catholics "We are all spiritually Jews"; how could we persecute our kin? We share the same heritage and consider ourselves the successors of Israel (12 apostles - 12 tribes of Israel etc.).... Shameful years.

Sad, yes but only against the Jews? No. Not at all.

The Kingdom of Spain had the full co-operation of the Catholic church to make Spain one country united under Christianity.

There are many atrocities that have been committed against members of all religions through the ages. Christians have sufferd greatly as well. For instance when Turks tried to wipe Armenians out, a Christian nation. That is something they have to face, admit, and take responsibility for before the EU can even take a second look at Turkey. I sympathize with the Jews that suffered like I do with everyone who suffer, but I'm not ready to let that blur the fact that Turkey is a nation that has committed recent genocide of Christians besides all their other many many faults.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by undotwa:
I believe allowing too many underdeveloped countries in the EU would stretch budgets and destablize the institution. Perhaps one day the EU could safely include Turkey but I think really the institution is not ready. I even think half of those newly joined Eastern European countries shouldn't have joined the EU IMHO.

Well, ok, but if you compare Turkey to the top-5 even, it has pretty good chances of meeting the standards set by the EC.

Originally posted by undotwa:
Poland always had a very strong national identity. For the Poles though it was always since the 18th century a struggle against its domineering and suppressive neighbours. How the Poles longed for Napoleon, their supposed liberator from the Russians. But Poles have always looked upon important nationalistic events such as the constitution of 1812 (the first in Europe I believe) with great sentiment and emotion even during the communist era. The poles never lost their nationalistic sentiments; fervent Catholicism was always a defining aspect of Polishness separating them from the Lutheran Germans and Orthodox Russians and thus despite the suppression of the church during the communist era religiosity grew. How could the polish people 'discover' nationalism when it was already a central part of their being and kept them going while during the dark years of communism as they dreamt of mother Poland stretching from sea to sea again?

Yes and no. The Polish question is not who but where. Where is Poland? It's been a playball of the superpowers for hundreds of years. That's why Polish are used to having a resistance and a rather peculiar attitude about things.

In this sense, the Polish have yet to find an equilibrium with their nationalism.

Originally posted by undotwa:
Didn't the Turks come from the east where the Huns resided and then migrate to Anatolia? That would explain the possible correlation between Hungarian and Turkish.

Yes, Finnish, Hungarian, Turkish, and even Japanese are thought to be related.

[Sven G]

Actually, if the anarchists of CNT-FAI had "won" in the Spanish civil war, we would probably have a much better society than both capitalism and "communism" could have provided (probably: nothing is sure). It's sad that you guys try to justify dictatorship, anyway: there indeed was a non-evil solution, but it wasn't even considered - because a self-managed society was equally unthinkable both for the capitalists and the "communists" (both accept dictatorship, when there's no other way to maintain their status quo). The free spirit of those times, anyway, probably lives on in the relative self-determination (even if in a capitalistic context, of course) of many regions in Spain, as I previously said. IMHO, of course...

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Yes vmarks, it was unfortunate since the Jewish population living in Spain at the time weren't occupiers. They didn't deserve to be deported like the Muslims. However queen Isabel's vision of a unified Christian Spain was unflinching. If the Muslims or Jews converted to Christianity they were spared and could live their lives in Spain as before. Comparing this to other more organized anti-Jewish ethnic cleansings is comparing apples to oranges. The discrimination was equal no matter your religion as long as it wasn't Christianity. I don't know what you are trying to claim about the Spanish Inquisition..? Rather open ended comment there from you. In fact I don't know what your point was, except a nice story about the synagogue in Toledo. There was a Jewish expulsion from Spain in late 15th century/early 16th century as well as Muslim expulsion and heretics, yes. Those who converted could stay and live their lives as before. This wasn't racism.

The Inquisition was very very different from any sort of ethnic cleansers. I don't think you know the history of the Spanish Inquisition or you just like to make blanket statements for the ignorant. The difference lies in the targets, the methods, the execution and the purpose. I suggest you take that comment you made about the Spanish Inquisition back.

...

So Jews and Muslims were equally persecuted was a good point?

The Inquisition was religious cleansing which (at least in my opinion) is just as bad. It is probably the darkest chapter of Catholicism (together with the Christianization of the colonies).

I also find your comment (`They didn't deserve to be deported like the Muslims.') pretty racist. Why did the Muslims (back then) deserve to be deported and the Jews didn't? Both lived there, had built their houses of God, etc.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Franco was 'comparatively' good. Were the communists to have taken over, there would have been no 'Spanish Miracle' in the 1950s. Spain would have never received the much needed aid and trade from the United States were it not for Franco. Franco had 'reasonable' economic policies and transformed Spain into a functioning capitalistic society; and the capitalistic society he built was ripe for democratic reforms under Jaun Carlos. The Catholic Church would have been utterly destroyed (at least persecuted) by the Republicans; as the Orthodox church was in Russia.

He was the lesser of two evils.

Again, I don't think this is a statement to be made about a dictator. Communism collapsed from within, even if Spain would have become a communist country, it would just have been a different flavor of dictatorship.

Spain was ready for democratic reform much earlier, to say that a `good' dictatorship is better than a `bad' democracy, I just have to shake my head in disbelief.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Sad, yes but only against the Jews? No. Not at all.

I know other groups were persecuted, but I have a special affinity with the Jews which is why I make special reference to it. My grandfather was a Polish Jew who fled from Poland to Shanghai (through Russia) just before World War II.

The Kingdom of Spain had the full co-operation of the Catholic church to make Spain one country united under Christianity.

That's quite a strong statement. Perhaps in practice much of the Catholic Church in Spain supported Ferdinand and Isabel, but throughout much of the world they were looked on with disfavour. Doctrinally, what they were doing was in disaccordance with Catholic teaching.

In a way you can see why the Spanish behaved as they did (though nothing justifies evil) having been subjected to the domination of the Moors for hundreds of years. In a way, it was like revenge.

There are many atrocities that have been committed against members of all religions through the ages. Christians have sufferd greatly as well. For instance when Turks tried to wipe Armenians out, a Christian nation. That is something they have to face, admit, and take responsibility for before the EU can even take a second look at Turkey. I sympathize with the Jews that suffered like I do with everyone who suffer, but I'm not ready to let that blur the fact that Turkey is a nation that has committed recent genocide of Christians besides all their other many many faults.

True words.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Again, I don't think this is a statement to be made about a dictator. Communism collapsed from within, even if Spain would have become a communist country, it would just have been a different flavor of dictatorship.

Spain was ready for democratic reform much earlier, to say that a `good' dictatorship is better than a `bad' democracy, I just have to shake my head in disbelief.

If Spain became communist it would be in a no better state today than some of the poorest eastern countries. Do you know what kind of country Franco took over? Spain was extremely poor; underdeveloped; a backwater.

Franco deserves a little credit, though he also deserves much criticism for his hideous crimes against humanity.

The republican government that opposed Franco was Communist and very anti-Clerical. I don't see how they would have been any better, considering their appauling track record when they were in power.

Why can't I praise a dictator where praise is due as I can criticise a dictator where criticism is due?

[LiquidSnake]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
If you take a look at the other 10 countries that have recently joined or will join the EU, in particular Romania, Bulgaria, then I can't help but think that there is a double standard. Turkey is far, far ahead of those countries and their joining the EU didn't cause a stir like this.

Maybe you know better about Spain, but I don't think this is true of MOE and SOE countries. What you call capacity to develop into modern European countries does not exist as you wish to perceive it. Even under the best circumstances imaginable (the unification of East and West Germany), democratic traditions needs at least two generations. But in those countries, people do not have a rich neighbor that can improve the living conditions by thirty years or so.

Another thing that Spain and Turkey have, but those countries don't: an own national identity. Just take a look at Poland: they are starting to discover it now. Communism has suppressed that development.

Mostly the arguments boil down to what you mentioned: religion. It's none of the other stuff. Some mention the territorial conflicts about the Kurds and Cyprus. Britain has such a conflict in its own backyard: Northern Ireland. Some quote that until recently, cheating on a husband/wife was a crime. This is also true of Germany until the 60s and 38 (38 I believe) US states even today.

I don't mind when people say that strict criteria are to be met, as long as they are the same, regardless of language, culture and religion.

(Just an interesting remark: there are countries in the EU whose language has nothing to do with our own: Finnish and Hungarian for instance --and Turkish (some scientist claim they are related).)

Agreed %100
Btw: As a side note : Funny..Arab world and lots of other muslim countrys thinks that we are not real muslims .
And it is called Istanbul since 1457

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by undotwa:
If Spain became communist it would be in a no better state today than some of the poorest eastern countries. Do you know what kind of country Franco took over? Spain was extremely poor; underdeveloped; a backwater.

Franco deserves a little credit, though he also deserves much criticism for his hideous crimes against humanity.

The republican government that opposed Franco was Communist and very anti-Clerical. I don't see how they would have been any better, considering their appauling track record when they were in power.

Why can't I praise a dictator where praise is due as I can criticise a dictator where criticism is due?

I'm German, so you will understand that I don't like praising dictators (even if they invented jet engines, the autobahn, the rocket/missile).

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I'm German, so you will understand that I don't like praising dictators (even if they invented jet engines, the autobahn, the rocket/missile).

in all honesty, hitler never 'invented' anything! he and franco, just like pinochet, suharto, hussein, mussolini etc. were total trash. period.

there is nothing 'good' about dictatorships, - ever!

ot: turkey is far from being a dictatorship, but they have got some serious issues to iron out (torture in prisons, the armenian genocide, treatment of women etc.) i think 20 years is enough time to get things right though.

i'm with you on the whole deal about romania and bulgaria being even worse when it comes to meeting any sort of criteria to join a SECULAR political union. what's even worse than that though, is that the scum now gets to travel unchecked. (no, not all of them are, BUT VERY MANY!) we'll see what will come of this.

...plus, if we ever have to fight a war again (which i certainly hope we won't ever will), i'd rather have the turks on our side (i learned that in high-school )

[Sven G]

... The fact that, partly, some forms of technology have progressed also due to the military, to dictators, to over-ambitious businessmen and so on is, in effect, a worrying fact. Hopefully, we'll be able to let science and technology advance - probably in a much more powerful way than today! - with other, more human motivations, as has also happened and continually happens in parallel (but not enough), both in the past and present.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
in all honesty, hitler never 'invented' anything! he and franco, just like pinochet, suharto, hussein, mussolini etc. were total --I do not have a large enough vocabulary for polite company. period.

there is nothing 'good' about dictatorships, - ever!

ot: turkey is far from being a dictatorship, but they have got some serious issues to iron out (torture in prisons, the armenian genocide, treatment of women etc.) i think 20 years is enough time to get things right though.

i'm with you on the whole deal about romania and bulgaria being even worse when it comes to meeting any sort of criteria to join a SECULAR political union. what's even worse than that though, is that the scum now gets to travel unchecked. (no, not all of them are, BUT VERY MANY!) we'll see what will come of this.

...plus, if we ever have to fight a war again (which i certainly hope we won't ever will), i'd rather have the turks on our side (i learned that in high-school )

Then we agree that a dictatorship is the worst option (my examples were exactly along those lines), economic or technological achievements don't change that.

[iBabo]

Originally posted by LiquidSnake:
undotwa :
"If you need the defination of the word Genocide look: Hitler.

well why dont we look at where hitler got his idea about genocide from?

"who, after all, speaks today of the anhiliation of the armenians?"
-Adolf Hitler August 22 1939

wow, it looks like the armenian genocide was inspiration to hitler. the actions of the turks from 1915-1923 against the armenians taught hitler that he could commit a genocide and get away with it, just as the turks have gotten away with the armenian genocide.

Raphael Lemkin coined the word "genocide". in his definition he specifically reffered to the armenian massacres, as to what a genocide is.

As long as the government of Turkey is activly denying the armenian genocide, it has no place in the european union. as a european citizen of armenian decent (living in california.. go figure), that is my opinion.

Turkey is currently occupying western armenia. it also has a total blockade against the present republic of armenia.

so you turks can deny it as much as you want, but you will lose. eastern turkey is western armenia. go look in a map. Ani, Kars, Ardahan, Diarbekir, Adana, Sis, Sasoon, Van, Mount Ararat. these are all armenian. you may be temporarly occupying it, but believe me when i tell you it is temporary.
what other european nation has a total blockade on a landlocked country? what other european nation is activly denying an atrocity like a genocide. sure, hitler commited genocide, but germany to this day is paying for it, and no one denies it ever happened. how can you turks have the nerve to acctually question the armenian genocide?!
only once turkey has recognized the armenian genocide, and payed the price of such a crime, can it start even thinking about becoming a truly european country.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by iBabo:
well why dont we look at where hitler got his idea about genocide from?

"who, after all, speaks today of the anhiliation of the armenians?"
-Adolf Hitler August 22 1939

wow, it looks like the armenian genocide was inspiration to hitler. the actions of the turks from 1915-1923 against the armenians taught hitler that he could commit a genocide and get away with it, just as the turks have gotten away with the armenian genocide.

Raphael Lemkin coined the word "genocide". in his definition he specifically reffered to the armenian massacres, as to what a genocide is.

As long as the government of Turkey is activly denying the armenian genocide, it has no place in the european union. as a european citizen of armenian decent (living in california.. go figure), that is my opinion.

Turkey is currently occupying western armenia. it also has a total blockade against the present republic of armenia.

so you turks can deny it as much as you want, but you will lose. eastern turkey is western armenia. go look in a map. Ani, Kars, Ardahan, Diarbekir, Adana, Sis, Sasoon, Van, Mount Ararat. these are all armenian. you may be temporarly occupying it, but believe me when i tell you it is temporary.
what other european nation has a total blockade on a landlocked country? what other european nation is activly denying an atrocity like a genocide. sure, hitler commited genocide, but germany to this day is paying for it, and no one denies it ever happened. how can you turks have the nerve to acctually question the armenian genocide?!
only once turkey has recognized the armenian genocide, and payed the price of such a crime, can it start even thinking about becoming a truly european country.

Hitler's idea of the eradication of all minor races (such as Jews, gays, gipsies, disabled, etc.) comes from a French, I don't remember the name, though.

Turkey still has a long to-do list, but I wouldn't say that all of the points you mentioned are posing a barrier that cannot be overcome. Japan has never apologized really for its atrocities during WW2 (the closest thing was an `I'm sorry what happened till 1945.' in the 80s).

Plus, I think Turkey will be an integral part of the security strategy of the EU. It's an associated partner which means it's already a quasi member, as it enjoys many of the privileges of a full-fledged EU membership.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by LiquidSnake:
Agreed %100
Btw: As a side note : Funny..Arab world and lots of other muslim countrys thinks that we are not real muslims .
And it is called Istanbul since 1457

From wikipedia: (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul)

"Only on March 28, 1930, was the city officially renamed Istanbul."

[undotwa]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
in all honesty, hitler never 'invented' anything! he and franco, just like pinochet, suharto, hussein, mussolini etc. were total --I do not have a large enough vocabulary for polite company. period.

there is nothing 'good' about dictatorships, - ever!

ot: turkey is far from being a dictatorship, but they have got some serious issues to iron out (torture in prisons, the armenian genocide, treatment of women etc.) i think 20 years is enough time to get things right though.

i'm with you on the whole deal about romania and bulgaria being even worse when it comes to meeting any sort of criteria to join a SECULAR political union. what's even worse than that though, is that the scum now gets to travel unchecked. (no, not all of them are, BUT VERY MANY!) we'll see what will come of this.

...plus, if we ever have to fight a war again (which i certainly hope we won't ever will), i'd rather have the turks on our side (i learned that in high-school )

Franco and Mussolini are not on the same catagory as hitler. I myself am no fan of dictatorships, but sometimes when faced with the two parties which Spain was presented with, you have to be a bit utilitarian and pick the lesser of two evils. Democratic governments can't just come out of thin air. What would have happened to Spain if the Trotskyist republicans took over? Mass murderings of clergy, religious, and class warfare would have been very likely (like they had already been doing!).

[undotwa]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I'm German, so you will understand that I don't like praising dictators (even if they invented jet engines, the autobahn, the rocket/missile).

Give 'em praise where its due. To be honest, I cannot offer much praise for Franco, but there are some good things he has done especially during the 50s, 60s.

[iBabo]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Hitler's idea of the eradication of all minor races (such as Jews, gays, gipsies, disabled, etc.) comes from a French, I don't remember the name, though.

dude, i gave you a direct quote from hitler stating that he had the armenian genocide in mind as a precedent for the holocaust. how can you even argue that?! the only argument you can possibly have is to question the legitimacy of the quote, which i assure you is legitimate as a simple search on google will show you.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Mass murderings of clergy, religious, and class warfare would have been very likely (like they had already been doing!).

what happened when franco took over? mass murderings of dissidents on the left and other political opponents!

all perspective.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
what happened when franco took over? mass murderings of dissidents on the left and other political opponents!

all perspective.

I'm not saying that Franco was the nicest of men. I'm just pointing out on the respect for human life front: the opposition was no better. Franco though did turn Spain around economically, and 'civilised' himself later on. The Communists would have never been able to do that, only let Spain deteriorate economically like all of Eastern Europe.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by undotwa:
I'm not saying that Franco was the nicest of men. I'm just pointing out on the respect for human life front: the opposition was no better. Franco though did turn Spain around economically...

well the same could be said for hitler then. do you have any idea how much "some people's" lives improved after the nsdap took over? millions of people all of a sudden had food, shelter and a job (not to mention a purpose in life)...it just sucked for teh joooooz and anybody who wasn't a white aryan nazi fu<k.

sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water, and my claim still stands. franco, just like hitler, was a despicable tyrant, and wether the communists would have succeeded or not, we'll never know (though communist dictators like stalin weren't any better than their counterparts from the right, of course)

[undotwa]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
well the same could be said for hitler then. do you have any idea how much "some people's" lives improved after the nsdap took over? millions of people all of a sudden had food, shelter and a job (not to mention a purpose in life)...it just sucked for teh joooooz and anybody who wasn't a white aryan nazi fu<k.

sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water, and my claim still stands. franco, just like hitler, was a despicable tyrant, and wether the communists would have succeeded or not, we'll never know (though communist dictators like stalin weren't any better than their counterparts from the right, of course)

Franco is in no way comparable to Hitler! Franco did not commit genocide or have concentration camps! Franco killed many of his opponents however, AS WOULD HAVE THE OPPOSITION. That doesn't justify anything though. But the fact of the matter is: Franco did do some good, which in order to be fair minded individuals have to praise him for what good he did (securing relations with the west, developing Spain's economy). If we only point at the evil someone does we aren't being balanced minded.

The communists were in power at one stage and they were violent and did execute clergy, persecute the aristocracy etc.

[LiquidSnake]

Originally posted by iBabo:
well why dont we look at where hitler got his idea about genocide from?

"who, after all, speaks today of the anhiliation of the armenians?"
-Adolf Hitler August 22 1939

wow, it looks like the armenian genocide was inspiration to hitler. the actions of the turks from 1915-1923 against the armenians taught hitler that he could commit a genocide and get away with it, just as the turks have gotten away with the armenian genocide.

Raphael Lemkin coined the word "genocide". in his definition he specifically reffered to the armenian massacres, as to what a genocide is.

As long as the government of Turkey is activly denying the armenian genocide, it has no place in the european union. as a european citizen of armenian decent (living in california.. go figure), that is my opinion.

Turkey is currently occupying western armenia. it also has a total blockade against the present republic of armenia.

so you turks can deny it as much as you want, but you will lose. eastern turkey is western armenia. go look in a map. Ani, Kars, Ardahan, Diarbekir, Adana, Sis, Sasoon, Van, Mount Ararat. these are all armenian. you may be temporarly occupying it, but believe me when i tell you it is temporary.
what other european nation has a total blockade on a landlocked country? what other european nation is activly denying an atrocity like a genocide. sure, hitler commited genocide, but germany to this day is paying for it, and no one denies it ever happened. how can you turks have the nerve to acctually question the armenian genocide?!
only once turkey has recognized the armenian genocide, and payed the price of such a crime, can it start even thinking about becoming a truly european country.

First : Happy new year to all

Have you ever been in Turkey? Will you please answer a simple question? Where is the 1.5 million people?This number is huge:1.5 million.You cant buried them all&we never have the Hitler's gas chambers or the places that people are burned.Actually at that time period maybe we dont have 1.5 million bullets and it is not a joke.There is allways two sides of the storys.I can tell you the 'our side' of the story if you wish to read.As i said in my earlier posts :This is a fact of bad politics.Long story short version :There is something happened
at that time and people get killed from the both sides.And it is not a genocide.The politicians messed up everything.
I simply dont understand : 'eastern turkey is western armenia' ?Ok then most of the world belongs to the Alexander the great.And he is a Macedon so everywhere in the Asia&most of the Europa&middle east belongs to Macedons.Is that logical? It is funny and ironic beacuse Kurds states that area belongs to them.But it is our country and it belongs only to Turkish citizens that carries Turkish identities no matter their religion or roots.Jews,Muslims,Armenians or Kurds if they are a Turkish citizen then that lands belongs to them not other countrys.It is very simple.
Turks are Turks.We are not Arab's not Asian's not European's.We fight for this land in every century just look at the world war I . Against Russia,England,France,Australia,Greece nearly all the Arabia and lot's of other countrys.And every inch of the countrys land is sprinkled with blood of Turkish citizens.

[y0y0]

Having lived and worked in Turkey (nasilsin, liquidsnake! Istanbuldan misin?), I think I should add some words to this somewhat weird debate.

Turkey is not an Arab country, for one. I think we can all agree on that. Nominally, it IS a European country in that a part of the country is on the European continent. We can agree on that also.

BUT, is Turkey a "European" country on a social and political level? That is the question, I think everyone is asking really.

It's a good question. I would qualify that question by asking: What is a "European" country? Is Europe a club of rich, liberal, Christian countries? Is Europe a unified entity? Is Europe a union of democratic countries? What exactly defines Europe?

If we take a look at the EU, we see that there are people who want more integration, and people who want less integration, basically those known as the Eurosceptics, such as Sherwin. The latter are possibly the majority in the UK, and at least large minorities in Denmark, Sweden and even France these days. The reasons for being against closer integration are anything but unified however. In the UK, I would suspect that it has to do with the fact that many there fear the loss of national sovreignty and fear that more integration would wreck the UK economy and tradition. In Denmark, it's mainly based on economic grounds. In france it's that people there simply fear even more nominal Muslims integrating into the EU, as France has the largest Muslim population of any European country.

Now, amongst all these countries, the EU defines a certain set of economic and democratic standards that all countries are supposed to meet. However, not even that is true, strictly speaking. Both France and Germany have larger deficits than allowed and Greece cheated in its accounting practices to be able to join the Eurozone a few years ago. So that can't be the standard to set for Turkey (although I suspect it will).

And all countries, in the Eurozone or outside, have problems, be they economic or otherwise. The NHS is an example in the UK. And many European countries have had dictatorships in their recent past: Greece had one up until 1974, Spain until 1975 and Portugal until 1974. And many European countries have had atrocious human rights records in the near past, and some of them have atoned and made amends for them, such as Germany, which has spent the last 55 years making amends and learning about how bad the Nazis were, or the UK, with its conduct in Ireland, for which it has not made amends, or France, with its colonial wars in Algeria, for which it has only half heartedly atoned, or Italy, or Spain,, or Greece's civil war.

Europe's human rights record in the past is nothing to write home about so to speak.

You may say, "But Turkey exterminated the Armenians". Well, I would say, they most probably did, and it was genocide by anybody's standards. BUT, that was in the midst of the first world war (1915) and the Ottoman Empire was falling apart. The Armenians had rebelled against the Turks and Turkey was on the side of Germany and Austria-Hungary in that war and was worried that the Russians would gain Turkish territory due to the Armenian rebellion. Modern Turkey was only founded after that episode, in 1923.

Not only that, but the German Empire killed off an entire people in German South West Africa in 1905, the Herrero rebellion, for which Germany, while apologising verbally, has not made any other atonements.

And what about the British concentration camps in South Africa during the Anglo-Boer war (1899-1902) where thousands of Boer civilians died?

Well, ok, but what about the Turkish civil war against the Kurds, which, while quiet these days, cost about 30 000 Kurds their lives in the 80's and 90's? Well, to that I can only again point to Spanish treatment of the Basques under Franco, and the UK's shoddy treatment of the Irish in Northern Ireland or the French hanging on to Corsica although a large majority of Corsicans would want independance, or Croatia, an EU candidate, engaging in ethnic cleansing in the Bosnia war in the 90's.

So what, really, does make Turkey all that different? Is it the military's role in Turkish politics, which is unique, or Turkey's role in invading Cyprus in 1974, or is it some fundamental Turkish cultural trait, or is Turkey some backward muslim country where women wear veils and get killed for screwing around?

From my time in Turkey, I can only say that if there is a trait in Turkey which is undeniably Turkish, it is stubborness. I know of really no other nation where the trait of charging against a brick wall with one's head is so highly valued. In Turkey, traditionally, it is actually expected that kids rebell against the parents. The parents, aprticularly the father, will put up a huge fight over the kid's rebellion, but secretly be enormously proud of the kid. It's like a kind of training where the kid learns to assert itself in later life.

Another Turkish trait is a very stong nationalism and pride in the Turkish republic. Turks, generally, see any criticism of the republic as being taboo. This also makes the climate for anyone who wants an independant Kurdish country, extremely difficult.

Remember, Turkey was a huge empire for over 600 years, longer than any other in western history. Modern day Turkey is a tiny remanent of what was once the Empire. The Turkish army is seen by Turks as the guarantor of the Turkish nation. It had an official role as that through most of modern Turkey's history. It took power a number of times when Turkey was on the brink of chaos and civil war, and each time, after order was restored, gave power back to a civillian government on its own accord.

That Turkey is chaotic is also anything but a surprise to anyone who knows a bit about the demographics and culture of the country. In Turkey you have far right wing facists, such as the Grey wolves, and far left wing marxists, such as the the Devsol movement. Turkish stubborness means that people will stick to their opinions no matter what. Fighting between these two groups is what prompted the military to take power a number of times. The military is also the guarantor in Turkey of the secular nature of the country. They forced the last muslim party out of the government, because they saw the nature of the state being challenged. They are, however, reducing their role because the EU candidacy requires it.

In Turkey you will find women in headscarves in the countryside and women in really sexy bikinis on the coast. You will find that Turkey has a law similar to the one in France, where women are forbidden to wear the headscarves in university and parliment. You will find a large women's liberation movement demonstrating in the streets of Istanbul in jeans and t-shirts and you will hear of women being killed by their husbands for being unfaithful or being beaten for no reason. You will read about a muslim sect, called Alawites, which are so European in their outlook, that they drink alcohol and don't even worship in Mosques, but in houses called Cemevler (Heaven houses literally). They form about 10% of the population. In Turkey, you can sit and have a beer with your Turkish friend while next door the Muezzin's call is broadcast through shitty speakers to the village.

When I was in Turkey, Kurdish was a forbidden language. These days, Turkey has a Kurdish political party and Kurdish broadcasts, mainly due to the EU candidacy, although many Turks eye these developments with suspicion. At the same time, I knew Greeks and Armenians who spoke their languages and no one cared.

Turkey is also incredibly corrupt. This is one of the reasons why the Muslim reform parties are popular politically, as they are seen as less corrupt.

But, given that Greece cheated the whole EU by lying about its defecit in 1999 in order to join the Eurozone, I don't think this is particularly abnormal in that part of the world, given that Romania has a similar record of endemic corruption and is an EU candidate. And what about Bulgaria and Romania, which have a history of suppressing ethnic minorities, especially the Turkish minority in Bulgaria and the Gypsies in Romania, and both are EU candidates, with, as in the case of Turkey, promises of reform before they will join the EU.

So, is it perhaps language then? Given that Turkish, Finnish and Hungarian have more in common with one another grammatically than with other European languages, then I would suppose not.

And it's not the economy either, because Turkey, while poor, is not worse off than Romania or Bulgaria.

No, I think the unwillingness towards Turkey joining the EU is simply the age old racist fear of things one knows little about but for which there is a large amount of hearsay and superstition.

Germans might point to the lack of integration of the Turks in Germany, but Germany has never made it easy for the Turks to integrate, and, despite that, most young Turks in Germany are fairly well integrated today.

Anyway, I apologise for the huge essay and hope it shed some light on the subject.

Yaksamlar, everyone.

[Spheric Harlot]

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Franco is in no way comparable to Hitler! Franco did not commit genocide or have concentration camps! Franco killed many of his opponents however

OMG, i'm sick of hearing this argument. hitler wasn't so terribly unique , and to say hitler and franco are "IN NO WAY" comparable, just because they didn't use "EXACTLY" the same methods is completely ridiculous.

they were both fascist dictators who persecuted and killed their political opponents. there is your comparable.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
OMG, i'm sick of hearing this argument. hitler wasn't so terribly unique , and to say hitler and franco are "IN NO WAY" comparable, just because they didn't use "EXACTLY" the same methods is completely ridiculous.

they were both fascist dictators who persecuted and killed their political opponents. there is your comparable.

Hitler killed millions of people (just in concentration camps; wihout counting the second world war); Franco killed probably a few hundred! (without counting the terrible civil war).

Despite all this: Why can't I praise Franco for what good he did?

I'll also offer some praise to Mussolini: Mussolini protected many German Jews from going to death camps in Germany.

The Fascist leaders were not as violent as the Nazis, nor were they in any shape or form racist. We often unfairly criticize their regimes and comparing them to Nazis when really their ideologies are much different.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Despite all this: Why can't I praise Franco for what good he did?

Just accept that it's a touchy subject and move on, fer Christ's sake.

[iBabo]

Originally posted by LiquidSnake:
First : Happy new year to all

Have you ever been in Turkey? Will you please answer a simple question? Where is the 1.5 million people?This number is huge:1.5 million.You cant buried them all&we never have the Hitler's gas chambers or the places that people are burned.Actually at that time period maybe we dont have 1.5 million bullets and it is not a joke.There is allways two sides of the storys.I can tell you the 'our side' of the story if you wish to read.As i said in my earlier posts :This is a fact of bad politics.Long story short version :There is something happened
at that time and people get killed from the both sides.And it is not a genocide.The politicians messed up everything.
I simply dont understand : 'eastern turkey is western armenia' ?Ok then most of the world belongs to the Alexander the great.And he is a Macedon so everywhere in the Asia&most of the Europa&middle east belongs to Macedons.Is that logical? It is funny and ironic beacuse Kurds states that area belongs to them.But it is our country and it belongs only to Turkish citizens that carries Turkish identities no matter their religion or roots.Jews,Muslims,Armenians or Kurds if they are a Turkish citizen then that lands belongs to them not other countrys.It is very simple.
Turks are Turks.We are not Arab's not Asian's not European's.We fight for this land in every century just look at the world war I . Against Russia,England,France,Australia,Greece nearly all the Arabia and lot's of other countrys.And every inch of the countrys land is sprinkled with blood of Turkish citizens.

most werent killed by bullets... do you think turkey would use bullets to kill the armenians esspecially during WWI when they needed all the bullets they could get? armenians were gathered from their cities and deported. most died on route to the Der-El Zor dessert in present day northern syria. as for the land, alexander the great didnt go around systematically killing innocent women and children. the occupied lands of western armenia are in turkey's hand because and only because they systematically killed/deported the armenians living there. those lands werent aquired by a territorial exchange by armenia and turkey, or by a war between two nations armys.

im sorry, but there are no two sides to a genocide. i wonder what the jews would do if the international community questioned the legitimacy of the holocaust. the holocaust happened it is fact. it is not questioned. same with the armenian genocide. i understand that as a turk you were probably raised in an atmosphere where everyone accuses the armenians of a so called genocide, but some things are just fact. sooner or later you are going to have to face the facts, and pay for the crimes.

as for saying that turkey's lands belong to the turkish citizens, whether they are armenian kurdish, or turkish... that is in direct contridiction with turkish nationalism that gave rise to the present turkish state. it is no secret that turkey's christian and kurdish minorities have been treated as second class citizens, even to this day. so please dont give me or anyone else buIIshit about how turkey is for all turkish citizens.

thank you and happy new year

[y0y0]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Hitler killed millions of people (just in concentration camps; wihout counting the second world war); Franco killed probably a few hundred! (without counting the terrible civil war).

Despite all this: Why can't I praise Franco for what good he did?

I'll also offer some praise to Mussolini: Mussolini protected many German Jews from going to death camps in Germany.

The Fascist leaders were not as violent as the Nazis, nor were they in any shape or form racist. We often unfairly criticize their regimes and comparing them to Nazis when really their ideologies are much different.

You have a love of Facist dictators? France, after having won the civil war, ordered the execution of tens of thousands of captured Republicans and any known regime opponents. In the plains of North Central Spain, there prisoners were at first herded into camps and then machine gunned and buried in mass graves. Many were tortured before they were killed in order to extract information about others.

Life in Spain thereafter was anything but pleasant. Franco ruled very harshly for over 35 years. Any political oposition was forbidden. The regional languages of Basque, Catalan and Galician were suppressed and it was a crime to use them in public.

The topic of Franco's reprisals is still a touchy topic in Spain today, with those who lost family and friends still wanting official recognition of their suffering (which the Socialist goverment agreed to) and those who think that Franco was the last good leader of Spain.

Mussolinis Italy was also anything but pleasant. He ight not have sent the Jews off to Hitler's camps, but he had enough of his own countrymen killed for their trouble. Mussolini treated the farmers and poor peasants particularly badly and his Blackshirts killed many people.

You might have an admiration of right wing facist dictatorships ("The trains ran on time"), but you sure as hell don't know what it's like to live under one.

[y0y0]

Originally posted by iBabo:
most werent killed by bullets... do you think turkey would use bullets to kill the armenians esspecially during WWI when they needed all the bullets they could get? armenians were gathered from their cities and deported. most died on route to the Der-El Zor dessert in present day northern syria. as for the land, alexander the great didnt go around systematically killing innocent women and children. the occupied lands of western armenia are in turkey's hand because and only because they systematically killed/deported the armenians living there. those lands werent aquired by a territorial exchange by armenia and turkey, or by a war between two nations armys.

im sorry, but there are no two sides to a genocide. i wonder what the jews would do if the international community questioned the legitimacy of the holocaust. the holocaust happened it is fact. it is not questioned. same with the armenian genocide. i understand that as a turk you were probably raised in an atmosphere where everyone accuses the armenians of a so called genocide, but some things are just fact. sooner or later you are going to have to face the facts, and pay for the crimes.

as for saying that turkey's lands belong to the turkish citizens, whether they are armenian kurdish, or turkish... that is in direct contridiction with turkish nationalism that gave rise to the present turkish state. it is no secret that turkey's christian and kurdish minorities have been treated as second class citizens, even to this day. so please dont give me or anyone else buIIshit about how turkey is for all turkish citizens.

thank you and happy new year

Hi, Mr. Armenia. I remember you. You're the Armenian living in the US, who wants Turkey today to give up a fifth of its territory to Armenia. It will never happen. Whether Turkey gets into the EU or not. It will never happen.

You may think that France supporting a call to try and force Turkey into admiting it commited genocide against the Armenians will work. It won't. The only reason Chirac is doing that is because he wants the vote of the Armenian community in France and he doesn't really care at all.

As I wrote above, Turkey DID kill between 800 000 and 1500 000 Armenians in 1915. But, as I stated, it was the first world war (1914 to 1918). The Armenians had rebelled against the Turks and the Russians exploited that in order to gain territory from the Ottoman empire. While it doesn't change anything in terms of suffering, it certainly does change the context. Russia was a real problem for Turkey, and, the USSR, which came shortly afterward, did annex rump Armenia into the Armenian SSR.

In fact, given that Armenia is only kept alive these days by financial restitution from the Armenian diaspora and is actually losing population as there's no way for most Armenians to survive in Armenia, it would really be better for the Armenian diaspora, such as you, to worry about keeping the current and extant Armenia alive instead of flogging the dead horse of 1915. Turkey will never, ever, give territory away. Forget it. If you're lucky and Turkey wants to get into the EU enough, they will eventually admit to the genocide, but personally I wouldn't bet on it.

[iBabo]

Originally posted by y0y0:
Hi, Mr. Armenia. I remember you. You're the Armenian living in the US, who wants Turkey today to give up a fifth of its territory to Armenia. It will never happen. Whether Turkey gets into the EU or not. It will never happen.

You may think that France supporting a call to try and force Turkey into admiting it commited genocide against the Armenians will work. It won't. The only reason Chirac is doing that is because he wants the vote of the Armenian community in France and he doesn't really care at all.

As I wrote above, Turkey DID kill between 800 000 and 1500 000 Armenians in 1915. But, as I stated, it was the first world war (1914 to 1918). The Armenians had rebelled against the Turks and the Russians exploited that in order to gain territory from the Ottoman empire. While it doesn't change anything in terms of suffering, it certainly does change the context. Russia was a real problem for Turkey, and, the USSR, which came shortly afterward, did annex rump Armenia into the Armenian SSR.

In fact, given that Armenia is only kept alive these days by financial restitution from the Armenian diaspora and is actually losing population as there's no way for most Armenians to survive in Armenia, it would really be better for the Armenian diaspora, such as you, to worry about keeping the current and extant Armenia alive instead of flogging the dead horse of 1915. Turkey will never, ever, give territory away. Forget it. If you're lucky and Turkey wants to get into the EU enough, they will eventually admit to the genocide, but personally I wouldn't bet on it.

the reason armenia is only "kept alive these days by financial restitution from the diaspora" is because the current borders of armenia cannot sustain an independent armenia. during the soviet union things were different because armenia had acess to the rest of the unions resources. right now, armenia will not survive. the dual and illegal blockade of armenia by turkey and azerbaijan sure isnt helping. no wonder we are losing population. so the demands of getting land back are to sustain a viable and independent armenia.

its not as far fetched of an idea as you may think. as soon as turkey recognizes the genocide, the republic of armenia (along with its network of lobbies throughout the world) will be knocking on the international courts doors demanding reperations, and restitutions. and legally, they will be entitled to them. land may or may not be part of those reperations, but without any reperations, armenia will not survive on its own. turkey knows this threat of reperations is real. that is why they have an active denial campiegn. the governemt spends millions lobbying washington and other nations from recognizing the genocide. they know that eventually they will be cornered into recognizing it, and thats when legally the tables will be turned. btw, the neatherlands, which currently holds the EU presidency just unanomously recognized the armenian genocide and will use it on its agenda during turkeys accession talks.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by y0y0:
You have a love of Facist dictators? France, after having won the civil war, ordered the execution of tens of thousands of captured Republicans and any known regime opponents. In the plains of North Central Spain, there prisoners were at first herded into camps and then machine gunned and buried in mass graves. Many were tortured before they were killed in order to extract information about others.

Life in Spain thereafter was anything but pleasant. Franco ruled very harshly for over 35 years. Any political oposition was forbidden. The regional languages of Basque, Catalan and Galician were suppressed and it was a crime to use them in public.

The topic of Franco's reprisals is still a touchy topic in Spain today, with those who lost family and friends still wanting official recognition of their suffering (which the Socialist goverment agreed to) and those who think that Franco was the last good leader of Spain.

Mussolinis Italy was also anything but pleasant. He ight not have sent the Jews off to Hitler's camps, but he had enough of his own countrymen killed for their trouble. Mussolini treated the farmers and poor peasants particularly badly and his Blackshirts killed many people.

You might have an admiration of right wing facist dictatorships ("The trains ran on time"), but you sure as hell don't know what it's like to live under one.

You aren't getting my point. I'm not exactly sure how I got onto this discussion but I shall recount my sentiments. I am not an admirer of Mussolini or Franco in anyway, I am merely pointing out they have done some good, to truly have an informed opinion one must praise another's strengths as much as their faults should be criticised, as well it is important to look at history in lieu of the times in which these fascists regimes lived. I am not a fascist.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Just accept that it's a touchy subject and move on, fer Christ's sake.

Well you see, I'm a stubborn boy and therefore if someone rebuts my post, I feel obliged to answer it back.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Well you see, I'm a stubborn boy and therefore if someone rebuts my post, I feel obliged to answer it back.

You are not going to get away with praising fascist dictators when discussing the subject with a German, unless said German is a Neo-Nazi.

Period.

[y0y0]

Originally posted by iBabo:
the reason armenia is only "kept alive these days by financial restitution from the diaspora" is because the current borders of armenia cannot sustain an independent armenia. during the soviet union things were different because armenia had acess to the rest of the unions resources. right now, armenia will not survive. the dual and illegal blockade of armenia by turkey and azerbaijan sure isnt helping. no wonder we are losing population. so the demands of getting land back are to sustain a viable and independent armenia.

its not as far fetched of an idea as you may think. as soon as turkey recognizes the genocide, the republic of armenia (along with its network of lobbies throughout the world) will be knocking on the international courts doors demanding reperations, and restitutions. and legally, they will be entitled to them. land may or may not be part of those reperations, but without any reperations, armenia will not survive on its own. turkey knows this threat of reperations is real. that is why they have an active denial campiegn. the governemt spends millions lobbying washington and other nations from recognizing the genocide. they know that eventually they will be cornered into recognizing it, and thats when legally the tables will be turned. btw, the neatherlands, which currently holds the EU presidency just unanomously recognized the armenian genocide and will use it on its agenda during turkeys accession talks.

Well, you're welcome to believe what you like, but I am willing to bet you money that Turkey will never recognise the Armenian genocide. The Turks will go so far in making concessions in order to join the EU, but there are things they will not do. (And it's not only Holland that has recognised the Armenian genocide. France and Switzerland have as well).

To be honest, the Turks would be stupid to do so, for the very reasons you mentioned. I'm pretty sure they have no interest in making payments to Armenians, and given that they have not done so to the Kurds, who were killed or displaced in the recent civil war, I very much doubt they will do so to the Armenians.

As for Armenia being blockaded, that is not entirely true. Both Iran and Georgia have trade and open borders with Armenia. The problem with Armenia lies mainly, IMO, with its corrupt government which doesn't mind fixing the odd election or two in order to stay in power and screw the population over a little bit more.

[iBabo]

Originally posted by y0y0:
Well, you're welcome to believe what you like, but I am willing to bet you money that Turkey will never recognise the Armenian genocide. The Turks will go so far in making concessions in order to join the EU, but there are things they will not do. (And it's not only Holland that has recognised the Armenian genocide. France and Switzerland have as well).

To be honest, the Turks would be stupid to do so, for the very reasons you mentioned. I'm pretty sure they have no interest in making payments to Armenians, and given that they have not done so to the Kurds, who were killed or displaced in the recent civil war, I very much doubt they will do so to the Armenians.

As for Armenia being blockaded, that is not entirely true. Both Iran and Georgia have trade and open borders with Armenia. The problem with Armenia lies mainly, IMO, with its corrupt government which doesn't mind fixing the odd election or two in order to stay in power and screw the population over a little bit more.

i mentioned the netherlands because they just recognized it last week. and eventually turkey will be cornered into recognizing it. im not saying its going to be tommorow, but in my lifetime definatly.

as for the borders, i hope you were joking...
turkey alone has a bigger border with armenia then georgia and iran combined. turkey (sans the enclave of nakhijevan, which has a 221km border with armenia which is also blockaded) has a border with armenia of 268 km. azerbaijan has a border of 566km. by contrast, georgia has a border of 164 km. not to mention the instabilities of the georgian nation (the country has been falling apart since its independece 13 years ago) which dont exactly make it the ideal trading partner, or even a trading outpost. armenia has a border with iran of just 35 km! and last time i checked iran isnt the wests's favorite country, so again, not the ideal trading partner. so armenia is being illegally blocked by 1055km, that is 84% of its entire border with surrounding nations. how is that in any way shape or form legitimized? please try to explain that to me. i dont even need to go into the details of how much these blockades have stunted humanitarian aid after the 1988 earthquake.

yes the armenian government is corrupt. which former soviet nation isnt? but (a) this is changing big time, (ala ukraine), and (b) armenia was the only nation which became independent from the soviet union through a referendum(which is a democratic method of doing things, in a union which wasnt exactly known for democracy). all other nations have either had revolutions or coups or other undemocratic methods of ceceding from a union that ceased to exist. so after 69 years of communist rule, when given the chance to practice democracy, armenia was the first to do so.
you want to talk about corrupt governments lets talk about azerbaijan, whos current president literally became president because his father(the former president) died.

[voodoo]

If Turkey never concedes and repents properly (with punishment) for the Armenian genocide they will never become a member of the EU. They'll have to give up Cyprus as well. That is my prediction.

I am sad to see people defending the Armenian genocide here. It breaks my heart.

Many EU nations have done nasty things but they've all conceded they did so and do not occupy the lands they committed the atrocities in. This is like Germany would still occupy Poland and deny that any genocide ever took place. .. Wow.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You are not going to get away with praising fascist dictators when discussing the subject with a German, unless said German is a Neo-Nazi.

Period.

I think we should look back at history with a more perceptive eye. And that involves discussing the merits aswell as the flaws of any historical figure.

[badidea]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I'm German, so you will understand that I don't like praising dictators (even if they invented jet engines, the autobahn, the rocket/missile).

We don't have the Autobahn because of Hitler - that's an urban myth!!

Mythos Autobahn

Um die Reichsautobahnen ranken sich viele Legenden. Hitler h�tte die Autobahn erfunden, der Autobahnbau h�tte massiv zum Abbau der Arbeitslosigkeit beigetragen, die Autobahnen w�ren lediglich gebaut worden, damit die Wehrmacht schnell Truppen an die Grenzen bewegen konnte.
Nichts davon ist wahr. Die erste Autobahn ist der AVUS in Berlin, der gleichzeitig Test- und Rennstrecke sowie eine Schnellstra�e darstellt, die das Messegel�nde mit dem Wannsee verbindet. Eingeweiht wurde der AVUS bereits Anfang der zwanziger Jahre. Der Bau weiterer Autobahnen begann bereits um 1930; weitere Autobahnen waren in Planung. Richtig ist, dass die Nazis den Autobahnbau intensivierten und propagandistisch nutzten. Meines Wissens arbeiteten an der Autobahn nie mehr als 130,000 Leute - ein Tropfen auf dem hei�en Stein angesichts der �ber 5 Millionen Arbeitlosen beim Machtantritt Hitlers. Auch dienten die Autobahnen kaum dem Truppentransport; die Wehrmacht bediente sich daf�r weiterhin gr��tenteils der Reichsbahn; selbst die Panzer wurden mit der Bahn transportiert, um sie zu schonen (sic!). Es ist daher auch unrichtig, dass die Autobahnen weitgehend von Ost nach West verliefen, was ja Sinn gemacht h�tte, wenn Truppentransport die wahre Aufgabe der Autobahnen gewesen w�re. Auch dem Reisevergn�gen von Millionen munterer Volksgenossen diente das Autobahnnetz nicht: Die Autobahnen waren leer wie an einem autofreien Sonntag, weil sich kaum jemand ein Auto leisten konnte. Der wahre Sinn der Autobahnen lag darin, technischen Fortschritt zu suggerieren und die Modernit�t des NS-Regimes propagandistisch zu unterstreichen.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by badidea:
We don't have the Autobahn because of Hitler - that's an urban myth!!

So the photograph of Hitler breaking ground (making the first dig) of the Autobahn in 1933 is a fake?

So the fact that in the early days of constructing the Autobahn, Hitler used Jewish slave labor prior to moving to more efficient earth moving machines is a 'myth' ?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by badidea:
Es ist daher auch unrichtig, dass die Autobahnen weitgehend von Ost nach West verliefen, was ja Sinn gemacht h�tte, wenn Truppentransport die wahre Aufgabe der Autobahnen gewesen w�re.

I don't know. It is kind of striking that the oldest Autobahnen (e.g. AB 6, AB 61) kind of point directly toward France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Holland in one direction, and Czechoslovakia in the other.

I noticed this ten years ago when I drove them. I had no idea that it was a German "myth."

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by badidea:
We don't have the Autobahn because of Hitler - that's an urban myth!!

I never claimed he invented it. But the Autobahn was crucial for Hitler's plans to go to war, so he put in a lot of effort to systematically promote the idea of high-speed roads and construct a lot of roads that connected the main cities.

It's like claiming Apple made the first graphical user interface -- they did not invent it, but they were the first company to bring it to market (make it available to a large audience).

I was just trying to point to some inventions by Germany that are still significant today (rockets and missiles, jet engines).

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by vmarks:
So the photograph of Hitler breaking ground (making the first dig) of the Autobahn in 1933 is a fake?

So the fact that in the early days of constructing the Autobahn, Hitler used Jewish slave labor prior to moving to more efficient earth moving machines is a 'myth' ?

I think he wasn't trying to deny forced labor or anything. He just tried to point out that the autobahn was `invented' earlier.

[Sven G]

Actually, the first autobahn-like road in the world (at least, according to the following website), completely reserved to automobiles, was the Milan-Lakes autostrada, from the 1920s (it was finished in 1925). Not really sure if this is yet another myth, however...