Xenocidio armenio

Na Galipedia, a wikipedia en galego.

O Xenocidio armenio (tamén coñecido coma Holocausto armenio ou Masacre armenio) é o termo normalmente empregado para facer referencia á deportación masiva e á morte durante a mesma dun número indeterminado de civís armenios, estimado en varios centos de miles ou máis dun millón, no goberno dos Mozos Turcos no Imperio Otomán, dende 1915 ata 1917, durante a I Guerra Mundial.

Varios puntos en relación co xenocidio armenio son aínda hoxe materia dunha ardua discusión entre Turquía e a comunidade internacional. Aínda que non nega que os asasinatos de civís armenios ocorreran na realidade, o goberno turco non admite que se tratase dun xenocidio, argumentando que as mortes non foron a resulta dun plano de exterminio masivo organizado polo estado otomán, senón que, en troques, foron causadas polas loitas étnicas, as enfermidades e a fame durante o confuso período da I Guerra Mundial. A pesares desta tese, cáseque tódolos estudosos -ata algúns turcos- opinan que os feitos encádranse na definición actual de xenocidio. Unha listaxe crecente de países recoñecen oficialmente a autenticidade do "Xenocidio armenio".

Nestes intres son 21 os Estados que oficialmente o definen coma un xenocidio.

Índice 1 Os armenios en Anatolia 1.1 Masacres hamídicos 1.2 Masacres de Cilicia ou de Adana 2 I Guerra Mundial 2.1 Contexto 2.2 Os masacres 2.3 Proceso e campos de deportacións 2.4 Resultado das deportacións 3 Testemuñas estranxeiras 3.1 A misión dos EEUU no Imperio Otomán 3.2 Allied forces in the Middle East 3.3 The German mission 3.4 The Russian military 3.5 Military tribunal 3.5.1 Domestic courts-martial 3.5.2 International trials 4 Casualties, 1914 to 1918 5 Balance dos masacres 6 Événements postérieurs 6.1 Procès des Unionistes, Constantinople, 1919. 6.2 Traité de Sèvres 6.3 Proceso Téhlirian, 1921 6.4 Traité de Lausanne : signé en juillet 1923 7 A posición de Turquía 7.1 A posición das autoridades turcas 7.1.1 Argumentos políticos 7.1.2 Citations 7.1.3 Casualties 7.1.4 Holocaust similarities 8 Academic views on the issue 8.1 Recognition 8.2 Orhan Pamuk 8.3 Denial 9 A posición da Comunidade Internacional 10 Pegada na cultura 10.1 Memorial 10.2 Arte 11 Véxase tamén 11.1 Turquía 11.2 Armenia 12 Notas 13 Referencias 14 Ligazóns externas 14.1 Webs que apoian as teses do xenocidio 14.1.1 Media 14.2 Webs que rexeitan as teses do xenocidio 14.2.1 Media 14.3 Estudos independentes

[editar] Os armenios en Anatolia

En 1914, antes do estourido da I Guerra Mundial, no Imperio Otomán había unha poboación estimada de 2 millóns de armenios, sendo a meirande parte deles de fe Apostólica Armenia, e sendo a minoría deles católicos e protestantes. Mentres que a poboación armenia se concentraba principalmente no leste de Anatolia, había tamén unha comunidade armenia de tamaño considerable no oeste, especialmente na capital, Istambul, onde aínda hoxe habita unha minoría armenia.

Os armenios eran tradicionalmente coñecidos como Millet-i Sadıka ("Nación leal") polos turcos, posto que semella que vivían en harmonía cos outros grupos étnicos do Imperio sen conflitos de importancia coa autoridade central, a pesares das diferenzas étnicas e relixiosas, e de que estaban submisos ás leis islámicas dhimmi, que lles concedían menos dereitos cós súbditos musulmáns do Imperio.

O goberno de Tanzimat deulle máis dereitos ás minorías a mediados do século XIX. Sen embargo, no longo mandato do Sultán Hamid suspendeuse a constitución e gobernouse como el quixo. A pesares da presión sobre o Sultán por parte dos principais países europeos para tratar con máis coidado ás minorías cristiás, o abuso tan só medrou.

Con todo, durante a segunda metade do século XIX comezaron a difundirse entre os armenios movementos de ideoloxía nacionalista. O Imperio Otomán, que tivo que aceptar no Tratado de San Stefano a independencia de Romanía, Serbia e Montenegro, ademais da semiindependencia de Bulgaria, quería evitar por tódolos medios a creación dun estado armenio, previsibelmente pro-ruso, no leste de Anatolia.

[editar] Masacres hamídicos

Entre 1894 e 1897 producíronse os chamados "masacres hamídicos", polo nome do sultán que os ordenou, Abdul Hamid II, coñecido como o "Sultán Vermello". O número de vítimas armenias nas matanzas hamídicas foi calculado polo etnógrafo William Ramsay nunhas 200.000, e a meirande parte de estimacións varían entre os 80.000 e os 300.000 armenios asasinados.

[editar] Masacres de Cilicia ou de Adana

Unha década despois, entre o 14 e o 27 de abril de 1909 tivo lugar unha segunda onda de matanzas, coñecidas como "masacres de Cilicia" ou "masacres de Adana", e que coincidiron coa contrarrevolución dos partidarios do sultán Abdul Hamid II que fora forzado a restaurar a costitución otomana como resultado da revolución dos Mozos Turcos en 1908. Nestas matanzas calcúlase que morreron uns 30.000 armenios, aínda que non hai, con todo, acordo canto ás cifras. Foron un preludio do Xenocidio armenio e se perpetraron en zonas rurais cilicianas e en distintas vilas: Adana, Hadjin, Sis, Zeïtoun, Alep, Dört Yol.

[editar] I Guerra Mundial

[editar] Contexto

Dende a fin do século XIX, un grupo de opositores ó Sultán Abdul Hamid II formouse e deu orixe ó Comité de Unión e Progreso (CUP), composto esencialmente de nacionalistas ou de progresistas turcos - que en Europa son chamados «Mozos Turcos». O CUP recibe o apoio de numerosos movementos que representan as minorías do Imperio, incluídos os movementos independentistas e autonomistas armenios como Dashnak. Porén esta alianza circunstancial atopa o seu límite nunha cuestión crucial, a da creación dun Estado armenio autónomo ou independiente. Os Mozos Turcos chegan a derrubar ó sultán en 1909 co apoio dos movementos minoritarios, e pasan a dirixir entón o Imperio Otomán. O CUP non acepta a creación dun Estado armenio, polo que os movementos independentistas deixan de apoialos e procuran novas alianzas na rexión, particularmente preto dos rusos.

O 1 de novembro de 1914, despois de seren solicitados por Alemaña, o Imperio Otomán entra na I Guerra Mundial do lado das potencias centrais. Novas frontes ábrense entón, sobre a fronteira caucásica con Rusia. A 3ª armada otomana que se precipitou sen preparación loxística no entón territorio ruso, en concreto atacou ás forzas rusas na cidade de Kars, é esmagada en xaneiro de 1915, na Batalla de Sarikamish. Os dirixentes do CUP deciden sacar proveito á guerra para resolver definitivamente, polo medio da exterminación dos armenios, a «Cuestión armenia» (Ermeni sorunu) que, dende o Congreso de Berlín de 1878, é un dos puntos máis espinosos da «Cuestión de Oriente». Ademais, animados por unha ideoloxía nacionalista turca, ven nos armenios un obstáculo á súa unificación étnica en Anatolia e á súa expansión nos países de lingua turca de Asia central.

A xustificación dada é que se trataba dunha reacción fronte ás desercións dos armenios que se produciron en certas rexións (en parte causadas polas condicións inflinxidas ós cristiáns no exército otomán), pero sobre todo fronte a algúns actos aillados de resistencia: o caso máis importante, Van, será presentado polo goberno como unha revolución, un levantamento, versión desmentida por tódolos informes das testemuñas italianas, alemás ou americanas (cónsules, misioneiros, mestres, ...) que explican que o armenios organizaron unha defensa da cidade para evitar sofrer un masacre.

[editar] Os masacres

En febreiro de 1915, o comité central do partido e os ministros de guerra do gabinete, Talaat e Enver, prepararon secretamente un plano de destrución que será executado nos meses seguintes. É presentado oficialmente como un traslado da cidadanía armenia - que o goberno acusa de colaborar co enemigo ruso - lonxe da fronte. De feito, a deportación é tan só a máscara que cobre unha operación de aniquilamento de tódolos armenios do Imperio, como proba o exame dos feitos.

A primeira medida é o desarme dos soldados armenios enrolados no exército otomán. Son empregados en traballos de servizo de vías públicas ou de transporte e, no curso do ano 1915, eliminados en pequenos grupos. Despois os Mozos Turcos, na pescuda de probas dun complot armenio, proceden a perseguir e arrestar en primeiro lugar ós notables de Constantinopla, ordeadas os 24 e 25 de abril. A destrución das poboacións armenias é operada en dúas fases sucesivas: de maio a xullo de 1915 nas sete provincias orientais de Anatolia (Erzurum, Van, Bitlis, Diyarbakır, Karput, Sivas, Trabzon) onde viven preto dun millón de armenios, e que están máis ou menos próximos ó escenario da guerra; logo, a finais de 1915, noutras provincias do Imperio alonxadas da fronte (o que quita toda a verosimilitude á acusación de colaboración co enimigo).

Nas provincias orientais, as operacións desenvólvense do mesmo xeito. As secuencias ocorren sistematicamente en cidades e vilas:

• pesquisa nas casas dos persoeiros e relixiosos;
• arresto destes persoeiros;
• torturas para facerlles confesar o complot e o escondite de armas;
• deportación e execución dos prisioneiros preto da cidade;
• publicación dun aviso de deportación;
• separación dos homes que, amarrados en pequenos grupos, son executados nos arredores das cidades;
• evacuación da totalidade da poboación armenia repartida en convois de mulleres, nenos e persoas de idade que deixan a cidade en intervalos regulares, a pé, cun pequeno equipaxe;
• separación no convoi de mulleres e nenos conducidos a fogares musulmáns ;
• eliminación regular dos convois polos encargados de os escoltar, de bandas kurdas ou de milicianos recrutados para este fin.

Uns pucos millares de persoas sobreviviron a esta deportación. Nos pobos, segundo as testemuñas, todos os armerios foron asasinados, a excepción dalgunhas mulleres e nenos. Nas vilas de Bitlis e de Diarbékir, case tódolos armenios foron asasinados no mesmo lugar.

No resto do Imperio, o programa toma a forma dunha deportación, conducida en parte do traxecto por tren. Os convois de deportados converxen en Alep, en Siria,onde a Dirección xeral da instalación das tribos e dos deportados os repartiu segundo dous eixos: ó sur, hacia a Siria, o Líbano e Palestina - unha parte sobrevivirá; ou ó leste, ó longo do río Éufrates, onde os campos de concentración, verdadeiras trampas mortais, son improvisados. Os deportados son empurrados pouco a pouco cara Deir-es-Zor. Unha vez alá, en xullo de 1916, son enviados ó deserto de Mesopotamia onde son asasinados en pequenos grupos ou morren de sede. Os derradeiros reagrupamentos de deportados ó longo do camiño de ferro de Bagdad, à Ras-ul-Aïn, en Intilli son, tamén, eliminados en xullo de 1916. Soamente sobreviven un tercio dos Armenios: aqueles que vivían en Constantinopla e Smyrne, aqueles secuestrados, os armenios da vila de Van, salvados polo avance do exército ruso e algúns deportados dos campos do sur.

[editar] Proceso e campos de deportacións

O 25 de maio de 1915 - por orde de Talat Paşa (Ministro de Interior) evacuouse forzosamente a centos de miles - posiblemente máis dun millón - de armenios de toda Anatolia (excepto partes da costa oeste) a Mesopotamia, o que é agora Siria. Moitos foron á vila siria de Dayr az-Zawr e ó seu deserto de arredor. O feito de que o goberno turco ordenara a evacuación dos armenios étnicos considérase hoxe fóra de toda dúbida e non se discute. Se afirma, baseándose nunha boa cantidade de evidencias circunstanciais, que o goberno otomán non proveeu ningún equipamento nin suministros para o coidado dos armenios nin durante a súa deportación, nin cando chegaron ó seu destino. O goberno otomán tamén impideu ós deportados de se suministrar por eles mesmos. As tropas otomás que vixiaban e escoltaban ós armenios non só permitiron a outros roubar, matar e violar ós armenios, senón que a miúdo participaron nesas mesmas actividades eles mesmos. En calquer caso as previsibles consecuencias da decisión do goberno de desplazar ós armenios levou a un número significativo deles á morte.

Considérase que existiron vinte e cinco campos de concentración importantes,^[1] baixo o mando de Şükrü Kaya, unha das mans dereitas e máximos colaboradores de Talat Paşa.

Dayr az-Zawr	Ras al-Ain	Bonzanti	Mamoura
Intili,	Islahiye,	Radjo,	Katma,
Karlik,	Azaz,	Akhterim,	Mounboudji,
Bab,	Tefridje,	Lale,	Meskene,
Sebil,	Dipsi,	Abouharar,	Hamam,
Sebka,	Marat,	Souvar,	Hama,
Homs	Kahdem

A maioría dos campos estaban situados preto do que agora é a raia entre Iraq e Siria, e algúns foron só campos de tránsito temporal.^[2] Outros dise que foron usados só como zonas de enterramentos en masa como Radjo, Katma, and Azaz— que foron pechados no outono de 1915.^[3] Algúns autores manteñen que os campos Lale, Tefridje, Dipsi, Del-El, e Ra's al-'Ain foron especialmente montados para aqueles que tiñan unha esperanza de vida duns días.^[4] Como no caso dos kapos xudeus nos campos de concentración, a maioría dos gardiáns no interior dos campos foron armenios.^[5]

Aínda que case todos os campos, incluíndo todos os importantes, estaban ó aire libre, o resto das demais matanzas noutros campos menores, non estaban limitados a asasinar; senón tamén a queimar,^[6] envelenar^[7] e afogar en masa.^[8]

[editar] Resultado das deportacións

O goberno otomán pediu a evacuación ou a deportación de moitos armenios que vivían en Anatolia, Siria e Mesopotamia. Na cidade de Edessa (Şanlıurfa moderno) a poboación armenia local, preocupada polo seu futuro, rebelouse (a principios de 1916) contra o goberno otomán e tomou o control da vella cidade. As forzas otomás atacaron a cidade e a bombardearon coa artillería pero os armenios opuxéronse. O xeneral alemán ó comando do grupo do exército máis cercano á cidade, Barón von der Goltz, chegou e negociou un establecemento cos armenios. A cambio de que os armenios se entregaran e desarmaran, o goberno otomán acordou non deportalos. Sen embargo, o goberno otomán rachou os termos do acordo e deportou ós armenios.

[editar] Testemuñas estranxeiras

A pesares da negación das autoridades turcas, centos de testemuñas, incluíndo ó neutral Estados Unidos e ós aliados do Imperio Otomán, Alemaña e o Imperio Austro-húngaro, rexistraron e documentaron numerosos actos de masacre perpetrados polo estado, engadindo peso ós argumentos da existencia do xenocidio.

[editar] A misión dos EEUU no Imperio Otomán

A través do Imperio Otomán, os Estados Unidos estableceran consulados en Adrianópole, Kharput, Samsun, Smyrna, Trebizond, Van, así como un na cidade siria de Aleppo. A misión do departamento de estado foi dirixida nese entón polo embaixador Henry Morgenthau en Constantinopla. Os Estados Unidos foron oficialmente neutrais na guerra até que entraron do bando dos aliados en 1917. Mentres as ordes das deportacións e dos masacres eran decretadas, moitos funcionarios consulares divulgaron ó embaixador o que eles atestiguaban. Unha documentación chegou en setembro de 1915 polo cónsul americano en Kharput, Leslie A. Davis que describía o seu descubrimento dos corpos de case 10.000 armenios tirados en varios barrancos preto do lago Göeljuk, despois referida como a "provincia do matanza"^[9]

As reportaxes similares pronto comezarona chegar a Henry Morgenthau dende Aleppo e Van, polo que comezou a celebrar reunións ocasionais con Talat e Enver. As he courted them on the testimonies of the consulate officials, both justified the deportations as necessary to the war's cause by pointing out to the alleged armed rebellions in Van and elsewhere along the Russian front. Morgenthau would however contest their explanations in his memoirs as excuses conjured up by the CUP leaders.^[10]

In addition to the consulates, there were also several Protestant missionary compounds established in Armenian-populated regions, including Van and Kharput. Many of the head missionaries vividly described the brutal methods used by Turkish forces and documented numerous accounts of atrocities committed by them.

Newspapers and literary journals in the United States and around the world, including the New York Times (which ran 145 articles in 1915 alone), The Nation, the Halifax Herald, and The Independent, printed hundreds of articles both during and after the war, describing the deportations as state-enacted genocide.^[11] Numerous American figures also spoke out against the Genocide including former president Theodore Roosevelt, rabbi Stephen Wise, William Jennings Bryan, and Alice Stone Blackwell. The American Near East Relief Committee, a relief organization for refugees in the Middle East helped donate over $102 million to Armenians both during and after the war.^[12]

[editar] Allied forces in the Middle East

In addition to the Gallipoli campaign, on the Middle Eastern front, the British military was preoccupied in fighting against Ottoman forces in southern Syria and Mesopotamia. Throughout the fighting, the British also documented and essentially confirmed what was being reported by the American consuls and missionaries. British diplomat and later "Oriental Secretary" of Baghdad, Gertrude Bell filed the following report after hearing the account of a captured ottoman soldier:

Template:Cquote

Reacting to the numerous eyewitness accounts, British politician Viscount James Bryce, and historian Arnold J. Toynbee compiled statements from survivors and eyewitesses from other countries including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland who similarly attested to the deliberate massacres of innocent Armenians by Ottoman government forces. In 1916, they published The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915-1916. Although the book has since been criticized as British war-time propaganda to build up sentiment against the Central Powers, Bryce had submitted the work to scholars prior to its publication. University of Oxford Regius Professor Gilbert Murray stated of the tome, "I realize that in times of persecution passions run high...But the evidence of these letters and reports will bear any scrutiny and overpower any skepticism. Their genuineness is established beyond question."^[14] Other professors including H. L. Fisher of Sheffield University and Moorefield Storey, the former president of the American Bar Association, affirmed the same conclusion.^[15]

First Lord of the Admiralty, and later prime minister of Great Britain, Winston Churchill described in his multivolume work on the war, The World Crisis, 1911-1918, the massacres as an "administrative holocaust" and noted that "the clearance of race from Asia Minor was about as complete as such an act could be...There is no reason to doubt that that this crime was planned and executed for political reasons. The opportunity presented itself for clearing Turkish soil of a Christian race opposed to all Turkish ambitions."^[16]

[editar] The German mission

As allies during the war, the Imperial German mission in the Ottoman Empire included both military and civilian components. While experienced staff officers were sent to train and assist the Ottoman military in fending off the offensives launched by the combined British, French and ANZAC forces at Gallipoli and in Syria, Germany had also brokered a deal with the Sublime Porte to commission the building of a railroad stretching from Berlin to the Middle East called the Baghdad Railway.

Among the most famous persons to document the massacres was a German military medic in Von Der Goltz' detachment and second lieutenant by the name of Armin T. Wegner. Due to the strict censorship imposed by both Germany and the Ottoman Empire at the time, Wegner's desire to take photographs of the massacres was overruled by his superiors. Nevertheless, Wegner disobeyed those orders and took hundreds of photographs of Armenians being deported and being held in the camps in northern Syria and later smuggled them out of the country.^[17]

German engineers and workers who were involved in building the railway also witnessed seeing Armenians being crammed into cattle cars — up to ninety in each car — and shipped along the railroad line. Franz Gunther, a representative for German based Deutsche Bank which was funding the construction of the Baghdad Railway, forwarded photographs to his directors and expressed his frustration over keeping silent while witnessing such things. Gunther described the train system used by the Ottoman government as another example of its "bestial cruelty".^[18] This process was noted by German historian Hilmar Kaiser as the first time "'railway transport of civilian populations' [was used] as part of a plan of race 'extermination'."^[19] Major General Otto von Lossow, the acting military attaché and head of the German Military Plenipotentiary in Ottoman Empire attested in a conference held in Batum in 1918 to the intentions of the Ottoman government:

Template:Cquote

Similarly, Major General Kress von Kressenstein noted that "The Turkish policy of causing starvation is an all too obvious proof...for the Turkish resolve to destroy the Armenians."^[21] Another notable figure in the German military camp was Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter. Scheubner-Richter, who was serving as a vice-consul in the provinces of Erzerum and Bitlis, documented the numerous massacres by Turkish forces against Armenians in the regions and wrote a total of fifteen reports regarding "deportations and mass killings" to Germany's chancellor in Berlin. He noted in his final report that less than 100,000 Armenians were left alive in the Ottoman Empire; the rest had otherwise been exterminated (in German, ausgerottet).^[22] Scheubner-Richter also detailed the methods used by the Ottoman government including its use of the Special Organization and other organised criminal groups. Several years later, in post-war Germany, Scheubner-Richter called for a "ruthless and relentless" attempt to "cleanse" the Jews out of the country. An adviser and close friend to future German dictator Adolf Hitler, Scheubner-Richter was shot and killed next to Hitler during the 1923 Munich Beer hall putsch.

In a genocide conference in 2001, professor Wolfgang Wipperman of Berlin's Free University introduced documents that showed numerous officers in the Germany's military High Command were aware of the mass killings but instead chose not to interfere nor condemn the Ottoman government.^[23]

Germany's diplomatic mission was lead by Ambassador Count Paul von Wolff-Metternich. Like Morgenthau, Wolff-Metternich also began to receive tracts from consul officials in Ottoman Empire. From the province of Adana, Eugene Buge reported that the CUP chief had sworn to kill and massacre any Armenians who survived the deportation marches.^[24] Wolff-Metternich himself stated, "The Committee [CUP] demands the extirpation of the last remnants of the Armenians and the government must yield....A Committee representative is assigned to each of the provincial administrations....Turkification means license to expel, to kill or destroy everything that is not Turkish." ^[25]

[editar] The Russian military

The Russian Empire's response to the bombardment of its Black Sea naval ports was primarily a land campaign through the Caucasus. Early victories against the Ottoman Empire from the winter of 1914 to the spring 1915 saw significant gains of territory, including relieving the Armenian bastion resisting in the city of Van in May 1915. The Russians also recorded encountering the bodies of Armenians in the areas they advanced through. In March 1916, its advances through the city of Erzerum led them in particular to retaliate against the Turkish III^rd Army whom they held responsible for the massacres, ultimately decimating it in its entirety.^[26]

[editar] Military tribunal

[editar] Domestic courts-martial

Domestic court-martials began on 23 November 1918. These courts were designed by the Sultan Mehmed VI, who blamed the Committee of Union and Progress for the destruction of the empire through pushing it into WWI. The Armenian issue was used as a tool in these courts to punish the leaders of the Committee of Union and Progress. Most of the documents generated in these courts later moved to international trials. By January 1919, a report to Sultan Mehmed VI accused over 130 suspects, most of them were high officials. Mehmed Talat Pasha and Enver had left Istanbul, before 1919, on the fact that Sultan Mehmed VI would not accept any verdict that does not include their life. The term Three Pashas generally refers to this prominent triumvirate that pushed the Ottomans into WWI.

The court-martials officially disbanded the Committee of Union and Progress, which had actively ruled the Ottoman Empire for ten years. All the assets of the organization were transferred to the treasury, and the assets of the people who were found guilty moved to "teceddüt firkasi". According to verdicts handed down by the court, all members except for the Three Pashas were transferred to jails in Bekiraga, then moved to Malta. The Three Pashas were found guilty in absentia. The court-martials blamed the members of Ittihat Terakki for pursuing a war that did not fit into the notion of Millet.

[editar] International trials

On 24 May 1915 the Triple Entente warned the Ottoman Empire that "In the view of these...crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization ... the Allied governments announce publicly.. that they will hold personally responsible... all members of the Ottoman government and those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres.^[27]"

Following the Armistice of Mudros in January 1919, the preliminary Peace Conference in Paris (Paris Peace Conference, 1919) established "The Commission on Responsibilities and Sanctions" which was chaired by U.S. Secretary of State Lansing. Following the commission's work, several articles were added to the treaty, and the acting government of the Ottoman Empire, Sultan Mehmed VI and Damat Adil Ferit Pasha, were summoned to trial. The Treaty of Sèvres gave recognition of the Democratic Republic of Armenia and developed a mechanism to bring to trial the criminals of "barbarous and illegitimate methods of warfare... [including] offenses against the laws and customs of war and the principles of humanity".^[27]

Article 230 of the Treaty of Sèvres required the Ottoman Empire, "to hand over to the Allied Powers the persons whose surrender may be required by the latter as being responsible for the massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war on territory which formed part of the Ottoman Empire on August 1, 1914."

At the Military Trials in Istanbul in 1919 many of those responsible for the genocide were sentenced to death in absentia, after having escaped trial in 1918. It is believed that the accused succeeded in destroying the majority of the documents that could be used as evidence against them before they escaped. Admiral Calthorpe, the British High Commissioner, described the destruction of documents: "Just before the Armistice, officials had been going to the archives department at night and making a clean sweep of most of the documents." Aydemir, S.S., on the other hand, writes in his "Makedonyadan Ortaasyaya Enver Pasa.":

"Before the flight of the top CUP leaders, Talat Pasa stopped by at the waterfront residence of one of his friends on the shore of Arnavudköy, depositing there a suitcase of documents. It is said that the documents were burned in the basement's furnace. Indeed ... the documents and other papers of the CUP's Central Committee are nowhere to be found."

The military court established the will of the CUP to eliminate the Armenians physically, via its special organization. The Court Martial, Istanbul, 1919 pronounced sentences as follows:

"The Court Martial taking into consideration the above-named crimes declares, unanimously, the culpability as principal factors of these crimes the fugitives Talat Pasha, former Grand Vizir, Enver Efendi, former War Minister, struck off the register of the Imperial Army, Cemal Efendi, former Navy Minister, struck off too from the Imperial Army, and Dr. Nazim Efendi, former Minister of Education, members of the General Council of the Union & Progress, representing the moral person of that party;... the Court Martial pronounces, in accordance with said stipulations of the Law the death penalty against Talat, Enver, Cemal, and Dr. Nazim."

[editar] Casualties, 1914 to 1918

Template:Main

While there is no clear consensus on how many Armenians lost their lives during what is called the Armenian genocide, there is general agreement among Western scholars that over a million Armenians may have perished between 1914 and 1918. Estimates vary between 300,000 (the Turkish claim) and 1,500,000 (the Armenian claim), while Encyclopædia Britannica makes special reference to the research conducted by Arnold J. Toynbee who was appointed by the British Foreign Office to investigate the forced deportation of the Armenians and the related casualties, who estimated a death toll of around 600,000 to 800,000; which formed the basis of the Allies' charges against the Ottoman government at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 that up to 800,000 Armenians were killed during the war.

[editar] Balance dos masacres

Les faits sont connus dès mai 1915 par les rapports de diplomates neutres et de témoins appartenant aux nombreuses missions, écoles et hôpitaux présents dans l'Empire ottoman. La presse de l'époque, en particulier aux États-Unis et au Canada, se fait l'écho de l'indignation soulevée par ces révélations. Après la guerre, le régime jeune-turc ayant disparu depuis octobre 1918, des procès montrent la réalité des massacres et révèlent l'existence d'une organisation criminelle, l'Organisation spéciale, qui a orchestré les destructions de la population arménienne.

Lorsqu'à la fin de 1916, les observateurs font le bilan de l'anéantissement des Arméniens de Turquie, ils peuvent constater qu'à l'exception de 300 000 Arméniens sauvés par l'avancée russe et de quelque 200 000 habitants de Constantinople et de Smyrne qu'il était difficile de supprimer devant des témoins, il ne persiste plus que des îlots de survie : des femmes et des jeunes filles enlevées, disparues dans le secret des maisons turques ou rééduquées dans les écoles islamiques comme celle que dirige l'apôtre du turquisme Halide Edip ; des enfants regroupés dans des orphelinats pilotes ; quelques miraculés cachés par des voisins ou amis musulmans ; ou, dans des villes du centre, quelques familles épargnées grâce à la fermeté d'un vali ou d'un Kaïmakan. Au total, de 1 200 000 à 1 500 000 victimes.....

[editar] Événements postérieurs

[editar] Procès des Unionistes, Constantinople, 1919.

Les principaux responsables du génocide y sont condamnés à mort par contumace, ayant pris la fuite en 1918, juste après avoir détruit la plupart des documents incriminants. La cour martiale établit la volonté des Unionistes d'éliminer physiquement les Arméniens, via son Organisation spéciale. Voici sa conclusion :

Immédiatement après la mobilisation du 21 juillet 1914, le Comité central du parti Union et Progrès avait constitué un Techkilat-i Mahsoussé (nom turc de l'Organisation spéciale) qui était entièrement différent dans ses buts et sa composition du Techkilat-i Mahsoussé déjà existant. Par ordre des ministères de l'Intérieur et de la Justice, ce même Techkilat-i Mahsoussé accepta les condamnés relâchés que le Techkilat-i Mahsoussé dépendant du ministère de la Guerre refusait d'incorporer. Lorsque des détenus étaient libérés, le Parti, pour tromper l'opinion publique, répandait la nouvelle selon laquelle les criminels libérés seraient employés sur le front alors qu'ils étaient envoyés dans des centres d'entraînement et qu'ils étaient ensuite utilisés pour piller et détruire les convois de déportés arméniens.

[editar] Traité de Sèvres

Signé le 10 août 1920 par les puissances parties prenantes (Empire britannique, France, Japon, Italie), et les États alliés représentés par l'Arménie, la Belgique, la Grèce, le Hedjaz, la Pologne, le Portugal, la Roumanie, la Tchécoslovaquie et l'État serbe Croate-Slovène. La cérémonie s'est déroulée dans la grande salle qui abrite actuellement le Musée de la Porcelaine à Sèvres. Parmi les principales dispositions de ce Traité, on notera deux articles (88 et 89) concernant la République arménienne : Template:Début citationLa Turquie déclare reconnaître, comme l'ont déjà fait les puissances alliées, l'Arménie comme un État libre et indépendant.Template:Fin citation

Template:Début citationLa Turquie et l'Arménie, ainsi que les Hautes Parties contractantes, conviennent de soumettre à l'arbitrage du Président des États-Unis d'Amérique, la détermination de la frontière entre la Turquie et l'Arménie, dans les vilayets d'Erzeroum, Trébizonde, Van et Bitlis, et d'accepter sa décision, ainsi que toutes les dispositions qu'il pourra prescrire relativement à l'accès de tout territoire ottoman adjacent. Template:Fin citation

Le mandat d'exécution des dispositions relatives à la République arménienne est confié aux États-Unis d'Amérique. À son retour, le Président Woodrow Wilson se heurte à l'opposition d'une majorité de sénateurs américains qui, sous l'impulsion du sénateur Cabot Lodge, refusent la ratification du Traité de Sèvres et partant, le mandat américain sur l'Arménie.

[editar] Proceso Téhlirian, 1921

O 15 mars 1921, Talaat pacha, o que deu a orde da exterminactión dos Armenios, es abatido por unha bala de revolver nunha rúa berlinesa.

O tirador é detido no lugar do crime. Tratase dun xove armenio de 23 anos, Soghomon Tehlirian, sobrevivente ó xenocidio au cours duquel il perdit sa mère et toute sa famille. Il faisait sans doute partie du groupe « Némésis » qui avait décidé d'exécuter la sentence de mort par contumace du procès des Unionistes.

Il est jugé peu de temps après, le 2 et 3 juin 1921, par le Tribunal de Première Instance de Berlin.

Les témoignages de Tehlirian, de Christine Terzibashian, Johannes Lespius ou même du général Liman von Sanders, ainsi que les documents retenus, parmi lesquels 5 télégrammes chiffrés adressés par Talaat à Naïm Bey, documents qu'a fait parvenir Andonian au tribunal, donnant une nouvelle dimension au procès, où le crime génocidaire de Talaat et des Jeunes-Turcs est à son tour mis en accusation. L'authenticité des documents Andonian a été depuis mise en cause par les historiens turcs Orel et Yuca, authenticité pourtant réaffirmée ensuite par l'historien arménien Dadrian. Le tribunal acquitte Soghomon Tehlirian. Le procès est retentissant et son issue est interprétée comme une condamnation des responsables du génocide.

[editar] Traité de Lausanne : signé en juillet 1923

L'Arménie n'y est plus mentionnée. L'historien H.-L. Kieser commente : Template:Début citationPour les perdants aussi bien que pour les humanitaires internationaux, l’ombre de la Conférence était écrasante. Le Traité acceptait tacitement les faits de guerre : le génocide des Arméniens ottomans, le massacre d’Assyriens ottomans, la déportation de Kurdes ottomans (1915-1916) et l’expulsion des Ottomans gréco-orthodoxes (1914 et 1919-1922), commise au profit de la turquification de l’Anatolie. Le nouveau gouvernement d’Ankara cachait à peine sa naissance au sein du parti jeune-turc, directement responsable des crimes perpétrés entre 1914-1918. Le Traité complétait les faits de guerre par un transfert de populations jusqu’alors inouï, celui de Grecs musulmans (356 000) et d’Ottomans anatoliens de confession orthodoxe (290 000, avec ceux déjà expulsés comptant environ 1,5 million de personnes). Avec quatre générations de retard, on a tout récemment commencé à déplorer publiquement ce transfert, même en Turquie. Pour ce qui est des crimes antérieurs, le négationnisme et l’apologie parfois grotesques, mais tacitement autorisés par le Traité, prévalent toujours largement.Template:Fin citation

[editar] A posición de Turquía

A República de Turquía non acepta que as mortes de armenios durante a "evacuación" ou "deportación" (Turquía emprega a verba "relocación") sexan o resultado da intencionalidade das autoridades otomanas (ou dos responsables durante a guerra) para eliminar en toda ou en parte ós cidadáns armenios indiscriminadamente.

En marzo de 2005, o primeiro ministro turco Recep Tayyip Erdoğan invitou a historiadores turcos, armenios e do resto do globo para formar unha comisión para establecer os acontecementos de 1915. A oferta foi rexeitada por Armenia e o seu ministro de exteriores remarcou que "Os historiadores xa teñen dito a súa opinión e determinar esta atitude está agora baixo o poder de Turquía."^[28]

[editar] A posición das autoridades turcas

Some sympathetic to the Turkish official position note that Turkish governments have been very slow in answering to the genocide charges, even though nearly a century has passed since the events.^[29] In 1975 Turkish historian and biographer Sevket Sureyya Aydemir summarized the reasons for this delay. He said, "The best course, I believe, is not to dwell on this subject and allow both sides to forget (calm) this part of history." This view was shared by the foreign ministry of Turkey at the time. Zeki Kuneralp, a former Turkish ambassador, had a different explanation, according to him "The liabilities of not publishing the historical documents outweigh the advantages."^[30]

With Kamuran Gurun for the first time a controversial period of the Ottoman Empire began to be questioned by the Republic of Turkey. Other Turkish institutions followed Kamuran Gurun. The thesis brought by Armenian and foreign historians were then answered by analyzing the casualties of deportations, and the alleged casualties of inter-ethnic fighting, etc. Initial studies were basically on aggregated data issues, through classifications and categorizations. These discussions have been moved to issues such as why the Armenian resistance force failed to support a sustainable Armenian state^[31] and Ottoman military problems under insurgency^[32]. Most of these activities aim to find out and analyze the relationships of the controversial issues surrounding Ottoman state of the time; intending to have a better understanding of "why the choices of the Ottoman system had been shaped as they were". These questions aim to bring the complexity of Ottoman history and dynamics of a blacked-out period beyond the current available arguments to surface so that the correct lessons in prevention of these activities can be taken.

Turkey often counters accusations of genocide by mentioning the plight of Ottoman Muslims throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. According to the historian Mark Mazower, Turkey resents the fact that the West is ignorant of the fate of millions of Muslims expelled from the Balkans and Russia, and would consider any apology towards Armenians as a confirmation of the anti-Turkish sentiment held by Western powers for centuries. Mazower recognizes a genocide of the Armenians, but he notes "Even today, no connection is made between the genocide of the Armenians and Muslim civilian losses: the millions of Muslims expelled from the Balkans and the Russian Empire through the long 19th century remain part of Europe's own forgotten past. Indeed, the official Turkish response is invariably to remind critics of this fact - an unconvincing justification for genocide, to be sure, but an expression of underlying resentment."^[33]

[editar] Argumentos políticos

The Turkish authorities hold the position that the deaths were the result of the turmoil of World War I and that the Ottoman Empire was fighting against Russia, who backed the Armenian volunteer units. The authorities assert that claims of genocide are based on non-existent Armenian unrest, or non-existent ethnic-religious conflicts, which are not established historical facts. Furthermore, they contend that there was a political movement towards creating a "Republic of Armenia". The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the Balkanization process were in the same period, and may obfuscate the actual events.

The Turkish authorities maintain the position that the Ottoman Empire did not exercise the degree of control which the opposing parties claim. Turkey accepts that there were Armenian deaths as a result of Ottoman decisions, but states that the responsible Ottoman bureaucrats and military personnel were tried.

The Turkish authorities claim that the Forced Deportations by themselves cannot be classified as acts of genocide by the state. They note that in 1915 there was only one railway that connects west-east and that the path of what it considers relocation was not a conspiracy to exterminate Armenians. Turkish authorities strongly reject claims that the locations of the camps which are mentioned in some sources are a result of a conspiracy to bury Armenians in deserts. Dayr az-Zawr is a district along the Euphrates and one of the unique places far away from any military activity; thus, Dayr az-Zawr's selection as a burying site in a deserted location is rejected. They attribute the graves in these areas to difficulties of traveling under very hard conditions. The conditions of these camps reflected the condition of the Ottoman Empire. The Empire was facing the Gallipoli landings in the west, and the Caucasus Campaign in the east. Turkish authorities note that the war brought the end of the Empire financially and economically.

Without opening the archives in Armenia, it is said, it is difficult to determine with precision exactly what occurred during the deportations.

The Turkish authorities seek both historical and political reconciliation with Armenia, but claim that insistence on the term genocide is counterproductive.

[editar] Citations

As a scholarly study area, the field is highly divided, as the camps on both sides of this issue approach it very strongly.

• Turkish authorities constantly brought arguments related with single source (Ottoman or a Western) issues. They point out that without doing a triangulation, even if the facts were reported correctly, the conclusions drawn can be false. It is also possible to look at secondary sources in the Ottoman Archives of the period such as budget, allocations, decisions/reasons of requests. There are also personal records such as Mehmed Talat Pasha's personal notes. They constantly point out the general attitude Sick man of Europe of the time and how it deforms perceptions. They claim the conclusions reached toward genocide are highly biased.

• Some very "central" (most cited) sources are actively questioned on the basis that they do not include a single reference from the Ottoman Archives. Mainly occupying force's sources of the period (British, French) on the basis of their Intelligence (information gathering) issues. There are concerns that these sources may promote propaganda.

• Enver Zia Karal (Ankara University), Salahi R. Sonyel (British historian and public activist), Ismail Binark (Director of Ottoman archives, Ankara), Sinasi Orel (director of a much publicized project on declassifying documents on Ottoman Armenians), Kamuran Gurun (former diplomat), Mim Kemal Oke, Justin McCarthy, and others have attacked the "Blue Book" (The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915-1916) by James Bryce and Arnold Toynbee, claiming that it lacks credibility.^[34]

• Reverse engineering of activities aimed to provide evidence without covering opposing reasoning, such as "Map of Genocide", which they claim contains factual problems. In this map, for the methodology behind "Centers of Massacre and Deportation" which was developed adding data from three different sources, (the data in these sources are also aggregate data), is questioned. Its use as a source of validation among Western scholars has been questioned.

• They bring up points on arguments that there was a secret arrangement which can be traced through mismatches on orders and distributions of the forced deportations. They say without considering (or checking) periphery central transmissions on how to deal with emerging issues are actively questioned. There are many periphery central transmissions on how to deal with emerging issues, such as allocating more than 10% of the destination population and its consequences to the local economy.

[editar] Casualties

Based on studies of the Ottoman census by Justin McCarthy and on contemporary estimates, it is said that far fewer than 1.5 million Armenians lived in the relevant areas before the War. Estimates of deaths are thus lowered, ranging from 200,000 to 600,000 between 1914 and the Armistice of Mudros. In addition, it is said that these deaths are not all related to the deportations, nor should they all be attributed to the Ottoman authorities.

Yusuf Halacoglu, President the Turkish Historical Society (TTK), presented lower figures of Armenian casualties. He estimates that a total of 56,000 Armenians perished during the period due to war conditions, and less than 10 thousand were actually killed. This study is still absent from the Turkish foreign affairs publications.

[editar] Holocaust similarities

Although the Nazis and the Young Turks both used forced deportations to expose their minority populations to privations, hunger, disease, and ultimate death; Turkish authorities also deny similarities with the Holocaust.

• Unlike the Armenians, the Jewish population of Germany and Europe did not agitate for separation. Armenian scholars reply that Holocaust deniers make similar false claims, namely the Jews agitated to destroy Germany by allying with the Soviet Union to bring Bolshevism into Germany.

• Arguments disputing the similarities to the Holocaust are as follows: (a) there is no record of (neither from origination archives nor from destination archives in Syria) an effort to develop a systematic process and efficient means of killing, (b) there are no lists or other methods for tracing the Armenian population to assemble and kill as many people as possible, (c) there was no resource allocation to exterminate Armenians (biological, chemical warefare allocations), and the use of morphine as a mass extermination agent is not accepted; in fact, there was a constant increase in food and support expenses and these efforts continued after the end of deportations, (d) there is no record of Armenians in forced deportations being treated as prisoners, (e) the claims regarding prisoners apply only to the leaders of the Armenian militia, but did not extend to ethnic profiling; the size of the security force needed to develop these claims was beyond the power of the Ottoman Empire during 1915, (f) there is no record of prisons designed or built to match the claims of a Holocaust, (g) there were no public speeches organized by the central government targeting Armenians.

See Armenian quote

[editar] Academic views on the issue

[editar] Recognition

There is a general agreement among Western historians that the Armenian Genocide did happen. The International Association of Genocide Scholars (the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe), for instance, formally recognize the event and consider it to be undeniable. Some consider denial to be a form of hate speech or/and historical revisionism.

Some Turkish intellectuals also support the genocide thesis despite opposition from Turkish nationalists; these include Ragip Zarakolu, Ali Ertem, Taner Akçam, Halil Berktay, Fatma Muge Gocek or Fikret Adanir.

The reasons why some Turkish intellectuals accept theses of genocide are threefold.

First, they cite the fact that the organization members were criminals, and that those criminals were specifically sent to escort the Armenians. This is regarded as sufficient evidence of the government's criminal intent. Second, the fact that Armenians living outside the war zone were also removed, contradicts the thesis of military necessity put forward by the Ottoman government. Thirdly, it is argued that the thesis of simple relocation is flawed due to the absence of the preparations which resettlement would require. This lack of provision by the authorities has been read as evidence of the government's intent to eliminate the displaced Armenians. Dr. Taner Akçam, a Turkish specialist, writes on this point:

"The fact that neither at the start of the deportations, nor en route, and nor at the locations, which were declared to be their initial halting places, were there any single arrangement required for the organization of a people's migration, is sufficient proof of the existence of this plan of annihilation."

These Turkish intellectuals believe that at the very least 600,000 Armenians lost their lives during the events, and they mostly use the Ottoman statistics of 800,000 or more. Fikret Adanir suggested that over a million died.

[editar] Orhan Pamuk

During a February 2005 interview with Das Magazin, Orhan Pamuk, a famous Turkish novelist, made statements implicating Turkey in massacres against Armenians and persecution of the Kurds, declaring: "Thirty thousand Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody but me dares to talk about it". Subjected to a hate campaign, he left Turkey, before returning in 2005 in order to defend his right to freedom of speech: "What happened to the Ottoman Armenians in 1915 was a major thing that was hidden from the Turkish nation; it was a taboo. But we have to be able to talk about the past".^[35] Lawyers of two Turkish professional associations then brought criminal charges against Pamuk.^[36] On January 23, 2006, however, the charges of "insulting Turkishness" were dropped, a move welcomed by the EU - that they had been brought at all was still a matter of contention for European politicians.

[editar] Denial

Template:Further

Almost all Turkish intellectuals, scientists and historians accept that many Armenians died during the conflict, but they do not necessarily consider these events to be genocide. A number of Western academics in the field of Ottoman history, including Bernard Lewis (Princeton University), Heath Lowry (Princeton University), Justin McCarthy (University of Louisville), Gilles Veinstein (College de France),^[37] and Stanford Shaw (UCLA, Bilkent University) have expressed doubts as to the genocidal character of the events. They offer the opinion that the weight of evidence instead points to serious intercommunal warfare, perpetrated by both Muslim and Christian irregular forces, aggravated by disease and famine, as the causes of suffering and massacres in Anatolia and adjoining areas during the First World War. They acknowledge that the resulting death toll among the Armenian communities of the region was immense, but claim that much more remains to be discovered before historians will be able to sort out precisely responsibility between warring and innocent, and to identify the causes for the events which resulted in the death or removal of large numbers in eastern Anatolia.^[38]

[editar] A posición da Comunidade Internacional

A pesar de que hai moito recoñecemento académico do Xenocidio Armenio, isto non ten sido seguido pola maioría dos gobernos e medios de comunicación. Moitos gobernos, incluíndo os Estados Unidos, o Reino Unido, Israel, Ucraína, e Xeorxia, non empregan oficialmente a verba "xenocidio" para describir estes feitos.

A pesar de que non hai un recoñecemento federal do xenocidio armenio, 39 dos 50 estados de EEUU recoñecen os feitos de entre 1915 e 1917 como xenocidio.

Nos anos recentes, os parlamentos dalgúns países cunha forte inmigración armenia teñen recoñecido oficialmente o xenocidio. Dous exemplos recentes son Francia e Suíza. Os contactos de Turquía para entrar na Unión Europea coincidiron cun número de chamamentos para considerar ó suceso como xenocidio, aínda que isto nunca se converteu nunha condición previa.

Os países que recoñecen oficialmente o xenocidio son Arxentina, Armenia, Austria, Australia, Bélxica, Canadá, Chipre, Francia, Alemaña, Grecia, Italia, Líbano, Lituania, Países Baixos, Polonia, Rusia, Eslovaquia, Suecia, Suíza, Uruguai, Cidade do Vaticano e Venezuela. Ademais, unha parte do Reino Unido, Gales, tamén recoñeceu oficialmente o xenocidio.

Moitos xornais non empregaron a verba xenocidio durante moito tempo e moitos continúan sen facelo. Varias desas políticas agora se teñen invertido aínda que o termo está contra a política editorial, como é o caso do New York Times.

En setembro do 2004, o presidente de Irán Mohammad Khatami visitou o Memorial do Xenocidio Armenio en Tsitsernakaberd, Iereván.^[39]

O 12 de abril do 2006, algúns membros do parlamento francés presentaron unha proposta para crear unha lei que castigaría a calquera persoa que negara a existenza do xenocidio armenio con máis de cinco anos de prisión e unha multa de 45.000 Euros. A proposición foi admitida a debate o 18 de maio de 2006.

O 10 de maio de 2006, o goberno búlgaro rexeitou unha proposta de recoñecemento do xenocidio armenio. [2].

En outubro de 2006 o parlamento francés presenta un proxecto que prevé condenar até cun ano de prisión e 45.000 euros de multa ós que neguen a existencia do xenocidio. A lei foi aprobada por un total de 106 votos a favor e 19 en contra. Deste xeito se completa o precepto ditado en 2001 que recoñece oficialmente o holocausto armenio por parte do Imperio Otomán.^[40]

Os organismos internacionais que recoñecen o Xenocidio Armenio inclúen o Parlamento Europeo, o Consello de Europa, a Subcomisión das Nacións Unidas para a Prevención de Discriminación e Protección das Minorías, o Centro Internacional de Xustiza Transitoria, a Unión de Congregaciones Hebreas Americanas, o Concilio Mundial de Igrexas e o autodeclarado non oficial Parlamento de Kurdistán no Exilio^[41].

[editar] Pegada na cultura

[editar] Memorial

A idea para a creación dun monumento conmemorativo xurdiu en 1965, na conmemoración do 50º aniversario do xenocidio. Dous anos máis tarde o monumento conmemorativo (realizado polos arquitectos Kalashian e Mkrtchyan) foi finalizado no outeiro de Tsitsernakaberd sobre o desfiladeiro de Hrazdan, na capital armenia, Iereván. O ronsel de 44 metros simboliza o renacemento nacional dos armenios. Doce lousas colócanse nun círculo, representando as 12 provincias perdidas no actual territorio de Turquía. No centro do círculo, a unha profundidade de 1,5 metros, áchase unha chama eterna. Ó longo do parque, ó redor do monumento, existe unha parede de 100 metros cos nomes das cidades e as aldeas nas que tiveron lugar os masacres. En 1995 inaugurouse no outro extremo do parque un pequeno museo circular subterráneo no que se mostra información básica sobre os acontecementos de 1915.

Cada 24 de abril celébrase en Armenia, así como en todas as comunidades dispersas polo mundo (diáspora armenia), o Día da Conmemoración do Xenocidio Armenio, no cal centos de miles de persoas camiñan cara o monumento do xenocidio e depositan as flores (caraveis ou tulipáns normalmente vermellos) ó redor da chama eterna, honrando ós seus seres queridos e antepasados que perderon a vida en devandito suceso.

[editar] Arte

A coñecida banda de heavy metal System of a Down, está composta por catro músicos de descendencia armenia que viven en California, e promove frecuentemente a conciencia do xenocidio armenio. Cada ano, a banda fai unha xira de almas en apoio á causa. A banda escribiu "P.L.U.C.K. (Politically Lying, Unholy, Cowardly Killers)" sobre o xenocidio no álbum homónimo. No libreto lese: "System Of A Down would like to dedicate this song to the memory of the 1.5 million victims of the Armenian Genocide, perpetrated by the Turkish Government in 1915." Outras cancións como "X" (Toxicity) ou "Holy Mountains" (Hypnotize), falan tamén sobre o xenocidio armenio.

O compositor e cantante americano Daniel Decker levou a aclamación da crítica polas súas colaboracións co compositor armenio Ara Gevorgian. A canción "Adana", que debe o seu nome ó lugar onde ocorreu un dos primeiros masacres, conta a historia do Xenocidio armenio. Decker escribiu a letra da canción para complementar á música de Ara Gevorgian. Cross Rhythms, a principal revista europea sobre relixión, xunto coa súa web, dixeron de "Adana": "raras veces un desastre de indecible sufrimento produciu un pedazo tan magnífico de arte." El foi oficialmente invitado polo goberno armenio para cantar "Adana" nun concerto especial en Iereván o 24 de abril de 2005 para conmemorar o nonaxésimo aniversario do Xenocidio armenio. Na actualidade, "Adana" foi traducida a 17 linguas e interpretada por cantantes de todo o mundo. O tema do Xenocidio armenio é tocado tamén pola literatura e o cinema. É o tema principal do filme de Atom Egoyan Ararat (2002). Tamén fanse referencias en America, America de Elia Kazan ou en Mayrig de Henri Verneuil. Os directores italiáns, Vittorio e Paolo Taviani, están planeando facer un filme do xenocidio baseado nun libro chamado La Masseria Delle Allodole, de Antonia Arslan. O primeiro filme sobre o Xenocidio armenio foi Ravished Armenia (1919), do que tan só quedan 15 minutos a día de hoxe.

Na literatura, a peza máis famosa referente ó Xenocidio armenio é Forty days of Musa Dagh de Franz Werfel, publicado en 1933 e e posteriormente marcado como "indesexable" polas autoridades nazis. O libro tornouse un bestseller e o estudo MGM quixo facer o filme de Forty days of Musa Dagh, pero esta tentativa foi eliminada con éxito por Turquía (dúas veces). O filme foi finalmente feito en 1982, pero o seu valor artístico é cuestionable. Kurt Vonnegut escribiu libro de ficción Bluebeard en 1988, no que o Xenocidio armenio é o principal tema. Louis de Berniéres emprega o tempo e o lugar do Xenocidio armenio como fondo na súa novela Birds without Wings, que é considerado por algúns como favorable ás posicións turcas.

Segundo se refire na parte final do filme A vida secreta das palabras de Isabel Coixet, Adolf Hitler usou o xenocidio armenio coma argumento para xustificar o holocausto xudeu co seguinte razoamento: "Se tras mataren un millón de armenios pasou unha década e ninguén se lembra xa agora diso, nós podemos facer o mesmo cos xudeus porque acontecerá o mesmo", que é unha conclusión de "a historia a escriben os vencedores", asumindo que Hitler pensaba gañar a II Guerra Mundial. No filme, a conversa transcorre nun arquivo en Dinamarca onde se recollen precisamente probas de atrocidades producidas nas guerras de todo o mundo.

[editar] Véxase tamén

• Xenocidio
• Limpeza étnica
• Propaganda

[editar] Turquía

• Imperio Otomán
• Primeira Guerra Mundial
• Guerra de Independencia Turca
• Mozos Turcos
• Armisticio de Mudros
• Tratado de Sèvres
• Tratado de Gümrü
• Historia de Turquía

[editar] Armenia

• Armenia
• Historia de Armenia
• Gran Armenia
• Diáspora armenia
• Dashnak
• Exército Secreto Armenio para a Liberación de Armenia

[editar] Notas

[editar] Referencias

[editar] Ligazóns externas

• http://www.armeniadiaspora.com/followup/organizations.html — General list of Armenian Organizations (world scope)

[editar] Webs que apoian as teses do xenocidio

• Armenian Genocide Institute-Museum (Yerevan)
• The Armenian Genocide documentation series and books from the Gomidas Institute.
• Documents from German state archives on the Armenian genocide during the World War I, in German and English.
• Learn more about this genocide through the resources including bibliography, quotes, and more.
• Eyewitness Accounts of the Genocide
• Armenian National Institute
• The Genocide Education Project - Nonprofit Educational Organization
• TeachGenocide.org – Teaching Resources on the Armenian Genocide
• Armeniapedia.org extensive Armenian Genocide wiki.
• French site with works and debunking revisionists
• History, articles, petition, pictures, quotations, forum, videos..
• The Armenian Genocide in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Turkish, Russian
• Life stories of twenty survivors of Armenian Genocide

[editar] Media

• Turkey - Facing up to the Past Australian Broadcasting Corporation
• Armenians to mark genocide Rockland Journal-News
• BBC News article Turkey must admit Armenia dead'
• The Armenian Genocide: 90 Years Later Turkey Continues to Deny the Extermination of a People. 22:15 minute Real Audio. Guests: Peter Balakian, Zanku Armenian. Interviewer: Amy Goodman. Democracy Now!. Friday, April 22 2005. Retrieved May 12 2005.
• The Straight Dope: Was there genocide in early 20th century Armenia?
• Professional Ethics and the Denial of Armenian Genocide: Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 9, Number 1, Spring 1995, pages 1-22, Roger W. Smith, Eric Markusen and Robert Jay Lifton.
• Obelus.org Remembering the Armenian Genocide
• Vahakn Dadrian responds to Guenter Lewy Guenter Lewy published an article in the Middle East Quarterly (Fall 2005) disputing the appropriateness of the Genocide label.

[editar] Webs que rexeitan as teses do xenocidio

• Turkish Weekly
• Turkish Historical Society
• Armenian Issue discussed by the Turkish Ministry of Culture
• Articles from the Assembly of Turkish American Associations
• Armenian Issue discussed by a Turkish Research Institute - Center for Eurasian Strategic Studies
• "Tete de Turc" French site with lots of articles rejecting genocide thesis
• Official Turkish site containing Ottoman archives regarding the issue
• Armenian Issue Allegations-Facts

[editar] Media

• Faruk Logoglu's article on Washington Times:To reconcile Turks and Armenians O. Faruk Logoglu is the former ambassador of Turkey to the United States.
• Dr. Sedat Laciner's article on The Journal of Turkish Weekly:The Armenian Issue: Inventing a Past Dr. Sedat Laciner is a member of Turkish Armenian Relations National Committee and International Strategic Research Organization.
• Bruce Fein's article: An Armenian and Muslim Tragedy? Yes! Genocide? No!
• Revisiting Armenian Genocide by Guenter Lewy Guenter Lewy is professor emeritus of political science, University of Massachusetts, and the author of The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide (University of Utah Press, 2005).
• Statement by Turkish Ambassador Nabi Şensoy on the PBS Program "The Armenian Genocide"

[editar] Estudos independentes

• Track Two Diplomacy Program in Turkey and the Caucasus by Center for Global Studies, American University

Mutual Perceptions Research (Armenia/Turkey) (*.doc file) "The Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) and the Armenian Sociological Association (HASA) have organized a Mutual Perceptions Research Project. Each group is carrying out sociological research to identify key issues of cultural understanding between the neighboring countries, including the perception of Turks by Armenians and of Armenians by Turks. The study focuses on the perceptions of the majority populations in each country. The combined results will constitute study findings. Representatives from each team met in Yerevan and fieldwork was undertaken in both countries. The results of the research were presented at an international seminar jointly organized by TESEV and HASA in Tbilisi, Georgia."

• International Center Transitional Justice (ICTJ) report Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC)

Full report (*.pdf file) Armenian and Turkish versions of the report are also available on the above mentioned website.

• The Genocide against the Armenians 1915-1923 and the relevance of the 1948 Genocide Convention Report by Professor Alfred De Zayas, ex-secretary of the United Nations Human Rights Committee.