8 Stages Apply to the Turks, Their Still Denying?

Classification- The Ottoman Turks classified the Armenians as non-believers(Infeldels).  The Turks was part of the Muslim religion and the Turks followed Christianity.

Symbolization-The Turks required the Armenians to dress differently, or wear clothes that symbolized that they belonged to the Chrisitan faith.  If an Muslim uniforms were worn, they were instantly killed.

Dehumanization- To the Turks, the Armenians were not considered people because they believed in the Chrisitian faith.  To be considered an Ifedel was to be considered less than human.  SO KILLING SOMETHING LESS THAN HUMAN IS STILL JUSTIFIABLE?

Organization- The Turks rounded up thousands of the Armenians on trains and shipped them to labor camps.  The train was a luxury compared to some of the Armenians.  Hundreds of thousands were forced to walk across what is now called Syrian Desert without food or water.  Many of them died before they reached the camp.

Polarlization- This is the act of creating seperation between the two races.  This tactic was not necesarily used.  Although there were some instances of polarization.  In the story of Vahan Kendarian, his family was transported from their home to a manufactered town where Armenians were housed away from Turks.

Preparation- The Turks had many previous killing to solidify their power above the Armenians.

Extermination- Such tatics as, burning, gas chambers, stavation, shootings were used to masscure the Armenians.

Denial- The Turks are making sure that there is no literature that reveal Genocide of the Armenians to be removed from their ciriculum.  Their Justification of the killings are that the Armenians were fighting back too.

How Could This Be Allowed to Happen

The Armenian Genocide is considered by some historians to be the worst mass killing in the history of the world.  There are many reasons as to why this can be proved so.  One main reason is that this genocide is utterly forgotten about by many people in the world.  The reason being is that is happened so long ago and other countries were called upon to aid in the stopping of this killing, but many of these countries just stood by as if nothing was happening.  I can understand why some historians rank this genocide as the worst in history.  With relation to the total popluation of the Armenians(around 2.5 million), around 1.5 million were massacured.  That is over half of the popluation.  That is a more significant number, because technically this race was nearly almost erased off the map.  The brutality that was brought amoung these people was mind-blowing.  The Nazis recevied their killing plans from the tactics of the Ottoman Turks.  The use of gas chambers, mass burning, or large graves(graves dug by thousands of Armenians for their own resting place) was first implemented by the Ottoman Turks.  How could other countries let this killing progress? Do you agree with the statement that this is "the worst genocide in history"? Click on Title to Veiw Video(How Could This Be Allowed to Happen)  

Look A Little Familiar

The video we watched today reveals the horror behind the Armenian Genocide by the Young Turks. In the first fifteen seconds of this video, the narrator states that this Genocide is still being denied by the Ottoman Turks today.  To this day, the Turks deny the intent or reason as to why they decided to murder by the masses over one million people(half the population).  There are two questions that are asked by the narrator at the end of the story, How was is possible for a massacure of such epic proportions to take place?  Why has it remained one of the greatest untold stories of the 20th century? Click on title to view movie(Look A Little Familiar)

German's Lust for Britain's Downfall

From the start of Britain's creation of their national navy fleet, Germany has had the lust to destroy this army. The German brutes have the desire to rule the land and ocean of the Europe. The only navy fleet that was standing in the way was the fleet of the Brits. Although, the German fleet was not enough to destroy the 85 ship fleet of the British.

World War 1 to Global War

As our class went on throughout the days, Mr. Mckenna and Mr. Chisholm were beginning to hint to the gradual transition from a strictly Eurpoean war to a Global War. Once Germany started to move quickly throughout the countries, other country's land began being threated to be stolen and taken over. This angered many of the country's military leaders and caused them to mobilize them into fighting form. In the case of Britain, Japan and Italy, their situations contained the issues of land.

French Propagana.

By sj3danes | View this Toon at ToonDoo | Create your own Toon

Rape of Belgium

In Belgium, German troops, in fear of French and Belgian guerrilla fighters brutally murdered thousands of civilians, most significally in these countries: Andenne (211 dead), Tamines (384 dead), and Dinant (612 dead). Not only did the Germans(fearfull of possible attacks from guerrilla warriors) massacure the masses of Belgium, they burned thousands of books. On 25 August 1914, the Germans set fire to the town of Leuven, burned the library containing about 230,000 books, killed 209 civilians and forced 42,000 to evacuate. Now it seems that this is a genocide that is otherwise forgotten. Many critics believe that a genocide is characterized with the forceful ethnic cleansing of a nation. In my opinion, this is a form of genocide, considering it was a massacure of thousands of people followed by the burning of books.

Propaganda is a Type of Warfare?

Over the thousands of years, many different countries and groups of people have been using propaganda to change certain societys opinions.  Could this use of propaganda agianst others change the course of some wars?  Name some examples of past propoganda that has been used in the past

Chemical Warfar(Unfair Advantage)

After looking through some stratgies of the German offense, I came across this startling fact concerning a very interesting war-tactic.  The use of chemical warfare was first utilized by the Germans, followed by the Britsh and French.  Is this war-tactic an unfair advantage, concerning the so-called "rules of warfare".  This gas affected not only the soldiers who faught in this war, but thousands of the citizens who were inhabited in the cities.  Could this use of toxic gas have changed the tide of the war in the direction of the Germans? How is this warfare a form of nuclear war? Click on title (Chemica Warfare(unfair Advantage)) to watch video

Trench Warfare

This idea of trench warfare seems pretty primative for the early 1900's seeing as just 30 years later, guerilla warfare is started with much more advanced tactics in fighting.  One should wonder on why with such advanced technology for its age that this war was fought so primitivly. Click on "Trench Warfare" title to watch short clip.

Finally An Anwser

There were many official causes of the start of World War One, but the main reason is the actions of the coutnry, Austria-Hungary.  They continually  waited for a reason to strike on Serbia.  On July 28 the Austians delcared war upon the Serbians.  After that, Russia mobilizes and is followed by the German and French forces to unite.  A couple years later the Germans give an ultimatium to Belgium on August 2, 1914 and the British give an ultimatium back to the Germans.  After this deadline is given, Germany invades Belgium and the expiration of the British/German ultimatium, World War One begins. 

Was Franz the Spark?

After a very interesting world wars class period on September 3, 2010, I began running many questions through my head.  I brought up to my father and uncle, two extremely well read people on WWI and II.  After explaining what we went over in class, my father and uncle concured with the notion that the assasination of Franz Ferdinand did not cause the start of World War I.  From the reactions of everyone with the death of the Archduke, even his own uncle was happy he was dead, one can decifer that this was not the cause.  The reason why we haved learned the wrong way for years is because it is very easy to teach students that the death of one man can spark a war.  It is the same concept of not explaining how the Spanish Conquistdors never had a Thanksgiving feast with the indians, they slaughted them.

War to End All Wars?

After searching and browsing on internet, I have noticed a familiar pattern throughout the historians veiw of World War One.  It seems that they called it the, "War to End All Wars".  Why would they call it this?  Use our knowledge that we all know from just two weeks of class to decifer this title.