In 1915, when stories of the systematic extermination of the Armenian minority in Anatolia by the Ottoman authorities started to surface in the Western press, Turkish diplomats were rapidly mobilized to deny the reports. “All those who have been killed were of that rebellious element,” the Turkish consul in New York, Djelal Munif Bey, told the New York Times, “who were caught red-handed or while otherwise committing traitorous acts against the Turkish Government, and not women and children, as some of these fabricated reports would have the Americans believe.”
As the sun began to set on the Ottoman Empire, its leaders–and their secular successors–laid the foundations of a gruesome template that remains with us today. Ever since the slaughter of the Armenians, each episode of genocide and mass killing has been accompanied by voices who willfully deny that such horrors actually took place. Genocide denial is a phenomenon most commonly associated with the Shoah, but it also raised its head in Bangladesh in 1971, in Cambodia in 1979, in the former Yugoslavia and in Iraq during the 1990s, in Rwanda in 1994 and in Syria in the present day.
As the original pioneers of genocide denial, the Turks remain its most aggressive practitioners. That, perhaps, is to be expected; far less understandable is the willingness of certain countries and institutions to collude in this trampling of history and memory. In that regard, this item from Denmark’s Copenhagen Post is nothing less than astounding:
The Royal Library has attracted heavy criticism after agreeing to let Turkey co-arrange an alternative exhibition about the Armenian Genocide.
The library has complied with the wishes of the Turkish ambassador to Denmark to be involved with the exhibition, ‘The Armenian Genocide and the Scandinavian response’, which is currently on display at the University of Copenhagen.
The Turkish Embassy has been granted the opportunity to stage a Turkish version of the historical events in a move that has generated criticism from a number of circles, including politicians, historians, and the Armenian Embassy in Copenhagen.
Genocide scholars in Denmark have reacted angrily. “If you believe that all versions of history are equal, then you’ve undermined your role as a research institution,” said the historian Matthias Bjørnlund. “It was genocide and not all interpretations of this history are correct.” But the director of the Royal Library, Erland Kolding Nielsen, denied having caved to pressure from the Turkish Embassy. “One can’t pressure us, and we have not spoken about removing the Armenian exhibition. We have simply given [the Turks] the opportunity to show their alternative exhibition,” Nielsen said.
Clearly, this sets an extremely dangerous precedent. No longer does it seem far-fetched to think that an exhibition about, say, Auschwitz, or the North Korean gulags, might be “balanced” with a “counter-narrative” from the perspective of the perpetrators of these atrocities.
The current Danish controversy also speaks volumes about the extent to which Turkey is prepared to go in enforcing its state doctrine of genocide denial upon its ostensible allies. Earlier this year, Ankara temporarily froze ties with France after that country’s Senate passed a law officially recognizing the Armenian massacres as a genocide. Responding to similar efforts by American lawmakers, Turkey’s Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told President Obama in March that he was “tired” by the constant reminders of Turkey’s historic crime, adding that the U.S. administration should “not … mistake U.S. senators, lawmakers and politicians for historians.”
For decades, Turkey has acted on the premise that Western acquiescence toward its regional bullying–whether that involves its assaults on Kurdish civilians or its continued occupation of northern Cyprus–means that it will never be obliged to reckon with the monstrous crimes committed against the Armenians. If the authors of Washington’s policy toward Turkey want us to believe that Erdogan and his cohorts share not just our strategic goals, but our core values too, then Ankara must be told that the practice of genocide denial, inaugurated by Djelal Munif Bey in 1915, is no longer acceptable almost 100 years on.
Don't forget also about the PONTIC GENOCIDE in which hundreds of thousands of Greek Christians were massacred in Constantinople in the early 1900s. Only two or three countries today recognize the Pontic Genocide. Muslims demand tolerance but when they are in power they are not tolerant to others. During Muslim rule hundreds of churches in Constantinople were converted into mosques, St Sophia, one of the biggest Catedrals in the world, was converted into a mosque and later on into a museum due to international pressure. They turned St Sophia into a museum in order not to return it to the Christians, until today Christians are not allowed to pray there. _Christians were not massacred only in Armenia or Constantinople, this is what Mark Twain wrote in "The Innocents Abroad" when visiting Syria in 1867 (only five years after a massacre):_"…in Damascus they so hate the very sight of a foreign Christian that they want no intercourse whatever with him
With his friend Pr. Obama, Erdogan will try to get away with genocide.
that's rather dumb, watsa. n nTurkey isn't going to be going on any genocidal rampage in the next four years. n nwhatever are you on about?
Wow obviously and clearly you are heavily biased against the Turks in this article. That was the only point you made. Make sure you read your own hot air before you publish it. Go look at the actual archives on the so called genocide that the Armenian Lobby has paid every politician to rewrite history with. This is the reason the Armenians will not go to the International Tribunals court because you need actual proof … you know a thing called evidence? Since the Armenian's do not have any hard evidence against the Turk's from the past they have no case other than paying off a bunch of politicians with their lobby firms to rewrite history.
Put a copy of John Buchan's "Greenmantle" under the WH Holiday Tree. n nThen we can move on to the Greeks and Syriac Christians who were expelled from Ataturk's Turkey.
— " . If the authors of Washington’s policy toward Turkey want us to believe that Erdogan and his cohorts share not just our strategic goals, but our core values too, then Ankara must be told that the practice of genocide denial, inaugurated by Djelal Munif Bey in 1915, is no longer acceptable almost 100 years on. " — n n nnot only shouldn't the folks in Washington wish to persuade you that the Turks share our core values, they really shouldn't give a ship as to whether you are persuaded of that. n nit's neither necessary to our strategic alliances that Commentary readers believe this nor important that they do share our core values. n nthe US makes alliances with all sorts of nations and Turkey is VERY far from the worst of them
are you keeping company with a murderer?
Turkey never denied Armenian sufferings. Moreover, it has always stated that the extent of Armenian sufferings was much larger than the remote West could have ever imagined. However, and here come two points of utmost importance that Europe is reluctant to comprehend: n n1) by no means can it be called a "genocide", since only the international court can make such a ruling, but definitely not the politicians or even scholars; massacres – yes, but not a "genocide". Obviously, you should study legal implications of the term "genocide"; n n2) it must not be neglected, never mind denied, that exactly that time much more terrible things had happened to Muslim civilians (Turks, Kurds and Azeris) at the hands of armed Armenian irregulars! — before the Ottoman army arrived to stop this slaughter and save the nation. n nAnd this is the core of the matter. If the Ottoman government took no actions and let the Armenians continue enjoying this bloody entertainment until the annihilation of the last Turk, would Europe today speak of the Turkish genocide and, probably, Armenian denial as vigorously as it speaks about the "Armenian genocide"? Many doubts about that! n nCalling the Armenian sufferings a "genocide" and turning blind eye to what Armenian themselves did to innocent Turks and Kurds shortly before they were punished, is a typical European approach based on – and here I have to say it openly – religious stereotypes. n nThe author must remember that Turks, Kurds and Azeris (and, by the way, Jews too – hundreds of Jews were massacred by Armenians in Hakkari alone) who were slaughtered by Armenians were humans as well! n nBy the way, some of my relatives were killed by those "innocent" Armenians in Anatolia in 1915. Please read what Armenian authors themselves were writing in 1919: n n“In considering the reduced number of the Armenians, it is well to consider also the fact that the Moslem elements in Armenia have suffered even more than the Armenians, particularly those in the regions which were invaded by Russia. In the Fall of 1917, the normal Turk and Kurd populations of about 551,000 in the provinces of Van, Bitlis, and Erzerum had been reduced to 96,000, and in the city of Diarbekir, out of a resident and refugee Moslem population of 63,000 only 6,000 were left.” (Vahan Cardashian, “Should America Accept a Mandate for Armenia?”, in “America as Mandatary for Armenia”, New York, 1919, pp. 29-30). n nTo sum up, Turkey does not deny the sufferings, but rightfully dismisses the applicability of the notion "genocide" to those terrible events and insists that both sides equally suffered from mutual inter-communal massacres. n
The Muslim population of Anatolia was indeed reduced in Anatolia in 1917. However, the great majority of the Turkish suffering was due to the fact that the Turks had eliminated the Armenian peasantry of Anatolia which until 1915 was meeting the agricultural needs of the region, and this despite the regular attacks of Kurdish and Turkish regulars who's job was to rob and pillage the Armenian villages. n nThe rest, (the overly inflated Turkish deaths) were the result of Armenians defending themselves, and no one can deny the right to defend oneself faced with total annihilation.
"Turkey never denied Armenian sufferings." n nThis is a straw man argument because the word "suffering" means death and hardship from any tragedy including acts of nature such as famine. We're talking about a deliberate acts by the government of the Ottoman Empire taken against an entire population based on their ethnic origins. n nBesides Turkey has denied the "suffering" and deaths and massacres. In the early decades of the Turkish Republic, the government tried to hide that Armenians existed on those lands to begin with. n n"… or even scholars …" You might want to tell that to the scholars and historians, including Turks and non-Armenians that they can't use the word genocide for Armenians and other events before 1948. For example the Herero genocide in 1907, or the deliberate famine in Ukraine. n nAfter the UN genocide convention was accepted, Raphael Lemkin himself made clear that he included the Armenian genocide as an example of genocide. In fact his interest in mass killings and international law began before WWII, in the 1920s and 1930s, based on the Armenian case (and acts against Assyrians in the 30s). n nSince you're really into this topic, you may be interested in a legal opinion on the use of the word genocide on events preceding the UN convention. Google the following title: n nTHE APPLICABILITY OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON nTHE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE nTO EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED DURING THE EARLY TWENTIETH nCENTURY nLEGAL ANALYSIS PREPARED FOR nTHE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE n nIt's a legal opinion given after the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission asked for one in 2002. Their conclusion was that while one can't bring cases for events preceding the UN convention, one can use the term to describe the events if they fit the definition. And why should you not be able to?
K2K, please tell us how many Turks were expelled from the Balkans as a result of the two Balkan Wars and WWI. I can hint that the number is 7 digit! So, Greeks, Assyrians and Armenians are not the only victims. Turks suffered more than anyone else.
watsa4673p, that's because Obama himself is smart enough to realize that the term "genocide" cannot be applied to the events preceding 1948.
Obama and other presidents are not using the term genocide because it preceded 1948 but because Turkey uses bullying tactics. Turkey threatens to cut diplomatic, economic and military relations every time a non-legally binding declaration on the Armenian Genocide makes its way through the US congress. I remember when representatives of American companies doing business in Turkey spoke against such a resolution in congress.
YerushalaimShelanu! You seem to forget that exactly the same genocide happened to the Turks when they were expelled from the Balkans, including Greece. And those parliamentary "recognitions" do not mean anything. How many Turks were killed by the Greeks?
You're calling the expulsion of Turks from Balkans and Greece a genocide? Even though earlier you said you can't call any events before 1948 genocide? Your statements contradict each other.
Now I remember why I stopped reading the Times…this is another reminder…r nvery soon now chapter 11 then the cemetaryr nwhat a shame.
……An Angryturk is talking about HOT AIR ? should listen to his courageous fellow Turkish compatriots who literally risk their lives an admit the crime of genocide committed against their own Armenian-origin citizens. It is always interesting to hear Turks project their deceitful and sinister negation tactics