Armenian Genocide

I know virtually nothing about the Ottoman Empire and even less about Armenia and Armenians. It seems that this argument has now got to the "Oh yes you did!" Oh no we didn't!" stage.

If you leave two children in the garden and one falls in the pond you will never find out how he got there. It seems to me that it is quite impossible to establish the truth of far more serious matters that happened nearly a hundred years ago.

Suppose for a moment that the Turkish government says: "Yes. It's true. One million Armenians were killed on the orders of the government." Where do you go from there? The Armenians will be happy for a week and that will be that. No one alive today is responsible. There is no one to punish. It is too late for justice.

Many peoples are weighed down by their history, or their version of history. Irish nationalists still go on about Oliver Cromwell and Unionists about the Battle of the Boyne. Most people in the Irish Republic don't give a fig about union with the six provinces. Most of the IRA funding came from the US where people took their history of oppression with them and think it is still relevant. It acts as a sort of glue for the community. I expect that Armenian-Americans are more American than Armenian, but think they are more Armenian that American. I bet if a third-generation Armenian-American went to Armenia the people there would smile at the way he spoke Armenian.

I saw a programme about a young American-born woman whose grandfather had been murdered by the fascists in the Spanish Civil War. She visited Spain and found her great uncle. She was seething with righteous indignation that her grandfather's murderers had not been brought to justice since the restoration of democracy in Spain. Everyone in the town seemed to have a good idea who was responsible, but no one would tell her. In the end, her great uncle said to her that he did not want to know, as if he knew he would have to go and kill them and he wanted to live in peace. That is how it is in Spain. They have moved on and left the woman behind.

Also, in order to illustrate why it is important to remember events in history such as the Armenian Genocide, I thought I'd add a quote by a rather famous historical figure.  It is this that Adolf Hitler reportedly told his generals shortly before invading Poland:

"Thus for the time being I have sent to the East only my 'Death Head Units' with the orders to kill without pity or mercy all men women and children of Polish race or language.  Only in such a way will we win the vital space we need.  Who still talks nowadays of the Armenians?"

I was giving a hypothetical situation.  In essence, I was asking Forbes and anyone else to consider what if the present German government denied that the Holocaust ever took place, and instead gave an alternate view of history in which the Jews were rebelling and and relocated to concentration camps for their own protection as well as that of other German citizens.  If the German government presented that view of history and the majority of contemporary Germans believed it, despite what the rest of the world knows about the Holocaust, you would have almost the exact same situation as the one that exists in modern Turkery regarding the Armenian Genocide.

YC,you say there are 8.000.000 Armenian diaspora and you also say according to objective!!! sources and many instutuions alleged Armenian Genocide is a fact. But, who is objective? How do you know they are objective? Are European goverments objective? Or the instutitions you have stated are objective? First, you proudly say there are 8.000.000 Armenian diaspora throughout the world. However you suppose that who is not neither Armenian nor Turk is objective but there is a catch in it. You overlook your diaspora when you want to overlook.

Lets take the case of UNESCO.This case is a new one but it is clear example for you to understand what i mean. I am sure according to many people UNESCO is an objective foundation (actually,more or less it is so to me,as well) There were going to be an exhibition of 50 piecemeal from the archives of Ottoman Empire in Paris nowadays by the attempt of Turkish goverment and UNESCO. These piecemaels are original manuscripts.However, UNESCO wanted to remove 5 of them and wanted to change 2 of them. One of the sources that is wanted to be removed from the exhibition is about letters. This part comprises two letters ,one of which was written in 1889 and the other is written in 1898 by the outstanding people of Armenians to Ottoman Empire as a mean of friendship and thanksgiving. However ,UNESCO wanted to remove this part becuause of the possible irritation for people in the diaspora. source So, I think you shouldnt dont rely on your so called objective resources, there is not much objectivity in this world. Most are partial.

You say Turks dont want to discuss the matter.I remember a case 2 or 3 months ago in an Italian television. The Italian television invited the ambassadors of the two country,Armenia and Turkey, and it wanted from the two ambassadors to bring a historician with them. I am not sure but as far as i can remember the Turkish ambassador brought a history professor from Middle East Technical University.However, the Armenian ambassador didnt bring any historician , neither did he try to discuss any historical matter but instead of it he get stuck to current affairs why European Union shouldnt be welcome to Turkey(i dont even know what Armenia has to do with EU-Turkey affairs) or why Turkey must immeadiately open the borders.So i think it is Armenians who dont want to discuss the history of it not Turks.But they prefer to get stuck in the same things as you do.

Young Californian

I am sorry you found my post insulting; it was certainly not intended to be so. As this is not the right thread to talk about issues of American identity I shall not do so; I have however started another thread on the subject in the Cultural Anecdotes, Similarities and Differences section to which I hope you will contribute.

What you may have detected in my post is my frustration at people’s insistence on dwelling too much on their history, whether they perceive it to be one of glory or oppression. History is important, but rarely objective; it is a cliché that history is written by the winners, but the losers have their version too.

The Holocaust is, I think, remembered for special reasons. The evidence was there and irrefutable – the death factories and the written orders – and journalists were there with the liberating troops. The guilty were prosecuted and their victims gave testimony.

I think the question I am asking is: “How long should tragedies be remembered with bittereness?”

A thousand years and more ago the English lived in constant fear of raids by marauding Scandinavians. I expect tales were told for many years after the last raid. But no one nowadays harbours resentment against Norwegians, Danes and Swedes or demands apologies from their governments. A ridiculous example you may say; well perhaps, but I hope it makes a point.

I think that any emigrant community runs the risk of defining itself in terms of its oppresion, by which I mean dwelling too much on the reasons for the migration. Their history has become crystallised at the moment of departure, while the countries they left have changed.