learntoquestion ltq discussions

Read: Chapters 1 and 2, from Samantha Power, “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide (New York: Basic Books, 2001), pp. 1-29.

We will have been looking at the Armenian genocide this week, so I would like you to break open your “virtual copy” of former UN Ambassador from the United States (and current USAID chief, playing a significant role in help for Ukranian refugees) Samantha Power’s 2001 book, “A Problem from Hell”: America in the Age of Genocide.Here’s the link to the reading.

Power begins her volume by talking about the Armenian situation before there was a word “genocide” in the English language. She the introduces Based on what you read in her account, I would ask you to consider the following, based on what you read in this chapter AS WELL AS what you see in the materials we look at in class. Make sure you support your observations with specifics. (In other words, vague generalities not accepted.)

Did we --the United States--and our allies act as bystanders during the Armenian genocide?

Admittedly, between 1914 and 1918, most of Europe was caught up in World War I; the United States joined the war in 1917, after remaining steadfastly isolationist in the preceding years. The Armenian genocide occurred between 1915 and 1923, with the bulk of events occurring between 1915-1917. Needless to say, folks were busy during that period. So maybe it’s unfair to ask this question.

But I’m asking it anyway.

What could we/should we have done? Should the U.S and/or other nations take a stand when an entire population is being destroyed? On principle? Wherever and whenever it happens? No matter what? Always? Sometimes? Rarely? (Whoa, quite a few question marks here…)

In short, what sort of role would you advocate for the United States and other nations witnessing this (and by extension, any other) genocide?

Do you think world nations behaved differently during the Armenian genocide than they did during the carnage in Africa—specifically what we saw in German South West Africa (Namibia)--in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Why or why not?

Yes, the United States and our allies were bystanders, especially the United States. France, Britain, and Russia were busy fighting in the war while the U.S., afraid that we would be implicated, stayed silent. When Morgenthau, U.S. ambassador in Turkey, reported evidence of the genocide, the U.S. told him to turn a blind eye. One, because we want to keep “friendly relations” with Turkey, and two, it wasn’t any of his business. Then, later on when he urged the U.S. to save the Armenians, America said no because they didn’t want to give up the safe position they were in. Some American people did advocate against the genocide, but they also advocated against participating in the war. Former President Theodore Roosevelt was angry at their hypocrisy. How could you say you want to help the Armenian people but won’t join the war to stop their genocide?

The U.S. didn't want to join the war, however, it should've taken a stand against Turkey instead of acting like “allies”. On principle, America brands itself as “the land of the free”, but they’re unwilling to help out anyone else except their own. This “neutrality” does more harm than good for America’s image in the world. As Lemkin said, if it happened once, it could happen again. History will keep repeating itself. If America stays silent now about the Armenian genocide, it will stay silent forever when other genocides are happening. We can see this happening during World War II, but during that time, a lot more countries were willing to condemn Germany and help the Jews. I believe that the U.S. should always be ready to take a stand when entire populations are being destroyed. If we cannot protect persecuted communities, then we cannot call ourselves as a world power. Lemkin, driven on by the massacre of the Armenians and the massacre of his own people, sets out to raise attention to these crimes. He would eventually come up with a word for it: genocide.

I would’ve advocated for the United States and its allies to be upstanders. They could’ve acted as refugee centers for escaping Armenians or tried taking down the Turkey regime. The U.S. administration could’ve also released information about it to people overseas. It’s more significant this way because it shows that Turkey’s actions are “condemned” by the U.S. One thing that really irked me in the reading and that I hoped they would stop doing is playing devil’s advocate. Whenever the topic of the genocide is brought up, government officials would say something along the lines of, “Maybe it’s not one-sided,” “Maybe the Armenians did something, were disloyal, etc.”. This does nothing to help our cause. Not only is the U.S. being a bystander, but it’s also actively victim-blaming the people dying. That’s what I mainly disliked about the U.S.’s “neutrality”.

Yes, the world nations did behave differently during the Armenian genocide than they did during the carnage in Africa. The Armenian genocide made it into the headlines AND they had a U.S. ambassador advocating for them (not that it did them any good). News sources like the New York Times and British Press published articles bringing awareness to it. The Congregationalist, Baptist, and Roman Catholic churches also gave donations. After the war, Turkish leaders were tried at court and executed for their crimes. If you compared their punishment to the punishment the Belgians and Germans got for their atrocities in Namibia and the Congo, you can see that there’s basically no punishment for what the Europeans did in Africa at all. Of course, we should never compare genocides, and I’m not comparing the 2 genocides, but we can’t deny the fact that there WAS a difference between how these 2 genocides were handled by the public.

In the face of genocide, the American Government should have chosen humanity over political neutrality, we were bystanders. Before WWI, America was seen as an economic superpower, but not neccessarily a wartime one. However, America definitely had the resources to be able to intervene in the Armenian Genocide. Just like with the Holocaust, America knew it was happening but did nothing. Excuses were made about protecting the American reputation or not having valid information from their sources, but these would be hard to believe given the first hand accounts of America’s own ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. Countless lives could have been saved had America intervened physically or even through threats towards Turkey. Even after America joined the war, it did not fight Turkey. Even after the war ended, it said Turkey should not be prosecuted.

The US and other nations should always intervene when an entire population is being destroyed. It’s hard to understand how anyone with a soul could knowingly watch mass murder happen. Even if the people being affected are not the same race, nationality, or religion as you. Of course, if there was ever a targeted attack on American citizens, America would expect every other nation to come to their aid. Whether or not help is given to a group should not be determined by territorial lines, alliances, or possible economic gain. There is no logic in the idea that one sovereign nation can do whatever they want to their people. Citizens of a nation are not property of the government, they are meant to be protected and not abused. Also, it is usually a minority group of a nation that is targeted, making it even more unlikely that people within that nation will care enough to stop it. Nations need to pay attention to the warning signs. Hitler recovered the ashes of Talaat and brought them back to Turkey where they were enshrined. This was an obvious alarm that people missed.

America cannot carry on with the idea that,“Unless it directly affected American lives and American interests, it was outside the concern of the American Government”. America, being a very influential country, should be the leader in addressing world change with regards to genocide. Policies should reflect the ideas stated by Lemkin in the article, countries should take exception when whole groups of people are being erased.

Though both genocides were ignored for political reasons for a long time, the atrocities that occurred in German South West Africa received much less attention then the Armenian Genocide and were not addressed until very recently. In the Ottoman Empire, claims of wiping out the Armenians were ignored due to political tension, but eventually caught on due to the efforts of Morgenthau and the New York Times. Christian groups joined with wealthy families in the US, such as the Rockefellers, to raise money to help save the Armenians, though their attempts went nowhere. Morgenthau also argued that Armenians are hard workers and that the states should let them in, but the Turkish leaders would not let this happen. The Namibian Genocide happened without gaining attention from other nations and was even advertised by Germany as a great way for its citizens to make money. Though the atrocities committed on both groups of people were unimaginable, less attention was brought to Namibia because its people were not Christian or light skinned.

Yes both the allies and our own country acted as bystanders but it was more the US than the allies. As stated in the first reading, the Allies had come together to create a declaration that the Turkish would be held accountable for their actions. But for US president Woodrow Wilson he decided to not be a signer on this declaration because he thought it was better to “it was better to not draw attention to the atrocities”, because it could cause pressures from within the US to get involved. By actively turning a blind eye and just deciding that the loss of human lives via mass killings didn't concern the US, it 100% makes them a bystander. But, it wasn't just turning a blind eye to what they saw the Allies doing but also ignoring the things that were coming from US ambassadors and diplomats were telling Washington. Although the Allies had made some effort to put an end to the genocide of the Armenian people, signing a decloration and saying that something is bad and recognizing that it is something is happening can only do so much. It was definitely a step in the right direction but needed more for the Allies to not be considered bystanders. However, it would be incorrect and unfair to make it seem like the Allies had written that declaration and then just left it out to dry as they were fighting in WW1 and had their own countries to worry about.

The US would've done anything to offer support but they just stood by and let it happen because it wasn’t their battle to fight in. The US and other countries should take a stand when populations are being annihilated but it seems hypocritical to do so when the US and the other nations that could potentially be involved have done the same thing. Although it seems hypocritical it doesn't mean that they shouldn't do anything but perhaps is more of a reason to act. To me it just seems like the principle of the act, by deciding that the human lives being lost are worth more than the political aspect of it. Although it does seem unrealistic to jump to help every group at any given moment, it should never be so blatantly ignored like it was in Armenia.

I would push and advocate for anything other than just sitting with the information of what is happening to a whole group of people and watching them be annihilated from their own country. Offering support in the way of refuge, trying to stop the Turkish, acknowledging what was happening, pushing other nations to act -- literally anything other than doing nothing and making the decision that this wasn't their fight. Not to try and compare the Holocaust to the Aremnian Genocide in any way, but the type of outcry that came out of the Holocaust the the reaction that it warented is an example of what could be done. By no means am I trying to say that we should have a world war every time someone gets killed but people getting killed by the hundreds of thousands is beyond the means for reaction.

Besides the fact that the world at least recognized that it was happening, I don't think the world really acted any different. Although yes the circumstances that the world was in during Germany’s rule in Namibia and the Armenian genocide were very different from one another, there wasnt that much of a difference in behavior from other nations. However, I think that the media coverage that the Armenain Genocide was somthing that the genocide in Nambia didn’t have. Granted they were different time periods, by having newspaper reports in the US as well as other places around the world, it made it easier for the average person to gain knowledge about what happened and perhaps pressure their governments to act.

(I’ve answered all the questions in a long stream of consciousness because I found my answers too intertwined with one another to separate the way Ms. Freeman did. That being said, I did try to break it up in a way that would be easier on the eyes.)

I think that the United States and other nations witnessing this genocide absolutely needed to do more. Considering how much of a global powerhouse the U.S. was during this time, and continues to be, they could’ve put a lot of pressure on the Ottoman Empire. Be it through diplomatic negotiations, offering asylum, or placing the empire under economic stress- a lot of political manipulation could’ve been done to save people. No one on this earth will ever convince me that the combined political brain power of the top nations in the world could come up with nothing. Our class of less than 30 high school students can think of something.

I also think that when viewing the right of the U.S. to intervene or not, I think the formation of the United Nations plays a big role. In the modern world, the barrier of “oh this is an internal affair! We don't owe you anything because we are our own sovereign nation! Look away LOL!” doesn’t hold up whatsoever- (not that it should’ve in the first place when the topic is literal mass murder.) There are 195 countries in the world, and 193 of them are currently part of the UN. 193 countries adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and every single one can and must be held responsible if they violate it.

I absolutely believe that world nations behaved differently during the Armenian genocide than they did during the atrocities in Africa, and I believe it was because of selfishness. Nations, particularly European ones, that spoke out against the Armenian genocide from the get-go were already at war with the Ottoman Empire. While countries like Britain and France reported on genocide taking place in the German colonies, their outrage was by no means comparable to taking part in The Great War.

I don’t think that there is a scale of suffering- that atrocities should be compared to one another to determine which one was worse. Responses on the other hand can, and should be compared and more importantly criticized- not on the basis of comparison of the event, but on the basis that the event was, by itself, appalling. It’s the principle, and it sets a precedent. The suffering of those in German South West Africa does not negate that of those in Turkey. The responses of world nations to these genocides reveals everything about said nations, not the genocides. Those already at war with the Ottoman Empire had the perfect opportunity to rally their troops, to boost morale, to convince everyone that they were doing the right thing. Germany, of course, is an exception to this as they maintained support for the Ottoman Empire. Of all the things to be morally consistent on…support of human rights violations is the worst possible one.

To start, yes, the United States and our allies did act as bystanders during the Armenian genocide. However, there should be more emphasis on the US’ onlooking than allies. It’s detailed how US President Woodrow Wilson was plenty aware of what was happening, but they pretended it was just the wind. There wasn’t accountability being taken, rather there were responsibilities being avoided. It’s quite scary to think about. Being keenly aware of a literal massacre of a group of people, but merely brushing it off your shoulders because it’s better to “not draw attention”. Later on, Henry Morgenthau, American ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, tried to rehash this and make a plan to intervene, but nothing came out of it. Even after 26 months of trying, there was little to show for it from the US government. There is a line between the American government and the American people though. The American people tried to do their part, through donations and contributions, but that isn’t enough to stop something on this scale. Even after having allies sign a declaration, it seemed very performative. Acknowledging the problem is definitely a good first step, but not acting on that acknowledgement is where things begin to get shaky.

What we should’ve done was to act on what we knew and heard. There could’ve been more pressure put on through the government, given the people were already putting in more effort as a collective group. Using things to our advantage such as our economy could’ve put Turkey into a restricted position, or there could’ve been full deployment of our military to show that we actually care about this atrocity. I feel as if all nations should take a stand if there is evidence of an entire population being destroyed. Even if it will be the cause of wars or may not be the best for the economy, there should still be greater emphasis on life. No matter what.

Comparing the Armenian genocide to the massacre in Namibia, there was definitely a change in responses. The US put effort into applying pressure against Germany during the Namibia massacre. Both diplomatic and economic were taken, showing that the US is definitely capable of doing them. It’s interesting how even though the US has proven it’s ability to do this, they still didn’t in the case of the Armenian genocide.

I think that in this situation, the United States and its allies acted as a bystander. Although the chapters give examples of American citizens advocating for support, those with the true power over the United States’ decisions failed to act upon that advocacy. Even though they had the means to do so, they chose their ‘neutrality’ over the lives of innocent people.

The US should take a stand against against genocide the instant that it is recognized that that’s what’s happening. Their decisive ‘neutrality’ on the subject of genocide didn’t get them anywhere in the case of the Armenian genocide. I thought it was hypocritical that they so easily and willingly stepped into WWI without a concrete reason, resulting in catastrophic damages and losses, and wouldn’t even do the bare minimum of formally acknowledging the actual genocide that was going on in a country that they were engaged in war with.

In these situations it’s hard to determine a ‘right’ thing to do, but the wrong thing is definitely being a bystander or doing the very bare minimum like the US and its allies did. I would advocate that there were several things that they could have done without the conflict they were trying so hard to avoid. For example, they could have sent real aid to refugees to try and get them out or even contested the Turkish government any other way than just sympathy. These

I think that the world did behave differently at the two genocides, and I think that one of the main reasons for that was the amount of interaction between Turkey and the rest of the world during WWI. This greater exposure to the world led more people to advocate against the genocide, but even so, neither situation was dealt with the amount of respect or urgency that it should’ve been.

The United States and other countries who were witnessing and well aware of the genocide could most definitely have done more. They clearly were acting as bystanders and allowing any atrocity at this large of a scale to simply play out with minimal intervention is simply not acceptable. For the United States, world war 1 was a financial opportunity. Because of the war, exports from the US increased drastically which caused a boom in the economy. The United States was not devastated by the war as many other of their allies were and could have much more easily intervened with the Armenian genocide. Additionally, there is substantial evidence proving that “awareness” was not the question at all. The United States was well aware of what was going on and the severity of the horrors. The British Foreign Office dug up photographs of the massacre victims and the allied governments did make a declaration condemning “crimes against humanity and civilization.” However, the United States, “determined to maintain its neutrality in the war, refused to join the Allied declaration.” Wilson believed it was better not to “draw attention” to the atrocities. The United States says it extremely clearly: they intentionally were a bystander for their own gain.

The United States and other nations should have taken a stand. The United States should have at the very least sent resources or even acknowledged what was happening, shining a light on the horrors. I believe that all nations should feel obligated to put aside their personal financial greed when it comes to situations where people are not treated humanely and to uphold generally agreed upon standards of human rights. Nation’s generally pursue everything out of self-interest, however, I believe that it should be in a Nation’s self interest to demonstrate to the world how humane they are. Instead of glorifying military strength and who has the most control of the market, the world should shift its mindset to glorify those that could pursue a primary goal of material domination, and choose to instead be active in supporting those in need. More specifically however, I believe that more defensive pacts could be put into place that intertwine more of the world’s standards of treatment. Although this would be difficult and could have potential downsides, a world where nation’s are more committed to a common goal is much more productive.

I believe that nations did behave differently during the Armenian genocide than they did during the carnage in Africa. Although there was an extreme lack of intervention in both, the Armenian genocide was at the very least made slightly more public. This point of publicity however makes the United States more of a bystander and brings up the question of whether someone can be a bystander if they lack a certain amount of awareness. Although information was publicized during the Armenian genocide, the US government worked hard to keep that information away from its citizens because that would give them “complications”. Currently, from our perspective from high school it is clear that more people are aware of the Armenian genocide, however, that awareness is still minimal.

The United States, and other countries around the world, need to take more responsibility and action towards recognizing acts of genocide when they are occuring, and then taking the measures that are needed to to prevent them from continuing to happen. In the past, as was seen during the Armenian genocide, earlier during the Herero and Nama genocide, and later during the Rwandan and Cambodian genocides, the United States government and military did not acknowledge these events until years after they were over, and far too late for any remedial action to be taken.

In the case of the Armenian genocide, the United States government under Wilson sought to avoid getting involved in World War I, and thus ignored the many examples of the atrocities committed against the Armenians provided by Morgenthau and other sources. These were even fairly well-known to the public at the time through articles run in the New York Times and other newspapers. However, despite this public knowledge and the creation of charities and relief funds to benefit Armenian refugees, the United States was still not willing to run the risk of angering Turkey to prevent further humanitarian crimes. This fear of offending Turkey, later made more difficult by the inclusion of both the United States and Turkey in the NATO alliance, prevented the US government from even acknowledging the genocide until 2019, over a century later.

From an ethical standpoint, all should absolutely do all they can to intervene to prevent any acts that could be defined as genocide. However, as a matter of policy, this does not mean that this intervention should necessarily be defined as military action. Most nations seek to minimize foreign military involvement, and thus may deny evidence of genocide if that would prevent them from having to become militarily involved. Other options could include economic sanctions, and cooperation towards creating more effective United Nations assistance missions. In the case of the the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda, which lasted from 1993 to 1996, the mission was ultimately deemed a failure due to a lack of troops and supplies, as well as the UN’s refusal to agree on any set of actions for the mission to take in order to prevent the imminent genocide from occuring. The United States in particular refused to contribute towards the resources of this mission, and on the Security Counsil even advocated for the mission to be withdrawn from Rwanda in April of 1994, during the beginning of the Rwandan genocide. While the mission remained in place though 1996, and was able to save the lives of several thousand Tutsi people near areas of UN control, its effectiveness in preventing the genocide from occuring and in averting many of the atrocities committed was severely limited by the unwillingness of the United States and other countries to act.