learntoquestion ltq discussions

There is no question that the Armenian Genocide has been deliberately understated and underreported on. As we have analyzed, a genocide is an intentional erasure of a group of people, and the Turkeys did attempt to wipe the Armenians out. Beginning with the loss of Armenian financial autonomy in February 1914 to the execution of Armenian soldiers in January 1915 to mass killings of Armenians daily that number to up to 1.5 million humans over 8 years, how could this not be a genocide? I don’t question whether any of this happened or not.

Some questions I do have, are why didn’t the Christian world help the Armenians, their fellow Christians? In fact, why did Britain and France denounce the Armenian genocide when it was happening? They simply allow the war to continue to happen, while bloodlusting after African colonies instead.

I was recently reading a blog post by the Assembly of Turkish American Associations titled
“An Armenian and Muslim Tragedy? Yes! Genocide? No!” The author, Bruce Fein, said that if what happened to the Armenian was called a genocide, that would be very hurtful to the perpetrators and that a genocide entailed “the tale of unspeakable human horrors.” Was the treatment of Armenians not a human horror? If the image of Armenian survivors standing in a pile of the skulls of their people and the fatal starvation and physical and sexual violence inflicted upon these humans was not enough to demonstrate that the Armenian genocide was not a human horror, then I don’t know what should.

The author attempts to manipulate perspectives by saying that there was no specific targeting of the Armenian population and that the removal of disloyal populations was common, calling it “The Armenian Question” — none of these justify the genocide. The fact that this is an existing organization and that it is preaching these ideas is quite scary.

To analyze whether or not an event happened in history, documents, records, patterns and context (seeing what happened before and after), and witness accounts are all contributers to determining the truth of something. If one has to manipulate the wording or you need to cherry-pick evidence to support a cause or to ensure that one won’t be humiliated or held accountable, it is already a violation of truth. Watching the documentary, we saw that there was a many-centuries-old history of Armenian discrimination and conflict, from the targeted payment of high taxes and from getting caught between the arms of the USSR and Turkey, that built up to the Armenian Genocide.

Indeed, I would respond to the Turkish government by asking them why they needed to deny the genocide, just as St. John did. It happened and there is no question about it, so why can’t they recognize it and deal with the consequences. I would say this because it’s honestly someone getting away with murder. To deal with a horrific past is daunting, but it is necessary. I would show them the videos, recordings and emotions of the survivors of the genocide, because focusing on these rather than giving them a giant number, though important, won’t change anything.

What do you unequivocally believe is true about these events? Is there anything that you question or doubt? Please be specific.

Without a doubt, the Armenian genocide happened through the killings of hundreds of thousands, concentration camps, deportations, and more. The evidence is clear: You don’t find skulls where the Armenians consider it the Auschwitz of the Ottoman Empire unless genocide happened. I think both sides agree on the facts, also. The 60 minute video with the interview with the Turkish embassy revealed that they do not deny that people died since “in war, people always die,” but importantly that intent matters. I fully agree that intent matters in the matters of death or genocide, and this appears to be the main point of clash if the Armenian genocide was a genocide or not. Yet, it appears like intent was fully there. For example, like the Holocaust where Jews were persecuted based on their ethnicity and religion, Armenians were targeted not just by the typical violence you see in war. Instead, they were stripped of their power, taxed unequally, deported by the masses, and tortured. These measures went beyond the intention of defending the Ottoman Empire entirely, and sought out to dehumanize and villainize the Armenians. For instance, the boycott of Armenian business in 1914 is a sign of some trouble. Why would one need to stop civilian business during wartime? Maybe this makes sense to lock down all businesses and protect workers but specifically Armenian businesses? The Turkish narrative does not hold up. Even more so, this holds up with the shift to violence that was seen in the Holocaust as well with Hitler viewing the Armenian genocide as a model that was forgotten to history.

How do you identify what “real history” is and what isn’t “real”? How can you tell? Please cite specifics.

History is told from the side of winners. I think this fact makes debates around what should be fact so contentious, especially surrounding issues like war and conflict. Defining something as real must come from evidence on all sorts of levels. It is not fair to take the account of Morgenthau alone against the Turkish government, but it is completely fair game to argue these issues over widespread accounts, photos, and personal stories. The images of skulls in Der Zor show the graphic nature of this genocide. And even the little details are important: the picture of the tortured Armenian Priest only shows one person who is laying on the ground. But these little details contextualize a fuller picture and undeniable story of hate and violence towards the Armenians. Especially because for every life that is lost in a genocide, it is commonplace to look at the large numbers and forget the lives, faces, and people that govern each fraction of the genocide. The more we know about an event, the more we can assess the intentions and claims of the Turkish government, and the fact we know so much shows that not only was this a cataclysmic event for the Armenians but that you could find violence anywhere you went. That’s a strong tenet to genocide.

How would YOU respond to the Turkish government’s position on these events, based on the exchange of correspondence with St. John? Explain your reasoning with some detail.

From their exchange, I’ve learned that the Turkish government believes strongly in their worldview of the Armenian genocide and are nationalized by that story. Thus, I think it is common for the Turkish embassy or people to continue to deny the facts that have been laid out. My approach then would be simple. Rather than focus on debating these facts which they will almost always disagree with, I will shift my attention to see how they view the situation. Obviously, we have learned they saw the Armenians as a threat to their nation and had justified mass violence. But we have to probe deeper. What made the Armenians such a threat in their mind that hundreds of thousands would have to be killed? Moreover, what conflicts today, either in Syria, Yemen, Nagorno-Karabakh, Ukraine, etc, are unjustified and why? The Turkish government plays politics to its own nationalized perspective: kill the Kurds, deny the Armenians and the world the truth. My focus would try to deconstruct this narrative by poking holes. I’d focus on other genocides in Germany, Russia, or colonization and apartheid in Africa and ask if these are ethical events. Of course, both of us would agree they are not. So the most important question is what similarities and differences can the Turkish government point to between their history with the Armenians and current and past geopolitical events alike. These differences and similarities will allow a foundation for discussion to start, and to point out contradictions within their perspectives.

When analyzing the evidence which exists surrounding the systematic killing of the Armenian people by the Turkish, it is clear that a genocide occurred, because of the evidence which exists today, and the fact that governments knew it was happening at the time. While when it first started, most of the evidence of it was considered to be rumors, in the modern day, there are mountains of proof which show that it was real, such as maps, photos, and first-hand accounts. In general, it is almost impossible for such a large scale and documented event to be faked. Even at the time, in the early 1900s, Henry Morgenthau received countless reports of Turkish brutality, and knew, almost for a fact, that a genocide was occurring. Even if some accounts were untrue, the vast number of them would require an unrealistic level of coordination to fake, showing that most are likely real. Even at the time, world powers knew about the genocide. The British parliament discussed stepping in and helping, showing they knew it was occurring, however they decided to do nothing in order to not stir the anger of the Turks. However, in the modern day, the Turkish government still completely denies that event ever occurred. Despite this, due to the evidence which exists, it is clear to the rest of the world that the Armenian genocide did occur, and should be acknowledged by all.

While the phrase “History is written by the winners” is not entirely true, those who are in power have a lot of influence over what their people are allowed to know. In this case, the Turkish government has been able to mostly remove the genocide from their internal public consciousness, giving their citizens “Fake History”. Turkish citizens are shown images of Armenian soldiers with guns, making them think that their deaths were justified. Globally, even in the United States, the Turkish government has been actively trying to decrease knowledge of the Armenian genocide. Despite their efforts, when taking a closer look, we can see that the majority of people killed were completely innocent. We know what really happened through the evidence which has existed for years. While the Turkish government can do their best to stop their crimes from coming to the light, we know that the genocide of the Armenians did occur.

When confronted with hard evidence of their crimes, the Turkish government is only able to deflect and redirect, as it cannot confront what truly happened. In the response to St. Paul’s letter, The Turkish Embassy was unable to provide any real evidence showing that it did no wrongdoing. At one point, it actually said that the truth could not be ascertained because the Embassy was not made up of historians, but rather politicians. All the letter does is discredit Morgenthau as someone trying to make war, appeal to America’s national trauma from nine eleven, and make it seem as though mass death is acceptable during war. If I were to respond to this letter, I would state that the Ottomans simply not having enough money is not a defense for the deaths of the relocated, as Armenian people were actively killed by Turkish soldiers. There is intent established, as the Minister of the Ottoman Empire Talaat Pasha admitted to and even bragged about “solving” the Armenian problem. Finally, while there was some conspiracy within the Armenians to bring down the Ottomans, it was not nearly enough to justify their deaths. The crimes against the Armenian people in World War One were truly despicable and the Turkish government should take responsibility for them.

• What do you unequivocally believe is true about these events? Is there anything that you question or doubt? Please be specific.
• How do you identify what “real history” is and what isn’t “real”? How can you tell? Please cite specifics.
• How would YOU respond to the Turkish government’s position on these events, based on the exchange of correspondence with St. John? Explain your reasoning with some detail.

What I believe to be undeniably true is that there were many Armenians that suffered during this time period, and it was for an unreasonable reason. The actions of some Armenians going against the Ottoman Empire, resulting in the mass genocide of 1 million of them is unbelievable rather. However, I question how many casualties there were, because the toll is usually from 600,000 to 1.5 million, and that is a big difference, but perhaps it is not entirely clear how many people suffered. It is also rather undeniable that people were deported, and killed at camps, as seen with Deir Ez-Zor, and all the bones found there. It was compared to Auschwitz, which is no easy thing to be compared to, but for good reason as well. They were starved, as seen in the many photographs of malnutrition children and adults, food rations were cut off and there was definitely discrimination. There is nothing that I really doubt that we learned in class, as there are many pictures and real-life evidence to back all of it up.

Real history, I guess I would describe it, as things that really happened. Genocides are a good example because they tend to have people who also argue that it is not real. Just like the holocaust and the Nazis, Turkey denies that it happened to this day, which is rather absurd. Fake history can be also propaganda to citizens, for example, the Turkish government said that they were moving people for their safety to this day, refusing to teach real history in schools. This can also be seen, just like what the Nazis did, and people only found out after the US troops invaded these camps, which means that saying nothing, which is what the Nazis did, is also fake history. Denying it is also fake history, to just think that it never happened, is erasing a big flaw in our past that we need to acknowledge. It’s unfortunate that this is still an issue in modern-day society.

I unequivocally believe that the Turkish government went out of its way to rid itself of “the Armenian problem” in a brutal and violent way. I find that the great lengths the nation is taking to cover up this part of history only makes it more believable. I find the first hand accounts to be very valid evidence. Those stories are so horrifying and so abundant. I can question or doubt the number of deaths, but I cannot doubt that they were too many. I cannot doubt that there was a huge number of needless Armenian deaths, huge enough to call it a genocide. I cannot doubt that the “Young Turks” intended to get rid of the Armenians, and that they used their position to try and do that. Whether they want to call it a deportation or a genocide, they wanted to get rid of a people and they didn’t really care what happened to that people in the process. And that's a colossal understatement.

Real history has valid evidence and a sufficient amount of valid evidence. Like I said, I find the first hand accounts to be valid. There is more than a sufficient amount of these accounts. Photographs are some of the most valid pieces of evidence. We can be 100% certain that during WW1, Armenian bodies were being piled up. We can be very certain that during WW1, Turkish soldiers maltreated and did disgusting things to the Armenians that they were “deporting”. We can be 100% certain that there was “race murder” going on.

I’m just going to criticize a couple of quotes in the response to St. John.

“How many people perished during WWI is not known nor has it been properly documented to date. The figures you allude to are highly contested.” First of all, it is far more likely that the number of deaths are more than what was documented than the other way around. Secondly, just because something is highly contested doesn’t mean it’s less valid. You could say the moon landing is highly contested. You could say the earth’s roundness is highly contested. Anyone can contest something, the hard part is sufficiently backing up that contestation. I believe Turkey’s contestation isn’t sufficiently backed up.

“Sadly, the relocation (not deportation since they were not sent outside of the Empire) did result in the loss of many lives, due, in most part, to the war and the difficulty of providing the necessary conditions for those moving.” The “difficulty of providing the necessary conditions for those moving” should have been accounted for. They are admitting to having sent the Armenians into a desert without being able to provide them enough to survive. That is what I’d call a “death march”. Even that (which is enough to use the word genocide) is severely downplaying what had been done to the Armenians.

I did not know anything about the Armenian Genocide before the lessons in class, but since the very beginning of learning about it, I have no doubt that it DID occur. I wholeheartedly believe all of the events are true because of how overwhelming the amount of evidence is.

Though Turkey argues that these events took place without the intention to kill, I think there was at least some type of religious intent because they wanted to get rid of the Armenians to put it simply. The way they’re trying to make it seem like a war to cover it up is so dumb too like .. these people were clearly defenseless?? The amount of photographs we saw of people who were starved and videos in the documentary where there were so so many bones under a thin layer of dirt that resembled the Auschwitz concentration camp where thousands of people were killed .. this WAS a genocide and it should be classified by one. Hitler even referred back to the Armenian Genocide several times while the Holocaust was going on because he was inspired by it and wanted to recreate it .. he wanted to massacre an entire group of people and he did. JuicyBurger makes an excellent hard truth point about history and how it is told from the side of winners especially during war and conflict. This unfortunate reality is why many events such as the Armenian Genocide are not known and are denied to this day. It’s why survivors' stories are so important. The amount of survivors' stories and generational traumas this caused are catastrophic. You can't deny experiences. While reading some of these stories, one stuck out to me in particular - the story of Madeleine Prochazka‘s parents. She describes how ruthless the Turks were in 1915 when they shot her father right in front of his house. This reminded me of how ruthless the Nazis were when we watched Schindler’s list and how the soldiers shot the old man right in front of everyone. This level of cruelty is unmatched and the murder of so many innocent lives can not continue to be overlooked. Turkey should not have the right to continue to cover this up because of their economic and political power. Obama did not have the courage to call it a genocide despite advocating for it during his campaigning for presidency after being elected because he didnt want to stir up any tension. If one of our own presidents couldnt even classify it as a genocide because of the consequences from the perpetrators (Turkey) that would follow, then why should we believe anything any of these higher authoritative figures say?

JnjerAle makes a great distinction between what is real history and what is “real history”. I didn’t necessarily understand the question at first because .. isn't all history real? Maybe I'm gullible but if something is recorded THAT is real history to me and I wouldn’t be able to tell what is entirely real or not unless I am educated. I always hold myself accountable for learning as much of every historical event as I can so I can be aware if it is repeated (hence the saying “when history repeats itself for the first time, it's a tragedy. But when it repeats itself again, it becomes almost comical because people still haven't learned the lesson”). What I would consider “real” history is propaganda .. things that are recorded in favor of the perpetrator .. to make them look not as bad. The propaganda book of the Armenians that we saw in class yesterday shocked me because of how much the Turkish government made the pictures make it seem like Armenians were armed and that this was a war. The photographs of Armenians surrounded by weapons to make it seem like a fair fight was so wrong. This type of thing is like a tradition throughout history because of how much and how far countries will go to protect their image. They either sugarcoat it, pay it off lightly, or just ignore it completely. The other day I saw in a middle school history textbook a photograph of slaves smiling .. with the caption “a Virginia plantation owner oversees the packaging of tobacco for shipment to England.” It was so mind boggling to see because of what I know about slaves now and how absolutely gut wrenchingly horrible they were abused, raped, murdered, tortured, and the list goes on and on .. so they would most definitely not be smiling and the owner would not be overseeing their work. Things like that I can tell are not “real” because I am more educated now.

The Turkish government’s response made me mad because .. they didn't even answer any of the questions. All of their responses were so nuanced it was like “yes this happened but no oh wait!” because they never even answered, they just gave excuses. It was the same energy as that one Turkish guy that was interviewed .. he just kept on denying and denying when the evidence of what happened is so clear. If I were St. John I would probably be just as mad about their denial response as I was about learning about the events of the genocide. If I were him I would’ve overflooded a response email with the many pictures, testimony and eyewitness statements, and if I had the power, take them to the site so they can see the bones of the thousands of dead bodies. Especially with the witnesses statements and stories from the victims, which are so heartbreaking like why would they make that up? These people deserved better and the more I learn about REAL history that we aren't taught in school, the more I get disappointed in people. It’s so sad and just so dumb because there’s no point in any of it. It’s like a never ending sea of genocides that just keep on happening for no reason other than hate and power. Even now in China where more than a million Uyghur Muslims have been abused and detained, no one is doing anything about it and countries are just ignoring it. This too is not yet considered a genocide by the United Nations, but it’s still wrong and in a couple of years if it doesn’t stop we could be witnessing the next genocide right now. History just continues to repeat itself and innocent people just continue to die because of how oblivious governments are to it all.

I fully believe the the Armenian genocide took place. The turkish government took multiple measures to blanket what they were doing to the Armenian people.

However, I know it’s true based on hundred of images, accounts, retellings, and documents supporting the occurrence of the genocide. Before genocide was even a word, ambassadors and others were discussing their concern about race extermination of the Armenians and Turkey’s “crimes against humanity”. We have documents of the U.S. ambassador writing back to the U.S. urging them to interfere or do something to aid the Armenians because he had heard far too many gruesome stories about what was happening to their villages for it to be untrue.

I identify what “real history” is and what isn’t because of evidence. Primary sources to tell if something in history is “real or not” are archives, personal letters, diaries, and government documents. The turkish government is offended by the use of the word genocide, their old leaders did their best to deceive the rest of the world of what actions they were taking to exterminate the Armenians, but the evidence does not lie. Minorities are prosecuted often in history, whether it be religion or race it is a depressing pattern in history. It is not unlikely for Turkey to take extreme measures to get rid of the Armenians considering the anger and disapproval from the majority Muslim population against the minority Armenian one. How can we doubt it really happened?

The way I would respond to the turkish government’s position on these events is by providing much of the evidence and information of the genocide itself. I’d bring personal accounts, images, letters, etc. Its important for them to recognize the massacres that occurred and stop denying all of the victims stories. Its disappointing to hear the current leaders excuse the past ones’ crimes against humanity. In a documentary they tried to turn the table and claim they were victims too and the Armenians were a force to be reckoned with.

These events are unmistakably a genocide targetting Armenians. The photographs, the victim’s accounts, the physical evidence is all so overwhelming and makes the facts even more clearcut when it’s been compiled in videos to spread awareness. It’s indisputably humbling and disturbing to learn about this event and the amount of unnecessary deaths that occurred, even if the death tally may not be 100% accurate. It’s clear this was primarily fueled by difference in religious differences due to the many examples of the Pope condemning them to death and other actions discriminating against them on that basis. I think that the Turkish government going to so much length really just confirms how guilty they are of this crime and I think they need to accept it and make reparations. The main question I have is why did no countries help because I’m sure they knew. One thing that stuck with me was how Hitler had been quoted being inspired by the Armenian genocide so it’s clear that countries knew.

Real history is unfiltered, unedited facts and perspectives. History is not influenced and told to make a particular group or country appear better. It’s everything that happened regardless of how it could influence public image, reinforced by proof and evidence that includes but is not limited to photographs, written records, and accounts by the victims. What’s not real is propaganda spread to rally unjustified hatred for a group and paint them to be the antagonists. What’s not real is “history” with outtakes and things omitted intentionally to twist things in a certain way. A distinct example is the Turkish government attempting to omit and erase the Armenian genocide from their history due to it jeopardizing their image. Furthermore they’ve released their own propaganda against the Armenian people. It can be difficult to distinguish whats real and what’s not but I think the biggest indicators are tangible evidence and listening to the victims.

I think what would be the most effective course of action is being able to disprove them directly on the spot and poke holes in their fabricated responses. To point out the flaws in their perspective and “logic” and continue to use concrete evidence to support this. How isolating them was deliberate, how disarming them and subsequently taking them as as prisoner was deliberate. It’s imperative that it is continued to be brought up and provoke them into having to address it further so it can be debunked little by little until the Turkish government have nothing to hide behind and be forced to face the consequences. This process has to be hastened not delayed to swiftly bring justice to the victims of the Armenian genocide, and it has to be done publicly to continue to enforce pressure from the outside.

glass, I think you articulated the horror of the photographs and experiences that occurred in the genocide perfectly in ways that I neglected to mention before I had read your response.

BigGulp, I think pointing out the Rape of Nanjing and it’s similarities to the Armenian genocide was a great thing to include in your response, I remember learning about it last year in AP World History. However, that just makes me think about why didn’t we learn about the Armenian genocide in AP World History.

I unequivocally agree that Armenians were systematically deported and killed purposefully. One reason I am so sure is how the Turkish government frames it. Watching the documentary, the Turkish official does not deny mass killings, he only denys the use of the word “genocide” and denies intent. Another part that I unequivocally believe (is happening) is the propaganda campaign directed to explain the events as simply a put down of a rebellion. Seeing the book in class with the pictures of Armenian guns and their supposed nationalist flags was clear evidence of a cover-up.

Identifying real history can be difficult when it seems as though everyone has a perspective and opinion. I gather opinions through looking at many different sources, evaluating what I believe and what I don’t through how things are portrayed. Specifically, I looked at the Turkish book in class, seeing how they portrayed what was happening as a rebellion. From this, I could compare the perspective of independent broadcasters in the clip we watched; they countered those claims.

With regards to how I would respond to the Turkish Government, I would sit them down with a respected historian to have a conversation. I would collect a lot of corroborating evidence which could be used to make denying the genocide look impossible. This may include internal government documentation and correspondence regarding the massacres, first hand accounts, forensic evidence, and photographs.