AHC: Have the Armenian Genocide be more recognized

[Morraw]

Today, whilst the Armenian Genocide is recognized as one of the first genocides of the 20th Century is seen as a seminal event of the First World War, it has by-and-large been overshadowed by the brutality of the Holocaust and the likewise war crimes of WWII; to the point in which a number of countries are yet to officially recognize it as such, with many more people outright rejecting the idea that it even was a genocide.

It is possible, though, for the death marches and massacres of the Armenians (as well as Assyrians, Greeks, and other anti-Ottomans) to be just as well recognize as the Holocaust is in OTL; at least in the Western World? Could the enforcement of the Treaty of Sevres and an actual trial of the Three Pashas (and the members of the Special Organization) see greater representation of the Genocide in media?

Also; what would have to happen for Turkey itself to recognize the genocide; in the same way Germany did the Holocaust after the end of WWII?

 

[GeographyDude]

As one aspect which makes it a lot more difficult for the Turkish gov't to acknowledge, didn't the Genocide occur along with the founding of the modern Turkish nation?

I mean, look how long it took the United States gov't and just plain, regular citizens to acknowledge that anything like a genocide took place with regard to Native Americans.

 

[Morraw]

As one aspect which makes it a lot more difficult for the Turkish gov't to acknowledge, didn't the Genocide occur along with the founding of the modern Turkish nation?

True; though perhaps more damming was the fact that Turks in 1918 felt very much like the Palestinians did in 1948 when the Allies carved-out Greater Armenian; a state which, unlike Israel and Germany, was situated right beside the one that perpetrated the Genocide. This of course would never be a recipe for peace; I'm imagining that even if the Treaty of Sevres was enforced, the Armenians would want to 'cleanse' the Turks remaining in Greater Armenia, with the Turks returning the favour if they ever attempted to retake the territory. And even if the Armenians were to win, I guess it would most likely leave us in the same position that were are in OTL; Turkey refusing to recognize the Genocide for what it is.

Of course, it took the German public a decently long time to fully grasp the horrors of the Holocaust; it wasn't until the 1970's in which the study of that genocide became commonplace in school, with German people and politicians before the 1960's being by-and-large silent on the matter outside of ostensibly recognizing it as something horrific (though, in their minds, not uniquely apart from Hitler's other war crimes). Now look were it is; Germany has overwhelmingly recognized the Holocaust.

So, I'm imagining that if a different Turkish regime were to arise out of WWI (one perhaps not so inspired by CUP-esque nationalism) and Turkey didn't get embroiled in a war with Armenia right out of the gates and the Allies in Istanbul fully tried the perpetrators of the Genocide; maybe it is possible for Turkey to eventually recognize it sometime after the 1920's. After all, there were a number of officials within the Ottoman Empire at the time that saw massacres for what they are and ultimately denounced them (surprisingly, many that did so were in the military); so if one of those were to come to power...maybe eventual recognition is on the table.

 

[MichaelWest]

Unfortunately no one wants to take the hard look at oneself such crimes require. In the USA we still do not use the word genocide and I fear the average person truly does not understand how the Natives got reduced to their reservations. German was forced to acknowledge its past by victorious powers who in more than a small portion used it to wash away their own sins. Thus we either have the USA more involved in the war against the Ottomans since it was more likely to propel the genocide forward than the other Allies who really just wanted to carve out new conquests, or you get a CP victory scenario. From seeing how numerous German officers were outraged and enough Ottomans were appalled the genocide might survive as an ugly but necessary event to reconcile. CUP nationalism and the flirtation with extreme Islamic fervor might become a major issue as the Ottomans reassert a more overarching identity and seek to humiliate the war time leadership who at bottom threatened the Caliph and ruling Ottoman dynasty. Here the genocide does not fall between the cracks of the Empire being torn apart and Turkey getting birthed, Armenia remains a part of a larger whole who in plurality would potentially demand justice for the Three Pashas in a way modern Turkey cannot.

 

[Towelie]

Require Turkey to admit guilt for the death of the Armenians in the Treaty of Sevres.

Of course, this might have some nasty consequences down the line...

 

[Milo]

No Holocaust; Armenian One would be what people thought of when they think Genocide

 

[Halagaz]

Maybe an independent Kurdistan establishes itself in the aftermath of WWI, making the Kurds a major target of Turkish nationalism. Then the Turkish republican leadership decides to acknowledge the genocide, but try and pin it onto the Kurds. While Kurdistan also acknowledges it, but insists on the guilt of Ottoman and especially Turkish elites. Thus you'd have a situation where everyone's official historiography agrees that it was a genocide, but disagrees on who's to blame.


Another thing I've found interesting is how much the ideology of the CUP resembles later European fascist movements. By which I don't mean the genocide or other acts of violence (those aren't unique to fascism) but many other things. The economic aspects; the single-party state; the rampant elitism; importance of hierarchy and division of labor and responsibility; the anti-individualism, and the cult of state and society as an organic whole; strong influences from thinkers like Le Bon and western Positivism...and so on.

All in all, there are deep and uncanny similarities between CUP and European interwar fascism. And, since the Committee/Party of Union and Progress predates Mussolini, it wouldn't be too unreasonable for the ideological family of Fascism to be called "Ittihadism" (or something) instead.

If these similarities were better known, or if there were more direct connections, maybe the odium that accompanies the very word "fascism" could come to be associated with the Pashas as much as with Mussolini, and the Armenian genocide would be viewed as a more important and more clear-cut issue.

 

[Mitchell Hundred]

Unfortunately no one wants to take the hard look at oneself such crimes require. In the USA we still do not use the word genocide and I fear the average person truly does not understand how the Natives got reduced to their reservations. German was forced to acknowledge its past by victorious powers who in more than a small portion used it to wash away their own sins. Thus we either have the USA more involved in the war against the Ottomans since it was more likely to propel the genocide forward than the other Allies who really just wanted to carve out new conquests, or you get a CP victory scenario. From seeing how numerous German officers were outraged and enough Ottomans were appalled the genocide might survive as an ugly but necessary event to reconcile. CUP nationalism and the flirtation with extreme Islamic fervor might become a major issue as the Ottomans reassert a more overarching identity and seek to humiliate the war time leadership who at bottom threatened the Caliph and ruling Ottoman dynasty. Here the genocide does not fall between the cracks of the Empire being torn apart and Turkey getting birthed, Armenia remains a part of a larger whole who in plurality would potentially demand justice for the Three Pashas in a way modern Turkey cannot.

While it's not so closed cut I don't believe the loss of Native life in North America at least has ever been officially recognized as a genocide even outside the US?

 

[Obergruppenführer Smith]

Frankly, recognizing the Armenian Tragedy as a deliberate genocide will never be done by Turkey unless it was forced to by pure military might. The whole tragedy, while having elements of decapitation of the leaders, was more closer to the Trail of Tears according to the Turkish view.

Although this does bring up the question: Without the Holocaust the concept of genocide might never be fully established, meaning we wouldn't be having this discussion since the whole argument over whether the tragedy was deliberate genocide or not wouldn't have appeared in the first place.

 

[MichaelWest]

Frankly, recognizing the Armenian Tragedy as a deliberate genocide will never be done by Turkey unless it was forced to by pure military might. The whole tragedy, while having elements of decapitation of the leaders, was more closer to the Trail of Tears according to the Turkish view.

Although this does bring up the question: Without the Holocaust the concept of genocide might never be fully established, meaning we wouldn't be having this discussion since the whole argument over whether the tragedy was deliberate genocide or not wouldn't have appeared in the first place.

Indeed as I navigate a timeline without the rise of Nazism and avoiding the Holocaust one side note is how much better rooted intolerance, racism and ethnic cleansing might be. Although I do not think we needed a Holocaust to illuminate our path away from mass murder to resolve our differences and settle of prejudices the fact that Armenians were got rid of without much fuss certainly gave Hitler and those with his mindset a blank check. It is a sobering fact as one ponders a future that is still built on a past with such bloody history.

 

[MichaelWest]

While it's not so closed cut I don't believe the loss of Native life in North America at least has ever been officially recognized as a genocide even outside the US?

I think it is coming, especially in light of current events surrounding DAPL protests. The American public may soon find itself under the scrutiny of a world that wants to atone for these sins and serves the USA its call upon the hypocrisy of too many years. A healthy thing but sadly generations too removed.

 

[Asp]

More Armenian immigration to the West, resulting in a stronger lobby to push the issue and raise awareness?

 

[John Farson]

Military occupation of Turkey after WWI. And even that might not take - the Entente can't stay there forever, after all.

 

[Baron Steakpuncher]

The issue is mostly that the Turks won. And lets be clear, if the armenians had won and the treaty of severs had been enforced? We'd be looking at a rather turk/kurd-absent Greater Armenia. Having said that, the best way for the genocide to be recognised is for either the Armenians to not be vaguely on the soviet side during the cold war. OR, for the soviets to extract some territorial concessions.

 

[Halagaz]

And lets be clear, if the armenians had won and the treaty of severs had been enforced? We'd be looking at a rather turk/kurd-absent Greater Armenia.

Eh, I don't think so. We can look at what happened when the Republic of Armenia moved into Kars and Nakhichevan: not much. Something, but not much. And nothing even remotely resembling the Armenian genocide. No doubt there would have been some expulsions and medium-level violence, but when the dust settles Greater Armenia would probably still have sizable Kurdish and Turkish communities.