Latest / The Story of Armenia: Survival Through Empires and Genocide — Fexingo History / Armenian Genocide Denial: The First Modern Lie
Transcript
- Lucas: We’ve spent a lot of time lately walking through the physical ruins of Ani, listening to the music of Komitas, and following the children who survived the marches of 1915. But there is another layer to that history, one that didn’t end with the treaties or the resettlement. It’s the story of how the event itself was rewritten before the smoke had even cleared. Luna: So not just what happened, but who got to tell the story afterward? Lucas: Exactly. And in this case, the rewriting started almost immediately, orchestrated by the very government accused of committing it. To understand why the term 'genocide'—coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin—still sparks such intense diplomatic fire today, we have to go back to the wire cables sent from Constantinople in 1915. Luna: The official Ottoman records? Lucas: Yes, but specifically the internal communications of the Committee of Union and Progress. Historians have long known that Talaat Pasha, the Ottoman Minister of the Interior, understood exactly what he was ordering. In his famous telegram to the governor of Diyarbekir, he wrote that the only way to solve the Armenian question was to exterminate them entirely, using whatever pretext was necessary. Luna: That’s chillingly direct. Lucas: It is. But while Talaat knew the truth, the outside world was being fed a different narrative. The Ottoman government launched a sophisticated propaganda campaign, claiming the Armenians were rebelling against the state, collaborating with Russian forces, and committing atrocities against Muslims. They framed the deportations as a military necessity, not an ethnic cleansing. Luna: Did any Western diplomats see through that? Lucas: A few did, most notably George Horton, the American Consul General in Constantinople. Horton wasn’t just observing; he was actively investigating. He traveled to regions like Urfa and Sason, speaking with survivors and local Turkish officials who were still terrified enough to speak candidly. He documented mass graves, burned villages, and the systematic nature of the killings. Luna: And he reported it all back to Washington? Lucas: He did, in extensive telegrams that are now part of the US National Archives. His reports were graphic and undeniable. He described how entire communities were rounded up and marched into the desert without food or water. Yet, despite these clear warnings, the US government under Woodrow Wilson remained cautious, prioritizing diplomatic relations and later, post-war stability, over explicit condemnation. Luna: So the silence from the West helped cement the denial. Lucas: It created a vacuum. When the great powers didn’t act, the Ottoman successor state, the Republic of Turkey under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, inherited the narrative. Atatürk needed to build a new, secular nation-state, and admitting to genocide would have undermined its legitimacy. So, denial became a cornerstone of Turkish national identity for decades. Luna: It wasn't just hiding it; it was actively denying it existed. Lucas: Precisely. The Turkish state began to argue that the deaths were merely casualties of war, or that Armenians had killed Turks first, creating a cycle of mutual violence. This 'both sides' argument has been remarkably durable. Even when evidence like the Tehlirian trial transcripts came to light, where Soghomon Tehlirian testified about seeing his family dead, the counter-narrative persisted in academic and political circles. Luna: I remember reading about how hard it was for historians in Turkey to research this. Lucas: It was dangerous. Scholars who tried to access Ottoman archives or publish alternative views faced legal threats, imprisonment, or accusations of treason. For a long time, talking about the Armenian Genocide in Turkey wasn't just politically sensitive; it was literally illegal. This suppression extended to the diaspora as well, where some communities focused on survival rather than historical litigation. Luna: How did the international community eventually start to shift? Lucas: It was a slow accumulation of pressure. The establishment of Israel, with its own focus on remembering Holocaust victims, created a moral framework that made denial harder to sustain globally. Then, in the late twentieth century, the fall of the Soviet Union opened up archives in Yerevan and Moscow, providing more evidence. But the biggest shift came from journalists and activists like Ronald Suny, who challenged the idea that this was just an Ottoman internal affair. Luna: Suny's work really changed the academic conversation. Lucas: It did. He argued that while the Ottomans targeted Armenians specifically, they also killed Greeks and Assyrians in similar patterns. This broader context helped break down the isolation of the Armenian experience in historical memory. But the political resistance remained fierce, particularly from Ankara, which still refuses to use the word genocide. Luna: Is it still a major issue in us turkey relations? Lucas: Absolutely. Every time the US Congress passes a resolution recognizing the genocide, Turkey recalls its ambassador or imposes trade sanctions. It’s a recurring diplomatic crisis. For example, when President Biden finally recognized it in 2021, it caused significant strain. The debate isn't just about history; it’s about NATO alliances, military bases, and current geopolitical strategy. Luna: It shows how much the past still controls the present. Lucas: It does. And it highlights the power of language. By refusing to name the crime, the perpetrators hoped to erase its moral weight. But names matter. Recognizing the Armenian Genocide isn't just an academic exercise; it’s a demand for justice for descendants who never received reparations or acknowledgment. Luna: It feels like a battle for truth against state power. Lucas: That’s a fair way to put it. And it’s a battle that continues today, with social media becoming a new front. Young Armenians in the diaspora are using digital platforms to share oral histories and document sites of mass graves, bypassing traditional state-controlled narratives. Luna: Technology changing how history is remembered. Lucas: Exactly. Just as the printing press helped preserve the Armenian language after the genocide, digital tools are helping preserve the testimony of survivors who are now passing away. Every interview recorded is a counter-argument to the silence imposed by the state. Luna: It’s amazing how resilient memory can be. Lucas: It is. And it reminds us that history isn't just what happened; it's what we choose to remember and how we choose to remember it. The struggle for recognition is ongoing, but the facts, once documented by people like George Horton, are harder to erase than any politician could hope. Luna: Horton’s cables must feel incredibly relevant now. Lucas: They do. They serve as a blueprint for how to document atrocity, even when the world is looking away. And perhaps that’s the most important lesson from this dark chapter. Luna: That documenting the truth is an act of resistance. Lucas: It absolutely is. And for those of us trying to keep these stories alive, that resistance takes many forms, including keeping this podcast running. Luna: Right, because your support keeps the lights on. Lucas: It really does. If you’ve found value in these deep dives into forgotten corners of history, consider supporting us directly. A small monthly contribution via buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo helps cover the costs of research and production, ensuring we can keep bringing you these conversations ad-free and independent. Luna: It makes a real difference in what we can produce. Lucas: It does. Thank you for considering it. Now, let’s return to those cables... Luna: Specifically, the ones from Urfa. Lucas: Right. George Horton’s report from Urfa is particularly harrowing. He described a city that had once been home to a large Christian population, now reduced to ash. He noted that the destruction wasn't accidental; it was methodical. The churches were burned, the archives destroyed, and the remaining Armenians were given ultimatums: convert, leave, or die. Luna: And he witnessed the aftermath personally? Lucas: He did. He visited the site of the cathedral and saw the stones repurposed in mosques. He spoke with Turkish neighbors who admitted, in private, that the army had led the mobs. These admissions were crucial because they debunked the myth that this was purely a spontaneous religious uprising. It was state-sponsored. Luna: So the evidence was right there for anyone willing to look. Lucas: It was. But looking required courage, and willingness to challenge the official narrative. Many diplomats chose comfort over truth. Horton chose the opposite, and his accounts are now among the most cited primary sources in genocide studies. Luna: His legacy is pretty significant. Lucas: Very. He showed that even in the midst of chaos and imperial collapse, individual witness matters. One person’s careful documentation can outlast empires. Luna: That’s a powerful thought to end on. Lucas: It is. And it leaves us wondering what other truths are waiting to be documented, not by states, but by individuals. Luna: Perhaps in our own time. Lucas: Maybe so. Thanks for listening, Luna. Luna: Thanks, Lucas.