Tweet
Los Angeles Times, CA
Feb 4 2006
What did we say about the Armenian genocide as it was happening?
Since Armenian-genocide publishing issues are always popular for
vigorous debate, and since there were at least two big related bits
of news this week -- Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) reintroducing the
non-binding genocide-recognition resolution, plus the ongoing and
haunting fallout from the Hrant Dink assassination -- we thought it
might be interesting to see how the L.A. Times editorialized about
the Armenian genocide as it was happening.
The first of five snippets from separate editorials comes from Dec.
18, 1917:
THE END OF TURKEY
There is as much cause for including Turkey and Bulgaria in our
declaration of war as there is for including Austria Hungary. There
are as good reasons for the extinction of the Ottoman empire as thee
are for the overthrow of the government of the Kaiser. For 500 years
the Turks have been a curse to Christendom, engaged in war after war
and massacre after massacre. [...]
At least half of the Armenian people have been slaughtered in cold
blood and the remnant is only preserved now because a large part of
Armenia has falled under Russian control and the other Armenians have
taken refuge there.
Four more, after the jump.
Continuing with our contemporaneous Armenian-genocide editorials,
here's one from Feb. 26, 1918:
When a peace of victory is finally achieved Germany must answer for
her inhumanities in Belgium; Austria for the depopulation of Serbia,
and Turkey for the almost total annihilation of the Armenians. [...]
If the war continues for another year with Serbia in possession of
its arch enemies, it will be impossible to repatriate the Serbian
people, for it will have ceased to exist. The same is true to an
equal extent with Armenia; but the slaughter has been greater there
because the population was greater. In six years the native
population of Armenia has sunk from 16,000,000 persons to less than
800,000. Those who have approved this policy of extermination must be
made to settle. The German, Austrian and Turkish peoples have
approved and taken part in this wholesale murder; they should be
forced to pay a huge indemnity.
March 3, 1918:
When the President said the peoples should not be bartered about from
sovereignty to sovereignty, he had in mind the combined force and
intrigue by which Germany holds Alsace-Lorraine today, by which
Austria continues to dominate and enslave Hungary, and by which
Turkey is depopulating Armenia and Arabia.
May 28, 1919:
Armenians for centuries have been ceaselessly disinherited and
destroyed. So today even in Armenia proper they are hopelessly
outnumbered by the Turks and Kurds. Either these Turks and Kurds
would have to be violently deported or some stronger nation would
have to keep a permanent army of occupation in this inhospitable
country to insure the Armenians against daily revolutions.
June 6, 1919:
Unquestionably the United States is best qualified to handle the
affairs of Turkey and Armenia. First, we have no national "ax to
grind." No European nation has the slightest reason for jealousy of
us or for suspicion as to our intentions and motives. Second, the
Turks and Armenians themselves would both prefer us as rulers to any
other nation. While unsparingly condemning his atrocious crimes, to
the Turk we have been friendly as it is possible to be. American
missionaries and Robert College, established by them at
Constantinople, have given the Turk a large share of the limited
culture and civilization which he has been capable of assimilating.
To the Armenian we have been the best of friends. We have fed him in
the hour of need; we have often protected him from atrocities at the
hands of the Turks. To the Armenian, fleeing from the Turk, the
United States is the Land of Promise, his hope and refuge.
To post a comment:
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2007 /02/what_did_we_say.html
Feb 4 2006
What did we say about the Armenian genocide as it was happening?
Since Armenian-genocide publishing issues are always popular for
vigorous debate, and since there were at least two big related bits
of news this week -- Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) reintroducing the
non-binding genocide-recognition resolution, plus the ongoing and
haunting fallout from the Hrant Dink assassination -- we thought it
might be interesting to see how the L.A. Times editorialized about
the Armenian genocide as it was happening.
The first of five snippets from separate editorials comes from Dec.
18, 1917:
THE END OF TURKEY
There is as much cause for including Turkey and Bulgaria in our
declaration of war as there is for including Austria Hungary. There
are as good reasons for the extinction of the Ottoman empire as thee
are for the overthrow of the government of the Kaiser. For 500 years
the Turks have been a curse to Christendom, engaged in war after war
and massacre after massacre. [...]
At least half of the Armenian people have been slaughtered in cold
blood and the remnant is only preserved now because a large part of
Armenia has falled under Russian control and the other Armenians have
taken refuge there.
Four more, after the jump.
Continuing with our contemporaneous Armenian-genocide editorials,
here's one from Feb. 26, 1918:
When a peace of victory is finally achieved Germany must answer for
her inhumanities in Belgium; Austria for the depopulation of Serbia,
and Turkey for the almost total annihilation of the Armenians. [...]
If the war continues for another year with Serbia in possession of
its arch enemies, it will be impossible to repatriate the Serbian
people, for it will have ceased to exist. The same is true to an
equal extent with Armenia; but the slaughter has been greater there
because the population was greater. In six years the native
population of Armenia has sunk from 16,000,000 persons to less than
800,000. Those who have approved this policy of extermination must be
made to settle. The German, Austrian and Turkish peoples have
approved and taken part in this wholesale murder; they should be
forced to pay a huge indemnity.
March 3, 1918:
When the President said the peoples should not be bartered about from
sovereignty to sovereignty, he had in mind the combined force and
intrigue by which Germany holds Alsace-Lorraine today, by which
Austria continues to dominate and enslave Hungary, and by which
Turkey is depopulating Armenia and Arabia.
May 28, 1919:
Armenians for centuries have been ceaselessly disinherited and
destroyed. So today even in Armenia proper they are hopelessly
outnumbered by the Turks and Kurds. Either these Turks and Kurds
would have to be violently deported or some stronger nation would
have to keep a permanent army of occupation in this inhospitable
country to insure the Armenians against daily revolutions.
June 6, 1919:
Unquestionably the United States is best qualified to handle the
affairs of Turkey and Armenia. First, we have no national "ax to
grind." No European nation has the slightest reason for jealousy of
us or for suspicion as to our intentions and motives. Second, the
Turks and Armenians themselves would both prefer us as rulers to any
other nation. While unsparingly condemning his atrocious crimes, to
the Turk we have been friendly as it is possible to be. American
missionaries and Robert College, established by them at
Constantinople, have given the Turk a large share of the limited
culture and civilization which he has been capable of assimilating.
To the Armenian we have been the best of friends. We have fed him in
the hour of need; we have often protected him from atrocities at the
hands of the Turks. To the Armenian, fleeing from the Turk, the
United States is the Land of Promise, his hope and refuge.
To post a comment:
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2007 /02/what_did_we_say.html