Vol. 1 No. 1(27) (2024): 2024-1

The Armenian massacres, Genocide organized in the Ottoman Empire at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century, Armenian-Tatar** (Azeri) clashes in the early 20th century, were real catastrophes for the Armenian people. The loss of the essential part of the historical homeland, deportation and organized mass killings of people, the appearance of thousands and thousands of orphans, the loss of property and cultural monuments, the loss of historical memory were very painful for the survivors during many decades. The armed resistance of the inhabitants of certain cities and villages are heroic pages of the Armenian history of the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. Numerous Armenian artists portrayed in their artworks the tragic and heroic events of that period. Certain artists miraculously heard the stories of sufferings from refugees, the others miraculously survived escaping arrests, or lost family members, many children saw the deaths of their parents and relatives inside paternal houses or during the death marches in Syrian deserts, and some of those who grew up in orphanages, became artists. Thus, the Armenian massacres, Genocide and national liberation struggle became the subjects of the Armenian painters and sculptors during many decades.

In violation of the prohibition of the use of force under international law, the armed forces of Azerbaijan destroyed the Republic of Artsakh during the 78th session of the UN General Assembly (19/20 September 2023). Russia's armed "peacemaking contingent", which has been stationed there since 2020 to protect the Karabakh Armenians, has not intervened. The lifting of the blockade of the Latchin Corridor (September 24, 2023) led to the exodus of all Karabakh Armenians to Armenia within a week. The destruction of Artsakh is a breach of international law. It could have been prevented by Russia and the international community if they had wanted to. Armenia's political agenda now includes the integration of Karabakh refugees, the delimitation and demarcation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, the unblocking of transport links in the region and the conclusion of a peace treaty with Azerbaijan.

Mit voller Entschlossenheit und Überanspannung all seiner Kräfte leistete Lepsius dem Genozid an den Armeniern, diesem ersten großen Völkermord des 20. Jahrhunderts, Widerstand. Im Sommer 1915 reiste er nach Konstantinopel, wo er Hintergrundinformationen und Materialien über die Ereignisse sammelte. Bei einem Treffen mit dem osmanisch-türkischen Kriegsminister Enver versuchte Lepsius vergeblich, diesen von seiner Vernichtungsabsicht abzubringen. Als er nach seiner Rückkehr nach Berlin feststellen musste, dass die deutsche Regierung trotz genauer Kenntnis über die türkische Vernichtungspolitik nicht gewillt war, sich ihrem Bündnispartner in den Weg zu stellen, versuchte er, die beiden großen deutschen Kirchen zu mobilisieren, um über sie Druck auf die Regierung auszuüben. Doch auch dieser Ansatz blieb erfolglos. Es gelang ihm letztlich nicht, die hinnehmende deutsche Position zu durchbrechen, im Gegenteil: Am 6. Oktober 1915 verfügte die deutsche Regierung, dass bis zum Kriegsende mediales und öffentliches Schweigen zur Lage der Armenier herrschen solle. Alle, auch die beiden deutschen Kirchen fügten sich dieser Anordnung und den daraus abgeleiteten Zensurbestimmungen der Regierung. Allein Lepsius selbst blieb eine Ausnahme; er überwarf sich deswegen sogar mit der Deutschen Orient-Mission. Auf der Grundlage der ihm zur Verfügung stehenden Dokumente veröffentlichte er seinen vertraulichen „Bericht über die Lage des armenischen Volkes in der Türkei“, den er sämtlichen deutschen evangelischen Gemeinden, den Reichstagsabgeordneten sowie verschiedenen sonstigen Institutionen und Personen zukommen ließ. Anschließend wich er ins Exil aus, wo er seine karitative Tätigkeit für die Überlebenden der Todesmärsche und Massaker fortsetzte. Nach Kriegsende nach Berlin zurückgekehrt, entfaltete er auch in Deutschland allerlei Aktivitäten zur Verurteilung der türkischen Verbrechen bzw. zum Beistand der überlebenden Armenier. Als Organisator, Publizist, Theologe und christlich geprägter Mitmensch stand Lepsius bis zu seinem relativ frühen Tod den Armeniern zur Seite und setzte sich nach Kräften für deren Rechte ein.

The examples described here show that wars not only provide occasions and camouflage for carrying out genocidal intentions, but degenerate into wars of extermination when intentions of conquest and subjugation merge with intentions of extermination. Military defeats do not diminish the intentions of annihilation, but even increase them. On the other hand, military interventions can serve to prevent genocide or to liberate threatened groups, if carried out in time. However, it is often the fear of states of becoming involved in armed conflicts that prevents such timely interventions.

In the case of starvation blockades during and after wars, it can be seen that there are factors that reinforce this crime: In the German case, the famine of the German and Ottoman populations was exacerbated by organizational incompetence in the German case and genocidal intent in the Ottoman; in the Ottoman example, Ahmet Cemal, as governor of Syria, prevented crops from being brought into ‘his’ province affected by the blockade. In the case of the Leningrad blockade, it was the continued Stalinist policy of repression and the enrichment of the functionary caste that added to Nazi Germany’s genocide.

This article uses a historical-analytical approach to address the question of why there are no approaches to deal with the history of the genocides on both the state-political and societal levels in Turkey. For this purpose, the article sheds light on the genesis of the state and the state ideology of Turkey. The effort of the state ideology and the state is to exaggerate the national history on the one hand and to exclude the history of genocides on the other hand. Against this background, the author argues that there is an almost unbridgeable gap between the normativity of the demands for recognition and reappraisal of the genocides in Turkey and the actual political and social reality. A reappraisal and recognition of the genocides of 1915 would deeply shake the construction of the national ideology of the Republic of Turkey. Finally, the article addresses the question of the necessity of a recognition process and the chances of a recognition and reappraisal of the genocides for the society of Turkey.

The paper deals with aspects of the collective memory of Armenians, illustrated by two recent examples. Against the background of the current disputes over Arzach, some historical components are drawn upon. At the beginning the erection of the monument in memory of the Nemesis operation in 1920-1922 in April this year is analyzed. This leads back to the 19th century, the time of increasing penetration of the Ottoman Empire by the great European powers in its effects on the Armenian nation, as expressed in the term "Armenian Question". This is combined with the German left's view on this matter. Finally, a discussion of the interweaving of the right to self-determination (SDR) and the right to territorial integrity (TI) follows in this context.

Azerbaijani authors, unable to deny the presence of Armenians in Artsakh, present the latter as Christian Aghvans who later became Armenian for one reason or another, and later show their presence in Artsakh and elsewhere as a consequence of the Russian resettlement policy, which contradicts historical realities, because the presence of Armenians in the area in question has been evidenced since ancient times. In the same way, Azerbaijani authors try in every possible way to reject any fact of the presence of Armenians in the current territory of Republic of Armenia, but their attempts contradict the information of Armenian and foreign sources, where, on the contrary, the presence of Armenians in the territory of their own homeland is proven in all eras of history.

In the history of Azerbaijan, we are witnessing absolute Armenian hatred, because during the entire narrative of their history, Azerbaijani authors strive to reject everything Armenian, both in the territory of the Republic of Armenia and in Artsakh, not stopping at any falsehood on this path. The examples given, where the writings of Azerbaijanis have no justifications or one writing contradicts the other, are vivid proofs of the mentioned.