Upload
jerome-torossian
View
111
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Torossian 1
Jérôme Torossian
Dr. Brian Endless
PLSC 316
December 7, 2016
Turkey: A Country in Denial
In the twentieth century, the world has witnessed many horrors led by leaders who were,
unfortunately, successful in propagating their nationalist views and hate towards other ethnic
groups. These atrocities were often made during times of war or tribal conflicts, and when
empires and nations were about to collapse, such as the Ottoman Empire, Nazi Germany, the
Former Yugoslavia, or Rwanda. However, individuals who particularly know about what
happened to the Armenians, Jews, Bosnian Muslims, and Tutsis will not consider the actions
ordered against them as war crimes. In fact, the massacres that these ethnic groups experienced
were the result of a well-planned set of actions that aimed with intent to bring about their own
destruction. The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide approved by the UN General Assembly in 1948 defines and considers a slaughter as
genocide if the perpetrators had “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial, or religious group.” Often called the crime of crimes, genocide is a denial of the right of
existence of an entire human group by attempting to wipe the people out. Unfortunately, it
happens that those who committed genocide refuse to call their actions as such as well as their
future generations, successor governments, friendly countries, and individuals. After a century
has passed, this is what the Turkish government has been doing concerning the 1915 Armenian
genocide. A massacre that cost the lives of 1.5 million Armenians, and which constituted the first
genocide of the twentieth century. In this essay, I will discuss Turkey’s firm denial of the
Armenian genocide as well as the consequences of this unfortunate phenomenon.
Torossian 2
In order to understand what led to the 1915 Armenian genocide and its denial by Turkey,
I emphasize that an overview of the Armenian people and this historical event is more than
necessary. Armenia is one of the oldest civilization in the world whose population inhabited
territories stretching from modern north-eastern Turkey to Mesopotamia and from the Caspian
Sea to the Mediterranean. These lands were historically known as Greater Armenia. For
thousands of years, the Armenian people were led by their kings either as an independent
kingdom or under the control of its powerful neighbors from the East and West.1 Located
perhaps in one of the most strategic regions in history, the Armenians were not only able to stay
in their lands but also to develop a rich culture with a mix of orient and occident. Armenia, being
the first country in the world to adopt Christianity as a state religion in 301 A.D, its population
was regularly the target of persecutions by non-Christian conquerors. In the early sixteenth
century, the last remaining Armenian kingdom fell under foreign subjugations.2 In fact, parts of
Armenia was occupied by the Ottoman Turks in the West, while its Eastern provinces came first
under Persian rule and then later in the nineteenth century under Russian influence.3
The Armenians inhabiting the lands of Western Armenia were now forced to live in a
multiethnic and multireligious realm known as the Ottoman Empire. In this empire, Armenians,
as well as other Christian minorities and Jews, had to experience daily discriminations and were
often considered second-class citizens. Actually, the fact that the Ottoman Empire comprised of
many ethnic groups is the reason that pushed its leaders to follow the principles of the Islamic
sacred law.4 By relying on these dogmas, they sought to better govern their empire, but also to
1 Hovanissian, Richard. The Armenian Genocide in Perspective. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1986, p.19 2 Walker, Christopher. Armenia: The Survival of A Nation. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1980, p.853 Hovanissian, Richard. The Armenian Genocide in Perspective. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1986, p.204 Shelton, Dinah. Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. Thomson Gale, 2005, p.69
Torossian 3
proclaim the superiority of the Muslims vis-à-vis the “inferior” non-Muslims.5 Thus, the daily
lives of these “infidels” were quite difficult and intolerable due to the strong inequalities they
had to face. For instance, the Armenians had to pay special taxes, they were not allowed to bear
arms or ride horses, and Muslim law was inapplicable to them.6 In addition, Armenian shoes and
headgears had to be red so that people could know who they were.7 As a result, thousands of
Armenians decided against their will to convert to Islam so that they could live free from these
disadvantages.8 As loyal people, the Armenians made use of their skills and capabilities in
various sectors of the society so to improve and strengthen the Ottoman Empire.9 Indeed, they
hold many important positions that were valuable for the state, such as trader, manager, doctor,
and architect. However, the Armenians in the nineteenth century posed problems to the
traditional hierarchy of the Ottoman Empire as they were getting wealthier and better educated
than the Turks.10 This advancement in the society brought anger and fear to the Muslim
population as they saw it as something that could take away their superiority status.11 The
leadership positions of Armenians particularly triggered dissatisfaction of this ethnic group,
especially after many provincial revolts asking for social change were made by non-Muslims.12
Consequently, these protests not only led to stricter repression but also to the Armenian
massacres from 1894 to 1896.13
5 Shelton, Dinah. Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. Thomson Gale, 2005, p.696 Walker, Christopher. Armenia: The Survival of A Nation. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1980, p.87-897 Akçam, Taner. A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility. Picador, 2007, p.248 Hovanissian, Richard. The Armenian Genocide in Perspective. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1986, p.209 Walker, Christopher. Armenia: The Survival of A Nation. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1980, p.9710 Bartrop, Paul; Totten, Samuel. The Genocide Studies Reader. Routledge, 2009, p.23511 Akçam, Taner. A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility. Picador, 2007, p.3212 Ibid., p.4313 Ibid., p.43
Torossian 4
In 1908, the Young Turk revolution toppled the ancient regime of Sultan Abdul Hamid II
and replaced it with a new political organization, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP).14
The organization apparently wanted to change the empire by promoting liberal and democratic
principles.15 Yet, after losing their territories in Europe due to the Balkan Wars, the Young Turks
began to shift their ideologies.16 Indeed, the leaders of the CUP, as well as many Turkish
intellectuals, started to espouse the idea of Pan-Turkism, a xenophobic movement advocating for
a Turkish state that would be unified with all the Turkic peoples and free of ethnic minorities.17
To put it into perspective, these people were ultranationalists and sought to establish a new
glorious Turkey stretching from Anatolia all the way to Central Asia.18 This plan represented a
huge threat to the Ottoman minorities, especially the Armenians. On October 30th, 1914, the
Ottoman Empire joined WWI on the side of Germany.19 During the winter of 1915, Enver Pasha,
the minister of war, ordered an offensive to the Caucasus so the fight against the Russians.20 As
this battle failed as well as many others, Young Turk extremists accused the Armenians for all
their failures and became persuaded that it was time to put an end to their existence. The decision
to annihilate all the Armenians was made by those in power and a careful plan was thought on
how to execute it. In fact, Talaat Pasha, the minister of interior or the Turkish “Hitler,” declared
to a German Embassy official that Turkey “wanted to take advantage of the war in order to
thoroughly liquidate its internal enemies without being disturbed by foreign diplomatic
intervention.”21
14 Bartrop, Paul; Totten, Samuel. The Genocide Studies Reader. Routledge, 2009, p.23515 Ibid., p.23516 Hovanissian, Richard. The Armenian Genocide in Perspective. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1986, p.2717 Rummel, Rudolph. Death by Government. New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1994, p.21218 Bartrop, Paul; Totten, Samuel. The Genocide Studies Reader. Routledge, 2009, p.23519 Walker, Christopher. Armenia: The Survival of A Nation. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1980, p.19820 Hovanissian, Richard. The Armenian Genocide in Perspective. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1986, p.2821 Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism, and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity. New York: PublicAffairs, 2010, p.41-42
Torossian 5
By February 1915, the Armenians fighting on the side of the Ottomans were turned into
labor battalions and were either worked to death or slaughtered.22 Thus, between 200,000 to
250,000 draftees were killed solely because of their ethnicity.23 This marked the first stage of the
genocide perpetrated against the Armenian population. The next stage was to eliminate those
who were capable of organizing a rebellion against the government. The night of April 23/24,
1915, is considered to be the beginning of what would become the first genocide of the twentieth
century. In fact, it is the time when the Turks arrested 235 Armenian leaders in Constantinople,
such as doctors, politicians, academics, lawyers, and resulted in the death of this elite.24 In the
weeks that followed, thousands of more Armenians suffered the same fate. Once all the national
leaders were executed, the Turks were easily able to carry out their plan of deportation and
extermination of the remaining Armenian civilians. On May 15, 1915, the minister of interior
declared on a telegram that “It has been previously communicated that the government by the
order of the Assembly has decided to exterminate entirely all the Armenians living in Turkey
[…] Without regard to women, children and invalids, however tragic may be the means of
transportation, an end must be put to their existence.”25 Many Armenians were deported to the
desert of Syria, which constituted a one-way journey without return. During their long march, the
Armenians would be dehumanized as some would be raped and forced to walk naked under the
burning sun.26 In addition, the Turks developed several methods of torture, such as mutilation of
ear, nose, and eyes; family members were forced to witness the atrocities made to their loved
ones.27 The memory of the Armenian nation was to be forgotten, especially with the destruction
22 Bartrop, Paul; Totten, Samuel. The Genocide Studies Reader. Routledge, 2009, p.23523 Rummel, Rudolph. Death by Government. New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1994, p.21724 Hovanissian, Richard. The Armenian Genocide in Perspective. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1986, p.2925 Rummel, Rudolph. Death by Government. New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1994, p.21526 Hovanissian, Richard. The Armenian Genocide in Perspective. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1986, p.2927 Danielian, Jack. A Century of Silence: Terror and the Armenian Genocide. Ararat Magazine, 2010. Web.
Torossian 6
of many Armenian churches and monuments.28 Moreover, tens of thousands of young Armenians
were forced to convert to Islam and become Turks. They were given Turkish names, taught the
Quran, and were not allowed to speak Armenian. Overall, between 1915 up to 1923, the plan of
the Young Turks cost the lives of 1.5 million Armenians out of a population of 2 million. An act
that clearly constituted a genocide, but which is still denied by the successor of the Ottoman
Empire, Turkey.
Genocide denial usually occurs both during and after the perpetration of the act. This
phenomenon is often characterized as the very last stage of a genocidal process, one that pursues
the genocide even though the slaughters have ended.29 In fact, the perpetrators, their descendants,
and/or successor governments, intentionally hide the truth so to avoid bearing any responsibility
for the actions committed against a group. Indeed, genocide deniers engage themselves in a
struggle in order to show, through false arguments, fabricated facts, and historical distortions,
that what they are accused of never happened or is simply magnified.30 By doing this, deniers try
to protect whatever they have gained through the genocide, such as political and economic
benefits or theft of the victims’ property and land.31 Denial of genocide is dangerous for the
victims and their descendants because this attitude may be translated as something that could
happen once more. George Santayana, a Hispanic-American philosopher, once declared that
“Those who cannot remember their past are condemned to repeat it.”
The denial of the 1915 Armenian genocide is currently the best example of a country’s
refusal to officially acknowledge the dark chapters of its national history. Despite the fact that
28 Hovanissian, Richard. The Armenian Genocide in Perspective. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1986, p.2929 Bartrop, Paul; Totten, Samuel. The Genocide Studies Reader. Routledge, 2009, p.12830 Shelton, Dinah. Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. Thomson Gale, 2005, p.24331 Tolbert, David. The Armenian Genocide: 100 Years of Denial (And Why It’s In Turkey’s Interest to End It). International Center for Transnational Justice, 2015. Web.
Torossian 7
the Armenian genocide is well known and contains lots of evidence, the denial of this genocide
is been used since 1915 up to this day. In fact, the Republic of Turkey strictly denies that the
Ottoman Turks have perpetrated a genocide against its Armenian population. One could say that
Turkey being established in 1923 is not directly responsible for the horrors committed against the
Armenians. I argue that such argument is true, however, the founding fathers of modern Turkey,
notably Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, actually sought to finish what the Young Turks have planned.
Indeed, Ataturk was implicated in the genocide as he not only attempted to create a homogenous
state, but he also ordered the political and physical destruction of the remaining Armenian
nation.32 Had the Armenians failed to throw the Turks back, it is a high possibility that the word
Armenia would be nowadays a historical term.33 In addition, although today’s Turkey did not
plan the Armenian genocide, it is this country that continues to deny it, prevent its worldwide
recognition, and absolve those who are guilty. Moreover, the Turkish Republic, as the successor
state to the Ottoman Empire and the beneficiary of the victim’s wealth and land, is the one that
should acknowledge the genocide and ask for forgiveness to the Armenian people.34 A parallel
can be drawn with today’s Germany, a country that is also not directly responsible for what its
predecessors have done to the Jews. Yet, it is the Federal Republic of Germany that demanded
forgiveness and agreed to compensate all the holocaust survivors as well as their heirs for the
horrors committed by the Nazis.
The statements used by Turkey and the Turkish people has remained the same, a
genocide never happened, Turkey is not the one responsible for the events, and both Turks and
32 Dadrian, Vahakn. Warrant for Genocide: Key Elements of Turko-Armenian Conflict. Transaction Publishers, 2003, p.15933 Walker, Christopher. Armenia: The Survival of A Nation. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1980, p.25434 Theriault, Henry. Theriault: The Global Reparations Movement and Meaningful Resolution of the Armenian Genocide. Armenian Weekly, 2010. Web.
Torossian 8
Armenians were killed because of a civil war.35 Some even go further as to blame the Armenians
for the massacres they were the victims. In fact, deniers justify the crimes by arguing that the
Armenians deserved what happened as they threatened the territorial integrity of the Ottoman
Empire.36 Yet, this is part of the denial strategy as the Armenians never asked for independence,
but rather demanded social changes.37 Moreover, the argument declaring that what happened
between 1915 and 1923 was the result of a civil war is absolutely false. This statement has been
rejected by many intellectuals, such as Christopher Walker. Indeed, Christopher Walker, a
British historian, argues that there was no civil war during that period and that no evidence even
support this claim.38 It is true that some few Armenian armed groups fought against the Ottoman
army, but their acts were purely defensive as they were threatened with death by the
government.39 One such act happened at Musa Dagh in September 1915, which resulted in the
safety of about 4,000 Armenian civilians.40 Walker considers that describing these kinds of
actions as civil war “is a gross abuse of language.”41 Likewise, Turkish deniers of the Armenian
genocide believe that the actions committed against the Armenians were not planned by the
government and that a number of telegrams, notably those from Talaat Pasha, are simply
fabricated by Armenian propagandists.42 However, once again such argument was not accepted
by genocide scholars. Recently, Taner Akçam, one of the first Turkish intellectuals to
acknowledge the Armenian genocide, confirmed once more the authenticity and validity of these
35 Charny, Israel. Encyclopedia of Genocide Volume I A-H. ABC-CLIO, 1999, p.16236 Walker, Christopher. Armenia: The Survival of A Nation. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1980, p.37937 Akçam, Taner. A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility. Picador, 2007, p.4338 Walker, Christopher. Armenia: The Survival of A Nation. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1980, p.38539 Ibid., p.38640 Ibid., p.38641 Ibid., p.38642 Libaridian, Gerard. A Crime of Silence: The Armenian Genocide: The Permanent People’ Tribunal. Zed Books, 1985, p.156
Torossian 9
telegrams.43 As a result, by proving the reality of these orders, Taner Akçam was able to
demonstrate that the minister of interior had the intent to annihilate the Armenian people.
One of the main ways Turkey followed in order to get away with the Armenian genocide
is by pressuring other countries not to recognize it. Currently, 29 nations have officially
acknowledged the actions committed against the Armenians as genocide.44 In some states, such
as France, one can even be penalized for publicly denying the Armenian genocide. Moreover,
Germany’s parliament practically voted unanimously last June in favor of recognizing the 1915
events.45 Despite threats from the Turkish government, Germany stayed strong, and Turkey
consequently decided to recall its ambassador from Berlin.46 Yet, what angers Turkey even more
is that the one who pushed for this resolution is a German politician of Turkish descent, Cem
Özdemir. However, despite some successes from the Armenian side, the Turkish government
also has its own. Indeed, Turkey, being an important country in the international arena, plays
from its status so to achieve its goal. The United States, for instance, is one of the countries that
decides to remain silent on the issue, although the U.S. is home to the second largest Armenian
diaspora in the world.47 One of the reasons is that the United States is active in the middle east,
and Turkey represents a key ally in the region. Actually, the U.S. has an important airbase in that
country, and Turkey has regularly threatened to close it if a recognition was made.48 Therefore,
the United States does not want to harm its diplomatic relations with Turkey as it would go
against its national interests. In addition, a state that has also been reluctant to officially say the
43 Sassounian, Harut. Dr. Akcam Confirms Turk’s Genocidal Intent By Providing Validity of Talat’s Telegrams. Asbarez, 2016. Web.44 Le Genocide Arménien Désormais Reconnu Par 29 Pays. Euronews, 2016. Web. 45 Martirosyan, Lucy. Why Germany’s Recognition of Armenian Genocide Is Such A Big Deal. Public Radio International, 2016. Web. 46 Ibid47 Flanigan, Jake. Here’s Why The US Won’t Recognize The Armenian Genocide. Defense One, 2015. Web. 48 Stanton, Gregory. The Cost of Denial. Genocide Watch. Web.
Torossian 10
“g-word” is Israel. Indeed, Turkey is considered a great political and military ally for the Jewish
State. Thus, Israel certainly does not want an additional enemy in its region by recognizing the
atrocities of the Ottoman Turks. Likewise, Israel has also good ties with Azerbaijan, a rich oil
nation that denies the Armenian genocide and where anti-Armenian sentiment is high due to the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.49 Beyond activities by diplomatic leaders, the Republic of Turkey
has provided hundreds of thousands of dollars to foreign universities so that they do not discuss
or hold conferences on the issue.50
The denial of the Armenian genocide has lots of negative consequences on everyone
concerned. An obvious impact done by this phenomenon is that it harms the victims and their
future generations.51 Indeed, Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor, considered Turkey’s denial as a
double killing because it not only slaughters psychologically the survivors and their heirs, but it
also attempts to destroy the remembrance of this crime.52 Genocide denial prevents the
Armenians from overcoming their psychological suffering as it deepens the longevity of their
pain. In addition, the denial of the Armenian genocide hurts Turkey, the Turkish people, and
those who dare to mention the reality of the events. By not recognizing its past, Turkey not only
prevents itself from making a step forward for democracy and the rule of law but also from
becoming a stronger nation. Germany has done it and is currently one of the strongest
democracies in the world.53 The Turkish people are also harmed by this policy because their
government falsies their national history. Indeed, Turkish students are taught that the Armenians
were traitors to the Ottoman Empire and that the Armenian genocide is purely a myth.54 They
49 Moodian, Michael. Why Does Israel Refuse To Recognize The Armenian Genocide?. Huffington Post, 2016. Web. 50 Bartrop, Paul; Totten, Samuel. The Genocide Studies Reader. Routledge, 2009, p.51751 Stanton, Gregory. The Cost of Denial. Genocide Watch. Web.52 Ibid 53 Stanton, Gregory. The Cost of Denial. Genocide Watch. Web.54 Ibid
Torossian 11
also grow with the idea that those who committed the Armenian genocide are national heroes
who defended the Turkish nation. To silence even more the issue, article 301 of the Turkish
Penal Code forbids anyone to insult Turkey, the Turkish nation, and its governmental
institutions. This law restricts freedom of speech as those who recognize the Armenian genocide
are “inflicted imprisonment for between six months and three years.”55 Moreover, denial hurts
the bystanders as they choose to follow a realpolitik policy, although they are aware that a
genocide occurred. Actually, countries that are reluctant to acknowledge the Armenian genocide
make themselves look bad in front of those who chose the moral side. Finally, the Armenian
genocide denial can be a threat to other communities around the world. This is particularly true
as Adolf Hitler learned from the Armenian genocide so to conduct his atrocities during World
War II.56 Indeed, he once declared in 1939: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of
the Armenians?”57
The Turks find it difficult to talk about this issue because they do not want to be
reminded of their past. Reactions range from “yes we did it and would do it again,” to “both
Turks and Armenians were killed,” to “something occurred but it is preferable not to talk about
it.58 It demonstrates well that Turks prefer to forget the history and move on.59 Their feelings of
guilt deepen as they fear of being punished and forced to pay reparations, whether territorial or
financial. In fact, the following statement is regularly heard in Turkish conversations: “If we
accept the genocide, then the claim for reparations will soon follow.”60 Turks also consider the
55 Wilson, Jonathan. Article 301 Turkish Censorship. Armenian Genocide Debate, 2008. Web. 56 Tolbert, David. The Armenian Genocide: 100 Years of Denial (And Why It’s In Turkey’s Interest to End It). International Center for Transnational Justice, 2015. Web.57 Ibid58 Akçam, Taner. From Empire to Republic: Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide. London: Zed Books, 2004, p.23759 Ibid., p.23660 Ibid., p.237
Torossian 12
subject to be an unfair accusation as they refuse to imagine that their ancestors were killers.
Indeed, the genocide recognition by Turkey would put into question three successive Turkish
regimes. It would mean that the national heroes and the founding fathers of modern Turkey were
in fact criminals, whose national pride and celebrations would have to cease. Thus, every
monument dedicated to their memory would have to be destroyed.
Despite all the evidence and the worldwide recognition of the 1915 Armenian genocide,
Turkey still chooses to deny that what happened to the Armenians constituted genocide. Indeed,
it has engaged itself over a century in a strategy of falsification, minimization, and denial of this
indisputable fact. This Turkish denial policy is certainly not without consequences. In fact, this
strategy obviously harms the survivors and their descendants, but it also unconsciously hurt
Turkey and the Turkish people. By not recognizing the errors of the past, Turkey condemns itself
and its population within a spiral of lies, which in the end prevents it from turning the page and
grow as a better country. Genocide denial may also be a threat to other communities. Moreover,
Turkey’s denial and propaganda regarding the Armenian genocide represents an obstacle to its
worldwide knowledge. In the end, only great nations are capable to recognize their glorious and
shameful acts. Today, Turkey can become one of them if it renounces to its firm denial policy.
Bibliography
Akçam, Taner. A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish
Responsibility. Picador, 2007. Web.
Akçam, Taner. From Empire to Republic: Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide.
London: Zed Books, 2004. Print.
Bartrop, Paul; Totten, Samuel. The Genocide Studies Reader. Routledge, 2009. Print.
Torossian 13
Charny, Israel. Encyclopedia of Genocide Volume I A-H. ABC-CLIO, 1999. Web.
Dadrian, Vahakn. Warrant for Genocide: Key Elements of Turko-Armenian Conflict. Transaction
Publishers, 2003. Web.
Danielian, Jack. A Century of Silence: Terror and the Armenian Genocide. Ararat Magazine,
2010. Web.
Flanigan, Jake. Here’s Why The US Won’t Recognize The Armenian Genocide. Defense One,
2015. Web.
Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism, and the Ongoing Assault on
Humanity. New York: PublicAffairs, 2010. Web.
Hovanissian, Richard. The Armenian Genocide in Perspective. New Brunswick: Transaction
Publishers, 1986. Print.
Le Genocide Arménien Désormais Reconnu Par 29 Pays. Euronews, 2016. Web.
Libaridian, Gerard. A Crime of Silence: The Armenian Genocide: The Permanent People’s
Tribunal. Zed Books, 1985. Print.
Martirosyan, Lucy. Why Germany’s Recognition of Armenian Genocide Is Such A Big Deal.
Public Radio International, 2016. Web.
Moodian, Michael. Why Does Israel Refuse To Recognize The Armenian Genocide?. Huffington
Post, 2016. Web.
Rummel, Rudolph. Death by Government. New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1994. Web.
Torossian 14
Sassounian, Harut. Dr. Akcam Confirms Turk’s Genocidal Intent By Providing Validity of
Talat’s Telegrams. Asbarez, 2016. Web.
Stanton, Gregory. The Cost of Denial. Genocide Watch. Web.
Shelton, Dinah. Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. Thomson Gale, 2005.
Web.
Theriault, Henry. Theriault: The Global Reparations Movement and Meaningful Resolution of
the Armenian Genocide. Armenian Weekly, 2010. Web.
Tolbert, David. The Armenian Genocide: 100 Years of Denial (And Why It’s In Turkey’s Interest
to End It). International Center for Transnational Justice, 2015. Web.
Walker, Christopher. Armenia: The Survival of A Nation. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1980.
Print.
Wilson, Jonathan. Article 301 Turkish Censorship. Armenian Genocide Debate, 2008. Web.