Tweet
I am posting this peice written by our own Fadix here - I don't think he will mind. (my bolds however)
Lemkin’s first studies concerning war “crimes against humanity” was referred to by H. Yahreas’ work, The World’s Most Horrible Crime, Colliers, vol. 127, 3 March 1951. The author retraces Lemkin’s interest concerning war crimes and extermination. In fact, the author reports that the first recorded conversation that Lemkin had about the subject was at Lvov University in 1920, when he engaged in a discussion concerning the extermination of the Armenians with his Russian Law professor. Rabbi Steven L. Jacobs, Temple B’nai Shalom, Huntsville, Alabama, and Martin Methodist College, Tennessee, who has researched Raphael Lemkin’s papers, has classed some of those concerning the Armenians and compiled them by the name "Lemkin and the Armenian Genocide." Lemkin also referred to the Armenian case, in his work “Le Crime de Génocide” as an example of extermination. Quoting here from its English version: “history has provided us with other examples of the destruction of entire nations, and ethnic and religious groups. There are, for example,… and more recently, the massacre of the Armenians.” (By Raphael Lemkin, American Scholar, Volume 15, no. 2 [April 1946]).
Lemkin started his works concerning “Crimes against Humanity” (we should remind the reader, that the term “crime against humanity” was first officially used to describe what happened to the Armenians) with the Armenian case. This same case, as mentioned previously, was also one of the main reasons why he decided to become a lawyer. Lemkin’s conception of the word predates the Holocaust, with the Armenian case, and then after the end of World War II, he finalized his definition and published it in a series of essays. He also wrote papers, official and unofficial. In them, he referred to the Armenian case as an integral part of his definition, an “undissociable” element of the word that he himself invented.
Lemkin writes:
"In 1915 the Germans occupied the city of W. and the entire area. I used this time to read more history, to study and to watch whether national, religious, or racial groups are being destroyed. The truth came out only after the war. In Turkey, more than 1,200,000 Armenians were put to death for no other reason than they were Christians ... After the end of the war, some 150 Turkish war criminals were arrested and interned by the British Government on the island of Malta. The Armenians sent a delegation to the peace conference in Versailles. They were demanding justice. Then one day, the delegation read in the newspapers that all Turkish war criminals were released. I was shocked. A nation was killed and the guilty persons were set free. Why is a man punished when he kills another man? Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of a single individual?
I identified myself more and more with the sufferings of the victims, whose numbers grew, as I continued my study of history. I understood that the function of memory is not only to register past events, but to stimulate human conscience. Soon contemporary examples of genocide followed, such as the slaughter of the Armenians in 1915. It became clear to me that the diversity of nations, religious groups and races is essential to civilization because every one of those groups has a mission to fulfill and a contribution to make in terms of culture.... I decided to become a lawyer and work for the outlawing of Genocide and for its prevention through the cooperation of nations.
A bold plan was formulated in my mind. This consisted [of] obtaining the ratification by Turkey [of the proposed UN Convention on Genocide Ed.] among the first twenty founding nations. This would be an atonement for [the] genocide of the Armenians. But how could this be achieved? ... The Turks are proud of their republican form of government and of progressive concepts, which helped them in replacing the rule of the Ottoman Empire. The genocide convention must be put within the framework of social and international progress. I knew however that in this conversation both sides will have to avoid speaking about one thing, although it would be constantly in their minds: the Armenians."
[Source: With permission of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Division, the New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations.]
The German word often used for the word genocide, "Völkermord" has been used to describe what happened to the Armenians, even before the introduction of the more official word, “genocide.” An example of the usage of the word "Völkermord" could be found in the work of S. Zurlinden, "Der Weltkrieg, Vol. II (Zürich: Art. Institut Orell Füssli, 1918), p.649.
This German word had not the legal aspect that the word genocide does. Lemkin at that time was pressed to release his studies and the legal aspect of such crimes, in order to have legal bases for the prosecution of people responsible of such crimes. For Lemkin the criminals responsible for the Armenian genocide were released, and for him the reason was because there were laws binding countries concerning killers and criminals, but there were no laws for criminals that in the name of a state and from its laws commit genocide, as he wrote, “Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of a single individual?” And it is exactly why, in 1944, Lemkin was preparing the legal aspect, and knew that once the war was over these NAZI criminals would be released in the same way that the criminals responsible for the Armenian genocide were released if there were no new laws that could permit judgement of the criminals.
It must be understood once again one of the main reasons of why the word genocide was invented. It was primarily invented in order to have a legal basis to condemn people accused of such crimes, in order that they do not escape justice like they had done in the case of the Malta prisoners, and also to name such crime that until then there was no word to describe. For Lemkin the Armenian case was the archetype, the case that was used as jurisprudence, in order to come up with legal bases to condemn NAZI criminals, and be sure that the same mistake that happened in the post-World War I period were not to happen in the post-World War II period or ever again.
This is exactly why according to some, there is no possible debate concerning whatever or not what happened to the Armenians was a genocide or not, for people that allege it wasn’t a genocide not only have no knowledge of or reject the why of the usage of this word, but they also have no knowledge of or reject the fact that the Armenian case is a Jurisprudence and a distinct and indivisible element of the existence of the word, an integral part of the word, months before the introduction of this word in 1948, on the date of May 28, 1948, on which date the United Nations war crimes commission released a report concerning the mass slaughter of the Armenians in World War I, followed by, the same year, on the date of December 9, 1948, the publication of the Genocide Convention by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. Obviously, the United Nations report released on May 28 was part of their study that permitted them to release, months later, what would become their official definition of the word genocide.
Later in 1973, a reference in one of the United Nations papers concerning the Armenian genocide resulted on the part of Turkey to pressure the United Nations to withdraw the case of the Armenian genocide from the list. Due to the intensification of these pressures, the case of the Armenian genocide was redrawn in 1978, until another extensive study was to be conducted, due to Turkey’s accusations of partiality. After eight years of extensive research was undertaken, one of the specialists that conducted this meticulous research, Benjamin Withaker, released the conclusion, which was, that the Armenian case was undeniably a case of genocide. The result was intense pressures from Turkey, forcing the United Nations to ignore the conclusion of the specialists and stop the passage of this recognition, but despite Turkish pressures, the Subcomission of Human Rights, led by the expert Carey, adopted the resolution by passing it to a vote, from which only one member was against, the only vote against the resolution being from the representatives of the Soviet Union
Lemkin’s first studies concerning war “crimes against humanity” was referred to by H. Yahreas’ work, The World’s Most Horrible Crime, Colliers, vol. 127, 3 March 1951. The author retraces Lemkin’s interest concerning war crimes and extermination. In fact, the author reports that the first recorded conversation that Lemkin had about the subject was at Lvov University in 1920, when he engaged in a discussion concerning the extermination of the Armenians with his Russian Law professor. Rabbi Steven L. Jacobs, Temple B’nai Shalom, Huntsville, Alabama, and Martin Methodist College, Tennessee, who has researched Raphael Lemkin’s papers, has classed some of those concerning the Armenians and compiled them by the name "Lemkin and the Armenian Genocide." Lemkin also referred to the Armenian case, in his work “Le Crime de Génocide” as an example of extermination. Quoting here from its English version: “history has provided us with other examples of the destruction of entire nations, and ethnic and religious groups. There are, for example,… and more recently, the massacre of the Armenians.” (By Raphael Lemkin, American Scholar, Volume 15, no. 2 [April 1946]).
Lemkin started his works concerning “Crimes against Humanity” (we should remind the reader, that the term “crime against humanity” was first officially used to describe what happened to the Armenians) with the Armenian case. This same case, as mentioned previously, was also one of the main reasons why he decided to become a lawyer. Lemkin’s conception of the word predates the Holocaust, with the Armenian case, and then after the end of World War II, he finalized his definition and published it in a series of essays. He also wrote papers, official and unofficial. In them, he referred to the Armenian case as an integral part of his definition, an “undissociable” element of the word that he himself invented.
Lemkin writes:
"In 1915 the Germans occupied the city of W. and the entire area. I used this time to read more history, to study and to watch whether national, religious, or racial groups are being destroyed. The truth came out only after the war. In Turkey, more than 1,200,000 Armenians were put to death for no other reason than they were Christians ... After the end of the war, some 150 Turkish war criminals were arrested and interned by the British Government on the island of Malta. The Armenians sent a delegation to the peace conference in Versailles. They were demanding justice. Then one day, the delegation read in the newspapers that all Turkish war criminals were released. I was shocked. A nation was killed and the guilty persons were set free. Why is a man punished when he kills another man? Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of a single individual?
I identified myself more and more with the sufferings of the victims, whose numbers grew, as I continued my study of history. I understood that the function of memory is not only to register past events, but to stimulate human conscience. Soon contemporary examples of genocide followed, such as the slaughter of the Armenians in 1915. It became clear to me that the diversity of nations, religious groups and races is essential to civilization because every one of those groups has a mission to fulfill and a contribution to make in terms of culture.... I decided to become a lawyer and work for the outlawing of Genocide and for its prevention through the cooperation of nations.
A bold plan was formulated in my mind. This consisted [of] obtaining the ratification by Turkey [of the proposed UN Convention on Genocide Ed.] among the first twenty founding nations. This would be an atonement for [the] genocide of the Armenians. But how could this be achieved? ... The Turks are proud of their republican form of government and of progressive concepts, which helped them in replacing the rule of the Ottoman Empire. The genocide convention must be put within the framework of social and international progress. I knew however that in this conversation both sides will have to avoid speaking about one thing, although it would be constantly in their minds: the Armenians."
[Source: With permission of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Division, the New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations.]
The German word often used for the word genocide, "Völkermord" has been used to describe what happened to the Armenians, even before the introduction of the more official word, “genocide.” An example of the usage of the word "Völkermord" could be found in the work of S. Zurlinden, "Der Weltkrieg, Vol. II (Zürich: Art. Institut Orell Füssli, 1918), p.649.
This German word had not the legal aspect that the word genocide does. Lemkin at that time was pressed to release his studies and the legal aspect of such crimes, in order to have legal bases for the prosecution of people responsible of such crimes. For Lemkin the criminals responsible for the Armenian genocide were released, and for him the reason was because there were laws binding countries concerning killers and criminals, but there were no laws for criminals that in the name of a state and from its laws commit genocide, as he wrote, “Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of a single individual?” And it is exactly why, in 1944, Lemkin was preparing the legal aspect, and knew that once the war was over these NAZI criminals would be released in the same way that the criminals responsible for the Armenian genocide were released if there were no new laws that could permit judgement of the criminals.
It must be understood once again one of the main reasons of why the word genocide was invented. It was primarily invented in order to have a legal basis to condemn people accused of such crimes, in order that they do not escape justice like they had done in the case of the Malta prisoners, and also to name such crime that until then there was no word to describe. For Lemkin the Armenian case was the archetype, the case that was used as jurisprudence, in order to come up with legal bases to condemn NAZI criminals, and be sure that the same mistake that happened in the post-World War I period were not to happen in the post-World War II period or ever again.
This is exactly why according to some, there is no possible debate concerning whatever or not what happened to the Armenians was a genocide or not, for people that allege it wasn’t a genocide not only have no knowledge of or reject the why of the usage of this word, but they also have no knowledge of or reject the fact that the Armenian case is a Jurisprudence and a distinct and indivisible element of the existence of the word, an integral part of the word, months before the introduction of this word in 1948, on the date of May 28, 1948, on which date the United Nations war crimes commission released a report concerning the mass slaughter of the Armenians in World War I, followed by, the same year, on the date of December 9, 1948, the publication of the Genocide Convention by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. Obviously, the United Nations report released on May 28 was part of their study that permitted them to release, months later, what would become their official definition of the word genocide.
Later in 1973, a reference in one of the United Nations papers concerning the Armenian genocide resulted on the part of Turkey to pressure the United Nations to withdraw the case of the Armenian genocide from the list. Due to the intensification of these pressures, the case of the Armenian genocide was redrawn in 1978, until another extensive study was to be conducted, due to Turkey’s accusations of partiality. After eight years of extensive research was undertaken, one of the specialists that conducted this meticulous research, Benjamin Withaker, released the conclusion, which was, that the Armenian case was undeniably a case of genocide. The result was intense pressures from Turkey, forcing the United Nations to ignore the conclusion of the specialists and stop the passage of this recognition, but despite Turkish pressures, the Subcomission of Human Rights, led by the expert Carey, adopted the resolution by passing it to a vote, from which only one member was against, the only vote against the resolution being from the representatives of the Soviet Union