Pope Francis described the 1915 slaughter of Armenians in Turkey as genocide, which is exactly the right word to use.
Yet the Turks are up in arms, screaming spurious objections to their little peccadillo being described that way. The number of 1.5 million victims on which most historians agree is an overestimate, they claim in their defence.
Actually, the lowest number any historian has ever suggested is 300,000, which is admittedly low by the standards of the 20th century. It is, however, plenty high enough to qualify as genocide, which renders the objection as false as it sounds,.
In any case the issue is long since settled – by the Turks themselves, when they tried to repudiate their Ottoman past. In the 1920s the post-Ottoman nationalist government of Turkey held two trials that put paid to any doubts.
In one, on the basis of much evidence, the Young Turks government was found guilty of genocide. In the other, a young Armenian’s assassination of the wartime Interior Minister Talaat was ruled to be justifiable homicide because Talaat was one of the main culprits in the Armenian genocide.
Of the many pieces of juicy evidence presented in both trials, one stands out: Talaat’s wartime telegram stating the Young Turks’ intent with lucid clarity: “…the government by the order of the Assembly (Jemiet) has decided to exterminate entirely all the Armenians living in Turkey [about 2,000,000 at the time]. Those who oppose this order can no longer function as part of the government. With regard to women, children and invalids, however tragic may be the means of transportation, an end must be put to their existence.”
If there is a difference between this document and the Wansee Protocol, it escapes me, and few people this side of David Irving argue that the later document didn’t adumbrate genocide.
Actually, there is one difference. Germany, the nation that issued the Protocol and faithfully carried out its prescriptions, has since repented her crimes and compensated the victims’ families as best she could. Too little, too late and all that, but at least it’s something. Turkey, on the other hand, responds to accusations of genocide with the ‘who, me?’ indignation of wounded innocence – as demonstrated by her reaction to His Holiness’s statement.
Anticipating just such a response, the Pope pre-empted it by saying that “Concealing or denying evil is like allowing a wound to keep bleeding without bandaging it.” Just so.
Muslims in general, and Turks in particular, seem to think that they have a God-given right to murder en masse those who differ from them on anything, be it religion, race or political views. They may have a point, considering that they can effortlessly find much scriptural support for this belief both in the Koran and in history, what with the sort of behaviour this book has inspired over centuries.
But if the Turks insist on making this point when talking to the civilised world, they ought to be prepared for strong rebukes from those whose God frowns on genocide. Just as the Turks seem to think they were within their right to murder all those Armenians, His Holiness was certainly entitled to call that evil deed by its proper name.
The Turks responded by recalling their envoy to the Vatican, which will doubtless give the Pope many sleepless nights. I can just see him tossing and turning as he tries to contain his tears at the thought of having one less Muslim diplomat in Rome.
All I can do is admire the boldfaced effrontery of Erdoğan and his government. They don’t seem to realise that acting in this manner makes them accomplices in the crime, if only after the fact. Or perhaps they simply don’t care what Western infidels think, especially when they digress from multi-culti platitudes.
One wonders if Tony Blair still thinks Turkey should be summarily admitted to the European Union. He probably does – our Tony is a man of principle.