The Genocide of the Armenians by the Turkish government during World War I represents a major tragedy of the modern age. In this the first Genocide of the 20th century, almost an entire nation was destroyed. The Armenian people were effectively eliminated from the homeland they had occupied for nearly three thousand years. This annihilation was premeditated and planned to be carried out under the cover of war. During the night of April 23-24, 1915, Armenian political, religious, educational, and intellectual leaders in Istanbul were arrested, deported to the interior, and mercilessly put to death.
Wolters believed that Speer only tried to protect his reputation, that he was trying to build himself up systematically & that he was a hypocrite who was far from apolitical. Dan van der Vat further supports Wolters, and says “the only reason Speer escaped the death penalty was because he was a good liar”. Matthias Schmidt, author of ‘The end of a Myth’, believed that Speer had the motive to become a great historical figure, and attempted to do so by gaining power in the Nazi party I agree with Wolters, Dan van der Vat and Matthias Schmidt, with saying Speer was only interested in his reputation. That he was a megalomaniac architect who had established what Schmidt said was a “cunning apologia”, and had therefore escaped execution at Nuremburg. Although, due to Gitta Serenys studies, we can sympathize.
Offenders can be a combination of any of these three classifications. However, there is an issue with blanket statements because each hate is an individual case, as every individual has had a different life and different incentives. Ironically enough, the most severe Offenders of “hate crime” are victims themselves. Sullivan comes to the conclusion that hate crime is an unnecessary classification under “crime’ and shouldn’t carry a different sentence than crime itself. He ends with a general statement that hate can only be overcome by the success of the victims, and their being unaffected by “ignoring the bigot’s
Short summary of the speech: The main point of Wiesel’s speech, given in the White House on the 54th anniversary of the end of the second World War, is to denounce indifference and to praise those who stood up for the victims of the Holocaust. He makes a point to praise President and Mrs. Clinton for the actions they have taken to fight injustice, and then he begins by defining indifference, especially in regard to human indifference toward the suffering of a neighbor: Yet, for the person who is indifferent, his or her neighbors are of no consequence. And, therefore, their lives are meaningless. He continues by describing the role indifference played during the Holocaust and by calling out those who personified this condemning trait. Despite this negativity, he also highlights some positive occurrences, such
Although various Armenian states exercised sovereignty in the ancient and medieval periods, the region was most often dominated by more powerful neighbors, including Persia, Rome, the Seljuk Turks, and the Ottoman Turks. As Christians, Armenians were subject to frequent persecution at the hands of Islamic governments. In the 1890s, an Ottoman attempt to rid the empire of this troublesome minority led to the murder of several hundred thousand Armenians and an international call for reforms. After Ottoman defeat in World War I, Armenia briefly declared a republic (1918). Fearing Turkish aggression, the country accepted the protection of the Soviets in 1920 and in 1922 joined with Georgia and Azerbaijan to form the Transcaucasian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).
This greatly influenced the Ottomans to carry out a policy to eliminate its Christian Armenian minority. For years prior to the beginning of the war, the Armenians were already witnessing massacres that were being carried out toward their people. The Ottoman government viewed WWI as an opportunity to rid the country of its Armenian
Some of the smartest individuals and the leaders of most countries decided torture was inhumane and should be outlawed. Thus torture was one of the first issues that the United Nations dealt with (Dieringer). The act of torture is so inhumane and such a pressing issue that the leaders of the world outlawed it as quickly as possible to save lives. Torture is so powerful and so evil that it may deprive someone of his will to exist. Depriving a person of his will to live is the same, if not worse than killing that person.
Thesis: Before the problem of the Armenian genocide the Armenian and the Turk lived in harmony as second class citizen. A century ago the Armenian genocide was one of the most massive and horrific time there ever was. Around in 1915, the Turkish government wanted to get rid of all Armenians in three steps, as this go on the Armenian race was on a thin line onto extermination. As in today in the 21st century, people are affected of what happen in the past and mostly the Armenians are angered at the Turkish because the Turks still today deny that there was ever genocide toward the Armenian. Life before the Genocide: Although Armenians were second class citizens in the Ottoman Empire; they lived in relative harmony with Turks for centuries before the forces of nationalism transformed the situation.
It began in April of 1915 when the Ottoman government set upon the systematic discrimination of its Armenian population. This persecution continued until the Ottoman Empire died and was replaced by the Republic of Turkey in 1923. The Armenian population of the Ottoman state was about two million in 1915. One million had perished by 1918 while hundreds and thousands became homeless and stateless. By 1923 the entire Armenian population of Anatolian Turkey had disappeared.
In spite of such criticism, Pamuk’s literary greatness remains unquestionable—the Nobel Literature Award of 2006 proves it. The ground swell of such reaction symptomizes, if anything, an a priori assumption, caused not so much by his writings, but by his being a Turk caught in the cross-fire of a political battle of wits between Europe and Turkey. Pamuk’s statement to a Swiss periodical about the Armenian genocide of 1915 (when a million Armenians were killed in Turkey) and the more recent Kurdish genocide in his country (in which thirty-thousand Kurds were massacred), for which Turkey has not officially regretted, stirred vehement protests both from Turkey’s religious conservative camp and the secular establishment. Pamuk had to face a criminal trial in 2005 under the controversial Article 301 for belittling his country and “insulting Turkishness.” Though the case was eventually dropped by the Turkish government to show that they respected the individual’s freedom of speech in a secular democracy, it nonetheless made him a controversial figure. Europe watched these developments in Turkey with bemused interest.