Comparison Of The Holocaust And The Armenian Genocide

1331 Words 5 Pages
The horrible events that took place during the Holocaust are hard to match. Some may say that it is the worst genocide in human history. But there is one thing that we can all agree on: the Holocaust definitely wasn 't the first genocide. Similar techniques and prejudices can be found in history before the Holocaust. These can be found most notably in the Armenian Genocide. The intentions, methods, and denial of both Genocides are very similar. The Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide are both considered genocides for a number of reasons. The two share a similar aspect when it comes to the intentions of extermination. The way the genocides began both started with military tactics in mind. For the Nazis and the Turks, their first actions were …show more content…
At this point in time, Jews were desired to leave Germany for any country that was willing to accept them. The Nazi’s were concerned with getting them out and didn 't have any intentions to kill. Hitler even thought about organizing a deportation of Jews under Nazi-occupied Europe to Madagascar. This was stopped short when the war with Poland broke out. What resulted was about 2 million Jews to deal with in their new Poland land and the left over Jews that were still in Germany. They couldn 't send them as refugees anymore, instead they decided to send them to ghettos within the central government. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were forced into these ghettos. The Warsaw ghetto had almost half a million Jews in it alone. With the harsh conditions, 44,630 people died in the Warsaw ghetto during 1941 and thousands of others died in other ghettos (Farmer 35). As the Nazi control of European land increased, the Germans were faced with the control of another six million Jews under their control. It is from this sudden increase of Jews, that their policy on Jews had to change. This is when the refraining from murdering the the Jews stopped (Farmer …show more content…
When the Turks felt their power being tested by the Armenians, they took military action against them. The Turks believe what was done was understandable and necessary to protect the state’s survival from the rebellious Armenians in a time of war. Those on the Armenian’s side say that the huge deportations and massacres of the unthreatening, peaceful Armenian people by the unrelenting Turks should be considered genocide. Those in favor of the Turks are mostly from the Turkish State and also include some historians. Many deniers of the genocide will blame the Armenians, saying: (Suny 932). From the words of the scholar of Islam, Bernard Lewis, he clearly shows that the Armenians were an apparent obstacle for the Turks (Suny 934). It is important to know that the Armenians did have some times of resistance, most notably at the Resistance at Van. But none of these can be considered anywhere close to signaling a civil war (Suny 939). The land of Anatolia was once shared between the Armenians and Kurds, but with the national aspirations of the Turks, they were in their way. The Turks were at the point where they were able to take Anatolia for their homeland if they wanted to instead of having Central Asia. The Ottoman Empire needed to do something to survive. Annihilating the Armenians was important for them to survive (Suny 934). The following quote sums up the situation

Related Documents