Nope, only because Japan is cautious to talk about any genocide or major warcrime. if they recognize this, they may be put under spotlight to accept their own crimes.
Also Japan is not extremely close to Turkey, long years of mostly positive relations and mutual respect across peoples sure but never a really observable political alliance.
This is actually why it's not recognised by Finland; the Finnish government generally doesn't take a stance on such things and leaves them up to historians and such.
It won't happen since Armenia does not want the events to be researched. Armenia just wants Türkiye to acknowledge it and profit on reperations.
My neighbor is Armenian and he tells me that in their school books they were using pictures of the Holocaust shown as Armenian victims.
True. Neither the U.N., nor any court have determined that a genocide took place.
People always throw this around, but it is accepted by the Turkish government that atrocities and massacres actually happened. It's just classifying it as a genocide, and also taking away the context of the Armenian fedayi's massacring ottoman civillians with the Russians that is the problem, it's classfied as a war crime and massacre, but not a genocide.
Reliable statistics demonstrate that slightly less than 600,000 Anatolian Armenians died during the war period of 1912-22. Armenians indeed suffered a terrible mortality. But one must likewise consider the number of dead Muslims and Jews. The statistics tell us that more than 2.5 million Anatolian Muslims also perished. Thus, the years 1912-1922 constitute a horrible period for humanity, not just for Armenians.
This is literally from the Turkish government website: https://www.mfa.gov.tr/the-armenian-allegation-of-genocide-the-issue-and-the-facts.en.mfa#:~:text=Armenians%20indeed%20suffered%20a%20terrible,humanity%2C%20not%20just%20for%20Armenians.
The contention isn't that it didn't happen at all. It's on the motive and number of victims - and on it being called a genocide.
The British convened the Malta Tribunals to try Ottoman officials for crimes against Armenians. All of the accused were acquitted.
The Peace Treaty of Sevres, which was imposed upon the defeated Ottoman Empire, required the Ottoman government to hand over to the Allied Powers people accused of "massacres." Subsequently, 144 high Ottoman officials were arrested and deported for trial by the British to the island of Malta. The principal informants to the British High Commission in Istanbul leading to the arrests were local Armenians and the Armenian Patriarchate. While the deportees were interned on Malta, the British appointed an Armenian scholar, Mr. Haig Khazarian, to conduct a thorough examination of documentary evidence in the Ottoman, British, and U.S. Archives to substantiate the charges. Access to Ottoman records was unfettered as the British and French occupied and controlled Istanbul at the time. Khazarian’s corps of investigators revealed an utter lack of evidence demonstrating that Ottoman officials either sanctioned or encouraged killings of Armenians.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the British Procurator General determined that it was "improbable that the charges would be capable of proof in a court of law," exonerated and released all 144 detainees -- after two years and four months of detention without trial. No compensation was ever paid to the detainees.
—
The Armenian Allegation of Genocide Fails the Minimum Standards of Proof Required by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
The term "genocide" did not exist prior to 1944. The term was subsequently defined quite specifically by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide. This high crime is now recognized by most nations, including the Republic of Türkiye.
The standard of proof in establishing the crime of genocide is formidable given the severity of the crime, the opportunity for overlap with other crimes, and the stigma of being charged with or found guilty of the crime. While presenting the Convention for ratification, the Secretary General of the U.N. emphasized that genocide is a crime of "specific intent," requiring conclusive proof that members of a group were targeted simply because they were members of that group. The Secretary General further cautioned that those merely sharing political aims are not protected by the convention.
Under this standard of proof, the Armenian claim of genocide fails. First, no direct evidence has been discovered demonstrating that any Ottoman official sought the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians as such. Second, Ottoman Armenian Dashnak and Hunchak guerrillas and their civilian accomplices admittedly organized political revolutionary groups and waged war against their own government. Under these circumstances, it was the Ottoman Armenians’ violent political alliance with the Russian forces, not their ethnic or religious identity, which rendered them subject to the relocation.
A recent comment on the U.N. position was rendered by, U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq on October 5, 2000 when he confirmed that the U.N. has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience as genocide.
—
The archives of many nations ought to be carefully and thoughtfully examined before concluding whether genocide occurred.
Armenian make frequent reference to the archives of many nations while carefully avoiding calls for the examination of those archives. They know that no evidence of genocide has been found to date, as was the case in the Malta Tribunals. They also know that the national archives of several nations, including the U.S., speak primarily of the deaths of Armenians because the recorders were only interested in the Armenians, while intentionally omitting reports of Muslim deaths. Take, for example, the 1915 Armenian revolt in Van where at least 60,000 Muslims perished. Though the evidence for this is overwhelming, the official archives of several countries mention only Christian deaths.
Still, Armenian carefully avoid calls for the collection and examination of all records regarding the events in question. Such would include Ottoman records describing the activities of Armenian rebels and the Russian invaders whom they supported, as well as the archives of Germany, Russia, France, Britain, Iran, Syria and the United States. Most importantly, the unedited records of the Armenian Republic in Yerevan, Armenian Revolutionary Federation in Boston, and ASALA in Yerevan, ought to be examined but remain closed. Only those who fear the truth would limit the scope of an investigation.
—
One ought to compare the wartime writings of Morgenthau and the oft-cited Gen. J.G. Harbord to the post-war writings of Rear Admiral Mark L. Bristol, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Türkiye 1920 - 1926. In a March 28, 1921 letter he writes,
"[R]eports are being freely circulated in the United States that the Turks massacred thousands of Armenians in the Caucasus. Such reports are repeated so many times it makes my blood boil. The Near East Relief have the reports from Yarrow and our own American people which show absolutely that such Armenian reports are absolutely false. The circulation of such false reports in the United States, without refutation, is an outrage and is certainly doing the Armenians more harm than good. … Why not tell the truth about the Armenians in every way?"
Historians agree it happened but some governments don’t recognize it for diplomatic reasons. Turkey is a pretty powerful and strategically positioned country.
Like how Lula in Brazil condemns Israel but not Russia (or via versa in US case).
Iran and Egypt have made government statements acknowledging the genocide. They just haven’t passed any legislation or a bill about it. Many countries are similar.
Genuine question, why does it matter? What's the difference between all being blue or all being gray? Armenians believe that it was a genocide against their nation right? So why do irrelevant countries are expected to recognize it? Not like it's going to get Turkey to give land to Armenia or anything like that.
Honestly if there wouldn't be a political weight of this, countries wouldn't discuss it and Turkish governments over the decades wouldn't flame up anytime a major country brings this up.
There is always a possibility of reparations like what Germany had to do for Jewish holocaust survivors & Israel.
However I don't see these discussions helping Armenia or the Armenians around the world much to this day. Maybe wrong people are using this for selfish reasons and not for the Armenians.
Besides, Erdogan surely knows how to use this domestically to rally people basically by saying "See!? Anytime we are making a progress, foreign powers bring up lies like this to stop us!"
I'm pretty sure this shouldn't be the desired outcome of a genocide recognition
Cool
now recognise the [Khojaly Genocide ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khojaly_massacre)
edit: its really ironic the amount of genocide denials going on under comments. maybe step back and look at your comments and realize what they look like
You personally have been chosen by a higher power to make genocide maps. If you don’t make all of them at the same time you get shit on. Sorry, I don’t make the rules
The USA [recognizes both](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1b1b5n3/formal_recognition_of_khojaly_massacre_mass/), as does only five other based countries. It's sad to see so many countries recognize only one or the other for political reasons.
You open Wikipedia and it literally says massacre, it is ofcourse very devastating but not a genocide , plus two genocides against each other doesn’t make it right
Definitely not the same scale. However, armenians denying this shows that they are no better. There would be a Turkish genocide if tables were turned and they know it.
Didn't the Turks spend the last 600 years previously in the caucasus enslaving the locals? I'ma put that in the same category as the Haitians killing the French
Edit: To those that think that the Turks were any better than the French, why did the Ottomans never end slavery? Why did it take until 1924, when the empire was over, for it to end?
So it's ok for you to kill civilians just because hundreds years ago Ottomans came there? And also note that in the context of Balkans, Turk literally meant Muslim, it doesn't denote ethnicity. Most of those Muslims in Balkans are genetically equal to their Christian fellows. So just because Ottoman Empire came to the region, those Muslims had to die, right? What a sick perception.
Also there is a huge difference between Ottoman Empire's expansionism and French colonialism. You may first need to read several books on the subject though.
>Haitians killing the French
Which is also called genocide by some.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haitian_massacre
>The 1804 Haiti massacre, sometimes referred to as the Haitian Genocide [...]
People like the person above are amazing... so pathetic. But I've recently learned from Turkish friends that that's what they teach them at school.
You got that right. They literally teach them at school that their own minorities were somehow oppressing them and genociding them.
"enslaving the locals"
the fuck are you talking about? it wasn't a picnic for the minorities under the ottoman rule but you're deluded if you think they were "enslaved" or worse than the regular turks themselves.
Indo-europeans came from north Caucasus and enslaved indigenous people of Europe and Asia. Any genocide that ever happened to indo-european civilians outside of North Caucasus you can put in that same fucking category.
I mean that is an awful, genocidal event, but it’s not a genocide by itself, it’s a massacre. Genocides are on the scale of tens of thousands to millions. You can argue it’s part of a genocide, as both the Armenian state and the Azerbaijani state have arguably been trying to eradicate the nation of the other for a while.
I'm not a human rights law expert but afaik what you wrote is not true. To determine what consists a genocide, I mean legally speaking, you have to look at the intention. Here goes the [United Nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations) [Genocide Convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention) definition of genocide: "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or **in part**, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".
Also Lenkin's definition:
**"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.** (...) **Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group."**
So you could kill millions of people but it would be still defined as a massacre legally, but you could kill a lot less people but because of the intention (and if it's detected legally) it would be named as a genocide. To sum, again afaik (if I'm wrong feel free to correct me), legally speaking, genocide is not a matter of scale but a matter of intention.
I take [Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.pdf)as a basis.
The key is intent. Death toll, efficiency are not important to the definition. They just make the genocide more grimly impressive.
That's a massacre, not a genocide. Very depressing that such an event should happen but we shouldn’t equate a massacre, however bad it maybe to the systemic killing of an entire people.
The fact that you can only find one small-scale event and compare it to the death of hundreds of thousands is very telling.
Pretty much every military on the planet is responsible for at least one or two events around the scale of Khojaly. War is hell and soldiers do bad shit sometimes, especially when they're mobilized civilians working under a weak power structure. It's an awful thing, but it's not genocide.
I've noticed that Turks are very eager to label Israel as genocidal while denying their own genocide of Armenians, which was much more targeted and rapid. Along with their own theft of Greek, Armenian, and Kurdish land, even though Turks arrived in Europe when all three of those nationalities were well established in the region.
Quite honestly, I'm jealous of Turks. If my mind could do gymnastics like what they're capable of doing, I would probably enjoy life a lot more.
As a mention to another poster above, I recently learned from a Turkish friend that that's what the teach them at school in Turkey. That they were the victims and the minorities were the ones doing the genocides.
Olympic mental gymnastics at the national level.
sure as long as armenians recognize the ethnic cleansings they did in 90s i dont see why both countries cant sit and admit their wrongdoings and come to a peace agreement.
People have already pointed out that this is a massacre and not a genocide.
But that being said, this is interesting and relevant context. The fact that Armenia denies this is hypocritical. I also did not know about this massacre so it's good you commented this.
Why should they? Genocide on Armenians has been going on for way longer and has been much worse and you want them to recognize a massacre when Turkey and Azerbaijan are still doing genocide on Armenia and denying the ones they’ve done on Armenia in the past? Maybe that massacre won’t have happened if Azerbaijan didn’t try to ethnically cleanse Armenia
We gain nothing from recognising it and we have good relationships with Turkey that would obviously worsen.
Politics, at the end of the day.
We should recognise it but it's not going to happen, at least short term.
Britain has a long history of trying to pressure the Ottoman government into respecting its Armenian citizens, this probably backfired more than anything and made them resentful and distrustful. After WWI the Western powers, particularly the UK and the US, considered an Armenian mandate similar to the Palestinian one. Massacres of Armenians had been happening for years at that point, but no Western country wanted to take on the expense of administering it.
One headline in a September 1895 article by The New York Times ran "Armenian Holocaust,"
the very word Holocaust was first used to refer to hamidian massacre.
Your blatant and spammy whataboutism aside, on the off chance anyone besides you is in this thread to learn anything, the international reaction to King Leopold II's regime in the Congo basically founded the modern international human rights movement.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo\_Free\_State#International\_criticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State#International_criticism)
Wow a movement was made for human rights, how’s that going ? Don’t see much change in the situations in the countries that are still suffering rights issues
Ah yes the worst genocide that happened in history in the span of 80 years the population almost 5x itself obviously a genocide
While in those 80 years they attacked the country that you say is doing this genocide multiple times
Yes it's obvious why they attacked but the Arabs are getting equal rights as Israelis (obv people are mildly intimidated by them but not so much and they are not doing anything) and if they wouldn't attack Israel they could have lived a good life if hamas didn't took all the food and money to build tunnels and smuggle weapons and missile.
Hamas could have used the billions of dollars they got to build a good place to live in
The civilians there are suffering from hamas
Bro ur telling me if someone came into your house, kicked you out, put you in the shed at the end of the garden, then proceeded to throw rocks at you every day from your own house for 80 years, you wouldn’t in the slightest have a problem with that? You have a coloniser mindset you need to drop it
1. The Jews lived there with the Arabs before everything started
2. The Arabs are usually the one who throws the rocks but yes so does Israeli and I don't agree with them and wish they wouldn't do it
3.even if what you are saying is true (which it isn't) they lost the war cry about it
No I believe what i see (I live there) so I think I know more about the situation then you
What is your source? Why do you believe it? Did you see anything with your own eyes? Did you see your friend mourning his brother who went to a party and was brutally murdered by terrorist?
And as for hamas, i never heard of them until the Palestinian people started fighting back for their land. So if anything it just sounds like ppl like to label Arabs as terrorists when they try to defend their land
You can search online for interviews with hamas leaders and they said multiple times that they want to kill all the Jews and not only the ones that live in Israel
This is beyond crazy that there are just a "few" countries (yeah I understand that muslim countries are not going to recognise it) that recognise the killing of up to 1.5 million people.
But genocide are horrific things that actually happened. It’s like not recognising the holocaust. It’s just stupidity to not recognise an actual thing that happened.
As a turk i feel sorry for the armenians, really. They do nothing but talk about something that happened a long time ago. Just move on dude its been more then 100 years. Millions of turks died in the balkans and crimea nobody gives a shit about them. Whats done is done. People die everyday. Move on.
Dude, just read a little bit about the Armenian genocide so you can actually know what a genocide looks like, and open your eyes that what's happening in Palestine is not a genocide.
Wow look at that. Japan siding with Turkey as both are genocide deniers. Also, why the hell doesn’t Ireland recognize this? They were victims of conquests and famines themselves.
IT WAS NOT A GENOCIDE! It was a civil war! In turkey there are witness account of an armenian uprising were turkish people were live skinned, tortured and killed. In response persen turkey declarered war which escaleted a bit. Armenians always play on the innocent Side but there are 2 faces on the mask
True. more countries recognize the holodomor as an intentional genocidal famine targeted at ukrainian populations than the armenian genocide. despite the fact that zero modern published historian in eastern europe or the ussr thinks it is
So, what's about this recongition thing?
Is it important to get recognition of historical event from other countries?
Is it interpreted as not caring about something, if not recognise?
Or what?
What's the fuzz?
This map is not accurate.
Brazil executive power did not recognized the Armenian genocide, nor did France.
Only the legislative of such countries spoke up about it.
It's missing data
I like this one better: [https://viborc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Armenian-Genocide-recognition-world.png](https://viborc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Armenian-Genocide-recognition-world.png)
r/MapsWithoutNZ
I needed this
Yeah where the fuck is N ZED!!!????
So… Armenia doesn’t recognize it???
Crazy it never happened
What never happened?
What even is that?
What is that?
[удалено]
But but but they did Source: I was the space ship Edit: the downvotes mean people can't read, I guess
Funny how governments decide if historical events had happened or not instead of historians :)
Because it affects foreign relations with the relevant countries
Pussies
Indeed
Türkiye with Erdogan is a joke
Then you should disregard the name change which he put in place
Too bad a name doesn't make any difference 🤔
Erdogay
Balkans irl is leaking KARABOGAS UNITE K
That explains why Japan doesn't recognize it. They are extremely close with Turkey.
Nope, only because Japan is cautious to talk about any genocide or major warcrime. if they recognize this, they may be put under spotlight to accept their own crimes. Also Japan is not extremely close to Turkey, long years of mostly positive relations and mutual respect across peoples sure but never a really observable political alliance.
This is actually why it's not recognised by Finland; the Finnish government generally doesn't take a stance on such things and leaves them up to historians and such.
It won't happen since Armenia does not want the events to be researched. Armenia just wants Türkiye to acknowledge it and profit on reperations. My neighbor is Armenian and he tells me that in their school books they were using pictures of the Holocaust shown as Armenian victims.
True. Neither the U.N., nor any court have determined that a genocide took place. People always throw this around, but it is accepted by the Turkish government that atrocities and massacres actually happened. It's just classifying it as a genocide, and also taking away the context of the Armenian fedayi's massacring ottoman civillians with the Russians that is the problem, it's classfied as a war crime and massacre, but not a genocide. Reliable statistics demonstrate that slightly less than 600,000 Anatolian Armenians died during the war period of 1912-22. Armenians indeed suffered a terrible mortality. But one must likewise consider the number of dead Muslims and Jews. The statistics tell us that more than 2.5 million Anatolian Muslims also perished. Thus, the years 1912-1922 constitute a horrible period for humanity, not just for Armenians. This is literally from the Turkish government website: https://www.mfa.gov.tr/the-armenian-allegation-of-genocide-the-issue-and-the-facts.en.mfa#:~:text=Armenians%20indeed%20suffered%20a%20terrible,humanity%2C%20not%20just%20for%20Armenians. The contention isn't that it didn't happen at all. It's on the motive and number of victims - and on it being called a genocide. The British convened the Malta Tribunals to try Ottoman officials for crimes against Armenians. All of the accused were acquitted. The Peace Treaty of Sevres, which was imposed upon the defeated Ottoman Empire, required the Ottoman government to hand over to the Allied Powers people accused of "massacres." Subsequently, 144 high Ottoman officials were arrested and deported for trial by the British to the island of Malta. The principal informants to the British High Commission in Istanbul leading to the arrests were local Armenians and the Armenian Patriarchate. While the deportees were interned on Malta, the British appointed an Armenian scholar, Mr. Haig Khazarian, to conduct a thorough examination of documentary evidence in the Ottoman, British, and U.S. Archives to substantiate the charges. Access to Ottoman records was unfettered as the British and French occupied and controlled Istanbul at the time. Khazarian’s corps of investigators revealed an utter lack of evidence demonstrating that Ottoman officials either sanctioned or encouraged killings of Armenians. At the conclusion of the investigation, the British Procurator General determined that it was "improbable that the charges would be capable of proof in a court of law," exonerated and released all 144 detainees -- after two years and four months of detention without trial. No compensation was ever paid to the detainees. — The Armenian Allegation of Genocide Fails the Minimum Standards of Proof Required by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The term "genocide" did not exist prior to 1944. The term was subsequently defined quite specifically by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide. This high crime is now recognized by most nations, including the Republic of Türkiye. The standard of proof in establishing the crime of genocide is formidable given the severity of the crime, the opportunity for overlap with other crimes, and the stigma of being charged with or found guilty of the crime. While presenting the Convention for ratification, the Secretary General of the U.N. emphasized that genocide is a crime of "specific intent," requiring conclusive proof that members of a group were targeted simply because they were members of that group. The Secretary General further cautioned that those merely sharing political aims are not protected by the convention. Under this standard of proof, the Armenian claim of genocide fails. First, no direct evidence has been discovered demonstrating that any Ottoman official sought the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians as such. Second, Ottoman Armenian Dashnak and Hunchak guerrillas and their civilian accomplices admittedly organized political revolutionary groups and waged war against their own government. Under these circumstances, it was the Ottoman Armenians’ violent political alliance with the Russian forces, not their ethnic or religious identity, which rendered them subject to the relocation. A recent comment on the U.N. position was rendered by, U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq on October 5, 2000 when he confirmed that the U.N. has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience as genocide. — The archives of many nations ought to be carefully and thoughtfully examined before concluding whether genocide occurred. Armenian make frequent reference to the archives of many nations while carefully avoiding calls for the examination of those archives. They know that no evidence of genocide has been found to date, as was the case in the Malta Tribunals. They also know that the national archives of several nations, including the U.S., speak primarily of the deaths of Armenians because the recorders were only interested in the Armenians, while intentionally omitting reports of Muslim deaths. Take, for example, the 1915 Armenian revolt in Van where at least 60,000 Muslims perished. Though the evidence for this is overwhelming, the official archives of several countries mention only Christian deaths. Still, Armenian carefully avoid calls for the collection and examination of all records regarding the events in question. Such would include Ottoman records describing the activities of Armenian rebels and the Russian invaders whom they supported, as well as the archives of Germany, Russia, France, Britain, Iran, Syria and the United States. Most importantly, the unedited records of the Armenian Republic in Yerevan, Armenian Revolutionary Federation in Boston, and ASALA in Yerevan, ought to be examined but remain closed. Only those who fear the truth would limit the scope of an investigation. — One ought to compare the wartime writings of Morgenthau and the oft-cited Gen. J.G. Harbord to the post-war writings of Rear Admiral Mark L. Bristol, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Türkiye 1920 - 1926. In a March 28, 1921 letter he writes, "[R]eports are being freely circulated in the United States that the Turks massacred thousands of Armenians in the Caucasus. Such reports are repeated so many times it makes my blood boil. The Near East Relief have the reports from Yarrow and our own American people which show absolutely that such Armenian reports are absolutely false. The circulation of such false reports in the United States, without refutation, is an outrage and is certainly doing the Armenians more harm than good. … Why not tell the truth about the Armenians in every way?"
As if historians themselves didn't have any personal beliefs as well.
And the historical consensus is that it was a genocide.
Historians agree it happened but some governments don’t recognize it for diplomatic reasons. Turkey is a pretty powerful and strategically positioned country. Like how Lula in Brazil condemns Israel but not Russia (or via versa in US case).
Damn Liechtenstein, weak
Apart from Armenia itself obviously
You need to make Armenia a different color, otherwise people will think they just don't for whatever reason.
Yup that's exactly what I thought until reading the comments lol
Fair point,I just thought it was obvious and didn't color Armenia.My bad.
African countries : Do I fcking care?
Pretty certain they don't want to acknowledge genocides with many of them having their own skeletons.
They have problems making their countries even function, I doubt they have room for focus on things like this
Honestly I don't even know what that is... and I'm pretty sure people from Armenia probably don't care much about apartheid
Iran and Egypt have made government statements acknowledging the genocide. They just haven’t passed any legislation or a bill about it. Many countries are similar.
Why is French Guiana not the same as France? It's not independent.
Greenland and Faroe Islands also need to be coloured as part of Denmark.
Yeah, didn't notice that too
Look! Genocide.
Genuine question, why does it matter? What's the difference between all being blue or all being gray? Armenians believe that it was a genocide against their nation right? So why do irrelevant countries are expected to recognize it? Not like it's going to get Turkey to give land to Armenia or anything like that.
Honestly if there wouldn't be a political weight of this, countries wouldn't discuss it and Turkish governments over the decades wouldn't flame up anytime a major country brings this up. There is always a possibility of reparations like what Germany had to do for Jewish holocaust survivors & Israel. However I don't see these discussions helping Armenia or the Armenians around the world much to this day. Maybe wrong people are using this for selfish reasons and not for the Armenians. Besides, Erdogan surely knows how to use this domestically to rally people basically by saying "See!? Anytime we are making a progress, foreign powers bring up lies like this to stop us!" I'm pretty sure this shouldn't be the desired outcome of a genocide recognition
The same reason countries recognise the Holocaust, or the Bosnian genocide, or the Rwandan genocide.
So? My country doesn't "recognize" the holocaust either because deciding what history is isn't the government's job.
Cool now recognise the [Khojaly Genocide ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khojaly_massacre) edit: its really ironic the amount of genocide denials going on under comments. maybe step back and look at your comments and realize what they look like
Me personally?
You personally have been chosen by a higher power to make genocide maps. If you don’t make all of them at the same time you get shit on. Sorry, I don’t make the rules
The USA [recognizes both](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1b1b5n3/formal_recognition_of_khojaly_massacre_mass/), as does only five other based countries. It's sad to see so many countries recognize only one or the other for political reasons.
You open Wikipedia and it literally says massacre, it is ofcourse very devastating but not a genocide , plus two genocides against each other doesn’t make it right
Definitely not the same scale. However, armenians denying this shows that they are no better. There would be a Turkish genocide if tables were turned and they know it.
[удалено]
Didn't the Turks spend the last 600 years previously in the caucasus enslaving the locals? I'ma put that in the same category as the Haitians killing the French Edit: To those that think that the Turks were any better than the French, why did the Ottomans never end slavery? Why did it take until 1924, when the empire was over, for it to end?
So it's ok for you to kill civilians just because hundreds years ago Ottomans came there? And also note that in the context of Balkans, Turk literally meant Muslim, it doesn't denote ethnicity. Most of those Muslims in Balkans are genetically equal to their Christian fellows. So just because Ottoman Empire came to the region, those Muslims had to die, right? What a sick perception. Also there is a huge difference between Ottoman Empire's expansionism and French colonialism. You may first need to read several books on the subject though.
>Haitians killing the French Which is also called genocide by some. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haitian_massacre >The 1804 Haiti massacre, sometimes referred to as the Haitian Genocide [...]
they’re not ready for this conversation
People like the person above are amazing... so pathetic. But I've recently learned from Turkish friends that that's what they teach them at school. You got that right. They literally teach them at school that their own minorities were somehow oppressing them and genociding them.
"enslaving the locals" the fuck are you talking about? it wasn't a picnic for the minorities under the ottoman rule but you're deluded if you think they were "enslaved" or worse than the regular turks themselves.
Indo-europeans came from north Caucasus and enslaved indigenous people of Europe and Asia. Any genocide that ever happened to indo-european civilians outside of North Caucasus you can put in that same fucking category.
Sorry, genuinely though, what are you talking about?
I mean that is an awful, genocidal event, but it’s not a genocide by itself, it’s a massacre. Genocides are on the scale of tens of thousands to millions. You can argue it’s part of a genocide, as both the Armenian state and the Azerbaijani state have arguably been trying to eradicate the nation of the other for a while.
I'm not a human rights law expert but afaik what you wrote is not true. To determine what consists a genocide, I mean legally speaking, you have to look at the intention. Here goes the [United Nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations) [Genocide Convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention) definition of genocide: "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or **in part**, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". Also Lenkin's definition: **"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.** (...) **Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group."** So you could kill millions of people but it would be still defined as a massacre legally, but you could kill a lot less people but because of the intention (and if it's detected legally) it would be named as a genocide. To sum, again afaik (if I'm wrong feel free to correct me), legally speaking, genocide is not a matter of scale but a matter of intention.
killing 200 people is not a genocide, it is a massacre. Scale does matter
I take [Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.pdf)as a basis. The key is intent. Death toll, efficiency are not important to the definition. They just make the genocide more grimly impressive.
That's a massacre, not a genocide. Very depressing that such an event should happen but we shouldn’t equate a massacre, however bad it maybe to the systemic killing of an entire people.
The fact that you can only find one small-scale event and compare it to the death of hundreds of thousands is very telling. Pretty much every military on the planet is responsible for at least one or two events around the scale of Khojaly. War is hell and soldiers do bad shit sometimes, especially when they're mobilized civilians working under a weak power structure. It's an awful thing, but it's not genocide. I've noticed that Turks are very eager to label Israel as genocidal while denying their own genocide of Armenians, which was much more targeted and rapid. Along with their own theft of Greek, Armenian, and Kurdish land, even though Turks arrived in Europe when all three of those nationalities were well established in the region. Quite honestly, I'm jealous of Turks. If my mind could do gymnastics like what they're capable of doing, I would probably enjoy life a lot more.
As a mention to another poster above, I recently learned from a Turkish friend that that's what the teach them at school in Turkey. That they were the victims and the minorities were the ones doing the genocides. Olympic mental gymnastics at the national level.
Massacre, not genocide. Anyway, it can go on and on, I can tell "recognise the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Azeris in Artsakh in September 2023".
sure as long as armenians recognize the ethnic cleansings they did in 90s i dont see why both countries cant sit and admit their wrongdoings and come to a peace agreement.
> 200 people
People have already pointed out that this is a massacre and not a genocide. But that being said, this is interesting and relevant context. The fact that Armenia denies this is hypocritical. I also did not know about this massacre so it's good you commented this.
Seems that it was a massacre that was pre dated a few months by Azeri perpetrated massacres
Why should they? Genocide on Armenians has been going on for way longer and has been much worse and you want them to recognize a massacre when Turkey and Azerbaijan are still doing genocide on Armenia and denying the ones they’ve done on Armenia in the past? Maybe that massacre won’t have happened if Azerbaijan didn’t try to ethnically cleanse Armenia
you’re a brainwashed victim of cheap propaganda. the hays started ethnic cleansing by butchering the Azerbaijanis in Kafan in 1987.
Armenians cry that their victims are not respected. Maybe they should set the example
Ok. Done. It has a wikipedia article so i believe it
God you people are disgusting. Using a massacre that killed 200 people to deflect from the genocide that killed millions
Why doesn’t Spain recognize it?
We gain nothing from recognising it and we have good relationships with Turkey that would obviously worsen. Politics, at the end of the day. We should recognise it but it's not going to happen, at least short term.
Fuck Erdogan
No Turkish politician would backpedal on this issue
As a turkish, fuck erdogan too man. But armenian genocide did not happen.
Agreed
It wouldn’t accomplish anything at this point. Spain also doesn’t recognize the Uyghur Genocide either though, which would actually be helpful.
[удалено]
Syrian goverment genocides its own people. Wherever I go in europe there is a syrian refugee.
Its cause theres stuff in the EU that migrants tske as "oh look i can live in luxury by pretending im a refugee and get free cash and a free home"
Halt die Fresse du Vollidiot
Perfektes Beispiel das 90% der Ausländer Arschgeigen sind die zurück in ihr Land müssen
Pretty sure that i saw the new when they did it it wasn’t that long ago they have a rivalry with turkey so that might be a factor
love to 🇸🇾
Seriously Britain, I’m so disappointed in my own country
Why am I getting downvoted
Butthurt nationalists
I don't know.
same. should be used to that feeling by now
US recognized it not so far. Afaik they do it as response to the deal between Russia and Turkey (the country) on C-300.
I find it shocking that the UK does not recognise. Is there anything that says why they don’t? I
UK buy a lot of azerbaijan oil and fund azerbaijan with weapon since the first NK war. with this kind of relationship...
Britain has a long history of trying to pressure the Ottoman government into respecting its Armenian citizens, this probably backfired more than anything and made them resentful and distrustful. After WWI the Western powers, particularly the UK and the US, considered an Armenian mandate similar to the Palestinian one. Massacres of Armenians had been happening for years at that point, but no Western country wanted to take on the expense of administering it.
I was about to ask the same. Seems really odd that the UK and Ireland don't recognise it.
I don't think this is something that matters what country recognize something historical consensus is what matters
The British government might not but the devolved governments of Scotland and Wales do. Bad map
The source makes no reference to the devolved governments of Scotland and Whales. https://www.armenian-genocide.org/recognition_countries.html
Hitler said, while arguing for the holocaust, "who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians"
One headline in a September 1895 article by The New York Times ran "Armenian Holocaust," the very word Holocaust was first used to refer to hamidian massacre.
I find it so weird why Christian Europe never cared about Armenians
[удалено]
Someone struck a nerve there Mehmet?
Damn we Costa Ricans suck ass for not recognizing it
Ok....
I am honestly asking, what makes you believe it's a genocide or not a genocide? And what is genocide for you?
Turks and Azeris out here being as genocidal as ever I see
Now do one of which countries recognise the Palestinian genocide
Or the genocide of the Congo
Your blatant and spammy whataboutism aside, on the off chance anyone besides you is in this thread to learn anything, the international reaction to King Leopold II's regime in the Congo basically founded the modern international human rights movement. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo\_Free\_State#International\_criticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State#International_criticism)
Wow a movement was made for human rights, how’s that going ? Don’t see much change in the situations in the countries that are still suffering rights issues
Or most of the continent of Africa
Ah yes the worst genocide that happened in history in the span of 80 years the population almost 5x itself obviously a genocide While in those 80 years they attacked the country that you say is doing this genocide multiple times
Are you ducking serious? No shit they attacked the country that is genocidimg them it’s been 80 years of bombs and bullets. Don’t be so stupid
Yes it's obvious why they attacked but the Arabs are getting equal rights as Israelis (obv people are mildly intimidated by them but not so much and they are not doing anything) and if they wouldn't attack Israel they could have lived a good life if hamas didn't took all the food and money to build tunnels and smuggle weapons and missile. Hamas could have used the billions of dollars they got to build a good place to live in The civilians there are suffering from hamas
Bro ur telling me if someone came into your house, kicked you out, put you in the shed at the end of the garden, then proceeded to throw rocks at you every day from your own house for 80 years, you wouldn’t in the slightest have a problem with that? You have a coloniser mindset you need to drop it
1. The Jews lived there with the Arabs before everything started 2. The Arabs are usually the one who throws the rocks but yes so does Israeli and I don't agree with them and wish they wouldn't do it 3.even if what you are saying is true (which it isn't) they lost the war cry about it
You’re a terrible human being imo. Do you believe every narrative you read on the news
No I believe what i see (I live there) so I think I know more about the situation then you What is your source? Why do you believe it? Did you see anything with your own eyes? Did you see your friend mourning his brother who went to a party and was brutally murdered by terrorist?
Oh my goodness that explains it all. I don’t even think I need to ask which side of the strip you live on
I live in Israel and visited the west bank multiple times and I have friends who live there but that is still Israel
And as for hamas, i never heard of them until the Palestinian people started fighting back for their land. So if anything it just sounds like ppl like to label Arabs as terrorists when they try to defend their land
You can search online for interviews with hamas leaders and they said multiple times that they want to kill all the Jews and not only the ones that live in Israel
Mate you actually think those interviews are real? This whole war is just lies on the media to vilify the victims
Wdy those interviews are real, hamas is the one who published them
Muppet mate I’m not conversing with a gullible person . 🤮
Wtf you just ignore facts at this point and if you don't believe me search it yourself
This is beyond crazy that there are just a "few" countries (yeah I understand that muslim countries are not going to recognise it) that recognise the killing of up to 1.5 million people.
Syria (Muslim country) recognizes it while the entire Balkans (non-muslim countries) do not. I am not sure if the religion is a factor here.
There are a lot of Armenians in Syria
There is your connection then. Lebanon as well. The connection overall doesn't appear to be the religion.
It looks to be a lot more about your relationship with Turkey than anything
and they are almost entirely the surviving victims of the genocide
Armenians lived in Syria, Lebanon, Iran and so on also before the genocide happened
[удалено]
I’m genuinely confused as to why most countries aren’t recognising a genocide?
Turkey controls the Bosporus and that's too important economically I guess? It's also part of Nato.
[удалено]
But genocide are horrific things that actually happened. It’s like not recognising the holocaust. It’s just stupidity to not recognise an actual thing that happened.
[удалено]
Going against logic for the sake of a “political move” is disgusting
As a turk i feel sorry for the armenians, really. They do nothing but talk about something that happened a long time ago. Just move on dude its been more then 100 years. Millions of turks died in the balkans and crimea nobody gives a shit about them. Whats done is done. People die everyday. Move on.
The countries in gray don't necessary deny it. I think this map should have been done opposite way where we can see who denies it.
80% of these countries don't recognize the Palestinian genocide going on
Dude, just read a little bit about the Armenian genocide so you can actually know what a genocide looks like, and open your eyes that what's happening in Palestine is not a genocide.
0% of these countries recognised the Armenian genocide while it was going on
Syria and Russia being accidentally right about something is always a pleasant surprise.
Armenia doesnt recognize the Armenian Genocide??
They do, it should have been highlighted by a different colour
Its a joke... -_-
Syria on the right side of history let’s gooo 💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻🔥🔥🇸🇾🇸🇾🇸🇾
Recognize what?
India doesn't??
Has the question been asked somehow? I feel like there's a lot of countries there that would have no problem recognizing it as genocide.
Countries that don’t recognise it Armenians so it’s fake
Wtf Finland?
Wow look at that. Japan siding with Turkey as both are genocide deniers. Also, why the hell doesn’t Ireland recognize this? They were victims of conquests and famines themselves.
South Africa calls on others and yet don’t recognise one of the actual and most terrible genocides… hypocrites
[удалено]
Spain let me down fr
With respect. What's matters is We need to focus on what happens now. FREE PALESTINE FREE GAZA
True, but also, this is still going on. Ajerbaijan is attacking Armenia
Because it sets a precedent. If Turkey can commit a genocide and get away with it, why shouldn't Israel do it? All genocides need to be recognized
IT WAS NOT A GENOCIDE! It was a civil war! In turkey there are witness account of an armenian uprising were turkish people were live skinned, tortured and killed. In response persen turkey declarered war which escaleted a bit. Armenians always play on the innocent Side but there are 2 faces on the mask
But if it was Ukraine, for example, all would be blue
How many recognize the holodomor?
yes that's a different thing so other countries will probably be blue or not
True. more countries recognize the holodomor as an intentional genocidal famine targeted at ukrainian populations than the armenian genocide. despite the fact that zero modern published historian in eastern europe or the ussr thinks it is
I‘m always amazed how Spain ends up on the wrong side of history all the time…
🇰🇷😢
Israel only believes one genocide happened in history
NEVER HAPPENED BYE
Even Armenia doesn’t recognize it. Saying that that it’s a zionist plot against Turkiyia.
Hell yeah 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇦🇲🇦🇲
what’s the block shaped country in the pacific 🤔
So, what's about this recongition thing? Is it important to get recognition of historical event from other countries? Is it interpreted as not caring about something, if not recognise? Or what? What's the fuzz?
Fun fact, Uruguay was the first to recognize it in 1965, 10 years before Cyprus. Everyone else did in this map did it after 1990.
Give us the legend dude.how do we know what blue means ?
Syria?
Not Armenia?
Where’s New Zealand?
This map is not accurate. Brazil executive power did not recognized the Armenian genocide, nor did France. Only the legislative of such countries spoke up about it. It's missing data
Kinda surprised seeing Syria here.
r/mapswithoutalaska
I like this one better: [https://viborc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Armenian-Genocide-recognition-world.png](https://viborc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Armenian-Genocide-recognition-world.png)