The U.S. and Its Allies Observe the Armenian Genocide (due Thu 12/19)
 

Read: Chapter 1, from Samantha Power’s groundbreaking book, “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide (New York: Basic Books, 2001).

Read through Ms. Power’s chapter, and, based on what you have read there and learned in class, discuss the following, supported by specifics.

• Were we (the United States) and our allies bystanders during the Armenian genocide? Between 1914 and 1918, most of Europe was caught up in World War I; we joined the war in 1917, after remaining steadfastly isolationist in the preceding years. The Armenian genocide occurs between 1915 and 1923, with the bulk of events occurring between 1915-1917. Needless to say, folks were busy then.

• But what could we/should we have done? Should the U.S and/or other nations take a stand when an entire population is being destroyed? What sort of role would you advocate for the United States?

Hindsight is always twenty-twenty, and it is easy to say that the United States and the Allies should have done something to stop the Armenian genocide. However, at the time, the United States was very busy, and did not necessarily fully understand what was happening in Turkey. There were many rumors and false stories of not only what was occuring in Turkey, but in all the countries involved in World War I. This fact combined with the fact that the US was just beginning to move away from a strong long-standing isolationist policy explain the inaction of the United States, but only up to a certain point. From the reading and the documents that we read in class today, it is apparent that many people in the United States and Europe did know about the genocide, but chose to ignore it for the most part. Even with all the uncertainties surrounding the genocide at the time, the United States and Allies should have made an attempt to intervene. Any nation that cared about humanity and should have done more that was done to prevent or stop the genocide. The United States, as one of the most economically and militarily powerful nations does have an obligation to ensure that massive crimes against humanity such as the Armenian genocide do not occur. This policy is tricky, and can of course be used as an excuse to get involved in conflicts such as Vietnam, but when it is as as it was in Turkey that the systematic murder of a race is occuring, the United States should not make excuses and stand by watching.

In my opinion the US and its allies were definatelly bystanders during the genocide. The reason is, that during that time the US was doing what everybody was doing, a metaphor can be used of a neighbor crying "Thief! Thief!" when he sees one in his neighbors house, and yet he himself holds onto his possesion and feels bad for his neighbor. Meaning the whole action of not doing anything and just sending warnings was a huge factor to the US. Its true that folks were busy with many things during the period, but as we mentioned in class US seemed to be just fine as long as none of its citizens were harmed.

What helped with the genocide was that a efficient body that dealt with international issues (meaning the UN) was not formed yet. I dont think it would be a good idea for US to go into Turkey just like that, rather to support the UN-like body with resiurces they needed, so that everything can be done in an unbiased manner. Im not sure how much good it would do, but at least it would do something which is much better than nothing. I think that if there was some unbiased body that would look at the conflict and see that it was wrong, then maybe they would do something about it. But its true what jimmichaels44 said that as we look at what happend we are quick to say what should have been done. But still after reading the chapter and the way the whole thing was staged its apparent that something should have been done as thousands of innocent people were being slaughtered.

America was a bystander. Period end of story. Morally what we did was wrong. We didnt stop the massacre. We knew it happened and we let it happen. That's wrong. That's the definition of a bystander. But what could we have done? That wasnt now. We couldn't land Special Forces in and suddenly have the whole country in an uproar within a week. Things took time. US policy at that time: Dont interfere unless US citizens are threatened. Good policy. The US still wasnt a superpower and was just barely a power so it kept its head down. It definitely opposed the Turks but still wasn't IN the war. Any move on its part would have been a direct contravention to Woodrow Wilsons "we wont get involved" campaign. It won him reelection in 1916. Of course we went to war after that but the key point is that we weren't going to make a move. We didnt feel responsible. All of us could give a million examples of what happens when a population wants something and when a population doesn't. The US did what it could which was get other powers to help and encouraged its ambassador to do what he could without starting a war.
What should the US do when a populace is being exterminated now? It should send in the troops. It should rally international support and if none is forthcoming act unilaterally. No one deserves to die. The US, just like Spiderman, has great power. With great power comes great responsibility.

Anyone that knows what is happening, yet takes no action against it, is a bystander. Morganthau, the ambassador to Turkey, is not a bystander, nor were the missionaries and social workers in Turkey at the time of the massacres; as soon as they realized the magnitude of the horror, every single one of them did what was in his power to improve the condition of the Armenians or change the opinion of the American government. In the British parliament, there were also many who voiced objections to the Armenian massacre, but even their vioces were drowned out. Despite the press and the testimonies, and their own ambassador's repeated pleas, the US clung to its isolationist focus, refusing to sacrifice anything of their own for a group of people halfway across the world who had already lost more than Americans could imagine. The US stayed out because of fear and politics. Even the moral outcry of the general populace was tame and ineffective. Without a vested interest in the war, the US maintained that it had nothing to pursue. As Wilson said later, they would "go only where immediate and practical considerations lead us and not heed any others." There was an attitude that we didn't have the power to change anything, and that it didn't concern us because they weren't american citizens. At the very least, it would have taken little to come out verbally against the Ottoman empire. As it was, Morgenthau was reduced to petty threats, and even after we entered the war, and out neutrality was ended, we still weren't ready to go against such horrors. What does it take to convince the US that a massacre of this order must be stopped at all costs? We are so willing, now, to go in for even less violations, as long as there is a vested interest. There was no reason that the US could not have come down against the massacres except for fear and self-centeredness. What could we have done? Anything. Something, instead of nothing. We could have tried.

Nonexistence Does Not Disprove the Action
 

The worst defense that I have ever heard must have been that. Added to the sickening quotes of Talaat, Enver Pasha, and Djemal Pasha such as, "By continuing the deportation of orphans to their destination during the intense cold, we are ensuring their eternal rest," and especially that the United States, forever preaching freedom from tyranny, doesn't befriend a nation that will not make us a profit. The Armenians had nothing that we needed, so we had no need or reason to put our neck on the line for a persecuted people. To badly paraphrase Ovid, I am human, and nothing that humans do is outside my experience.We have done this before, we have been onlookers to death and destruction, and we will do it again. When it was all over however (and no war was possible), we provided relief to the survivors. Our invincibility made us blind to the rest of the world, because if it didn't affect us, we didn't care. But to look like heroes after the fact was okay. The role I advocate for the United States is what stewardesses say to peolpe about airbags, "Secure your own oxygen mask first, then assist those in need." Isolationism kept us safe for a while, but then we had an obligation to turn on the oxygen for Armenia, Belgium...British and American ambassadors in Armenia did, yet our government replied in the yeah, we got the message, so? attitude. Morgenthau stuck his neck out for Turkey and Germany to slice when he phoned home for help. His failure to rouse anything but relief money, not retribution, made him resign. If one person is so affected, one who is such a loose cannon, then something must have tickled someone somewhere.

As many of my predecessors gave already stated, the US was a bystander throughout the Armenian genocide. They had first hand accounts of what was going on through the letters of Morgenthau. And even still, they did not intervene. It is understandable that the US would try and stay out of other countries' business during this time, just becase the US was a growing nation that was trying to remain isolationist when possible. However, it seems that Morgenthau made it more than clear that he thought the US should intervene. Obviously he had the best perspective on the situation because he was actually there, seeing what was going on. Although the US and their allies wanted to remain on good terms with Turkey, it would have been a far better decision to help the Armenians. The US had not become the greatest power yet, and they were still were vulnerable. And if anything like this were to happen to Americans, we would have expected other countries to help us. I don't know, maybe I am slightly biased after going through all those websites and seeing all those horrific pictures of the Armenian genocide. As gypsykoi said, "the Armenians had nothing we needed, so we had no need or reason to put our neck on the line for a persecuted people." I think this is perfectly sums up the United State's outlook on foreign policy at that time. Had the Armenians been killing thousands of Turks, would things have turned out the same? Probably not, I'm sure that the US and allies would have intervened somehow.

The US was definitely a bystander during the Armenian genocide. Although the leaders of the nation were aware of the "race murder" that was going on, they chose not to act to stop the abuse against the Armenians. The problem lied in the fact that, as gypsykoi said, the Armenians did not have anything that was of interest to the US. Because of this, they (American leaders) tried to justify their passivity by reasoning why the Turks were doing what they were doing. While "Morgenthau examined the facts and saw a cold-blooded campaign of annihilation; Lansing processed many of those same facts and saw an unfortunate but understandable effort to quell an internal security threat." Of course, the Turks were just calming down their rebels, right? But documentation tells us that only a small portion of Armenians betrayed the Turks to aid the Russians. So, where were these flaring rebels who were trying to overthrow the Turkish government? There was only a small group of them, but their actions were used to justify the murder of an entire people.
In terms of foreign affairs, the US was clever in their method of aiding the victims without getting itself involved in a war. However, Morgenthau said that he was not appealing "in the name of any race or religion but merely as a human being." It was when it came to being humane that the US failed miserably. I understand that a nation must be careful not to get itself involved in war, but when it becomes a matter of the lives or deaths of people, then it becomes time to take a stand. The US's biggest excuse was that it had no right to interfere with the internal affairs of a forieign nation unless its own people were subject to unfair treatment. However, when, in Iran (early 50s,) Mossadeq nationalized the once Brittish oil industry, the US did not hesitate to pull a few strings to contribute to his overthrow and the eventual rise to power of the Shah Reza Pahlavi. All that matterd then was the oil.
Actions speak more loudly than words.

America was undoubtedly a bystander throughout the slaughtering of the Armenians. There is no question about it because the US knew exactly what was going on from Morgenthau and they continued to stay away from Turkey. Morgenthau pleaded over and over again with Wilson, but the US took no action. Our allies cannot be fully held accountable for not trying to interfere because they were fighting wars elsewhere. They had other things to focus their attention on because their people were being attacked as well. America however was neutral and therefore was not associated in the war until later. The US could and should have helped in some way. However, there were other factors that would’ve impeded the US from intervening like the Turks blocking the exit of Armenians trying to escape their deaths.

Nevertheless, I think that the US could have done something to try to alleviate the situation. Maybe they could have teamed up with the allies to come up with a plan. I mean, even though the people who were being killed in Turkey weren’t Americans, they were still people. I think that in situations of mass murder like this, I would have advocated US intervention, because if the tables were turned and it was Americans who were being slaughtered, we would want others to come to our aid.

I makes me sick knowing that the United States and other countries were aware of what was being done to the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and yet they did nothing about it. Citizens of the United States were also aware of what was going on. In the New York Times Talaat even said that "there was no room for Christians in Turkey and that their supporters should advise them to clear out." I think that it is even worse if the citizens of a country are aware of what is going on and they choose to do nothing about it. You can always blame the government and say that they choose to do nothing and they didn't even inform their citizens about the matter, but in this case U.S. citizens (or at least ones that read the newspaper) were very much aware of what was going on. The goal in American's minds at that point in history was to be number one, they were desperately trying to reach this goal. Yet in trying to be number 1 they were only worried about themselves and how they can benefit from something...some may argue that these ideas still exist today. The government will only intervene in another countries problems when they know that they will benefit somehow from it. But in a way this is how we should think, right? Our first priority should be our country. But I think that when a group of people is being murdered for no apparent reason except for the fact they are Catholic, then the United States should have stepped in and protected these people. It's sad to think that this genocide could have been prevented if the U.S. or any other powerful country had the guts to step in and stand up for the Christians living in Turkey.

U.S-Bystander
 

U.S played the role of bystander during the Armenian genocide. They knew exactly what was going on and they decided to sit by and watch. They had the choice of getting involved or not, they chose the latter. I am not real sure how I feel about their decision. They acted on what they felt was best for the Unioted States, and there is nothing wrong with that, however I feel we were a much stronger nation and had the ability to help without endangering U.S citizens.

It's sad that the U.S couldn't help those poor people, but it in no way was their fault. Turkey's government was at fault, and we were at a point where we felt it wasn't a smart move to get involved, which is quite reasonable. At the time, I feel we had good officials and we did what was best for us, not necessarily what was best for the Armenians though. You can't please everyone and we had the responsibility to put ourselves first, we wanted to stay neutral. :confused:

argh. i'm tired. i came home a while ago, and i wrote this brilliant post, and the computer ate it. that's right. my computer. not my dog or my parakeet (i have neither, actually), my computer.
So, from the beginning:

The US was definitely a bystander during the Armenian genocide. They were provided several articles detailing the horrors done to the Armenians, yet they did nothing (as a nation, at least). Henry Morgenthau did everything in his power to help dissuade Talaat's chosen fate for the Armenians, even though the US wouldn't help him. As gypsykoi said, the Armenians were not of interest to the US, and that is why they were not considered worth saving.
Sadly, the US has continued that policy today, with the war on terrorism. There are several countries fighting terrorism, but the US has done nothing to help these countries because they will not benefit from the alliance (My goodness, it sounds like parents squabbling over marriage prospects for an available daughter! Not benefit from the alliance indeed! Shocking, abominable display!)

Yes, there was plenty the US could have done to prevent the genocide from occuring. They could have used their influence as a neutral country to persuade Turkey to stop their extermination processes. Talaat did indicate that he would have been willing to listen to the US, had they interfered. The US could have offered sanctuary and refuge to Armenians, or at least worked out a way for Armenians and the Turks to live in peace. Although it was isolationist, the US had enough power at that time to sway the Turks.

First off i want to congradulate SOnofapreacherm for using probably the best quote on this discussion board, we can all agree that spider-man in all cases always says it best. In reading the chapter of Power's book, i\I think, as everyone said America was deifinitely bystanders, tehre should be no debate, any more standing by and they'd need crutches propping them up after a while (rim shot, what its ten thirty at night gimme a break) Tough crowd. But in all seriousness there is not doubt that we were bystanders. The nation knew, the president knew, and even others countries knew, but they were busy saving their own hides. We did nothing, But people have been saying well it was a developing nation which was very true but already the US had made a name for itself and definitely could have done something. But the question is what could it have done, someone had to. You can't look the other way from a genocide and then into a mirror to see your despicable self. But did it even matter what Americans should have done. We all know and it is common sense that America shoud have done something especially when asked but in dealing with the extermination of a people any help is good help. I mean the least they could do was strongly object and voice their siding with the Armenian people, or send more food and supplies to teh camp. I really Doubt the armenians would look at the help and say thats it!?! SO what do you do when you see a genocide, well if your Billy gates you cut your own hair in a pile of money and cover up what you saw for a boatload of more money. America should have indeed stepped in, no question.

I don't know, I always seem to get myself in trouble whenever a debate involving the United States involvement in completely foreign affairs comes up. I believe it was Mr Izzo himself who labeled me "provincial" as my attitude seems to be screw everyone else, do whats best for good ole Uncle Sam. And what's wrong with that ? That's how every country should be, and arguably that's how every country is. Everyone exspects to the US to be the world's baby sitter because yes we are the most powerful country in the world, but how exactly did we get that way ? By picking our battles. The US never gets its dues when it does something right, foreign leaders are always there screaming at us for inaction, but when we finally do what we're "supposed" to we are never congratulated, in fact we are usually blasted for acting hastily and without warrant. Take recent events for example, yea everyone wants us to go out there and fight terrorism and IRAQ (except for the terrorists of course), but no one wants to help us ! yea we're the most powerful nation but we can't do everything on our own. Yet then when we finally took action against terrorism, we were criticzed and labeled as terrorists ourselves. So that's why I always have these feelings when discussing situations like this. Everyone wants us to be their first, but being there first and being there alone are two seperate things. Why are we the ones who are always looked upon to make the sacrifices ?

I agree with everyone in that the United States is definintley guilty for being total bystanders during the Armenian genocide. We should have done something, and I think when an entire group of people are being destroyed, it is that extreme level of a situation that should be in the minds of the US leaders, insyead of how we are preotecting ourselves. Millions of individuals were dying from cruel and unusual punishment, and we knew it. How can someone say we are such a great country if we have no conscience. If the United States were a person, he would be in the same cateogry as the kid in Vegas whose friend raped and killed the little girl in the bathroom. What I think we should have done as many peole have already suiggested is voice the problem through media, making everyone aware. Maybe if we had done that, millions of lives could have been spared and we would have lived up to the reputation and integrity that some people belive the Unites States has. Thereforem there is no excuse for us not doing anything, and everyone who knew about it and stood by to protect theirselves and Americans should be ashamed of themselves

Just as most others who have posted before me, I agree that the US was a bystander. However, I am really torn between the different sides of the matters. First of all, like PinkPanther said, I agree that the US chose not to get involved because we thought that it would not be in the best interest of our people to get involved, and that, as PinkPanther also said, is fine, in fact it is what the leader of a country should do. After receiving so much information from Morganthau as well as all the pleading for us to get involved, we continued to remain neutral, regardless of the fact that Wilson knew what was happening and how horrific it all was. However this leads me to ask the question, what if all bystanders did only what is best for themselves? for example in david cash's case, he probably thougt it was in his best interewst to remain silent, and of course he hadn't done anything wrong, so it's kind od like the same postion the United States was in. However in the case of David Cash, the majority of people think that he should not have remained silent, and in the case of the US and the Armenian Genocide, there is more controversy.
Personally, I do think that we should have stepped in and done something to stop the Armenian Genocide. Our nation is a strong one and in many ways quite influencial to the world; and shouldn't this give us some kind of an obligation to take some matters into our own hands when it is necessary? Well, this also makes me a little shaky about my opinions. Our nation is well-known for bullying other countries around the world simply because we have the power to intervene and do that kind of stuff. If anyone ever asked me if we should be able toget involved in other nations affairs I would most likely say without thinking "no", because in many cases we take advantage of our authority. However, if someone asked me whether we should have gotten involved in the case of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide, or the Holocaust, I would undoubtedly say yes. So I guess that obligation of taking matters into our own hnds could kind of beabused which sucks. So, even though I'm kinda shaky on this one, I hate not giving answers and saying whyI kind of agree with both sides, so I'll say that we should have definately helped. I realy do not think we would have lost that much as a nation and it was obviously a horrible thing that was happening, and Wilson was without a doubt aware of all the atrocities.

I agree with pretty much everyone else that America was indeed a bystander during the Armenian genocide. They sat by and listened to the messages sent through by the American diplomat and did absolutely nothing. It's back to the whole is a bystander in the wrong issue. And the answer to that question is yes. I mean we pride ourselves on our "compassion" and willingness to help other countries out but when the people in danger are the minority in a country that we need as our ally....what happens to them? Do we sit back and ignore what's happening like we did with the Armenian genocide? Or do we speak up and protect people who are being persecuted for no good reason? The US seems to portray one philosophy but then act however they feel the situation demands whether it hurts others or not. So yes. The US was a bystander in this instance...which seems almost as bad as what the Turks did.

America was a bystander during the Armenian crisis. The government and people were well aware of the murders in Turkey, and yet did not take direct action. Money was raised in order to help Morgenthau's initiative toward transporting Armenians to the US, but eventually blocked by the Turkish government. The US was in a very tough situation at that time. The US tried to stay neutral in WWI, afraid that any direct opposition towards the Turkish government will push the US into the war. Many Americans then were against war, with millions dying already on the battlefields of Russia and Germany. Participating in this war would cause many American casualties and the US was not going to take such a risk to save other countries and people.
As a bystander, the US chose not to help directly but indirectly with money, but those already in the war, like Great Britain should of really took some action against the Turkish government. The British were against such actions and planned to stop the Turkish government by winning the war, but they should of sent some amount of troops, whether the number is large or small, to take direct action against the murders.

I like the way JimmiMichaels put that...It is very easy for us to blame the US and her allies, or even Germany, for not putting an end to the Armenian genocide. There are several important things to remember, however, before we go run off and castigate everyone for being David Cashes. First, the word genocide was not coined until after the Armenian genocide had happened. It was, after the fact, dubbed a genocide. The descriptions of the events, as chilling as they are, do not carry the same weighty connotation as the word "genocide" does for us today. Secondly, Morgenthau's reports, not slighting his importance in the least, were only a few of thousands of reports pouring in from all corners of the world at that time. It would have been well nigh impossible to truly take time and analyze the veracity and sustantiability of his reports. Sadly, but ultimately truly, the world was involved with other things. This preoccupation is the final point to remember. In wartime, ugly things happen. Despite the sanguine (ooh, look, I used a word from Tarpey's class!) ideals of the Geneva Convention, war is an ugly creature, a fact understood by most of its participants. Unforunately, the plight of the Armenians could have easily been overlooked and chalked up to a "unforunately casualty of warfare."
The question of whether the United States, and other nations, *ought* to have intervened is somewhat easier to answer. I belive without a doubt that when something so inhumane is taking place, it is incumbent upon more powerful nations to intervene. I do not advocate a meddling police state, but a certain degree of regulation is necessary. We cannot stand by and watch as a race, a culture, a group of humans is simply decimated. It is impossible to codify a set of standards for international intervention. I guess we must rely on the tenuous faith we have in our leaders and their judgment. Shows how well that is working with the Iraq situation............Key word: tenuous.

i just lost my entire post and it is ten minutes of midnight and i am not a happy nor a clear-thinking individual right now. i will try very hard to recreate the post, but it will be difficult.

here goes:

if you really do not want to believe in something, you can trick yourself into questioning its very existence. (ok, i almost got the opening line) this is what i believe happened in america during the armenian genocide. america was a bystander. i am not questioning that. but it was not the only bystander. their first duty is to their citizens, and willson interpreted this to mean that they should avoid involving themselves in an international confligration. germany was also a bystander and they had, in my opinion, a much greater responsibility. they were already at war, so the safety of the german citizens would not be jeopardized; they had a common bond with the victims in terms of their religion; and they had the trust of the perpetrators because of their alliance.
now we answer the second question: what should the us have done differently? i have no doubt that willson weighed each option of action very carefully. he, in all probablility, believed the reports, but found some way to ignore them to keep his promise to the citizens of the country who elected him on the basis of his "no war" platform. if i had been in charge of the us at the time, i would have like to charge in, banners waving, in an attempt to save whomever i could. then i look at this suggestion, and i think, wait a minute, there is no hard evidence to back up these statements. i want to believe the ambassador, but i do not want to involve the us in a witch hunt that could cost american lives. i think the us should have given the ottoman empire a firm rebuke and tried to raise awareness in germany. that might not have been always in american interests, but it would have been in humanity's interest.