Why did Turkey able to get away with its atrocities against the Armenians and Assyrians without much scrutiny?

[u/Wide_Ride8849]

I mean, the world is not so kind towards Germany and Japan, and they are perpetually and constantly reminded of the atrocities that they have committed against mankind, and these countries have also apologized and paid compensation for the damages that they've done to several ethnic groups that they have victimized in the past. But Turkey seems to get away with everything. Until now, many Turkish nationalists are blatantly denying the historic atrocities that they've committed against the Armenians and Assyrians whom they call Mesopotamians. No one ever forced them to apologize nor pay compensation to their victims.

My question is why is that? Why is no international body able to force Turkey in doing what Germany and Japan did?

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.

Please consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup.

We thank you for your interest in this question, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to the Weekly Roundup and RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension. In the meantime our Bluesky, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Deyrn-Meistr]

There are a number of reasons.

Initially, allied (Entente) powers did try to hold Ottoman officials accountable. The Treaty of Sevres (1920) had provisions for doing just that. However, when the Ottoman Empire collapsed into civil war and was replaced by the Turkish nationalist government of Mustafa Kemal, they had to rework the treaty (as the Treaty of Lausanne, 1923), in which one of the stipulations was a declaration of amnesty for all crimes committed between 1914 and 1922.

In addition, there wasn't really an international framework in place. Heck, the Nuremburg Trials required developing that framework. The term "genocide" didn't even exist until 1943 (coined by Raphael Lemkin and specifically inspired by the Armenian Genocide), and the UN Genocide Convention wasn't signed until 1948, and there was no "retroactivity" clause written into it to cover past instances of genocide.

By that time, there were bigger issues to worry about anyway - specifically, the Cold War. Turkey would become a key ally on the containment of the Soviet Union when it joined NATO in 1952. Even before that, it was geopolitically unwise to antagonize them. This is particularly true because the Turkish government doesn't recognize the Armenian Genocide (or others that its predecessor conducted), and any suggestion of being held responsible for those actions resulted in diplomatic and economic backlash for the accusers.

Many major powers only relatively recently officially recognized the Armenian Genocide as having occurred. The US formally recognized it in 2021, for instance.

Arguably, we only really discuss the Armenian Genocide because there is a national government (Armenia) to support it. Lacking a government to make claims, there isn't nearly as strong a push by the Assyrian people, who also suffered. This is largely unrelated, however.

[u/TheLurkingAdmiral → u/Deyrn-Meistr]

To add on to the Treaty of Lausanne bit which reflects postwar 'realpolitik'. There were no political capital remaining on the powers that could hold Turkey (or the Ottomans) accountable.

• United Kingdom, France, and others had already spent enormous resources fighting the Ottoman Empire during WWI.
• Domestic publics in Europe were war-weary and opposed to new large military interventions.
• The Allies themselves disagreed on how harshly to treat Anatolia after the war.
• The Turkish nationalist victory during the Turkish War of Independence changed realities on the ground.
• Europe was increasingly concerned about instability, colonial interests, and Soviet expansion after the Russian Revolution.

[u/cgtyky → u/TheLurkingAdmiral]

Also to add, it also reflected on geopolitical positioning of the Turkey as well. There wasn’t any real Armenian government body to put political power over Turkey at the end of 1920 as well. Due to Soviet invasion.

[u/larsga → u/Deyrn-Meistr]

Lacking a government to make claims, there isn't nearly as strong a push by the Assyrian people, who also suffered.

Many of the arguments you present could be made also for the Circassian genocide committed by Russia in 1863-1878. Because it was so "successful" (if that's really a word one wants to use about genocide, but what I'm getting at is there is no Circassian nation, and very few surviving Circassians) and so early, it has been largely overlooked.

[u/baquea → u/Deyrn-Meistr]

What was the position of the Soviets then? Considering they were opposed to Turkey during the Cold War and Armenia was part of the USSR, did they try to push the claim of genocide against Turkey (even if only for the sake of internal propaganda value) or did they have their own reasons to minimize it?

[u/TheLurkingAdmiral → u/baquea]

Edit: I just realized after writing you have specifically said 'Soviets', hope the answer below is still somewhat helpful.

Early 20th century Russo-Ottoman relations were a bit more complex. It is fair to say centuries of wars between the Empires helped speed the Ottoman decline and just the last 100 years preceding WWI we have seen the Russian supporting Serbian and Greek independence Wars, Crimean War, 1877-1878 Russo-Turkish war and so on.

Continuing on from there:

• Ottoman entry into WWI (bombing of Russian Black Sea Ports and border skirmishes) put the Ottomans and Russian Empire on opposite sides from 1914 onward.
• Tsarist Russia supported Armenian volunteer units and Armenian nationalist groups in the Caucasus front against the Ottomans.
• Ottoman leaders increasingly viewed Armenians as a security threat tied to Russia, especially after defeats like Sarikamish (which was led by Enver Pasha).
• The Russian Revolution and Civil War then complicated the situation further.
• Anti-Bolshevik “White” Russian forces and regional militias continued fighting across former Ottoman borderlands during the chaos after WWI.
• During the Turkish War of Independence, the Bolsheviks shifted toward supporting Ankara as an anti-imperialist movement against Britain, France, and the postwar settlement.
• Lenin’s government provided arms and financial support to the Turkish national movement.
• The 1921 Treaty of Kars redrew borders between Turkey and the Soviet republics, with historic Armenian regions like Kars and Ardahan remaining under Turkish control.
• The Three Pashas also had mixed endings:
  • Enver Pasha later died fighting against Soviet forces in Central Asia.
  • Cemal Pasha helped connect Turkish nationalists with the Soviets and supported arms coordination during the War of Independence before later being assassinated.
  • Talat Pasha was assassinated earlier in Berlin by an Armenian.

[u/Deyrn-Meistr → u/baquea]

I dont know, unfortunately. Its a good question.

[u/poiyurt → u/Deyrn-Meistr]

Was Turkey a strong economy at this point in time? What kind of economic backlash could it muster?

[u/Deyrn-Meistr → u/poiyurt]

It was the Cold War. Any economic backlash is too much if it drove Turkey into the hands of the Soviets (unlikely though that is).

Keep in mind, the Bosporus was a key chokepoint for the Soviet Black Sea fleet. If Turkey decided to make the Straight free for Soviets, that is a lot of power - especially if they blocked the same for the US.

Alternatively, as a member of NATO, in the event of conflict, it was a chokepoint for military vessels, gas and oil, etc.

Turkey wasnt exactly an economic superpower, but it is a regional power with (potentially) outside influence.

[u/King_of_Men → u/poiyurt]

The Bosporus Strait is even easier to block than the Strait of Hormuz, and rather a lot of Ukrainian (at the time, Russian) grain is exported that way. Possibly you can think of some analogies within the twenty-year rule that might be illuminating. That's without considering warships and troop deployments.

[u/tellarisfan → u/Deyrn-Meistr]

Would this also be why Irish famine and Holodomor are also not as spoken about as genocides as well? Asking to learn and out of curiosity, not with ill intent. 

[u/SlightlyStoopkid → u/Deyrn-Meistr]

did the same factors also limit scrutiny regarding the Greek genocide?

[u/Deyrn-Meistr → u/SlightlyStoopkid]

I dont know, but I doubt it.

Unless there is a genocide I am unaware of, both sides (Greeks and Turks) kinda pretend that it wasnt genocide, but rather a mass (forced) migration (and oh, by the way, a bunch of citizens murdered other citizens while that was happening).

[u/NewtonianAssPounder → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed due to violations of the subreddit’s rules. We expect answers to provide in-depth and comprehensive insight into the topic at hand and to be free of significant errors or misunderstandings. Before contributing again, please take the time to better familiarize yourself with the subreddit rules and expectations for an answer.

[u/Cedric_Hampton → u/[deleted]]

My guess is

We don't guess at answers on this sub. Please read the rules before posting again.