There is an extremely interesting essay by Perry Anderson here about contemporary Turkish history. It deals at length with the similarities and differences between the genocides of the Jews and Armenians and the different degrees of recognition that they have received since they occurred.

Referring to the latter point he says,

But if these are real distinctions between the two catastrophes, the contrast in the way each figures in the European imaginary is so complete as all but to numb judgment. One has become the object of official and popular remembrance, on a monumental scale. The other is a whisper in the corner, that no diplomat in the [European] Union abides. There are some presentable reasons for the difference. One genocide occurred within living memory in the centre of the continent, the other a century ago in its marchlands. The survivors of one were far more literate than of the other, and left more personal testimonies. But since the Armenian genocide was denounced by the Western powers when it occurred, as the Judeocide was not, and there were more third-party witnesses - official ones at that - of the killings as they occurred, something more is needed to explain the vastness of the discrepancy. What that might be is plain as day. Israel, a pivotal ally in the Middle East, requires recognition of the Judeocide, and has secured massive reparations for it. Turkey, a vital ally in the Near East, denies that genocide of the Armenians ever occurred, and insists no mention ever be made of it.

The second last sentence of this paragraph doesn’t ring true.  Israel requires recognition of the Holocaust and therefore it must be so; the European Union and the United States simply accede to Israel’s requirement.

Anderson doesn’t seem to have taken into account that the nation principally responsible for the genocide of the Jews was subjected to a crushing military defeat, occupied, garrisoned and partitioned by its enemies and that this experience allowed, indeed, obliged its population to learn the real nature of the activities of the deposed regime. Conquering and occupying Germany also prevented the Western Allies from averting their gaze from what had happened to the Jews. Could it not be, therefore, that the recognition of the Holocaust in Europe and the United States arises not from an accession to Israeli demands, motivated by considerations of realpolitik and nothing else, but from a real attempt to learn from the past and overcome it, however halting, contradictory and hesitant the attempt might be?

It’s also interesting to note that Anderson regards the reparations received by Israel for the Holocaust as massive. I wonder how he reaches that conclusion and what figure he’d regard as reasonable or adequate rather than massive. I’d also like to know why ­ -  given the fact that he holds Israel’s status as a “pivotal ally”  to be the key factor explaining recognition of the Holocaust - he thinks Germany signed the main reparations agreement at the start of 1950s, a time when Israel was light years from acquiring its present strategic significance.

—

Sept 24th update: Norm, and one of his readers have interesting things to say about this here and here.