“History shows that genocides do not begin with violence but with language, rhetoric and political decisions”

On the occasion of his article in Bulletin about the genocide of the Assyrians and Armenians (Safe), the greek News and Radio in Florida St contact the columnist Mikael Merdoyo to discuss in depth the events of 1915 and their significance today.

What was the plan behind the events of 1915?

The plan developed out of a nationalist transformation of the Ottoman Empire. As the empire collapsed, the leadership, particularly the Young Turks, sought to create a more homogeneous state. In this process, Christian minorities were seen as a threat.

 It was not just about military measures, but a systematic policy: displacements, massacres and confiscations of property. This period was also characterized by an ideology according to which minorities had to be assimilated, marginalized or eliminated.

 At the same time, there was something more behind the violence – a desire to fundamentally reshape society, politically, economically and demographically. It was both a matter of physical extermination and a total social transformation.

What can we learn today from the Assyrian genocide (Seuphos)?

The most important lesson is what happens when crimes have no consequences. After World War I, there was no clear accountability, which created a sense of impunity.

 We also see how quickly societies can change. Neighbors who have lived together for generations can suddenly become perpetrators. This shows how dangerous it is to normalize dehumanization and propaganda.

 Another lesson is that trauma continues to exist – socially, politically, and psychologically – long after the violence has ended.

Are there parallels with today?

Yes, especially in the early stages. History shows that genocides do not begin with violence but with language, rhetoric, and political decisions.

 When groups are presented as a threat, when dehumanization becomes normal, and when rights are gradually weakened, then patterns reminiscent of the period before 1915 emerge.

 This doesn't mean that history repeats itself exactly, but the warning signs are often the same.

Was there support from other countries?

Yes, but not in the sense that other countries carried out the violence. But there was significant indirect support, particularly from Germany, which was a close ally during World War I.

 German actors contributed ideas, propaganda, and strategies that influenced the development. Some of them later became important figures in Hitler's regime. For example, religious mobilization – jihad – was encouraged as a geopolitical tool, reinforcing the image of Christian minorities as enemies.

 Furthermore, the German leadership knew what was happening through reports from diplomats and missionaries, but chose not to intervene. This can be considered indirect complicity.

 However, the implementation was carried out by Ottoman authorities, state forces, paramilitary groups and local Kurdish actors.

Why didn't the international community react?

Because political and economic interests were placed above human life.

 Many countries had information about what was happening. During the war, Germany had detailed knowledge but did not act, considering its alliance more important.

 This points to a broader pattern: states often operate based on strategic interests rather than moral principles.

 The 1919 peace negotiations made mention of justice and self-determination, but in practice geopolitical interests dominated. For example, for Britain, control of Middle Eastern oil was crucial.

 Thus, promises to groups like the Assyrians were not kept. Then, with agreements like the Treaty of Lausanne, the issue of responsibility disappeared.

 This is also a key lesson: when the international community knows but does not act, the impression is created that such crimes can go unpunished.

How does this knowledge help young people?

It gives young people tools to understand how societies work and how they can break down.

 Through the study of 1915, the connection between language, propaganda, political decisions and the escalation of violence becomes understandable.

 Furthermore, it helps in understanding migration, diaspora and identity.

In your article you write "Crimes begin with words" — what does that mean?

It means that violence is preceded by a process. First, the language changes: people are presented as a problem, their value is questioned and their rights are relativized.

 When a group is dehumanized, it becomes easier to justify treating them differently.

 Then, political decisions legitimize exclusion and ultimately violence can be presented as acceptable or even necessary.

Are there political reasons behind Sweden's stance?

It is difficult to ignore the role of foreign policy. Decisions to recognize genocides are also political and influenced by international relations, such as those with Turkey.

Is official recognition enough?

Recognition is important, but the issue goes deeper. Concrete measures are needed: education, research, opening up archives and acknowledging the experiences of victims.

 There are also rights issues, such as property and the possibility of return. Without these, recognition risks remaining symbolic.

Should refusal be criminalized?

It is a complex issue. However, education and knowledge are the most powerful and sustainable means.

 If the subject were taught properly in schools, denial would have much less influence in the long run.