Abstract
Many German historians are surprised to see how much attention the long neglected Armenian genocide has received in the news since 2015. A plethora of articles and public events was accompanied by attempts of no less than three of four constitutional bodies—the German government, the parliament, and the president—to come to grips with the question of how to understand the German role in the killing of far more than a million Armenians. Whereas Germany’s President Gauck spoke of ‘genocide’ in April 2015 and said that Germany must acknowledge its own guilt, the government routinely avoids this word and prefers to characterise Germany’s role as shameful, but not necessarily wrongful. I use this rather complex texture of official positions as an opportunity to raise some questions concerning official avowals of collective shame and guilt by political bodies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
On the concept of genocide, see Schabas 2000; Boghossian 2010; May 2010. On the Armenian genocide, see Lepsius 1919a, 1919b; Akçam 2006/2007; Kieser and Plozza 2006; Robertson 2009; Gust 2015; Hosfeld 2015. Some of those who deny that the mass atrocities in the Ottoman Empire can be called genocide justify their position with the exceptionality of the Shoa. Bernard Lewis is a case in point. In the second edition of his classic The Emergence of Modern Turkey (1961/1962) he rejected the word ‘holocaust’ precisely for this reason (see Lewis 2012, p. 286). In my opinion, Lewis’ argument was a poor one. He fails to understand that what matters is whether the Armenian case fulfils the criteria of the Genocide Convention (which it doubtlessly does)—and not whether it is different in relevant ways from the Shoa (which it doubtlessly is). On the uniqueness of the Shoa, see Geras 2003.
- 2.
- 3.
‘According to independent calculations, more than one million Armenians died as a result of the deportations and mass killings by the Ottoman Empire. The German Reich government had information about this state of affairs from the beginning. As a military ally of the Ottoman Empire, it remained silent on the issue and prohibited its publication. We must remember this behaviour with shame. In 2005 the German parliament regretted the disgraceful (unrühmlich) role of the German Reich and commemorates the victims of the Armenian people’ (DBT 18/3722, 5-6).
- 4.
‘The German Reich shares responsibility for these events’ (DBT 18/8613).
- 5.
Lamb 1983, p. 331.
- 6.
Robertson 2014, p. 121.
- 7.
Branscombe et al. 2004.
- 8.
Branscombe et al. 2004, p. 17.
- 9.
Gilbert 1996, p. 378.
- 10.
Margalit 2002, p. 81.
- 11.
- 12.
‘Germans who show feelings of collective guilt are less likely to react defensively than those who do not display such feelings’ (Rensmann 2004, p. 177). German institutions became increasingly impatient with the culture of impunity and denial once the last age group personally involved in war atrocities reached retirement in the 1990s. A case in point are the stricter standards of culpability which German courts began to apply in trials against former concentration camp personnel after 2000. One explanation for this is that more people who feel collective guilt about Germany’s past entered positions of power and wanted to put an end to the ‘whitewash’.
- 13.
See Der Spiegel 1970b, p. 29. Chancellor Brandt may (or may not) have been convinced that many Germans at the time shared the sentiments expressed by his gesture. In fact, in a representative survey 48% of respondents said that the gesture was ‘inappropriate’ (or ‘excessive’). See Der Spiegel 1970a, p. 27.
- 14.
Gilbert 2002, p. 139.
- 15.
Lewis 1971, p. 30; my emphasis.
- 16.
See International Classification of Psychic Disorders: ICD-10-GM-2016 F32 (major depressive disorder).
- 17.
Wong and Tsai 2007, p. 211.
- 18.
- 19.
According to Mill, the core of morality consists in the idea of justice. The idea of justice, in turn, ‘supposes two things; a rule of conduct, and a sentiment which sanctions the rule’ (Mill 1861/1969, p. 249). But not all rules of conduct are justified: ‘there is hardly anything so absurd or so mischievous that it may not, by means of these influences [sufficient use of external sanctions, force of early impressions], be made to act on the human mind with all the authority of conscience’ (Mill 1861/1969, p. 230).
- 20.
I am not sure though whether shame and guilt can operate with full force at the same time.
- 21.
As a side note, it is a very disturbing fact about the early decades of post-war Germany that known perpetrators of the worst description could live without shame or fear in their former neighbourhoods.
- 22.
In Die Schuldfrage (The Question of German Guilt) Karl Jaspers writes that persons may feel ‘guilty in a way not adequately conceivable either legally, politically or morally. That I live after such a thing has happened weighs upon me as indelible guilt’ (Jaspers 1946, pp. 31–32, translation E. B. Ashton). Jaspers calls this emotion ‘metaphysical guilt’. Metaphysical guilt is a kind of guilt without legal, moral, or political wrongdoing. Larry May argues that ‘Jaspers comes dangerously close to saying that each of us, merely by being members of the human race, also shares responsibility for all the harms in the world’ (May 1991, p. 241). As I see it, what Jaspers calls ‘metaphysical guilt’ is more appropriately named supererogatory shame. It is a painful feeling that persons experience because they have behaved cowardly or in other ways deficient of praiseworthy character traits.
- 23.
Tangney and Dearing 2002, p. 2.
- 24.
‘Shame-prone individuals appear relatively more likely to blame others (as well as themselves) for negative events, more prone to a seething, bitter, resentful kind of anger and hostility, and less able to empathize with others in general. Guilt, on the other hand, may not be that bad after all’ (Tangney and Dearing 2002, p. 2).
- 25.
Deonna et al. 2012, p. 4.
- 26.
Deonna et al. 2012, p. 177.
- 27.
Lu 2008.
- 28.
- 29.
- 30.
Ref. Directive No. 857, No. 855 [A 32368.] and Telegram No. 2401.
- 31.
Robertson 2014, p. 121.
- 32.
For instance, ambassador Wangenheim wrote in July 1915: ‘This fact, and the way in which the resettlement is being conducted, show that the government did indeed have the objective of annihilating the Armenian race from the Turkish Empire. […] To effectively counteract any possible later invective on the part of our enemies such as being jointly to blame for the rigorous Turkish actions, I have considered it my duty to point out to the Porte that we can only approve of the deportation of the Armenian people if it is carried out as a result of military considerations and serves as a security against revolts, but that in carrying out these measures one should provide protection for the deportees against plundering and butchery’ (1915-07-07-DE-OO1; translation from Ihrig 2016, p. 128); Instructions from the Imperial Embassy to the Imperial Consulate regarding policy in the Armenian question: ‘Despite our repeated objections, the Armenian atrocities have achieved a dimension in recent weeks such that it is our duty to express our strong disapproval of these incidents wherever necessary’ (1915-11-12-DE-013).
- 33.
‘Your most gracious Sir, I request, bearing in mind the formulated viewpoints and wishes presented in the documents, to continue at each and every opportunity and with all your efforts to assert your influence on the ruling powers for the benefit of the Armenians. Especially direct your attention to ensure that the measures of the Porte are not extended to include other Christian parts of the population in Turkey. Regarding the development of this situation, I would ask Your Honour to let me be continually informed’ (1915-11-10-DE-011; translation from armenocide 2016).
- 34.
Bloxham 2005, p. 127.
- 35.
Sher 2006, p. 130.
- 36.
- 37.
Nonetheless, Social Democrats brought the topic up again in a parliamentary question in 1916. Philipp Scheidemann expressed concerns that the Entente will hold Germany responsible for this glaring injustice of the Ottoman Empire (Gust 2015, p. 483).
- 38.
- 39.
In light of this, an avowal of shame may appear to underscore the German role in this atrocity.
- 40.
Gilbert 2002, p. 139.
- 41.
- 42.
Supposing that Bethmann Hollweg’s behaviour was indeed shameful, it follows that it would have been unreasonable and immoral for him not to be ashamed. By contrast, whether Germans today feel membership shame for the Reich chancellor is neither obligatory nor impermissible; it is optional.
References
Akçam, Taner. 2006/2007. A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Arendt, Hannah. 1964/2003. Personal Responsibility under Dictatorship. In Responsibility and Judgement, ed. Jerome Kohn, 17–48. New York: Schocken Books.
Armenocide, (n. d.), 1915-11-10-DE-011 in http://www.armenocide.net/armenocide/armgende.nsf/$$AllDocs/1915-11-10-DE-011 (06 August 2016).
Benedict, Ruth. 1946/2005. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture, foreword by Ian Buruma. Cambridge, Mass.: Mariner Book.
Bloxham, Donald. 2001. A Reassessment of the German Role in the Armenian Genocide. In http://www.hist.net/kieser/aghet/Essays/EssayBloxham.html (02 June 2016).
Bloxham, Donald. 2005. The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism, and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boghossian, Paul. 2010. The Concept of Genocide. In The Journal of Genocide Research 12: 69–80.
Branscombe, Nyla R., Ben Slugoski and Diana M. Kappen. 2004. The Measurement of Collective Guilt. In Collective Guilt: International Perspectives, eds. Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Dossje, 16–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dadrian, Vahakn N. 1996. German Responsibility in the Armenian Genocide: A Review of the Historical Evidence of German Complicity, foreword by Roger W. Smith. Watertown, Mass.: Blue Crane Books.
Deonna, Julien A., Raffaele Rodogno and Fabrice Teroni. 2012. In Defense of Shame: The Faces of an Emotion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Geras, Norman. 2003. In a Class of its Own? In Moral Philosophy and the Holocaust, eds. Eve Garrard and Geoffrey Scarre, 25–55. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Gilbert, Margaret. 1996. On Feeling Guilt for What One’s Group Has Done. In Living Together: Rationality, Sociality, and Obligation, eds. Lanham et al., 375–390. Lanham et al.: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gilbert, Margaret. 2002. Collective Guilt and Collective Guilt Feelings. Journal of Ethics 6: 115–143.
Gottschlich, Jürgen. 2015. Beihilfe zum Völkermord: Deutschlands Rolle bei der Vernichtung der Armenier. Berlin: Ch. Links Verlag.
Gust, Wolfgang. 2015. Der Völkermord an den Armeniern: Dokumente aus dem Politischen Archiv des deutschen Auswärtigen Amts. Springe: zu Klampen Verlag.
Hosfeld, Rolf. 2015. Tod in der Wüste: Der Völkermord an den Armeniern. München: C. H. Beck.
Ihrig, Stefan. 2016. Justifying Genocide: Germany and the Armenians from Bismarck to Hitler. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Jaspers, Karl. 1946. Die Schuldfrage. Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider.
Keynes, John Maynard. 1919/2004. The Economic Consequences of Peace. In The End of Laissez-Faire: The Economic Consequences of Peace, 47–298. Amherst: Prometheus Books.
Kieser, Hans-Lukas and Elmar Plozza (eds.). 2006. Der Völkermord an den Armeniern, die Türkei und Europa, The Armenian Genocide: Turkey and Europe. Zürich: Chronos Verlag.
Laband, Paul. 1876/1895. Das Staatsrecht des Deutschen Reiches, 2 volumes. Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr.
Lamb, R. E. 1983. Guilt, Shame and Morality. In Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 43 (3): 329–346.
Lepsius, Johannes. 1919a. Deutschland und Armenien: Sammlung diplomatischer Aktenstücke, edited and introduced by Dr Johannes Lepsius. Potsdam: Tempelverlag.
Lepsius, Johannes. 1919b. Der Todesgang des Armenischen Volkes: Bericht über das Schicksal des Armenischen Volkes in der Türkei während des Weltkriegs. Potsdam: Tempelverlag.
Lewis, Bernard. 1961/1962. The Emergence of Modern Turkey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, Helen Block. 1971. Shame and Guilt in Neurosis. New York: International Universities Press.
Lewis, Bernard. 2012. Notes on a Century: Reflections of a Middle East Historian, with Buntzie Ellis Churchill. London: Penguin Books.
Lu, Catherine. 2008. Shame, Guilt and Reconciliation after War. European Journal of Social Theory 11 (3): 367–383.
Margalit, Avishai. 2002. The Ethics of Memory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
May, Larry. 1991. Metaphysical Guilt and Moral Taint. In Collective Responsibility: Five Decades of Debate in Theoretical and Applied Ethics, eds. Larry May and Stacey Hoffman, 239–254. Savage, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
May, Larry. 2010. Genocide: A Normative Account. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mill, John Stuart. 1861/1969. Utilitarianism. In Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume X, ed. John M. Robson, 203–259. Toronto: Toronto University Press.
Rensmann, Lars. 2004. Collective Guilt, National Identiy, and Political Processes in Contemporary Germany. In Collective Guilt: International Perspectives, eds. Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Dossje, 169–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robertson, Geoffrey. 2014. An Inconvenient Genocide: Who Now Remembers the Armenians? London: Biteback Publishing.
Robertson, Geoffrey. 2009. Was There an Armenian Genocide? With Reference to Foreign and Commonwealth Office Documents Which Show How British Ministers, Parliament, and People Have Been Misled. London: Policy Memorandum, Foreign & Commonwealth Office to Minister.
Schabas, William A. 2000. Genocide in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sher, George. 2006. In Praise of Blame. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SPIEGEL. 1970a. Kniefall angemessen oder übertrieben? SPIEGEL-Umfrage über Willy Brandts Totenehrung am Ehrenmal im früheren Warschauer Getto. SPIEGEL 51: 27.
SPIEGEL. 1970b. Ein Stück Heimkehr: SPIEGEL-Reporter Hermann Schreiber mit Bundeskanzler Brandt in Warschau. SPIEGEL 51: 29–30.
Tangney, June Price and Ronda L. Dearing (eds.). 2002. Shame and Guilt. New York: Guilford Press.
Wong, Ying and Jeanne Tsai. 2007. Cultural models of shame and guilt. In The Self-Conscious Emotions: Theory and Research, eds. Jessica L. Tracy, Richard W. Robins and June Price Tangney, 209–223. New York: Guilford Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schefczyk, M. (2018). Modern Germany and the Annihilation of the Ottoman Armenians: A Note on the Political Avowal of Shame and Guilt. In: Altanian, M. (eds) Der Genozid an den ArmenierInnen. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-20453-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-20453-2_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-20452-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-20453-2
eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)