From Der Zor to Majdanek: Genocide Trivialized in Scandinavia

An essay about the ashes from Majdanek in Sweden, and the Danish Royal Library’s ‘alternative’ exhibition

AG-exhibition
The Armenian Genocide exhibition.

Two appalling events took place in Scandinavia last week. It all started when the Armenian Genocide Museum and Institute in Yerevan started putting together a small exhibition on Scandinavia and the Armenian Genocide about two years ago. The exhibit began touring the Scandinavian capitals this year, and came to the Danish capital, Copenhagen, about a month ago, where it was set up in a room belonging to the Royal Library (yet located at the University of Copenhagen). The surprise came when the director of the Royal Library, Erland Kolding Nielsen, in his opening speech announced there would be an “alternative” exhibition arranged by the Turkish Embassy, with the announced title, “The so-called Armenian genocide.” What to do? Protest, of course. Indeed, the Royal Library has since garnered heavy criticism from the media and from historians over its decision. Nielsen, however, has denied that the institution buckled under pressure from Turkey.

“We have simply given them the opportunity to show their alternative exhibition,” he said. So, for now, it is business as usual. The exhibition is still scheduled.

The second story is equally outrageous. This time it took place south of Sweden’s city of Lund, which is famous for its prestigious university. A Swedish art gallery there decided to organize a special exhibition, and was soon displaying the works of an artist, Carl Michael von Hausswolff, who used the ashes he had collected at Majdanek, a Nazi extermination camp in Poland, to paint his monochrome work. A painting made from the ashes of Holocaust victims for all to enjoy.

The controversial exhibition was taken down following protests from the Simon Wiesenthal Center—which called the painting a “desecration” and “abomination”—and the Jewish community of Malmoe. The “alternative” exhibition arranged by the Royal Library in Copenhagen, however, is still scheduled, and raises important questions regarding denial and revisionism. Yet, somehow these two incidents attracted little attention from the media, especially the Armenian media.

The target was two crimes, two genocides. And an unending effort to trivialize the crimes.

The aquarelle painter who used the ashes is silent, too. Or, what do I know, maybe he is enjoying the noise he created with his art. One thing is for sure, he cannot have missed the attention it received in the world press. A number of Polish media outlets highlighted the debate, like most Israeli newspapers, the Telegraph, and the French and Spanish press. Immediately there was talk of repercussions. Would von Hausswolff stand trial in Lund? Should the police be confiscate the “watercolor”? Should the police investigate whether this was a violation of “peace of grave”? Was this illegal?

Yet, Sweden kept silent. Not only was the painter silent, but so were the country’s political and religious organizations, and labor unions for artists. Apparently it is not repulsive in Sweden to desecrate victims of genocide.

If the silence in Sweden has upset me, the story from Copenhagen has enraged me. The silence was even greater when it came to the alternative Turkish exhibition in Denmark.

I was only able to find very low-key protests, and an attitude of “It is best to ignore.”

But denial is not new to Scandinavia.

Back in 2005, Uffe Østergaard, the director of a department for Holocaust and genocide studies in Copenhagen, was involved in the planning of a “neutral” institution or “place of dialogue” where the “question” of “the tragic events of 1915” could be discussed by Armenian and Turkish scholars. The initiative was supported by the Turkish ambassador in Copenhagen, Fügen Ok. Østergaard had for several years publicly and unequivocally espoused his denialist views, regularly insisting that his was a “neutral” position between an Armenian and a Turkish point of view.

The presentation sounded perfectly innocent (the words “neutral” and “dialogue” ­are indeed attractive); so did the “alternative” story to the Armenian Genocide.

Back then genocide scholars Torben Jørgensen and Matthias Bjørnlund, in a public letter, wrote: “… Any assumption that there is a ‘neutral ground’ between an ‘Armenian’ and a ‘Turkish’ side of the ‘question’ of the Armenian genocide is plain wrong. When it comes to the historical reality of the Armenian genocide, there is no ‘Armenian’ or ‘Turkish’ side of the ‘question,’ no more than there is a ‘Jewish’ or a ‘German’ side of the historical reality of the Holocaust. There is a scientific side, and an unscientific side, acknowledgment or denial.”

There is something fundamentally wrong with the above-mentioned attitudes. What we are witnessing is the total lack of courage and moral fortitude. In the name of objectivity, we are seeing revisionism and denial. But what is objectivity? It is, in simple terms, the attempt to openly account for the basis of a certain choice, a standpoint. But I would add the following: Objectivity is not the same as judgment, free or non-condemnatory.

I will be borrowing some ideas from Martin Wiklund, a researcher from the University of Gotheburg and author of the book History as a Court of Justice, in which he convincingly argues that historians should have the courage to maintain a moral attitude and take a stand. He suggests that the court as model of justice could be the guiding reference for a science that can never be judgment-free.

What is common to both history and a court is that both should inspire to administer justice, argues Wiklund, and maybe he has a point. In a regular court hearing, all parties are heard, all relevant facts are presented and duly taken into account. A judicial review means that an acknowledged authority (judges and jurors) objectively assesses the interests of all parties involved (plaintiff, counter defendant prosecutor, the law). We not only expect that the trial is fair and impartial, but that it leads to a verdict; it cannot just end with the mere understanding of the circumstances. In other words, in a court, objectivity is not a problem and it does not impede justice.

It is true that an historian has no requirement to pronounce a verdict, but s/he should not avoid doing it when needed. There is a widespread perception in academic circles that the present generation should not sit in judgment over previous generations, in part because our modern standards are time-bound. Yet this view is unreasonable. If it were truly the case, then our courts would not be able to achieve justice as laws, too, are expected to change over time.

Historians have no laws in their disposal to judge by, but with justice as a guiding principle, we can incorporate both past conditions and present knowledge in our evaluations.

Now, when we speak of justice we must talk about guilt and responsibility, as well. Questions about guilt are closely related to living memory. Whether it is the Russian occupation of Finland in 1809 or the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, or the Armenian Genocide, all belong in the same moral universe.

The fairness aspect may not be the sole aspect to account for, but it’s always the most relevant.

I am not saying that a historian should always point to the guilty and the innocent, the perpetrators and the victims; however, the historian has a responsibility to always present a fair trial based on the relevant facts of each case.

There is no knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Historians should bring to light the complexity of the history. Yet, they should do it not only to bring to light the truth, but also to improve and develop collective memory and historical awareness.

Maybe Martin Wiklund can show us the way out—in Denmark and Sweden, and most importantly in Turkey.

Suzanne Khardalian

Suzanne Khardalian

Suzanne Khardalian is a documentary filmmaker based in Stockholm, Sweden. Her films include “Back to Ararat,” “I Hate Dogs,” and “Grandma’s Tattoos.” She contributes regularly to Armenian-language newspapers.

5 Comments

  1. As a Dane, I am truly sorry for the “alternative”. The genoside is not to debate, its fact, just like 2+2=4.

    • Thank you Jan.

      You can do more as a Dane by complaining in writing to the Royal Library.
      And asking your friends to do the same.

      Maybe you can also suggest (in sarcasm) that, in the interest of ‘fairness’, they allow an exhibition by Neo-Nazis to present their version of the Jewish Holocaust.

      Or, in the interest of ‘fairness’, The Museum of Danish Resistance can also have an exhibit to allow Nazis to air their version. (in sarcasm)

      It is only ‘fair’, No ?

  2. Sweeden did recognize the Armenian genocide, but what is in stake? Turkish business. It is not just the Bulkan nations who are dependant on Turkey for business, but also are scandinavian nations. Cheap Turkish goods and services are worth keeping their Nazi regime equivalent safe from Justice.

    The European competative spirit does get sometimes the best of those nations who have embrassed freedom and stopped Nazis in their tracks.

    Unfortunately, today freedom loving is not about justice, it is about giving everyone a chance. Even if they are wrong. And panicing Turks medeling into everyone’s business when it comes to Armenian genocide did succeed at least to get the two scandinavian libraries and musiums to exibit their own side of story which has been created not so long ago.

    The surprising facts are:
    Wasn’t it the suspicious Swidish scientists who pressured Turkey in 2006 to unearth the mass graves in the first place? And Sweeden did recognize the Armenian genocide.
    In this case wouldn’t it be accurate to say, the Turks have been actively proactive in trying to convince Sweeds to get their lies in the exhibits??
    Yes they are and they are so paniced that they are continuing to do more.
    And those Sweedish scientists and politians who support Armenians are dealing with the same groups as those in Turkey who are speeking out about their true history?

    And if the sweedish and Danes are so conserned about this they should ask themselves about whey there is a larger Armenian diaspora than the whole Armenian poppulation? But, yet Turkey has at least 5 times the total Armenian poppulation.

    I gues it all comes down to wether the Sweedish or Danish citizens and politicians prefer Turkish delights to justice.
    And Turkish NATO advantage and their demands from other NATO nations to pay back to Turkey for their support, sure does shelter them from being held accountable for something they already got caught for.
    In Addition, the Turkish minority in scandinavia probabely did cry for their recently created versions of WWI to be on the exhibit.

    I just can’t stop resecting Germans for being such a good candidate for leading Europe. Germany, with its horrific history in WWII not only appologized to Jews for their crime, but also they paid reparations until today, and with the 4 million plus Turkish minority went on and recognized the Armenian genocide. The Germans have not shown any suspicious actions that would be considered hypocritical until today.

  3. And for the Turkish side.

    They are doing what a deviant person should do to get away with his dirty dids.
    It comes natural when someone who has adrenaline rush and has been keeping dead bodies in his appartment has to buy a building to take people away from his appratment and get their attention elsewhere.

    That will take persitance to cover all that up. Turkish government is paniced and has had it with Armenian genocide. Turkish nationalism breeds loyal leaders who are sworn to uphold Turkish agendas and keep their stolen borders intact no matter what it takes and no matter who is right.

    I have even heard all the versions of Turkish claims:
    Even those Turks who believe genocide took place don’t want it recognized. They claim that empires come and go and nations are created. But, Armenians never before have had to have mass exodos to outside of their homeland under any empire which rulled our ancestors.
    Another version claims the Kurds killed Armenians and Turks were good to them. So, then how come the good Turks drove innocent natives out of their home into their deaths, rape, turkishification, and finally the in mercy of syrian desert.
    The most neutral Turkish versian is I believe the cleverest. They calim the Ottomans were weak and many died during WWI. Everyone suffered. True, everyone suffered, but the Armenians who used to cover most of eastern Turkey and up to the middle of it took the heaviest tool, followed by Greeks, and Assyrians.
    The other versians which try to link Dashnaks to killing Turks. The organized Turkish high ranks had friends in the German command. The Dashanks were our last chance. How could the not so organized, few in number Armenians, manage to be the violators?
    Could the hundereds of thousands of HESHMETSI Armenians be the survivors of genocide because their grand fathers and mothers were taken from their parents by Turks to be turkishified? Or their ancestors had to force convert to not die and save their families? Even, to marry Kurds and change their last names to remain hidden?
    And howcome there are 70000Armenians in Turkey today? That doesn’t add up since they didn’t really migrate there????? And why there are more HESHMETSI than Christian Armenians in Turkey?

    Last but not least, the Turks had more reason to go after Christians when the young Turks came to power. The 1800’s resulted in their defeat from Bulkans from Orthodox. they were also defeated by Russians. The Sultans by then hated and were fearful of Christians.

    I guess Turks tried their best to bring us to have dialogue with them over the factuality of Genocide. But, there is nothing to have dialogues over with denialist Turks who have alot to loos if Armenian genocide is recognized. How can we discuss the factuality of something that is a fact with someone who has denied it for decades.

    This time Turks make major attempts, but achieve little ends to their hard work. And we have maintained our postion on the genocide for decades. A powerful memory of the fallen that even the Turkish money they make from mainly tourism can’t bring it down. Good reason for the Turkish panic.

  4. Excellent analogy.

    It brings up a crucial point that is often misunderstood, particularly by the media in the United States:
    Neutrality is NOT the same thing as objectivity.

    Picking the middle between any two points is neutral, but it is not necessarily objective, if one point reflects the truth and the other point reflects the opposite (read: lie) of that truth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*