How much do
countries have a tendency to distort the history they believe (and teach) in
their favor? Is it a citizen’s duty to
seek out more reliable information about their country’s history and the real
horrors of war? Should governments
apologize for mistakes of the past?
Should New Zealand apologize to Turkey for the Gallipoli invasion 100
years ago?
First, the topic of history or the view on history from people´s perspective has been and always will be an engaging topic for almost anyone. There always is something to reflect on, something to comment, something we could have done better or something that should have been omitted. After all, is it not the same with our own lives?
ReplyDelete“History is a positive science, like physics or chemistry, it is not gobbledegook” states Mr Kavvas, a Turkey-born diplomat, and yes, History indeed is not gobbledegook, however I would not dare to compare it with Chemistry or Physics. Sure, History is a science. It´s foundations are laid upon stable, unchangeable happenings. We have a stream of evidence according to which we come to conclusions which then are evaluated and archived. On the contrary, it is not a definite science. We simply cannot say that this thing was well done and this was not. It all comes to the perspective - unlike Mathematics or Biology. Thanks to this, we ought not to evaluate it in such matters – and thus, we are not able to say whether the invasion of ANZAC forces to the Ottoman Empire was good or bad.
Moreover, war is a really special setting for evaluating acts. War is cruel, atrocious, violent. International laws become largely forgotten, brother forgets brother, ally stops caring for another ally. The sole purpose is to survive and everyone is acting accordingly. New Zealand, Australia and Newfoundland were all essentially parts of the UK at that time, and so, it is completely understandable why the British sent them to war they waged. Yes, it must have been a big surprise for the Turkish (hence the popular anecdotes), but well, that happens.
Lastly, I think that a nation should not bear the responsibilities of its former self. Nation is not a being. It is not a person that should suffer for its past crimes. It is not the current New Zealanders that came to Turkey and demolished it. It is not the current Turkish that got destroyed either. While we are at it, at that time it was not really the nation´s fault that they attacked the Ottoman Empire either. After all, did the ordinary soldier decide for it? No, it was a consensus of the whole government – not to be mistaken with nation – which actually sat in the UK.
To wrap up, I think that not only there is no point in an apology from New Zealand to Turkey, but that there is also no point in reflecting to this situation at all fronts. There is to be no distress in the diplomacy between New Zealand and Turkey and all the friendly relationships are to be continued.
First of all, I agree to the majority of what Peťo writes in his comment, however there is one concept with which I fail to agree. It is the point mentioned in the fourth paragraph about whether New Zealand should apologize to Turkey for it's part in the invasion and the lost lives of Ottoman soldiers.
DeleteThe first segment with which I disagree is Peťo's statement that the attack was not the nation's fault and thus the nation should not be forced to apologize. He states that it were not the ordinary soldiers that decide for the invasion but that it was, on the contrary, the government. However, I think that when Mr Kavvas asks for an apology from New Zealand, he does not mean the soldiers or the common New Zealanders. He indicates the government of New Zealand, which Peťo agrees was responsible for the invasion. Maybe the real question should be, whether it is the government of New Zealand that should apologize or whether it should rather be the British government which was in control of New Zealand at that time.
Secondly, I also disagree with Peťo's viewpoint that a nation should not bear responsibilities for it's former actions. I understand that a nation should not be punished for crimes that took place dozens of years ago, however this article doesn't suggest any punishment – it merely suggest expressing regret about the crimes and apologizing. To make an example, I agree that today's Germans should not suffer any punishments for the violent crimes of the Nazi regime during the Second World War, nevertheless I view it as an appropriate gesture that various German post-war politicians expressed their regrets for Holocaust and made public apologies, that a Holocaust Memorial was built by German initiative and furthermore, that in the course of time the German government has paid billions to Jewish survivors and Israel itself. Similarly, a few years back during a visit to Ireland the British Queen Elizabeth II publicly expressed her regret over Britain's former actions towards Ireland and the British Prime Minister David Cameron offered an apology for “Bloody Sunday” killings in 1972.
To conclude, unlike Peťo I believe that it would be an honorable and appropriate gesture from the government of New Zealand to express regret and apologize for the Gallipoli invasion and the lost lived of approximately 86, 000 Ottoman soldiers.