The Interactions and Experiences of Armenians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire and Republic of Turkey from the Young Turk Revolution of 1908 to the Present

This article will examine the interactions of Armenians and Jews as well as shared and dissimilar experiences in the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey from the early 20th century to the present to compare how affinities and differences in political outlook have affected their relationship. It has been stated at times in academia, by politicians, and members of the press that the Armenian and Jewish Diasporas have had similar historical experiences mostly through hardships. Despite that being the case, this article will show that throughout their experiences as non-Muslim minorities in the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey Armenians and Jews have never developed any coordinated collaboration; instead, they have pursued perceived respective ethnic interests, largely influenced by historical memory and geopolitics. At the same time, the Young Turks and later the Turkish state engaged in policies, especially toward non-Muslim minorities, that have been described as contradictory, ambivalent, or both in nature, influenced by changing perceptions of citizenship and identity as well as geopolitics.     

SECRETARY OF STATE MARSHALL,GENERAL CLAY,AND THE MOSCOW COUNCIL OF FOREIGN MINISTERS MEETING OF 1947: A RESPONSE TO PHILIP ZELIKOW

This commentary challenges the major conclusion of a 1997 article which appeared in this journal. There, Philip Zelikow argued that previous treatments of the Council of Foreign Ministers 1947 meeting in Moscow erred in their characterization of the role of US Secretary of State Marshall. Earlier studies, in Zelikow’s view, failed to understand that Marshall, refusing to be constrained by the recently announced containment policy, made a serious effort to meet Soviet demands for reparations from current German output. It is contended here that a review of the evidence, especially materials from the John Foster Dulles papers and from British archives, does not support Zelikow’s conclusion.     

Critique of Schuker “J.M. Keynes and the Personal Politics of Reparations”

In “J.M. Keynes and the Personal Politics of Reparations,” Parts I and II, published in Diplomacy and Statecraft (2014), the American historian Stephen Schuker claims that Keynes’ scientific arguments against the policy of reparations were distorted by both political passion and his emotional attachment to the German banker, Dr. Carl Melchior. He provides no evidence for this argument, and Keynes’ analytic positions emerges without reference to either.