MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762766604 · doi:10.5038/1911-9933.11.2.1482

Book Review: Justifying Genocide: Germany and the Armenians from Bismarck to Hitler

2017· article· en· W2762766604 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vahram Ter‐Matevosyan

Bibliographic record

VenueGenocide Studies and Prevention · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Contemporary Political Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenocideCriminologyHistoryPolitical scienceLawPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In June 2016 the German Parliament adopted a resolution declaring the killings of Armenians and other Christian minorities in 1915 a genocide.The resolution once again raised questions about the depth and extent of Germany's role in the Armenian Genocide.In the last twenty years there have been a number of books and articles which explored the German responsibility in the Armenian Genocide.With his second monograph, Stefan Ihrig, Polonsky Fellow at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, takes an important step in enriching the existing interpretations.The book is consisted of four parts divided into fifteen chapters and covering a period from 1878 to the Holocaust.It opens a new perspective on the role that Germany played in the making of the Armenian Genocide and how it was discussed in Germany.It is worth noting that reading of the previous book by Stefan Ihrig 1 will make understanding of the second one much easier.There are not only references to that book and a few, albeit important, thematic repetitions but also a number of arguments that can be better understood after reading the first book.This book has a number of objectives which aim to reframe the German understanding and exploitation of the Armenian Question by providing two closely intertwined contexts-the German and the German-Ottoman.The other objective of the book, as it was also the case with the first one, is about comprehending the process of learning-how the Germans learnt from the Ottomans, and how the Ottomans learnt from Germany, how they empowered each other by providing political, military, diplomatic and most importantly moral support.This particularly concerns the German help that was extended to the Ottomans.Although the book is not about the Armenian Genocide, it successfully integrates the Armenian Genocide into world and twentieth-century history.If approached from these perspectives, the book has clearly met its objectives.If the author tried to approach the problem in the context of only WWI or WWII, little could have been clear about the German roots of anti-Armenianism and the binding features of the German-Ottoman alliance.Instead, the author broadened the chronological spectrum, which allowed him to widen the context and provide more evidence.It brings into the fore the roots of German anti-Armenianism and Armenia-related paranoia and builds an entire argument based on the assumption that Germany's role needs to be seen as one which justified the Armenian massacres in the 1890s and later the Armenian Genocide in 1915.These approaches laid foundation for, what the author claims, "the great German Genocide discourse" in the early 1920s.The book argues that throughout the period under consideration, the printed discourse in Germany was mostly pro-Turkish, which rationalized the massacres against the Armenians.The Armenian massacres in the 1890s were widely covered in the German press, which used the term Völkemord long before Lemkin coined it in English.The book extensively discusses the parallels between Jews and Armenians which were widely known in Germany.Popular intellectuals and right wing press presented Armenians under negative circumstances,

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueGenocide Studies and PreventionSame topicHistorical and Contemporary Political DynamicsFrench-language works237,207