YEREVAN, DECEMBER 1, ARMENPRESS. Do you know the difference between a Holocaust and a holocaust? The Armenians do. Despite what some sub-editors might think, the genocide of 1.5m Armenian Christians in 1915 was not a holocaust. As reports “Armenpress”, journalist Robert Fist stated this in his most recent article published in The Independent. As reports “Armenpress”, Fisk particularly stated in his article:

“What’s in a name? Let’s start with the Persian Gulf. Or the Arabian Gulf. Or just the Arab Gulf. I’m indebted to reader (and surgeon) Ross Farhadieh for complaining to me last week about my use of “The Gulf” – bland, dull and historically anaemic – in a column on Iran and its possible return to geopolitical power in the Middle East. Historically, legally – and in the UN – Ross told me, it should be called the Persian Gulf. It was Gamal Abdul Nasser’s nationalism which renamed it the “Arabian Gulf”.

And Ross is right. And I think I know the background to this slippage in nomenclature. When I worked in the Middle East forThe Times – long before Murdoch emasculated the paper – we found that whenever we referred to the Persian Gulf, Arab states would refuse to let the paper go on sale in Dubai or Cairo. But whenever we called it the Arabian Gulf, the paper was not allowed into Iran.

Other Great War events remain contentious, not least what I always refer to as the Armenian Holocaust (with a capital “H”), the genocide of 1.5m Armenian Christians at the hands of the Turkish Ottoman government in 1915. It was the first industrialised genocide of the last century – the second being the Jewish Holocaust – and the two mass acts of slaughter had clear historical connections. The Turks suffocated thousands of Armenians in caves – by blowing smoke from bonfires into the cavities where they had imprisoned them in the Syrian desert – and thus created the first primitive gas chambers.

Armenian men were sometimes taken to their execution in railway goods wagons. And junior members of the German Kaiser’s army who were training the Turkish army at the time witnessed the genocide; more importantly, some of the names of these Germans turned up less than a quarter of a century later as members of Hitler’s Wehrmacht in the Ukraine and Belarus, where they were helping to organise the mass killing of Jews. There’s no doubt where they learned how to do that.

Many years ago, therefore, I used the phrase “Armenian Holocaust” in The Independent. A sub-editor immediately changed the capital H to a lower-case h. My phone did not stop ringing. Armenians were outraged. Why did they not deserve a capital H, they demanded to know? Didn’t the Turks murder enough Armenians to qualify them for a capital H? I wrote a long memorandum to my then editor, Simon Kelner, explaining that it was racist to make a distinction between two genocides; we could not base our definition on the numerical difference between 1,500,000 and 6,000,000. Besides, Israelis (as opposed to the state of Israel, which doesn’t even regard the Armenian catastrophe as a genocide) refer to the Armenian massacres as the Armenian Shoah – using the Hebrew word for Holocaust. Kelner later published my memo as an article in The Independent – and it won the DC Watt journalism award.

But we newspaper folk have poor institutional memories. Earlier this month, I again referred to the Armenian Holocaust – and a sub-editor, unfamiliar with the expression, innocently downgraded the poor old Armenians again. He changed the capital H into h! My phone trilled once more. The same unanswerable arguments. Didn’t the Turks kill enough of us, my Armenian callers asked again? So of course we sheepishly upgraded the Armenians on the website version of my report and returned to them their capital H…”