SBS Armenian: In 2023, I, interviewed Dr. Themistocles
Kritikakos, a Greek Australian historian and
author, regarding his research on
intergenerational memory and genocide recognition
among Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians, in
Australia, a topic central to his doctoral thesis.
With the publication of his book, Dr. Kritikakos
now offers further insights into its principal
themes, which hold particular significance for
descendants of Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians in
Australia, who confront shared histories and
inherited trauma. Dr. Kritikakos, welcome to SBS
Dr. Themistocles Kritikakos: Good morning, Mr. Vahe Kateb. Thank you for having
me on your program. I appreciate the opportunity
to discuss this, important topic with you and your
SBS Armenian: What inspired you to focus on the recognition
efforts of Greek and Assyrian genocides alongside
the Armenian Genocide in Australia?
Dr. Themistocles Kritikakos: Well, my interest began both personally and
academically. growing up. Storytelling within my
family was part of my everyday life. my mother
would speak about Asia Minor and the experiences
of her parents and relatives. my maternal
grandparents were survivors. Those conversations
were not always detailed historical narratives,
but they sparked my interest in the topic due to
my personal connection, that I had to the events
and led me to ask further questions, later on. But
at the same time, I grew up learning about the
Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust. Over many
years, I, became aware of the advocacy of Armenian
communities for recognition, not only in
Australia, but internationally. And the
commemoration, the research and attempt to
overcome denialism left an impression on me.
Assyrians are also facing persecution and
displacement, within Iraq. And this made me
question, what happens when genocidal violence is
left unaddressed? As I progressed through my
university studies, I began asking questions, why
were the Greek and Assyrian Genocides less known?
And also why were they less prominent in the
public discourse? and despite occurring within the
same late ottoman context between 1914 and 1923,
the central question for me became what were the
consequences of the late Ottoman violence, for
Greek and Assyrian communities who began
advocating for recognition alongside the Armenians
in the early 2000s. So these were the factors that
sparked my interest in the topic.
SBS Armenian: Could you elaborate on the challenges faced by
these communities in gaining public and political
acknowledgement for their histories?
Dr. Themistocles Kritikakos: So there are geopolitical and diplomatic, reasons,
behind, the issue of recognition or the events not
being recognised as genocide. So these are a
challenge within Australia, though at a national
level, achieving recognition remains a major
challenge because the recognition efforts clash
with the narratives shared between Australia and
Turkey, around Gallipoli and reconciliation
between the two nations. However, the genocidal
campaign of the Young Turks against the Armenians
Greeks and Assyrians, or the Christians of the
Ottoman Empire, took place at the same time. From
1915 onward, Australians participated in
humanitarian relief efforts supporting Armenian,
Greek and Assyrian survivors and refugees until
1930. The, Australian humanitarian response forms
part of this shared story, yet it is constantly
overlooked, due to the narrative shared with
Turkey around Gallipoli. And we see Anzacs such
as, Sir Stanley Savage, who was part of British
Operation Dunster Force, who helped rescue the
Syrian and Armenian refugees from northwest
Persia. and George Divine Trelor, an Australian
League of Nations Commissioner for Refugees in,
Greece. He helped settle over 100,000 Christian
refugees, mainly Greek, in northern Greece through
his humanitarian work. The humanitarianism and the
figures behind these events have often been
commemorated by the three communities and the
stories have been shared within the public domain,
often through research. and although this is a big
part of the Australian multicultural story, it is
overlooked. So the three communities are trying to
find their place, in the public domain in
Australian national memory. But they also have to
overcome these conflicting narratives deeply
ingrained in Australian national memory. For the
descendants of victims and survivors in Australia,
recognition strengthens belonging and it brings
justice to their ancestors who are no longer here
to see it. he affirms their histories which
intersect with Australia's humanitarian tradition,
which is another significant story of modern
SBS Armenian: How have Australian narratives around Gallipoli
and reconciliation with Turkey influenced or
conflicted with genocide recognition campaigns?
Dr. Themistocles Kritikakos: So Gallipoli occupies a foundational narrative and
place within the Australian national identity and
memory. the figure of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the
founding father of Turkey and the commander
Gallipoli, and the alleged words of reconciliation
addressed to Anzac mothers have shaped a narrative
of mutual respect between the two nations. And
these narratives are tied to the idea of the birth
of the nation. So the Turkish triumph at Gallipoli
is then tied to the Greco Turkish War, when he led
the Turkish nationalist movement. So it is
connected to a Turkish, story of, of overcoming
internal enemies and external powers at the same
time this looks, overlooks the, the persecution of
the Armenian, Greek and Syrian communities within
the Ottoman Empire. So the ongoing facilitation of
ANZAC commemorations in Gallipoli reinforces the
diplomatic symbolism. So there are two narratives
around the birth of the nation, within Australia
and Turkey. And these narratives reinforce each
other. And while the reconciliation framework has
been meaningful in Australian, commemorative
culture, it omits the late Ottoman genocidal
campaign that led to around 2.5 to 3 million
Armenian, Greek and Assyrian victims, across
Eastern Thrace, Anatolia and surrounding regions
such as northwest Persia, Lebanon and Syria from
around 1914 until 1923. In addition, it also
overlooks the history of Australian
humanitarianism. Australians saw the suffering of
Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians, whether soldiers
or humanitarians. they knew about it and
responded. It was live and in real time. And the
issue is very relevant to Australia. The federal
government is yet to recognize these events as
genocide, in part due to the dual narrative of
reconciliation shared with Turkey. Access stands
at graves and annual Gallipoli commemorations in
Turkey. Yet multiple historical narratives can be
held. at the same time, acknowledging genocide
broadens historical understanding of not only the
suffering of innocent civilians, but also the role
of Australians. There's of course a persistent
tension between these historical narratives and
they often compete within the public sphere.
SBS Armenian: What role did oral interviews with descendants of
survivors play in shaping your understanding of
intergenerational trauma and memory?
Dr. Themistocles Kritikakos: So the interviews revealed that trauma is not only
transmitted through stories, but also through
silence, or what is best described as a lack of
narrative or incoherent stories, fragmentation and
hints about traumatic pasts. Many survivors
maintain silence because the trauma was
overwhelming. Their children often respected that
silence and it created what scholars describe as a
double wall of silence. The second generation
sensed rupture without clarity. The third
generation felt a responsibility to discover, find
out and reconstruct what had not been spoken or
fully shared. So silence itself shaped identity
and had a major impact, on descendants who, felt a
responsibility to make sense of the past. It was
often the case that these memories were shared
within the interviews. to me it was as if they
were directly experienced by the descendants, was
as if they were their very own. And this shows how
after more than 100 years, the consequences of
genocide, of violence and displacement and
dispossession are very real. The trauma lives on
descendants in disrupted family trees, in
expressions of grief, in avoidance of topics that
were horrific. commemoration and recognition
allows trauma to move from private silence and
suppression into public articulation.
SBS Armenian: How have Greek, Assyrian and Armenian communities
collaborated to build shared narratives and
advance recognition in Australia?
Dr. Themistocles Kritikakos: Well, the intercommunal cooperation in Australia,
I think has been one of the most significant
developments in the recognition efforts of the
three communities. the Armenian have of course,
Armenian advocates and activists have led the
campaigns for recognition. They've been leading
partners in the advocacy. They developed the
model, the advocacy strategy, the commemorative
structure that shaped how these traumatic
experiences could be expressed and how recognition
could be pursued. their long term advocacy created
a template for the other communities to engage
with, with this history fully. Greek and Assyrian
communities learned from that example. They saw
inclusion while also developing their own
frameworks for commemoration and advocacy,
adapting them to their particular experiences. And
importantly the achievement of state level
recognition in South Australia, New South Wales
and Tasmania demonstrated that recognition efforts
are strengthened through collective advocacy
rather than isolated lobbying. These outcomes are
not the result of fragmented campaigns but of
intercommunal cooperation and collective ways of
remembering that took place through dialogue and
negotiation of memories and representations of the
past. And through initiatives such as the Joint
Justice Initiative and growing grassroots
activism. Communities are not only commemorating
the past within their own communities, they are
remembering ah together and producing new ways of
remembering. New narratives are formed as a
result. In that process this does not erase
distinct identities or traumatic experiences or
individual memories but but what it does is
acknowledges the interconnected genocidal process
that affected the Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians.
And importantly this cooperation continues to
evolve. it is growing, adapting and has become
stronger from observation through dialogue over
the years and with the aim of achieving national
SBS Armenian: What are the main differences you observed in how
these communities remember and commemorate their
Dr. Themistocles Kritikakos: The Greeks and Assyrians, while devastated by
genocidal violence within the late Ottoman Empire,
they also experienced additional major historical
ruptures that shaped their identities quite
differently. the way it sort of has developed I
would say for the the Greeks is that the Asia
Minor catastrophe of 1922, the collapse of the
Meghali, there was the, the vision of a Greater
Greece, wartime violence and military defeat
during the Greco Turkish War and the subsequent
population exchange these were followed by
criticism within Greece and I believe this is
still the case today. There's self blame and
criticism for the past and the need for diplomatic
relations with Turkey. World War II also the
occupation, famine and violence experienced during
the Nazi German occupation created further
traumas. The Greek Civil War as well, also created
additional traumas. So that is a period of from
between 1940 to 1949. You see these two events had
a severe impact on Greek society. Greece was not
only traumatized but deeply polarized. And
lobbying within Greece was initially led primarily
by Pontian Greek organizations. in the 1980s and
90s for a period it was widely viewed as a Pontian
issue rather than a broadly collective Greek one.
This was due to the revival of the Pontian Greek
identity including other experiences such as the
Pontian communities that were great communities
that were uprooted from the Soviet Union. These
facts played a major role in advancing
recognition. but over time refugee groups from
Asia Minor increasingly articulated a shared
experience of genocide. And that led to their
narratives being being shared as well. So it's
very much tied to different identities as well
within, within the Greek context, in the Diaspora,
particularly in Australia, ah we have seen how
this has evolved into a more collective
articulation referred to as the Greek Genocide,
acknowledging all Greeks affected regardless of
region across 1914 and 1923. And this extends
beyond the Greco Turkish War which which started
in 1919. due to the politicized nature of the
topic in Greece my observation has been that the
Diaspora carries the burden and this has led to
the advocacy and research on the topic. In the
Assyrian case, after surviving the late Ottoman
genocidal campaign, communities face continued
persecution such as the Simele massacre in Iraq in
1933 and more recent instances of violence by IS
from 2014 to 2017. So there are the genocides that
Assyrians experience. And statelessness also left
Assyrians vulnerable affecting political
representation and international visibility with
identities often fragmented between sectarian
affiliations. For Armenians the memory of the
genocide became foundational to their modern
identity. it is the main trauma that Armenians
carry. the annihilation of a large part of the
portion of their population, the destruction of
ancestral homelands and the dispersal of survivors
meant that memory of genocide became a central
part of their communal life internationally. In
the Armenian case, advocacy confronted organised
state denial. In response, Armenian were able to
build transnational networks grounded in
international law, commemorations, a unified
approach to the issue and research which was very
important. Cooperation between the three
communities, in fact took place through continual
dialogue and negotiation. Given that Greeks and
Assyrians were previously less active on the
matter for the reasons I stated before and though
each group experienced trauma, whether it was
shared through memories within their families or
within their communities, these differences shaped
how the three communities remembered the past and
advocated for recognition.
SBS Armenian: How do you see the politics of memory evolving in
Australia especially in relation to integrating
these histories into the national narrative?
Dr. Themistocles Kritikakos: I think Australia is moving into a more mature
phase of memory politics. What we are seeing is
that more politicians are publicly acknowledging
these histories. The more parliamentary
discussions, at least at a state level, and
increasingly scholarly engagement is also taking
place within Australian universities. There is
more research that has been circulated. The
conversation is becoming more informed I believe.
And what began as a separate campaign for
recognition, we see that the three communities
have become, stronger in their coordinated efforts
to also bring the Australian connection to public
attention and also to the attention of
politicians. So for many members of these
communities, it is viewed as an Australian issue
and it is in fact an Australian story. It's part
of Australia's story. The humanitarian response to
genocide survivors and refugees is part of the
Australian story. And this is something that
researchers have often, stated as well as
activists. And what we are also seeing is an
important internal shift, within the, the
communities. So a unified approach within the
Assyrian and Greek communities as well. So this
unity and organizational approach of Armenian
communities has been a source, major source of
influence in this development. And Australia's
multicultural, setting provides space for the,
this history and these narratives, these memories
to evolve further. And of course, distance from
the immediate geopolitics of the regions. affected
sometimes allow diaspora communities to articulate
their shared histories more openly. In that sense,
the developments in terms of intercommunal
cooperation in Australia can contribute to
conversation in many other contexts. In Greece,
Europe and the United States, where recognition,
and ways of remembering continue to evolve. if
this cooperation continues, Australia may
increasingly be seen as a model for how difficult
history or difficult historical questions can be
addressed as well. And this is through dialogue,
scholarship and coordinated advocacy.
SBS Armenian: Were there any surprising findings during your
research, particularly regarding intercommunal
cooperation or memory transmission?
Dr. Themistocles Kritikakos: Well, what surprised me most was how dialogue
itself between the three communities can generate
new ways of remembering and advocating for
recognition. And many would assume each group
would remember the past within their own
communities separately and advocate on their own
for recognition. through dialogue and discussion,
the communities, started to reinterpret the
histories in relation to one another, which meant
new representations emerged and the framework
which the past was understood expanded. So even if
there were challenges in negotiating through
different approaches to the matter, there's been a
shift over time and that's led to a unified
approach between the three communities. So
cooperation allows, memory to move from isolation
toward a relational understanding. And it produces
a more laid and interconnected historical
consciousness. at the same time, I was really
struck by how trauma was carried quietly. many
families battled privately with memories of
violence in the late Ottoman, period. For some,
those memories remained within the household and
never entered the public sphere. They were not
always expressed outside the home, not in the
community, not through political lobbying. They
existed in fragments, in silences, in emotional
patterns that were never fully explained. So a
significant portion of lived trauma never became
part of official narratives or commemorations.
everyone deals with trauma differently regardless
of how visible it may be, that reality
demonstrates why oral history and memory studies
are so important. Archival documents, of course,
can record policy, but what they can not capture,
ah, I think, is the emotional inheritance, the
silences, and the intergenerational burden carried
decades later by the descendants of survivors. So
history is not only about the past, it is much
about the present. And the legacies of violence
and displacement, shape political attitudes,
community structures, and identity formation. They
influence how communities engage with the state
that they live in or with other states, and how
they understand justice and how they relate to one
another. memory changes when individuals decide to
share their private memories, their family
stories, with the wider community.
SBS Armenian: What do you hope readers and policymakers take
away from your book in terms of recognizing and
commemorating these histories?
Dr. Themistocles Kritikakos: Well, the consequences of mass violence and
displacement do not end when the violence ends.
They are enduring effects of violence and
displacement across generations and across nations
as well. So when people migrate, whether the
survivors that migrate or the descendants to other
countries, the rupture remains part of their
identity. The traumatic memories still linger
within their families. and natural memory is never
neutral. Some histories are included. Others are
marginalized or omitted completely. So for many
descendants, there is an ongoing burden, not only
of remembering, but of continually defending the
historical reality of what happened to their
ancestors. And for them, that is a major burden to
carry. When violence is followed by prolonged
denial or absence from public memory, communities
can experience that as a continuation of erasure.
some scholars describe denial as the final stage
of the genocidal process because it seeks to
eliminate the historical presence or reality.
Recognition interrupts that process, and it
affirms that what occurred cannot simply disappear
from public consciousness. and genocide is still a
real global issue, and it can only be meaningfully
addressed through recognition. Without it,
communities remain vulnerable to further
persecution. in the Assyrian case, one must also
recognize that violence within the late Ottoman
Empire was not the final episode of vulnerability.
As a stateless people, Assyrians face further
atrocities through the Simele massacre of 1933 in
Iraq and Syria, in 2014 and, onward. Stateliness
amplifies insecurity because there's no state
advocating at the international level. And in the
Assyrian case, the ethnic cleansing of indigenous
Armenians from Artsak has led many scholars to
reflect on how historical patterns of hostility to
dehumanization genocidal processes can resurface
in new forms. And while historical context differ,
these contemporary events reinforce why memory and
recognition remain significant for the descendants
SBS Armenian: When your book was published and how listeners can
Dr. Themistocles Kritikakos: So my book was published at the end of January
this year, so it was only recently published and
it can be purchased through, Palgrave McMillan's,
website online, as a hardback or ebook. Otherwise
it can also be purchased through Amazon, as a
SBS Armenian: Are you launching your book in Australia?
Dr. Themistocles Kritikakos: Yes, I will be launching my book, in Melbourne on
Tuesday night on the 10th of March at 7pm the
launch will be held at the Greek center, on 168
Lonsdale street at the mezzanine level and will
include a discussion with Professor Joy Damousi
SBS Armenian: Dr. Kritikakos, thank you for sharing your
thoughts. what you've said shows how important it
is to remember, speak up and work together to
recognize the history and achievements of Greek,
Assyrian and Armenian communities in Australia.
Dr. Themistocles Kritikakos: Thank you, Mr. Vahe Kateb, for having me on your
SBS Armenian: My guest was Dr. Themistocles Kritikakos, author
of Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocide
recognition in 21st century Australia. Memory,
Identity and Cooperation.
