structural:summarization
Effects

Genocide denial has an impact on both victim and perpetrator groups. Denial of a genocide affects relations between the victim and perpetrator groups or their respective countries, prevents personal victims of the genocide from seeking closure, and adversely affects political decisions on both sides. It can cause fear in the victims to express their cultural identity, retaliation from both parties, and hamper the democratic development of societies.

Effects on personal victims of the genocide

While confrontation of the committed atrocities can be a tough process in which the victim feels humiliated again by reliving the traumatic past, it still has a benign therapeutic effect, helping both victim and perpetrator groups to come to terms with the past. From a therapeutic point of view, letting the victim confront the past atrocity and its related painful memories is one way to reach a closure and to understand that the harm has occurred in the past. This also helps the memories to enter the shared narrative of the society, thereby becoming a common ground on which the society can make future decisions on, in political and cultural matters.

Denying recognition, in contrast, has a negative effect, further victimising the victim which will feel not only wronged by the perpetrator but also by being denied recognition of the occurred wrongdoing. Denial also has a pivotal role in shaping the norms of a society since the omission of any committed errors, and thereby the lack of condemnation and punishment of the committed wrongs, risks normalising similar actions, increasing the society's tolerance for future occurrences of similar errors.

According to sociologist Daniel Feierstein, the genocide perpetrator implements a process of transforming the identity of any survivors and erasing the memory of the existence of the victim group.

Societal effects of genocide denial

Bhargava notes that "ost calls to forget disguise the attempt to prevent victims from publicly remembering in the fear that 'there is a dragon living on the patio and we better not provoke it.'" In other words, while societally "forgetting" an atrocity can on the surface be beneficial to the harmony of society, it further victimizes the target group for fear of future, similar action, and is directly detrimental to the sociocultural development of the victim group.

On the other hand, there are cases where "forgetting" atrocities is the most politically expedient or stable option. This is found in some states which have recently come out of minority rule, where the perpetrator group still controls most strategic resources and institutions, such as South Africa. This was, among others, one of the main reasons for granting amnesty in exchange for confessing to committed errors during the transitional period in South Africa. However, the society at large and the victims in particular will perceive this kind of trade-offs as "morally suspect," and may question its sustainability. Thus, a common refrain in regard to the Final Report (1998) by South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission was "We've heard the truth. There is even talk about reconciliation. But where's the justice?"

Effects on democratic development

The denial has thereby a direct negative impact on the development of a society, often by undermining its laws and the issue of justice, but also the level of democracy itself. If democracy is meant to be built on the rule of law and justice, upheld and safeguarded by state institutions, then surely the omission of legal consequences and justice would potentially undermine the democracy. What is more dangerous from a historical point of view is that such a default would imply the subsequent loss of the meaning of these events to future generations, a loss which is resembled to "losing a moral compass." The society becomes susceptible to similar wrongdoings in the absence of proper handling of preceding occasions. Nonetheless, denial, especially immediately after the committed wrongdoings, is rather the rule than the exception and naturally almost exclusively done by the perpetrator to escape responsibility.

Implicit denial of genocide

While some societies or governments openly deny genocide, in some other cases, e.g. in the case of the " Comfort women " and the role of the Japanese State, the denial is more implicit. This was evident in how an overwhelmingly majority of the surviving victims refused to accept a monetary compensation since the Japanese government still refused to admit its own responsibility (the monetary compensation was paid through a private fund rather than by the state, a decision perceived by the victims about state's refusal to assume any direct responsibility). This can have the same effects on societies as outright denial. For example, atrocity denial and self-victimisation in Japanese historical textbooks has caused much diplomatic tension between Japan and neighbouring victim states, such as Korea and China, and bolstered domestic conservative or nationalist forces.

Turkey and Armenian genocide denial

The Turkish state's Armenian genocide denial has had far-reaching effects on the Turkish society throughout its history in regard to both ethnic minorities, especially the Kurds, but political opposition in general. The denial also affects Turks, in that there is a lack of recognition of Turks and Ottoman officials who attempted to stop the genocide. This lack of recognition of the various actors at play in Turkey could result in a rather homogeneous perception of the nation in question, thus making Armenians (but also third parties) project the perpetrating role onto the entire Turkish society and nation, causing further racial strife and aggravating the prospects of future reconciliation. For example, Armenian terrorist groups (e.g. ASALA and JCAG) committed terrorist acts during 1970's and 1980's as a direct result of the Turkish state denial of the genocide.