ARMENIAN GENOCIDE The role of Turkish historians in the study of the Armenian Genocide

May 23, 2015 By administrator

By Professor Erik Zürcher January

On the occasion of the centenary of the Armenian Genocide, a person like me who claims to be a historian of Turkey twentieth century must speak.

First, there is to this moral and ethical reasons. Historians of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey in the twentieth century have a special responsibility, because we have taken part in the plot that kept silent so long. We can not allow a situation continues I knew, when young student and university teacher in the years seventy and eighties, when – despite the fact that in another area as ours, genocide had the object of historical research for fifty years – we were just aware of what had happened in 1915. Our textbooks only mentioned in a footnote that the footer if they mentioned, and never defined as genocide. Our masters never spoke.

I have felt the effects of this silence, clearly in my own research. In 1984 I published the book that would form the foundation of my academic career. Its title was The Unionist Factor. The Role of the Committee of Union and Progress in the Turkish National Movement (1908-1925 [The Unionist Factor. The Role of the Union and Progress Committee in the Turkish National Movement 1908-1925]. The dates in the title are important, because the essential thesis of this essay was the national resistance movement in the Ottoman Empire after the First World War, which emerged the Republic of Turkey, which was in power during the First World War. This was also what launched Committee Mustafa Kemal, who later became Ataturk as leader.

The book was well received, but a friend of mine translated my commentary in an Armenian newspaper. This comment was also positive about my work, but it included a criticism. According to the author, my story seemed to have taken place in an empty landscape, as if the elimination of the Armenians had not occurred. My reaction time was: ‘Yes, this may be true, but it was not the subject of my book’ Only twenty years later, when I began to get more involved in the Armenian question in the context of avant-garde of the Workshop on Armenian Turkish Scholarship (WATS) [Meetings of Armenian and Turkish Studies], I realized I was wrong. The continuity of political power between the unionist and the Republic Kemalist period, the subject of my book, can not be studied without taking into account that this power had been formed in the crucible of 1915-1916, and the National Resistance Movement which brought the republic was somehow a continuation of the First World War – politically, ideologically and that of people. It is true, of course, that the main political and military leaders of the time of the War of 14-18 had fled the country in 1918 and that most of them were killed by Armenian agents in the following years, but anyway: several people involved in the genocide held important positions in the republic, and the shared experience of 1915-1916 had certainly created group solidarities.

Get involved in the genocide issue is not only a moral issue, however. Turkish historians have also specific things to bring. Now that the outlines and many details of the genocide were so remarkably established by historical research on documents or on the accounts of eyewitnesses, there I think, two areas in which the Turkish historians, relying on the Turkish sources, can contribute to a better understanding. The first area is that the causes and reasons. Already, we have identified that both long-term developments (the popularity of social Darwinism, militarism, the issue of reforms and land claims, the mass migration of Muslim refugees) and those short-term (the loss by the Ottomans in the Balkan War, the outbreak of the First World War, Sarikamish of defeat, the English landing at Gallipoli and rebellion in Van) have played a role.

Research into the causes and patterns is important because it helps us understand better what happened. It has no effect on the issue of genocide, and the fear of some Armenian experts, according to analyze the causes and reasons is necessarily excuses, has no place. The key for the definition of genocide is the intent, the intent to destroy an ethnic or religious group in whole or in part. The motive is behind this intention does not change, and that is where the negationist argument that what happened in 1915 can not be genocide because the Armenians were a threat not meaning, even if this possibility was founded in fact.

The other question is how modern Turkey, as it emerged after the First World War, was influenced by the Armenian Genocide. I looked for continuity ideologically and people between the Committee of Union and Progress and the Kemalist republic, which is substantial. We can certainly do more in this area, but the issues now (and that draw attention increasingly, including in Turkey), concern the transfer (or theft) of Armenian property and conversion of Armenians Ottoman. The first, with more structured input by right of Greek assets, laid the foundation of a Turkish bourgeoisie in the republic and several major companies have their sources in Turkey in this process. Not being a lawyer, I have no idea about the validity of claims to justice after a century has passed, but for a better understanding of Turkey, we need to know more about the transfer of property, accessing for example the still closed cadastral archives.

The conversion to Islam of a large number of Armenians during the First World War is the other important issue that must be addressed. As in any process of nation building, homogenization of the population was a key episode in the history of modern Turkey. This has blurred the fact that many Turks today have few Armenian roots. Nobody knows exactly how many Armenian Armenian women and children were taken into Muslim families in 1915-1916, but even if we take the relatively low figure of 100,000 and extrapolate on the demographic developments in Turkey, it would mean that about 2.5 million Turks have at least one Armenian grandparent. Rediscover those roots is now widespread among Turkish progressive in recent years.

In other words, not only the Republic of Turkey carries with it the legacy of having been founded and directed, in large part, by people who took part in the genocide, but it also received a hardware and legacy staff Armenians themselves.

I am happy to say that in the world of Turkish studies in general, but also among historians in Turkey, the number of those who are truly interested in finding the truth and talk openly is constantly increasing. The innovative conference Bilgi University in 2005 and the demonstration that followed the assassination of Hrant Dink in 2007 were important steps. At many conferences that were held for the centenary of the genocide, Turkish specialists have played an important role.

This new opening is a sign of hope that shows that reconciliation between Turks and Armenians is possible. This reconciliation can only be built on the denial, it’s obvious, but it can not be built on compromise. The compromise is a politician tool and is used to resolve the usual questions, but it has nothing to do in a search for historical truth. People can not be lightly murdered. Nor reconciliation can not be built on the concept heavily promoted by the current Turkish government, all those who suffered in the terrible years of World War I in Turkey should be commemorated together. Many more Germans than Jews died during the Second World War (despite the fact that some Germans were Jews and some were German Jews), but Chancellor Merkel can only dream that those could be also commemorated as victims of their times and circumstances. “Accept respectfully dissents” solution advocated by some semi-official spokesmen in Turkey, is not a solution either. This means accepting that the recognition and non-recognition of the genocide are morally and intellectually equivalent positions. They are not.

Accept the historical truth will take time, even if the circle of Turkish historians who promote widens it. New generations of Turks (which means, a large majority of them, given the youth of the country), having been exposed to nationalist rhetoric status at school, during their military service and in the media are really convinced that the history of genocide is a lie. Unlike the first generation of a republic, they do not knowingly deny the truth they know too. Instead, younger generations of Turks often place “Armenian lies” in the context of conspiracy theories that prevail in Turkey – they see them as a weapon used by the West to disparage and harm the country.

This makes the rehabilitation of the Turkish public and the debate has a huge task. But the door was opened and can not be closed. Among Turkish intellectuals and politicians, too, a completely new ability is seen discussing the events of 1915 with an open mind, not only in Istanbul, but also and even more, in the southeast.

Carry in Turkey and outside Turkey that genocide is a personal crime: in other words, only persons can be charged and sentenced for genocide, not nations or states, should also make things clearer . The current Turkish state and Turkish society can be accused rightly deny the genocide, but not the actual crime. Its authors are long dead.

Recognition is important not only for Armenians but also for Turkey itself. As Taner Akcam said long ago, genocide must be faced head if Turkey wants to develop a more peaceful, more democratic and humane. The discussion and recognition can act as catalysts to remove the veil of tinted nationalism increasingly religious covering this company. Let’s hope that the centenary opens a new page in progress towards confrontation with the historical truth in the interest of the Turks, as in that of the Armenians.

Professor Erik Zurcher January, Turkish Studies, University of Leiden

Zürcher, E. (May, 2015), “The Role of Historians of Turkey in the Armenian Genocide Study of” Vol. IV, Issue 5, pp.12-17, Centre for Policy and Research on Turkey (ResearchTurkey), London, Turkey Research.

Editor’s Note:

The Centre for Policy and Research encourages Turkey pluralism and confrontation of viewpoints. Those who may want to contribute as a response to this article can send their text to editor@researchturkey.org. All research publications Turkey are peer reviewed. No notice of this Article shall be considered the official opinion of the institution.

Translation Gilbert Béguian

http://researchturkey.org/the-role-of-historians-of-turkey-in-the-study-of-armenian-genocide/

Saturday, May 23, 2015,
Stéphane © armenews.co

‘Operation Nemesis: The Assassination Plot That Avenged the Armenian Genocide’ – The Washington Times

May 13, 2015 By administrator

Vengeance is born when justice dies. “Operation Nemesis” is the gripping tale of how a small, ruthlessly determined group of Armenians hunted down the architects of the Ottoman Empire’s World War I program of organized mass murder, specifically intended to eliminate a people, the Armenians, who had lived in Anatolia and other parts of the Ottoman Empire for thousands of years.

Many governments, spiritual leaders (including the current pope), and most independent historians and legal analysts agree that what began in Istanbul a century ago on April 24, 1915, was the first modern genocide. By the time it was over, best estimates are that 1 million Ottoman Armenians had been killed, starved or driven to their deaths — as many women and children as able-bodied men. Trials in Istanbul immediately after World War I convicted and condemned to death in absentia key members of the responsible Young Turk leadership, but political upheaval erupted before most sentences could be carried out. While Kemal Ataturk, founder of the modern Turkish republic, personally denounced the mass murder of Armenians as “a shameful act,” his and other successor governments never officially acknowledged what happened. In the perilous early days of the Turkish republic — a poor, war-ravaged country — denial was understandable if not justifiable. The first and only priority was to establish a cohesive Turkish identity to replace the conflicted racial and religious melange that was the Ottoman Empire.

This meant creating a cadre of Muslim Turkish doctors, engineers, artists, intellectuals, architects, bankers and entrepreneurs to replace the Christian Armenians, Greeks and other minorities who had dominated those fields throughout the Ottoman centuries. It also meant avoiding restoration of valuable farmland, commercial property and seized or looted personal wealth to the families of murdered or exiled Armenians at a time when the Turkish economy was struggling to survive. This, in turn, led to rewriting history and demolishing ancient churches and other traces of Armenian civilization that had stood for centuries before the first Turks set foot in Anatolia.

Today, Turkey is a prosperous regional superpower, but its government is still in deep denial. It is as if every postwar German government, from Konrad Adenauer to Angela Merkel, had denied the existence of Nazi atrocities and passed laws banning the discussion of Hitler’s crimes against humanity. Of course, no analogies are perfect. Even as the Young Turk leadership organized and carried out its program of mass extermination, a few Christian Armenians were exempted. A great uncle of mine, a palace architect to the sultan, was already serving as an Ottoman engineer officer when the mass murders — unbeknownst to him — began. His wife, as a senior officer’s spouse, was spared. Uncle Mihran ended up a British POW on the Arab front and would build a new life — and a distinguished architectural career — in America. To his dying day, he had nothing but respect for Kemal Ataturk as a brilliant soldier and nation-builder. Obviously, you wouldn’t have found any Jewish officers in senior German ranks under the Third Reich, and wives of purged Jewish officers would probably have perished in concentration camps.

But that hardly alters the big picture. The mass murders of defenseless Armenian civilians, deportations, abductions of children, unrecompensed confiscation of possessions, and deliberate failure to provide food or medical treatment to Armenian death marchers clearly qualify as genocide. Small wonder then, that in the absence of justice in the early 1920s, a handful of Armenian conspirators took the law into their own hands and hunted down several of the convicted mass murderers living comfortably in cities like Berlin. Sadly, theirs is a story with more villains and victims than heroes. In “Operation Nemesis,” Eric Bogosian, a successful playwright and novelist, portrays the revenge killers warts and all; they included at least one neurotic and one braggart who clearly enjoyed his work a little too much. Worse was to follow. As late as the 1980s, a handful of radical Armenian nationalists with Middle East terrorist links carried out murders of innocent Turkish diplomats, possibly with encouragement from behind the Iron Curtain.

Meanwhile, the bloody shirt of Talaat Pasha, one of the architects of the Armenian genocide — a man who gloated about it and even pressured U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau to turn over any American life insurance benefits paid on the deaths of his victims — was placed on display at the Turkish Army Museum inIstanbul as evidence of Armenian atrocities against Turks; the equivalent would be a contemporary German museum displaying clothing worn by Adolf Eichmann at his execution as evidence of Jewish atrocities against Germans.
Justice has yet to replace revenge, but growing numbers of Turks are seeking — and speaking — the truth, even at the risk of jail. When Hrant Dink, a courageous Turkish-Armenian journalist I was privileged to know, was gunned down by an extreme Turkish nationalist in front of his Istanbul office in 2007, 200,000 mourners, overwhelmingly Muslim Turks, filled the streets carrying signs declaring “We Are All Hrant Dink” and “We Are All Armenians.” What better reminder that the sense of justice is often stronger in ordinary citizens than in politicians?

Armenian Army subdivision in Medvedev’s photoset

May 9, 2015 By administrator

The Armenian military’s subdivision, which took part in the Victory and Peace Day Parade in Moscow, is featured in a unique photo set published by Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on Facebook.
“Happy Victory day,” wrote the Russian official in his status to which he attached pictures from the event.
The Armenian subdivision is seen as crossing Moscow’s central square led by Colonel Ashot Hakobyan.
see more picture on tert.am

Luxembourg adopts resolution condemning the Armenian Genocide

May 6, 2015 By administrator

On May 6, the Parliament of Luxembourg unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the Armenian Genocide.

This is what Member of the Parliament of Luxembourg Laurent Mosar said in an interview with “Armenpress” and promised to provide details later.

Hurriyet analyst proves Armenian Genocide undeniable with 7 points

May 5, 2015 By administrator

May 4, 2015

Ahmet Hakan

Hurriyet columnist Ahmet Hakan presents his article titled “Seven theses on Armenian Question” dwelling upon the main theory of Turkish denialism, refuting them thoroughly and proving the Armenian Genocide undeniable, Ermenihaber.am reports.

The points listed by the journalist are as follows:

1. The word genocide is said to be used by imperialists only. The U.S., being the greatest imperialist, still doesn’t use the word.

2. We keep mentioning the Armenian’s armed attacks. Was it a reason enough to deport and massacre all the Armenians? Why was the whole nation made responsible for the actions of a group of people?

3. Why do we pronounce genocidal leaders of the Young Turks movement our ancestors, instead of Rashid Bay, Mehmet Bay and Faik Ali Bey who protected Armenians?

4. Whoever is calling the Genocide a lie – could they tell what happened to the Armenians – the most ancient nation inhabiting those lands? Where did they all go? What happened to their property? Who took it from them?

5. We keep telling the countries with a history of massacres and genocides they cannot preach anything to us. But would blaming the formers cleanse our own history?

6. We’re offended at the word ‘Armenian,’ we even apologize before pronouncing it. On April 24, we lay a black wreath outside the Agos office to commemorate the assassinated journalist Hrant Dink. How on earth are we going to persuade the world we’re so humane we wouldn’t hurt a fly?

7. Would the refusal to recognize the Genocide save us from facing our past? Will it wash away our sins and the blood we shed?

Source: http://armeniangenocide100.org