Smith: The Politics of Genocide and the Turkey-Armenia Protocols

By Roger W. Smith

We must approach all cases of genocide as part of world history. If we believe in “Never again” and want to prevent future genocides, we must treat such epochal events as part of the universal experience and of concern to all.

James Traub writes the following in an Oct. 18 New York Times review of Daniel Goldhagen’s new book, Worse than War: Genocide, Eliminationism, and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity:

But to exclude mass murder from the realm of conscious action offers an exculpation of its own, both to the killers and to ourselves—for how could we, ordinary folk who cherish life, descend to such madness? In this magisterial and profoundly disturbing “natural history” of mass murder, Daniel  Jonah Goldhagen calls for an end to such willful blindness… Goldhagen insists that even the worst atrocities originate with, and are then propelled by, a series of quite conscious calculations by followers as much as by leaders. “We must stop detaching mass elimination and its mass-murder variant from our understanding of politics,” Goldhagen writes… Atrocities resemble one another; their differences are shaped by the perpetrators’ ideology, their specific fantasy of a purified world, their view of the victims they seek to eradicate…

But if the ultimate goal is to ensure that we never again stand by in the face of a Rwanda-style genocide, public opinion will not be rallied through an earnest accounting of national interest, but through an appeal to conscience… He heaps scorn on the United Nations, whose founding principles of respect for sovereignty and of noninterference in internal affairs have served, as he rightly observes, as a shield for leaders in Sudan and elsewhere who are bent on slaughtering their own people.

This is interesting in light of the press coverage both before and after the signing of the Turkish-Armenian protocols. A recurrent theme emerges, particularly in countries that have yet to recognize officially the mass murder of the Armenians in 1915 as genocide: the dispute between Turkey and Armenia over the genocide is exclusively their problem. For example, the BBC, in reporting on the protocols on Oct. 10, 2009, stated, in effect, the Armenians say it was genocide, Turkey says it wasn’t, so the reader does not know what to believe:

Armenians have campaigned for the killings to be recognized internationally as genocide—and more than 20 countries have done so. Turkey admits that many Armenians were killed but says the deaths were part of the widespread fighting that took place in World War I.

As far back as 2005, the distinguished human rights activist and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel described the difficulty of Armenian-Turkish relations because “ancestral hate is not easily erased.” This gives the impression that the problem between the two countries is intractable ancient history, rather than a political problem arising out of a specific historical event: the Armenian Genocide of 1915 committed by Ottoman Turkey.

On April 9, 2009, when President Barack Obama was in Turkey, he distanced himself from getting directly involved in the Armenian-Turkish issue, stating:

I want to be as encouraging as possible around those negotiations, which are moving forward and could bear fruit very quickly, very soon. And as a consequence, what I want to do is not focus on my views, but focus on the views of the Turkish and the Armenian people, if they can move forward and deal with a difficult and tragic history, then I think the entire world should encourage them. So what I told the president was I want to be as constructive as possible in moving these issues forward quickly. And my sense is that they are moving quickly. I don’t want to, as the president of the United States, to preempt any possible arrangements or announcements that might be made in the near future. I just want to say that we are going to be a partner in working through these issues in such a way that the most important parties, the Turks and the Armenians, are finally coming to terms in the most constructive way.

It seems that there is a certain point of view prevailing that only Turkey and Armenia have a vested interest in the Armenian Genocide, and that it is no one else’s problem.

One wonders, would the Rwandan Genocide be characterized as a problem of concern only to Hutus and Tutsis? The complexities of the situation in Rwanda, for example, involved Belgium, France, Burundi, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the U.S., and the UN. The United States’ contortions to avoid using the word “genocide” in 1994, and the UN’s refusal to accept General Dallaire’s warning of imminent genocide there in order to avoid getting involved, are well documented. Such obvious political manipulation caused outrage in most people, and the suffering caused by the slaughter of some 800,000 victims made us all empathize with the plight of our fellow human beings. The horror of that genocide, where the men, women, children, and elderly of one group were targeted with the intent to annihilate them, was an outright violation of international law, and was watched on our television screens, bringing the injustice home to everyone. It may have been easier for some to be bystanders in the face of that genocide, but no one today would say this tragedy is of concern only to Hutus and Tutsis.

The same is true for the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. In fact, the Armenian Genocide is recognized by scholars as the archetype of modern genocide, and its lessons have universal application. One of the lessons most particularly associated with the Armenian Genocide is how denial of the crime can embolden future perpetrators, as we learned from Adolf Hitler and Albert Speer. In order to be able to prevent genocide in the future, we must raise awareness of it as a scourge on humanity and educate our societies about it. We must resist all attempts to disparage or dismiss any case of genocide. Once you compromise the universality of any genocide, the entire worldwide effort for genocide prevention is undermined.

The prevention of genocide and upholding freedom of expression and thought are mandated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It is against this background that the Zoryan Institute is committed to raising awareness of genocide and the necessity of its prevention and to promoting universal human rights. These are the principles reflected in our commentary on the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC) in 2001, in our open letter to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan on his call for a joint historians’ commission in 2005, in our commentary against the proposed law to criminalize denial of the Armenian Genocide in France in 2006, in our co-organizing a Symposium on the Albright-Cohen Genocide Prevention Task Force Report in March 2009 (which, among other issues, was based on faulty assumptions and the ignoring of past history), and in our open letter to Armenian President Sarkisian regarding the protocols last month.

Our position on the protocols is to make sure that the incontestability of the Armenian Genocide is neither ignored nor called into question. It is from this perspective that we wrote to President Sarkisian:

…numerous distinguished historians, political scientists, sociologists, legal scholars, and authoritative institutions around the world have investigated the genocide many times over, issued academic publications, and even made public declarations. These scholars have devoted their professional lives to conducting scientific research with the highest levels of academic integrity. As a result of their work, scholars have identified the Armenian Genocide as the archetypal case of modern genocide, whose pattern has many similarities with subsequent cases.

What the Armenian and Turkish governments do or agree upon, as two sovereign nations, is their prerogative. However, our objective is to raise the awareness of all those involved in these protocols (the two signing countries, the three OSCE monitoring countries—the U.S., Russia, and France—and the EU representative) that the Armenian Genocide is a historical fact, part of the universal human experience, and can not be compromised.

Furthermore, any attempt to deny it was genocide, to trivialize this enormous crime, or to relativize it as an issue only between Armenians and Turks will be firmly opposed by scholars, legal specialists, and human rights activists in this field. The recent open letter from Prof. William A. Schabas below is vivid testimony of this resolve.

Dear Prime Minister Erdogan and President Sarkisian,

The proposed protocols between Armenia and Turkey call for an “impartial historical commission” to investigate what the world knows as the Armenian Genocide of 1915.

As the leading scholarly organization engaged in the study of genocide, we welcome continued investigation that will enhance our understanding of the 1915 massacres. However, we are extremely wary of any call for allegedly impartial research into what are clearly established historical facts.

Acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide must be the starting point of any “impartial historical commission,” not one of its possible conclusions. The world would not accept an inquiry into the truth of the Nazi Holocaust, or the extermination of the Tutsi in Rwanda, and nor can it do so with the genocide of the Armenians.

William Schabas, President, International Association of Genocide Scholars

In 1915, against the background of great power politics intervening in the Ottoman Empire and of World War I, some 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered. While on May 24, 1915, the Allied Powers (France, Great Britain, and Russia) warned the Ottoman leaders that they would be called to account for their “crimes against humanity,” U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau described on July 16, 1915 what was happening as “race extermination.” Raphael Lemkin, the legal scholar who coined the term “genocide” in 1944, describing in his personal memoir how he became involved in its study, wrote:

I identified myself more and more with the sufferings of the victims, whose numbers grew, and I continued my study of history. I understood that the function of memory is not only to register past events, but to stimulate human conscience. Soon contemporary examples of genocide followed, such as the slaughter of the Armenians.

We note that monitors at the protocols signing ceremony—Russia, France, the European Union, and Switzerland (the mediator in the negotiations)—all have already acknowledged the Armenian Genocide through their respective parliaments. The U.S., whose official diplomatic archive is one of the richest historical sources on the Armenian Genocide, will itself eventually have to stop compromising the truth for political expediency. President Ronald Reagan called it genocide in 1981. President George W. Bush described it as “the annihilation of as many as 1.5 million Armenians through forced exile and murder at the end of the Ottoman Empire” in 2004. President Obama, in January 2008, stated:

I also share with Armenian Americans—so many of whom are descended from genocide survivors—a principled commitment to commemorating and ending genocide. That starts with acknowledging the tragic instances of genocide in world history. As a U.S. senator, I have stood with the Armenian American community in calling for Turkey’s acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide. Two years ago, I criticized the secretary of state for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term “genocide” to describe Turkey’s slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. I shared with Secretary Rice my firmly held conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy. As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as president I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Notwithstanding the above, we are of the opinion that while Turks today are not guilty of committing the genocide, they are responsible for accepting and allowing Turkey’s official state denial. Denial is considered the final stage of genocide, which continues to victimize the survivors and their descendants, aggravating an open wound that can not heal. The tremendous pain that an Armenian feels is no different from that a Jew, Pole, or Roma feels because of people, such as President Ahmedinejad of Iran, who deny the Holocaust of World War II, or a Tutsi feels when the Rwandan Genocide is denied.

In conclusion, the Armenian Genocide is part of world history. If we want to prevent future genocides, we must treat all cases of genocide as part of the universal experience, and of concern to all.

Prof. Roger Smith is the chairman of the Academic Board of Directors of the Zoryan Institute.

Guest Contributor

Guest Contributor

Guest contributions to the Armenian Weekly are informative articles or press releases written and submitted by members of the community.

30 Comments

  1. As a student of philosophy, including philosophy of science, and an amateur historian of the late ottoman cycle of violence, I find some aspects of prof. Smith’s article paradoxical. Let me begin with the tenets of prof. Smith’s article that I agree with. I agree that the question of the Armenan genocide is everybody’s concern, not only that of Armenians and Turks. I agree that it is wrong to “exclude mass murder from the realm of conscious action”, but am surprised why such a statement should be thought relevant to our judgement of the protocols.
    The Goldhagen citation can not be seen as a relevant argument. Why is it inserted? I agree that there is a clear danger that the protocols and any subsequent commission may in fact be a vehicle for traditional Turkish denialism. But I fear that the reaction of many genocide scholars, simply rejecting the idea of a new critical assessment of the knowledge on the massacres and other mass death of Armenians in the Turkey run by the ittihadists, may strengthen a dubious Turkish diplomatic victory, rather than undermine it. This will happen by refusing to meet the challenge of presenting one’s case once again and maybe corroborated by new evidence. By the way: to engage again in arguing one’s case cannot in itself imply that one is uncertain about its truth, as some have claimed regarding their attitude to the idea of the commsiion of historians.  For undoubtedly science rests on the double foundation of established fact on the one hand and of criticism on the other. And once established facts are challenged by relevant stakeholders (the majority of Turks and a few scholars, in our case) it is a recipe for defeat to ignore the need for a new round of arguments – that is, not for those who stay in their ivory tower of pure research, content with their truths as some kind of personal belongings  – but a defeat for those who aspire to convince people. As historiographical research shows, concrete historical research thrives on challenges. What history as a discipline does all the time is to revise itself. The questions of the Armenian genocide is no exception. A new round of arguments may well confirm the position taken by the majority of historians.
    A better response will be to demand as much reports and publicity from the commission as possible. But from my own experience of debates I am afraid that the community of genocide scholars have an additional problem, namely that one has taken it for granted that the events of 1915-17 qualify as “genocide” to the extent that it has even been considered immoral to raise the question and inspect the arguments, both those actually raised and the potential ones, that may have induced scholars like Norman Stone, Guenter Lewy and Gilles Veinstein to doubt that the ittihadists actually launced a policy of extermination. To do this, that is to assume the role of the Advocate of the Devil is a role cherished by real research, but according to my experience mostly avoided by genocide scholars. But ethics does not thrive on dogmatism. On the contrary.     

  2. Ragnar,

    Facts are no match for myths.  This is hardly about facts and histiogrphy, it is about a myth that defines a national identity.  You can see why some consider it blasphemous to even question the given truths.

  3. Murad
    unfortunately this (the role of  myths) probably holds for both Turks and Armenians and probably also for most of us when the core of our deepest convictions are touched. In my country, which never had to go through what Greeks, Turks, Kurds and above all Armenians – who clearly suffered the greatest catastrophy of all in these years – have had to go through, we have the same phenomenon. Still, history shows that arguments in some cases have won in the case of challenging dogmatism. What however surprises me is the dismissive attitude regarding the protocols because 1) the Turkish government has played the “research card” and this should be followed up, much in the same way as the EU follows up Turkish promises of the amelioration of human rights (relevant questions are: what kind of commission will be set up, what will be its mandate, what common rules of  documentation and analysis will be followes, how does one envisage at all that a definite conclusion might follow from the proceedings, how will the proceedings be reported, 2) the weak position one puts oneself in, primarily for the cause oneself fights for, by refusing to take the challenge.

    Finally, if it is not possible to find a common conclusion, I believe it will be very clear who has the greatest burden of proof at the end of the day. I will not be surprised if this will be those who hold the receved opinion in Turkey.  

  4. “that may have induced scholars like Norman Stone, Guenter Lewy and Gilles Veinstein”
    Ragnar, those are hardly convincing names. I don’t think you need me to list reasons why the first two are highly questionable names to put forth. I don’t know much about Gilles but seeing as he quotes Justin McCarthy’s demographic work as a reliable source I have strong reservations about him as well, as should you.

  5. Ragnar,

    Every nation has a myth that defines and anchors it, Turks have them too, it is just that this topic is not part of it.

    That is why (most) Turks would have no problem or hang up about the facts of the matter. 

    More significantly, the facts of the matter are rather well known.  There are very few details left in the dark.  Numbers, figures, events, pictures, what happened, who took what decision, in response to what event etc..  all have been known to historians for a long time.  

    The argument is more about how to categorize this tragedy and the official acts and policies relevant to it.  In my opinion this is what it boils down to. 

    That is why I do not think such a commission will accomplish much, but I susupect a lot many more Armenians will learn a lot of new facts about their national myth, as there has been a fully developed genocide industry feeding the flames and the myth, which is by defintion one sided,  for a very long time.  That may not be a bad thing.

  6. Murad and Paul
    the main thrust of my argument lies in that science rests on the double foundation of established fact on the one hand and of criticism on the other.
    If we exagerrate the first (or the second) we compromise science.  Arguing against a commission by pointin to alleged established facts  is a weak position. Turkish nationalists are already exploiting this weakness. 

    Regarding the three authors I mention the point is not to judge them, but understand and argue against their arguments. To discount the not negligible number of scholars who disagree is another weak position. There is no use in trying to deny that there exists a disagreement among scholars on the point of wheter there was a definite program for extermination or not.  To day

    About the facts, I tend to disagree with you, Murad, since many sentral researchers, both Ronald Suny and Hans-Lukas Kieser, both clear supporters of the genocide thesis, emphasize that the exact chain of command, presumably from top echelons of the CUP to the atrocities on the ground, is not known. And even the facts that come closest like Talaats communication with Reshid on the massacres is Diyarbaki, are open to alternative interpretations. To say that at decision for extermination PROBABLY was taken in a fairly large secret CUP meeting (that we know took place)  in march 1915 as Dadrian and Akcam says, is conjectural.
    To my mind, the problem for those who want Turkey honestly to go into the black spots is that the ethical issue has been so much tied up with very specific assertions that are empirical, open to doubt and anyhow difficult to substantiate.

    I would say that the guilt of the central ittihadists – i a general sense – is obvious because they never really bothered to stop the massacres, and Armenian property was seized, Armenian monuments destroyed and Armenians in the end ethnically cleansed from their ancestral homeland. The moral responsibility of the ittihadists is clear even if the exact type of intent and command structure is not clear.       

    Apart from this I also belive, Murat, that Turkish national myths also are at stake when we discuss the Armenian genocide, as Taner Akcam says most succinctly in his first book in turkish “The Turkish national identity and the Armenian question”.  What Turks did to Armenians in a time of crisis Turks have to suppress from their consciousness, because the epoch in question is depicted as a time when turks mainly were victims, and the nationalist movement heroically saved the turkish state. Akcam says, f I remember correctly, that the Armenian fate is a blemish on the Turkish national myth, and that unless this is rectified, Turkey can never be fully democratic.   

  7. Ragnar,
    Thank you for pointing out a not-so-obvious ramification of refusing to research what happened in 1915.
    Seeing how most Armenians blindly believe that the actions constitute a genocide and deem it a treason to even research the events of 1915, I think when the Armenians start to hear their opponents’ (Turks) arguments, which for many will be for the first time in their lives, they will be surprised.

  8. May I also point out that, while this issue seems like very much on the agenda of Armenian people, for the Turkish people (we are talking about a 72 million people of very different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, some of whom are Anatolians but many of whom immigrated from the Balkans and Caucases and elsewhere during 19th, 20th centuries, coming from diverse Ottoman backgrounds together with their own tragedies and stories to tell), the issue is not a part of every day life.  Most Turkish people are already at peace with the events. Therefore, I think rumours like  “unless this is rectified, Turkey can never be fully democratic” are highly exaggerated.

  9. Ragnar,

    The very difficulty you are having with the scant direct (or even indirect) evidence of an intent or a plan or a policy to kill off a particular group in Anatolia during WWI, and this, in spite of a century of intense research and investigation, clearly demonstrates the point some Turks make.  Note that no one denies that ethnic cleansing did take place and that is exactly what the policy was and documented so clearly.

    Aside from some ultra-nationalist elements, many Turks do not think this is a potential belmish no matter what we all decide to call it. 

    I suspect why so many Turks, including myself,  get incensed with the allegations of genocide is the blatant disregard for evidence, cause-and effect and totally one-sided representations and then fabrications.  You must be aware of the fabrications and forgeries that have helped built up some of the genocide mythology.

    Turkish war of independence, how and and under what conditions it was fought and won, price paid, after more than a decade of devestating wars preceding it, is well documented reality on the other hand. 

    As Huseyin has pointed out, Turks are in general not hiding from any facts, but they have actually reconciled with them, and not losing as much sleep or face as Armenians would like them to.  I am generalizing a lot here of course, as there is a spectrum of opinions on this in Turkish society, much broader than the monolithic Armenian view.  Armenians started a war, fought it and lost it big.  This is not the first or last time it happened in history.  We call it history becasue there is no do over.

    At the end of the day, I really could care less who was responsible for what etc.  Ottomans have already paid a price.  Some of their leaders have been hunted like animals by the Armenain assasins.  Some have been prosecuted and even hanged. 

    On the other hand Armenian leaders who have committed unspeakable crimes (my grandfather witnessed it, his family suffered it, how much “scholarly” evidence you think I need to study!?) against women and children and wounded behind the lines, and those who have the most responsibility for the tragedy that has fallen on Armenians, have never ever faced the music.  They are heros today.  In fact, their policies and regime are still intact and at work right here. 

    They still think that they could as a nation and church hatch plans to forcibly remove chunks of a state, hit them in their hour struggle and pain, openly collaborate with an enemy, take up arms and kill, and not expect any backlash or reaction.  Have you ever heard of such one sided morality? 

    That is why I say that Armenians In general have a very long way to go before they can demand apologies and accuse others of not facing facts.

  10. My starting point was the problematic position Roger W. Smith finds himself, and genocide research more generally, in its dealings with the Armenian fate of 1915-16. He writes: quote: Our position on the protocols is to make sure that the incontestability of the Armenian Genocide is neither ignored nor called into question. Unquote. My point is that to protest a proposed commission of historians by repetitiously asserting that something is incontestable which in fact has been contested since the issue was brought on the international agenda testifies both to poor attitude to research and poor politics.
    I believe Roger W. Smith and genocide scholars should engage in concrete debate and start producing arguments to those who are sceptical, and try to make the best out of the coming commission. This is how he can make sure that his point of view is heeded, but not by insisting that his view is incontestable anyhow, or by producing citations by those who agree with him.
     When this is said, I agree with Smith that one cannot reformulate a question of a crime to a question of a conflict with “faults on both sides”. But my point is something else.
     Hüseyin, you write:
    Seeing how most Armenians blindly believe that the actions constitute a genocide and deem it a treason to even research the events of 1915,
    Comment:
    From 25 years of contacts with Turkish friends and Turkish research on the the matter I am inclined to disagree with you. The blindness is more on the Turkish side, since opposite opinions even are prosecuted (even if Akcams 1994 book never was suppressed in Turkey, and even if dissenting voices, if I am not mistaken, also receive a very cold attitude in Armenia).
    Further, the Armenian research on 1915-16 is enormous and of course indispensable. Nobody can ignore it.
    You also write:
       Most Turkish people are already at peace with the events.
    I believe most Turkish people who hold the received Turkish opinion on the events are not at peace with the events. On the contrary they feel unjustly attacked and the accusations from a great part of the world are indeed troubling them.  And this will go on. The issue will not be ignored.

  11. Mr Ragnar,
    By your own arguments you are violating scientific reasoning, so don’t play science in an Orwellian doublespeak manner. If you are a true science scholar, then get back to the libraries and do your homework before shooting your own foot with your anti-scientific arguments.
    How many times must Archimedes prove his buoyancy law for an ignorant fool to believe in it before drowning in the sea? How many times you need to test Newton’s laws by jumping off a cliff. Have you ever thought that your argument may have this same effect.
    Please get back to philosophy books and learn some good Descartes and Kent before desecrating their sacred wisdom by your ignorance.
    Have you not read Odepus Rex? More than 30,000 good hearted intellectuals in Turkey have read the Rex and came to their terms. It is perhaps your turn to play Descartes on yourself.
    IT IS BETTER TO BE BLIND THAN HAVE A BLIND MIND.

  12. Murat, I feel you simplify. I am critical of the way genocide research has handled this question, but I must confess I tend simply to dismiss Turkish historians on the subject of the Armenian fate in 1915-16. This is because the issue is not addressed in a serious manner.  I don’t know how we will continue this debate, I can only provide some examples. Feroz Ahmad, in his “Turkey, the quest for identity” (2003), mentions the massacres of non-muslims on page 66 and 67, and repeats the assertion that Armenians only were deported from war zones. But they were deported from areas very far from the war zones. Then he chooses to mention that the German commander, Liman von Sanders, defended the policy of deporting Greeks from the Ayvalik district hardly very relevant. Then he mentions that the deportations more or less stopped in 1916. This book was published in 2003 and whatever you can say of it, it does not address the Armenian fate at all. Even on one and a half page you should write more on a subject which induces parliaments all over the world to pass reslutions cirected at Turkey. The claims of other historians are not mentioned at all. To me this is not serious writing. If the majority of historians have assertions on a theme, you must at least indicate that you know about these assertions and indicate, however summarily, how you will answer if you disagree.
    Another example: Salahi Sonyel writes about the relocation in “The Great War and the tragedy of Anatolia”(2000), a book purportedly on the situation of Armenians and Turks. He   writes about the “relocation” in ten pages but has some 100 pages on Armenian sabotage, Armenian intrigues, Armenian atrocities, and so on. These ten pages mostly concern the expressed ittihadist policies, as they are given in official documents. Needless to say this is no way to answer allegations of a secret policy of extermination. There is no attempt to refute these charges. After all this it is said in one sentence that 3-400.000 of the 700.000 Armenians who were deported, died as a result of war and guerrilla activities in the areas they passed through (p.122), but we know that the majority of these deportations took place from june 1915 to the end of 1915, and the convoys passed through areas that became theatres of war only with the Russian offensive in early 1916, if at all. This simply will not do.
    As I say I have no definite answer to the most important questions. However, I believe, as I said, that the outcomes of attempts at substantiating one’s claims leaves the one or the other party with a greater burden of proof. To take one last example: Kamuran Gürün clams that more than 1000 persons were prosecuted by the ittihadists for atrocities against Armenian deportees. Taner Akcam said that these prosecutions had to do with unlawful appropriation of Armenian property, and not with atrocities. Then Yusuf Halacoglu claimed in 2008 that he had proofs that many people in fact were prosecuted and convicted for atrocities. He even cited the documents. Then Akcam went through the specific documents and reiterated that they only dealt with cases of people stealing Armenian property. After this Halacoglu was silent. He had no answer, We who try to follow these things as outsiders note that it seems that those who killed Armenian deportees in 1915-16 were never prosecuted, let alone convicted. What are we then to believe about state policies at the time?

  13. Ragnar,

    With the self-syled scientific arguments you are making, there can be no end to this argument of course.  That is hardly surprising in a forum like this.

    You seem to lose the sight of the forest from trees.  Is that what bothers you the most about many Turkish scholars work, that they did not pay enough attention to decades of Armenian genocide industry output?  That in your opinion negates what they uncovered and presented as historical facts?  Did they not uncover enough fabrications to discredit some of these so-called scientific works? 

    While you point out various discrepencies in reporting of the prosecutions of various Ottoman officials, you ignore the point that there were prosecutions and people were taken to court.  On the other hand a discrepency like 1.5 to 2.5M does not elicit a similar response.  British were involved and very eager I might add to discredit these Turks who gave them such a hard time on the battle field, and still they could not find a smoking gun.

    Of course, best of all is the ignoring of the very relevant facts of the matter burried in some esoteric argument about scientific methodology.  Millions of descendants of Anatolian Armenians are scattered around the world, including where they were relocated.  Some nice trick for people who were supposed to have been killed on the average 3 times in my estimation. 

    No policiy of extermination, no such orders, no such plans, no gas chambers, no concentration camps, no mass graves (few that have been found contained mostly Muslims!), no killing squads, not a single memoire of a single Ottoman officer ever receiving or executing such orders… I mean we can go on and on…  some scientific methodology you have!  As a scientist, I am embaressed.

  14.  Mr Haro Mherian,
    I understand that you disagree and are provoked. What do you expect me to answer to this type of message? Regarding the “I apologize” movement in Turkey this is of course a very important development, but it simply bypasses the whole question of whether there was a genocide or not. They use the word “catastrophe”.  If this is the right road for Turks and Armenians, all the better. But this was not my point.

  15. Murat
    this is not esoteric. Sonyel simply does not go into the debate that he all the same indirectly purports to adress. You dont have to be a researcher to see this. Neither is it endless. If we have 20 more examples of Turkish scholars simply not being able to prove their point this will be more telling than any allegedly comprehensive proof of what happened.

  16. murat
    one last word. Are you sure you are not confusing the idea of a thorough analysis with that of an endless analysis? Isnt that a way to make it easier for oneself, to answer specific questions with allegations that the debate will be endless? 

  17. No, I cannot talk for the 30,000 or more intellectuals that under an oppressive 301 Turkish rule have the courage to proclaim the truth, whereas you seem to be blind under no oppression at all. If they had the chance to survive telling the truth they would have not only disagreed with you, but also disprove that you are not an scholar at all.
    If you are really a science scholar, than behave like one. Study truths and not falsehoods. Criticize the falsifiers and denialists and not their victims. For otherwise, one day, the Genocide makers will also wipe you out.
    By the way, I am not provoked at all. It’s only I pity your ignorance and blindness. I also pity that you have put so much effort on a stand that is based on lies and falsehood. Your stand is pitiful because it does not make sense, unless of course you are a Kemalist Turk or are doing this business for profit.

  18. Ragnar,

    I suppose at some point we need to define what makes an analysis exhaustive.   I mean, if you do not find the body of research done by Turkish, Armenian and others exhaustive, then of course, as you and I point out this is indeed endless. 

    If someone claims they have a golden egg, then all he has to do is to produce it.  By that, I do not mean tell stories or show paintings of the egg .  Or, if I claim there was no golden egg, then what I need to do is to show that in all the possible places to look for it, we have not found it.  Can you imagine even the staunchest “denialist” ( how do you like that term, it makes even argument a sin and a losing proposition!)  confronted with a golden egg, denying its existence while face to face with the darn egg?  I would take a picture of the egg and this fellow and make it a poster!

    Now you seem to claim that because there are a few stones in the Gobi desert under which someone did not look, we can not say conclusively that we have studied the topic exhaustiveley.  If that is the case, then we may as well stop here.  Is this not the argument the UFO believers employ?  I can not scientifically prove their non-exictence either.

    It is clear who the burden of proof belongs to in my opinion. 

    This has little to do with the quality of the works published by the Turkish scholars or others.  More important parameter is if there is any fabrication in the works.  Is there any fact that is not backed up?  I do not mean mostly subjective anlysis or opinions of course, which many push on us as proof. 

    I do agree though that the quality of writing and presentation of many, especially early, Turkish historians has been horrendous.  Many of them could not help being defensive, not very professional and as you point out presented arguments for one side mostly.  Probably the huge body of Armenian propaganda that has accumulated over the decades when Turks did nothing about the topic has created an urgency to make up for the missing side of the narrative.

    I must also point out that, Turkish narrative was also sorely missing from almost all Armenian works.  That is mostly responsible for the Armenian community, diaspora in general, being so uninformed or misinformed about key details of the Armenian revolts and uprisings and that is why they can not fathom why Turks would be such insensitive “deniers” in my opinion.

  19. Mr. Ragnar,
    I am not in a “debate”. Don’t assume by any chance that I am falling for your trap. You just proved your weak point by your last comment.
    Mr. Ragnar, my grandfather was a survivor of the Genocide. So, who is to “behave” in commenting about a dragity that for you is just a “debate”. This is exactly why historic commission BS should not be permitted. It is just a waste of time besides being horribly wrong.
    P.S. This is my last statement for this article.

  20. Murat
    Thank you for your post.
    I don’t think an exhaustive analysis is a utopia and that attempts at this must necessarily lead to endless bickering. I will limit my answer to this point and try to be short: first, there has been a certain convergence between the opposite positions during the last 20-30 years. If we contrast the 1977 book by the Shaws with  Yves Ternon’s first book on the Armenian genocide issued in the same year, they are miles apart. Today there is more common ground in research on the theme. The dimensions of the catastrophy suffered by the Armenians is more recognised than in Shaws wild underestimation of 1977, and the actual threat of the powers to the ottoman state and the lethal effects of the ethnic cleansing of Moslems (1864, 1977-78, 1912-13) cannot be ignored today as then. Even if this has no bearing on what happened in 1915, a major source of Turkish resentment of onesided Western perceptions is being gradually removed. Everybody has read “Death and exile”. While it would on principle be possible to go on bickering indefinitely on details, this has not happened. The discussion was not endless,on certain points at least. Needless to say, Sonyel is a great improvement when comparing what he has to say in 2003 on the Armenian fate with what Stanford Shaw said in 1977.
    The second is that Turkish and Armenian/Western historiography has been so divided, as inhabiting different worlds, with the one camp not relating to the other at all, that we must expect that a conscious effort by each side to relate honestly and explicitly to the arguments of the other(s) will produce an effect. Even if the debate on certain points may go on indefinitely, the area of total disagreement will shrink.
    Thirdly, I believe that the public eye will have an effect like it probably had for all those who witnessed the Akcam/Halacoglu debate. It will be apparent to the audience who has trouble defending ones position and who is on safer ground. This is how research communities often function. As Halacoglu got into trouble with his claims that offenders against Armenian deportees were prosecuted, genocide researchers have repeatedly gotten into trouble when they try to PROVE genocidal extent in the ittihadist elite. I am not so much thinking about the Andonian papers as the wildly improbable “minutes from the Central Committee of CUP” by Mevlanzade Rifat which by the way is uncritically cited by Anette Höss in her dissertation on the 1919-23 trials. The dissertation  is hailed as a landmark by many genocide scholars. Further  – the public eye notices the degree to which scholars like Dadrian, Akcam and Kevorkian slip into conjecture when dealing with genocidal intent. The weaknesses of their scholarship on this point, while impressive on others, is noted by many who are highly critical of the received Turkish position.
    I hope this clarifies my position. Whether I am right or wrong is of course another matter.  
    However, I should add that I am often misunderstood. Primarily I am a stickler for dialogue. If the dialogue gets better according to certain specifiable criteria, and there exists a critical audience, we must expect results. But I add that both parties must be prepared  in principle to see their cherished beliefs discarded. Of course, this also holds for my belief in dialogue.

  21. Murat….you say….’Armenians started a war, fought it and lost it big’.  I think many historians and scholars would find this assertion a bit far-fetched. You’ve probably been taught this since infancy, but let’s face facts: Sultan Abdul Hamid launched countrywide massacres of hundreds of thousands of innocent Ottoman Armenian citizens in the 1890’s, as a way of frightening them all into submission, even though similar measures were never issued against the other minorities in such a brutal way. If, as you say, Armenians ‘started a war’… it’s hard to imagine how they conducted that…..was it with tanks?  planes?  an imperial army?  Please explain.  It’s like saying the stone throwing Palestinians are launching a war on Israel. Get real. For most observers, it’s about self-defense.  A war takes place between states or equal players. If anything, the real ‘war’ or offensive, was launched by the Ittihadists – who were now in charge of a bankrupt empire – against the largest and oldest of Turkey’s minorities…with the goal of stealing their land, their wealth and their businesses. Armenians had every right to defend themselves and if that meant some kind of retaliation against the superior forces of the empire, so be it. Didn’t the Bosnians have a right to self-defense against the Serbs?   I really fear that the Turkish resistance to issuing an apology to Armenians comes from an inability to say ‘never again’, as the Kurds are, in many ways, the new Armenians in Turkey, and who at any moment, could feel the wrath of the state and military.

  22. Ragnar,

    I am grateful for your thoughtful exchange.  I wish I were more knowledgeable on some of the points you raised so we could compare notes, but I am not a historian or a scholar on this topic.  Though I do not believe one has to know every detail to render a judgement or declare a position or claim to know it as a fact.

    Though I am fully supportive of all dialogue, and vehemently against any limitation of any expression on this topic, I am just not of the opinion that a through evaluation will change the fundementals of the facts known.  I have personally witnessed softening of positons and change of mood as a result of dialogue.  That in itself is good enough reason alone.

    As I had claimed before, in my opinion this is hardly about the facts of the matter, but perceptions and cherished myths.  Facts in excruciating detail have been around for a while.  They are tested vigorously by both sides.  Casual fabrication of alternate reality and evidence is not possible anymore.  This leaves behind opinions, interperetations, definitions, word games and yes, sementics.  A recepie for endless arguments.

  23. Yes, Murat…you say facts are facts, but while that may be true in science or physics, everything in life is viewed through a different prism, thru different eyes.  So in reality, nothing is the ever truly same. If someone is color blind, the world is very different.  One man’s trash is another’s treasure. To the native Americans, the white man brought pain, death and destruction. To the English, they saw themselves as bringing civilization to the savages. It seems that many Turks continue to identify w/ mentality of a ruling class, along with the concept of empire and power, and hold that point of view rather dearly. But, why not change positions for once, at least hypothetically, and attempt to see and feel the situation from the view of one of the subjects of that empire?  It could be very enlightening. I think Armenians need to do the same, as well, and try to understand how their actions may have been viewed at the time from the confines of the Topkapi Sarayi. This isn’t being said to get anyone off the hook or to absolve responsibility, especially those who abused their power over others,  but, it can help to bring empathy and understanding to both sides of this debate.  In much the same way Americans have no real sympathy for a million dead Iraqis or the thousands being bombed everyday in Afghanistan, everyone conveniently forgets that this involved real people, not just some abstract entity, and there is a legacy attached to it. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction…in political terms, it is called ‘blowback’.  Perhaps someday, the people of Turkey will understand that what was experienced during the waning years of the Ottoman Empire was just that…blowback. You can only push so far. Eventually, there will be a reaction.  Turks got their way, they got their country, almost free of minorities, a Turkey for the Turks….but it came at a price, unfortunately, a big price.

  24. murat
    thank you for your post. As you say very much of what goes on in the exchange of words on the Armenian fate “…is hardly about the facts of the matter, but perceptions and cherished myths”. You also wrote on oct 26 that “The argument is more about how to categorize this tragedy and the official acts and policies relevant to it.  In my opinion this is what it boils down to.”
    I agree that what you say is an important ingredient in the whole picture. Where I tend to disagree with you is if you hold that it is exclusively so. Whether characteristics like “genocide”, “hardship due to war conditiom”, “local killers” or “centrally orchestrated program of extermination”  apply to the Armenian catastrophy or not is also an ordinary empirical and analytical question. And attempts at analysis in the ordinary sense of the word is what I  for better or worse try to contribute with. I agree that it may just open the door for endless argument.  but not necessarily so.     

  25. Karaekin,

    It is really not that relevant to the topic, but I have to comment on the notion of Turks sweeping dwon from Asia to conquering and subjugating the Armenians.  Firstly, Turks, by that time highly imbued by Persiona culture, battled Romans and grabbed Asia Minor from them.  It is said Alaparslan had Armenians among his troops at Manzikert, as well as other groups who disliked Romans more than Muslim Turks apparently.   I doubt if Armenians as a nation would have made it to this century if it were not for the Ottoman system of governing.  Some irony.

    I have to admit, me and probably many Turks fail to understand this deep need for apologies and repentence.  This may make us come across insensitive.  I have been always impressed though with the strong bond Armenians everywhere have felt for their ancient homelands.  The sense of loss is so  strong and obviously this was a defining event and a massive tragedy.  I do not think you will find many Turks who will deny this, I certainly do not.

    You also have to realize that many Turks, especially those in Istanbul have grown up with, went to school with, befriended, partnered with, and some even married with Armenians.  I have been to more Greek and Armenian Churches than Mosques.  I have a perspective on Armenians as people and as essential part of Turkish culture and history, that you may not appreciate.

  26. Այստեղ կարծէս Ռակնար Նաեսը, Մուրատ եւ Հուսեյնը միեւնոյն անձն են մեր (Հայերիս) վրայ տեղեկատուական կռիւ են մխում այս արձակագրի տակ իրանց նշումներով։ Խնդրում եմ բոլորից չենթարկուեք այս թակարդին։
    Շնորհակալութիւն
    Հարօ

  27. Սաւոր նայէ՛ ինչ է ասում, Մուրատ էֆենդի տիոր, եղեր Մանազկերտում մենք՛ ենք օգնել Բիւզանդական բանակի ջարդին։ Այդ նոյն Ալբասլան վիշապը արիւնաքամ արեծ ամբողջ Անին։
    Նորից խնդրում եմ բոլորից կարեւորութիւն չտալ Ռակնարի եւ Մուրատի Թուրք երեւակայութեանը։ Սրանք նոր տիպի Թալեատականներ եւ Քէմալականներ են։

  28. Hello Murat…so yes, I do understand quite well that the Seljuks took Asia Minor w/ the help of the native born  Armenians, and then another 600 years of Ottoman rule led to a significant Turkish/Armenian symbiosis, which overall was positive. However, as you know, it was that last few years, dominated – not by the sultan – but by the Young Turks and their CUP that really caused the major problems. I think without them and their evil deeds, Armenians and Turks would have not had such a horrible divorce.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*