|
By Justin McCarthy
(11 April 2001, Copyright © Turkish
Daily News)
From ataa.org
|
|
|
Let Historians
Decide on So-called Genocide |
Part I:
Nationalists who use history have different
goals. They use events from the past as weapons in their nations' battles. They have a
purpose -- to triumph for their cause, and they will use anything to succeed in this goal
Like other men and women, historians have political goals and ideologies, but a true
historian acknowledges his error when the facts do not support his belief. The nationalist
apologist never does so The Armenian issue has long been plagued with nationalist studies.
This has led to an inconsistent history that ignores the time-tested principles of
historical research. Yet when the histories of Turks and Armenians are approached with the
normal tools a logical and consistent account results.
Throughout the recent debate on the Armenian
genocide question, one statement has characterized those who object to politicians'
attempts to write history, "Let the Historians decide." Few of us have specified
who we are referring to in that statement. It is now time to do so.
There is a vast difference between history
written to defend one-sided nationalist convictions and real accounts of history. History
intends to find that the truth is illusive. Historians know they have prejudices that can
affect their judgment. They know they never have all the facts. Yet they always try to
find the truth, whatever that may be.
Nationalists who use history have a different
set of goals. They use events from the past as weapons in their own nation's battles. They
have a purpose -- the triumph of their cause -- and they will use anything to succeed in
this goal. While a historian tries to collect all the relevant facts and put them together
as a coherent picture, the nationalist selects those pieces of history that fit his
purpose' ignoring the others.
Like other men and women, historians have
political goals and ideologies, but a true historian acknowledges his errors when the
facts do not support his belief. The nationalist apologist never does so. If the facts do
not fit his theories the nationalist ignores those facts and looks for other ways to make
his case. True historians can make intellectual mistakes. Nationalist apologists commit
intellectual crimes.
The Armenian issue has long been plagued with
nationalist studies. This has led to an inconsistent history that ignores the time-tested
principles of historical research. Yet when the histories of Turks and Armenians are
approached with the normal tools of history a logical and consistent account results.
"Let the historians decide" is a call for historical study like any other
historical study, one that looks at all the facts, studies all the opinions, applies
historical principles and comes to logical conclusions.
Historians first ask the most basic question.
"Was there an Armenia?" Was there a region within the Ottoman Empire where
Armenians were a compact majority that might rightfully demand their own state?
To find the answer, historians look to
government statistics for population figures, especially to archival statistics, because
governments seldom deliberately lie to themselves. They want to know their populations so
they can understand them, watch them, conscript them, and, most importantly to a
government, tax them. The Ottomans were no different than any other government in this
situation. Like other governments they made mistakes, particularly in under-counting women
and children. However, this can be corrected using statistical methods. What results is
the most accurate possible picture of the number of Ottoman Armenians. By the beginning of
World War I Armenians made up only 17 percent of the area they claimed as " Ottoman
Armenia," the so called "Six Vilayets." Judging by population figures,
there was no Ottoman Armenia. In fact if all the Armenians in the world had come to
Eastern Anatolia, they still would not have been a majority there.
Two inferences can be drawn from the
relatively small number of Armenians in the Ottoman East: The first is that by themselves,
the Armenians of Anatolia would have been no great threat to the Ottoman Empire. Armenian
rebels might have disputed civil order but there were too few of them to endanger Ottoman
authority. Armenian rebels needed help from outside forces, help that could only be
provided by Russia. The second inference is that Armenian nationalists could have created
a state that was truly theirs only if they first evicted the Muslims who lived there.
To understand the history of the development
of Muslim-Armenian antagonism one must apply historical principles. In applying those
principles one can see that the history of Armenians was a history like other histories.
Some of that history was naturally unique because of its environment but much of it was
strikingly similar to what was seen in other places and times.
1. Most ethnic conflicts develop over a
long period. Germans and Poles, Finns and Russians, Hindus and Muslims in the Indian
subcontinent, Irish and English, Europeans and Native Americans in North America -- all of
these ethnic conflicts unfolded over generations, often over centuries.
2. Until very modern times most mass
mortality of ethnic groups was the result of warfare in which there were at least two
warring sides.
3. When conflict erupted between
nationalist revolutionaries and states it was the revolutionaries who began
confrontations. Internal peace was in the interest of settled states. Looked at
charitably, states often wished for tranquility for the benefits it gave their citizens.
With less charity it can be seen that peace made it easier to collect taxes and use armies
to fight foreign enemies, not internal foes. World history demonstrates this too well for
examples from other regions to be needed here. In the Ottoman Empire, the examples of the
rebellions in Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria demonstrate the truth of this.
On these principles, the histories of Turks
and Armenians are no different from other histories. Historical principles applied.
The conflict between Turks and Armenians did
indeed develop over a long time. The primary impetus for what was to become the
Armenian-Muslim conflict lay in Russian imperial expansion. At the time of Ivan the
Terrible, circa the sixteenth century, Russians began a policy of expelling Muslims from
lands they had conquered. Over the next three hundred years, Muslims, many of them Turks,
were killed or driven out of what today is Ukraine, Crimea and the Caucasus. From the
1770s to the 1850s Russian attacks and Russian laws forced more than 400,000 Crimean
Tatars to flee their land. In the Caucasus region, 1.2 million Circassians and Abazians
were either expelled or killed by Russians. Of that number, one third died as victims of
the mass murder of Muslims that has been mostly ignored. The Tatars, Circassians and
Abazians came to the Ottoman Empire. Their presence taught Ottoman Muslims what they could
expect from a Russian conquest.
Muslims were massacred and forced into exile
|
Members of the Armenian minority in the
Caucasus began to rebel against Muslim rule and to ally themselves with Russian
invaders in the 1790s: Armenian armed units joined the Russians, Armenian spies
delivered plans to the Russians. In these wars, Muslims were massacred and forced
into exile. Armenians in turn migrated into areas previously held by Muslims, such
as Karabakh. This was the beginning of the division of the peoples of the southern
Caucasus and eastern Anatolia into two conflicting sides -- the Russian Empire and
Armenians on one side, the Muslim Ottoman Empire on the other. Most Armenians and
Muslims undoubtedly wanted nothing to do with this conflict, but the events were to
force them to take sides.
The 1827 to 1829 wars between Russians,
Persians and Ottomans saw the beginning of a great population exchange in the East
that was to last until 1920. When the Russians conquered the Erivan Khanete, today
the Armenian Republic, the majority of its population was Muslim. Approximately two
thirds, 60,000 of these Muslims were forced out of Erivan by Russians. The Russians
went on to invade Anatolia, where large numbers of Armenians took up the Russian
cause. At the war's end, when the Russians left eastern Anatolia 50 to 90,000
Armenians joined them. They took the place of the exiled Muslims in Erivan and else
where, joined by 40,000 Armenians from Iran.
The great population exchange had begun,
and mutual distrust between Anatolia's Muslims and the Armenians was the result. The
Russians were to invade Anatolia twice more in the nineteenth century, during the
Crimean War and the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War. In both wars significant numbers of
Armenians joined the Russians acting as spies and even occupation police.
In Erzurum, for example, British
consular officials reported that the Armenian police chief appointed by the Russians
and his Armenian force "molested, illtreated, and insulted the Mohammadan
population," and that 6,000 Muslim families had been forced to flee the city.
When the Russians left part of their conquest at least 25,000 Armenians joined them,
fearing the vengeance of the Muslims. The largest migration though was the forced
flight of 70,000 Muslims, mainly Turks, from the lands conquered by the Russians and
the exodus of Laz in 1882.
By 1900, approximately 1,400,000 Turkish
and Caucasian Muslims had been forced out by Russians. One third of those had died,
either murdered or victims of starvation and disease. Between 125,000 and 150,000
Armenians emigrated from Ottoman Anatolia to Erivan and other parts of the Russian
southern Caucasus.
This was the toll of Russian
imperialism. Not only had one-and-a-half million people been exiled or killed, but
ethnic peace had been destroyed.
The Muslims had been taught that their
neighbors, the Armenians, with whom they had lived for more than 700 years, might
once again become their enemies when the Russians next advanced. The Russians had
created the two sides that history teaches were to be expected in conflict and mass
murder.
The actions of Armenian rebels
exacerbated the growing division and mutual fear between Muslims and Armenians of
the Ottoman East.
The main Armenian revolutionary
organizations were founded in the 1880s and 1890s in the Russian Empire. They were
socialist and nationalist in ideology. Terrorism was their weapon of choice.
Revolutionaries openly stated that their plan was the same as that which had worked
well against the Ottoman Empire in Bulgaria. In Bulgaria rebels had first massacred
innocent Muslim villagers. The Ottoman government, occupied with a war against Serbs
in Bosnia, depended on the local Turks to defeat the rebels, which they did, but
with great losses of life. European newspapers reported Bulgarians deaths, but never
Muslim deaths. Europeans did not consider that the deaths were a result of the
rebellion, nor the Turk's intention. The Russians invaded ostensibly to save the
Christians. The result was the death of 260,000 Turks, 17 percent of the Muslim
population of Bulgaria, and the expulsion of a further 34 percent of Turks. The
Armenian rebels expected to follow the same plan.
The Armenian rebellion began with the
organization of guerilla bands made up of Armenians from both the Russian and
Ottoman lands. Arms were smuggled in. Guerillas assassinated Ottoman officials,
attacked Muslim villages, and used bombs, the nineteenth century's terrorist's
standard weapon. By 1894 the rebels were ready for open revolution. Revolts broke
out in Samsun, Zeytun, Van and elsewhere in 1894 and 1895. As in Bulgaria they began
with the murder of innocent civilians. The leader of the Zeytun rebellion said his
forces had killed 20,000 Muslims. As in Bulgaria the Muslims retaliated. In Van for
example 400 Muslims and 1,700 Armenians died. Further rebellions followed. In Adana
in 1909 the Armenian revolt turned out very badly for both the rebels and the
innocent when the government lost control and 17,000 to 20,000 died, mostly
Armenians. Throughout the revolts and especially in 1894 and 1897 the Armenians
deliberately attacked Kurdish tribesmen, knowing that it was from them that great
vengeance was not that likely to be expected. Pitched battles between Kurds and
Armenians resulted.
But it all went wrong for the Armenian
rebels. They had followed the Bulgarian plan, killing Muslims and initiating revenge
attacks on Armenians. Their own people had suffered most. Yet the Russians and
Europeans they depended upon did not intervene. European politics and internal
problems stayed the Russian hand.
What were the Armenian rebels trying to
create? When Serbs and Bulgarians rebelled against the Ottoman Empire they claimed
lands where the majorities were Serbs or Bulgarians. They expelled Turks and other
Muslims from their lands, but these Muslims had not been a majority. This was not
true for the Armenians.
The lands they covered were
overwhelmingly Muslim in population.
The only way they could create an
Armenia was to expel the Muslims. Knowing this history is essential to understanding
what was to come during World War I. There had been a long historical period in
which two conflicting sides developed.
Russian imperialists and Armenian
revolutionaries had begun a struggle that was in no way wanted by the Ottomans. Yet
the Ottomans were forced to oppose the plans of both Russians and Armenians, if only
to defend the majority of their subjects. History taught the Ottomans that if the
Armenians triumphed not only would territory be lost, but mass expulsions and deaths
would be the fate of the Muslim majority. This was the one absolutely necessary goal
of the Armenian rebellion.
The preview to what was to come in the
Great War came in the Russian Revolution of 1905. Harried all over the Empire, the
Russians encouraged ethnic conflict in Azerbaijan, fomenting an inter-communal war.
Azeri Turks and Armenians battled each other when they should have attacked the
Empire that ruled over both. Both Turks and Armenians learned the bitter lesson that
the other was the enemy, even though most of them wanted nothing of war and
bloodshed. The sides were drawn.
In late 1914, inter-communal conflict
began in the Ottoman East with the Armenian rebellion. Anatolian Armenians went to
the Russian South Caucasus for training, approximately 8,000 in Kagizman, 6,000 in
Igdir and others elsewhere. They returned to join local rebels and revolts erupted
all over the East. The Ottoman Government estimated 30,000 rebels in Sivas Vilayeti
alone, probably an exaggeration but indicative of the scope of the rebellion.
Military objectives were the first to be attacked.
Telegraph lines were cut. Roads through
strategic mountain passes were seized. The rebels attacked Ottoman officials,
particularly recruiting officers, throughout the East. Outlying Muslim villages were
assaulted and the first massacring of Muslims began. The rebels attempted to take
cities such as Zeytun, Mus, Sebin Karahisar and Urfa. Ottoman armed forces which
were needed at the front were instead forced to defend the interior.
The most successful rebel action was in
the city of Van. In March 1915 they seized the city from a weak Ottoman garrison and
proceeded to kill all the Muslims who could not escape. Some 3,000 Kurdish villagers
from the surrounding region were herded together into the great natural bowl of Zeve,
outside the city of Van, and slaughtered. Kurdish tribes in turn took their revenge
on any Armenian villagers they found.
|
|
Part II:
Popular opinion today knows of only one set of
deportations, more properly called forced migrations, in Anatolia, the deportation of the
Armenians. There were in fact many forced migrations. For the Armenians, the worst forced
migrations came when they accompanied their own armies in retreat. Starvation and disease
killed great numbers of both, far more than fell to enemies' bullets.
It is true that the Ottomans had obvious reason to fear Armenians, and that forced
migration was an age-old tool in Middle Eastern and Balkan conflicts. It is also true that
while its troops were fighting the Russians and Armenians, the Ottoman Government could
not and did not properly protect the Armenian migrants. Nevertheless, more than 200,000 of
the deported Armenians reached Greater Syria and survived. Those who see the evil of
genocide in the forced migrations of Armenians ignore the survival of so many of those who
were deported. They also ignore the fact that the Armenians who were most under Ottoman
control, those in Western cities such as Izmir, Istanbul, and Edirne, were neither
deported nor molested, presumably because they were not a threat. If genocide is to be
considered, however, then the murders of Turks and Kurds in 1915 and 1916 must be included
in the calculation of blame. The Armenian molestations and massacres in Cilicia, deplored
even by their French and British allies, must be judged. And the exile or death of
two-thirds of the Turks of Erivan Province, the Armenian Republic, during the war must be
remembered.
Historical principles were once again at work.
Rebels had begun the action and the result was the creation of two warring sides. After
the Armenian deeds in Van and elsewhere, Muslims could only have expected that Armenians
were enemies who could kill them. Armenians could only have feared Muslim revenge. Most of
these people had no wish for war, but they had been driven to it. It was to be a merciless
conflict.
For the next five years, total war raged in
the Ottoman East. When the Russians attacked and occupied the East, more than a million
Muslims fled as refugees, itself an indication that they expected to die if they remained.
They were attacked on the roads by Armenian bands as they fled. When the Russians
retreated it was the turn of the Armenians to flee. The Russians attacked and retreated,
then attacked again, then finally retreated for good. With each advance came the flight of
hundreds of thousands. Two wars were fought in Eastern Anatolia, a war between the armies
of Russia and the Ottomans and a war between local Muslims and Armenians. In the war
between the armies, civilians and enemy soldiers were sometimes treated with humanity,
sometimes not. Little quarter was given in the war between the Armenians and the Muslims,
however. That war was fought with all the ferocity of men who fought to defend their
families.
Popular opinion today knows of only one set of
deportations, more properly called forced migrations, in Anatolia, the deportation of the
Armenians. There were in fact many forced migrations. For the Armenians, the worst forced
migrations came when they accompanied their own armies in retreat. Starvation and disease
killed great numbers of both, far more than fell to enemies' bullets. This is as should be
expected from historical principles; starvation and disease are always the worst killers.
It is also a historical principle that refugees suffer most of all.
One of-the many forced migration was the
organized expulsion of Armenians from much of Anatolia by the Ottoman government. In light
of the history and the events of this war, it is true that the Ottomans had obvious reason
to fear the Armenians, and that forced migration was an age-old tool in Middle Eastern and
Balkan conflicts. It is also true that while its troops were fighting the Russians and
Armenians, the Ottoman Government could not and did not properly protect the Armenian
migrants. Nevertheless, more than 200,000 of the deported Armenians reached Greater Syria
and survived. (Some estimate that as many as two-thirds of the deportees survived.)
Those who see the evil of genocide in the
forced migrations of Armenians ignore the survival of so many of those who were deported.
They also ignore the fact that the Armenians who were most under Ottoman control, those in
Western cities such as Izmir, Istanbul, and Edirne, were neither deported nor molested,
presumably because they were not a threat.
No claim of genocide can rationally stand in
the light of these facts. If genocide is to be considered, however, then the murders of
Turks and Kurds in 1915 and 1916 must be included in the calculation of blame. The
Armenian murder of the innocent civilians of Erzincan, Bayburt, Tercan, Erzurum, and all
the villages on the route of the Armenian retreat in 1918 must be taken into account. The
Armenian molestations and massacres in Cilicia, deplored even by their French and British
allies, must be judged. And the exile or death of two-thirds of the Turks of Erivan
Province, the Armenian Republic, during the war must be remembered.
That is the history of the Conflict between
the Turks and the Armenians. Only when that history is known can the assertions of those
who accuse the Turks be understood.
Ottoman officials
were falsely quoted as ordering hideous deeds
|
In examining the claims of Armenian
nationalists, first to be considered should be outright lies.
The most well-known of many fabrications
on the Armenian Question are the famous "Talat Pasa Telegrams," in which
the Ottoman interior minister and other officials supposedly telegraphed
instructions to murder the Armenians. These conclusively have been proven to be
forgeries by Sinasi Orel and Sureyya Yuca. However, one can only wonder why they
would ever have been taken seriously. A whole people cannot be convicted of genocide
on the basis of penciled scribblings on a telegraph pad.
These were not the
only examples of words put in Talat Pasa's mouth. During World War I, the British
Propaganda Office and American missionaries published a number of scurrilous works
in which Ottoman officials were falsely quoted as ordering hideous deeds.
One of the best examples of invented
Ottoman admissions of guilt may be that concocted by the American ambassador
Morgenthau. Morgenthau asked his readers to believe that Talat Pasa offhandedly told
the ambassador of his plans to eradicate the Armenians. Applying common sense and
some knowledge of diplomatic practice helps to evaluate these supposed
indiscretions. Can anyone believe that the Ottoman interior minister would actually
have done such a thing? He knew that America invariably supported the Armenians, and
had always done so. If he felt the need to unburden his soul, who would be the last
person to whom he would talk? The American ambassador. Yet to whom does he tell all?
The American Ambassador! Talat Pasa was a practical politician. Like all
politicians, he undoubtedly violated rules and made errors. But no one has ever
alleged that Talat Pasa was an idiot. Perhaps Ambassador Morgenthau knew that the
U.S. State Department would never believe his story, because he never reported it at
the time to his masters, only writing it later in a popular book.
The use of quotes from Americans is
selective. One American ambassador, Morgenthau, is quoted by the Armenian
apologists, but another American ambassador, Bristol, is ignored. Why? Because
Bristol gave a balanced account and accused Armenians as well as Muslims of crimes.
The most often seen fabrication may be
the famous "Hitler Quote." Hitler supposedly stated, "Who after all
is today speaking of the destruction of the Armenians?" to justify his
Holocaust. The quote now appears every year in school books, speeches in the
American Congress and the French Parliament and most writings in which the Turks are
attacked. Professor Heath Lowry has cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the
quote. It is likely that Hitler never said it. But there is a more serious question:
How can Adolf Hitler be taken as a serious source on Armenian history? Were his
other historical pronouncements so reliable that his opinions can be trusted?
Politically, "Hitler" is a
magic word that conjures up an all too true image of undisputed evil. He is quoted
on the Armenian Question for polemic and political purpose, to tie the Turks to
Hitler's evil. In the modern world nothing defames so well as associating your
enemies with Hitler. This is all absurdity, but it is potent absurdity that
convinces those who know nothing of the facts. It is also a deliberate distortion of
history.
Population has also been a popular field
for fabrication. Armenian nationalists had a particular difficulty -- they were only
a small part of the population of the land they planned to carve from the Ottoman
Empire. The answer was false statistics. Figures appeared that claimed that
Armenians were the largest group in Eastern Anatolia. These population statistics
were supposedly the work of the Armenian Patriarch, but they were actually the work
of an Armenian who assumed a French name, Marcel Leart, published them in Paris and
pretended they were the Patriarch's work. Naturally, he greatly exaggerated the
number of Armenians and diminished the number of Turks. Once again, the amazing
thing is that these were ever taken seriously. Yet they were used after World War I
to justify granting Eastern Anatolia to the Armenians and are still routinely quoted
today.
The Armenian
apologists quote American missionaries as if missionaries would never lie,
omitting the numerous proofs that missionaries did indeed lie and avoided mentioning
anything that would show Armenians to be less than innocent. The missionaries in
Van, for example, reported the deaths of Armenians, but not the fact that those same
Armenians had killed all the Muslims they caught in that city.
The main falsification of history by the
Armenian apologists lies not in what they say, but in what they do not say. They do
not admit that much of the evidence they rely on is tainted because it was produced
by the British Propaganda Office in World War I. For example, the Bryce Report,
"The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire," has recently been
reproduced by an Armenian organization, with a long introduction that praises its
supposed veracity. Nowhere does the reprint state that the report was produced and
paid for by British Propaganda as a way to attack its wartime enemies, the Ottomans.
Nor does the reprint state that the other Bryce Report, this one on alleged German
atrocities, has long been known by historians to be a collection of lies. Nor does
the reprint consider that the sources in the report, such as the Dashnak Party, had
a tradition of not telling the truth.
The basic historical omission is never
citing, never even looking at evidence that might contradict one's theories.
Nationalist apologists refer to English propaganda, missionary reports, statements
by Armenian revolutionaries, and the like. They seldom refer to Ottoman documents,
hundreds of which have been published in recent years, except perhaps to claim that
nothing written by the Ottomans can be trusted although they trust completely the
writings of Armenian partisans. These documents indicate that the Ottomans planned
no genocide and were at least officially solicitous of the Armenians' welfare. The
fact that these contradict the Armenian sources is all the more reason that they
should be consulted. Good history can only be written then both sides of historical
arguments are considered.
Worst of all is the most basic omission
-- the Armenian apologists do not mention the Muslim dead. Any civil war will appear
to be a genocide if only the dead of one side are counted. Their writings would be
far more accurate, and would tell a very different story, if they included facts
such as the deaths of nearly two-thirds of the Muslims of Van Vilayeti, deaths
caused by the Russians and Armenians. Histories that strive for accuracy must
include all the facts, and the deaths of millions of Muslims is surely a fact that
deserves mention.
Those of us who have studied this
question for years have seen many approaches come and go. The old assertions, based
on the Talat Pasa telegrams and missionary reports, were obviously insufficient, and
new ones have appeared.
For a while, Pan-Turanism was advanced
as the cause for Turkish actions. It was said that the Turks wished to be rid of the
Armenians because the Armenian population blocked the transportation routes to
Central Asia. This foundered on the rocks of geography and population. The Anatolian
Armenian population was not concentrated on those routes. The Armenian Republic's
Armenians, those in Erivan Province, were on some of those routes. However, when at
the end of the war the Ottomans had the chance to occupy Erivan they did not do so,
but went immediately on to Baku to protect Azeri Turks from attacks by enough to
believe that their chief concern was advancing to Uzbekistan.
Much was made of post-war-courts martial
that accused members of the Committee of Union and Progress Government of crimes
against the Armenians.
The accusations did not state that the
courts were convened by the unelected quisling government of Ferid Pasa who created
the courts to curry favor with the allies. The courts returned verdicts of guilty
for all sorts of improbable offenses, of which killing Armenians was only one. The
courts chose anything, true of false, that would cast aspersion on Ferid's enemies.
The accused could not represent themselves. Can the verdicts of such courts be
trusted? Conveniently overlooked were the investigations of the British, who held
Istanbul and were in charge of the Ottoman Archives, but who were forced to admit
that they could find no evidence of massacres.
|
The enemy of the
nationalist apologists is the truth |
Part III:
A German scholar has decided that the
Ottomans reported and killed Armenians so that they would have space in which to
settle the Turkish refugees from the Balkan Wars. Those with some knowledge of
Ottoman history know that the Balkan refugees were almost all settled in Western
Anatolia and Ottoman Europe, not in the East, and that the refugees were all settled
before the World War I Armenian troubles began Nationalist apologists first decide
that the Turks are guilty, then look for evidence that will show they are correct
... The enemy of the nationalist apologists is the truth. They have thrown false
telegrams, spurious statistics, sham courts and anything else they could find, but
the truth has advanced Campaigns were organized to silence historians. One professor
was mercilessly attacked in the press because he advised the Turkish ambassador on
responding to questions about the Ottoman Armenians. No one questioned the probity
of the American Armenian scholar who became the chief advisor of the president of
the Armenian Republic or doubted the veracity of the American Armenian professor
whose son became the Armenian Foreign Minister Fewer and fewer historians are
willing to write on this history. A very senior and respected scholar of Ottoman
history, Bernard Lewis, was brought to court in France for his denial of the
Armenian genocide. After a long and successful career, Professor Lewis could afford
to confront those who accused him. Could a junior scholar afford to do the same?
Applying the principles of history, we can see that what occurred was, in fact a
long history of imperialism, nationalist revolt, and ethnic conflict. The result was
horrible mortality on all sides. There is an explainable, understandable history of
a two-sided conflict. It was not genocide.
A recent find of
the nationalist is the Teskilat-I Mahsusa, the secret organization that operated
under orders of the Committee of Union and Progress. We are told that the Teskilat
must have organized Armenian massacres. The justification for this would astonish
any logician:
It is alleged that because a secret
organization existed it must have been intended to do evil, including the genocide
of the Armenians. As further "proof," it is noted that officers of the
Teskilat were present in areas where Armenians died. Since Teskilat officers were
all over Anatolia, this should surprise no one. By this dubious logic Teskilat
members must also have been responsible for the deaths of Muslims because they were
also present in areas where Muslims died. Does this prove that no Teskilat members
killed or even massacred Armenians? It does not. It would be odd if during wartime
no members of a large organization had not committed such actions, and they
undoubtedly did so. What it in no way proves is that the Teskilat was ordered to
commit genocide.
A German scholar has decided that the
Ottomans reported and killed Armenians so that they would have space in which to
settle the Turkish refugees from the Balkan Wars. For those who do not know Ottoman
history, this might seem like a reasonable explanation. Those with some knowledge of
Ottoman history know that the Balkan refugees were almost all settled in Western
Anatolia and Ottoman Europe, not in the East, and that the refugees were all settled
before the World War I Armenian troubles began.
Such assertions are the result of the
methods used. Nationalist apologists first decide that the Turks are guilty, then
look for evidence that will show they are correct. They are like a man in a closed
room fighting against a stronger enemy. As the enemy advances the man picks up a
book, a lamp, an ashtray, a chair -- whatever he can find -- and throws it in the
vain hope of stopping the enemy's advance. But the enemy continues on. Eventually
the man runs out of things to throw, and he is beaten. The enemy of the nationalist
apologists is the truth. They have thrown false telegrams, spurious statistics, sham
courts, and anything else they could find, but the truth has advanced.
Some tactics have been all too
successful in reducing the number of scholars who study the Armenian Question. When
the fabrications and distortions failed, there were outright threats. When the
historians could not be convinced, the next best thing was to silence them. One
professor's house was bombed.
Others were threatened with similar
violence. Campaigns were organized to silence historians. One professor was
mercilessly attacked in the press because he advised the Turkish ambassador on
responding to questions about the Ottoman Armenians. It is worth noting that no one
questioned the probity of the American Armenian scholar who became the chief advisor
of the president of the Armenian Republic or doubted the veracity of the American
Armenian professor whose son became the Armenian foreign minister. No one questioned
the objectivity of these scholars or attacked them, nor should they. The only proper
question is, "What is the truth!" No matter who pays the bills, no matter
the nationality of the author, no matter if he writes to ambassadors, no matter his
religion, his voting record, his credit status, or his personal life, his views on
history should be closely analyzed and, if true, accepted.
|
|
The only question is the truth.
Such attacks have had their intended effect.
Fewer and fewer historians are willing to write on this history. A very senior and
respected scholar of Ottoman history, Bernard Lewis, was brought to court in France for
his denial of the Armenian genocide. After a long and successful career, Professor Lewis
could afford to confront those who accused him. He also could afford to hire the lawyers
who defended him. Could a junior scholar afford to do the same? Could someone who depended
on university rectors, who worry about funding, afford to take up such a dangerous topic?
Could someone without Professor Lewis's financial resources afford the lawyers who
defended both his free speech and his good name?
I myself was the target of a campaign,
instigated by an Armenian newspaper, that attempted to have me fired from my university.
Letters and telephone calls from all over the United States came to the president of my
university, demanding my dismissal because I denied the "Armenian Genocide." We
have the tenure system in the United States, a system that guarantees that senior
professors cannot be fired for what they teach and write, and my university president
defended my rights. But a younger professor might understandably be afraid to write on the
Armenians if he knew he faced the sort of ordeal that has been faced by others.
To me, the worst of all is being accused of
being the kind of politicized nationalist scholar I so detest. False reasons are invented
to explain why I say this -- my mother is a Turk, my wife is a Turk, I am paid large sums
by the Turkish government. None of these things is true, but it would not affect my
writings one bit if they were. The way to challenge a scholar's work is to read his
writings and respond to them with your own scholarship, not to attack his character.
When, despite the best efforts of the
nationalist apologists, some still speak out against the distortion of history, the final
answer is political: Politicians are enlisted to rewrite history. Parliaments are enlisted
to convince their people that there was a genocide. In America, the Armenian nationalists
lobby a Congress which refuses to even consider an apology for slavery to demand an
apology from Turks for something the Turks did not do.
In France, the Armenia nationalists lobby a
Parliament which will not address the horrors perpetrated by the French in Algeria, which
they know well took place, to declare there were horrors in Turkey, about which they know
almost nothing. The people of many nations are then told that the genocide must have taken
place because their representatives have recognized it.
The Turks are accused of
"genocide," but what does that appalling word mean? The most quoted definition
is that of the United Nations: actions "committed with intent to destroy in whole or
in part a national, ethnic, radical, or religious group as such." Raphael Lemkin who
invented the word genocide, included cultural, social, economic, and political destruction
of groups as genocide. Leo Kuper included as genocide attacks on subgroups that are not
ethnic, such as economic classes, collective groups and various social categories. By
these standards Turks were indeed guilty of genocide. So were Armenians, Russians, Greeks,
Americans, British and almost every people that has ever existed. In World War I in
Anatolia there were many such "genocides." So many groups attacked other groups
that the use of the word genocide is meaningless.
Why, then, is such a hollow term used against
the Turks? It is used because those who hear the term do not think of the academic
definitions. They think of Hitler and of what he did to the Jews. The intent behind the
use of the word genocide is not to foster understanding. The intent is to foster a
negative image of the Turks by associating them with great evil. The intent is political.
What must be considered by
the serious historian is a simple question, "Did the Ottoman Government carry out a
plan to exterminate the Armenians?" In answering this question it is important not to
copy the Armenian apologists. When they declare that Armenians did no wrong, the answer is
not to reply that the Turks did no wrong. The answer must be honest history. What cannot
and should not be denied is that many Anatolian Muslims did commit crimes against
Armenians. Some of those who committed crimes were Ottoman officials. Actions were taken
in revenge, out of hatred or for political reasons. In total war men do evil acts. This
again is a sad but real historical principle. The Ottoman government recognized this and
tried more than 1,000 Muslims for war crimes, including crimes against Armenians, hanging
some criminals.
|
Applying the principles of history, we
can see that what occurred was in fact a long history of imperialism, nationalist
revolt and ethnic conflict.
The result was horrible mortality on all
sides. There is an explainable, understandable history of a two-sided conflict. It
was not genocide. Throughout that history, both sides killed and were killed. It was
not genocide.
Much archival evidence shows Ottoman
government concern that Armenians survive. Also, it must be said that much evidence
shows poor planning, government weakness and in some places criminal acts and
negligence. Some officials were murderous, but a sincere effort was made to punish
them. It was not genocide.
The majority of those who were deported
survived, even though those Armenians were completely at the mercy of the Ottomans.
It was not genocide.
The Armenians most under Ottoman
control, the Armenian residents of Istanbul, Izmir, Edirne and other regions of
greatest governmental power were neither deported not attacked. It was not genocide.
Why are the Turks accused of a hideous
crime they did not commit? The answer is both emotional and political. Many
Armenians feel in their hearts that Turks were guilty. They have only heard of the
deaths of their ancestors, not the deaths of the Turks. They have been told only a
small part of a complicated story for so long that they believe it to be
unquestionable truth. Their anger is understandable. The beliefs of those in Europe
and America who have never heard the truth, which sadly is the majority, are also
understandable. It is the actions of those who use the claim of genocide for
nationalist political motives that are inexcusable.
Does any rational analyst deny that the
ultimate intent of the Armenian nationalists is to first gain
"reparations," then claim Eastern Anatolia as their own?
Finally, what is to be done? As might be
expected from all I have said here today, I believe the only answer to false
allegations of genocide is to study and proclaim the truths of history. Political
actions such as the resolution recently passed by the French Parliament naturally
and properly draw corresponding political actions from Turks, but political actions
will never convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide. What is needed to
convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide? What is needed to convince
the world is a great increase in scholarship. Archives must remain open and be easy
to use for both Turks and foreigners. Graduate students should be encouraged to
study the Armenian question. No student's advisers should tell him to avoid this
subject because it is "too political," something I have heard in America
and, unfortunately, in Turkey as well.
I suggest, as I have suggested before,
that the Turkish Republic propose to the Armenian Republic that a joint commission
be established, its members selected by scholarly academies in both countries. All
archives should be opened to the commission -- not only the Ottoman Archives, but
the archives of Armenia and of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. (The call is
often made for the Turkish Archives to be opened completely. It is time to demand
that Armenians do likewise.) I have been told that the Armenians will never agree to
this, but how can anyone know unless they try? In any case, refusal to fairly and
honestly consider this question would in itself be evidence that the accusations
against the Turks are political, not scholarly.
Whether or not such a commission is ever
named, the study of the Armenian question must be continued. This is true not only
because it is always right to discover accurate history. It is true because honor
demands it. Honor is a word that is not often heard today, but a concept of honor is
nonetheless sorely needed. I have been told by many that the Turks should adopt a
political strategy to deal with the Armenian problem. This strategy would have the
Turkish government lie about the past for present political gain.
The government would state that the
Ottomans committed genocide, but that modern Turkey cannot be blamed because it is a
different government. This, I have been told, would cause the world to think more
kindly of the Turks. I do not believe this ultimately would satisfy anyone. I
believe that calls for reparations and land would quickly follow such a statement.
But that is not the reason to reject such easy political lies. They should be
rejected purely because they are wrong. Even if the lies would bring great gains,
they should be rejected because they are wrong. I believe the Turks are still men
and women of honor. They know that it can never be honorable to accept lies told of
their ancestors, no matter the benefits. I also believe that someday, perhaps soon,
perhaps far in the future, the truth will be recognized by the world. I believe that
the accurate study of history and the honor of the Turks will bring this to pass.
Professor Justin McCarthy teaches
at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.
|
|
|
|