V. Related
Articles
Let the Historians decide on the so-called
Armenian Genocide
Prof. Dr. Justin McCARTHY *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-ı 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.
Konrad Adenauer Caddesi No: 61 06550 Yıldız – Çankaya ANKARA
Tel: +90 312 491 60 70 Fax: +90 312 491 70 13
e-mail:
info@eraren.org web:
http://www.eraren.org/