At about this time every year, the Turkish government engages in political antics, the purpose of which is to counter any incremental success Armenians have achieved in their quest for recognition of the Turkish genocide of 1.5 million Armenians. During April of 1915, under the guise of WWI, the Turkish government condemned the entire Armenian citizenry under its jurisdiction, and in some of the neighboring lands, to extermination. The crime and denial of genocide isn’t a game, but international relations is a contest.
In past years, major US defense contractors have pressured members of Congress, urging them not to undertake any vote for genocide recognition, so as not to “offend” their Turkish customers. Also, past US Secretaries of State, either individually or collectively, have pleaded a similar story to members of Congress, recommending that any recognition of genocide would anger the Turks.
The US Congress regularly reaffirmed or otherwise memorializes historical events, including the near destruction of Native Americas and the Nazi Holocaust of European Jews. Official US recognition, and, to a similar extent, an Israeli recognition of the genocide of the Armenians would ease the way for Armenian reparations. Turkey is becoming more confident of its role globally and in the region. It endeavors to assert influence by representing itself as a big brother to regional Muslim states. Turkey finds itself in a position from which it can simultaneously divert the attention of the Armenian diaspora while providing face-saving excuses vis-a-vis engagement with Armenia for major powers to ignore Armenian demands for genocide recognition.
Since around 2003, Armenia and Turkey have been in deliberations with the goal of establishing diplomatic relations and opening their common border. This border was unilaterally shut by Turkey in 1993 as Armenian forces were succeeding in securing the region of Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijani rule. “The Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey” was officially signed and simultaneously announced in Berne, Yerevan, and Ankara on Aug. 31, 2009. On the heels of this announcement, Turkey attached preconditions to any Turkish ratification. As a result, this document is all but dead, even though the signed protocol passed legal approval by Armenia’s Constitutional Court. It was rather presumptuous for Turkey to have set post-facto pre-conditions. This lack of Turkish resolve allowed the Armenian president, Serge Sargsyan the latitude to take a tougher stance on the genocide issue. On March 24, 2010, at the Armenian Genocide memorial in the Syrian desert at Der Zor, Sargsyan give a hard hitting speech against the policies of the Turkish government, calling it the last stop on the Armenian death marches. Sargsyan called Der Zor the Armenian Auschwitz. As Sun Tzu said, “Opportunities multiply as they are seized.”
On February 7, 2011 in an article published in the Turkish newspaper Sabah, author Duygu Güvenç wrote that Turkish Minister of State, Egemen Bağış, after attending the January 27, 2011 Holocaust Remembrance Day (a first for a Turkish state minister) in Istanbul, was instructed to subsequently attend Armenian April 24th activities. Apparently, only Sabah reported this, although it was picked up by many Armenian media outlets. Since Güvenç’s article is still on an active web site and has not been retracted, it appears to be an official trial balloon looking for any Armenian reaction. Alternatively, it could be Turkey’s first move in the 2011 genocide obfuscation gambit.
It is a challenge to suggest or predict Armenia’s reaction to this Turkish ploy because moves like these are not zero-sum, nor made in isolation. There is also a lack of information from ongoing diplomatic efforts, if they even exist, in whatever form. There are costs in making foreign policy decisions, and similarly, in not making them. Given the limited information available to us, what might an Armenian response be?
Turkish general elections are scheduled for this year. According to polls, the AKP party has been steadily gaining popularity. Currently, it enjoys a substantial lead over its nationalist contender, the CHP. AKP party leaders may feel they can take a chance with bolder genocide obfuscation tactics considering such moves are coming at a time of transforming events in the region, placing such risky foreign policy moves out of media limelight in Turkey. This is not the case with citizens of Armenia or its diaspora, who view Turkish moves differently than official Yerevan. Turkey knows this and modulates its policy moves associated with genocide denial, highlighting such nuances.
Foreign policy moves are based on extracting the maximum benefit from prevailing conditions. They are not based on right or wrong, good or bad, but rather on interests. We know the overarching Turkish interest is deferring accepting responsibility for the crime of genocide.
Armenia should immediately invite the Turkish President, Abdullah Gül, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu to attend the April 24th genocide commemoration at Armenia’s Genocide Memorial at Tsitsernakaberd. Turkey should be given a specific time limit to respond or the invitation is pulled. The Turkish delegation can join the hundreds of thousands of Armenians who gather to commemorate the victims of the 1915 genocide. The Turkish delegation would be accorded the customary VIP protocol at the Genocide Museum and attend lectures by prominent scholars. If Turkey was bluffing, Armenia was not. Armenia thus forces Turkey not to attend a genocide commemoration in some obscure Armenian community out of sheer embarrassment by refusing this invitation.
There are many scenarios that can be played out. As an exercise below, a simplistic flow of events that could characterize 2011 genocide obfuscation season is suggested.
Turkey’s Move | Armenia’s Move | Comment |
Turkish Minister Bağış attending Armenian genocide commemoration printed in Sabah. | Any Armenian unconditional approval will be viewed as weakness. | |
Armenia waits for an official request while asking Turks for immediate clarification of intent. This must take place by early March. | An Armenian rejection will be an advantage to Turks. Armenia knows this. | |
Turkey delays response to Armenian request for clarification. | Turkey will delay a response in an attempt to maximize condemnation of the Armenian government from its diaspora | |
Armenia waits no later than late March for a Turkish response. | Armenia lays plans for an enhanced genocide commemoration at Armenian Genocide Memorial and makes it a publicly announced intention. | |
Turkey responds that it is interested in attending a genocide commemoration | Turkey is still using delay tactics and announces it is talking with Armenia. | |
Early April 2011: Armenia formally invites highest level Turkish representatives to Genocide Memorial commemoration. | Turkey is somewhat taken off guard, thanks Armenia for the invitation. | |
Turkey responds it cannot arrange for such an entourage to visit Armenia given so little time, but is willing to send lower-level representatives to an alternate event in some diaspora communities. | Turks have no intention of attending any genocide commemorations. | |
Armenia announces it called Turkey’s bluff on their false intention. | Turks can claim they never made an official request. |
If the chain of events unfold close to the above, Armenia could use the outcome, internationally, as yet another example of Turkish disingenuousness. Armenia does its best to comply with the wishes of the international community, but as with the 2009 Protocol, Turkey added pre-conditions after nearly five years of deliberations, eventually killing the agreement.
“Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance,” wrote Sun Tzu.
Davidian a “system architect ” writing about “genocide” ?? I will tell you what you called genocide. Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton University:
“The point that was being made was that the massacre of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was the same as what happened to Jews in Nazi Germany and that is a downright falsehood. What happened to the Armenians was the result of a massive Armenian armed rebellion against the Turks, which began even before war broke out, and continued on a larger scale.”
There was an Armenian problem for the Turks created by the advance of the Russians, and also there was a population with an anti-Turkish sentiment in the Ottoman Empire who sought independence, and they overtly sympathized with the Russians advancing from the Caucasus. Also, there were Armenian bands, the Armenians bragged about their heroic exploits in resistance, and the Turks had trouble to maintain order under the prevailing war conditions. For the Turks it was necessary to take the punitive and preventive measure against a hostile population in a region threatened by foreign invasion. For the Armenians it was liberating their land. However, both parties agree that the repression was geographically limited; for example, those measures did not affect the Armenians who lived in the other parts of the Ottoman Empire.http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com/faq
Actually armenians very own first PM wrote about a large scale rebellion , how armenians armed against their government in his confessions.
‘… The war with us was inevitable… We had not done all that was necessary for us to have done to evade war. We ought to have used peaceful language with the Turks…We had no information about the real strength of the Turks and relied on ours. This was the fundamental error. We were not afraid of war because we thought we could win… Our army was well fed and well armed and [clothed] but it did not fight. The troops were constantly retreating and deserting their positions ; they threw away their arms and dispersed in the villages. …In spite of the fact that the Armenians had better material and better support, their armies lost. ….. the advancing Turks fought only against the regular soldiers ; they did not carry the battle to the civilian sector. ….the Turkish soldiers were well-disciplined and that there had not been any massacres…’
Source: The 1923 Bucharest Manifesto of Hovhannes Katchaznouni, the first PM of the Independent Armenian Republic, published by the Armenian Information Service Suite 7D, 471 Park Ave., New York 22-1955.
The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) has clearly recognized the Turkish extermination of the Armenians as genocide. see: http://www.genocidescholars.org. One can always find a handful of deniers be it regarding the genocide of Armenians or European Jews.
Interestingly enough, Raphael Lemkin, the lawyer who coined the term genocide, stated, “I became interested in genocide because it happened to the Armenians; and after the Armenians got a very rough deal at the Versailles Conference because their criminals were guilty of genocide and were not punished.” in a 1949 CBS TV interview with Quincy Howe.
Regarding Bernard Lewis, I suggest you consult Lewis for in his 1961 Book, _The Emergence of Modern Turkey_, Oxford University Press, Second Edition, 1961, reprint 1979, page 356, he wrote:
“Now a desperate struggle between them began a struggle between nations for the possession of a single homeland, that ended with the terrible holocaust of 1915 when a million and half Armenians perished.”
This passage was translated verbatim into Turkish in _Modern Turkiyenin Dogusu_, Bernard Lewis, Ingilizceden ceviren, Dr. Metin Kiratli, Turk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan, IV. Seri-Sayi 8, Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, Ankara, 1970, pages 353-354, as:
“Simdi bunlar arasinda muthis bir mucadele — bir bucuk milyon Ermenininin
yokoldugu korkunc 1915 felaketiyle sonuclanan, tek bir anayurdun sahipligi
ugruna iki ulus arasindaki bir mucadele — baslamisti.”
So, “kevin” what are your thoughts on the Turkish government suggesting a major Minister of State, such as Bağış, participate in an Armenian genocide commemoration? Why would Turkey float such a move and why at this time?
-David Davidian
1) On IAGS:
“I am less than impressed by the unanimous vote of the International Association of Genocide Scholars that the Armenian case ‘was one of the major genocides of the
modern era.’ The great majority of these self-proclaimed experts on Ottoman history have never set foot in an archive or done any other original research on the subject
in question.”
Guenter Lewy, Commentary, February 2006. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=11140&page=all
2) On Lemkin:
Contrary to this alleged quotation, Lemkin coined the word genocide in a book (Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, Washington, 1944) where the word Armenian is not even
used once. On the other handm that is right that Lemkin called “genocide” the fate of Ottoman Armenians, but only after 1948, i.e. after he changed his definition of
“genocide”; indeed, Lemkin wanted to include killings motivated by policy, not only racial, national and religious exterminations. So, if Lemkin coined the word, he was not
the redactor of UN convention which defines the genocide. Moreover, the posthumous publication of his “Armenian file” revealed an absolute ignorance of the truth. For
instance, Lemkin did nothing about the Malta investigation.
3) On Bernard Lewis:
In English, “holocaust” has the sense of “catastrophe” without genocidal implications. It is only “Holocaust” with a “H” which means the genocide against Jews.
4) On Turkish MFA:
Turkish MFA did not say that its representatives would participate to any “genocide” meetings, but would organize counter-meetings on April 24,
Armenian genocide is a long discredited, biased, and political claim. According to 1948 UN Convention, intent must be proven after due process at a competent tribunal for a genocide verdict to stand. No such tribunal (a la Nuremberg) was convened and no genocide verdict exists. Insisting on a non-existing label, purely based on a racist and dishonest version of history, boils down to lynching. When the six T’s of the Turkish-Armenian conflict are all truthfully considered, it will be obvious that it was a inter-communal warfare fought by Christian and Muslim irregulars. Truth should not be a fodder to newspaper ratings, political support, or other such benefits.
So, logically, then, if “genocide” had not been added to the charge sheet at Nuremberg, then that would mean the Holocaust never happened?
DOH!
Surely you see your fallacy, Kevin.
How can factual Holocaust be the same as armenian genocide? Did Jews establish Jewish armies behind German lines, kill noncombatant German citizens in order o establish a Jewish state on German soil during WWII? Were Jews involved in terrorism, raids, rebellions, treason, territorial demands from Germany, or kill half a million Germans during WWII? Ottoman-Armenians committed all those heinous war crimes and more during WWI. Wouldn’t equating the two be untrue and unethical? And an insult to the silent memory of the Jewish victims of Holocaust?
Kevin, whoever said the two crimes were “the same”? Not I. I was merely observing your logical fallacy. By your logic, if “genocide” had not been added to the charge sheet at Nuremberg, then it would mean the Holocaust never happened.
Surely you can see your error.
“…We have first hand information and evidence of Armenian atrocities against our people (Jews). Members of our family witnessed the murder of 148 members of our family near Erzurum, Turkey, by Armenian neighbors, bent on destroying anything and anybody remotely Jewish and/or Muslim… Armenians were in league with Hitler in the last war, on his premise to grant themselves government if, in return, the Armenians would help exterminate Jews. Armenians were also hearty proponents of the anti-Semitic acts in league with the Russian Communists…”
Source: Elihu Ben Levi, Vacaville, California. San Francisco Chronicle, December 11, 1983 ***
Armenians reject the quotes from Joseph Stalin where stated as: “The agents of the Allied Powers are exaggerating Turkey’s campaign in Transcaucasia, take it easy.” In the rest of the documents, he points out the large scale Armenian revolt against Ottoman military camping before the relocation. In past couple years, historians and their studies in Russia brought significant evidence from Bolshevik archives.
http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2008/03/2389-logical-fallacies-of-armenian.html
The Armenian staff writer presents the Turkish-Armenian conflict during WWI, naturally, from the Armenian point of view. Armenian claims of genocide cannot be substantiated with historical evidence, as more than 69 historians pointed out in a public statement decades ago (See New York Times and Washington Post dated May 19, 1985.) They said it was an inter-communal warfare fought by Christian and Muslim, mostly Armenians and Turkish, irregulars.
GENOCIDE ALLEGATIONS IGNORE “THE SIX T’S OF THE TURKISH-ARMENIAN CONFLICT” : The seemingly endless “War years” of 1912-1922 brought to the Ottoman Empire three wars (Balkan, WWI, and Turkish Independence) and wide-spread death and destruction on to all Ottoman citizens. No Turkish family was left touched.
ALLEGATIONS OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ARE RACIST AND DISHONEST HISTORY: They are racist because they ignore the Turkish dead: about 3 million during WWI; more than half a million of them at the hands of Armenian nationalists. And the allegations of Armenian genocide are dishonest because they simply dismiss the six T’s of the Turkish-Armenian conflict:
1) TUMULT (as in numerous Armenian armed uprisings between 1882 and 1921)
2) TERRORISM (by well-armed Armenian nationalists and militias victimizing Ottoman-Muslims between 1882-1921 and then again 1965 to present)
3) TREASON (Armenians joining the invading enemy armies as early as 1914 and lasting until 1921)
4) TERRITORIAL DEMANDS (where Armenians were a minority, not a majority, attempting to establish Greater Armenia, the would-be first apartheid of the 20th Century with a Christian minority ruling over a Muslim majority )
5) TURKISH SUFFERING AND LOSSES (i.e. those caused by the Armenian nationalists: 524,000 Muslims, mostly Turks, met their tragic end at the hands of Armenian revolutionaries during WWI, per Turkish Historical Society. This figure is not to be confused with about 2.5 million Muslim dead who lost their lives due to non-Armenian causes during WWI. Grand total: more than 3 million, per Prof. Justin McCarthy.)
6) TERESET (temporary resettlement order dated May 27, 1915) triggered by the first five T’s above and amply documented as such; not to be equated to the Armenian misrepresentations as genocide.)
Here is how John Dewey, Professor at Columbia University who visited the war theaters in mid 1920s put it in The New Republic, 12 November 1928:
“…Few Americans who mourn, and justly, the miseries of the Armenians, are aware that till the rise of nationalistic ambitions, beginning with the ‘eighteenseventies, the Armenians were the favored portion of the population of Turkey, or that in the Great War, they traitorously turned Turkish cities over to the Russian invader; that they boasted of having raised an Army of one hundred and fifty thousand men to fight a civil war, and that they burned at least a hundred Turkish villages and exterminated their population…”
And here is how Lamsa, George M., a missionary well known for his research on Christianity, put it in his book, The Secret of the Near East, The Ideal Press, Philadelphia 1923, p 133:
“…In some towns containing ten Armenian houses and thirty Turkish houses, it was reported that 40,000 people were killed, about 10,000 women were taken to the harem, and thousands of children left destitute; and the city university destroyed, and the bishop killed. It is a well- known fact that even in the last war the native Christians, despite the Turkish cautions, armed themselves and fought on the side of the Allies. In these conflicts, they were not idle, but they were well supplied with artillery, machine guns and inflicted heavy losses on their enemies….”
Dr. Gwynne Dyer, a London-based independent journalist, wrote this in 1976 about the propaganda efforts of the Armenian community and lobby:
“… The deafening drumbeat of the propaganda, and the sheer lack of sophistication in argument which comes from preaching decade after decade to a convinced and emotionally committed audience, are the major handicaps of Armenian historiography of the Diaspora today…”
U.S. Federal judges ruled on August 20, 21009, that the U.S. does not recognize genocide and that no one can sue on genocide claims. If it is not historically or legally true, then what is it?
…(Here is) the Manifesto of Hovhannes Katchaznouni, the first PM of the Independent Armenian Republic, published by the Armenian Information Service Suite 7D, 471 Park Ave., New York 22 – 1955 :
“… The war with us was inevitable… We had not done all that was necessary for us to have done to evade war. We ought to have used peaceful language with the Turks…We had no information about the real strength of the Turks and relied on ours. This was the fundamental error. We were not afraid of war because we thought we could win… Our army was well fed and well armed and [clothed] but it did not fight. The troops were constantly retreating and deserting their positions ; they threw away their arms and dispersed in the villages. …In spite of the fact that the Armenians had better material and better support, their armies lost. ….. the advancing Turks fought only against the regular soldiers ; they did not carry the battle to the civilian sector. ….the Turkish soldiers were well-disciplined and that there had not been any massacres…”
Since you are talking abut the extermination of european jews you should take a look at some of the docs yourself:
“…During WWI, the Russians invaded the Caucasus, and with the help of local Armenians, they have chased Turks and Jews, killed whoever they could catch, and then pillaged and plundered Turkish and Jewish villages. He was about 10 years old and my father-in-law was only 3 and he said there is no way he could forget that exodus, that fleeing. Turks and Jews brought with them to Anatolia whatever they could pack with them. Jewish families first went to Van (a city by the lake Van in Eastern Anatolia). While some Jewish families settled there, others continued their travel to settle in Adana and other places, and still others went as far as Palestine. What I am trying to my Armenian friends is this: everything has a prior history. If the Armenian attack and kill Turks, Turks, in their quest to avenge those Armenian atrocities, may have caused massacres in their counter attacks and chases. Aren’t these ‘eye for an eye’ feuds conventional and normal under the conditions of those days? In contrast, what the Germans did to 6 million Jews cannot be explained by such feuds, chases, or civil wars; there was absolutely no reason for the Holocaust. I never quite understood how the Armenians want to be included in the same category as the Jews of Holocaust.Momo Asafrana, December 09, 2004
“…To validate a spurious genocide allegations, the Armenians curry favor with the Jewish people, and manipulate the Holocaust tragedy to gain some undeserved recognition from this uniquely Jewish experience. Historical evidences point to a devious Armenian collusion with Hitler to exterminate the Jews during WW II. Today, no matter how much the Armenians try to conceal this heinous episode from the public knowledge the Armenian conspiracy with Hitler is in the history books — indelibly. Soon it will be in the public conscience too… In early 1930s, when Hitler ascended to power, he began cultivating the Armenians to use their long-standing and strong anti-semitic feelings in his plans and policy. The Armenians, through their publications, radio broadcasts and meetings supported and cheered the Nazis on their attacks on Jews. Alfred Rosenberg, who was to become later Hitler’s Minister of the Occupied Territories, declared that the Armenians were Indo-European, or Aryans, which honored them and put them in the same league with the Nazis. In Hitler’s foreign policy the Armenians fitted very nicely too. Hitler’s future invasion plans of Russia provided a golden opportunity for the Armenians to liberate what they considered to be “Historic Armenia” from the Soviet as well as the Turkish rule…”
Source: A.Ozer , THE ARMENIAN-NAZI COLLABORATION IN WW II
Many Reputable Scholars Challenge The Conventional, One-Sided Anti-Turkish Narrative And / Or Refrain From Alleging The Crime Of Genocide
http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2009/06/2889-ottoman-armenian-tragedy-is.html
These Are Their Words
1) Background – War And Imperial Collapse
The collapse of the Ottoman Empire dramatically rearranged the map of a vast region. What was once a sprawling, multi-ethnic empire splintered into more than two-dozen new nations, from the Balkans to the Caucasus to the Arabian peninsula. Across the surface of these lands unfolded a profound human tragedy. Nearly incessant war crippled the Ottoman economy. It left towns devoid of men to care for households or to tend crops. Military requisitions drained the countryside of livestock and many of the labor-saving implements of daily life. Disease ran rampant and famine struck many.
2) Vast Population Movements
As new states coalesced, large population masses streamed across the landscape, some fleeing the path of war, some seeking new lives among ethnic brethren or co-religionists, some having suffered expulsion, and some obeying negotiated population exchanges. Two such major movements were (a) the flight of Muslim refugees from newly-established Christian states in Balkans and the Caucasus into what would become modern Turkey during the period roughly between 1821 and 1922, and (b) the relocation of much of the Ottoman Armenian population from the war zone of eastern Anatolia into Ottoman domains in Syria, mainly in 1915-16.
3) A Genuine Historic Controversy
History records the enormous human suffering from both of these events: Perhaps 5.5 million Muslims, mostly Turks, died as refugees or were killed in the years immediately preceding and during World War I, as well as through the formative years of the Republic of Turkey. And certainly hundreds of thousands of Armenians died during the Armenian Revolt and the relocations consequently ordered by the Ottoman government. Scholars on the Ottoman Empire continue to examine the details and causes of these twin tragedies. What they have uncovered is not a singular tale of Christian woe, but rather a complex story that, if presented as evidence, would make it highly unlikely that a genocide charge could be sustained against the Ottoman government or its successor before a neutral arbiter.
Thus, whether the tragic suffering of the Ottoman Armenians meets the definition of the crime of genocide as provided by the . . .See Appendix 1 . . . United Nations Genocide Convention . . . Appendix 1 remains a genuine historic controversy. Moreover, the notion that the one-sided Armenian narrative is settled history must be utterly rejected so that researchers will feel free to delve into the details of these contested events.
4) Questions Considered
Among the work of the scholars below, many of whom are Ottoman history experts, are considerations of the following questions:
* Is the genocide label, which is so vigorously promoted by Armenian advocacy organizations appropriate?
* Did the Ottoman government during World War I possess the requisite intent described by the U.N. Genocide Convention, to destroy the Armenians?
* What was the Armenian * Revolt . . . See Appendix 2 . . . Armenian Revolt . . . Appendix 2 and how did it impact the Ottoman government’s decision to relocate Armenian civilians from eastern Anatolia?
* What was the ultimate toll upon the Armenian population? And how many deaths could be attributed to the various causes: intercommunal warfare, starvation, exposure, massacre, disease, etc.?
* What was the ultimate toll upon the Ottoman Muslim population embroiled in these same events? And how many deaths can be attributed to the same causes?
Their work establishes a better basis upon which to address historic grievances than the one-sided narrative most often provided in media accounts and by Armenian lobbyists and their advocates. In effect, these scholars provide the oft-ignored historical context, which is critical to any explanation of the shared past of the Turkish and Armenian peoples.
At a minimum, the list below demonstrates that in fact, there exists no common agreement that the genocide label is appropriate and that, contrary to assertions made by Armenian lobby groups, the details of the historic narrative remain open to further study and interpretation.
5) The Impact Of Physical And Academic Intimidation
Sadly, this list likely under-represents the number of scholars who would challenge the conventional wisdom on the Armenian tragedy. Those who write from a contra-genocide perspective have had to do so under extraordinary risk. Merely because of something he wrote, the home Prof. Stanford Shaw of U.C.L.A. was firebombed. Death threats have been received by Justin McCarthy and his family. The university press that published Guenter Lewy’s latest work was harassed by two Armenian scholars. (See, . . . Appendix 3: Ethnic Cleansing or Genocide . . . ? Appendix 3, by Masaki Kakiszaki, Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1, 85–92, Spring 2007.) The University of Southern California in 2006 buckled to the vociferous protest of an Armenian pressure group and canceled a symposium by two former Turkish diplomats. Meanwhile, foreign nations such as France and Switzerland have rendered it against the law even to hold the contra-genocide viewpoint. Princeton University’s Bernard Lewis was famously fined by a French court in 1995 for such an “offense.” And, the Armenian terrorist organizations ASALA and JCAG carried out no fewer than 73 acts of terrorism in North America alone, killing 16 people. Around the world, Armenian terrorists killed at least 50 more people, mostly Turkish diplomat murdered in planned assassinations and injured over 500, all in the name of “genocide recognition.” In short, the chilling effect this has had on free discussion and open debate on the history of the late Ottoman Empire has been genuine and severe, lowering a curtain of fear over the consideration of this important era of world history.
6) Additions And Subtractions
Our aim is to evaluate as closely as possible each name on the list based on the published statements or writings of each scholar that are readily available. We welcome visitor suggestions for additions to the list. And likewise, if you believe that a particular name ought not be on the list, please let us know. Our goal is to continue to openly discuss and debate the details of history and the genocide allegation. For feedback, please contact info at tc-america.org
Whether the tragic suffering of the Ottoman Armenians meets the definition of the crime of genocide as provided by the United Nations Genocide Convention [web] remains a genuine historic controversy. The notion that the one-sided Armenian narrative is settled history does not reflect the truth and must be utterly rejected.
The work of the following scholars demonstrates that there exists no common agreement that the genocide label is appropriate and that, contrary to assertions made by Armenian lobby groups, the historic narrative of this painful period in Ottoman-Armenian relations remains open to further study and interpretation. Furthermore, the work by the leading historians on the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East provides the oft-ignored historical context without which any explanation of the shared past of the Turkish and Armenian peoples is simply impossible.
Our aim is to evaluate as closely as possible each name on the list based on the published statements or writings of each scholar that are readily available. Our goal is to continue to openly discuss and debate the details of history and the genocide allegation. For feedback, please contact info at tc-america.org
________________________________________
SCHOLARS
* Arend Jan Boekestijn
* Mary Schaeffer Conroy
* Youssef Courbage
* Paul Dumont
* Bertil Duner
* Gwynne Dyer
* Edward J. Erickson
* Philippe Fargues
* Michael M. Gunter
* Paul Henze
* Eberhard Jäckel
* Firuz Kazemzadeh
* Yitzchak Kerem
* William L. Langer
* Bernard Lewis
* Guenter Lewy
* Heath W. Lowry
* Andrew Mango
* Robert Mantran
* Michael E. Meeker
* Justin McCarthy
* Hikmet Ozdemir
* Stephen Pope
* Michael Radu
* Jeremy Salt
* Stanford Shaw
* Norman Stone
* Hew Strachan
* Elizabeth-Anne Wheal
* Brian G. Williams
* Gilles Veinstein
* Malcolm Yapp
* Thierry Zarcone
* Robert F. Zeidner
* 69 US Academicians To House of Representatives, Petition 1985
*Appel De Blois (English)
1
Armenian thesis of genocide is denied by their ancestors themselves!
The ancestors of the Armenians who made their history are the real deniers. As you know, whoever disagree with the Armenian genocide claims are labelled as ‘deniers’, as ‘agents of Turkish government’, or ‘people hired by the Turkish government’ or ‘disingenous scholars/authorities’ Turkish nationalists’, ‘Turkish racists’. And, here are the names of Armenians who comply with the these terms:
“Garo Pasdermichan (Pastirmaciyan), the Ottoman deputy of Erzurum and commander of all the Armenian officials and soldiers of the Ottoman Third Army which joined the Russian Army in 1914, was the main denier and Turkish racist. Because, he wrote in his book ‘Why Armenia Should Be Free’ (Boston, Dec.1918, Hairenik Publishing Company p. 16-17) that annual Congress of Armenian Party Dashnagzoutiun was held in Erzurum in August 1914, before the war broke, and Turkish emissaries offered Dashnaks an autonomous Armenia (made up of Russian Armenia and the three Turkish vilayets of Erzurum, Van and Bitlis) under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire’, if they joined the Turkish side and stopped supporting the Russians. He also stated that the executive committee of the Dashnagzoutiun rejected the proposal!
The Armenian members of this parley were the well-known publicist E.Aknouni, the representative from Van, A.Vramian, and the director of the Armenian schools in the district of Erzurum, Mr Rostom.
Another main denier was Boghos Noubar Pasha, the Armenian National Delegation President in The Paris Peace Conference 1919 who also stated that the Turks offered them autonomy in August 1914, much before the deportation, but they rejected this proposal and placed themselves without hesitation on the side of the Entente Powers from whom they expected liberation [Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States The Paris Peace Conference 1919 (United States Government Printing Office, 1948, Vol IV, p 139-157)].
Armenian Boghos Noubar Pasha, who told that ‘150 000 Armenian volunteers in Russian Army were the only forces against Turks’ (Times of London , 1919 Jan 30 Link: http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2007/10/2013-150-000-armenian-volunteers-in.html) was obviously a denier and agent of Turkish government.
Hovannes Katchaznouni, the first prime-minister of the Armenian state founded in 1918 and the prime authority of the Dashnagzoutiun Party who wrote a book ‘Dashnagzoutiun Has Nothing to do Anymore’ was also another chief denier. Because, in his book which is banned in Armenia at present, he stated that
*it was a mistake to establish the volunteer units.
*They were unconditionally allied with Russia,
*They massacred the Moslem population,
*The Armenian terrorist acts were directed, at winning the Western public opinion.
*British occupation aroused hopes of the Dashnaks,
*They were provoked by imperial Sea to Sea land demand,
*They had not taken into consideration Turkey’s power,
* They should have used a peaceful language towards the Turks but they (Armenian Dashnaks) rejected the Turks who suggested to negotiate with them and they went on making war
(KS Papazian the writer of ‘Patriotism Perverted’ published in 1934, in Boston, also confirms this Turkish suggestion. Note that ‘Patrionism Perverted’ is banned in Armenia).
*The decision of the deportation of Armenians was a rightful measure taken by Turks.
*Turkey had acted with an instinct of self-defence.
*Their government was a Dashnak dictatorship.
*The fault was within the Dashnak Party. They should commit suicide. They had nothing to do.
2
Vratsyan, the last prime minister of Dashnaks who wrote in an article published in December 3 1920 issue of Araç, that they transformed Armenia to an arenna of endless wars with its neighbours for the Entente Powers (RGASPİ fond 80, list 4, file 83, sheet 136) was another chief denier and agent of Turkish government.
Armenian Messrs. Ahonian and Hadissian who were the spokesmen of the Armenian delegation of the New Armenian Republic and visited Sultan Mehmet VI, Vahdeddin in Istanbul on September 6, 1918 were also Turkish nationalists. See the telegram sent by Mr Ahorian to the Armenian Prime Minister Kachaznuni:
‘On September 6th, when we were in Selamlik we had an audience. We presented our congratulations on his accession to the throne. We submitted our best wishes for the development of the Empire and its well-being. We stated that the Armenian nation would never forget that it was the Ottoman Government which first conceived the idea of founding an independent Armenia, and recognized it, that the Armenian Government would do everything possible to protect friendly relations between the two countries and to strengthen them. His Majesty thanked us.
He stated that he was very happy at seeing the envoys of independenbt and free Armenia, that he wished not only her development , but that she be strong in order to retain her independence. His Majesty is entirely convinced that friendly relations will always exist between the two neighboring countries, Turkey and Armenia, in order that both of them may develop. He concluded his remarks by stating that he was very hapy to see that Armenia had the strength to found an independent state which was able to send envoys to Istanbul, and repeated his best wishes for our country’. (Erich Feigl, A Myth of Terror, Edition Zeitgeschichte Freilassing, Salzburg, Austria p.97)
The Armenian Soviet historian A.A.Lalayan who stated that the Dashnaks displayed extreme courage to massacre Turkish women, children and ill and old people (Contrarevolyutsionnıy ‘Daşnaktsutyun’ İ İmperialisti-çeskaya Voyna 1914-1918 gg.’, Revolyutsionnıy Vostok, No.2-3, p.92, 1936) and who also quoted the following report of a Dashnag officer, Aslem Varaam written in 1920, in Beyazit-Varan was an Armenian denier and he was also hired by the Turkish government . The report of Aslem Varaam was:
“I exterminated the Turkish population in Bashar-Gechar without making any exceptions. One some times feels the bullets shouldn’t be wasted. So, the most effective way against these dogs is to collect the people who have survived the clashes and dump them in deep holes and crush them under heavy rocks pressed from above, not to let them inhabit this world any longer. So I did accordingly. I collected all the women, men and children and extinguished their lives in the deep holes I dumped them into, crushing them with rocks.”
A.Lalayan, Revolutsionniy Vostok (Revolutionary East) No: 2-3, p.92 vd, Moscow, 1936; Istoricheskie Zapisky No 2, p.101, 1928
3
Armenian T. Haçikoğlyan who told that the Dashnaks eradicated thousands of Turks with their bloody hands (T. Haçikoglyan, 10 Let Armyanskoy Sttrelkovoy Divizii,p4-6. İzdatelstvo Polit. Uprav. KKA, Tiflis, 1930) was also a denier and agent of Turkish government.
The Armenian poet Mikael Nalbandyan who wrote these lines in his poem ‘The March of People of Zeytun, was another denier and Turkish nationalist:
‘..Şad ısdrugner yeğan azad/Miyayin menk mnank hılu hıbadag/Zeytuntsiner mer zposank/E baderazm yev arşavank/ Sur, tur, kıntag yev hıratsan/ Mer khağalikın en havidyan….’
(A lot of slaves were set free/ Only we were left who were obedient/Amusements of us, people of Zeytun are/ War and raid/ Our inexhaustible toys are/ Sword, saber, bullet and gun…….) (Nor Knar, p99).
Zeytun was one of the places where the Armenians rebelled and massacred the Turks and Muslims.
KS Papazian the writer of ‘Patriotism Perverted’ published in 1934, in Boston was also a denier. Because:
Papazian critized A. Khatisian and the then prime minister S.Vratzian for not publishing the text of Treaty of Gümrü which they signed on December 2, 1920 to put an end to the war between Turkey and the Armenian Republic on December 2, 1920, which coincided with the entrance of Bolsheviks in Armenia.
Papazian also stated that the Armenian prime minister Simon Vratzian applied to the Turkish government on March 18, 1921 and asked military help of the Turks against the Bolsheviks!
Even Gourgen Mıgırdıç Yanıkyan (age 78), the Armenian murderer of Los Angeles prime consul of Turkey Mehmet Baydar (age 49) and the co consul Bahadır Demir (age 30) in Santa Barbara, in 1973, was a real denier, Turkish nationalist and agent of Turkish government. Because he admitted in his trial on June 13, 1973, via his attorney Lindsay that he (Yanıkyan) had been a member of an army made up of 10 000 volunteers to fight against the Turks in Armenia, in the beginning of March 1915 and in chief of this army had been an Armenian general called Andranik. This had been prepared as four parties and had started to battle with the Turks in Iğdır, under the leadership of Russian general Dron and had proceeded to Van,
they had occupied Van and meanwhile had destroyed and had fired Turkish villages (Dışişleri Bakanlığı <Santa Barbara Suikasti. Telephone from Washington Embassy to the Turkish Foreign Ministry, 15.6.1973, No:220 and June 21, 1973. No:225)
Of course, even these few examples give great harm to the present Armenian thesis and lead people to question the Armenian’s innocence, their predominance in Ottoman population, and most importantly their genocide thesis. Of course, the fact that Turks offered the Dashnaks an autonomous Armenia (made up of Russian Armenia and the three Turkish vilayets of Erzurum, Van and Bitlis) under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire’, if they joined the Turkish side and stopped supporting the Russians, the other fact that the executive committee of the Dashnagzoutiun rejected the proposal in August 1914 before the war broke and that they rejected all other Turkish calls of negotiations repeated during WWI too, are the major points that are not wanted by the Armenians to be known
(Garo Pastırmacıan, Why Armenia Should be Free?, Boston, Dec.1918, Hairenik Publishing Company p. 16-17 and Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States The Paris Peace Conference 1919 , United States Government Printing Office, 1948, Vol IV, p 139-157).
Of course they fear a question of why the Turks did offer autonomy to Armenians if they decided to eradicate them.
And they fear the question of why and how the Armenian prime minister Simon Vratzian applied the Turkish government on March 18, 1921 and asked military help of the Turks against the Bolsheviks, in spite of the fact that the Turks committed a (so-called) genocide and murdered 1.5 million Armenians!
And they also are very frightened of the question how the Ottoman Government eradicated 1,5 million of Armenians but in spite of this it was the Ottomans who first conceived the idea of founding an independent Armenia, and recognized it first.
Moreover, it was the Ottoman Sultan who first wished not only the development of Armenian Republic, but that she be strong in order to retain her independence! Astonishingly, it was the Ottoman Sultan, who stated that friendly relations would always exist between the two neighboring countries
That is, the Armenian ancestors who created their history (the top representatitives of the Ottoman Armenians, Dashnags and prime ministers of Armenia), the Armenian historians and poets who wittnessed this period and even the Armenian murderers of Turkish diplomats are the main deniers!
So, it is not surprising that both the book of Hovannes Katchaznouni, the first prime-minister of the Armenian state, ‘Dashnagzoutiun Has Nothing to do Anymore’ and the book of K.S.Papazian ‘Patrionism Perverted’ are banned in Armenia. It is also a fact that all the copies of the book of Hovannes Katchaznouni, in all languages were collected from the libraries in Europe by Dashnags. The book is included in the catalogues but no copies can be found in the racks.
It is not surprising either that, the Armenians even claim that nobody called A.A. Lalayan, the Soviet-Armenian historian, ever lived!
Yes, they can ban the books of the makers of their history, they can buy politicians by their votes and urge them to accept historical resolutions and memorial laws in their parliaments, they can threaten the historians who do not support their thesis, they can sue them, they can even bomb their houses as they did before (http://209.232.239.37/gtd1/ViewIncident.aspx?id=56624) but they can never ban scholar thought and silence the historians of the world!
Note that Pierre Nora, president of the association ‘Liberty for history’ founded in 2005, has recently stated that the history should not be a slave to currency or written under the dictation of competing memoirs; in a free state, it does not belong to any political authority to define the historical truth and restrict freedom of the historian under threat of criminal sanctions. In a democracy, freedom for history is the freedom of all (http://www.lph-asso.fr//articles/46.html, . http://www.lph-asso.fr//tribunes/49.html)
Now do you understand why the Armenians vehemently resist the establishment of historical joint commissions made up of historians from Armenia, Turkey and other countries?
Do you understand why Prof Richard Hovannisian from California University (the father of the first Foreign Minister of Armenia) said: ‘It is very dangerous to establish such an historical commission…’ in an interview with Armenian Reporter? http://www.kophaber.com/news_detail.php?id=4726
Do you understand why the Armenians have not admitted to International Court of Justice for more than 90 years and why they urge politicians to write their history as they want?
5
Of course, even these few examples give great harm to the present Armenian thesis and lead people to question the Armenian’s innocence, their predominance in Ottoman population, and most importantly their genocide thesis. Of course, the fact that Turks offered the Dashnaks an autonomous Armenia (made up of Russian Armenia and the three Turkish vilayets of Erzurum, Van and Bitlis) under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire’, if they joined the Turkish side and stopped supporting the Russians, the other fact that the executive committee of the Dashnagzoutiun rejected the proposal in August 1914 before the war broke and that they rejected all other Turkish calls of negotiations repeated during WWI too, are the major points that are not wanted by the Armenians to be known
(Garo Pastırmacıan, Why Armenia Should be Free?, Boston, Dec.1918, Hairenik Publishing Company p. 16-17 and Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States The Paris Peace Conference 1919 , United States Government Printing Office, 1948, Vol IV, p 139-157).Of course they fear a question of why the Turks did offer autonomy to Armenians if they decided to eradicate them.
And they fear the question of why and how the Armenian prime minister Simon Vratzian applied the Turkish government on March 18, 1921 and asked military help of the Turks against the Bolsheviks, in spite of the fact that the Turks committed a (so-called) genocide and murdered 1.5 million Armenians!
And they also are very frightened of the question how the Ottoman Government eradicated 1,5 million of Armenians but in spite of this it was the Ottomans who first conceived the idea of founding an independent Armenia, and recognized it first.
Moreover, it was the Ottoman Sultan who first wished not only the development of Armenian Republic, but that she be strong in order to retain her independence! Astonishingly, it was the Ottoman Sultan, who stated that friendly relations would always exist between the two neighboring countries
In spite of the knee-jerk flurry of typical Turkish genocide denial, the question remains: why has the Turkish government allowed a major Turkish newspaper, Sabah, to keep active and unrecanted a report stating that the Turkish Minister of State, Bağış, has been asked to attend an Armenian genocide commemoration? This is especially important, considering that officially Turkey claims the genocide of the Armenians never occurred.
If this is not a trial balloon floated for the purposes of genocide obfuscation, why hasn’t the Turkish Foreign Ministry issued or ordered a retraction?
-David Davidian