[Disclaimer: This post is meant as a discussion of the Armenian genocide/massacres question solely as a "news" item in the historical area. I make no pretensions as to authoritative facts on the issue, as I know little on the subject of the Armenian Genocide/Massacres aside from some second-hand info. I apologize beforehand if I make any stupid mistakes - AIWAC]
Gunter Lewy, a well-respected political scientist, is no stranger to controversy. He is the author of a book on the Nazi persecution of the gypsies, where he argued that though they suffered terribly and were often massacred en masse, their suffering was not "genocide" as there was no overall intention to wipe them all out, as opposed to the Jews. Recently, he also disputed the claim that the American Indians suffered a "genocide" at the hands of European colonists, again due to the lack of intent to exterminate them.
Both works aroused heated debate. However, none are as likely to cause the "earthquake" that will likely arise from his next work - on the Armenian genocide/massacres - that will come out at the end of the month under the University of Utah Press imprint. An article of Lewy's, perhaps meant as precurser to his book, has already received an indignant and long reply from Vahakn Dadrian, one of the leading authorities on the subject (It is probably his letter that is part of the "Armenian Genocide" Correspondence in the current issue of MEQ.)If I understand correctly, and again I'm not an expert, no one (at least no reputable historian) denies that at least hundreds of thousands of Armenians died through forced famine, thirst (both due to deportations), and massacre during the First World War. Neither does anyone deny that the Ottoman Empire ordered virtually the entire Armenian population deported from areas near Russia, the enemy of the Empire. Rather, the debate revolves around the question of whether the Turkish authorities intended to physically exterminate, rather than 'simply' deport through hardship and attending death, all or at least a large part of the Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire.
To say that this is a controversial subject is the understatement of the year. To this day, the Turkish Government refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing whatsoever with regard to the sufferings of the Armenians during WWI, and has taken action against those who try to say otherwise. Indeed, the state of Israel has been reluctant to adress the issue because of the danger of severance of ties with Turkey, an important ally in the region. On the other side of the spectrum are contries such as France, which not only recognizes the Armenian Genocide, but where Bernard Lewis was famously found guilty of tortious damage to the Armenian community in 1995 for denying that what happenned constituted genocide.It then follows that Lewy's book is akin to pouring gasoline on an already raging fire. Will it force a thorough debate and discussion of the facts, so we can finally know who was historically right, as much as can be done? Or will politics prevail in this horrible, unending controversy, where actual debate of the facts will take a back seat to polemics and mud-slinging? Only time will tell.
6 comments:
Dadrian's position is that the genocidal massacres during WWI - in which 1.5 million Armenians, not a few hundred thousand, died- are directly connnected, in fact, have their origin in the massacres of the 1894-96 period in which up to 250,000 Armenians were butchered by, in many cases, ordinary Muslims stirred up during religious services.
The backdrop to all of this, as Dadrian sees the matter, was the ongoing collapse of the Ottoman Empire wherein people were divided by religion as a result of the tenets of Islam requiring, as it does, Muslims to command the heights of society and others to be subservient, the effort by those non-Muslim "nations" ruled by the theocratic Ottoman Empire (e.g. Greeks and Serbs) to be free or equal and the support that such people received - sporadically so that the Sultan learned how to avoid Europe's demands, particularly with respect to the Armenians - from Europe with the Europeans failing entirely to understand, as they still do to this day, that Islamic law is a real thing which most Muslims take as being the outcome of God's literal word, with actual impact on society, and that the effort to bring equality to non-Muslims was hated by most Muslims as literally being an attack on Islam itself.
Rather than agree to equality, the Sultan attacked the potential beneficiaries of Europe's policy of humanitarian intervention (i.e. the policy for bringing equality to the Ottoman Empire which was to help, among others, Armenians and Maronites). Hence, attacks began on the Maronites (with tens of thousands of them killed before France intervened) and later the attacks on Armenians which the Europeans did, essentially, nothing to stop because the Armenians were not sufficiently allied with Europeans.
The Armenians were accused, in violation of their ancient pact of concession with the Ottoman Empire, of consorting with European powers. Having violated the pact of concession (called a dhimma or zhimmet), the Muslims, according to Islamic law, had the right to resort to Jihad, which is what they did, with the massacres carried out by Kurdish Muslims and Turkish Muslims and Muslim Arabs, after such people were inflamed during mosque. Armenians were massacred to cries of Allahu Akbar and those involved in killing people evidently thought that they could, in good conscience, kill.
In WWI, the Ottomans were ruled by the Itahist party. That party, while the leaders were rather non-religious, ruled the country as it had been, a theocratic state. They employed the same sort of rhetoric against the Armenians. In part, the notion of killing them was due to their presence near other Turkish people in circumstances where the Turks, realizing that the empire in Europe was history, wanted to survive as an Asian, Turkish empire in which only Turks (i.e. Muslims) lived.
To say that this is a controversial subject is the understatement of the year.
No it is the overstatement of the year. The subject is only controversial in Turkey.
All the major genocide scholars in the US, Israel and the E.U. define this not only as a genocide but the definative one.
In fact when Israel started asking scholars to de-empahsize the Armenian genocide during the wrming of Israel-Turkish relations in the mid-1990's, ALL the heads of the major Holocuast and Genocide studies centers in Israel rebelled and co-signed a letter saying that the the move to deny the Armenain genocide was reprehensible.
Do some reading the very term "genocide" was coined by a Polish Jew to describe the actionas agains the Armenians.
Both your comments are interesting and informative. I would like to point out that I wrote at least hundredas of thousands, not just a few hundred thousand. Also, to call the Armenian genocide as THE definitive genocide, especially in light of the Holocaust and Rwanda, seems to me to be overstating the case. Certainly, and sadly, it was the first one of a long list of genocides. There is no need to overstate an already horrible story.
Again, both comments are greatly appreciated.
This is an ongoing issue between Fanatic Armenians and Turks. There are number of important points not considered by those fanatics:
1. All the alleged crime took place during a long war between 1914 and 1918. The falling Ottoman empire was loosing identity and its' freedom while a bunch of freedom fighters were trying to protect their land. British and Russian supported Armenian citizens of Ottoman Empire started massive killing woman, elderly and children in the villages. At the time, villages had no men because most men were at the war protecting whatever left as their land. Armenians did similar attacks in 1990's in Azerbaijan. If you look for evidence, OPEN THE ARMENIAN ARCHIVES to scholars, you will see that. If there is anything left. But, they never do it. WHY?
2. The total number of known Armenians were about 600,000 to 800,000 in most of the reported records. Most of them went to Syria, Russia and some stayed in Ottoman region. I wonder how they report 1.5 millions are killed?
3. Why is it that the Armenian lobby and Armenian government denied to attend 3 formal forums in the last 4 years to discuss the subject. They only prefer to lie on billboards on US highways and buy the history by paying large amount of sums to politicians. ATTEND the FORUM and DISCUSS the FACTS, so that we can all learn?
4. They pressure PBS (another unfair media) not to show anything else on the subject but only fanatic Armenians' (killer of over 24 Turkish diplomats) point of view. PBS is accepting large donations from Armenian lobby and unfortunately can not say no to this donation.
Here is my offer to whoever reads this.
As a Turkish American, I learned everything here in US by reading from the books that is not written by neither an Armenian nor a Turk. Number of them are written by British and American historians. None of them claims any evidence of massive killings of Armenians. For more information please read the books written by Sam Weems, Justin McCarthy and other scholars. There is saying by a very famous, respected journalist:
YOU can not have OPINION, before you have KNOWLEDGE.
Nobody denies deaths but I believe this deserves a through discussion but Armenian side is trying to turn it into a political matter. Recently PBS cancelled a discussion on the matter because of threats and protests from the Armenian community. I'd personally take every opportunity to prove other side wrong, rather than avoiding confrontation if I was certain about correctness of my claim. Turkish side of the story fills in the gaps in the Armenian story by adding events that happened before, after and during that period. Armenian Revolt for independence with support of Russian forces are very well documented. Many sources (Russian, Ottoman records, and US news correspondents) point out that thousands of innocent Turks and Kurds were killed by Armenian bandits or numbers increasing to thousands in a day when a city was occupied by Russian & Armenian forces. It is sometimes a smart way to forget mentioning things that conflict with your point but to continue this you need to avoid any confrontation with the scholars not supporting your idea. Because you can't avoid facts when they say 'What about this?' in a discussion. A quick fact 144 high-ranked Ottoman Officers were interned for 30 months in the island of Malta (some refer to it as Malta Tribunal even though there was not an actual trial since prosecution couldn't find proofs to convict them) 1999-1921, they were released because there was no evidence that would be considered an evidence in a court of law. I think this needs a fair discussion among historians from both sides (and neutral ones) which Turkish government keeps calling but Armenian government keeps turning down. Everybody deserves a fair trial. Disputes are not solved by convincing governments or people.
I haven’t read Lewy’s book, so I cannot comment on that yet, however, I cannot leave your page without speaking out…
We as Turks stand accused of crime of genocide, not because there is overwhelming evidence that demonstrates Turks have indeed committed such a heinous crime; rather we are accused because, and only because of negative opinions, and attitudes towards our ethnicity and our religion… We are judged guilty not because of our actions--but because of our identity… The refusal to hear our voices, or silence those who try (like France), stems from the same prejudice; nothing else!
Post a Comment