The Turkish-Armenian Debate (part 6)

For the past week now, I've been working on part 6 of our great debate, which originally started as a response to Bolsa's long post. Please read his post if you haven't already because he brings a fantastically stereotypical setup to this conversation that I've been wanting to argue against for a long time now.

His setup is about explaining the historical context of Patriarch Varjabedyan's letter to the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lord Salisbury on April 13, 1878. At this point, I would also like to point out that I, myself, am also very much in favor of explaining the historical context. So, in search of this I found a lot of comments, references, and quotes, but nothing and no one stuck out more than Hovhannes Katchaznouni. He was the first Prime minister of the Democratic Republic of Armenia, founded in July of 1918 but later swallowed by the Soviets. Katchaznouni was a founder of the Dashnagzoutiun Party and previously also a member of the Armenian National Council. He delivered his report called "Dashnagtzoutiun has nothing to do anymore" to the Dashnatziun Congress in April of 1923. I selected the following exerts but you are welcome to read the whole thing in pdf format here (starting from page 29):

[...] In the Fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer bands organized themselves from organizing and refrain themselves from fighting. This was an inevitable result of a psychology on which the Armenian people had nourished itself during an entire generation [...]

[...] If the formation of the bands was wrong, the root of that error must be sought much further and more deeply. At the present time it is important to register only the evidence that we did participate in that volunteer movement to the largest extent and we did that contrary to the decision and the will of the General Meeting of the Party.

The Winter of 1914 and the Spring of 1915 were the periods of greatest enthusiasm and hope for all the Armenians in the Caucasus, including, of course, the Dashnagtzoutiun. We had no doubt that the war would end with the complete victory of the Allies; Turkey would be defeated and dismembered, and its Armenian population would at last be liberated.

We had embraced Russia whole-heartedly without any compunction. Without any positive basis of fact we believed that the Tzarist government would grant us a more-or-less broad self-government in the Caucasus and in the Armenian vilayets liberated from Turkey as a reward for our loyalty, our efforts and assistants.

We had created a dense atmosphere of illusion in our minds. We had implanted our own desires into the minds of others; we had lost our sense of reality and were carried away with our dreams. [...]

We overestimated the ability of the Armenian people, its political and military power, and overestimated the extent and importance of the services our people rendered to the Russians. And by overestimating our very modest worth and merit we were naturally exaggerating our hopes and expectations.

[...]

And we were unable to save those precious lives. Angered and terrified, we sought the culprits and quickly found them; the deceitful politics of the Russian government. With the politically immature mind peculiar to inconsequential men, we fell from one extreme to another. Just as unfounded was our faith in the Russian government yesterday, our condemnation of them today was equally blind and groundless. [...]

[After giving great detail of how Russia double-crossed the Armenian Revolutionaries, he lists a few possibilities as to how Soviet-Armenians could be freed.]

Are not we capable of doing in the Soviet Armenia what we did in the Turkish Armenia, for tens of years? We certainly are.

We might establish a base in the Iranian Karadag and send people and arms to the other side of Aras (Araxe), (just as we did in Salmas [Azeri city but province of Iran] once). We might establish the necessary secret relations and establish armed 'humb's and Sunik and Derelegez mountains just as we did in the Sasun mountains and the Catak stream. We might provoke the peasants in some regions difficult to access, to rise and then we might expel the communists there or destroy them. Later we might create great commotion even in Yerevan and occupy a state building at least for a few hours just as we occupied the Ottoman Bank or we might explode any building. We could plan assassinations and execute them just as we killed the officials of the Tsar and the Sultan and kill a few Bolsheviks; in the same way, just as we did to Sultan Abdulhamid, we could plant a bomb under Myasnikov's or Lukashin's feet.

We could do all these, I think we could. ... When we created a great hubbub in Turkey, we thought we would attract the attention of the great powers to the Armenian cause and would force them to mediate for us, but now we know what such mediation is worth and do not need to repeat such endeavors. If Europe has not been able to help us in Turkey, Russia will never be able to do it, nor will they wish to do it. As a method of controlling separate individuals, terror might have been of some use on the Kurdish troublemakers or the officials of the Tsar. However, we have to admit that the Bolsheviks are or a different fiber. If there is to be terror on both sides, the Bolsheviks will not be short of it, on the contrary, they will leave us behind in that respect.

[...] Are we capable of turning the tendencies among the people into a civil war? This is very disputable, but possible. [...]

But why? When the Bolsheviks are strongly in power in Russia and when in our back, there is Turkey in alliance with the Bolsheviks, is it possible to expel the Bolsheviks from Armenia?

I think not even one such naive person who might believe this can be found among our ranks. If there is civil war, it is going to result in our defeat. [...] As the Red Banner swings in Russia, it will inevitably swing in Yerevan too. [...]

--- Source: "Dashnagtzoutiun has nothing to do anymore"; The Manifesto of Hovhannes Katchaznouni (Prime minister from 1918 to 1919)

And so it did inevitably. So, here we have some great historical context from someone who has served in the highest Armenian ranks for years, has negotiated and helped push the Armenian cause as far as it got in his day.

Of course, I purposely chose him because it's an original source from the Armenian side admitting to certain facts of our conflict that many many Armenians either deny or dismiss completely. In fact, since Bolsa seems so eager reviewing historical context of the incidents, I would not mind hearing what the context of Katchaznouni's writing "really" is for today's Armenian nationalists.

No matter how much I dig and search, I seem to come up with similar events that I cannot, and no one else should, ignore. Whether being led by religious figures, rebels, or politicians, the Armenian consensus was not to stay as the loyal Millet but rather to become their own independent state at any cost. In the process of this they had to play the fiddle to all sides at pretty much the same time, while trying to mediate their gain, for which the basis really was religion. They played the Europeans and Brits against the Ottomans by victimizing themselves at first and hoping to be rescued into a statehood while still having some loyal elements in position. Then they also pledged unconditional allegiance to the Russians hoping not to be ignored when the time came for sharing the booty. On top of all of it, they then turn around and try to remind us how loyal they were and that Ottoman Turks had no reason for calling them backstabbers. What other name should they have been called?

I truly believe that all of this would come to light if the damn archives could be analyzed, and not just the Turkish ones, but also the Armenian ones. Yes, especially the Dashnak and Hunchak archives in Boston, which are not open to anyone, yet.

Well, I think it's safe to say that despite their historical loyalty, their opposing religious convictions and premature nationalistic aspirations led them into a bigger disaster than anybody could have imagined or planned. Katchaznouni pointed this out very well. So, if historical context is of relevance we should not ignore the true motives of the Armenian minority. On that same token, this also should never justify mass killings, but I just wanted to make sure that certain details are not overlooked. The justification of retaliation is a nationalists credo in any country, which reminds me.

Bolsa, in a previous comment, you implied in your last sentence that retaliation is a justification for genocide. Is this true?

Comments

[Lawyerman]

The European edition of Time Magazine, at Time's expense, has distributed a DVD including French director Laurence Jourdan's 52 minute documentary "The Armenian Genocide", with its February 12, 2007 issue. That documentary is now on Google.

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-7199779511612239455&hl=de

It is well worth the time to watch it.

[Sean]

It will be interesting to see how many of those of you who claim that the Genocide did not take place will take the time to watch the video posted by Lawyerman.

If and when you do, please post your comments here, because, even if I won't agree with them, it will be nice to see that you are at least considering the other side, just like how most of us watched the videos posted in Part 5.

[Sean]

Turkish novelist flees to US 'in fear for life'
By Damien McElroy
Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:27am GMT 14/02/2007

The Turkish novelist and Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk is living in exile in the United States and is believed to be in fear for his life.

Amid a climate of intimidation that has seen the prosecution and even murder of dissident intellectuals throwing into doubt Turkey's aspiration to the join the European Union, Mr Pamuk, 54, who is living in New York, is said to have told friends he has set no deadline for his return. Instead, according to the prominent Istanbul columnist Fatih Altayli, the writer has quietly gone into exile.

Orhan Pamuk: will not return soon

"What I was told was more than mere rumour," said Mr Altayli. "Pamuk recently withdrew $400,000 from his bank account and said he would leave Turkey and would not be returning to his country any time soon."

Following the murder of an ethnic Armenian journalist, Hrant Dink, last month, Mr Pamuk expressed fears for his own safety. The writer enraged Turkish nationalists by acknowledging that under the Ottoman empire Turks had triggered the genocide of one million Armenians nearly a century ago.

Such is the sensitivity of Mr Pamuk's position, his agent and others close to the novelist have declined invitations to comment publicly on Mr Altayli's allegation.

During the 1990s Mr Pamuk, whose novels includes Cevdet Bey and His Sons and The Black Book, began to write candidly about human rights issues and free speech in Turkey. The country's authorities vociferously campaign against any suggestion that the state has inherited responsibility for the unacknowledged massacre of Armenians.

In an interview with a Swiss newspaper last year, Mr Pamuk said: "One million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds were killed in these lands but no one but me dares talk about it."

Two weeks ago, Mr Pamuk abruptly cancelled a speaking tour of Germany, fearing that his engagements would expose him to hostile elements within the diaspora. Yasin Hayal, a nationalist charged with incitement to murder Mr Dink, made what appeared to be a threat against Mr Pamuk.

advertisement
He said: "Orhan Pamuk be careful."

With its candidacy to join the EU already troubled by suspicion of its Islamic government and the treatment of its Kurdish minority, Turkey would be dealt a further blow if its most prominent writer decided he was no longer safe in his homeland.

The damage would be compounded because Mr Pamuk is the foremost chronicler of Istanbul as the meeting point of Europe and Asia.

In meetings with Western leaders, Abdullah Gul, Turkey's foreign minister, has moved to address concerns that the law granted a veneer of legitimacy to the shadowy figures who were threatening its liberal intellectuals.

He has promised reforms of an ambiguous law that allows nationalists to demand punishment for those they accuse of insulting the Turkish nation.

Mr Gul admitted that Turkey's standing had been damaged by Mr Dink's murder and the threat to Mr Pamuk.

"People outside Turkey think you can be thrown into jail for opening your mouth," he said.

"They think there are hundreds of journalists and intellectuals in jail. This is all false."

But he warned that outside pressure for greater tolerance of dissenting views was counter-productive, strengthening support for nationalist politicians in the run-up to a general election later this year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/14/wturk14.xml

[Anonymous Greek]

I beg to differ with Mr. Gul.

http://www.cpj.org/attacks06/mideast06/tur06.html

[Sean]

THIS IS YOUR TURKEY:

The Bastard of Istanbul, by Elif Shafak, Viking, 360 pp., $24.95

In a better world, Turkish writer Elif Shafak would get more attention for her zesty, imaginative writing and less for the controversy her politics stir up.

Fearing for her safety, Shafak canceled her U.S. book tour to promote her new novel, The Bastard of Istanbul,after the murder of an Armenian Turkish journalist. Shafak has been a target for Turks who deny the 1915 Armenian genocide. Bastard addresses the tragedy, exploring such issues as historical amnesia and overt denial. But it is also a lively look at contemporary Istanbul and family through the eyes of two young women, one Turkish and one Armenian-American. It's like a Turkish version of Amy Tan's The Joy Luck Club.

— Deirdre Donahue

[Bolsa Hye]

1. Infidel says that he's been wanting to argue against my "fantastically stereotypical setup" regarding his Varjabedyan epiphany. Yet, he has said nothing whatsoever in response to my contextualization of the Varjabedyan quote. Basically, he has given up on Varjabedyan somehow supporting one of his "Armenian the backstabber" theories, and now moves onto yet another isolated quote and makes the same mistake yet again. I suppose we can play this cat and mouse, since I apparently have infinite time to play these games.

2. Infidel acts as if he has uncovered something new and revolutionary in support of his "Armenian the backstabber" thesis, something the dastardly Armenians have been hiding for 90 years. This makes me chuckle given that Armenians themselves first had this manifesto translated and published in Russian in 1927 and in English in 1955. In other words, while the Turks were busy destroying incriminating evidence and keeping the Ottoman archives under lock and key, we the Armenians were openly publishing works like this, that novices like Infidel chance upon 80 years later and think they've discovered an exculpating gem.

Infidel, historians have been studying this and any other "amazing" information you may uncover on the Internet for decades. And what has been the result: verdict is that it was a Genocide. So I hate to burst your bubble, but there's nothing new here.

3. We've said all along, if the Dashnags were traitorous "rebels" who backstabbed the Ottomans, then they should have been rounded up and punished. Were the Ottoman response measured and calculated to remove the rebel threat, than we wouldn't be having this conversation, and there wouldn't be much of an Armenian diaspora today; we'd all be living in our ancestral homelands and the extent of the massacres would have been five thousand Dashnags (say 10,000 for arguendo), leaving the vast majority of Armenians unharmed. But that's not what happened. Instead, the Young Turks used the Dashnags as a pretext to exterminate the entire Armenian population and to solve the Armenian Question once and for all. There's no other rational explanation, at least not one that I have ever heard, for rounding up ALL ARMENIANS from ALL PROVINCES of the Ottoman Empire and sending them on death marches.

[Gamze]

“… Turks at no time in their history have committed a Genocide. Even the first Prime Minister of Armenia said it himself. Please do not allow dishonoring and defaming of our true ally Turkey, just because some people are speaking lies and half truths. Please stand firm with and for our real friends…

…(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…’

[Bolsa Hye]

Gamze,

He's talking about the Turkish-Armenian War of 1920, not about the Genocide, which started 5 years before that. Perhaps you should read the manifesto before making a fool of yourself as usual.

In this manifesto, he calls what happened to the Armenians from 1915-1916 a Holocaust and an extermination. Is that not clear enough for you?

"The second half of 1915 and the entire year of 1916 were periods of hopelessness, desperation, and mourning for us. The refugees, all those who had survived the holocaust, were filling Russian provinces . . . "

[Gamze]

What genocide?

[Lawyerman]

Yet another film dealing with the Armenian Genocide was screened this week at the Berlin Film Festival. Italian directors Paolo and Vittorio Taviani presented their new film based on the novel by Antonia Arslan “The Lark Farm”.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,466427,00.html

[Lawyerman]

Here is an article by Ayse Kadioglu, a professor of political science at Sabanci University, about Hrant Dink:

http://www.merip.org/mero/mero021607.html

[Sean]

how low can Turkey go?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6425043.stm

[Sean]

Convicted Turkish Denialist Becomes Unwitting Publicist for Genocide

A Swiss Court last week found Dogu Perincek, the leader of the radical leftist Turkish Workers' Party, guilty of denying the Armenian Genocide. Perincek is described by prominent Turkish historian Halil Berktay as a "former Marxist, Maoist turned ultra-nationalist, ultra statist, [and] ultra-militarist."

Two years ago, he was detained and interrogated in Switzerland after stating that the Armenian Genocide was "an imperialist lie." He then dared the Swiss authorities to try him on charges of denying a genocide that he claimed never occurred.

Perincek arrived in Switzerland last week with a planeload of his fanatical supporters who describe themselves as members of the "Talat Pasha Committee." He claimed that he had brought with him 90 kilos (over 200 pounds) of "irrefutable" Russian and Armenian documents that backed his denials of the Armenian Genocide. In advance of the trial, he repeatedly expressed his conviction that he would be able to prove in court, once and for all, that the Armenian Genocide "was a lie," thus forcing the Swiss to abolish the law banning the denial of the genocide.

Testifying on behalf of Perincek in court were four notorious Turkophiles: Prof. Justin McCarthy from the United States; Norman Stone, a British denialist who teaches in Turkey; Jean-Michel Thibaux, a Frenchman who recently moved to Turkey, Turkified his name and became a Turkish citizen; and Prof. Paul Leidinger from Germany. Testifying against Perincek were genocide specialists Yves Ternon and Raymond Kevorkian from France and Tessa Hofmann from Germany.

In a pointed reference to the load of documents presented by Perincek, the Swiss prosecutor told the court: "90 kilos of paper do not wipe out 90 years of history; and one million pages cannot get rid of one million victims."

Judge Pierre-Henri Winzap was not too impressed either by Perincek's documents or the arguments presented by the four pro-Turkish academics. The Judge stated that the denial of the accepted historical fact of the Armenian Genocide was an arrogant provocation. In fact, the Swiss Parliament had recognized the Armenian Genocide in 2003, despite heavy pressure from the Turkish government. The Judge fined Perincek $7,350 in lieu of a 90-day suspended jail term, ordered him to pay a $2,450 fine and $4,750 for court costs.

In addition, the court warned Perincek that should he deny the Armenian Genocide again within the next 24 months, he could face imprisonment. Perincek thus became the first person to be convicted under Switzerland's anti-racism law for denying the Armenian Genocide. Article 261bis of the Swiss penal code -- which outlaws the denial, minimization or justification of genocide -- was heretofore applied only to those who denied the Jewish Holocaust.

Perincek's supporters tried unsuccessfully to pressure the Swiss judiciary by holding noisy rallies outside the courthouse, waving large Turkish flags and banners. In a highly inappropriate move, the Turkish Justice Minister Cemil Cicek met with his Swiss counterpart Christoph Blocher in Bern during the weekend before the trial. Blocher, who is the leader of the right-wing Swiss Popular Party, was severely criticized by Swiss politicians and the media for having suggested in October 2006 during a visit to Turkey that this particular Swiss law should be dropped.

Next in line to be tried for having denied the Armenian Genocide during an earlier visit to Switzerland could be Yusuf Halacoglu, the head of the Historical Society of Turkey. Contrary to Perincek's defiant behavior, openly challenging the Swiss authorities to try him in court, Halacoglu has been reticent to return to Switzerland fearing interrogation and possible detention.

The Switzerland-Armenia Association (SAA) and its co-president, Sarkis Shahinian should be commended for initiating the court proceeding against Perincek and sparing no effort in attaining this successful outcome. Given the special role of the SAA in this case, the Judge ordered Perincek to pay to the Swiss Armenian organization an additional $9,000 for legal expenses and "moral compensation."

Clearly, this court case is bound to have far-reaching consequences for the Armenian Cause. For years, Turkish denialists gleefully noted that the Armenian Genocide could not be qualified as such, since there were no court verdicts to that effect. Furthermore, this verdict transcended the conviction of Perincek as a lone Turkish individual. There were several indications that the Turkish government itself was both directly and indirectly implicated in this trial: Jean-Michel Thibaux, in responding to a question from the Judge, admitted that he was contacted by the Turkish Foreign Ministry and asked to testify on behalf of Perincek; several officials of the Turkish Consulate General in Geneva attended the trial; and when the Judge asked Perincek to disclose his income, he divulged that he merely earned about $2,500 a month. Despite his limited income, Perincek somehow had managed to charter a large airliner to transport his supporters from Turkey to Switzerland. Since it was obvious that the Turkish authorities were backing Perincek in a variety of ways, his conviction was a major setback for the Turkish state as well. In a written statement, the Turkish Foreign Ministry declared: "The court case was inappropriate, groundless and controversial in every sense."

Fortunately, Perincek is now intent on doing even more damage to Turkish denialism. He stated that he would appeal his conviction to a higher Swiss court, and failing there, he would take his case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Should Perincek go through with his planned appeals and lose, Armenians would score more significant victories, attaining legal recognition of the Armenian Genocide in both Swiss and European courts.

[Sean]

Turkish newspapers think that Turks are CLUELESS. That must be the case. Otherwise, why would 2 of them print the same article insulting the intelligence of their readers.

Here is the article I am talking about: http://english.sabah.com.tr/C4213D15C63E4289B5DA3DDB290E142A.html
and here:
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=44436

The Turkish Weekly and Sabah must think that their readers, who are presumably mostly Turks, don't know anything and will believe everything they read.

Would you like me to prove it? I will be happy to.

In this article, they claim that "a Swedish commander staying in Anatolia as observer refuted Armenian genocide claims in a letter he wrote in 1917. Commander says: 'as an eye witness, I object to genocide claims.'"

Do you see the problem? If not, then I guess you are the type of reader that these papers are hoping to trick.

Every Turk and Armenian, who can spell his own name, knows that the word "genocide" was created in 1943 by Raphael Lemkin.

Therefore, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE that in 1917 this so-called commander wrote a letter and said "I OBJECT TO GENOCIDE CLAIMS"? The word itself wasn't going to be created until 26 years later!! How many people would fall for this cheap trick? This article is a pour fabrication, just like all the arguments against the Armenian Genocide.

I can't believe that they would print this obvious lie on the eve of April 24th!!

Go ahead, try to defend this one. Tell me how this was a lost-in-translation problem. Even if that's true...

A person living in 1917 would not have realized that he or she was in the middle of a Genocide. A genocide, by its very nature, is not something that you can recognize after 1 day or 1 month. You have to look at the bigger picture, analyze the extend of it, look at the intent. This is the reason why the Genocide in Sudan was not talked about much until recently.

Just look at all the Jews who boarded the trains during WWII, not realizing that the train was headed towards a camp. They even went into the chambers, thinking that they were about to take a shower!!

Somehow, the so-called historians from Turkey, have discovered a letter 92 years later, written by a so-called commander, who happened to look at the big picture and state "as an eye witness, I object to genocide claims."

"eye witness?" - Eye witness to what? Did he travel to all the different cities where the Armenians were being murdered, conducted research, and made an observation of his eye witness account?

"I object" - what was he objecting to? did he think he was in court? who talks like that?

"genocide claims" - the Armenians in 1917 were not making genocide claims. they were too busy trying to stay alive. To suggested that in 1917 the genocide claims had already come to light and were being objected to is ridiculous by itself, even if we assume that the word "genocide" was already being used by this person who was well ahead of his time.

I will repeat my claim: Turkish newspapers think that Turkish readers are clueless. Only a clueless person would fall for this one. It would have been better if they had printed this article on April 1, for April Fools Day!

How can readers believe ANYTHING these papers write, when it's clear that they are willing to say anything, as long as it's to their advantage, no matter how blatantly wrong they are.

[sazelyt]

"In this article, they claim that "a Swedish commander staying in Anatolia as observer refuted Armenian genocide claims in a letter he wrote in 1917. Commander says: 'as an eye witness, I object to genocide claims.'"

Do you see the problem? If not, then I guess you are the type of reader that these papers are hoping to trick. "

I would like to make a correction to Sean's claims.

I checked the original Turkish version of that letter.

There was no direct referral to the word genocide. Instead that person used the words "planned slaughter" (which I believe as you know may refer to a part of the definition of genocide) to answer two such claims made by others suggesting this took place.

As those words were used as genocide by others, the newer Turkish to English translation also used shortly genocide (instead of using the planned slaughter, etc).

Also, what the 1st Prime Minister of Armenia referred using the word holocaust was the violent killings of the Armenian people. And this was already admitted by the Turks (but, unlike the people who claim Armenian genocide, they do not make a miss on the role of the Armenian people in that, by killing the Muslims in that region around the same time). Anyway, he doesn't say genocide there either! And, for the most part, he puts a lot of blame on themselves. Do you see the Jews putting blame on themselves because of what the Germans did to them?