Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Response to Turcophile Gunter

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Response to Turcophile Gunter

    NOTES AND COMMENTS
    A RESPONSE TO MICHAEL GUNTER'S REVIEW OF THE ARMENIAN MASSACRES IN OTTOMAN
    TURKEY: A DISPUTED GENOCIDE (IJMES 38 [2006]: 598–601)
    JOSEPH A. KÉCHICHIAN



    Perhaps inadvertently, IJMES rendered a disservice to its readers by
    allowing Michael M. Gunter to review The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman
    Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, by Guenter Lewy, because not only the book butalso the reviewer pose serious problems.

    Perhaps inadvertently, IJMES rendered a disservice to its readers by
    allowing Michael M. Gunter to review The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman
    Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, by Guenter Lewy, because not only the book but also the reviewer pose serious problems.

    First, how is it that a person who has already praised a book on its back
    cover is asked to review it in IJMES? Indeed, the words of Gunter's
    dust-jacket quote (“A very significant contribution to a long-standing
    debate. There is no other comparable work that so objectively, thoroughly,
    and meticulously reviews and analyzes so many different sources on both
    sides of this bitterly divisive issue”) find their way into his review
    virtually unchanged: “This is a very significant contribution to a
    long-standing historiographical debate … there is no other comparable work
    that so objectively and thoroughly reviews and analyzes so many different
    sources on both sides of this bitterly divisive issue.” Because the
    dust-jacket quote was written prior to the book's publication, there are
    serious questions raised about the conditions under which the IJMES review
    was written and the motives of the author. Is it not tantamount to support
    for a promotional proclivity or, perhaps, even an example of blatant
    conflict of interest that prefigures in the tone and texture of the review?

    Second, it is critical to note that Gunter, the reviewer, occupies a central
    place in the massive campaign—ardently promoted by successive Turkish
    governments—to deny the Armenian genocide. For decades he supported that
    campaign even though he has not produced a single work with a focus on this
    subject. Gunter has published two studies, Transnational Armenian Activism
    (1990) and “Pursuing the Just Cause of Their People”: A Study of
    Contemporary Armenian Terrorism (1986), as well as several essays that
    examine alleged Armenian “terrorism”—but none of his work was on the
    genocide, either directly or indirectly. Such lack of specialized competence
    in and of itself certainly does not, and should not, disqualify a reviewer
    from engaging in a reasonably crafted assessment if everything else falls
    into its proper place.

    Unfortunately, this predicament is compounded, not mitigated, by the
    attendant fact that Gunter has placed himself in the forefront of a parallel
    campaign to promote, directly and indirectly and with remarkable zeal, the
    “official” Turkish line of denial of the Armenian genocide (resmi tarih).
    This is more significant when one considers that a host of Turkish
    historians, free from the shackles of the official line, are not only
    refusing to deny the genocide but in one way or another are also recognizing
    its occurrence. They are led by Fatma Müge Göcek (University of Michigan),
    Halil Berktay (Sabanci University), Engin Deniz Akarli (Brown University),
    Selim Deringil (Bogazici University), and, above all, Taner Akçam
    (University of Minnesota). Göcek dismisses what she called the Turkish
    government's denialist “master state narrative”; Berktay unequivocally
    concedes the truth of the “genocide”; Akarli concludes that the relevant
    facts “invite the term genocide”; Deringil dismisses a key element in the
    Turkish denial syndrome, namely, the bogus “civil war” argument; and Akçam
    explicitly concludes, on the basis of a plethora of official and
    authenticated Ottoman documents, that the wartime anti-Armenian measures
    were genocidal in nature, intent, and outcome. Akçam's latest book, titled A
    Shameful Act (a quotation attributed to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk denouncing the
    crime perpetrated against the Armenians), is filled with authentic Turkish
    sources that remarkably are ignored by Gunter.

    In light of these views, Gunter's exaltation of the volume—in such terms as
    a hallmark of “academic objectivity and courage” and “no other comparable
    work that so objectively and thoroughly reviews and analyses”—calls for a
    closer examination of Guenter Lewy and his book.

    One is dealing here with a book whose author admits a lack of familiarity
    with both Ottoman and Turkish languages. Lewy declares that he does not know
    Turkish at all and that he had to depend on “two Turkish speaking persons”
    (p. 292, n. 112) as well as on others “who have translated some important
    Turkish materials for me” (p. xiii). However, departing from a very common
    standard procedure, Lewy repeatedly avoids identifying those who, he says,
    helped him in the matter of translation of numerous documents. Would it be
    unfair to ask, under these circumstances, why go to such a highly unusual
    act of withholding?

    Oblivious to this serious problem, Lewy then proceeds to take to task almost
    everyone who has published extensively on the Armenian genocide. For
    example, Donald Bloxham, Richard Hovannisian, Taner Akçam, and Erik Jan
    Zürcher are criticized for their emphasis on the role of the Special
    Organization (p. 88); Ronald Suny, Robert Melson, Leo Kuper, and Richard
    Hovannisian again for their rejection of the Turkish argument of Armenian
    provocation (p. 17); Melson and Hovannisian for their reliance on findings
    of the postwar Turkish Military Tribunal prosecuting the authors of the
    Armenian genocide (pp. 43, 78); and the late British historian David Lang
    and Melson on the relative value of the Naim–Andonian documents (p. 66).
    Topping this list is, of course, Vahakn N. Dadrian, who, Lewy admits, is his
    special target (p. 282, n. 3), not only in two chapters as he claims, but
    also throughout the book (see index, pp. 361–62).

    A typical and, quite frankly, revealing blunder in this respect, probably
    due to his lack of Turkish, is Lewy's handling of Special Organization Chief
    Esref Kusçuba[sdotu ]i's confession of his involvement in the wholesale
    elimination of Armenians. In his personal account of an exchange with
    wartime Grand Vizier Said Halim Pa[sdotu ]a in Malta, when both were
    detained by the British, Kusçubai, referring to his involvement in the
    matter of Armenian deportations, identifies himself “as a man who had
    assumed a secret assignment” [hadisenin iç yüzünde va[zdotu ]ife almi bir
    insan]. Not knowing Turkish, Lewy in an endnote (p. 292, n. 112) admits that
    he consulted two “Turkish speaking persons,” whose identities are, as noted
    above, suspiciously withheld and who evidently misled him. Dadrian not only
    quoted this item separately and identified it in an extra separate endnote
    (“Ottoman Archives and Denial of the Armenian Genocide,” in ed. Richard
    Hovannisian, The Armenian Genocide: History, Politics, Ethics [New York: St.
    Martin's Press, 1992], 300–310, n. 72), but also provided in italics the
    Turkish original text of that very quotation. This single case of
    distortion, if not outright falsehood, illustrates the level of scholarship
    present in the work. Incidentally, this is the same Dadrian whose three
    separate monographs—presumably scrutinized by several anonymous reviewers as
    IJMES protocol requires—were published in this journal (18:3 [1986], 23:4
    [1991], and 34:1 [2002]).

    For all of these “accomplishments,” Lewy has been amply rewarded by Turkish
    authorities in Ankara and abroad through the launching of a massive campaign
    to distribute his book free of charge to libraries and to select groups of
    diplomats. Equally noteworthy, Lewy has been decorated at a special ceremony
    in Ankara with, ironically, the Insanliga Karss i Islenen Suçlar Yüksek
    Ödülü (High Award for Fighting in Opposition to Crimes Against Humanity) by
    the Avrasya Stratejik Arasstirmalar Merkezi (ASAM or, in English, the Center
    for Eurasian Strategic Studies). It may be worth noting that ASAM is a
    well-known organization whose mission includes the systematic denial of the
    Armenian genocide through propagandistic and partisan research and
    publications; the organization is sponsored and underwritten by the Turkish
    government. Again, none of these facts is indicated in the review as Gunter
    chooses not to disclose them.

    Superseding in import all these tribulations is, of course, the fundamental
    issue of the scholarly value of the book and the related matter of the
    competence of its author. Taking full advantage of the fact that the
    voluminous corpus of Turkish Military Tribunal files mysteriously
    disappeared following the capture of Istanbul by the insurgent Kemalists in
    the fall of 1922, Lewy in monotonous refrain repeats the standard
    argument—“the original is missing”—as if every single reference to all these
    documents was a deliberate and malicious fabrication. A case in point is the
    detailed narration of the organization and execution of the Armenian
    genocide by General Mehmet Vehip, the commander-in-chief of the Turkish
    third Army. The bulk of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire was
    subject to the military jurisdiction of that army, and the most gruesome and
    inexorable aspects of the genocide were inflicted upon that population—prior
    to Vehip's taking over the high command. The general's detailed account is
    not only prima facie evidence of the great crime, but it is also testimony
    to the uprightness and decency of a Turkish military commander—unfortunately
    a rarity of rarities in the all-consuming atmosphere of state-sponsored
    denials. Even though the original is missing, the full text was read into
    the record of the court-martial proceedings on 29 March 1919, with portions
    of it having been published in Ta vim-i Va ayi[hamza ], the government's
    official gazette (no. 3540, 5 May 1919 and no. 3771, 9 February 1920). This
    entire text was also published in the April 1919 issues of the
    French-language but Turkish-owned newspaper Le Courrier de Turquie, as well
    as in Va it, a Turkish daily, on 31 March 1919.

    Without mincing words, this vaunted Turkish general declared that the
    central committee of the ruling monolithic political party of Ittihad (the
    Union and Progress Party, otherwise identified as CUP), in line with the
    terms of “a resolute plan” (mu arer bir plan) and “a definite prior
    deliberation” (mu[tdotu ]la bir a[sdotu ]d ta[hdotu ]tinda), ordered “the
    massacre and extermination” ( atl ve imha[hamza ]) of Armenians and that
    governmental authorities [rüesa[hamza ]-yi [hdotu ]ükumet] meekly and
    obediently submitted to this CUP order. Furthermore, the general disclosed
    that countless convicts were released from the empire's various prisons for
    massacre duty; he described them as “gallows birds” (ipten ve kazikdan
    kurtulmus yaranini) and “butchers of human beings” (insan kasaplari) (as
    cited in Taner Akçam, A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question
    of Turkish Responsibility [2006], 154, and in Dadrian, IJMES 34 [2002], 85,
    n. 111).

    The utterly partisan thrust of Lewy's book has proven to be its very undoing
    as revealed by the countless factual and historical errors punctuating it.
    This deplorable fact is amply documented in a ten-part Turkish-language
    serial analysis undertaken by Akçam. Point by point and item by item, Akçam
    depicts these errors, at the same time expressing his amazement as to why a
    person with such limited knowledge of the subject would want to venture into
    such a project. Still, the errors in the Lewy volume are not only factual
    and historical but also include mistranslations and misquotations (see the
    Istanbul weekly Agos, June, July, and early August issues in 2006).

    Finally, in his review, Gunter notes that “Lewy finds most valuable…the
    consular reports…of Leslie A. Davis, the wartime American Consul in Harput.
    Of special importance are accounts of his visits to several mass execution
    sites, one of the few such reports available from any source.” Nevertheless,
    with remarkable abandon, he joins Lewy in glossing over the damning
    conclusion this American diplomat, a rare eyewitness to mass murder, reached
    when he reported to his superiors in Washington, D.C. In that pungent
    summary report, Davis “estimated that the number is not far from a million,”
    when giving an approximation of the magnitude of Armenian victims. He also
    emphasized that the massacres were not all perpetrated “by bands of Kurds,”
    as so emphatically claimed by Lewy (pp. 167, 173–74, 182), but by
    government-appointed and government-directed “gendarmes who accompanied” the
    deportee convoys. Confirming General Vehip's disclosure, Davis directly
    implicated “companies of armed convicts who have been released from prison
    for the purpose of murdering the Armenian exiles.” The American consul's
    conclusion is compressed in this single statement: “The whole country is one
    vast charnel house, or, more correctly speaking, slaughterhouse” (Davis, The
    Slaughterhouse Province: An American Diplomat's Report on the Armenian
    Genocide, 1915–1917 [1989], 156, 158, 160).
    FURTHER COMMENTS

    Upon reading the proofs of this exchange, the writer wished to make
    clarifications.

    “I mailed a letter to IJMES which was shared with Professor Watenpaugh. The
    reader may assume that we coordinated our letters, which we have not, and it
    may be important to point that out.”
    General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”
Working...
X