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

Prof Kieser review of Halacoglu

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

  • Prof Kieser review of Halacoglu

    Sammelrez: Relocation, banishment and
    migration in Armenia
    Halaçoglu, Yusuf: Facts on the relocation of Ar-
    menians 1914-1918 [Ermeni tehciri ve gerçekler
    (1914-1918)]. Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Dil ve
    Tarih Yük. Kur. - Turkish Historical Society
    2002. ISBN: 975-16-1554-2; IX, 137 p., 42 p. Fac-
    similes
    Halaçoglu, Yusuf; Çalik, Ramazan; Çiçek, Ke-
    mal; Özdemir, Hikmet; Turan, Ömer (Hg.):
    The Armenians. Banishment and migration [Er-
    meniler. Sürgün ve göç]. Ankara: Atatürk Kül-
    tür Dil ve Tarih Yük. Kur. - Turkish Historical
    Society 2004. ISBN: 975-16-1708-1; X, 223 S.



    Rezensiert von: Hans-Lukas Kieser, Schwei-
    zerischer Nationalfonds und Universität Zü-
    rich


    Dialogue on history, responsibility, and truth
    is probably not possible with members of
    state-sponsored denial campaigns, because
    for these protagonists, national or state inter-
    ests prevail over scholarly ethics – and these
    alone can and must be the ground for a dia-
    logue. But, regarding the Armenian genocide
    in 1915-1916, the problem is that such denial-
    ist historiography is (partly) believed. For this
    reason alone, it needs to be scrutinized and,
    where necessary, contradicted and refuted. A
    large number of „banal“, not extreme, nation-
    alists in Turkey, and of migrants in Europe,
    are still under the strong influence of nation-
    alist agencies, whether state-sponsored or not.
    It is important to say that, as a fundamental
    recent change, some sustained, critical, „post-
    nationalist“ voices can now be heard in the
    Turkish media for the first time. The first
    free academic conference on the Armenian is-
    sue, however, which should have taken place
    on 25-27 May 2005 at the Bogaziçi University
    in Istanbul, has been „postponed“ in the last
    minute under massive threats by the Minister
    of Justice.
    The two new books presented here attempt
    to establish the master narrative of an up-to-
    date national historiography on „what hap-
    pened with the Armenians in 1915“.1 They
    1
    For scholarly narratives in German see Akçam,
    Taner, Armenien und der Völkermord: die Istanbuler
    Prozesse und die türkische Nationalbewegung, Ham-
    are exemplary of a much larger recent out-
    put from within and beyond state universi-
    ties, and of many recent debates on state tele-
    vision in Turkey. This is at the same time an
    occasion for scrutinizing some primary Turk-
    ish arguments that continue to block, in my
    eyes, a sincere perspective on the own history.
    Both books are written by or with the partic-
    ipation of Yusuf Halaçoglu, the president of
    the Turkish Historical Society, and both are
    published by the Turkish Historical Society
    (TTK) in Ankara, in 2001 and 2004 respec-
    tively. The second book repeatedly refers to
    the first one. Both are regularly and martially
    presented as definitive weapons in a national
    campaign against the „propagandists“ of an
    Armenian genocide, a campaign that has been
    running at full power in recent months.
    The first book is Ermeni tehciri ve gerçekler
    (1914–1918) [The deportation of the Armeni-
    ans and the real facts]. An English version has
    been published in 2002 under the title Facts on
    the relocation of Armenians 1914–1918. My
    remarks refer to the Turkish original. It has
    a little more than a hundred pages, plus 42
    pages with facsimiles of Ottoman state doc-
    uments. There is no transcription or transla-
    tion of these sources (in modern Turkish or
    English), only some references to them in the
    book. The book’s main piece is Part II (pp.
    47–84) which presents several Ottoman doc-
    uments as „convincing proofs“ in the ques-
    tion about the realities of the tehcir (deporta-
    tion). Halaçoglu introduces them after having
    explained in the introduction (pp. 1–10) and
    Part I (pp. 11–46) how he understands Turco-
    Armenian history since the Middle Ages, and
    particularly during the late Ottoman period.
    The first pages of the book tend to idealize
    the early Turco-Armenian relationship under
    „Turkish“ (Seljuk and Turkmen) rule. By con-
    trast, Armenian behaviour in the 19th century
    is characterized as „fall“. The revealing ex-
    pression „as we know“ (p. 11) is used to make
    the reply to the vital historical question –
    burg: Hamburger Edition, 1996, reprint 2004; and the
    introduction in the volumes Kieser, Hans-Lukas, and
    Schaller, Dominik (eds.), Der Völkermord an den Ar-
    meniern und die Shoah / The Armenian Genocide and
    the Shoah, Zürich: Chronos, 2002; Gust, Wolfgang
    (ed.), Der Völkermord an den Armeniern 1915/16:
    Dokumente aus dem Politischen Archiv des deutschen
    Auswärtigen Amts, Springe: Zu Klampen, 2005.
    General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

  • #2
    Part II

    which is how to understand the Eastern Ques-
    tion, and within it the Armenian Question
    – correspond with the well-known national-
    ist answer: the Eastern Question consisted of
    the problems caused by the systematic sub-
    version of the Ottoman minorities through
    an unchanging imperialist European policy in
    order to divide the Ottoman state. The so-
    cial evolution, the forces of change and the
    particular dynamics within the Empire and
    the Eastern provinces are not considered, the
    social earthquake of the anti-Armenian mas-
    sacres in 1894–96 completely neglected. Those
    pogrom-like killings cost the lives of about
    100’000 people, mostly men and boys; social
    envy, fear of an Armenian autonomy and, for
    the first time, an organized militant Islamism
    played an important role; the impunity of
    those mass crimes threw a deep shadow on
    the political culture in the 20th century.2
    The Young Turks after 1908, and up to
    WWI, are shown as honest brokers, believing
    in Ottomanism and a multinational modern
    state. The strong völkisch Turkist movement
    after 1911, sponsored by the Committee of
    Union and Progress (CUP), is not mentioned
    at all. The problems on the ground, among
    them the chronic insecurity of life and prop-
    erty, and particularly the unresolved agrarian
    question (Armenian land robbed during the
    pogroms of the 1890s or seized otherwise) are
    not touched upon. Emphasis is on Armenian
    „wickedness“: general disloyalty, the terror-
    ism of the revolutionary groups (their Arme-
    nian victims are not mentioned), and the Ar-
    menian appeal to Europe, in 1913, to finally
    obtain the fulfilment of the security that arti-
    cle 61 of the 1878 Berlin Treaty had promised
    (e.g. in the province of Bitlis, Armenians were
    being murdered at the rate of twenty-seven
    per month, missionaries on the spot wrote in
    1913). For Halaçoglu, the international re-
    form plan for the Eastern provinces, signed
    under pressure by the Ottoman government
    on 8 February, was nothing more than a Rus-
    sian plot to the end of the annexation of East-
    ern Anatolia (pp. 24–31). Russia’s partial in-
    vasion of that region in 1915 is seen as proof
    2
    See Verheij, Jelle, „Die armenischen Massaker von
    1894-1896. Anatomie und Hintergründe einer Krise“,
    in Kieser, Hans-Lukas (ed.), Die armenische Frage und
    die Schweiz (1896-1923) / La question arménienne et la
    Suisse (1896-1923), Zürich: Chronos, 1999, pp. 69-129.
    of this; Enver Pasha’s, the minister of war ’s,
    previous crucial decision, in autumn 1914, to
    attack Russia, disappears from the picture.
    In the summary of WWI and the tehcir (de-
    portation) itself, I am again struck by what
    is omitted: there is nothing on the decision
    makers in the CUP’s Central Committee; no
    word on the Special Organisation linked to
    them; no critical assessment of Enver ’s com-
    pletely failed winter campaign against Russia
    and the pan-Turkist dreams behind it; no con-
    sideration of how, after this, the war on the
    Eastern front (Eastern Anatolia and North-
    ern Iran) was brutalized; no indication of the
    systematic Turkish Muslim „nationalization“
    in Anatolia in terms of economy, state, and
    demography (resettlement policy) since 1913.
    Instead of all this, there is again only „Ar-
    menian wickedness“: i.e. treason (sympathy
    and cooperation with the Allies, particularly
    Russia); desertion (the equally high number
    of Muslim deserters in Eastern Anatolia is
    not taken into account; pp. 33–35); and „re-
    bellion“ (no consideration of the desperate
    situation of an Ottoman Armenian commu-
    nity massively targeted by its own state since
    spring 1915). There is, in short, the reiteration
    of the Young Turkish myth of the Armenian
    stab in the back of an otherwise victorious Ot-
    toman war effort.
    Against this background, Halaçoglu
    touches on some Ottoman documents in Part
    II. The main Leitmotiv of his juxtaposition
    of sources seems to be the concern to defend
    the Ottoman decision makers, not the desire
    to work for a coherent, broad and convincing
    historical picture. Marginalizing the crucial
    difficulty of how to integrate accounts of
    witnesses on the ground (foreign teachers,
    doctors, consuls, engineers), there is only a
    categorically pejorative judgement on them
    (p. 66). The state being irreproachable,
    Kurds are responsible for the massacres of
    deportees. The author cites the example of
    an attack by Dersim Kurds on deportees, as
    mentioned in a document of the ministry of
    the interior (p. 60). True or not in this case,
    the readers are given the impression that the
    Dersim Kurds were the main perpetrators;
    they do not learn of Dersim’s outstanding
    and unique role as an asylum for Armenians
    within Anatolia.
    General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

    Comment


    • #3
      Part III

      The Ottoman state documents, as selected
      by the author, are not critically scrutinized
      and contextualized. One example: a telegram
      by Talat dated 29 August 1915 is presented
      as proof undermining the accusation that the
      Ottoman government attempted the extermi-
      nation of the Armenians by means of tehcir
      (pp. 55–56, facsimile 4 in the annex). Cer-
      tainly, this telegram to the governors of the
      Eastern and other provinces seems to literal
      believers of the text evidence of the ministry
      of the interior ’s responsible and sensible be-
      haviour. It expresses concern about the se-
      curity of the deportees, and of the govern-
      ment’s intention to punish acts of violence,
      and its generosity in excluding from tehcir the
      families of soldiers, some artisans, and the
      Catholic and Protestant Armenians. Several
      arguments however make clear that this tele-
      gram’s first, and probably only aim was pro-
      pagandistic: a) In those provinces the „job“
      was mostly done, Protestants and Catholics
      included, and, in Mamüretülaziz alone, more
      than 10,000 women and children had by that
      time been killed; Talat himself said at the end
      of August to German ambassador Hohenlohe
      that „la question arménienne n’existe plus“;
      b) Talat gave a German translation of the tele-
      gram to Hohenlohe on 2 September for pub-
      lication in the European press. Hohenlohe,
      however, in his letter of 4 September to Reich
      Chancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg, advised
      against publication: the telegram’s propagan-
      distic purpose was too evident, its contradic-
      tion to uncensored news from the ground too
      flagrant.3 Halaçoglu’s readers do not find any
      critical contextualization of this kind.
      Given the overwhelming Ottoman docu-
      mentation, the author does not insist, of
      course, on the old argument that the depor-
      tation was made only in the regions on the
      frontline. He still mentions this argument,
      however, saying that the tehcir order was ul-
      timately implemented in the other provinces
      of Anatolia too: why? Because the Arme-
      nians there cooperated with the enemy (p.
      53). The author is not ready to see and ac-
      cept the simple fact that being Armenian was
      the sole reason for being sent away. This also
      explains his confusion regarding the Catholic
      3
      All these German documents are now on
      www.armenocide.de.
      and Protestant Armenians: their exclusion
      from deportation would provide in his eyes
      a good argument against „genocide“; in fact,
      however, most of them were also deported.
      Thus again the author ’s stereotypical argu-
      ment: they worked against Ottoman secu-
      rity and were accordingly also included; if
      they were innocent, they would not have been
      deported (pp. 54 and 62–63). He uses the
      same argument to explain why Armenians
      converted to Islam were finally also deported
      (p. 64).
      This books leaves the impression of an au-
      thor, and probably many people with him,
      who are still willing to believe in the inno-
      cent goodwill of a state and its rulers they
      seemingly identify with, even if it was the
      pre-Republican Young Turkish regime of 90
      years ago. Logically, reports of witnesses on
      the spot cannot really be taken into account
      in such a narrow narrative. If they are used at
      all, it is done very selectively. To mention only
      the example of the strong documentation by
      the American consul in Mamüretülaziz, Leslie
      Davis, on the mass murder of Armenian de-
      portees in his province.4 Only a single pas-
      sage of his reports is cited, and it is used as
      proof of acts of revenge by Armenians (p. 59).
      Loyal submission to state and state propa-
      ganda sometimes leads to tragicomical state-
      ments in this book: the ministry of the inte-
      rior ’s tax exemption of 4 August 1915 for the
      deportees is praised as a particularly humane
      measure instituted by a state that heroically
      had to bear the heavy financial burden of the
      tehcir itself (p. 67). In such a view, there is,
      of course, no consideration at all of the huge
      economic transfer, facilitated by the tehcir, of
      Armenian property to Muslims. The author
      even maintains that the tehcir was a provi-
      sional measure, that no property was stolen,
      and that on the contrary commissions duly
      cared for Armenian property left behind (p.
      53). These are fictions, upheld against all ev-
      idence, even that to be found in the Ottoman
      state archive (e.g. in a telegram by Talat after
      his inspection of central and eastern Anatolia
      in December 1916, where he tells the Cherif
      of Mecca, Ali Haydar Pasha in Medina, of his
      4
      Davis, Leslie A., The Slaughterhouse Province. An
      American Diplomat’s Report on the Armenian Geno-
      cide. 1915-1917, ed. Susan K. Blair, New Rochelle: Aris-
      tide D. Caratzas, 1989.
      General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

      Comment


      • #4
        Part IV

        satisfaction with the economic transfer and
        the settlement of Muslims in the stead of the
        Armenians).5 The author, however, goes so
        far as to take pride in what he calls „perhaps
        the century’s most systematic organisation of
        relocation“ (p. 86).
        The second book Ermeniler: Sürgün ve Göç
        [The Armenians: Expulsion and Migration],
        written by Hikmet Özdemir, Kemal Çiçek,
        Ömer Turan, Ramazan Çalik, and Yusuf Ha-
        laçoglu differs in one important respect from
        the first: it includes many references to for-
        eign archives and international literature. It
        focuses even more than does the first book on
        statistical material; its explicit aim is to ap-
        proach the topic „in its mathematical, i.e. de-
        mographical dimension“.
        The consideration of a multiplicity of
        sources and literature could, in principle,
        have the potential for new insights. In the
        discussion, for instance, of the international
        reform plan of February 1914, an important
        passage is cited (p. 55), in which the Amer-
        ican historian Roderic Davison evaluates the
        final plan as an appropriate and fair compro-
        mise.6 We continue to read and realize with
        some surprise that Davison’s argument is not
        at all taken into account, and not commented
        upon. Worse, the authors write on the next
        page (p. 56, cf. p. 60) that WWI was the oc-
        casion Armenians were waiting for because it
        made possible the Russian invasion of Eastern
        Anatolia. This is a misrepresentation on vari-
        ous levels: what the Armenians on the ground
        longed for in 1914 was the implementation of
        the reform plan, and not war. War was what
        the CUP decided for in August 1914, because
        it believed it to be an occasion to achieve sev-
        eral goals, the suspension of the reform plan
        among them.
        The main problem of the book remains the
        same as that of Halaçoglu 2001: the incapac-
        ity, or unwillingness, to bring together facts
        and context, singular details and the whole
        picture. The main statement and message of
        a witness is completely dismissed; just one
        element is taken from a whole body of evi-
        dence and used as illustration for the book’s
        own argument. The reason for the problem
        5
        BOA (Ottoman Archive in Istanbul) DH._FR 70/180.
        6
        Davison, Roderic H., Essays in Ottoman and Turkish
        history, 1774-1923: the impact of the West, Austin: Uni-
        versity of Texas Press, 1990, p. 196.
        is again the outspoken premise, and promise
        to the public, to refute once and for all, with
        documents at hand, the vision of the tehcir
        as a mass murder, not to say genocide. The
        authors see themselves confronted with „to-
        talitarian propaganda techniques“ (p. 49): an
        abusive expression that indicates a problem of
        the authors.
        Under the meaningful title „Anatomy of a
        Crime: The Turkish Historical Society’s Ma-
        nipulation of Archival Documents,“ the Turk-
        ish scholar in exile Taner Akçam has written
        a detailed critical review of Halaçoglu 2004.7
        I refer to this review and want to mention
        here just two additional observations on what
        I consider an inadmissible use of sources. The
        examples deal with the use of foreign sources
        that, were they taken integrally, actually form
        strong arguments counter to the authors’ de-
        sign.
        A first example of distortion concerns the
        British historian A. J. Toynbee and his con-
        temporary work on the crime against the Ar-
        menians. The authors cite a second hand
        source saying that Toynbee, during an inter-
        view in 1957, “‘blushingly’ admitted that all
        these early works [he wrote] were war pro-
        paganda and that he deeply repented this“.
        This is taken in the next sentence as an argu-
        ment against all historical writing based on
        „biased“ contemporary witness reports. To
        the reader this may seem convincing, and an
        argument for the authors objective, „mathe-
        matical“ approach, as they emphasize it (pp.
        175–176). But again the reader is given a com-
        pletely false idea of the whole picture, i.e. of
        Toynbee’s ongoing work and reflection on the
        Armenian genocide until his death. It is true
        that after WWI he made a big effort better
        to understand Turks and Turkey, by learning
        Turkish, travelling to Turkey, and even dining
        with Mustafa Kemal. But all this never made
        him change his principal, original view of the
        crime, as he put it on several occasions. As an
        old man, for example, he wrote (in the 1960s)
        that the „Ottoman Armenian deportees were
        not only robbed; the deportations were delib-
        7
        Birikim n° 191, Istanbul, March 2005, pp. 89–104 (in
        Turkish). Akçam’s review has now been published
        in English as well: „Anatomy of a Crime: the Turk-
        ish Historical Society’s Manipulation of Archival Doc-
        uments,“ in: Journal of Genocide Research 7-2 (2005),
        S. 255-277.
        General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

        Comment


        • #5
          Part V

          erately conducted with a brutality that was
          calculated to take the maximum toll of lives
          en route. This was the CUP’s crime; and my
          study of it left an impression on my mind that
          was not effaced by the still more cold-blooded
          genocide, on a far larger scale, that was com-
          mitted during the Second World War by the
          Nazi[s].“8
          In a deliberation on numbers, an important
          German report writer, consul Walter Rössler
          in Aleppo, is cited (p. 106). He is taken as
          support for the authors’ assertion that about
          200’000 Armenians died „in the events tak-
          ing place during WWI“. This is what the
          reader understands. In his letter of 20 Decem-
          ber 1915 however, Rössler alerts Reich Chan-
          cellor von Bethmann Hollweg that the num-
          ber of 800’000 Armenian dead, put forward
          by the British enemy, was a possible realis-
          tic number, and advised against publishing
          counterpropaganda on this topic. He draw
          the Chancellor ’s attention to the fact that the
          commissioner of the Ministry of the interior
          sent to Aleppo had openly declared that „we
          desire an Armenia without Armenians“. Ac-
          cording to Rössler, up to 75 % of the people
          died during the deportation, as far as the East-
          ern provinces were concerned. He strongly
          invites his superior to consider the problems
          of German co-responsibility, and of long term
          political damage, if propaganda lies contin-
          ued to be spread in the German press. The
          number and the message Rössler gives in his
          report therefore is diametrically opposed to
          the authors’ design. Their distortion is this:
          they cut out one of Rössler ’s numerical de-
          liberations – up to a maximum of half a mil-
          lion of Asia Minor ’s Armenians were not de-
          ported, and up to a maximum of half a million
          arrived alive in Syria –, without saying that
          8
          Toynbee, Arnold J., Acquaintances, London: Oxford
          University Press, 1967, p. 242. In another text: “[. . . ]
          in our times we have had to coin a new word, ‘geno-
          cide’, to describe a new kind of massacre. [. . . ] I
          am old enough to remember the horror at the mas-
          sacre of Armenian Ottoman subjects in the Ottoman
          empire in 1896 at the instigation of the infamous Sultan
          ‘Abd-al-Hamid II. But this act of genocide was amateur
          and ineffective compared with the largely successful at-
          tempt to exterminate the Ottoman Armenians that was
          made during the First World War, in 1915, by the post-
          Hamidian régime of ‘The Committee of Union and
          Progress’, in which the principal criminals were Tala’t
          and Enver.“ Toynbee, Arnold J., Experiences, London:
          Oxford University Press, 1969, p. 241–42.
          Rössler started from an estimated (high) num-
          ber of 2.5 million Armenians in Asia Minor.
          They distract 1 million (2 times 0.5 million)
          from the 1.5 million (which they take as the
          number of Asia Minor ’s Armenians), distract
          4–500,000 Armenians more as supposedly be-
          ing abroad, and thus conclude on a very low
          number of deaths.
          An important point of the ongoing discus-
          sion presented in both books and not only
          them, is the underlying notion of genocide,
          and with it the understanding of the Shoah,
          the Jewish genocide. The „Turkish notion“
          of genocide (soykirim) is indeed not that of
          Raphael Lemkin, the author of the term of
          genocide, nor that of the UN convention of
          1948, initiated by him. Against the back-
          ground of a vulgarized vision of the Holo-
          caust, genocide is taken as the murder of a
          whole ethnic group; genocide does not know
          exceptions (unless they be a few lucky sur-
          vivors); and it takes place in a society that
          fed a deep hatred against the targeted group
          for centuries. Two years ago, I was surprised
          to read such an ahistorical description of the
          place of the Jews in German history in an ar-
          ticle by the renowned Turkish historian Ilber
          Ortayli (recently made a director of the pres-
          tigious Topkapi Museum),9 and since then I
          have read it in other texts by Turkish authors,
          trying to exculpate the nationalist founders
          and members of the CUP. In such a vision
          genocide took only place once in history: dur-
          ing World War II against the Jews. Ortayli
          took the supposed situation of the Jews in
          German history as a necessary precondition
          for genocide. By contrast, the situation of
          the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire having
          been completely different, it was a priori ab-
          surd to speak of an Armenian genocide. Yet,
          in many respects the Germano-Jewish sym-
          biosis was a history of success from the late
          18th century until the Weimar Republic in the
          1920s.
          Historians can renounce the term genocide
          and describe its content by other linguistic
          means. An important reason though to use
          this neologism as a historical (not first juridi-
          cal) term is its precise meaning in the con-
          text of contemporary history: it stands for
          9
          Ortayli, Ilber, “‘Soykirim’ iddialarinin arkasindaki
          gerçek“, Popüler Tarih n° 35, July 2003, pp. 58–62.
          General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

          Comment


          • #6
            Part VI

            the intended total or partial destruction of an
            ethnic group, be it by killing or other vio-
            lent measures. Beyond the evidence that the
            case accords with the definition in the UN
            Convention, there is another strong argument
            for using the term genocide for the Arme-
            nian experience: the simple fact that the pi-
            oneers of genocide studies, first of all Raphael
            Lemkin himself, started out from this experi-
            ence. Lemkin wrote in his autobiography: „In
            Turkey, more than 1,200,000 Armenians were
            put to death [. . . ]. Then one day [in 1922], I
            read in the newspapers that all Turkish war
            criminals were to be released. I was shocked.
            [. . . ] Why is the killing of a million a lesser
            crime than the killing of a single individual?
            I didn’t know all the answers, but I felt that
            a law against this type of racial or religious
            murder must be adopted by the world.“10
            HistLit 2005-3-048 / Hans-Lukas Kieser über
            Halaçoglu, Yusuf: Facts on the relocation of Ar-
            menians 1914-1918 [Ermeni tehciri ve gerçekler
            (1914-1918)]. Ankara 2002. In: H-Soz-u-Kult
            21.07.2005.
            HistLit 2005-3-048 / Hans-Lukas Kieser über
            Halaçoglu, Yusuf; Çalik, Ramazan; Çiçek, Ke-
            mal; Özdemir, Hikmet; Turan, Ömer (Hg.):
            The Armenians. Banishment and migration [Er-
            meniler. Sürgün ve göç]. Ankara 2004. In: H-
            Soz-u-Kult 21.07.2005.
            General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”

            Comment

            Working...
            X