Tweet
Open letter from Turkish NGOs:Turks are ready to confront their history, are Armenians ready to confront the truth?
Dear Sir, Dear Madam,
As representatives of Turkish 153 Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) we would like to express our deep concern and disappointment regarding the "genocide" accusation inflicted upon our ancestors. Herewith, we would like to convey our views and the grounds which oblige us to explain such allegations.
There are accusations from almost all over the world for an "Armenian genocide" which derive mainly from the prejudiced sources provided by the Armenian view. There are various reasons why this view of history has become the accepted wisdom in the world at large. No single issue moves the Armenian diaspora as much as what has come to be known as genocide, and many Armenians, having attained positions of wealth and influence throughout the western world, have made the perpetuation of this issue their crusade. As a result, virtually all the information that we have concerning the tragic events of 1915 comes from Armenian sources, or of their sympathizers. What works to the pro-Armenians' advantage is that the western world has failed to regard the two peoples on an equal plane. The much greater suffering endured by the Muslims of the period has been almost completely ignored.
The inherent prejudice that prevents most people from analyzing these events with an open mind presents as significant an obstacle today as it did during the time of the events. It is unfortunate that the image of the "Terrible Turk" is still alive and well. Those who can overcome their ingrained bigotry and objectively look at the genuine evidence soon become aware that what is known as "Turkish propaganda" stems mainly from sources without reason to be false. These are the very western sources that have often maintained their prejudices against the Turkish people, along with internal Ottoman documents never meant to be public relations exercises. Today's so-called genocide scholars overwhelmingly support the Armenian thesis, but there are very few historians among their ranks. Many conclude there was genocide first, and then fit selective evidence to support their conclusion; in effect, working in reverse of what we would normally expect of genuine scholars.
After the wave of Armenian terrorism hit in the 1970s and 80s, this subject began to be studied seriously, and many specialists in Ottoman history came to reject the notion of genocide. For example, 69 Western academicians signed a 1985 statement to that effect. Targeted increasingly by ad hominem attacks, most were intimidated away from this debate. As a result, the pro-Armenians have succeeded in presenting the image that it is only the Turkish government that has come to "deny" this alleged genocide.
In the face of this malicious campaign to distort history, what stands out is that pro-Armenians have rarely expressed willingness to engage in honest debate. One must ask, if they are so certain of their facts, what have they got to be afraid of? Why, for example, have they refused to take their case to the International Court of Justice in The Hague?
The truth is that during World War I, when the Ottoman forces were fighting on five fronts, they also faced an armed uprising of Armenians. At the instigation and with the support of Czarist Russia, Armenian insurgents sought to establish an Armenian state in an area which was predominantly Muslim. With the Russian invasion of eastern Anatolia, the degree of Armenian collaboration with the Russian enemy increased dramatically. The Ottoman army's rear was gravely threatened when supply lines were cut by Armenian guerilla bands.
Furthermore, Armenian revolutionary bands massacred the Muslims of the province of Van, in anticipation of the expected arrival of the invading Russian armies. The Ottoman government's response was to order the relocation of its Armenian subjects from the path of invading Russians and other areas where they might undermine the Ottoman war effort.
That the Ottoman State's Armenian minority launched a bloody insurrection at the very time the country was fighting a World War goes a long way towards explaining the resultant suffering that was borne by Armenians and non- Armenians alike. Most of the casualties from both sides were victims of famine, disease and exposure, as well as inter-ethnic clashes and regular warfare. A favorite pro-Armenian source, Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, himself had written that thousands of Turks were dying daily from starvation because few were left to till the fields; he estimated an entire quarter of the Turkish population had died of starvation alone. It is not correct to deem the great numbers of Armenians who died from the same causes as 'victims of genocide'. Ottoman archives which are now open to research without any restriction contain tens of thousands of documents shedding light on the relocation process. Among them are a great number of Ottoman Government directives ordering the governors, military commanders and other public officials, to implement the relocation in an orderly way, taking the necessary measures for the security of those who were being moved, with maximum care for the protection of their lives and possessions? (However, it is also a fact that orders from the central government were not always followed by local officials. As often happens with operations of great magnitude, particularly those undertaken at the last minute with limited resources and manpower, not everything went smoothly.)
In the overall implementation of the relocation the nonexistence of even a disguised intent to kill and destroy is obvious. This could also be deduced from the following indications: All along the war the Armenian population continued to exist in most of western Anatolia, such as in Istanbul and Izmir where the government was in control, and were not subjected to relocation. Those who were subjected to relocation had to travel on foot because of lack of proper transportation and were unfortunately attacked by lawless bands and other renegade forces. This is the opposite of what one would expect if there had been a government implemented policy of genocide. Meanwhile, high level Armenian bureaucrats continued to serve in the Ottoman government.
Contrary to overriding belief, the great wave of immigration of Armenians came well after the war was over, and after many had returned to their homes in what was left of the Ottoman Empire. The Armenian Patriarch estimated some 645,000 remained as late as 1921. 500,000 had already mostly traveled, on their own accord, to Transcaucasia alone, according to a UCLA Armenian professor. Armenians today concede one million survived. The pre-war population according to most neutral Western sources of the period (such as the Encyclopedia Britannica) was around 1.5 million. Pro-Armenian claims that 1.5 million were killed are arithmetically impossible.
Often called the "foremost authority on the Armenian Genocide," Prof. Vahakn Dadrian himself had written (in Sept. 21, 2004) that "in 1916 ... the genocide had all but run its course." He was referring to the relocation policy, but it is obvious that such a policy in itself cannot be termed genocide. (Otherwise, the movement of W.W.II Japanese-Americans would be similarly defined.) The question must also be asked that if this process was the kind of Hitlerian "Final Solution" it is often compared to, why should it have come to a halt so soon?
The 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide requires "intent" to be proven. Aside from hearsay, there is absolutely no factual evidence proving any such thing. Similarly, the Armenians had been a "political group" aiming to ethnically cleanse the Turks in a sizeable part of eastern Anatolia, in an effort to establish their own independent state. "Political groups" are not among the groups protected under the Genocide Convention.
A "Nuremberg" was held at the end of the war, in the form of the Malta Tribunal (1919-1921). The British sought the evidence to convict accused Ottomans, numbering over 144 at one point. The U.S. State archives were their last resort (significantly, the very foundation of most "Armenian genocide evidence" today), and the British Embassy in Washington delivered the following message on July 13, 1921: "I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial in Malta." Consequently, without going to trial, every single prisoner was freed. The point here is that the 144 prisoners were released without any charges being brought. Some 1,600 Turks were, on the other hand, taken to tribunals and court-martials during the war in their own country, for crimes against Armenians. Most were convicted, and over sixty were condemned to death. These actions are hardly consistent with an intended genocide.
The truth is that the Armenians' portrayal of themselves as the helpless victims of "The First Genocide of the 20th Century" is without any basis. Even that claim is inaccurate; there were systematic extermination campaigns earlier in the century preceding the Armenians, as in Albania, South West Africa, and the Philippines.
Often ignored, the Balkan Turks were victims of an enormous ethnic cleansing campaign, also preceding the Armenian experience. Once again, it is prejudice that prevents the world at large from recognizing the tremendous tragedies the Turks suffered.
During 1918-1920, the newly formed Republic of Armenia systematically exterminated their own Muslims, constituting some 38% of their population. During and after World War I, the Armenians also killed over half a million Ottomans, mostly Muslims including the entire xxxish population of the caucuses, numbers that are documented in the Ottoman archives. Few Western sources will corroborate this very unknown tragedy because Muslim and xxxish lives were insignificant. A British colonel by the name of Wooley, according to the U.S. Archives, estimated that 300,000-400,000 Ottoman Muslims were killed by Armenians in three districts alone. What disturbs us most is that in the midst of deportations, massacres, ethnic cleansing, and other atrocities, only the deaths of the Armenians is selected and falsely characterized as genocide. Genocide can briefly be described as killing people for what they are, rather than what they have done. No mention is made of the Greek mass murder of Muslims in Anatolia (well documented), the mass murder of Muslims when the Russians captured Erzurum (well documented), the mass murder of Muslims in Van (well documented), and the mass murder of xxxs in Van (well documented). Uniquely the death of the Armenians is singled out and termed genocide with lack of any reliable documentation. Turkey does not make light of its appalling treatment of the Armenians but it seems that governments in the west have chosen to ignore the deaths of innocent Muslims, let alone accept that these cases were genocide: government sponsored elimination of thousands of civilians for no other reason than that they belonged to a particular religion.
If Armenia adopts a realistic attitude and is not fearful of confronting its past, a mixed commission to investigate the issue could be established. In this context, first, the two parties should set up a mixed committee of Turkish and Armenian historians. Second, they should declare that they will open their respective archives without any restriction on research. Third, representatives from an international organization, for instance UNESCO, should be a part of this process, assuming the role of public notary.
If the Armenian side is truly certain about the righteousness of its claim, it should not hesitate to espouse this proposal and thus contribute to bringing clarity to this period of our mutual history.
Yours sincerely,
On behalf of the joint 153 NGOs' initiative
Prof. Dr. Aysel Eksi
[email protected]
Dear Sir, Dear Madam,
As representatives of Turkish 153 Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) we would like to express our deep concern and disappointment regarding the "genocide" accusation inflicted upon our ancestors. Herewith, we would like to convey our views and the grounds which oblige us to explain such allegations.
There are accusations from almost all over the world for an "Armenian genocide" which derive mainly from the prejudiced sources provided by the Armenian view. There are various reasons why this view of history has become the accepted wisdom in the world at large. No single issue moves the Armenian diaspora as much as what has come to be known as genocide, and many Armenians, having attained positions of wealth and influence throughout the western world, have made the perpetuation of this issue their crusade. As a result, virtually all the information that we have concerning the tragic events of 1915 comes from Armenian sources, or of their sympathizers. What works to the pro-Armenians' advantage is that the western world has failed to regard the two peoples on an equal plane. The much greater suffering endured by the Muslims of the period has been almost completely ignored.
The inherent prejudice that prevents most people from analyzing these events with an open mind presents as significant an obstacle today as it did during the time of the events. It is unfortunate that the image of the "Terrible Turk" is still alive and well. Those who can overcome their ingrained bigotry and objectively look at the genuine evidence soon become aware that what is known as "Turkish propaganda" stems mainly from sources without reason to be false. These are the very western sources that have often maintained their prejudices against the Turkish people, along with internal Ottoman documents never meant to be public relations exercises. Today's so-called genocide scholars overwhelmingly support the Armenian thesis, but there are very few historians among their ranks. Many conclude there was genocide first, and then fit selective evidence to support their conclusion; in effect, working in reverse of what we would normally expect of genuine scholars.
After the wave of Armenian terrorism hit in the 1970s and 80s, this subject began to be studied seriously, and many specialists in Ottoman history came to reject the notion of genocide. For example, 69 Western academicians signed a 1985 statement to that effect. Targeted increasingly by ad hominem attacks, most were intimidated away from this debate. As a result, the pro-Armenians have succeeded in presenting the image that it is only the Turkish government that has come to "deny" this alleged genocide.
In the face of this malicious campaign to distort history, what stands out is that pro-Armenians have rarely expressed willingness to engage in honest debate. One must ask, if they are so certain of their facts, what have they got to be afraid of? Why, for example, have they refused to take their case to the International Court of Justice in The Hague?
The truth is that during World War I, when the Ottoman forces were fighting on five fronts, they also faced an armed uprising of Armenians. At the instigation and with the support of Czarist Russia, Armenian insurgents sought to establish an Armenian state in an area which was predominantly Muslim. With the Russian invasion of eastern Anatolia, the degree of Armenian collaboration with the Russian enemy increased dramatically. The Ottoman army's rear was gravely threatened when supply lines were cut by Armenian guerilla bands.
Furthermore, Armenian revolutionary bands massacred the Muslims of the province of Van, in anticipation of the expected arrival of the invading Russian armies. The Ottoman government's response was to order the relocation of its Armenian subjects from the path of invading Russians and other areas where they might undermine the Ottoman war effort.
That the Ottoman State's Armenian minority launched a bloody insurrection at the very time the country was fighting a World War goes a long way towards explaining the resultant suffering that was borne by Armenians and non- Armenians alike. Most of the casualties from both sides were victims of famine, disease and exposure, as well as inter-ethnic clashes and regular warfare. A favorite pro-Armenian source, Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, himself had written that thousands of Turks were dying daily from starvation because few were left to till the fields; he estimated an entire quarter of the Turkish population had died of starvation alone. It is not correct to deem the great numbers of Armenians who died from the same causes as 'victims of genocide'. Ottoman archives which are now open to research without any restriction contain tens of thousands of documents shedding light on the relocation process. Among them are a great number of Ottoman Government directives ordering the governors, military commanders and other public officials, to implement the relocation in an orderly way, taking the necessary measures for the security of those who were being moved, with maximum care for the protection of their lives and possessions? (However, it is also a fact that orders from the central government were not always followed by local officials. As often happens with operations of great magnitude, particularly those undertaken at the last minute with limited resources and manpower, not everything went smoothly.)
In the overall implementation of the relocation the nonexistence of even a disguised intent to kill and destroy is obvious. This could also be deduced from the following indications: All along the war the Armenian population continued to exist in most of western Anatolia, such as in Istanbul and Izmir where the government was in control, and were not subjected to relocation. Those who were subjected to relocation had to travel on foot because of lack of proper transportation and were unfortunately attacked by lawless bands and other renegade forces. This is the opposite of what one would expect if there had been a government implemented policy of genocide. Meanwhile, high level Armenian bureaucrats continued to serve in the Ottoman government.
Contrary to overriding belief, the great wave of immigration of Armenians came well after the war was over, and after many had returned to their homes in what was left of the Ottoman Empire. The Armenian Patriarch estimated some 645,000 remained as late as 1921. 500,000 had already mostly traveled, on their own accord, to Transcaucasia alone, according to a UCLA Armenian professor. Armenians today concede one million survived. The pre-war population according to most neutral Western sources of the period (such as the Encyclopedia Britannica) was around 1.5 million. Pro-Armenian claims that 1.5 million were killed are arithmetically impossible.
Often called the "foremost authority on the Armenian Genocide," Prof. Vahakn Dadrian himself had written (in Sept. 21, 2004) that "in 1916 ... the genocide had all but run its course." He was referring to the relocation policy, but it is obvious that such a policy in itself cannot be termed genocide. (Otherwise, the movement of W.W.II Japanese-Americans would be similarly defined.) The question must also be asked that if this process was the kind of Hitlerian "Final Solution" it is often compared to, why should it have come to a halt so soon?
The 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide requires "intent" to be proven. Aside from hearsay, there is absolutely no factual evidence proving any such thing. Similarly, the Armenians had been a "political group" aiming to ethnically cleanse the Turks in a sizeable part of eastern Anatolia, in an effort to establish their own independent state. "Political groups" are not among the groups protected under the Genocide Convention.
A "Nuremberg" was held at the end of the war, in the form of the Malta Tribunal (1919-1921). The British sought the evidence to convict accused Ottomans, numbering over 144 at one point. The U.S. State archives were their last resort (significantly, the very foundation of most "Armenian genocide evidence" today), and the British Embassy in Washington delivered the following message on July 13, 1921: "I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial in Malta." Consequently, without going to trial, every single prisoner was freed. The point here is that the 144 prisoners were released without any charges being brought. Some 1,600 Turks were, on the other hand, taken to tribunals and court-martials during the war in their own country, for crimes against Armenians. Most were convicted, and over sixty were condemned to death. These actions are hardly consistent with an intended genocide.
The truth is that the Armenians' portrayal of themselves as the helpless victims of "The First Genocide of the 20th Century" is without any basis. Even that claim is inaccurate; there were systematic extermination campaigns earlier in the century preceding the Armenians, as in Albania, South West Africa, and the Philippines.
Often ignored, the Balkan Turks were victims of an enormous ethnic cleansing campaign, also preceding the Armenian experience. Once again, it is prejudice that prevents the world at large from recognizing the tremendous tragedies the Turks suffered.
During 1918-1920, the newly formed Republic of Armenia systematically exterminated their own Muslims, constituting some 38% of their population. During and after World War I, the Armenians also killed over half a million Ottomans, mostly Muslims including the entire xxxish population of the caucuses, numbers that are documented in the Ottoman archives. Few Western sources will corroborate this very unknown tragedy because Muslim and xxxish lives were insignificant. A British colonel by the name of Wooley, according to the U.S. Archives, estimated that 300,000-400,000 Ottoman Muslims were killed by Armenians in three districts alone. What disturbs us most is that in the midst of deportations, massacres, ethnic cleansing, and other atrocities, only the deaths of the Armenians is selected and falsely characterized as genocide. Genocide can briefly be described as killing people for what they are, rather than what they have done. No mention is made of the Greek mass murder of Muslims in Anatolia (well documented), the mass murder of Muslims when the Russians captured Erzurum (well documented), the mass murder of Muslims in Van (well documented), and the mass murder of xxxs in Van (well documented). Uniquely the death of the Armenians is singled out and termed genocide with lack of any reliable documentation. Turkey does not make light of its appalling treatment of the Armenians but it seems that governments in the west have chosen to ignore the deaths of innocent Muslims, let alone accept that these cases were genocide: government sponsored elimination of thousands of civilians for no other reason than that they belonged to a particular religion.
If Armenia adopts a realistic attitude and is not fearful of confronting its past, a mixed commission to investigate the issue could be established. In this context, first, the two parties should set up a mixed committee of Turkish and Armenian historians. Second, they should declare that they will open their respective archives without any restriction on research. Third, representatives from an international organization, for instance UNESCO, should be a part of this process, assuming the role of public notary.
If the Armenian side is truly certain about the righteousness of its claim, it should not hesitate to espouse this proposal and thus contribute to bringing clarity to this period of our mutual history.
Yours sincerely,
On behalf of the joint 153 NGOs' initiative
Prof. Dr. Aysel Eksi
[email protected]
.
Comment