User:OttomanReference/Armenian Genocide

The Position of Turkey

For more details on this topic, see Armenian Genocide and position of Turkey

Republic of Turkey does not accept that the deaths of Armenians under "Evacuation or deportation (Turkey uses the word relocation) of Armenians" can be extended to an intention to eliminate the Armenian people. Turkey also denies any systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing took place during a time which the Ottoman Empire was crumbling.

Relations between Turkey and Armenia remain frozen. Turkey has closed its land borders with Armenia, citing Armenian military control of Nagorno-Karabagh and occupation of surrounding Azerbaijani territories. Armenia has repeatedly declared that it is ready for relations and an open border without preconditions. Turkey claims that opening its borders would show support for the occupation of Nagorno-Karabagh.

In March 2005, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan invited Turkish, Armenian and international historians to form a Commission to establish the events of 1915. The offer was accepted by Armenia but with a condition of having first good relations with the Turkish state.

The Position of Turkish authorities

Further information: Denial of Armenian genocide

Turkish historians have been very slow on responding to Armenian positions, even though nearly a century passed after the events.^[1] In 1975, Sevket Sureyya Aydemir, Turkish historian and biographer, summarized the reasons of this delay. He said, "The best course, I believe, is not to dwell on this subject and allow both sides to forget (calm) this part of history." The same perspective was shared by the foreign ministery of Turkey at that time. With Kamuran Gurun for first time a period in Ottoman Empire began to be questioned by Republic of Turkey. Other Turkish institutions fallowed Kamuran Gurun. Zeki Kuneralp, a former ambassador, has a different explanation regarding why it took so much time to not publish the Ottoman records; he declared: The liabilities of not publishing the historical documents outweigh the advantages.^[2] The thesis brought by Armenian and foreign historians were then answered through analysis of casualties of deportations, and alleged casualties of inter ethnic fight, etc. Initial studies were basicly on aggregated data issues, through classifications and categorizations. These discussions have been moved to issues like why Armenian resistance force failed to support a sustainable Armenian state^[3] and Ottoman millitary problems under insurgency^[4].

Political Arguments

Turkish authorities hold the position that the Ottoman Empire did not hold as much control as the opposing parties claim.
Turkish authorities claims that in 1915 there was only one railway that connects west-east and that the path of what it considers relocation was not a conspiracy to exterminate Armenians.
Turkish authorities strongly reject claims that the locations of these camps are a result of a conspiracy to bury Armenians in deserts. They attribute the graves in these areas to difficulties of traveling under very hard conditions, and that the conditions of these camps reflected the dire condition of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was facing Gallipoli at the west, and the Caucasus Campaign at the east; Deir ez-Zor is a district along the europhites and one of the unique places far away from any military activity; thus, Deir ez-Zor's selection as a burying site in a deserted location is rejected by Turkey. Turkish authorities recall that WWI precipitated the end of the empire financially and economically.
Turkish authorities hold the position that the deaths were the result of the turmoils of World War I and that the Ottoman Empire fought against Russian backed Armenian militia. Turkish authorities also point out that the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the Balkanization process were at the same period.

They state that claims based on non-existant Armenian unrest, or non-existant ethnical-religious conflicts among other sections, concluding everything as a state organized activity, are unconnected to historical facts. There was a political move toward creating a "Republic of Armenia" and without opening the archives of Armenia, the population moves can not be really constructed in both sides and the numbers that are presented would always be in error.
Turkish authorities hold the position that historical conciliation would help political conciliation between the Turkish authorities and Armenia, even if there are other issues between the states. Political conciliation before the historical conciliation or using the genocide terminology in every aspect of the communications seems to be unrealistic.
The Forced Deportations can not be classified as acts of genocide. Turkey accepts that there are Armenian losts because of Ottoman Empire decisions. Turkey also maintains that Ottoman bureaucrats and military members who did not do their job in securing the life of Armenians have been put to trial.

Citations

As a scholarly study area, the field is highly divided, as the camps on both side of this issue approach it very strongly.

Turkish authorities constantly brought arguments related with single source (Ottoman or a Western) issues. They point out that without doing a triangulation, even if the facts were reported correctly, the conclusions drawn can be false. They constantly point out the general attitude Sick man of Europe of the time and how it deforms perceptions. They claim the conclusions reached toward genocide are highly biased.

Turkish authorities also claim that without confirming from the Ottoman Archives, conclusions regarding the goals of emigration(deportation)/locations, and functions of what Turkish authorities call "so called concentration camps" can not reflect the truth. It is also possible to look at secondary sources in the Ottoman Archives of the period such as budget, allocations, decisions/reasons of requests. There are also personal records such as Mehmed Talat Pasha's personal notes.

Some very "central" (most cited) sources are actively questioned on the basis that they do not include a single reference from the Ottoman Archives.

Reverse enginering of activities aimed to provide evidence without covering opposing reasoning are questioned. There are many periphery central transmissions on how to deal with emerging issues, such as allocating more than 10% of the destination population and its consequances to the local economy. They bring up points on arguments that there is a secret arrangement which can be traced through mismatches on orders and distributions of the forced deportations without considering (or not checking) periphery central transmissions on how to deal with emerging issues are actively questioned.

Arguments that use target locations to build genocide are regarded suspiciously, as is using mainly occupying force's sources of the period (British, French) on the basis of their Intelligence (information gathering) issues. There are concerns that these sources may promote propaganda.

The conclusions presented by historians who have never used Ottoman Archives are approached with questions. Turkish authorities question the validity of the "Map of Genocide". They claim it contains factual problems, repeating the previous arguments that most of the data is not collaborated with Ottoman sources.

Also, the map for "Centers of Massacre and Deportation", is visually a very sophisticated tool; however, the methodology used such as adding data from three different sources, (the data in these sources are also aggregate data), is only correct as the perception of the image. Its use as a source of validation among Western scholars has been questioned.

Enver Zia Karal (Ankara University), Salahi Sonyel (British historian and public activist), Ismail Binark (Director of Ottoman archives, Ankara), Sinasi Orel (director of a much publicized project on declassifying documents on Ottoman Armenians), Kamuran Gurun (former diplomat), Mim Kemal Oke, Justin McCarthy, and others have cited the "Blue Book" by James Bryce and Arnold Toynbee and have insisted that it lacks credibility.

Casualties

Turkish authorities also disagree over the number of casualties.

Turkey states that according to demographic studies there were fewer than 1.5 million Armenians living in those areas, before the WWI. However, 1.5 million of Armenian population is not even the question, but the suggesting figures of over a million Armenian deaths affected by the deportations during the WWI is over inflated. Turkey believes the number of deaths ranges from 200,000 to 600,000.

If the sheer count of deaths is the way to decide on the situation, Turkey reminds that Muslims who perished during the same period is much higher then 1.5 million.

Turkish authorities accept the idea that the Armenian loss between the onset of WWI and the Armistice of Mudros, which gave control of the Ottoman State to the Triple Entente, is not limited to deportations. Those lost cannot be attributed to a statewise organized activity.

Yusuf Halacoglu, the director of the Turkish history foundation, presented lower figures of Armenian casualties. He estimates that a total of 56,000 Armenians perished during the period due to war conditions, and less than 10 thousand were actually killed. In his other research, he maintains that over 500,000 Turks were killed by Armenians. While the Turkish government now publicizes those figures of Turks allegedly being killed by Armenians, the other research of Halacoglu, which claims that fewer than 10 thousand Armenians were killed, is still absent from the Turkish foreign affairs publications.

Yusuf Halacoglu^[5] through covering military records searched the "process of deportation". His time limitation was reported between 09/06/1915 and 08/02/1916. He supports the period as it is linked to the "tehcir" law which gave the orders to local branches. He claims that records are very ordered and they can be verified from cross analysis. He says in his study the centers of "tehcir" was in Adana, Ankara, Dörtyol, Eskişehir, Halep, İzmit, Karahisarı sahib, Kayseri, Mamuretülaziz, Sivas, Trabzon, Yozgat, Kütahya and Birecik. Within this time period, a total 391,040 Armenian were applied to "tehcir". He states that these numbers are originating from centers, and that tracing through individual records, his "personal" number is 438,758. He claims that differences are associated with tracing issues that are inherited to the analysis process. The number of deportees including double counts are around 458,000, as the grand totals were originated moving people from different localities and different times. The same number used to be claimed around half a million. From desdination records, 356,084 Armenians were reported. When the Ottoman grand totals are compared to details, he says there is a discrepancy which he locates it on the statistics of Halep. 26,064 Armenians from Halep did not sum to grand total. However, he also claims that subtraction of this group can not be substantiated over the grand total, which could minimize the number of lost. Yusuf Halacoglu^[6] also analyzed the military records on the reasons given for the lost during "Tehcir". He claims that 500 of the emigrants (deportees) was lost on the path of Erzurum-Erzincan, 2000 was lost around Urfa, 2000 was lost around Mardin. Yusuf Halacoglu ^[7] also analyzed the military records on the non-Armenian-Armenian casualties related with deportations. He states that Armenians were not treated as prisoners, which gave them chance to respond to local populations during the migrations (deportations). He claims that there is no record on the initiation of the local conflicts with Armenians, but just around 5-6 thousand in Dersim, and grand total of this category in all areas reaches to 9-10 thousand.

Holocaust Similarities

Turkish authorities also deny similarities with the Holocaust

Unlike the Armenians, the Jewish population of Germany and Europe did not agitate for separation. Genocide scholars answer to these claims that Holocaust revisionists also claim that the Jews agitated to destroy Germany by allying with the Soviet Union to bring Bolshevism into Germany, which according to them would mean the annihilation of the German people.

Arguments disputing the similarities to the Holocaust are as follows: (a) there is no record of (neither from origination archives nor from destination archives in Syria) an effort to develop systematic process and increasingly efficient means of killing, (b) no lists or other way of tracing to assemble and kill as many people as possible, (c) no resource allocation to exterminate Armenians (biological, chemical warefare allocations), and the use of morphine as mass termination agent is not accepted; conversely there was a constant increase in food and support expenses and these efforts continued after the end of deportations, (d) there is no recod of Armenians (through ethnic profiling) in forced deportations (emigration) being treated as prisoners, (e) the claims of prisoners were only the leaders of the Armenian militia, but did not extended to [[ethnic profiling]; the size of the security force needed to develop these claims was beyond the power of Ottoman Empire during 1915, (f) there is no record of prisons designed, build for matching the claims of Holocaust and also any process of forced surrender of all personal property.

The Position of Turkish intellectuals

Opposition

Further information: Denial of Armenian genocide

Almost all Turkish intellectuals, scientists and historians accept that many Armenians died during the conflict, but they do not necessarily classify these events as genocide. Some academics point to the disputed number of mostly Kurdish casualties killed by Armenians during the period, and argue that Armenians were ordered to relocate to save the victimized Kurds and Turks.

Support

Some Turkish intellectuals support the genocide thesis despite opposition from Turkish nationalists; these include Ragip Zarakolu, Ali Ertem, Taner Akçam and Halil Berktay.

The reasons why some Turkish intellectuals accept theses of genocide are threefold.

First, they cite the fact that the organization members were criminals, and that those criminals were specifically sent to escort the Armenians. This is regarded as sufficient evidence of the government's criminal intent. Second, the fact that Armenians living outside the war zone were also removed, contradicts the thesis of military necessity put forward by the Ottoman government. Thirdly, it is argued that the thesis of simple relocation is flawed, due to the government's lack of dispositions which a “resettlement” would require. This lack of dispositions has been emphasized as evidence of the government's intent to eliminate the displaced Armenians. Dr. Taner Akçam, a Turkish specialist, writes on this point:

“The fact that neither at the start of the deportations, nor en route, and nor at the locations, which were declared to be their initial halting places, were there any single arrangement required for the organization of a people's migration, is sufficient proof of the existence of this plan of annihilation.”

These Turkish intellectuals believe that 800,000 or more Armenians lost their lives during the events (Orhan Pamuk counting a million Armenians and 30 000 Kurds). Others put the number between 300,000 and 600,000.

Orhan Pamuk

During a February 2005 interview with Das Magazin, Orhan Pamuk, a famous Turkish novelist, made statements implicating Turkey in massacres against Armenians and persecution of the Kurds, declaring: "Thirty thousand Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody but me dares to talk about it". Subjected to a hate campaign, he left Turkey, before returning in 2005 in order to defend his right to freedom of speech: "What happened to the Ottoman Armenians in 1915 was a major thing that was hidden from the Turkish nation; it was a taboo. But we have to be able to talk about the past" [8]. The Turkish government then brought criminal charges against him. On January 23, 2006, however, the charges of "insulting Turkishness" were dropped, a move welcomed by the EU - that they had been brought at all was still a matter of contention for European politicians.