Tweet
OPEN LETTER FROM TURKISH NGOS:TURKS ARE READY TO CONFRONT THEIR HISTORY, ARE ARMENIANS READY TO CONFRONT THE TRUTH?
The New Anatolian, Turkey
Jan 10 2006
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
Jewish population of the caucuses, numbers that are documented in
the Ottoman archives. Few Western sources will corroborate this very
unknown tragedy because Muslim and Jewish 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 Jews 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]
The New Anatolian, Turkey
Jan 10 2006
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
Jewish population of the caucuses, numbers that are documented in
the Ottoman archives. Few Western sources will corroborate this very
unknown tragedy because Muslim and Jewish 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 Jews 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]