So called Armenian genocide

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
121

Zakalwe:
First, thank you for ignoring my midnight post. Now to your three observations:

  1. Legitimize Turkey’s claim that they’re trying to address the genocide issue, thus smoothing their way into the EU.

How is this a loss for Armenia?
2. Effectively call all other investigations into the Genocide into question. Armenia is asking the reasonable question: “How many times does someone have to look at this before you accept the result?” Again, see the report of TARC .

Remember, Turkey is slam-dunk gonna lose this. So make it the “mother-of-all-commissions”. Besides, Turkey is probably not gonna let it happen, what a political windfall for Armenia.
3. Distract from the other demands that Turkey is making on Armenia that have nothing to do with the Genocide, but that Turkey is using as an excuse for refusing to open normal relations.

Well, I think quite the contrary. It would be a wonderful forum to expose the great injustices that Turkey is perpetrating on poor innocent Armenia.

By the way, I finally found what I was looking for. You tell me if you think it is not sincere.

Prime Minister
Ankara, 10 April 2005
Dear Mr. President,
The Turkish and Armenian peoples not only share a common history and geography in a sensitive region of the world, but also lived together over a long period of time. However, it is not a secret that we have diverging interpretations of events that took place during a particular period of our common history. These differences that have in the past left behind traces of painful memories for our nations continue to hamper the development of friendly relations between our two countries today. I believe that, as leaders of our countries, our primary duty is to leave to our future generations a peaceful and friendly environment in which tolerance and mutual respect shall prevail.
These views are also shared by the leader of our main opposition party, Mr. Deniz
Baykal, the Chairman of the Republican People’s Party (CHP). In this connection, we are extending an invitation to your country to establish a joint group consisting of historians and other experts from our two countries to study the developments and events of 1915 not only in the archives of Turkey and Armenia but also in the archives of all relevant third countries and to share their findings with the international public. I believe that such an initiative would shed light on a disputed period of history and also constitute a step towards contributing to the normalization of relations between our countries. I hope that our proposal which aims to create a friendly and more peaceful climate to be passed on to future generations will meet with your consent. If we receive a favorable response from your side to our proposal of forming such a group, we will be ready to discuss the details of this proposal with your country.

Please accept, Your Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
His Excellency Robert Kocaryan
President
Republic of Armenia
Yerevan

Again, the reply, as reported in the link provided by measure_by_measure:

"But Kocharian effectively rejected the idea, contending that the Armenian genocide was already an established fact. "

Regards,
Michael

122

No sweat.

Thanks for finally finding the original letter! Do you have a link to your source?

Just a couple of quick points (nitpicks, really): one, this doesn’t even imply that Armenia’s archives are closed. So where did the charge of a refusal to open them come from? Two (and more importantly), it’s not really an “international conclave of experts”. He specifically says “from our two countries” thus excluding other experts in the field who don’t happen to be from Turkey or Armenia.

So what does that mean exactly? What is Turkey committing to? Please note that in addition to a lack of diplomatic recognition, Turkey currently has an embargo in place against Armenia and Erdoğan has said that “a pre-condition for rapprochement between Yerevan and Ankara [is] a settlement between Armenia and Azerbaijan of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.”

He has also “called on Armenia to halt efforts to secure international recognition for the 1915-23 events as genocide.” Evidence of the sincerity (or lack thereof) of his offer, wouldn’t you say?

Why not let Kocharian speak for himself:

Actually, wait a minute, there’s nothing in there about the Genocide being established fact. We’ve been chasing a strawman all this time!
What he actually says is “fine, we disagree on some stuff and we’d love to talk about it. Open your borders, establish normal relations with us, and we’ll talk”. Do you agree?

123

Zakalwe:

We are not chasing a strawman:

“International recognition and condemnation of the Armenian genocide is important not only for Armenia. “It must now be considered within the context of regional and international politics.”

Kocharian also criticized Turkey for continuing to assert that the government of the Ottoman Empire did not intend to exterminate its Armenian subjects and that the Armenian death toll is inflated. Other senior officials attending the ceremony said they believe Turkish recognition of the genocide is only a matter of time.

“I am confident that Turkey will eventually recognize the genocide,” Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisian told reporters. “For us, an apology is not an end in itself. The Turks must admit their ancestors’ mistake so that we Armenians can be certain about our future.”

This was stated on May 24, 2005, the link is:

As for the link to Erdoğan, letter:
http://www.turkishembassy.org/PMtoArmenianPresident4_10_05.pdf

Nitpick if you want, I find the offer very sincere. Especially in the context of an extremely contentious issue.

Back up, put it all in perspective, think about this for a moment. I can tell you exactly why the offer was refused, but I am trying to help people find it for themselves. Therefore, rather than throw the answer out there, I will take the time and weed out all the other options.

Regards,
Michael

124

Then please show me, in his response to Erdoğan where he mentions the factual nature of the Genocide.

I’d really rather you didn’t. If you know the answer as to why to offer was refused, please enlighten us.

125

Speaking as an extremely interested observer, I’d like to second that. Please, go ahead and present the answer and your evidence or reasoning. I have no dog in this race, and am quite willing to be swayed either way.

126

Zakalwe:

http://www.armenialiberty.org/armen...75A258C7A77.ASP
is a direct quote, and from an Armenian source. I cannot do any better than that.

and in his letter is the diplomatic-speak: “Your suggestion to address the past cannot be effective if it deflects from addressing the present and the future”.

Gee, that’s funny. All this time I thought the so-called Armenian Genocide was the issue, and now I learn it is all about open borders and other stuff. What a fool I have been. All these websites dedicated to the genocide need to be retitled to something like: Armenia Needs Open Borders And Other Stuff, And Then We Will Talk About Something That You Did A Long Time Ago".

No, there is more to this than that.

Kocharian refused the offer, one that had been welcomed by the United States and some European leaders. Wonder why?

And while you are at it, you missed something, let me post it again:
"Now to your three observations:

  1. Legitimize Turkey’s claim that they’re trying to address the genocide issue, thus smoothing their way into the EU.

How is this a loss for Armenia?
2. Effectively call all other investigations into the Genocide into question. Armenia is asking the reasonable question: “How many times does someone have to look at this before you accept the result?” Again, see the report of TARC .

Remember, Turkey is slam-dunk gonna lose this. So make it the “mother-of-all-commissions”. Besides, Turkey is probably not gonna let it happen, what a political windfall for Armenia.
3. Distract from the other demands that Turkey is making on Armenia that have nothing to do with the Genocide, but that Turkey is using as an excuse for refusing to open normal relations.

Well, I think quite the contrary. It would be a wonderful forum to expose the great injustices that Turkey is perpetrating on poor innocent Armenia. "
Regards,
Michael

127

Forget quotes. Forget all the false information that nobody here can really verify. Let’s break it down into it’s simpliest form:
Imagine a dispute. Say for example your kid and the kid across the street. The dispute involves some history. One side offers to jointly examine the history. The other side refuses.

Why?
Regards,
Michael

128

And while I am on a roll, chew on this:

"The Speaker of the Turkish Parliament Bulent Arinc said that a proposed conference on the Armenian Genocide allegations that is opposed by the government and the opposition should go ahead.

Arinc noted that the conference should be accepted in the frame of freedom of speech and added: “Even if I do not like it, the speeches should not be prevented.” The Speaker contributed to the argument about the Armenian Genocide conference to be organized in Bosphorous University (BU) started by Minister of Justice Cemil Cicek who fumed the other day that to hold this conference is a “stab in the back of the Turkish people”. Arinc paying a visit to US spoke at the Center of Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a think tank organization in Washington. He criticized laws in France and Switzerland that ban denial of the Genocide as being against freedoms of speech…"

This is the link: http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20050527202427307

Look at that last phrase again - there are: “laws in France and Switzerland that ban denial of the Genocide”.

There are “laws in France and Switzerland that ban denial of the Genocide”.

Well, if there ever is a conference on this I guess it cannot be held in those enlightened countries.

Regards,
Michael

129

Ummm…let’s extend the metaphor a bit shall we?

The kid across the street beats the holy hell out of my kid. The neighbor denies it for a while. After some investigation, my neighbors decide that they’ve got full-blown proof that the neighbor’s kid did it. I go to the police to try to get the neighbor’s kid arrested. After I go to the police, the neighbor comes to me and says, “Wait, don’t go to the police, let’s talk about this. Maybe your kid didn’t get beat up at all and even if he did, either my kid had nothing to do with it or your kid hit my kid first. Oh and by the way, even if you agree to talk about this, I’m still filing suit against you for that tree that fell in my yard last year.” I refuse to talk about the issue with the kids.

Why?

As for the laws in Switzerland and France, dunno. Maybe they’re a little sensitive about enabling people who can dismiss systematic mass murder with a wave of the hand and a blithe “never happened”. You know, that little thing that happened up the road about 60 years ago?

And, by the way, your link doesn’t work (the one to ArmeniaLiberty).

Still waiting for the explanation as to why Kocharian refused the oh-so-generous offer of Turkey to talk yet again about something the rest of the world decided a long time ago (while enforcing closed borders, an embargo, and refusing to extend diplomatic relations). Please, please enlighten us.

130

Zakalwe:

“The kid across the street beats the holy hell out of my kid (maybe he didn’t, let’s look at the history). The neighbor denies it for a while. After some investigation, my neighbors decide that they’ve got full-blown proof that the neighbor’s kid did it (maybe they don’t, let’s look at the history). I go to the police to try to get the neighbor’s kid arrested. After I go to the police, the neighbor comes to me and says, “Wait, don’t go to the police, let’s talk about this. Maybe your kid didn’t get beat up at all and even if he did, either my kid had nothing to do with it or your kid hit my kid first. Oh and by the way, even if you agree to talk about this, I’m still filing suit against you for that tree that fell in my yard last year.” I refuse to talk about the issue with the kids.”

Nice try, but no good. We have talked for a long time, you are a smart and reasonable person. You can do better than this. Keep your mind open to other possibilities, they are there.

You totally missed the point about the laws in Switzerland and France. This is a restriction on free speech, done for political reasons. I am posting this from America, but if I lived in one of those countires I might be at risk of prosecution for some of the things I have said on this blog. I find that scary. Again, I implore you to keep your mind open.

The link on post #123 works, don’t know how the copy and paste failed, sorry.

As to why the offer was refused, all in due time. First we must eliminate all other options, then I will present. Hint - I am glad I am not in Switzerland or France.

By the way, have we sufficiently put your observations on post #120 and I discussed on post #121 again on #126 to rest?

I would now like to go back to my original post #88:

"I think the turkish position is this:
Was there killing? Yes
Was there a lot of killing? Yes, minimum estimate seems to be 600,000.
Was it centrally ordered? No.
Was it an ugly time in the area? Yes, very much so.
Were others killed besides Armenians? Yes, up to 2.5 million Moslems.

The thing I find interesting is that Turkey has offerred to have a conclave of international experts (change to commission of historians) review the entire situation. They have offerred to open their archives for this purpose and have asked Armenia to open theirs also. The offer appears to have been refused and perhaps someone here can explain."

There has been a lot of attack on this, it has been focused entirely on the last paragraph. This paragraph has had very minor modification, as shown, but has stood up to all challange. But the most interesting thing is that I thought the one thing that would be most challanged is the last assertion, that is there were up to 2.5 million Moslems also killed. No one has picked up on this. No one has said: “Huh? prove it, show the link.”
I have no link. I took all those points (notice I prefaced it with “I think the turkish position is this”) from the Turkish government website. So, from my own curiosity, I googled around a bit and found a review of a book published in 1995 by Justin McCarthy. Mr. McCarthy is a professor at the University of Louisville. I, incidently, am a financial supporter of UL, and while I do not know Mr. McCarthy I can assure you that Louisville is not a hotbed of radical wierdos. This is the review, I find it very interesting and hope you will also:
http://www.danielpipes.org/pf.php?id=704
"McCarthy has unearthed a horrifying and extremely important fact: that in the course of the century between the Greek war of independence and World War I, the Ottoman Empire suffered five and a half million dead and five million refugees. He deems this Europe’s largest lost of life and emigration since the Thirty Years’ War. Christian suffering in this time and place is well-known; McCarthy shows the other side, that “Muslim communities in an area as large as all of western Europe had been diminished or destroyed.” His study minutely reviews the regions and wars, pulling information from foreign and Ottoman sources to produce a compelling account.

Beyond the tragedy involved, this pattern of death and exile has a profound historical importance. To take just three matters that the author raises: It puts into perspective the deportation of Armenians in 1915 and turns this from an act of hatred into one motivated by fear (had the Armenians, with Russian support, rebelled, Ottoman Muslims could have expected to be slaughtered). Also, this legacy explains the modest and circumspect foreign policy pursued by Atatürk; “as a land of recent refugee in-migration and massive mortality,” his country was ready not to assert itself but to reform itself. Lastly, the massive immigrations to Anatolia mean that modern Turkey is (like France) a land of migrants; McCarthy estimates that one-fifth of the population descends from nineteenth-century refugees. This helps understand the country’s acute sensitivity to current problems in Bosnia and Azerbaijan."

Now, I do not like to post links of history, it seems to often turn into a case of “he said, she said”. And I fear much historical “fact” seems to have been manufactured, bost sides accuse the other of this. I have posted links to recent stuff as that cannot be that easily disputed. But this I found interesting, not as much the blip about the genocide but the larger context of the times.

Regards,
Michael

131

Zakalwe:

“…I can assure you that Louisville is not a hotbed of radical wierdos”. Although there are probably many, upon reading my posts, who beg to differ.

Regards,
Michael

132

Michael,
Sorry, but I have neither the time nor the energy to play a seemingly endless guessing game. Either present your position with supporting evidence or don’t expect me to respond to you in this thread again. Your “I’ll tell you the ‘right’ answer when I’ve decided you’re stupid to figure it out on your own” attitude is childish and runs strongly counter to the long established culture and tradition of this Message Board.

133

Zakalwe:

Fair 'nuff. The evidence is everything that I have posted todate. None of it has been refuted, so I am going to assume that it as all been accepted. There was one change, I have altered “conclave of international experts” to be “commission of historians”, big deal.

I do not think you are stupid at all. If I had I would have blown you off as I have others here. I have enjoyed our exchanges and apologize if offense was taken, I assure you none was given.

I will tie it all together tomorrow or perhaps Friday, I do have a life. It will be long. Good-by till then.

Regards,
Michael
(posting from America, not France or Switzerland.)

134

I must admit to a pleasant sense of surprise. I look forward to your post. I would offer one thing though. What “evidence” have you posted to date? You yourself admit that you have no cite for your claim of 2.5M Muslims killed (sorry, but a book review doesn’t cut it), so as far as I’m concerned, it hasn’t been seriously offered and thus doesn’t need to be refuted.

As for the discussion we’ve been having in regarding Armenia’s reason for responding the way they did, no, I’m not satisfied. To briefly counter your responses:

  1. How is this a loss for Armenia? (re: Turkey joining the EU)
    It removes a significant motivation for Turkey to address the Genocide in an honest fashion.

  2. Remember, Turkey is slam-dunk gonna lose this. So make it the “mother-of-all-commissions”. Besides, Turkey is probably not gonna let it happen, what a political windfall for Armenia.
    Well, it looks like Turkey can’t even have an internal conference so their intransigence on this issue is apparent without Armenia having to do a damn thing. There’s also the problem that Turkey doesn’t have to admit any loss. An historical commission isn’t like a basketball game where one side wins and the other loses. Turkey would simply claim that a “distinguished commission of historians from Turkey and Armenia was unable to conclusively prove the Genocide took place.”

  3. Well, I think quite the contrary. It would be a wonderful forum to expose the great injustices that Turkey is perpetrating on poor innocent Armenia.
    Except that the Commission is supposed to deal with the Genocide, not the modern embargo. Why would the issue even come up and why would a Genocide historian be the best representative of the Armenian position even if it did? In other words (to paraphrase you above):

The thing I find interesting is that Armenia has offerred to have a conclave of governmental experts review the entire situation (the embargo). They have offered to open their borders for this purpose and have asked Turkey to open theirs also. The offer appears to have been refused and perhaps someone here can explain.

135

I don’t: nothing you have said here would be illegal in those countries:
Link. “Throughout the numerous countries that condemn Turkey’s negation, only the denial of Jewish and Gypsy genocides have been punished by law. This is the case in France, Germany, Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg.”

Your quote was misleading.

136

Ok.

  1. Given that this, at bottom, is an historical discussion, I would think establishing historical fact directly would be a good way of dispelling ignorance. Discussions of alleged Armenian cooperation seem rather tangential (though, again, their archives are open to scholars and the Armenian genocide has been acknowledged by a joint Armenian/Turkish commission). I mean, heck, Turkey’s key argument is that the killing was not centrally directed, an argument that wouldn’t be settled by access to Armenian archives.

  2. Personally, I have not seen too much Armenian obfuscation. The Hitler quote, for example, seems a case of “non-strong” evidence as opposed to an argument provided in poor faith.

  3. I found the Pipes 1996 review to be interesting as well. He doesn’t deny the Armenian genocide; he merely notes Justin McCarthy’s contention that Ottoman Muslims suffered ethnic cleansing during the 1821-1922 era. It seems to me that this would be a plausible basis for serious-minded historical revisionism.

3a. Again, I am neither Armenian nor Turk and my knowledge about this part of history is beyond pitiful. My attention to this thread is mostly motivated by a dislike of assertions that can be falsified with rudimentary fact checking. Admittedly, I have some small interest in 20th century genocide (i.e. I own a single book on the topic).

137

Hi, I’m new. :slight_smile:

The “neighbor’s kid” analogy was a little confusing with all the different neighbors. Here’s mine:
A Christian church that has categorically denied evolution for decades elects a new leader (bishop, pope, whatever) who, while considered a “liberal” within his church, would hardly be characterized as such by the outside world. As an attempted gesture of good-faith and openness, he extends an invitation to several prominent scientists to take part in a a large-scale conference on “Evolutionism vs. Creationism.”
The same arguments can be made: “The scientists should win in a slam-dunk,” “What have the scientists got to lose?” and “This is a good-faith effort to reach out to the opposite side,” etc. However, I would not expect a scientist of any stature to accept such an invitation for the following reasons:

  1. The issue in question has been proven beyond any doubt;
  2. There is no reason to expect, from the past history of this organization, that a logical argument (in which a conclusion is deduced from established facts) will be an effective technique at this conference;
  3. By agreeing to attend, they are implicitly agreeing that there is another side to the issue.

For reputable scientists and historians, evolution and the Armenian genocide are non-issues. Therefore, to participate part in a conference where they would be treated as the intellectual equals of their demagogic counterparts would be insulting and damaging to their reputations.

Does this make sense?

Dan

Note 1: A similar argument was made by Bernard-Henri Lévy in last month’s Atlantic: Lévy was sharply critical of MoveOn.org for their original campaign, “Censure & Move On,” as it was an acknowledgment of their chief adversaries’ central claim, that Clinton behavior warranted punishment.
Note 2 (on Daniel Pipes): I am relatively pro-Israel, meaning I support the construction of the fence, I don’t believe Sharon is a terrorist, and I believe he genuinely wants peace with the Palestinians. Even so, I find Daniel Pipes abhorrently right-wing. I attended a lecture by him at which he began by condemning suicide bombing as a tactic, and concluded by saying the Israelis were justified in using all means at their disposal to make life as miserable as possible for the Palestinians, so that they will give up all hope. He even suggested that it would be the more humane strategy. I pointed out to him that this argument, applied to the Palestinians’ side, justifies suicide bombing and all forms of terrorism as a tactic. He agreed. After this experience, I cannot consider any cites from his website to have any moral weight. Sorry.

138

Greetings DWielunski and welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board!

I would qualify your main argument by noting that the ambiguities surrounding the Armenian genocide exceed those surrounding evolutionary theory, IMHO.

For example, reasonable people can disagree regarding the unfortunate body count (with 800,000 being a reasonable lower bound, following Cecil). Furthermore, many of the perpetrators were militias that were quasi-independent of the government (a situation that observers of the 1990s-2000s atrocities will be familiar with). I can certainly imagine a valid attempt by a righteous Turkish nationalist to draw a bright line between the Armenian and Rwandan genocides (as well as other 20th century events), though that would be a markedly different argument than the one put forward by the current administration in Turkey.

On note2: Pipes moral opinions notwithstanding, you have not demonstrated that he is a dishonest or unreliable reporter of scholarly research. Alas, I now recall that I questioned his honesty a couple of years ago. (See post 9, but also post 10; also note other posts by the late Collounsbury.) Thus, I would now prefer to find a more reliable reviewer of Justin McCarthy’s book.

139

Here is a list of books written by Justin McCarthy of the University of Louisville. One Armenian website maintains that he denies the reality of the Armenian genocide. His book, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922 inspires, er, lively debate at Amazon.

In other news, respected historian Bernard Lewis apparently was condemmed by a French court in 1995 for statements he made denying the Armenian genocide: http://users.ids.net/~gregan/lewis.html .

I am beginning to see why Cecil was unusually circumspect in his column: this is a pretty contentious debate.

140

I agree that I did not demonstrate any lack of scholarship on the part of Pipes. Our disagreements were philosophical, based in his logical reasoning rather than his reporting of facts. Therefore I am reporting how I am personally so revolted by this man’s thinking (I declared him a bigot–sadly not to his face) that I cannot but consider him a grossly biased source. The “Daniel Pipes is a bigot” argument is certainly not part of this thread, nevertheless I am pleased to see I am not alone in my low opinion of him.

I maintain that it would be an irresponsible historian who took part in a committee which could reasonably be expected to include “historians” actively looking to disprove or minimize the importance of the Armenian genocide. Isn’t that basically what we’re talking about here?

Dan