Tweet
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
May 30 2005
The Armenian Issue: Inventing a Past
View: Dr. Sedat LACINER
Armenians claim that The Ottomans consciously and systematically
killed the Armenian citizens in 1915 and afterwards. This claim had
been denominated as 'massacre' until the end of the World War II,
it has been denominated as "genocide" since 1965. In this respect,
the Jewish example has a significant role in skillfully transforming
to be 'genocide victim' into political and monetary earnings. As it
is known that, as the Jewish people have accepted that, the Jews who
were died in the World War II left a loaded indemnity and a state to
their sons and grandchildren. The more important than that, grievance
also has prepared ground for an important esteem in the world. So,
this is the most important benefit which charmed the Armenians.
The Armenian side claims that approximately 1.5 million Armenians
vanished in the Ottoman territory in 1915 and afterwards. This number
is controversial and excessive but additionally, the numbers which
are approved by the Turkish side also can reach hundred thousands.
Except one difference, while the Armenian side claims that the state
killed these people consciously, the Turkish side claims that most of
these people died due to hunger, famine, epidemic diseases, the
negative conditions of war, bad weather and some of them were killed
in the local-ethnic disputes. The Armenian historians and who adhered
to even some of the Turkish people claims that thousands of people
could not die because of famine or epidemic disease in such a short
period of time. According to them, the negative circumstances of the
war, surely, led to death of some Armenians, but this number could
considerably be limited.
The ones who claim in this way, unfortunately, know nothing about the
conditions of the period. They do not know that in this period the
epidemic diseases and famine could still totally destroy all
population of cities or districts. They do not remember that even the
thousands of Ottoman soldiers died in Sarikamis because of cold
without shooting a single bullet. Above all, they also do not know
about how thousands of Armenians died even in Armenia because of
epidemic diseases and famine after 1915 under the Armenian rule.
Georgia and Azerbaijan declared their independence after the
revolution in Russia. Hereon, after a short time, the Armenians
established their state. Anyhow Tasnaks' (nationalist Armenian armed
group) also had a state. However, while establishing this state The
Taşnaks were unwilling because they wanted a state (if it is not
an empire) which could reach Mediterranean to Black Sea and Caspian
(Hazar) Sea, 'three sea sided'. As a matter of fact, their wishes
partially reflected to Sevr Treaty. A French newspaper defined those
wishes as 'Armenian Empire'.1 (Sunny, p.129) Tasnaks and other
Armenian groups found the pre-established state little, at this stage
instead of establishing a micro state they planned to continue their
struggle and obtain a bigger one. Young generation was filled with
hatred against Turks, the leaders, primarily Europe and USA, were
trying to draw the non-regional extraterritorial forces to Caucasia
for their own purposes.
Whereas, the realities were hard and do not have relation with the
fantasies of 'Greater Armenia'. In the state which was established by
the Tasnaks famine and epidemic diseases were patrolling. The famine
has reached a very serious phase that a newspaper draws its portrayal
as in the following:
"People were eating dead cats and dogs. Even there were incidents
that a person could eat a hungry mother's dead child's kidney or
lung..." (Sunny, ss. 127-128)2
According to an Armenian Historian, Richard Hovannissian, in this
period Armenia lost 1/5 of its population. More than 200.000
Armenians died because of famine and epidemic diseases.
Robert Grigor Suny describes the picture in first Independent
Armenian Republic under the Tashnak rule:
"Famine was widespread in Erevan (Yerevan), and the underfed
population was susceptible to disease. As Richard Hovannissian tells
us, 'It was verily a land of death'. Approximately 200,000 people,
almost 20 percent of the republic's population, had died by the
middle of 1919'. A newspaper account told the following story:
'The populace is feeding upon the bodies of dead cats and dogs. There
have been cases when a starving mother has eaten the kidney or the
liver from the corpse of her own child.. The skeleton-like woman and
children rummage in the refuse heaps for moldered shoes and, after
cooking them for three days, eat them." (Looking Toward Ararat, pp.
127-128).
Portrayal is really sad but one should ask that who is the
responsible for that result? Whether the Turks came to Armenia and
made 'genocide'? Or they should look for the responsible ones who led
to genocide or else among the Armenians themselves? Whether the
Tasnaks are not guilty? Moreover, it should be asked that, the ones
who do not accept that thousands of Armenians could have died in
Anatolia because of famine, epidemic diseases or other natural
reasons and conditions of war, how can they explain that thousands of
Armenians died in heart of Yerevan.
The Armenians experienced a tragedy...Just like the Turks and other
ethnic groups who shared the same geography under the WWI. However,
Armenian ultra-nationalists do not want to take responsibility of
this tragedy. Whereon, because of this reason, they can not take
lessons from history. For this reason, the same situation occurred
when they established their own state for the second time in 1991:
The leaders of the newly established Armenia again showed their
citizens, who fight against famine, hunger, cold and earthquake, a
'Greater Armenia' map as ideal. For this time, Karabakh and its
surrounding, Turkey's eastern provinces, Georgia and Nahcivan were
the target. More than that, 'the claims about Turkey were heated and
serviced again'. The Armenian people, who were even in need of wheat
from Turkey, were filled with hatred towards the neighboring Turkish
people. Again Armenia was in need of external help and again many
Armenians died because of negative conditions and the war. This time
the number of dead people was not so much as in 1919. However, the
numbers of the ones who abandoned their homes and countries, who went
to Russia, France and even to Turkey in order to work was more than
one million. The ones who went were not coming back. It has been long
time since the population of the Diaspora exceeded the population of
the homeland. The greatest problem of Armenia, in the Tashnak
administration, was the political and economical isolation. Armenia
confided in Western states instead of its neighbors but it was
disappointed by them, nowadays Armenia gets more and more isolated
and disappointed with Russia's and the West's attitude. Armenia
became the only Russian military base in the region against the
neighboring countries. Almost all Caucasian countries perceive threat
from Armenia and Russia. Naturally, the current perceptions threaten
security of Armenia, and nourish Armenian mistrust towards the
international community.
Nevertheless, even if the Armenians and Turks would never be friends
according to the nationalist Armenians, at least Armenians should
take the Turks as an example, so by this way they could have solved
the important part of their problems:
While Mustafa Kemal and his friends were establishing the Republic of
Turkey they did not only lean on gun power. Even when the war was
continuing they did the preparations of the period of peace. Instead
of rigid ideologies they preferred a realistic and pragmatic attitude
towards the neighbors and the great powers. Externally and
internally, they did not establish their policies on hatred and
vengeance. Even they offer 'olive branch' to the Greeks who occupied
Western Anatolia for a period of time, the friendship of Ataturk -
Venizolos have opened a golden period in relationships between Turkey
and Greece. In the same way, establishing good relations with all of
the new neighbors was designated to be their basic target. Although
the citizens had great reactions towards Armenians, Bulgarians,
Russians, Greeks and Arabs, all these feelings were bridled and tried
to be soothed because Turkey was conscious of compulsoriness of
living with its neighbors. Moreover, they have never dreamed of a
'Greater Turkey', a greater Turkish world, regeneration of the
Ottoman Empire or a Muslim Empire, even though it came from a
tradition of great empires. They followed a defendable, constricted
but homogeneous policy of territory. Above all, instead of taking
revenge from the neighbors, first Turkish nationalists gave more
importance to the economical and social problems. A development
campaign was started and even this campaign has reached today.
When the Turkish and Armenian experience is compared, it should be
clearly understood that the Armenian citizens do not have an
'Armenian Ataturk'. The Armenians have followed unrealistic and
unconscious leaders. However, in each time they always reach a
disaster and great disasters instead of a greater Armenia. The
saddest thing is that Armenian nationalists have always blamed the
others for the tragic events they have experienced: Now, Armenians
politicians accuse Israel, United States, European Union, Azerbaijan,
Georgia, Turkey and even Russia for the current situation in Armenia.
Now it is time for Armenians to look at the mirror... It is right,
reality hurts. However, it is better and beneficial to face realities
than to live in a world of dreams and accuse those who could help us
a lot.
----------------------------------------------
Dr. Sedat LACINER: Chairman, International Strategic Research
ORganization (USAK - ISRO) and member of TEIMK (Turkish Armenian
Relations National Committee).
[email protected]
May 30 2005
The Armenian Issue: Inventing a Past
View: Dr. Sedat LACINER
Armenians claim that The Ottomans consciously and systematically
killed the Armenian citizens in 1915 and afterwards. This claim had
been denominated as 'massacre' until the end of the World War II,
it has been denominated as "genocide" since 1965. In this respect,
the Jewish example has a significant role in skillfully transforming
to be 'genocide victim' into political and monetary earnings. As it
is known that, as the Jewish people have accepted that, the Jews who
were died in the World War II left a loaded indemnity and a state to
their sons and grandchildren. The more important than that, grievance
also has prepared ground for an important esteem in the world. So,
this is the most important benefit which charmed the Armenians.
The Armenian side claims that approximately 1.5 million Armenians
vanished in the Ottoman territory in 1915 and afterwards. This number
is controversial and excessive but additionally, the numbers which
are approved by the Turkish side also can reach hundred thousands.
Except one difference, while the Armenian side claims that the state
killed these people consciously, the Turkish side claims that most of
these people died due to hunger, famine, epidemic diseases, the
negative conditions of war, bad weather and some of them were killed
in the local-ethnic disputes. The Armenian historians and who adhered
to even some of the Turkish people claims that thousands of people
could not die because of famine or epidemic disease in such a short
period of time. According to them, the negative circumstances of the
war, surely, led to death of some Armenians, but this number could
considerably be limited.
The ones who claim in this way, unfortunately, know nothing about the
conditions of the period. They do not know that in this period the
epidemic diseases and famine could still totally destroy all
population of cities or districts. They do not remember that even the
thousands of Ottoman soldiers died in Sarikamis because of cold
without shooting a single bullet. Above all, they also do not know
about how thousands of Armenians died even in Armenia because of
epidemic diseases and famine after 1915 under the Armenian rule.
Georgia and Azerbaijan declared their independence after the
revolution in Russia. Hereon, after a short time, the Armenians
established their state. Anyhow Tasnaks' (nationalist Armenian armed
group) also had a state. However, while establishing this state The
Taşnaks were unwilling because they wanted a state (if it is not
an empire) which could reach Mediterranean to Black Sea and Caspian
(Hazar) Sea, 'three sea sided'. As a matter of fact, their wishes
partially reflected to Sevr Treaty. A French newspaper defined those
wishes as 'Armenian Empire'.1 (Sunny, p.129) Tasnaks and other
Armenian groups found the pre-established state little, at this stage
instead of establishing a micro state they planned to continue their
struggle and obtain a bigger one. Young generation was filled with
hatred against Turks, the leaders, primarily Europe and USA, were
trying to draw the non-regional extraterritorial forces to Caucasia
for their own purposes.
Whereas, the realities were hard and do not have relation with the
fantasies of 'Greater Armenia'. In the state which was established by
the Tasnaks famine and epidemic diseases were patrolling. The famine
has reached a very serious phase that a newspaper draws its portrayal
as in the following:
"People were eating dead cats and dogs. Even there were incidents
that a person could eat a hungry mother's dead child's kidney or
lung..." (Sunny, ss. 127-128)2
According to an Armenian Historian, Richard Hovannissian, in this
period Armenia lost 1/5 of its population. More than 200.000
Armenians died because of famine and epidemic diseases.
Robert Grigor Suny describes the picture in first Independent
Armenian Republic under the Tashnak rule:
"Famine was widespread in Erevan (Yerevan), and the underfed
population was susceptible to disease. As Richard Hovannissian tells
us, 'It was verily a land of death'. Approximately 200,000 people,
almost 20 percent of the republic's population, had died by the
middle of 1919'. A newspaper account told the following story:
'The populace is feeding upon the bodies of dead cats and dogs. There
have been cases when a starving mother has eaten the kidney or the
liver from the corpse of her own child.. The skeleton-like woman and
children rummage in the refuse heaps for moldered shoes and, after
cooking them for three days, eat them." (Looking Toward Ararat, pp.
127-128).
Portrayal is really sad but one should ask that who is the
responsible for that result? Whether the Turks came to Armenia and
made 'genocide'? Or they should look for the responsible ones who led
to genocide or else among the Armenians themselves? Whether the
Tasnaks are not guilty? Moreover, it should be asked that, the ones
who do not accept that thousands of Armenians could have died in
Anatolia because of famine, epidemic diseases or other natural
reasons and conditions of war, how can they explain that thousands of
Armenians died in heart of Yerevan.
The Armenians experienced a tragedy...Just like the Turks and other
ethnic groups who shared the same geography under the WWI. However,
Armenian ultra-nationalists do not want to take responsibility of
this tragedy. Whereon, because of this reason, they can not take
lessons from history. For this reason, the same situation occurred
when they established their own state for the second time in 1991:
The leaders of the newly established Armenia again showed their
citizens, who fight against famine, hunger, cold and earthquake, a
'Greater Armenia' map as ideal. For this time, Karabakh and its
surrounding, Turkey's eastern provinces, Georgia and Nahcivan were
the target. More than that, 'the claims about Turkey were heated and
serviced again'. The Armenian people, who were even in need of wheat
from Turkey, were filled with hatred towards the neighboring Turkish
people. Again Armenia was in need of external help and again many
Armenians died because of negative conditions and the war. This time
the number of dead people was not so much as in 1919. However, the
numbers of the ones who abandoned their homes and countries, who went
to Russia, France and even to Turkey in order to work was more than
one million. The ones who went were not coming back. It has been long
time since the population of the Diaspora exceeded the population of
the homeland. The greatest problem of Armenia, in the Tashnak
administration, was the political and economical isolation. Armenia
confided in Western states instead of its neighbors but it was
disappointed by them, nowadays Armenia gets more and more isolated
and disappointed with Russia's and the West's attitude. Armenia
became the only Russian military base in the region against the
neighboring countries. Almost all Caucasian countries perceive threat
from Armenia and Russia. Naturally, the current perceptions threaten
security of Armenia, and nourish Armenian mistrust towards the
international community.
Nevertheless, even if the Armenians and Turks would never be friends
according to the nationalist Armenians, at least Armenians should
take the Turks as an example, so by this way they could have solved
the important part of their problems:
While Mustafa Kemal and his friends were establishing the Republic of
Turkey they did not only lean on gun power. Even when the war was
continuing they did the preparations of the period of peace. Instead
of rigid ideologies they preferred a realistic and pragmatic attitude
towards the neighbors and the great powers. Externally and
internally, they did not establish their policies on hatred and
vengeance. Even they offer 'olive branch' to the Greeks who occupied
Western Anatolia for a period of time, the friendship of Ataturk -
Venizolos have opened a golden period in relationships between Turkey
and Greece. In the same way, establishing good relations with all of
the new neighbors was designated to be their basic target. Although
the citizens had great reactions towards Armenians, Bulgarians,
Russians, Greeks and Arabs, all these feelings were bridled and tried
to be soothed because Turkey was conscious of compulsoriness of
living with its neighbors. Moreover, they have never dreamed of a
'Greater Turkey', a greater Turkish world, regeneration of the
Ottoman Empire or a Muslim Empire, even though it came from a
tradition of great empires. They followed a defendable, constricted
but homogeneous policy of territory. Above all, instead of taking
revenge from the neighbors, first Turkish nationalists gave more
importance to the economical and social problems. A development
campaign was started and even this campaign has reached today.
When the Turkish and Armenian experience is compared, it should be
clearly understood that the Armenian citizens do not have an
'Armenian Ataturk'. The Armenians have followed unrealistic and
unconscious leaders. However, in each time they always reach a
disaster and great disasters instead of a greater Armenia. The
saddest thing is that Armenian nationalists have always blamed the
others for the tragic events they have experienced: Now, Armenians
politicians accuse Israel, United States, European Union, Azerbaijan,
Georgia, Turkey and even Russia for the current situation in Armenia.
Now it is time for Armenians to look at the mirror... It is right,
reality hurts. However, it is better and beneficial to face realities
than to live in a world of dreams and accuse those who could help us
a lot.
----------------------------------------------
Dr. Sedat LACINER: Chairman, International Strategic Research
ORganization (USAK - ISRO) and member of TEIMK (Turkish Armenian
Relations National Committee).
[email protected]