Tweet
TWO BOOKS EXAMINE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ISSUE (LEWY & BLOXHAM)
Alex van Oss
EurasiaNet, NY
April 24, 2006
A EurasiaNet Book Review
The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide,
by Guenter Lewy (2005 The University of Utah Press) ISBN:
978-0-87480-849-0
The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism, and the
Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians, by Donald Bloxham (2005 Oxford
University Press) ISBN: 0-19-927-356-1
April 24 is a day of commemoration for Armenians, a day of controversy
for Turks. Both nations continue to argue over the tragic chain of
events that began in 1915, leaving up to 1.5 million Armenians in
Ottoman Turkey dead.
Armenians today assert that the systematic slaughter of Armenians in
1915 constituted the first genocide of the 20th century. Meanwhile,
Turkish leaders deny the genocide claim, saying the mass deaths were
mainly caused by civil strife that accompanied World War I and its
aftermath. Historians continue to struggle between doubt and certainty
over what transpired and why, and the debate has become so polarized
that researchers risk being pilloried for not cleaving to one or
another position, or for not using words just so.
Two recently published books attempt tackle the complex subject:
The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: a Disputed Genocide strives
to demonstrate how elusive history can be when scrutinized closely;
The Great Game of Genocide explores the causes and legacies of the
1915 massacres in an international context.
Guenter Lewy, professor emeritus of political science at the
University of Massachusetts-Amherst, has a reputation for debunking
stereotypes. He has written respected (and hotly criticized) works
about the Vietnam War; and also the relationship between the Nazis and
Gypsies, and the Catholic Church. The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman
Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, too, has been both praised and condemned
for its attempt to take a dispassionate look at the issue.
Readers with strong prior convictions about the subject will surely
find much to disagree with in the pages of The Armenian Massacres;
but those who are intrigued by history, and by the labor of trying to
capture the texture of times past stand to be well-rewarded. This book,
though clearly written, requires careful evaluation and reference
to footnotes. Lewy dissects and teases out convoluted strands of
historical evidence and counter-evidence, and analyzes the sources,
methodologies, rhetoric, and conclusions of "pro-Armenian" and
"pro-Turkish" researchers.
Lewy asserts that scholars on both sides of the debate have used
data selectively. It should be noted that similar accusations have
been leveled at him: in 2005 Lewy published articles summarizing his
Armenian massacre findings in the Middle East Quarterly and in the
journal Commentary-findings for which he was taken to task by the
eminent Armenian genocide scholar Vahakn Dadrian [www.jihadwatch.org,
Oct. 18, 2005]. Dadrian accused Lewy, who does not speak Turkish or
Armenian, or read Ottoman Turkish, of being out of his depth; Lewy
riposted; and the scholarly "chewing" goes on.
Ottoman Turkey was being subjected to extreme pressure in 1915, from
foreign invaders, namely British, French Anzac and Russian forces,
and from rebellious ethnic groups inside the collapsing empire. It
was a time of government crackdowns, reprisals, and paranoia about the
"enemy within." Lewy demonstrates the difficulty of nailing down hard
data about this period. Indeed, The Armenian Massacres may be viewed
as a work of deconstruction, and one that possibly sets the marker of
historical proof too high. The book delves into subjects not often
covered, such as the appalling conditions in the Ottoman army and
the depravations from typhus among Turkish soldiers and displaced
persons of every nationality. The reader will learn about the often
ambiguous complicity in the Armenian massacres of non-Turkish groups,
including Kurds and Circassians; and also about the complicated matter
of determining the population and demographics of pre-1915 Anatolia
(which is important to know so that one can estimate the number of war,
or massacre, victims).
Lewy's digressions help color in that turbulent period: [p.57]
"If the Turkish authorities were unable or unwilling to provide
adequate clothing, decent hygienic conditions, and appropriate
medical attention for their Muslim soldiers, why should one expect
them to be concerned about the fate of the Armenian deportees, whom
they regarded as a fifth column?" And: [p.61] "...A government as
callous about the suffering of its own population as was the Young
Turk regime could hardly be expected to be very concerned about the
terrible human misery that would rise from deporting its Armenian
population, rightly or wrongly suspected of treason."
The Armenian Massacres covers 19th century Anatolian history,
including the various Armenian revolutionary movements, sundry
Ottoman reprisals and repressions, and the rise to power of the Young
Turks. This is followed by a detailed comparison of what Lewy terms
"two rival historiographies." Perhaps most valuable is a section on
"historical reconstruction: what we know and what we do not know."
Ottoman Turkey in 1915, Lewy concludes, was a ravaged state, with
an incompetent government that panicked and made horrific decisions,
the aftermath of which lingers to this day.
In The Great Game of Genocide, Donald Bloxham (a lecturer in 20th
century history at the University of Edinburgh) shows how the "clean
sweep" of 1915 was, in a sense, the culmination of a series of tragic
events. Bloxham points to the fact that Ottoman Turks massacred masses
of Armenians not once but several times: throughout the empire in
1894-96, and in Cilicia in 1909. By this time, 19th century Armenian
communities had gained exposure to western education and philosophical
trends-such as nationalism-and had grown increasingly restive under
Ottoman rule. Nor was 1915 the end to violence: Turks and Armenians
(and by this time Azerbaijanis, too) continued to commit atrocities
against each other for the next few years, with no group enjoying a
monopoly on suffering.
The Great Game of Genocide examines the international context of the
Armenian tragedy, and the response (or non-response) by other countries
to what was looming as an ethnic disaster of unprecedented scale:
[P.5] "...Great power involvement in Ottoman internal affairs was a key
element in exacerbating the Ottoman-Armenian dynamic towards genocide
while Turkish sensitivity about external intervention on behalf of the
Armenians-whether directed towards reforms before 1914 or independence
after 1918-was a vital contributory factor to the emergence of denial."
Both Bloxham and Lewy dwell at length on genocide denial, and the
appropriateness of genocide as a term. "Genocide," says Bloxham,
is a 1940s word being applied as a "retrospective projection"
upon historical events of decades before: [p.95] "...the killing
did constitute a genocide-every aspect of the United Nations'
definition of the crime is applicable-but recognizing that fact
should be a by-product of the historian's work, not its ultimate aim
or underpinning." The sticking point is the perpetrator's intent:
without intent there cannot be genocide. But intent need not be a
clear-cut, one time manifestation: it can develop, grow, and feed
upon itself and events. Hence, says Bloxham: "[p.96]...Pinpointing
the precise time within that period of radicalization at which a
state framework that is demonstrably permissive of murder and atrocity
becomes explicitly genocidal is extremely difficult and unlikely ever
to be achieved definitively."
Meanwhile, Lewy finds little tangible evidence of premeditated mass
homicide (i.e. genocide), of Armenians. Perhaps this evidence will
be found, he allows, but it is not there yet. Apparently, crucial
archival documents have gone missing, or have been destroyed, or have
not been made available by Turkish authorities (even now, possibly
due to archival disorganization). In addition, documentation might
have been deemed spurious to begin with, or was used selectively for
political purposes (e.g. to deflect blame for Armenian massacres,
or, on the other hand, to build a case for creating an Armenian
state in eastern Anatolia, or for keeping land and property out
of Armenian hands after the collapse of the Ottoman empire). Lewy
concludes that there is plenty of testimony and documentation that
atrocities and massacres occurred, but, he cautions, premeditation
has yet be ascertained.
Lewy analyzes what he calls the "politicization of history" regarding
Ottomans and Armenians, and believes both sides are stuck in a semantic
bind. He says that the legalistic definition of "genocide" has been
conflated with the common use of the word as a term of opprobrium,
and proposes that separating these two meanings just might provide
the basis for more productive discussions between Turks and Armenians
today. This is a point worth pondering, while not forgetting that the
1948 UN definition of genocide was based on writings by jurist Raphael
Lemkin-who had precisely the Armenian, and other, massacres in mind.
Lewy and Bloxham's histories inspire compassion for all Anatolians
of a century ago. Whether or not one agrees with the authors, their
work will surely should inspire readers to pursue further and deeper
investigations.
Editor's Note: Alex van Oss is the Chair of Caucasus Advanced Area
Studies at the Foreign Service Institute in Washington, DC.
Alex van Oss
EurasiaNet, NY
April 24, 2006
A EurasiaNet Book Review
The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide,
by Guenter Lewy (2005 The University of Utah Press) ISBN:
978-0-87480-849-0
The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism, and the
Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians, by Donald Bloxham (2005 Oxford
University Press) ISBN: 0-19-927-356-1
April 24 is a day of commemoration for Armenians, a day of controversy
for Turks. Both nations continue to argue over the tragic chain of
events that began in 1915, leaving up to 1.5 million Armenians in
Ottoman Turkey dead.
Armenians today assert that the systematic slaughter of Armenians in
1915 constituted the first genocide of the 20th century. Meanwhile,
Turkish leaders deny the genocide claim, saying the mass deaths were
mainly caused by civil strife that accompanied World War I and its
aftermath. Historians continue to struggle between doubt and certainty
over what transpired and why, and the debate has become so polarized
that researchers risk being pilloried for not cleaving to one or
another position, or for not using words just so.
Two recently published books attempt tackle the complex subject:
The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: a Disputed Genocide strives
to demonstrate how elusive history can be when scrutinized closely;
The Great Game of Genocide explores the causes and legacies of the
1915 massacres in an international context.
Guenter Lewy, professor emeritus of political science at the
University of Massachusetts-Amherst, has a reputation for debunking
stereotypes. He has written respected (and hotly criticized) works
about the Vietnam War; and also the relationship between the Nazis and
Gypsies, and the Catholic Church. The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman
Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, too, has been both praised and condemned
for its attempt to take a dispassionate look at the issue.
Readers with strong prior convictions about the subject will surely
find much to disagree with in the pages of The Armenian Massacres;
but those who are intrigued by history, and by the labor of trying to
capture the texture of times past stand to be well-rewarded. This book,
though clearly written, requires careful evaluation and reference
to footnotes. Lewy dissects and teases out convoluted strands of
historical evidence and counter-evidence, and analyzes the sources,
methodologies, rhetoric, and conclusions of "pro-Armenian" and
"pro-Turkish" researchers.
Lewy asserts that scholars on both sides of the debate have used
data selectively. It should be noted that similar accusations have
been leveled at him: in 2005 Lewy published articles summarizing his
Armenian massacre findings in the Middle East Quarterly and in the
journal Commentary-findings for which he was taken to task by the
eminent Armenian genocide scholar Vahakn Dadrian [www.jihadwatch.org,
Oct. 18, 2005]. Dadrian accused Lewy, who does not speak Turkish or
Armenian, or read Ottoman Turkish, of being out of his depth; Lewy
riposted; and the scholarly "chewing" goes on.
Ottoman Turkey was being subjected to extreme pressure in 1915, from
foreign invaders, namely British, French Anzac and Russian forces,
and from rebellious ethnic groups inside the collapsing empire. It
was a time of government crackdowns, reprisals, and paranoia about the
"enemy within." Lewy demonstrates the difficulty of nailing down hard
data about this period. Indeed, The Armenian Massacres may be viewed
as a work of deconstruction, and one that possibly sets the marker of
historical proof too high. The book delves into subjects not often
covered, such as the appalling conditions in the Ottoman army and
the depravations from typhus among Turkish soldiers and displaced
persons of every nationality. The reader will learn about the often
ambiguous complicity in the Armenian massacres of non-Turkish groups,
including Kurds and Circassians; and also about the complicated matter
of determining the population and demographics of pre-1915 Anatolia
(which is important to know so that one can estimate the number of war,
or massacre, victims).
Lewy's digressions help color in that turbulent period: [p.57]
"If the Turkish authorities were unable or unwilling to provide
adequate clothing, decent hygienic conditions, and appropriate
medical attention for their Muslim soldiers, why should one expect
them to be concerned about the fate of the Armenian deportees, whom
they regarded as a fifth column?" And: [p.61] "...A government as
callous about the suffering of its own population as was the Young
Turk regime could hardly be expected to be very concerned about the
terrible human misery that would rise from deporting its Armenian
population, rightly or wrongly suspected of treason."
The Armenian Massacres covers 19th century Anatolian history,
including the various Armenian revolutionary movements, sundry
Ottoman reprisals and repressions, and the rise to power of the Young
Turks. This is followed by a detailed comparison of what Lewy terms
"two rival historiographies." Perhaps most valuable is a section on
"historical reconstruction: what we know and what we do not know."
Ottoman Turkey in 1915, Lewy concludes, was a ravaged state, with
an incompetent government that panicked and made horrific decisions,
the aftermath of which lingers to this day.
In The Great Game of Genocide, Donald Bloxham (a lecturer in 20th
century history at the University of Edinburgh) shows how the "clean
sweep" of 1915 was, in a sense, the culmination of a series of tragic
events. Bloxham points to the fact that Ottoman Turks massacred masses
of Armenians not once but several times: throughout the empire in
1894-96, and in Cilicia in 1909. By this time, 19th century Armenian
communities had gained exposure to western education and philosophical
trends-such as nationalism-and had grown increasingly restive under
Ottoman rule. Nor was 1915 the end to violence: Turks and Armenians
(and by this time Azerbaijanis, too) continued to commit atrocities
against each other for the next few years, with no group enjoying a
monopoly on suffering.
The Great Game of Genocide examines the international context of the
Armenian tragedy, and the response (or non-response) by other countries
to what was looming as an ethnic disaster of unprecedented scale:
[P.5] "...Great power involvement in Ottoman internal affairs was a key
element in exacerbating the Ottoman-Armenian dynamic towards genocide
while Turkish sensitivity about external intervention on behalf of the
Armenians-whether directed towards reforms before 1914 or independence
after 1918-was a vital contributory factor to the emergence of denial."
Both Bloxham and Lewy dwell at length on genocide denial, and the
appropriateness of genocide as a term. "Genocide," says Bloxham,
is a 1940s word being applied as a "retrospective projection"
upon historical events of decades before: [p.95] "...the killing
did constitute a genocide-every aspect of the United Nations'
definition of the crime is applicable-but recognizing that fact
should be a by-product of the historian's work, not its ultimate aim
or underpinning." The sticking point is the perpetrator's intent:
without intent there cannot be genocide. But intent need not be a
clear-cut, one time manifestation: it can develop, grow, and feed
upon itself and events. Hence, says Bloxham: "[p.96]...Pinpointing
the precise time within that period of radicalization at which a
state framework that is demonstrably permissive of murder and atrocity
becomes explicitly genocidal is extremely difficult and unlikely ever
to be achieved definitively."
Meanwhile, Lewy finds little tangible evidence of premeditated mass
homicide (i.e. genocide), of Armenians. Perhaps this evidence will
be found, he allows, but it is not there yet. Apparently, crucial
archival documents have gone missing, or have been destroyed, or have
not been made available by Turkish authorities (even now, possibly
due to archival disorganization). In addition, documentation might
have been deemed spurious to begin with, or was used selectively for
political purposes (e.g. to deflect blame for Armenian massacres,
or, on the other hand, to build a case for creating an Armenian
state in eastern Anatolia, or for keeping land and property out
of Armenian hands after the collapse of the Ottoman empire). Lewy
concludes that there is plenty of testimony and documentation that
atrocities and massacres occurred, but, he cautions, premeditation
has yet be ascertained.
Lewy analyzes what he calls the "politicization of history" regarding
Ottomans and Armenians, and believes both sides are stuck in a semantic
bind. He says that the legalistic definition of "genocide" has been
conflated with the common use of the word as a term of opprobrium,
and proposes that separating these two meanings just might provide
the basis for more productive discussions between Turks and Armenians
today. This is a point worth pondering, while not forgetting that the
1948 UN definition of genocide was based on writings by jurist Raphael
Lemkin-who had precisely the Armenian, and other, massacres in mind.
Lewy and Bloxham's histories inspire compassion for all Anatolians
of a century ago. Whether or not one agrees with the authors, their
work will surely should inspire readers to pursue further and deeper
investigations.
Editor's Note: Alex van Oss is the Chair of Caucasus Advanced Area
Studies at the Foreign Service Institute in Washington, DC.