Tweet
THE KURDS AND THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
Toros Sarian
http://massispost.com/?p=3766
July 28th, 2011
An open and critical discussion of the genocide against the
Armenians is no longer so rigorously prevented today as it was
earlier in Turkey. In the past few years numerous articles and books
on the subject have appeared, which do not reflect the official
Turkish historiographical viewpoint. In April 2011, for example,
Prof. Halil Berktay delivered a speech in Hamburg on the occasion
of the anniversary of the genocide, in which he quite incidentally
remarked that leading Turkish scientists considered the crime against
the Armenians as genocide in accordance with the United Nations
Convention. Many do not say as much openly because they fear the
reactions of nationalist extremists or simply because they are afraid
they might lose their jobs in a state educational establishment. Even
if the view held by many scientists and intellectuals that the fact
of the genocide can no longer be denied has been gaining credence,
the situation in the Turkish population is quite another. The state
policy of denial continues to hold sway and shapes public opinion. So
one cannot yet speak of a really open, unrestricted discussion.
In contrast to the Turkish population, the Kurds display a clear
readiness to deal with the genocide issue. The rejection of the
official historical theses is far more widespread among them. Since
the founding of the republic, Kurds have been denied basic national
and cultural rights, and in Dersim in 1937-38 they were victims of a
genocide. In the past thirty years, thousands of Kurdish villages have
been burned down, millions of Kurds have been driven out of their homes
with violence. The number of Kurdish civilians who have been killed by
Turkish military and state controlled paramilitary units will probably
never be able to be established. A Kurd who lives in a poor district
of a west Anatolian city, because his village was burned down, or who
spent years in jail because he fought for the respect of the national
and cultural rights of his people, is more readily able to comprehend
what befell the Armenians in the years of the genocide because of
his own bitter experience with the policy of Turkish nationalism.
The Kurds and the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide If Turkey's
denial policy and the wall of silence around the genocide are beginning
to waver more and more, this is not only due to recognition on the
international level or the campaigning of Diaspora Armenians. Nor
is it thanks to Turkish civil society, which remains unfortunately
very weak. That a debate has broken out in Turkey around the
genocide issue has more to do with the strengthening of the Kurdish
national movement. The need to face the genocide issue, the Kurdish
question, and other taboo themes has become unavoidable. In April
1997, the Kurdish parliament in exile recognized the genocide
against the Armenians and Syrians/Assyrians and declared at the
same time that the ethnic Kurds recruited in the Hamidian regiments
were collaborators of the Turkish government in that crime. Abdullah
Ocalan, the jailed Chairman of the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan)
sent a congratulatory letter on April 10, 1998 to Robert Kocharian on
his victory in the Armenian presidential election and went into the
issue of the genocide. He welcomed the resolution of the Belgian
Senate which called on the Turkish government to recognize the
Armenian genocide. At the same time, Ocalan stressed the need for a
comprehensive debate and analysis of the background of the crime.
As early as 1982 the Party Newspaper of the PKK called the
annihilation of the Armenians genocide. And it held the Young Turk
regime responsible: "In a period in which the peoples of the Ottoman
Empire sought to free themselves, the bourgeois-natioanlist movement
of the Young Turks made the defense of 'Unity and Individibility' the
basis of their program. Thereby they positioned themselves against the
democratic right of the oppressed peoples to self-determination. (...)
As soon as the Young Turks came to power, the oppression of subject
peoples under their rule assumed far worse dimensions than had
been the case earlier. They attempted to suppress the right to
self-determination with violence and did not even shrink from
committing a barbaric genocide against the Armenians." During the
First World War, the Young Turk regime "annihilated over one million
", the party publication wrote.
Other Kurdish organizations have recognized the genocide as well. "Our
party conference denounces the massive genocide against the Armenians
in 1915 as a black stain on the history of mankind. Our conference
acknowledges that this bloody course of action, in which Kurdish
feudal lords participated as collaborateurs of the Ottoman-Turkish
colonialists, constitutes a historical injustice," said a resolution
of the party conference of the PRK/Rizgari (Kurdistan Liberation
Party). The descendants of the genocide survivors, they wrote, had
the right to return to their former settlements.
Kurdish publications regularly cover the genocide on the anniversary.
The Kurdish "Zel Verlag" published the work of M. Kalman in 1994 in
Istanbul, entitled, "West Armenia, Kurdish Relations, and Genocide."
It is noteworthy that a Kurdish author speaks of Western Armenia and
not, as usually is the case, or North Kurdistan. Another noteworthy
more extensive work is the book written by Recep Marasli and published
in Turkey in 2008, entitled, "The Armenian National-Democratic Movement
and the Genocide of 1915."
Murder By Higher Orders?
Kurds do display a readiness to work through the question of
Kurd-Armenian relations and the Armenian genocide; however, above
all when it comes to the issue of the position of the Kurds during
the genocide, the differences of opinion among Kurdish intellectuals
become evident. Orhan Miroglu, a journalist of the left-liberal
newspaper "Taraf", who comes from Mardin, wrote an article entitled,
"1915, Denial and the Kurds" on the anniversary of the genocide in
2011. In it, he went into the reasons for the establishment of the
Hamidian Regiments and mentioned their participation on the 1894-1896
massacres of the Armenians. Miroglu then comes to his actual subject,
the genocide against the Armenians and Syrians/Assyrians as well as
the role of the Kurds: "In 1915 Kurds played an important role in the
massacres of Armenians and Assyrians. It is obvious that theirs was
not a role of ordinary hired killers. Especially the extermination
of Assyrians in Turabdin region was carried out by the joint efforts
of local authorities, and Kurdish and Arab tribes. The Ittihadists
hadn't even a deliberate plan for Assyrians."
Miroglu critizes the position of Kurdish intellectuals because they
deny the Kurds' complicity: "We cannot say that Kurdish intellectuals
displayed a good performance as regards recognition of their complicity
in the crime. Our intellectuals attributed the massacres by the
[Kurdish] tribes to their being provoced by the Ittihadists. This, he
writes, is however not correct: "The massacres directly committed by
Kurds cannot be accounted for by simply saying that they were obeying
orders. They really believed or they had a stake in believing in the
Ittihadists' propaganda." Miroglu criticizes that the Kurds evaded the
genocide issue for a long time: "Therefore Kurdish intellectuals and
politicians, until very recently, instead of facing the truth about
the mass extermination of Armenians and Assyrians living in Kurdistan,
found it more convenient to stick to stories of Armenians and Assyrians
'saved' [by Kurds]."
The Kurdish journalist and author Ahmet Kahraman, who lives in exile,
went into Miroglus's criticism, in a newspaper published in Europe,
"Yeni Ozgur Politika", without mentioning him by name. Kahraman
wrote: "The Genocide, however, was a project of the Committee of
Progress and Union, members of which were also the co-founders of the
Turkish Republic. Within the context of this project the Armenian was
someone whose murder was a 'religious duty' and whose property was
[legimitimate] booty [for the Muslims]. Kurds didn't play a part in
the decision making process [for the Genocide] but it is a fact that
in practice the Hamidian Regiments, an Ottoman version of today's
'village guards', were used [in the accomplishment of the crime]."
Although in his article, Miroglu does not claim that the Kurds or
the Kurdish tribal leaders at the time were responsible for the
genocide, Ahmet Kahraman accuses him precisely of this and blames
him for slandering the Kurds. "To hold Kurds responsible just because
Hamidian Regiments were used [in massacring Armenians] is an unfounded
argument - a slander against Kurds and a product of conspiratorial
minds. You cannot absolve the murderers by slandering [others]."
The Turkish penal code contains the infamous § 301: he who speaks of
genocide against the Armenians risks being charged with "Insulting
Turkishness." For this reason Turkish intellectuals like Orhan Pamuk
or Elif Safak sat in the dock, and for the same reason Hrant Dink was
murdered in January 2007. If Orhan Miroglu is accused of slandering
the Kurds, then this reminds one of the procedure of the Turkish
state against critics of the official Turkish version of history.
The Armenian genocide has been the subject of extensive investigation
by historians in the past years, and many documents from state archives
have been published. Armenian scientists or intellectuals have never
claimed that the Kurds were responsible for the 1894-94 massacres or
for the 1915 genocide. Prof. Vahakn N. Dadrian is generally regarded
as the best known Armenian historian. He has been researching the
history of the genocide for the last 50 years. His work, "The History
of the Armenian Genocide", published in 1995, is a standard work on
the subject. Not one chapter or sub-chapter is dedicated to the role
of the Kurds. They are mentioned in the entire book only 14 times.
In the debate on the genocide, no one - not even official Turkish
historical research - attributes responsibility for the crime against
the Armenians and Syrians/Assyrians to the Kurds. The role of the
Kurdish Hamidian Regiments in the 1894-96 massacres is generally
known. That Kurds played a role in the implementation of the crime
planned and carried out by the Ittahist regime is also known and is
not refuted.
The Intellectuals Intellectuals and scientists play an important
role in the examination and evaluation of history. Criticism of the
official version of history must be accompanied by an explanation
of the true political, social, and economic conditions that led to
the genocide. What Kurdish authors who are considered "trustworthy"
write about the Armenians and the genocide issue, however, resembles
partially the viewpoint of the state "Institute for Turkish
History." With few exceptions, their writing often testifies to
superficiality and lack of knowledge, especially regarding the history
of the Armenians and the Syrians/Assyrians. Many authors appear not
to know the extensive literature, especially important contemporary
documents. It is also remarkable that those who stand up for a critical
evaluation of the Kurdish role in the 1915-1916 genocide are reproached
for insulting their own people. In this way, the attempt is made to
set limits to a truly open, critical, and comprhensive discussion.
Did Armenians Kill 5000 Kurds in Revanduz?
Particularly among the Alawites who live in eastern Turkey there is an
increasing interest in the history of the genocide and the Armenians,
with which they were historically and culturally connected. Articles
on the Armenian genocide have already appeared in several issues of
the magazine "Kizilbas". Among them is a text by Naci Kutlay which
gives an impression of the status of the debate on the theme of
genocide and Armenian-Kurdish relations.
Kutlay writes: "At some places they released Kurds in prison to kill
Armenians. However Armenian Fedayeen and organisations, during the
Russian invasion of the Kurdistan, responded with the same massacres.
According to some sources, 5000 Kurds were killed in May 1916 in the
city of Rawanduz. This was very clearly an act of revenge." He does
not consider it necessary to cite a source for this very serious
accusation. Although there is no reference to any scientific work,
Kutley seems to have used an essay by the well-known historian Dr.
Kemal Mazhar Ahmed published in 1975 by the Kurdish Academy in
Baghdad. "The city was taken on May 13. The Armenians fedayeens wanted
to take vengeance and as a result they shed a lot of blood. According
to some sources, at the end of the massacre 5000 Kurdish women,
children, and men were killed. Many of them had not been shot but
had been thrust into the Rawanduz gorge." Ahmed's work states. In a
footnote, he refers to a book by K. Mason, an English officer at the
time. It dealt with the question of the Turkish-Iraqi border and the
role of the League of Nations. It is curious that in his footnote
remarks K.M. Ahmad himself doubts that in Rawanduz 5000 Kurds had
been killed: "This figure seems to be exaggerated. Neither M.H. Zeki,
who reports on the destructions of the war, nor Huseyn H. Mukriyani,
who lived in Rawanduz after World War I and wrote about it, cite
such a figure. Among the people it was said that many Kurdish women
had thrown themselves into the gorge to save their honor." Thus, not
only is the number 5000 murdered Kurds questionable, but also whether
or not such a mass murder took place at all in Rawanduz. Naci Kutlay
seems either not to have read this important remark by K.M. Ahmed or
to have deliberately concealed it. What remains fixed in the mind of
the reader is that in Rawanduz 5000 Kurds fell victim to an act of
revenge by Armenian Fedayeen.
Clearly one dare not play down the gravity of crimes or remain silent
about them. When, however, scientists or intellectuals make such
serious allegations like the killing of 5000 Kurds, without a shred
of concrete evidence, they are knowingly or unknowingly promoting
animosity, hatred, and mistrust among peoples. That Armenians who were
in the areas that were under Russian control from 1916 committed acts
of revenge cannot be denied. Many Armenian Fedayeen came from Western
Armenia. They had fought there against the government troops and
Hamidian regiments before the "Young Turk Revolution of 1908". So
the pro-government Kurdish tribal groups that had participated
in the massacres were known to the Armenians. This is why they
directed their vengeance mainly against these Kurds. In Revanduz,
which is in the south, outside the areas of Armenian settlements,
there was no Armenian population worth mentioning. The Kurdish tribes
in this region of Kurdistan had not taken part in Armenian massacres,
under Abdul Hamid's rule or later. Thus it is unlikely that Armenian
Fedayeen should have committed acts of revenge against the Kurds
there of all people.
Apology without Compensation?
Naci Kutlay's article in "Kizilbas" Magazin is all the more
noteworthy for Armenians because he goes into the question of how the
genocide question can be solved: "We cannot bring back the dead. It's
impossible to redress the material and immaterial damages and to heal
the injuries, but it is possible to alleviate the injury. Willy Brand
apologised for the Holocaust in Germany. Why should the German nation
and Willy Brand carry the burden of what Hitler did?" Thus Kutlay sees
a solution to the genocide issue in an apology to the descendants of
the survivors.
That the murdered Armenians will not rise from the dead is clear. But
why does Naci Kutlay believe that it is impossible to repair the
material and moral damage? It is precisely the German example
which shows that this is both necessary and possible: in 1951 the
Christian-Democratic government of Konrad Adenauer acknowledged before
the Bundestag the guilt and responsability of the German people for
the Nazi crimes, as well as a principled duty to Israel and the Jewish
people. The German federal government and representatives of Jewish
organizations came to an agreement in 1952 for the payment of 3.45
billion DM as collective compensation. It was 30 years later that
the Social Democrat Willy Brand fell to his knees before the Warsaw
monument and that has to be seen in connection with German-Polish
relations. His visit to Warsaw paved the way for German-Polish
reconciliation and normalization of relations with Poland and the
states of the Warsaw Pact.
Kutlay not only remains silent on the fact that Germany lived up to
its moral and material responsibilities, but also fails to justify why
it should be "impossible" for Turkey to make compensation following
the German precedent. Does the Turkish government, which has no qualms
about making outlays for its military in the fight against the Kurdish
people and spends further sums for tens of thousands of "village
guards" to terrorize their own people, have no money left? Kutlay
either feels duty bound to show solidarity with the Turkish state
against the allegedly "unjustified Armenian claims to compensation",
or he is afraid that the Kurds might also be affected.
Leave a Reply
From: Baghdasarian
Toros Sarian
http://massispost.com/?p=3766
July 28th, 2011
An open and critical discussion of the genocide against the
Armenians is no longer so rigorously prevented today as it was
earlier in Turkey. In the past few years numerous articles and books
on the subject have appeared, which do not reflect the official
Turkish historiographical viewpoint. In April 2011, for example,
Prof. Halil Berktay delivered a speech in Hamburg on the occasion
of the anniversary of the genocide, in which he quite incidentally
remarked that leading Turkish scientists considered the crime against
the Armenians as genocide in accordance with the United Nations
Convention. Many do not say as much openly because they fear the
reactions of nationalist extremists or simply because they are afraid
they might lose their jobs in a state educational establishment. Even
if the view held by many scientists and intellectuals that the fact
of the genocide can no longer be denied has been gaining credence,
the situation in the Turkish population is quite another. The state
policy of denial continues to hold sway and shapes public opinion. So
one cannot yet speak of a really open, unrestricted discussion.
In contrast to the Turkish population, the Kurds display a clear
readiness to deal with the genocide issue. The rejection of the
official historical theses is far more widespread among them. Since
the founding of the republic, Kurds have been denied basic national
and cultural rights, and in Dersim in 1937-38 they were victims of a
genocide. In the past thirty years, thousands of Kurdish villages have
been burned down, millions of Kurds have been driven out of their homes
with violence. The number of Kurdish civilians who have been killed by
Turkish military and state controlled paramilitary units will probably
never be able to be established. A Kurd who lives in a poor district
of a west Anatolian city, because his village was burned down, or who
spent years in jail because he fought for the respect of the national
and cultural rights of his people, is more readily able to comprehend
what befell the Armenians in the years of the genocide because of
his own bitter experience with the policy of Turkish nationalism.
The Kurds and the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide If Turkey's
denial policy and the wall of silence around the genocide are beginning
to waver more and more, this is not only due to recognition on the
international level or the campaigning of Diaspora Armenians. Nor
is it thanks to Turkish civil society, which remains unfortunately
very weak. That a debate has broken out in Turkey around the
genocide issue has more to do with the strengthening of the Kurdish
national movement. The need to face the genocide issue, the Kurdish
question, and other taboo themes has become unavoidable. In April
1997, the Kurdish parliament in exile recognized the genocide
against the Armenians and Syrians/Assyrians and declared at the
same time that the ethnic Kurds recruited in the Hamidian regiments
were collaborators of the Turkish government in that crime. Abdullah
Ocalan, the jailed Chairman of the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan)
sent a congratulatory letter on April 10, 1998 to Robert Kocharian on
his victory in the Armenian presidential election and went into the
issue of the genocide. He welcomed the resolution of the Belgian
Senate which called on the Turkish government to recognize the
Armenian genocide. At the same time, Ocalan stressed the need for a
comprehensive debate and analysis of the background of the crime.
As early as 1982 the Party Newspaper of the PKK called the
annihilation of the Armenians genocide. And it held the Young Turk
regime responsible: "In a period in which the peoples of the Ottoman
Empire sought to free themselves, the bourgeois-natioanlist movement
of the Young Turks made the defense of 'Unity and Individibility' the
basis of their program. Thereby they positioned themselves against the
democratic right of the oppressed peoples to self-determination. (...)
As soon as the Young Turks came to power, the oppression of subject
peoples under their rule assumed far worse dimensions than had
been the case earlier. They attempted to suppress the right to
self-determination with violence and did not even shrink from
committing a barbaric genocide against the Armenians." During the
First World War, the Young Turk regime "annihilated over one million
", the party publication wrote.
Other Kurdish organizations have recognized the genocide as well. "Our
party conference denounces the massive genocide against the Armenians
in 1915 as a black stain on the history of mankind. Our conference
acknowledges that this bloody course of action, in which Kurdish
feudal lords participated as collaborateurs of the Ottoman-Turkish
colonialists, constitutes a historical injustice," said a resolution
of the party conference of the PRK/Rizgari (Kurdistan Liberation
Party). The descendants of the genocide survivors, they wrote, had
the right to return to their former settlements.
Kurdish publications regularly cover the genocide on the anniversary.
The Kurdish "Zel Verlag" published the work of M. Kalman in 1994 in
Istanbul, entitled, "West Armenia, Kurdish Relations, and Genocide."
It is noteworthy that a Kurdish author speaks of Western Armenia and
not, as usually is the case, or North Kurdistan. Another noteworthy
more extensive work is the book written by Recep Marasli and published
in Turkey in 2008, entitled, "The Armenian National-Democratic Movement
and the Genocide of 1915."
Murder By Higher Orders?
Kurds do display a readiness to work through the question of
Kurd-Armenian relations and the Armenian genocide; however, above
all when it comes to the issue of the position of the Kurds during
the genocide, the differences of opinion among Kurdish intellectuals
become evident. Orhan Miroglu, a journalist of the left-liberal
newspaper "Taraf", who comes from Mardin, wrote an article entitled,
"1915, Denial and the Kurds" on the anniversary of the genocide in
2011. In it, he went into the reasons for the establishment of the
Hamidian Regiments and mentioned their participation on the 1894-1896
massacres of the Armenians. Miroglu then comes to his actual subject,
the genocide against the Armenians and Syrians/Assyrians as well as
the role of the Kurds: "In 1915 Kurds played an important role in the
massacres of Armenians and Assyrians. It is obvious that theirs was
not a role of ordinary hired killers. Especially the extermination
of Assyrians in Turabdin region was carried out by the joint efforts
of local authorities, and Kurdish and Arab tribes. The Ittihadists
hadn't even a deliberate plan for Assyrians."
Miroglu critizes the position of Kurdish intellectuals because they
deny the Kurds' complicity: "We cannot say that Kurdish intellectuals
displayed a good performance as regards recognition of their complicity
in the crime. Our intellectuals attributed the massacres by the
[Kurdish] tribes to their being provoced by the Ittihadists. This, he
writes, is however not correct: "The massacres directly committed by
Kurds cannot be accounted for by simply saying that they were obeying
orders. They really believed or they had a stake in believing in the
Ittihadists' propaganda." Miroglu criticizes that the Kurds evaded the
genocide issue for a long time: "Therefore Kurdish intellectuals and
politicians, until very recently, instead of facing the truth about
the mass extermination of Armenians and Assyrians living in Kurdistan,
found it more convenient to stick to stories of Armenians and Assyrians
'saved' [by Kurds]."
The Kurdish journalist and author Ahmet Kahraman, who lives in exile,
went into Miroglus's criticism, in a newspaper published in Europe,
"Yeni Ozgur Politika", without mentioning him by name. Kahraman
wrote: "The Genocide, however, was a project of the Committee of
Progress and Union, members of which were also the co-founders of the
Turkish Republic. Within the context of this project the Armenian was
someone whose murder was a 'religious duty' and whose property was
[legimitimate] booty [for the Muslims]. Kurds didn't play a part in
the decision making process [for the Genocide] but it is a fact that
in practice the Hamidian Regiments, an Ottoman version of today's
'village guards', were used [in the accomplishment of the crime]."
Although in his article, Miroglu does not claim that the Kurds or
the Kurdish tribal leaders at the time were responsible for the
genocide, Ahmet Kahraman accuses him precisely of this and blames
him for slandering the Kurds. "To hold Kurds responsible just because
Hamidian Regiments were used [in massacring Armenians] is an unfounded
argument - a slander against Kurds and a product of conspiratorial
minds. You cannot absolve the murderers by slandering [others]."
The Turkish penal code contains the infamous § 301: he who speaks of
genocide against the Armenians risks being charged with "Insulting
Turkishness." For this reason Turkish intellectuals like Orhan Pamuk
or Elif Safak sat in the dock, and for the same reason Hrant Dink was
murdered in January 2007. If Orhan Miroglu is accused of slandering
the Kurds, then this reminds one of the procedure of the Turkish
state against critics of the official Turkish version of history.
The Armenian genocide has been the subject of extensive investigation
by historians in the past years, and many documents from state archives
have been published. Armenian scientists or intellectuals have never
claimed that the Kurds were responsible for the 1894-94 massacres or
for the 1915 genocide. Prof. Vahakn N. Dadrian is generally regarded
as the best known Armenian historian. He has been researching the
history of the genocide for the last 50 years. His work, "The History
of the Armenian Genocide", published in 1995, is a standard work on
the subject. Not one chapter or sub-chapter is dedicated to the role
of the Kurds. They are mentioned in the entire book only 14 times.
In the debate on the genocide, no one - not even official Turkish
historical research - attributes responsibility for the crime against
the Armenians and Syrians/Assyrians to the Kurds. The role of the
Kurdish Hamidian Regiments in the 1894-96 massacres is generally
known. That Kurds played a role in the implementation of the crime
planned and carried out by the Ittahist regime is also known and is
not refuted.
The Intellectuals Intellectuals and scientists play an important
role in the examination and evaluation of history. Criticism of the
official version of history must be accompanied by an explanation
of the true political, social, and economic conditions that led to
the genocide. What Kurdish authors who are considered "trustworthy"
write about the Armenians and the genocide issue, however, resembles
partially the viewpoint of the state "Institute for Turkish
History." With few exceptions, their writing often testifies to
superficiality and lack of knowledge, especially regarding the history
of the Armenians and the Syrians/Assyrians. Many authors appear not
to know the extensive literature, especially important contemporary
documents. It is also remarkable that those who stand up for a critical
evaluation of the Kurdish role in the 1915-1916 genocide are reproached
for insulting their own people. In this way, the attempt is made to
set limits to a truly open, critical, and comprhensive discussion.
Did Armenians Kill 5000 Kurds in Revanduz?
Particularly among the Alawites who live in eastern Turkey there is an
increasing interest in the history of the genocide and the Armenians,
with which they were historically and culturally connected. Articles
on the Armenian genocide have already appeared in several issues of
the magazine "Kizilbas". Among them is a text by Naci Kutlay which
gives an impression of the status of the debate on the theme of
genocide and Armenian-Kurdish relations.
Kutlay writes: "At some places they released Kurds in prison to kill
Armenians. However Armenian Fedayeen and organisations, during the
Russian invasion of the Kurdistan, responded with the same massacres.
According to some sources, 5000 Kurds were killed in May 1916 in the
city of Rawanduz. This was very clearly an act of revenge." He does
not consider it necessary to cite a source for this very serious
accusation. Although there is no reference to any scientific work,
Kutley seems to have used an essay by the well-known historian Dr.
Kemal Mazhar Ahmed published in 1975 by the Kurdish Academy in
Baghdad. "The city was taken on May 13. The Armenians fedayeens wanted
to take vengeance and as a result they shed a lot of blood. According
to some sources, at the end of the massacre 5000 Kurdish women,
children, and men were killed. Many of them had not been shot but
had been thrust into the Rawanduz gorge." Ahmed's work states. In a
footnote, he refers to a book by K. Mason, an English officer at the
time. It dealt with the question of the Turkish-Iraqi border and the
role of the League of Nations. It is curious that in his footnote
remarks K.M. Ahmad himself doubts that in Rawanduz 5000 Kurds had
been killed: "This figure seems to be exaggerated. Neither M.H. Zeki,
who reports on the destructions of the war, nor Huseyn H. Mukriyani,
who lived in Rawanduz after World War I and wrote about it, cite
such a figure. Among the people it was said that many Kurdish women
had thrown themselves into the gorge to save their honor." Thus, not
only is the number 5000 murdered Kurds questionable, but also whether
or not such a mass murder took place at all in Rawanduz. Naci Kutlay
seems either not to have read this important remark by K.M. Ahmed or
to have deliberately concealed it. What remains fixed in the mind of
the reader is that in Rawanduz 5000 Kurds fell victim to an act of
revenge by Armenian Fedayeen.
Clearly one dare not play down the gravity of crimes or remain silent
about them. When, however, scientists or intellectuals make such
serious allegations like the killing of 5000 Kurds, without a shred
of concrete evidence, they are knowingly or unknowingly promoting
animosity, hatred, and mistrust among peoples. That Armenians who were
in the areas that were under Russian control from 1916 committed acts
of revenge cannot be denied. Many Armenian Fedayeen came from Western
Armenia. They had fought there against the government troops and
Hamidian regiments before the "Young Turk Revolution of 1908". So
the pro-government Kurdish tribal groups that had participated
in the massacres were known to the Armenians. This is why they
directed their vengeance mainly against these Kurds. In Revanduz,
which is in the south, outside the areas of Armenian settlements,
there was no Armenian population worth mentioning. The Kurdish tribes
in this region of Kurdistan had not taken part in Armenian massacres,
under Abdul Hamid's rule or later. Thus it is unlikely that Armenian
Fedayeen should have committed acts of revenge against the Kurds
there of all people.
Apology without Compensation?
Naci Kutlay's article in "Kizilbas" Magazin is all the more
noteworthy for Armenians because he goes into the question of how the
genocide question can be solved: "We cannot bring back the dead. It's
impossible to redress the material and immaterial damages and to heal
the injuries, but it is possible to alleviate the injury. Willy Brand
apologised for the Holocaust in Germany. Why should the German nation
and Willy Brand carry the burden of what Hitler did?" Thus Kutlay sees
a solution to the genocide issue in an apology to the descendants of
the survivors.
That the murdered Armenians will not rise from the dead is clear. But
why does Naci Kutlay believe that it is impossible to repair the
material and moral damage? It is precisely the German example
which shows that this is both necessary and possible: in 1951 the
Christian-Democratic government of Konrad Adenauer acknowledged before
the Bundestag the guilt and responsability of the German people for
the Nazi crimes, as well as a principled duty to Israel and the Jewish
people. The German federal government and representatives of Jewish
organizations came to an agreement in 1952 for the payment of 3.45
billion DM as collective compensation. It was 30 years later that
the Social Democrat Willy Brand fell to his knees before the Warsaw
monument and that has to be seen in connection with German-Polish
relations. His visit to Warsaw paved the way for German-Polish
reconciliation and normalization of relations with Poland and the
states of the Warsaw Pact.
Kutlay not only remains silent on the fact that Germany lived up to
its moral and material responsibilities, but also fails to justify why
it should be "impossible" for Turkey to make compensation following
the German precedent. Does the Turkish government, which has no qualms
about making outlays for its military in the fight against the Kurdish
people and spends further sums for tens of thousands of "village
guards" to terrorize their own people, have no money left? Kutlay
either feels duty bound to show solidarity with the Turkish state
against the allegedly "unjustified Armenian claims to compensation",
or he is afraid that the Kurds might also be affected.
Leave a Reply
From: Baghdasarian