Here is an old article dealing with the topic in an objective manner imo, i have shortened the article by removing the paragraphs not related 1915-1916 deportations. Full text may be read here

ps. i noticed that the article is too long to posted at once so i will post it in parts.

"Turkish 'Falsifiers' and Armenian 'Deceivers': Historiography and the Armenian Massacres"
by Gwynne Dyer
Middle Eastern Studies, XII, 1976, pp. 99-107


Any historian who has to deal with the last years of the Ottoman Empire will sooner or later find himself wishing desperately that the air could be cleared on the subject of the Ottoman Armenians in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and especially the deportations and massacres of 1915. Armenians, the victims of a national trauma comparable in this century only to that of the European Jews, cannot stop remembering, and their conviction that the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians was the unprovoked result of cold-blooded calculation by the Turkish Government is largely accepted in Europe. The almost unanimous Turkish reaction has been to try to forget the whole episode, and when that becomes impossible to seek complete justification for the holocaust in allegations of wholesale disloyalty, treason and revolt by the Ottoman Armenians in the gravest crisis in the history of the Turkish nation - allegations wholly true as far as Armenian sentiment went, only partly true in terms of overt acts, and totally insufficient as a justification for what was done. Just in the past few years some Turks have begun to deal fairly openly with the Turkish measures in 1915, and to admit that they were a gravely disproportionate response to the provocation presented. Ahmed Emin Yalman's recent memoirs [Ahmed Emin Yalman, Takin Tarihte Gorduklerim ve Gecirdiklerim, c. I (1888-1918), Istanbul, 1970, 326-34] for example contain a relatively frank and balanced discussion of the events themselves and of faults and responsibilities in them. Likewise the American Armenian historian Richard Hovannisian has succeeded in treating the massacres of 1915 in considerable detail without losing his respect for evidence, and utters the usual charge that they were the fruition of a deep-laid, satanic plot with much less than the usual conviction. [Richard G. Hovannisian, Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918, London, 1967, 40-57] But these are isolated exceptions: the great majority of Turkish and Armenian historians frozen on this issue in the attitudes their predecessors had already adopted by 1916. The succeeding years have provided much diversion to attract public attention elsewhere, but still the barrage of accusations and counter-accusations rolls on, no longer in the foreground of public debate but conducted with undiminished vigour in terms entirely unchanged over half a century. And every once in a while the old bitterness flares again into life, as it did recently in California with the murder of the Turkish Consul and Vice-Consul there by an Armenian, and in France shortly afterwards with the recall of the Turkish ambassador as a 'gesture of disapproval' at the unveiling in Marseilles of a monument to the memory of '1,500,000 Armenians who were victims of a massacre in 1915 under the orders of the Turkish Government'.

An article which appeared in the September 1970 issue of Purnell's part-work The History of the First World War entitled 'Genocide in Turkey' is probably representative of the information on the Armenian tragedy that reaches the (thoroughly uninterested) European public. In it the author, A. 0. Sarkissian, claims that at least one and a half million Ottoman Armenians lost their lives in the deportations and massacres of 1915-16 as a 'direct result of a carefully-laid plan', and throws in for good measure the customary additional accusation that Hitler had taken this as his model. More usefully Sarkissian's article prompted a lengthy response by Salahl R. Sonyel, one of the younger generation of Turkish historians, in Belleten in January 1972, [Salahi R. Sonyel, "Yeni Belgelerin Isigi altinda ermeni Tehcirleri - Armenian Deportations: A Re-appraisal in the Light of New Documents", Belleten, XXXVI/141, 1972, 31-69 (Turkish and English)] and so provided us with an up-to-date example of the stance of the Turkish historical profession on the issue.

Sonyel concedes that there were 'some deportations and mutual Turko-Armenian massacres in Anatolia'. 'A French investigation carried out in 1920', he goes on to State, 'came to the conclusion that the Turkish people and soldiers behaved generally in a correct way towards the deported [Armenians], but that some 500,000 perished as a result of their armed rebellion against the Ottoman state, of the war in which they took part, of privation caused by the war in primitive regions, of sickness, exhaustion following long marches, immediate changes of climate, and of attacks by marauders upon rich convoys . . . The Turks are estimated to have lost over 1,000,000 people owing to similar causes ' ' Both in seizing upon this rather curious report by Commandant Larcher, virtually the only contemporary non-Turkish investigator to exonerate the Turks in the matter, and in dragging in the irrelevant, because subsequent, large-scale slaughter amongst the Muslims of eastern Anatolia, Sonyel is following a well established tradition amongst Turkish apologists.

His principal argument is also familiar. He quotes a careful selection of documents from various provenances to prove that a general rising of the Armenians was planned for 1915 (the Turkish equivalent of the standard Armenian accusation of a premeditated Turkish plot for genocide). Some of these documents, especially those from British sources, are published for the first time by Sonyel, and are quite interesting. All they prove, however, is that numbers of Armenians, especially abroad, were actively disloyal and seeking the support of the Allies (unsuccessfully) for a general rising at an appropriate moment, and that certain specific Ottoman Armenian deputies in the Meclis and the representatives of certain specific localities (especially Zeytun) were in communication with the Russians and planning a revolt. Sonyel with some justice attributes the proclamation of the Deportation Laws to Ottoman alarm over Armenian outbreaks although except for Van these were few and small - and again, in my opinion, rightly points out that there was at that stage no intention of genocide. He adduces as proof of the latter an Ottoman Government document dated April 28, 1915 (captured by the British in Palestine in 1918) ordering the arrest of active members of Dashnak and Hnchak committees and the closing down of these organizations, but specifically cautioning against applying the order in 'a form which might result in mutual massacre of Moslem and Armenian elements'. But he neglects to quote any of the other documents from the same British haul which show the later development of Ottoman Government intentions through 1915 towards a policy of extermination. The people to blame for the Armenian losses which did occur, according to Sonyel, were convicts released from prison to escort the Armenian convoys, because of a shortage of military manpower, and the local Kurds.

The 1915 unpleasantness thus explained, the writer passes on rapidly to the more salubrious ground of 1918-20. In examining the mutual and reciprocal massacres of Turks and Armenians which took place in the Transcaucasus in these years, his general pattern is to seek to disprove, with documents where possible, allegations of Turkish massacres of Armenians, but to accept instantly claims of Armenian outrages against Muslims, 'substantiating' them often by quoting the protests of the aggrieved Muslim party. Thereafter he loses even his manner of scholarly detachment, quoting with approval a selection of American relief experts who had low opinions of the Armenians, one describing them as 'robbers, deceivers and fools' and another as 'professional beggars, thieves and liars ... utterly debased, incapable of helping themselves, unwilling to help another, and entirely lacking in gratitude'.

Sonyel's extreme partisan stance is more obtrusive in his use of language than of facts. His conclusion, though offensively phrased, is partly defensible at least in essence, as far as it goes: 'Despite the so many shortcomings of the Armenian people ... they had enjoyed the best fruits of Ottoman society until a minority of alien, self-seeking, sanguinary and adventurist terrorist leaders decided to convert them into pawns in the power game, by allowing their wires to be pulled by foreign powers for their own ulterior purposes ... Nevertheless to hold all the Turkish nation responsible for the Armenian tragedy, and to overlook the irresponsible actions of these powers, and of certain Armenian leaders, who were the chief culprits, is a travesty of justice.' He at least understands historians' methods, and makes use of them where it is to his advantage.

One finds little as scholarly even as Sonyel in the general run of Armenian historiography on the subject. Representative,of American Armenian 'scholarship' (with a very few honourable exceptions) we may take two articles from the many on the topic which appear in the Armenian Review. [Navasard Deyrmendjian, "An Important Turkish Document on the 'Exterminate Armenians' Plan", Armenian Review, XIV/3, 1961, 53-55; and Haigaz K. Kazarian, "Minutes of Secret Meetings Organizing the Turkish Genocide of Armenians", Armenian Review, XVIII/3, 1965, 18-40. I have selected these articles to discuss as they are cited by Ulrich Trumpener in Germany and the Ottoman Empire 1914-1918, Princeton, 1968, 203, note 11, in support of Armenian claims, which he largely accepts, that the exterminations of the Armenians in the eastern vilayets was an unprovoked and preplanned measure of the Turkish government.] They sound scholarly, but are capering caricatures of the historical method, complete with footnotes giving the author's disbelief of some claim as conclusive proof of its falsehood. There is scarcely ever any adequate provenance given for 'documents' - they are often taken from some Armenian newspaper published in the 1920's or 1930's, which in turn attributes them at one or two further removes to some reliable source, such as 'Armenian officers in the Turkish Army'. The deafening drumbeat of the propaganda, and the sheer lack of sophistication in argument which comes from preaching decade after decade to a convinced and emotionally committed audience, are the major handicaps of Armenian historiography of the diaspora today.


The longer article of these two, for example, is mostly based on the highly improbable anti-CUP tract written in exile by the opposition journalist Mevlanzade Rifat, Turk Inkilabinin Ic Yuzu (Aleppo, 1929). [For information on this Kurdish intriguer and on the origins of his frequently-quoted book (which appears to have been partly sponsored by Dashnaktsutiun) see my reply to Mr. C. J. Walker in the correspondence section of Middle Eastern Studies, IX/3, 1973, 379-82.] Rifat, who is continually referred to by Kazarian as Melvan Zade and advertised as a member of the CUP 'General Council', included in his book the minutes of supposed secret meetings of the Unionist leadership in 1915, and a translation of these makes up the bulk of Kazarian's article. Though the subject of these meetings is purportedly the organization by Enver, Talat and their colleagues of murder gangs to carry out the massacres, and would be grim if in the least believable, it is in fact a hilarious article thanks to the combination of Mevlanzade Rifat's melodramatic imagination and Kazarian's atrocious translation. At one point in the 'transcript' Hasan Fehmi is made to interrupt the discussion to state: 'Being transported unto Almighty God, I would like to introduce a few beautiful principles of my own. The law of the Shariyat permits the extermination of the malignant.. . I say that, since we have seen nothing but harm from the Armenians ... without further piddling, the killing of Armenians, provided not one of them shall be left alive, is a religious duty...'. Kara Kemal (whose principal contribution to the conversation hitherto has been repeated ejaculations of 'Perish them all') bursts out in approval: 'Long live, long live, Khodja Effendi. Do you see, brethren, our most worthy Sheikh-ul-Islam?'.

During the 1960's it became possible at last for Soviet Armenian historians to discuss the subject of the Armenian massacres with some freedom, but the results have been depressingly similar. [For a full bibliography of Soviet publications on the subject in the 1960's see Richard G. Hovannisian, The Republic of Armenia, I, 1918-1919, Berkeley, 1971, 13, note 21.] In English the outstanding exemplar of the new Soviet work is E. K. Sarkisian and R. G. Sahakian, Vital Issues in Modern -Armenian History: A Documented Expose Of Misrepresentations in> Turkish Historiography (Watertown, Mass., 1965); the fact that it has been translated American Armenians and published by Armenian Studies will give an indication of its approach. It has all the weaknesses of Soviet historiography in overflowing measure and none of its strengths - one would have to go far to find a richer blend of polemic, distortion, ideological cant, exaggeration, vituperation and illogic. It no more merits serious historical criticism than the propaganda flysheet one is handed on the street corner.

The fact that hardly any historians other than Turks and Armenians busy themselves with work on the origins and development of the Turkish-Armenian enmity and its ghastly outcome in 1915, given that neither the Turks nor the Armenians approach the subject as historians, has led to a curious situation. There have been perhaps as many as a thousand books and articles published on the subject (most of them admittedly in the first decade after the event) and new contributions continue to appear very frequently, but there has been little new and respectable research which serves in any way to illuminate the many unlit comers of the issue since the few useful document collections published in that first decade. The inspiration for this reflection, and for this review, is two recent books by Armenians on this bitter subject, both dealing primarily with the years 1915-1922.

To be fair, Abraham Hartunian's book [ Abraham H. Hartunian, Neither to Laugh nor to Weep: a Memoir of the Armenian Genocide, transl by Vartan Hartunian, Boston, Beacon Press, 1968.] is not a history but a memoir. Though the author and his entire immediate family came through it all unharmed, they lived in Maras in 1915 and saw (in his case experienced) the horror of the deportations at first hand. Having spent the rest of the war in precarious hiding, Hartunian was then present for the Nationalist rising in Maras in 1920 and, having survived that, escaped with his family to Izmir only to be caught there by the entry of the victorious Nationalist army and the subsequent burning of the city. It is therefore unsurprising that he should be a bitter and unforgiving man.

Hartunian's book is a valuable document, revealing equally in its matter-of fact account of his experiences, and in its display of that quality of blind self-righteousness, raised almost to the level of an art form, which was as fatal to the Ottoman Armenians as the meddling of the European Powers and the enmity of the Turks. In his account of the events of March-August 1915 leading up to the deportations from Maras, for example, he recounts the mass resistance to conscription of the Armenians of Zeytun (now Suleymaniye, then overwhelmingly an Armenian town and area) in March of 1915, the armed resistance to the Turkish Army by some of the young men of the town, and the clashes, killings and deportations there through April, May and June. He himself, the pastor of the small but influential Protestant Armenian community of Maras, had to destroy some of his private papers hurriedly when Ottoman soldiers came to search his house in this period. He wrings much irony from the fact that among the papers he had to destroy because the Turks might have found them to be 'just'causes for suspicion were a photograph showing the leaders of the Armenian resistance at Zeytun in military garb and a long printed poem he had written extolling their victories over the Turks. I must say that they seem to me just cause for suspicion in a country at war.


One is sick with pity at the fate of the helpless, harmless columns of Armenians being driven savagely to their deaths through the latter part of 1915, and Hartunian's, descriptions are shockingly vivid. But one is naggingly aware at the same time that he would not be greatly troubled if it were Muslim refugees suffering this fate. For example, in referring to the prolonged resistance of Armenian guerrillas in the village of Fundejak, containing about 1,500 Armenians, after the Zeytun deportations had been accomplished, he mentions casually and without any hint of disapproval that in preparing for resistance to the Ottoman Army the Armenian military leaders 'disposed of about sixty Turks living in the village' (p. 58). Throughout he displays a complete unwillingness ever to see Armenian actions as provocative, or Armenians as anything but wholly innocent victims.

Hartunian, as befits a man of his time and background, wrote in an antique missionary style, with Biblical quotations and prayers on every page. To the extent that he was representative of the Ottoman Armenian leadership of the time it is most significant that he was aggressively Christian and determinedly ignorant of Islam and of his Muslim fellow-countrymen. He writes of 'bloodthirsty and savage Moslems' moved 'who knows with what satanic superstition'. 'The Turk', he says, 'does not know the meaning of compassion, love, pity'. Writing of the immediate aftermath of the World War in Maras, when some few Muslims had announced their conversion to Christianity, presumably to curry favour with the occupying power, he claims that 'the hour for the Christianization of the Turks had arrived', had it not been for the treacherous behaviour of the Christian nations of the world (p. 127). And finally, like many men who try to dignify the disasters that befall them and their works by attributing them to malevolence rather than incompetence or chance, he lapses into utter absurdity: 'I believe the French army came to Turkey to camouflage the annihilation of the . Armenians by the Turks' (p. 140).

Hartunian's memoirs have a certain value, as a sampler of the opinions and attitudes of a leader of a small but very important portion of the Ottoman Armenian population. They have been published apparently with a much simpler aim: the furtherance of the propaganda war against Turkey. The publisher's blurb proclaims: 'The premeditated, ruthless, official campaign by the Turkish government and army to exterminate Turkey's Armenian minority which began in 1895 - ground relentlessly through twenty-seven years and 2,000,000 deaths', etc

...

Why go on at such length, and in such a wealth of negative detail, merely to demonstrate something so obvious as that Armenians and Turks arc incapable of approaching the subject of their mutual clashes dispassionately even at this remove? Because the great majority of those dealing with the subject are and will continue to be either Turkish or Armenian, due to the language demands, and, more importantly, the sheer disinclination of historians of other nationalities to become entangled in the question with the accompanying danger of annoying one of the parties and losing access to historical sources. One consequence of this is that most of the historiography which is being produced on Turkish-Armenian clashes is biased and unreliable; another is that it is almost entirely derivative.

The protagonists have long since fixed on the outlines of the arguments most favourable to their respective positions of injured innocence, and quite rightly the partisans on both sides see little advantage in pushing original investigations further. There are partial exceptions like Sonyel and Hovannisian, but the more usual product is a restatement of the same tired arguments, spiced perhaps with fresh invective but based on a selection from the same common stock of widely variant statistics and bald assertions of fact - a selection infrequently made with an attempt at balance and assessment, but more normally by both sides with malicious forethought. When has there last appeared a serious and innovating discussion of the development of the Armenian-Turkish conflict to the end of 1915, let alone a full-length study using the documentary sources (especially Turkish or Armenian) which have become available since the original compilations?

I have criticised many more Armenians than Turks in this review, mostly because the Armenians, being the more injured party, and more conscious of their injury, write a great deal more about it. But it is the Turks, controlling most of the unexploited sources from which the history of the conflict could be written, who have the greater responsibility for writing it. In doing so they will have to admit to themselves that things got very badly out of hand in the East in 1915, that the government subsequently took an utterly reprehensible decision to compound the crime rather than live with the consequences, and that a great wrong was done. Armenians, too, if they are to begin writing a truer history of the tragedy, will have to give up some cherished and sustaining myths. Although I must admit that there are precious few signs to hand that indicate that these transformations are occurring, sooner or later the time must come. In the meantime the surprisingly widespread assumption that the Armenian massacres of 1915 and their near and distant origins have been 'done', as least insofar as the broad canvas is concerned (though there may remain some detail to be filled in here and there), ought to be abandoned. On closer inspection the foundations of this assumption turn out to be composed largely of rubbish.

European historians, certainly, would now mostly agree on the wide extent of Armenian disloyalty to the Ottoman Empire in the First World War, and also on the relatively narrow compass of the overt acts of treason and revolt. They are perhaps rather less united in shedding the old propagandistic view of the CUP leaders as savage dictators ruthlessly exploiting a long sought opportunity for a much desired genocide. Closer to the truth, I think, is that there was a genuine, though mistaken, belief among the Ottoman leaders in Istanbul that there was a deliberate and coordinated Armenian uprising in the East, with Empire-wide ramifications. Further, that this belief originated in such unrelated events as the formation of Armenian volunteer corps in the Russian Army and the participation in them of Ottoman Armenians; the insistence by the Ottoman government on the application of conscription to the Armenian community, which until recently had been exempt, and the passive and eventually the armed Armenian resistance to this in some areas, especially Zeytun in 'Cilicia'; the casual savageries inflicted by Kurdish tribesmen or Armenian bandits in the course of robberies, which not only rose in numbers in the conditions of insecurity in a war zone, but also gained a new communal significance in the tense atmosphere; and, finally, the inexcusable but probably unsanctioned tyranny of Cevdet Bey, the Vali of Van, which drove the Armenians of that city to revolt. All this occurred before Istanbul made any move.

When more work is completed on the period I believe that historians will come to see Talat, Enver and their associates not so much as evil men but as desperate, frightened, unsophisticated men struggling to keep their nation afloat in a crisis far graver than they had anticipated when they first entered the war (the Armenian decisions were taken at the height of the crisis of the Dardanelles), reacting to events rather than creating them, and not fully realizing the "tent of the horrors they had set in motion in 'Turkish Armenia' until they were too deeply committed to withdraw. As for the complicity of ordinary Turks with their leaders, hatred and revenge and blind panic were the motives for the behaviour of the Ottoman army and the Muslim Population of eastern Anatolia in the Armenian massacres, scarcely creditable motives, nor ones an Armenian is likely to forgive, but common enough in all nations and even understandable in the Turkish situation in the East in 1915. The 'final solution' attempted by the Ottoman government at the end of 1915, and all the succeeding bouts of mutual slaughter between Turks and Armenians down to 1922. grew out of those original decisions in early 1915, the history of which is yet to be written.

Hector nice to see you again. Your post will probably scare the crap out of anyone who reads it. lol Thanks for the update.

__________________
STUPIDITY Is The Deliberate Cultivation Of Ignorance

TRUTH exist, only a falsehood has to be invented.

Please Visit My Blog http://studiesandobservations.blogspot.com/

The author rejects the term genocide but apart from it , he is fully right in saying what has happened was unjustified. As to the term genocide, he is not alone, the below is the list 69 scholars in USA who described themselves as specialists “in Turkish Ottoman, and Middle Eastern studies,” and who likewise rejected it, warning the government not to meddle in history.



Historically the land was populated by Hitites, in that sense Armenians was too a roving bandits(to use your words) coming from another area once upon a time.

These lands were mainly ruled by Byzanthium not by Armenians themselves and before the arrival of Turks, other muslims like Arabs had aldready conquered some parts of the country. From your argument i have got the feeling you have impression that from day Turks as "roving bandits" set foot on anatolia, the Armenians had been persecuted, oppressed etc... Their religion, not being recognized by Byzanthium, was granted a separate church under Ottoman rule, Armenian Patriachate was first established by Sultan Mehmet II.

As to them having the right to secedee, the lands upon which they based their claim of independence was populated by a muslim majority and Armenians were only a minority. And an approximate 1000 year of Turkish/muslim presence is enough for these people to be considered as natural inhabitants in any civilized concept. I may be biased but the argument that these people dont have the right to have their own government despite being a majority, just because their ancestor were "roving bandits" (9-10 century prior to them) does not really carry much weight.

I dont agree but i respect you.

Well, Turkey offered to establish a comission joint by both historians and jurists to solve the matter conclusively and to admit genocide and present its apologies if the result of its findings were "Genocide". However you should know that the parliement declarations are nothing to take seriously. If the Armenians turn the truth over to people who negotiate it, they may end up with negotiated truth. There are serious historians who still dispute genocide term for the fate of Armenians, despite all the harassment and smearing campaings.

Seriously you are disappointing me and i think you dont know what you are talking about, the number of Turks are rather insignificant and ineffective in US in comparison. As to the list i posted only 6 of them were Turkish, the rest 63 beig noon-Turkish, i have seperated them for you,

1- RIFAAT ABOU-EL-HAJ

2- SARAH MOMENT ATIS

3- KARL BARBIR

4- DANIEL G. BATES

5- GUSTAV BAYERLE

6- ANDREAS G. E. BODROGLIGETTI

7- KATHLEEN BURRILL

8- RODERIC DAVISON

9- WALTER DENNY

10- DR. ALAN DUBEN

11- ELLEN ERVIN

12- CAESAR FARAH

13- CARTER FINDLEY

14- MICHAEL FINEFROCK

15- ALAN FISHER

16- CORNELL FLEISCHER

17- TIMOTHY CHILDS

18- SHAFIGA DAULET

19- JUSTIN MCCARTHY

20- JON MANDAVILLE

21- RHOADS MURPHEY

22- PIERRE OBERLING

23- ROBERT OLSON

24- DONALD QUATAERT

25- WILLIAM GRISWOLD

26- WILLIAM HICKMAN

27- JOHN HYMES

28- RALPH JAECKEL

29- JAMES KELLY

30- PETER GOLDEN

31- TOM GOODRICH

32- ANDREW COULD

33- MICHAEL MEEKER

34- THOMAS NAFF

35- WILLIAM OCHSENWALD

36- WILLIAM PEACHY

37- HOWARD REED

38- TIBOR HALASI-KUN

39- J. C. HUREWITZ

40- RONALD JENNINGS

41- KERIM KEY

42- DANKWART RUSTOW

43- STANFORD SHAW

44- AVIGDOR LEVY

45- HEATH W. LOWRY

46- JOHN MASSON SMITH, JR

47- ROBERT STAAB

48- JAMES STEWART-ROBINSON

49- FRANK TACHAU

50- DAVID THOMAS

51- WARREN S. WALKER

52- WALTER WEIKER

53- MADELINE ZILFI

54- ELAINE SMITH

55- Walter Welker

56- John Woods

57- FREDERICK LATIMER

58- BERNARD LEWIS

59- Donald Webster

60- Margaret L. Venzke

61- Philip Stoddard

62- June Star

63- Svat Soucek



Turkish ones:

1-ILHAN BASGOZ

2-ULKU BATES

3-HALIL INALCIK

4-METIN KUNT

5-KURAL SHAW

6-KERIM KEY ( never heard of such a surname but included him among Turks since i wasnt sure)

Among these six Turkish scholars, Halil Inalcik is considered not as "nationalist" but as "the foremost Ottomanist". A simple google search would enable one to see it.


So you approach to the issue with the way you have known a few Turks in the college And was he also apologizing to you ?


Feel free to use whatever you like,Both your perception of events and your description are rejected by serious historians, among them such top-quality names like Bernard Lewis, Roderic Davison, J.C. Hurewitz, Donald Quateart, Halial Inalcik etc..It will not change my opinion nor will have any changing effect on the controversy. However, the idea of a joint comission can put a peranent end and it can also open way to better understandings between two peoples.

Yes, they were, and Turks were not there before them, but a thousand year of existence is enough when or if they consititute majority.

The Ottomans took Constantinople and, later, much of Anatolia from a Christian and Balkan base, not vice versa , The anatolia by the time was ruled by small Turkish dynasties ( of which the Ottoman dynasty initially had been one example) left after the dissolution of Seljuk Empire.

No, i would not, especially when or if i didnt make up a majority.

They made their claims on the "six vilayets(provinces)" and in none they had a population approaching to a majority.

Well without even checking, you declared historians to be Turkish, it has nothing to do with either logic, facts or morality, on the contrary , it was a cheap-shot based on an unsophisticated argument and arrogance.

Well, i don't expect full agreement, but expect at least a minimum degree of respect and intellectuel discussion and not cheap shots like "oh they are all Tuks, less than impressive".

No, but it is not me who is saying "i have known a few Turks, they were so nationalist, so it is not important if they got together and say something. " Nor i do make such judgements for Armenians, altough it is easier to manipulate by using couple of examples, like the bombing of the house of a historian, who did not accept their version of History.

You might see the way you like, but it will not change the fact that it is a controversial topic, that is disputed by historians.

See and review whatever you like, the fact remains that such distinguished scholars rejected the term genocide for the tragic fate of the Armenian community.

Serious Historians still dispute genocide term and it is not recognized by UN either and the issue will continue to be controversial untill the idea of a joint comission can be materialized.

After a little bit history under this thread, I would be surprised if you weren't. The idea of a joint commission seems like the best solution to me, and it will not be joined by "Turkish" historians alone.

Sorry, i will not bother myself to write or explain something put so illogically. And you could read the article as to how it IS NOT. Here is another one And by the way before you jump to any crazy conclusions like him being Turkish or similar things, i should say that he is well-known as a harsh and a long-time critic of Turkey.

Pursuing the Just Cause of Their People

By Michael M. Gunter
(...)

First of all, there is no doubt the Armenians suffered a great wrong. No matter what the Turkish apologists argue, the fact remains that the Turkish Armenians virtually ceased to exist in their ancient homeland after World War I. Although the numbers of Armenians who died at this time are greatly exaggerated by the Armenians - and, in addition, many of the Armenians who were killed during this era died because the Armenians waged war against practically every nation they were physically able to come in contact with, including not only the Turks but also, after 1918, the Russians, Georgians, and Azerbaijanis - there is still no doubt that several hundred thousand Armenians perished during 1915...

The Armenian claim that they were victims of a premeditated genocide does not ring true, however. Rather, what appears more likely is that there was an honest, though inaccurate belief among the Turkish leaders that they were faced with a widespread and coordinated Armenian uprising from within at the very time their state was in mortal danger from without. Decades of what the Turks saw as Armenian provocations and even treason during previous wars, armed revolutionary activity between the wars, the creation of Russian-Armenian guerrilla groups in the invading Russian army during the present war, the defection of certain Ottoman Armenians to the enemy, the armed resistance to conscription on the part of Armenians in Zeytun, incidents of revolutionary acts and sabotage in the countryside, and the Armenian uprising in Van in reaction to the unjustified but probably unofficial policies of the local governor-all led the Turks to conclude they were in real danger from a fifth column. (Similarly, a much better organized U.S. government unjustly interned its citizens of Japanese descent at the start of World War II.)

Indicative of the Turkish confusion here is a report at the start of the war in 1914 that "the Russians have provoked Armenians living in our country, by promises that they will be granted independence in territories to be annexed from Ottoman land…that they have stored arms and ammunition in many places to be distributed to Armenians and moreover, the…Russian General Loris-Melikov went to the Van region for the same purpose." Turkish fear of the famous Russian-Armenian commander in the War of 1877-78 is understandable but misplaced, since he had been dead since 1888.

In addition, of course, the Ottoman Empire in 1915 was a badly decaying institution nearing the end of its long existence. In the throes of fighting a losing war, it was pushed beyond its capacities and lost control of the situation. Much of the gendarmerie who implemented the deportation orders, for example, were simply poorly trained substitutes for the original force, which was now enrolled in the regular army. Indeed, some of these replacements were probably nothing more than brigands themselves. Discipline among them was certainly lax. Furthermore, under such widespread conditions of wartime disorganization, the nomadic Kurds were able to attack the deportation columns with relative impunity or even connivance on the part of the gendarmerie. An unpopular minority whom the Muslim majority considered traitors, the Armenians received little sympathy from the local population, which itself was suffering grievously from the wartime conditions. Given such circumstances, then, it is understandable how the deportations led to widespread massacres, disease, and starvation, all of which together cost the lives of several hundreds of thousands of Armenians.

In Constantinople, however, where the government's capacities were stronger, the vast majority of the Armenian population continued to exist throughout the war. In fact, their descendants still live in Istanbul today. Could anyone conceive of Hitler allowing the Jews to continue living in Berlin while he implemented his genocide against them elsewhere? ...

Certainly, however, it should be clear from the above analysis that there have been two sides to the question, and we in the West have largely heard only the Armenian. Attempts to demonstrate the Turks committed premeditated genocide have proven either likely forgeries (such as the oft-cited Andonian telegrams and the apocryphal quote by Hitler, "Who remembers the Armenians?" when he allegedly assured his associates their genocidal assault on the Jews would not one day bring down retribution on them) or declarations based on mere faith... Although in no way excusing the massacres that did occur, these facts put the events of World War I in their proper context.

Isnt a genocide a crime commited with the aim to annihilate a whole people (perhaps even for the very sake of annihilating it)?

If the aim was to only deport them without the definitive aim to annihilate them the word genocide in fact might be improbable.

Not that a different aim makes things that happened better, but the term genocide as such does differentiate on this. I dont know though what term would be suitable than. It for sure was a crime against humanity, a brutal ruthless mass deportation with incredibly high death toll (for whatever reasons).

No, you have a perverted perception of my arguments, I refer to your attitude concerning the specialists being Turkish and nationalists etc for which you have not brought any justification other than an ignorant assumption. I have no beef or disappointment with your reference to “description of these events as Genocide” as you implied or distorted my position, what is disappointing, however is the attitude you have taken up without even checking the identity of people.


How did I do it ? By saying and showing that your simplistic argument “that these scholars are Turks that came together to deny or minimize” Armenian genocide is a cheap shot ? I agree that you didn’t say anything offending to me personally but this is not the matter I am drawing attention.

Then make it clear it is not.

We have instances of people being sentenced to various punishments including execution for the offences committed upon the Armenians.

Too simplistic. We have a Turkish Historical Congress in which a pro-Armenian author, Hilmar Kaiser gives his presentation and openly advocate the genocide thesis and even served as the head of the session. Here is the link from google, the orginal one is not working :
Untitled Document

Then I again I ran a simple google search and found that Atatürk Institute for Modern Turkish History provides a reading list in which the books that advocate the genocide thesis is included , alongside those advocate it was not a genocide. Then there are many occasions like the invitation of a moderate Armenian scholar such as Ronald Grigor Suny to Istanbul to give a conference. There are earlier attempts by Turkish Historical Society to bring 2 sides together and discuss the matter as they did in 1994 to which only Professor Marashlian attended. This is not to say everything is light pink with no


Yeah, I know Quite a relevant indication to doubt the position of these historians.
A perfect justification to doubt these historians.

Nonsense, these historians have nothing to do with Turkish policies and neither have they Turkish identity, nor do they totally endorse Turkish views.
By using your logic, since the Armenians bombed the house of a historian, Stanford Shaw (who finally moved to Turkey) just because he rejected genocide, and sent a clear message to others about the risk involved, and since the historians like Bernard Lewis , faced trials, and Justin Mccarty faced prosecution or a smearing campaign or an author like Sam Weems received more than 25 death threats even before his book published or the silencing of Gilles Veinstein and similar incidents etc etc and etc , we have enough reasons to doubt the position of those arguing it was a genocide. This sort of thing is nothing to take seriously.

Like you thought them to be Turks, who as a nationalist people came together to deny it ? They are distinguished scholars that don’t need either your or my appraisal. They have even held a conference in honor of Halil Inalcik, at the Harvard university, as I said a simple google search would enable one to see some simple facts. Or they have devoted a special issue for the late Elie Kedourie in a journal like Middle Eastern Studies. Roderic Davison, J.C. Hurewitz etc. are all distinguished themselves in their studies to question their eloquence or to present them as lackeys of Turkish government is both outrageous and presamptious attitudes.

Yeah i know, like they came together to deny or minimize Armenian genocide.

[quote]I have. I read three books on Middle Eastern history that I already had and looked up the sections on Armenia. All three consider it a genocide. That authors are: [quote]

And a formidable array of learned opinion consists of the best names of the business such as Bernard Lewis, Roderic Davison, Andrew Mango, the late Elie Kedoruie, J. C. Hurewitz etc who rejected it.


The below article argues otherwise.

International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda - Prevent Genocide International

Yeah of course I am not surprised given the fact blatant and outrageous claims about serious scholars without sophistication and discrimination are all too prevalent used.


No it was not logical and my assessment still stands. Have you seen a court trying a defendant by saying “they say you are a killer, now prove or explain me you are not” without presenting specific indictment?

Nothing new with this arguments. A recent book reviews and challanges these conclusions:

The large Armenian communities of istanbul, izmir and Aleppo were spared deportation and, apart from tribulations such as hunger and epidemics that also afflicted the Muslim population of these cities, survived the war largely intact. This would be analogous to Hitler’s failing to include the Jews of Berlin, Cologne, and Munich in the Final Solution.


the trek on foot that took so many lives was imposed only on the Armenians of eastern, a part of the country that had no railroads. Elsewhere, and despite the fact that the one-spur Baghdad line was overburdened with the transport of troops and supplies, Armenian deportees were allowed to use rails and were thus spared at least some of the trials of the deportation process. If, as is often alleged, the intent was to subject the exiles to a forced march until they died of exhaustion, why was this punishment not imposed on all?



. Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, by G. Lewy, chapter 5, the genocidal consequences section, provides sufficient proof and details and comparison with the situation of Turkish refugees, civilians, soldiers that demonstrates it is not so and puts them into proper historical context. In another Chapter he explains: The deportations and resettlement exhibited a great deal of variation that depended on factors such as geography and the attitude of local officials. In the absence of a large Kurdish population no massacres took place in Cilicia, and a substantial part of the Armenian exiles sent to southern Syria and Palestine survived. Some convoys from eastern Anatolia were robbed and massacred, while others arrived at their destination almost intact. Some of the exiles were given food here and there, while others were left to fend for themselves and often died of starvation. Some gendarmes accompanying the convoys protected their charges, while others sold them to Kurds who pillaged and murdered them.


The book subjects the rich historical evidence available to the test of consistency and attempt to sort out the validity of the rival arguments. a deliberate plan to exterminate over a million people would not rely on inconsistent methods like marching them to starvation and localized partial massacres. Lewy presents a plausible alternative scenario that the deportation decision itself was an impossible mission, given the logistical shortages of the Ottoman Empire; and that a poorly supervised and poorly supported mass movement of Armenians resulted in both massacre and death from starvation and disease.



Here is an incident which took place under the jurisdiction of one of the top- CUP members, Cemal Pasha, one of the triumvirate rulers of Ottoman Government, Page 112:

[Djemal Pahsa] another top CUP leader, took steps to prevent violence against the Armenians and actually punished transgressors. The German consul in Aleppo, Walter Rössler, reported on April 1, 1915 that a decree issued by Djemal Pasha on March 29 had forbidden private individuals to interfere with governmental affairs. Every Moslem who attacked an Armenian would face a court-martial. Later that year Djemal Pasha proved that he meant to enforce this order. Two Turkish officers, Cerkez Ahmed and Galatali Halil, who were implicated in atrocities against Armenian deportees in the vilayet of Diarbekir and were held responsible for the murder of two Armenian members of parliament (Krikor Zohrab and Seringulian Vartkes), at the request of Djemal were arrested the moment they came into territory under his jurisdiction, tried by a court-martial in Damascus, and sentenced to be hanged.