A Soft Touch to the Armenian Question

Armenians are a Caucasian people. According to the book titled Ancient Turks by Russian historian Lev Nikolayev Gümilev, Armenians began to exist in the Caucasus region as early as the 4th century.

In the same period, we see that the Turks, in their thousands of years of journey starting from the steppes of Central Asia, travelled across the old continent and had contacts with the Armenians during this progress. We see that the Armenians sided with the Turks from time to time and with their enemies such as the Persians, Greeks and Byzantines from time to time.

After these first contacts, we see that history does not record any friction or conflict between the Armenians and Turks, who lived as neighbours and sometimes together. This situation continued until the last years of the Ottoman Empire.

After the 1789 French Revolution, the ideas of nationalism began to spread and offered European powers the opportunity to weaken the Ottoman Empire and disrupt its social cohesion. While Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians and Greeks revolted against the Ottoman Empire and established their own states, Armenians were in favour of living together.

However, European powers such as Britain, France and Russia, who had interests in this disintegration, assumed the role of protectors of Armenians. They started to put these issues on the agenda in international negotiations, conferences and agreements. During the Ottoman-Russian War of 1877-78, Armenian communists were armed and used against the Ottomans for the first time. In addition, Armenian communists started a massacre against the civilian population in the eastern and south-eastern provinces promised to them.

These first clashes led to the transformation of solidarity between the two communities into enmity. Armenians started to emerge as a force that could be used by the enemies of the Ottoman Empire. In every peace negotiation, in every conference, the word Armenian was heard more and more. Afterwards, Armenians started to attack Turks more and more. Two communities living together for 1000 years were transformed into two societies ready to destroy each other in the 1900s and mutual conflicts began.

Whilethe American historian Professor Justin McCarthy sees this situation as a major conflict initiated by the Armenians and then turned bilateral (Annex 1 article summary), the opposing view, which includes some Turks, puts forward a thesis that the Turks massacred the Armenians. Prof. Murat Belge, a faculty member at Bilgi University, is one of those who hold this view. In an interview he gave during his visit to Armenia on 03 July 2012, he states that Turks massacred Armenians and that Armenians should apologise

We observe that Armenians living outside Armenia have carried out a very good propaganda work on this conflict, while Turkey has remained more defensive and passive. Before and after 1915, we see that the tragedy and the bilateral conflicts have led directly to the conclusion that the Turks massacred the Armenians.

However, we observe that these pressures and manipulations have turned into an action-reaction phenomenon and that individuals (Mehmet Perinçek, Prof. Justin McCarthy) groups (Talatpaşa Committee) and institutions (Turkish Grand National Assembly, Turkish Historical Society and many universities), who believe that the Turks did not commit genocide, have started to counter-attack. In this regard, we observe that Mehmet Perinçek, a research assistant at Istanbul University, has carried out a very important archival study, learnt Russian, examined Russian state and university archives, and revealed that the findings support the Turkish thesis rather than the Armenian thesis(The Armenian Question from the Russian State Archives).

So what actually happened before and after 1915?

The Berlin Conference of 1878 decided that the Ottoman Empire should make reforms in the regions where Armenians lived, and that this should be supervised by 6 major European states. However, page 23 of M Perinçek's book states that Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were in a very good situation compared to other Armenians in the world.

Afterwards, the Western powers encouraged Armenians to take up arms and carry out actions to establish an independent state. The British even promised an Armenia stretching from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. This encouragement, support, weapons and the ideology of nationalism led Armenians to commit massacres against the Muslim population in the Eastern and Southeastern provinces and to expel them from the region. We also learn from Russian documents that Armenians threatened the security of the rear areas of the Ottoman army during the Ottoman-Russian wars and committed massacres against the civilian population. In fact, we come across that many Armenian communists and soldiers (Armenian Volunteer Battalions) were tried in Russian Courts and sentenced to death due to the information and documents related to massacres and looting crimes sent by Russian commanders from the front.

The idea of preventing the Muslim people in the region from starting actions against the Armenians and ensuring the security of the Ottoman Army led the Ottoman government to take measures. With thedecision dated 24 April 1915, most of the Armenians in the region were subjected to forced migration to other regions. According to Russian documents, if this forced migration had not been implemented, great massacres would have taken place in the region. During this forced migration, although the Ottoman Government took all kinds of precautions, considering the conditions of the period, we see that approximately 200 thousand people lost their lives. However, we learn from these documents that 300 thousand people lost their lives in the ongoing war in Anatolia. We learn from the records that around 400 thousand Armenians were converted to live together with Turks and 200 thousand Armenians were migrated to Russia.

It is within this framework that the events on which Armenians base their theses and say that they were subjected to genocide developed. The Armenian thesis prefers not to mention the cause and effect relationship and the massacres they have committed, and even to deny them. Again, from the information shared with the public by the founder of the Dashnaktsutyun Party, which played an important role in the establishment of Armenia, and the Prime Minister of Armenia in the 1920s , O Kachaznuni, we determine the following ‘The volunteer troops formed in the Caucasus got out of control. We were unconditionally tied to Russia, we were in a dream world, the Turks subjected us to emigration. The Turks knew very well what they were doing and today they have nothing to regret."

If what happened in 1915 was considered as a genocide at that time, the Armenian uprising in Van in 1919 and 1920 and the French-backed Armenian uprising in Adana (Klikya) and the fight against the National Army will remain unexplained issues.

When it comes to the present day, the Turkish side has stated that the events that took place between the two sides in the 1900s and afterwards should be analysed by establishing a joint commission and has opened both the Ottoman and the Republic of Turkey archives for examination. Initially, the idea of establishing a joint commission was accepted by Armenia, but since the Armenian parliament later rejected this proposal, no progress could be made.

The Armenian thesis, as believed and defended by Prof. Murat Belge, is that the Turks committed genocide. On the other hand, as emphasised by Mehmet Perinçek and American historian Prof. Justin McCarthy, there was a mutual genocide, but the Armenians initiated it. On the other hand, in the lawsuit filed at the Lausanne Tribunal, in which Doğu Perinçek , one of the fathers of the Talat Pasha Committee, was a direct party, it was concluded that genocide cannot be mentioned and that the issue should not be politicised and should be examined by historians.

These claims and theses will continue unless a scientific study is carried out, a joint commission is established and archives are examined, and the responsibility of the states and parties at that time is revealed. Our duty is to go beyond words, to reveal the truth through scientific and historical research and to end this reckoning. Not the acceptance of what is dictated...