Taner Akçam

Taner Akçam, The Young Turks' crime against humanity: the Armenian genocide and ethnic cleansing in the Ottoman Empire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012)

A. DIRK MOSES Introduction Turkish-raised, German-trained and American-based, Taner Akçam is the Kaloosdian and Mugar Chair in Armenian Genocide Studies at Clark University. His first book on the Armenian question was published in Turkish more than twenty years ago. Since then, a steady stream of monographs and articles, including A shameful act: the Armenian genocide and the question of Turkish responsibility (2006), has made him a pre-eminent authority on late Ottoman history and the Armenian genocide. The subject of this forum, his latest book, The Young Turks’ crime against humanity: the Armenian genocide and ethnic cleansing in the Ottoman Empire, appears in Princeton University Press’s prestigious Human Rights and Crimes against Humanity series, edited by Eric D. Weitz. Like its predecessors, this book is based on meticulous research, though surpassing them in detail and extent. Not for nothing did the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) give Akçam the Albert Hourani Book Award for 2013 for Young Turks’ crime against humanity, and Foreign Affairs name it as one of the best books on the Middle East in 2012. John Waterbury’s citation reads as follows: ‘The book’s title issues a stark indictment; the text methodically and dispassionately sustains it. The fact that a Turkish historian with access to the Ottoman archives has Journal of Genocide Research, 2013 Vol. 15, No. 4, 463–509, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2013.856095

Anatomy of a crime: The Turkish Historical Society's manipulation of archival documents

The Turkish Historical Society (Türk Tarih Kurumu, THS) recently published a “landmark” book, Ermeniler: Sürgün ve Göç (The Armenians: Expulsion and Migration) (Ankara, 2004), by Hikmet Özdemir, Kemal Çiçek, Ömer Turan, Ramazan Çalık and Yusuf Halaçoğlu. In the preface, historian Yusuf Halaçoğlu, the president of the THS, makes the following claim: “[T]he various documents which we have presented in the book, belonging to various countries, possess the quality of entirely refuting the claims put forward by the Armenians until today” (p vii). In fact, the book presents no new evidence to refute “claims” of genocide. Rather, by disputing the Armenian population figures before and after the deportation, the authors contend that most of the Armenians survived, and therefore, no systematic massacre could have occurred. The authors, however, do concede “that in the course of the events which transpired during the First World War, the Armenians suffered a total of some 200,000 deaths” (p 106), but state that these deaths were not planned. The casualties are explained away through such well known arguments as rebellion, epidemics, and famine. For example: “The Armenian [terror] organizations officially entered into [armed] struggle with the Ottoman State, killing and being killed in the process”; “the Tehcir, or government-directed deportation of the Armenian population of Anatolia was the state’s lawful right to self-defense, and of course, ‘mistakes were made’”; because of “such causes as food shortages, the inability to control bandit gangs, Journal of Genocide Research (2005), 7(2), June, 255–277

Deportation and Massacres in the Cipher Telegrams of the Interior Ministry in the Prime Ministerial Archive (Başbakanlik Arşivi)

Despite attempts at cleansing the Ottoman archives, after the armistice of 1918, of material incriminating the Young Turk government in planning to annihilate the Armenians, the prime ministerial archive (Başbakanlik Arşivi, or BOA) in Istanbul still contains invaluable documentation on the Armenian Genocide. Contrary to the common belief, which suggests that the Ottoman documents in the BOA were created solely in order to obscure the actions of the Ottoman government, the author argues that this archive contains information that runs completely counter to the official Turkish denial thesis and actually elucidates both the intent of Ottoman authorities and how the genocide was organized. Based solely on Ottoman materials, the author demonstrates that the treatment of the Armenian population during World War I was different from that of other minorities at the time.

The Genocide of the Armenians and the Silence of the Turks

The genocide of the Armenians has been a taboo topic for us Turks for 80 years. The 80-year silence has produced such tension and a mountain of prejudice, not only between the two societies, i.e. the Turkish and the Armenian, but also in the academic world, that even the development of a common language in which the subject could be discussed is becoming a serious problem. For this reason, the fact that I, a Turkish historian, am critically approaching this subject for the first time is more important perhaps than the content of my essay. There is not only the risk that I may be accused of treason in Turkey, but also the risk that Armenians may want to perceive me as the corporate representative of the Turks, expecting from me an account for the Turkish stance of the last 80 years. Conscious of all these problems, I would like to be read as a historian who writes only in his own name.

Everything makes sense once given context

Apparently, Edhem Eldem found my article summarizing the Torossian debates, published in this journal, extremely biased. For this reason, he took up the task of responding. Unfortunately, he does not point out which information given in my article was wrong. Moreover, I find his title ‘shameful debate’ very unfortunate. My feeling from reading Edhem’s response was that he is unaware of the newest developments in the Torossian debate and thus his approach is a bit outdated. What surprised me the most is Edhem Eldem’s treatment of Hakan Erdem’s book on the Torossian debates as a legitimate source! I have to remind the reader here that Erdem’s book is the only source that attempts to prove Torossian’s story to be full of fabrications. However, I have already demonstrated extensively in two different articles that Erdem’s claims (especially those related to Torossian’s family and life in the USA) are completely false. Edhem Eldem’s continued use of this book as credible evidence of Torossian’s fraudulence, even when Hakan Erdem himself did not—and could not—write a single word to defend his book, is a serious problem. The Torossian memoirs are a more authentic and important source than Erdem’s book! If Edhem Eldem demonstrates convincingly why we should continue to regard Erdem’s book as a reliable source on this matter, I will be happy to oblige. For the sake of discussion, let us adopt Edhem’s viewpoint of there being two sides to this debate, namely ‘anti-Torossian’ and ‘pro-Torossian’. One side argues that Torossian’s published memoirs are completely fictional (mainly, Hakan Erdem’s book), while the other admits that there may be exaggerations and mistakes, yet nevertheless accepts that the memoirs represent a real account of Torossian’s life. Throughout his article, Edhem gives the impression that the fictional nature of the book has already been evidenced successfully, and thus continuing to insist on the authenticity of the information provided by Torossian is unwarranted. For Edhem, it is self-evident that the Torossian book is not, in fact, a historical text at all but simply a novel written purely from imagination. I would like to emphasize again: the above-mentioned book by Hakan Erdem, which Edhem uses to substantiate these claims, has already been proven to be irrelevant and should be completely discarded. What I was looking for in Edhem Eldem’s article was how exactly Hakan Erdem succeeded in demonstrating that Torossian’s book is a ‘fabrication’. In fact, Edhem provides only one, solitary piece of information that is important: Torossian never graduated from the Military Academy! Edhem’s argument is based on the fact that Torossian entered the US and yet never declared his profession as ‘army officer’, but instead declared it as ‘merchant’. This matter is indeed problematic; however, it provides a great example

Book Review: Social Relations in Ottoman Diyarbekir, 1870–1915

Social Relations in Ottoman Diyarbekir, 1870-1915 offers new, microhistoric and non-nationalist perspectives on the late 19th century history of the province of Diyarbekir. Focusing on a period dominated by violent conflicts between the authorities and various local elites and population groups of the region – urban Muslims, Kurds, Armenians, Syrian Christians and others – this book offers new insights into the social history of the region and the origins of the Armenian and Kurdish Questions, which were to gain such prominence in the 20th century. This book is one of the important sources to understand the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire, and especially in the Diyarbekir region.

A short history of the Torossian debate

Sarkis Torossian, an Ottoman Armenian, was an officer in the Ottoman army who fought on different fronts during the First World War. Because of his courage and success during the Gallipoli War, his military rank was raised and he was awarded a medal with an accompanying letter, signed by Enver Pasha himself. After learning that his family had been deported and exterminated during the genocide, Torossian switched sides and fought against the Turkish army. After 1920, he settled in the US where he published his memoirs in 1947. The translation of his memoirs into Turkish in 2012 has launched a heated debate. That an Armenian soldier was on active duty in Gallipoli, which has a crucial symbolic value for Turkish national identity, was unacceptable. His memoirs represent a total discrediting of the Turkish historical narrative on Armenians and the Armenian Genocide. Hence, some scholars have questioned its authenticity, denouncing him a charlatan and his memoirs as fiction. Others believe in the memoirs authenticity despite the few errors and exaggerations, which are normal in such documents. This article argues that the debate is about the relationship between history, truth and memoirs.

Guenter Lewy's The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey

The dust jacket of Guenther Lewy’s The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide2 features Norman Stone’s assertion that this book, ‘‘which has Olympian fair-mindedness as well as thorough knowledge of the various sources, now replaces everything else.’’ Lewy claims, in his book, to be situated outside the parameters of what he describes as ‘‘the Turkish view’’ and ‘‘the Armenian view.’’ Having positioned himself as being above such partisanship, he also claims that his book ‘‘subjects the rich historical evidence available to the test of consistency and (as much as the state of knowledge allows) attempts to sort out the validity of the rival arguments’’ (x). Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Tampa Library at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact scholarcommons@usf.edu. Recommended Citation Ak cam, Taner (2008) Guenter Lewys The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal: Vol. 3: Iss. 1: Article 8. Available at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol3/iss1/8 Guenter Lewy’s The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey