It's hard to start an article about a very sensitive issue. You may go against the world and be right, but still people will get angry. Then how can I approach this? Outright denial is never constructive, even when you have enough solid evidence to know that what you believe is the truth. I am writing because I feel the responsibility to represent a different angle to Tufts students: one that is being ignored, either deliberately or out of ignorance.
The issue at hand is the so-called "Armenian Genocide." Throughout the years that have passed since World War I (WWI), the issue has become a much more of a political and emotional issue rather than that of a historical one. It's used against Turkey in its attempts to join the European Union or with regards to other political issues. Many nations such as France and Greece, and 44 U.S. states which have considerable Armenian minorities or value the opportunity to get leverage against Turkey, have acknowledged that such a genocide occurred. It is no surprise that the most vocal U.S. state about this issue is California, which has a sizeable Armenian minority. On the other hand, nations such as Israel, Denmark and the United Kingdom are not among the countries to acknowledge the genocide claims.
The international knowledge of the issue is close to minimal, if not nonexistent. Almost all of the people that are voting for the recognition of the so-called "Armenian Genocide" appear to only know one side of the story while ignoring many facts in order to keep this story intact. In fact, there are many facts that Western nations are either ignoring or these facts are denied to them.
The reason I bring this issue up is because I came upon an "Armenian Genocide Commemoration" event on TuftsLife last semester. I attended this event to ask two questions, but seeing that the majority of the attendees were elders, I didn't want to disrespect their emotions. In addition, the other half of the people in the room were sleeping because the lecturer of the event was practically reading her presentation from a paper which was hardly based on the events of WWI. I left early because I thought that having a poorly presented lecture in a commemoration ceremony is worse than someone confronting it.
I realized that people take this claim of genocide as the truth without questioning its credibility or even trying to learn something about it. I have two very simple questions that alone shake the credibility of the issue and demonstrate that it is not as apparent as the Holocaust is, a claim many "Armenian Genocide" defenders make.
My first question is about the base of the genocide argument. In 1920, Aram Andonian, a French-Armenian, published a book called "The Memoirs of Naim Bey". This book contained the "Talat Pasha telegrams" partially based on the Armenian argument that the Ottoman government ordered the killings of Armenians. These documents, which are purported to be the proof that the Ottoman government executed Armenians, were suggested to be forgeries by ?inasi Orel and Süreyya Yuca in 1983. In Orel and Yuca's book called "The Talaât Pasha Telegrams: Historical Fact or Armenian Fiction?" they analyze the documents on the basis of signature types, dating and language and found them to be forgeries.
Simply put, why would the Armenians feel the need to forge documents to back up their argument if it's so compellingly recorded and proven to be true?
The second question regards the history of Armenians themselves. The first Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of Armenia, Hovhannes Katchaznouni, was a member of Armenian Revolutionary Federation, which served a key role in the formation of Armenia as a separate state. He published a critical report in 1923 called "The Federation Has Nothing More To Do." In his report, he claims that Armenians had a part in the escalation of the violence throughout the empire and points out the massacres done by Armenians against Turks. Unfortunately, his report was banned and collected to be destroyed in Armenia. In 2005, this book was found in Russian archives by Mehmet Perinçek and started to be published in many languages. Quite simply, why would the very man who fought for Armenia's existence undermine the "genocide" claim?
I have no doubt that there are more things that are being mistakenly left out. A very brief research on the issue from the Internet and written sources would show that small but important facts like those that I have mentioned in this article are not pointed out at all. This summarizes the overall treatment of the issue in the Western nations. Only one side is heard, and only one side is remembered. It is important to remember contentious events like this one, but we should remember all sides of an issue. We're living in a world where only the loudest voices are heard. Until all are, I will keep raising questions that need answering.
--
Kerem Sahin is a junior majoring in electrical engineering.
