A Synopsis on the Turkish-Armenian Question

Armenians and their supporters are quick to make references to World War I era documents. One thing that is easily overlooked is that Ottoman Empire was against a conspiracy by the Entente since Great Britain, France, Russia, and finally Italy made secret treaties amongst themselves to carve up the empire even well before the end of the Great War. Thus there was much anti-Ottoman propaganda during the war and the documents that are referred by the proponents of the genocide-view are using such biased information.

One of the sources frequently referred to is the documents by U.S. Ambassador Morgenthau. The ambassador served in Ottoman Turkey for 26 months until he finished his tour of duty in February 1916. Based on the official governmental documents Morgenthau himself acknowledged that he gathered his information on the Armenian massacres from his Armenian personal secretary Hagop S. Andonian and his Armenian special advisery Arshag K. Schmavonian. His documents, which lack official reports to back his claims, are mainly made up of hearsay information. In addition Morgenthau freely admitted that he allowed Andonian to write his own accounts as he also made his own modifications to the documents. Thus, Morgenthau’s documents, which are frequently used, cannot be used as an objective evidence to support the Armenian view of the alleged genocide.

Another frequently utilized reference is that of Lord Bryce and British historian Arnold Toynbee. Lord Bryce was British Ambassador to the U.S.. During the Great War he gathered anti-Ottoman and anti-German information. Once again there was no official documentation to support their claim of the alleged genocide. But Lord Bryce utilized letters from missionaries, foreign officers, and from witnesses to support his claim for the alleged orchestrated massacres of Armenians. In his accounts, Lord Bryce utilized a language that showed his bias against the Turks and other Muslims. In addition, his accounts of German massacres of Belgians were never proven. Thus, Lord Bryce’s work suffered a credibility issue. It became obvious that such information was intended to smear the Ottoman Empire during a period when there was intense anti-Ottoman propaganda pursued by the European Allies.

Furthermore, the supporters of the Armenian thesis of the alleged genocide have also based their viewpoints on the telegrams of Ottoman Interior Minister Talat Pasha allegedly ordering the massacres of Ottoman Armenians. Such telegrams were compiled by Armenian Aram Andonian. But these documents were also proven to be false and therefore could not be relied upon as hard core evidence to implicate the Ottoman government with the alleged Armenian genocide.

Once the Ottoman Empire was defeated and was literally dismantled by the ardent Entente powers, the British had full access to the Ottoman government’s archives. The British eagerly arrested 140 high-ranking Ottoman officials with hopes to try them for war crimes against British prisoners including Armenian massacres. With all the Ottoman information at their disposal including unsupported documents by Ambassador Morgenthau and the Lord Bryce/Toynbee duo there was no objective evidence to pin down the Ottoman government for any war crime much less an orchestrated massacre against Ottoman Armenians. All the propaganda that was led against the Ottoman Empire during the Great War remained as propaganda without any basis. Thus, the well-known Malta War Crimes Tribunal backfired against the Entente as the British were forced to release the Ottoman representatives without any evidence for the alleged genocide.

One thing is certain. During the World War I Ottoman Empire joined Germany and the Austrian-Hungarian Empire against the Entente following an adventurous move by the Young Turk government. This spelled the doom of the empire as the Entente began to partition its vast dominions before the end of the war.

Well known contemporary Armenian leaders such as Boghos Nubar Pasha and Armenian Prime Minister Hovannes Katchaznouni have admitted about Armenian contribution to the Russia’s efforts against the Ottoman Empire. Armenians utilized the war as an opportunity to declare their independence within Turkish-majority eastern Anatolia. Thus, they joined Ottoman enemy Czarist Russia, which aimed to finish off the Ottoman existence. Since Ottomans saw Armenians as obstacle to their war effort against the invading Russian armies, Ottoman government decided to relocate Ottoman Armenians from the war zone of eastern Anatolia to another domain of the empire through the Syrian Desert.

However, such decision cost the lives of some 300,000 Armenians through the relocation process. The deaths occurred due to lack of protection from the attacks of Kurdish gangs, infectious diseases, and famine. Most historians agree that the total death toll of Armenians during the war was in the vicinity of 700,000 – 800,000 as opposed to 1.5 million as claimed by Armenians and their supporters.

Clearly it is not the scope of this synopsis to solve this decades long controversy but it should shed some light into Armenian smear campaign against the current Turkish government, which was not even in existence during these tragic times. But to accept the Armenian claims without objective scrutiny is nothing but injustice not only to the living Turks but most importantly to all the dead of the region from all creeds and nationalities. The current efforts’ aim is to revive the defunct Treaty of Sevres, which was supposed to deliver the eastern half of modern day Turkey to Armenia as a reward for Armenian contribution to the Allied Powers but especially to Russia. To compare the apparent belligerent Armenians’ outcome during a war to helpless and unarmed European Jews during the Nazi era is simply preposterous. The Turkish-Armenian Question needs to be solved but in an unbiased environment by credible historians and not by politicians supported by deep-pocketed Armenian lobby.

By
Erol Yorulmazoglu, M.D. Member, Advisory Board Turkish Forum