Publications in Turkey on 1915 — Restrictions and Overcoming Them
Presentation given as part of the conference: Johannes Lepsius and dealing with the Armenian genocide. On 26/27 November 2010 at the House of Brandenburg-Prussian History in Potsdam.
There are a number of publications on 1915 in Turkey. Not all of them have an academic background, but they should be taken into account in the following classification, for the simple reason that they are widely used.
It should be noted that the majority of these publications are negationistic. The latter will first be briefly described below. Authors and editors include private individuals, journalists, retired diplomats, scientists, chambers of commerce, think tanks, state institutions and archives.
• Books whose titles are schematically as follows: “The Armenian atrocities in the city/region XY” are relatively numerous. It is therefore clear that a critical view of Turkey's role is not to be expected.
• A variant of these publications also has the reference “based on documents” in the title, which suggests seriousness. This is particularly emphasized when state archives act as publishers.
• It is also quite common for publications of this type to also be published in English or French in order to draw the attention of foreign countries to this Turkish view of things.
• Books with the schematic title: “The Armenian Uprisings in City/Region XY” are also relatively numerous. It is therefore already clear that a critical view of the Turkish role has also been dispensed with here.
• Then there are a variety of books whose titles cannot be surpassed in terms of clarity. A few examples: Büyük İhanet: Ermeni Kilisesi ve Terör (The Great Betrayal: The Armenian Church and Terror); Diaspora Ermenileri'nin Soykırım Yalanları (The Genocide Lies of Diaspora Armenians); Don Kişot Sendromu: Ermeni Soykırımı Komedyası (The Donyası Quixote Syndrome and the Comedy of Armenian Genocide); An Armenian Hypocrisy; Emperyalizmin Maşası Ermeniler (The Armenians: Henchmen of Imperialism).
• Works by foreign key witnesses are also popular, such as the Russian Lieutenant Colonel Tverdohlebov “I Witnessed and Lived Through: Erzurum 1917/1918.” The blurb reveals more: “When looking through the diary, the extent of Armenian barbarism and the unbelievable murders becomes clear... What I have seen and heard exceeds everything I have heard and imagined about Armenians, writes the Russian lieutenant colonel in his memoirs. That is the best answer to the Armenian allegations.” Interesting: The editor is the Archive for Military History and Strategic Studies, which is subordinate to the Turkish General Staff (Genelkurmay Askerî Tarih ve Stratejik Etüt Başkanlığı Arşivi).
• With some books, you can't guess the content from the title. One such is “Ermeniler Zamanı Unutma! ” (“Armenians: Don't forget the time! “) by Haluk Kırcı (2009). The blurb provides clarity: “This tremendous work presents us with a people of undetermined origin who would like to erase the Turkish people from history... In this work, we will have the opportunity to get to know these subjects called Armenians, these Turkish enemies even better. ”
• Official foreign sources published by private individuals such as institutions are also popular. The four-volume British Documents On Ottoman Armenians (18911895), published by Türk Tarih Kurumu (TTK) (Turkish Historical Society/Society for Turkish History) is one such publication. Only a closer examination can reveal more details.
• In addition to books, there are also magazines in which articles on the subject appear. It is interesting, however, that there is a special magazine dedicated to “Armenian Studies,” as it is titled. It is published by the Institute of Armenian Studies (Ermeni Araştırmaları Enstitüsü), which was founded in 2001. It is still led today by Ömer Engin Lütem, a retired Turkish ambassador. The events of 1915 occupy a prominent place in the magazine. The contributions try to justify official Turkish positions. At the end of December 2008, the institute published the statement by 146 former Turkish ambassadors on its website[1] on the Internet campaign by Turkish intellectuals “I ask for forgiveness” from the end of 2008 — it lasted well into 2009. The following excerpt from this is evidence of the views apparently also held by the Institute, as the Institute Director is one of the signatories:
“We are following with concern the media news that a number of academics and journalists are launching a campaign of 'apology to the Armenians' regarding the 1915 events. We are presenting our views to the public in this regard believing that such a campaign will be unjustified, wrong and harmful with respect to our national interests.
Search an unrighteous and one-sided initiative will constitute disrespect for our history and signify a betrayal to our people who have lost their lives due to the actions of terrorist organizations during the final periods of the Ottoman Empire and repeated also during the Republican era. Although the temporary relocation of Armenians in 1915, carried out under circumstances of war, has culminated in bitter results for the Armenians, the losses and tragedies encountered by the Turkish people due to Armenian rebellions and terrorist activities are not any less. Local and foreign sources clearly document the fact that Armenian terrorists, with the planned and continued incitement of foreign powers and by joining the invading enemy forces have inflicted mass violence against Anatolian people following the second half of the 19th century and later after World War I and during the initial periods of the War of Independence. ”
Perhaps the most important pillar in “defending against Armenian claims” is the state-financed Türk Tarih Kurumu (TTK) (Turkish Historical Society/Society for Turkish History). It was led from 1993 to 2008 by the controversial historian Prof. Yusuf Halaçoğlu. He has been a member of the right-wing nationalist party MHP since the elections in June 2011. I have said something else about Prof. Yusuf Halaçoğlu's working methods[2], so I would like to content myself here with my assessment “he doesn't do science, but imitates it at best.”
A few comments on the non-negationist books from 10 and more years ago. These have been published by non-state publishers. The majority of the authors are not Turks, such as Yves Ternon, Vahakn Dadrian, Franz Werfel, Henry Morgenthau. Among the very few Turks, Taner Akçam should be mentioned with his first book “The Turkish National Identity and the Armenian Question” from 1992, which followed an authentically source-based approach. In addition to Belge Verlag, İletişim Yayınları should also be mentioned as publishers.
repressions
The suppression of unpleasant publications had many faces:
• Totschweigen: Critical books were not discussed, they were hushed up. There have been and still are a number of publications that provide reviews. For example, the weekly literature supplements from well-known daily newspapers. A well-known example is Taner Akçam's first book “The Turkish National Identity and the Armenian Question” from 1992, which was consistently hushed up at the time and was mentioned somewhat laudately much later.
• confiscation: Another method was to confiscate books that had already been published — mostly on Kurdish topics — causing considerable material damage to mostly small publishers with a very thin financial base.
• Legal restrictions: Various articles of the Turkish Criminal Code were used for this purpose. Before 1990, Articles 141 and 142 as well as Art. 125 (“separatism”) were popular. The latter was used particularly by the Kurds. European criticism led to then-Prime Minister Turgut Özal having Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act applied instead. Like the couple Ragıp and Ayşe Nur Zarakolu in a ADK-Interview[3] On record, Article 8 was just as strict and restrictive as Articles 141 and 142. The couple pointed out that as long as the attitude of the rulers did not change, they would find a new article to suppress unpopular opinions. As an example, they cited the reprint of Prof. Dadrian's book “Genocide as a Problem of National and International Law - The World War I Armenian Case and its Contemporary Legal Ramifications,” in which, in the opinion of the public prosecutor, he had preached racial hatred in accordance with Art. 312. If convicted, legal restrictions resulted in both fines and imprisonment.
• Physical violence: In special cases, this remedy was also used. For example, the Belge publishing house was the victim of an arson attack in 1995.
The change for the better and new challenges
How problematic the critical approach to 1915 was even for left-wing Turks for a long time can be demonstrated by the example of Aziz Nesin (1915 — 1995), critical writer and icon of the Turkish left. He was in Armenia at the beginning of July 1965 and visited the chairman of the Writers' Association of Armenia, Eduard Toptschyan (1911-1975). A few months earlier, more precisely on April 24, 1965, Armenians had for the first time commemorated the victims of the 1915 genocide with a huge demonstration in Yerevan. In his memories[4]Toptschyan describes his meeting with his colleague as follows: “Mr. Nesin has repeated several times that he is a socialist and always looks at historical events from the positions of class struggle (...). After I had read his article, I told him that I could not print it because it grossly distorted historical events (...). According to Nesin, the Armenian massacres of 1915 had taken place at the instigation of English imperialism and American imperialism was behind the demonstration of April 24, 1965, which commemorated the genocide (...). How could it be that Mr. Nesin did not see the bloody paw of the Young Turks, the imperial Germany, in 1915? (...) When we asked him about it, his answer was: he was not a historian. ”
The rapprochement with the EU marked a turning point. The freedom of opinion and speech, repeatedly called for by the EU, was a decisive criterion for accession.
From 2002 onwards, there were reforms that promoted the formation of a civil society, albeit still weak (the human rights association IHD had been working against great resistance since 1986). Among other things, this questioned official historiography. Even though the state continues to finance institutions that deal with “countering the baseless Armenian allegations,” it consciously or unconsciously provided “obstetrics” when the so-called “Armenian Conference” in September 2005 came about. For example, at the instigation of Turkish nationalists, a court had tried to ban this conference on formal grounds, but the then Minister of Justice Cemil Çiçek — who had previously subordinated the organizers of the conference had claimed that they would “stab Turkey from behind” — the decisive clue that led to the holding of the freest public event in Turkey in 1915 — the term “genocide” was, of course, avoided.[5] To complete the picture, it should be said that in response, nationalist circles held “alternative conferences” at other academic locations, at which they disseminated their well-known theses.
Since then, members of civil society have been able to hold conferences as well as memorial events on 1915, particularly effective in 2010 and 2011 (for detailed coverage, see, in addition to the German and international press, the ADK and the website of the German-Armenian Society[6]) .The Internet campaign by parts of Turkish civil society “I ask for forgiveness” also belongs to the same category. During all these actions, there were counter-demonstrations or actions by Turkish nationalists.
The role of the state is interesting: In the end, it did not expose itself in any way in 2010 with statements for the victims of 1915, but neither prohibited nor prevented them.
In this somewhat more relaxed overall situation, things could be done that were previously bad or unimaginable. For example, Taner Akçam, whose books were punished with ignorance for years, was able to present the books by the US historian of Armenian descent Prof. Vahakn Dadrian in the renowned daily Radikal.
And Belge Verlag was able to publish important books almost without any problems. Some are mentioned here: “Emvâl-i Metruke Olayı — Osmanlı'da ve Cumhuriyette Ermeni ve Türkmallarının Türkleştirilmesi” (“The Ownerless Property — The Turkization of Armenian and Greek Property by the Ottomans and during the Republic Period”) by Nevzat Onaran (2010), (“The Malta Documents - the British Foreign Office's dossier on Turkish war criminals”) by VartKesyeghiayan[7] (2007), “Kara Kefen — Müslümanlaştırılan Ermeni Kadınlarının Dramı” (“Black Shroud — The Drama of Islamized Armenian Women”) by Gülçiçek Günel Tekin (2008). The renowned İletişim Verlag, Peri Yayınları and Bilgi University should also be mentioned, which, in addition to the conference proceedings mentioned above, also printed the volume on the Istanbul court martial trials published by Prof. Dadrian and Taner Akçam.[8] I would also like to highlight the “Ermeni Tabusu Üzerine Diyalog” (“Dialogue on the Armenian Taboo”) published by İletişim in 2009 between Ahmet Island — who regards 1915 as a crime against humanity — and Michel Marian — for him 1915 is a genocide.
It would be premature to conclude from all this that there were normal, civilized conditions in Turkey for historical research from 1915 and the publication of the results. Because Article 301 of the Turkish StGB (“insult to Turkishness”) is still the focus of freedom of opinion and therefore freedom of research and, as a result, impedes publication.
Article 301 has been amended in recent years: “Turkishness” and “Republic” have been replaced by “Turkish Nation” and “State of the Republic of Turkey”; the maximum length of the prison sentence has been reduced and a security clause was recently introduced in 2008, according to which an investigation into the offence of disparaging “Turkishness” can only be carried out once the Minister of Justice has approved this. In the case of Altuğ Taner Akçam v.Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in favour of plaintiff Taner Akçam at the end of October 2011. [9]
The court's press release states that Article 301 is interpreted far too vaguely and too comprehensively by the judiciary. As a result, it is not possible for individuals to behave accordingly or to assess the consequences of their actions. Even though the term “Turkishness” was replaced by “the Turkish nation” in the article, there appears to be no change in the interpretation of these concepts. Article 301 therefore continues to pose a threat to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. As can be seen from the number of investigations and criminal prosecutions, any opinion or idea considered shocking or disturbing could very easily become the subject of a criminal investigation by the public prosecutor. In fact, the security measures intended to prevent misuse of Article 301 by the judiciary proved ineffective because any change in political will or government policy would affect the interpretation of the article by the Minister of Justice and open the way for arbitrary criminal prosecution.
This is compounded by the fact that the drive for reform in Turkey has declined sharply for years and the government set by the AKP, above all its Prime Minister Erdoğan, has been increasingly authoritarian since the overwhelming victory in June 2011.
Freedom of speech, which naturally also rubs off on academic freedom, also appears to be at risk. When journalists behave more and more carefully so as not to endanger themselves, this also rubs off on historians and the relatively favourable framework conditions that existed for a certain period of time are turned back. For example, on 4 April 2011, Dunja Mijatović, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, called on the Turkish authorities to reconcile the country's media legislation with OSCE obligations relating to media freedom. A study by her office shows that 57 journalists are detained in Turkey. “The sheer number of cases poses fundamental questions about the legal regulations on journalism in Turkey and raises concerns that the number of journalists in prison may continue to increase,” says Mijatović. “OSCE participating states, including Turkey, have reaffirmed the importance of freedom of expression and the need to protect it on various occasions. OSCE commitments stress that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right includes the freedom to express an opinion and to receive and share information and ideas without official intervention. Turkey reaffirmed the need to protect these values most recently at the OSCE summit in Astana in 2010,” stated Mijatović.
The power of tradition and 1915
Why political Turkey is having such a hard time with the Armenian genocide is a broad field and cannot be explained here due to lack of space. In summary, the government, including Prime Minister Erdoğan, has repeatedly stated that the term “genocide” is unacceptable to them themselves. Apart from that, the diversity of opinion is a more recent, currently endangered delicate plant. In a country where the rulers' guidelines for published opinion, even among historians, were decisive for a very long time, and are still with a number today, reforms initiated by outside cannot bring about fundamental change quickly.
What remains are certain “experiences” that people have had over very long periods of time and are expressed most concisely through more popular phrases.
Here are two examples:
The renowned middle-generation historian and an avowed opponent of “official history,” Prof. Cemil Koçak, who significantly teaches at the private Sabancı University, answered the question of the renowned journalist Neşe Düzel “Why do we lie so much about historical things? Don't [our] historians know the truth? “as follows: “There are [with us] three types of historians. Some find out very quickly that they [can] quickly make a career if they write about the prevailing ideological paradigms. And the majority is taking this path. Then there's a second kind of historian. They know the truth, but they never talk about it publicly. They know the disadvantages that can be expected if they disregard the official paradigm. And when someone tells the truth, they smile. In private conversations, they say much more than the others. The third type of historian is the smallest group. They call things by name and also write about them. But who is listening to them and who is reading their texts? ”[10]
The second quote comes from Engin Ardıç, a seasoned intellectual who, in his columns, knows how to present complicated issues in a concise way. Here is an excerpt from his column on the above-mentioned ECHR ruling:
“The phrase 'We'll leave it to the historians' has three meanings in the language of bureaucrats:
1. We pretend we're leaving it to the historians. But in fact, we're not doing it.
2. We leave it to the historians, but we seek out those who agree with us.
3. We leave it to the historians, but they deliver the results we want.
In addition, we can add side meanings such as “If they produce results that are not in our interest, then we finish them.” ”[11]
[1] http://www.eraren.org/index.php?Page=Sayfa&No=44
[2] Raffi Kantian: Aspects of the Armenian-Turkish Protocols in Light of the Genocide Discussion in Turkey ‐ An Armenian View, http://lepsiushaus.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/kantian_aspekte‐derarmenisch_tc3bcrkischen‐protokolle‐im‐lichte‐der‐genozidsiskussion‐in‐der‐tc3bcrkei‐tagung‐lepsi.pdf
[3] ADK 90/December 1995, pp. 38‐43.
[4] Grakan Tert, 30.09.2011, p. 5.
[5] Although long delayed, the conference proceedings were published in 2011: “İmparatorluğun Çöküş Döneminde Osmanlı Ermenileri — Bilimsel Sorumluluk ve Demokrasi Sorunları” (“The Ottoman Armenians in the Decline of the Empire — Scientific Responsibility and Questions of Democracy”), İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yaynıi Ları 2011, ISBN 978‐605‐399‐190‐8. The accompanying DVD contains her genesis with clear references to the hinted obstacles, as well as the appearance of Hrant Dink.
[6] www.deutscharmenischegesellschaft.de
[7] RA Vartkes Yeghiayan was one of the advisors in the film “Aghet — A Genocide” by Eric Friedler.
[8] Tehcir Vetaktil Divan‐ı Harb‐i Örfi Zabıtları İttihad ve Terakki'ninyargılanması 19‐1922, Istanbul Bilgi University Yayınları; Istanbul, 2010
[9] http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/
[10] Taraf, 11.11.2009. http://taraf.com.tr/makale/8432.htm
[11] Sabah, 27.10.2011. http://www.sabah.com.tr/Yazarlar/ardic/2011/10/27/oyle-de-bir-biraktirirlar-ki