Voelkermord.at – Gesellschaft für die Dokumentation von Völkermorden
Vienna; Austria
Contact: Martin Bitschnau
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:
The origin pfd, with all the foot notes can be found:
April 24, 2010
—–
Voelkermord.at – Gesellschaft für die Dokumentation von Völkermorden
Vienna; Austria
Contact: Martin Bitschnau
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:
The origin pfd, with all the foot notes can be found:
April 24, 2010
Book review of the »Archival Documents of the Viennese Armenian-Turkish
Platform«
Inanc Atilgan, Garabet Moumdjian 2009 published in Wieser-Verlag
From the very beginning, the book gives the impression that Turkish
and Armenian scholars met and discussed the events which took place
during World War I. A closer examination of the book questions the
work and its scientific nature.
Genocide unresolved?
Like many »liberal« spokesmen (politicians, scholars ¦) from
the Turkish group, Atilgan tries to give the impression that the
Armenian Genocide is an unresolved question where scholars are divided
in two approximately equal groups with two contrasting opinions. One
group says that it was genocide; the other group says that during the
war there was a civil war and that there was no intention on the part
of the Ottoman leadership to destroy the Armenians, but only to
relocate them. Wherever deniers appear they try to present their
opinions as those of half of the scientific world. The fact is that
the group of »scholars« who deny this genocide is a minority and
are either nationalist Turks or well paid by Turkey.
The long line of dialogs
To understand the full scale of Atilgan’s and Moumdjian’s book –
»Archival Documents of the Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform« –
the reader needs to know what the book doesn’t provide: a historical
framework as a foundation.
Especially during the last 20 years, different kinds of meetings,
workshops and discussion groups on various levels have taken place
between Armenians and Turks. One of the important gatherings was the
»Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Committee ` TARC«. TARC
brought ex-diplomats, high ranking ex-military officers and
(ex-)leaders of large nongovernmental organisations together. Each of
the TARC members had served the group they represented for several
years and was therefore highly respected and influential in their
respective group. David Phillips, the main organizer and mediator of
the TARC, was convinced that this kind of meeting needs several
initial meetings to clarify (by the group) the topics which both sides
were willing to talk about. One of these meetings was the `Discussion
between Armenian and Turkish Scholars and Civil Society
Representatives’. The `Discussion between Armenian and Turkish
Scholars and Civil Society Representatives’ was finally convened at
the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna on June 10, 2000. Even was joined by
Halil Berktay [Sabanici University Istanbul], an accomplished
historian with the uncanny ability to speak with authority and at
great length on seemingly every subject.’ 1 Rouben Adalian, director
of the »Armenian National Institute ANI«, scientist and author
of several books including the »Encyclopaedia of Genocide«,
»Armenian Genocide Resource Guide« and the » Guide to the
Armenian Genocide in the U.S. Archives (1915-1918)«, was one of the
participants on the Armenian side. 2 Alongside numerous other topics
the group of Armenian and Turks `[…] discussed the Turkish and
Armenian official records, encyclopaedias and textbooks.’3 TARC was
founded on September 15, 2001 and worked until April, 14. 2004. 4
Atilgan’s interpretation of TARC
In the »Archival Documents of the Viennese Armenian-Turkish
Platform« you can read that Atilgan’s opinion of the »Turkish
Armenian Reconciliation Committee ` TARC« in 20015. `The TARC
Process, which was being evaluated, had to be stopped as the
nationalists of both sides were not involved in the reconciliation
process.[…]’ 6.
Perhaps there is a more reasonable explanation why TARC didn’t
continue its work. On September 24, 2001 at a TARC meeting the
`Armenians tried to express the grief of being driven from their
homes, [The Turkish Diplomat Omer ] Lutem retorted, ‘Turkish books do
not show any Armenian presence before the Turks. Anatolia was never an
Armenian homeland. You were just visitors.’ When Alex [Alexander
Arzumanian former foreign minister of Armenia] pointed out that they
were in Anatolia long enough to build four thousand churches.’ [
Mumtaz] Sosay added: `We tried to destroy them all, but there were
just too many.’ Then Lutem threatened, `If Armenians insist on
genocide, Turkey will inflict hurt Armenia. Is that what you want?’ 7
In my opinion a main reason that TARC fell apart was that in September
2002 TARC gave the »International Center for Transitional Justice `
ICTJ« the mandate to study the treatment of the Ottoman Armenians
in WWI to determine whether the events of 1915 fulfilled the UN
Genocide Convention or not. In 2003 the experts form ICTJ presented
their results to the TARC. ICTJ came to the opinion that the mass
murder of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during WWI fulfilled the
conditions of the UN Genocide (Dec. 8, 1948) Convention. This decision
was probably a disaster for the Turks and therefore Gunduz Aktan, Sadi
Erguvenc and Ozdem Sanberk exited TARC.
Background of the `VAT Book’ the »Archival Documents of the
Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform« In the year 2003 when TARC was
about to collapse, the »Viennese Armenian Turkish Platform `
VAT« popped up. VAT presented itself as a platform of historians
(Wolfdieter Bihl, Artem Ohandjanian, Kerstin Tomenendal and
Inanç Atilgan [until 2002/2003 his name was Inanç
Feigl]) who wanted to mediate between Armenian and Turkish historians
in order to discuss the `Turkish-Armenian question in the year 1915 in
the course of the First World War 8 on the basis of strict scientific
methods and rules’9
The VAT procedure
As a start, VAT asked the Armenians and the Turks to deliver until
July 15, 2004 `100 documents as a maximum’10 from each side which
confirm `their understanding of this delicate matter’. 11 After
inspection of the 100 documents each side would have the possibility
to respond to these documents with another 80 documents. 12 The book
»Archival Documents of the Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform«
which represents the outcome of the VAT’s activities doesn’t give any
clue about the system or pattern used to choose the documents, of
which there are many. There is a complete lack of historical,
biographical and political context with regard to the documents and
those who wrote the letters, telegrams and analyses.
Missing skills
From the beginning, the activities of the VAT – for different reasons
` never got off the ground. VAT did not have not the skills, nor the
financial means or the network of second level workers which is needed
for such a large project. For example: It was clear from the beginning
that the `Turkish side’ would base their argumentation on documents `
written in Osmanli ` from the Ottoman Archives. VAT’s
»President« Wolfdieter Bihl was to be destined the only
authority during the Armenian-Turkish talks. But Bihl can’t speak
Turkish and can’t read and write Osmanli. 13 So that Bihl could
perform this task, the Turkish Historical Society TTK provided the
Ottoman documents not only as a facsimile but also in English
translation. 14 (with regard to the quality of TTK translations see
below …)
Why just Austrian documents?
The Armenian Academy of Science transferred 100 (?) documents which
exclusively came from the Austrian Archive. These documents are part
of Ohandjanian’s facsimile collection, which was one of the basic
sources for Atilgan’s doctorate which he wrote under the guidance of
Bihl (see below). Not one single document brought from the `Armenian
side’ came from a different archive than from the Austrian one in
Vienna. Wouldn’t Armenian scholars ` who are living and working
worldwide ` have wished to present documents from different archives
and different nations? Aren’t there any documents in the USA, Great
Britain, France, Germany, Russia or elsewhere concerning the
deportation and killing of a part of the Ottoman population? There is
an overwhelming amount of documents in many nations’ archives which
prove the genocide. Even the Ottoman Archive has enough documents to
prove the genocide according to Taner Akcam, author of the book
»The shameful act«. However, as a scholar you must make a
crosscheck with other documents to verify or falsify your theories.
A lack of legitimation?
Before the first exchange of documents took place, the Turkish
newspapers published this and declared the `Turkish side’ to be the
winner of the exchange and talks between Armenian and Turkish
scholars. Then Ashot Melkonian as the head of the historians of the
Armenian Academy of Science resigned from his participation. In summer
2004, Ohandjanian as a member of the Armenian Academy of Science
exited the VAT to take the place of the historian Melkonian on the
`Armenian side’. When Lavrenti Barseghian (who can’t speak German or
English) refused his invitation for this conference on 27 October
2004, the VAT (Atilgan, Tomenendal and Bihl) was without Armenian
participants.
Revival of the `Armenian side’
Today we know that Atilgan found a new use for the documents. He
continued the activities of the VAT without the Armenians, and did not
reveal the full circumstances of the resignation of the Armenian
members. Years after losing the `Armenian side’ Atilgan met Garabet
Moumdjian, an Armenian-American scholar. Together with Moumdjian, who
has no knowledge of German, he translated the Austrian documents `
written in German ` and published them together with Turkish documents
in this (»Archival Documents of the Viennese Armenian-Turkish
Platform«) book. With Garabet Moumdjian, who gave his name,
Atilgan maintained the impression of an Armenian participation, and
the impression that the book would be the result of honest Turkish `
Armenian dialogue and joint work.
Not consistent
In the book you can find 102 documents from the »Turkish side«,
73 from the »Armenian side« and two documents which were
presented by both sides. Instead of 179, as announced in the opening
credits15, the book contains 177 documents.
Let us go into details:
The VAT book isn’t consistent in the naming of persons, titles and
nations. For example, the `Foreign Ministry of Austria-Hungary’ 16 is
correctly named in many places but on several occasions you can read
the `Austrian Foreign Ministry’ 17. The title of the foreign minister
also changes its form `[¦], foreign minister of the Habsburg
Empire’ 18 to `Austrian foreign minister’ 19.(the nation of Austria
had not been founded at that time)
Documents at the wrong place/time
Document No. 2 of this book on page 66/67 was presented by the
»Armenian side« and was dated by Atilgan as being from 28 June
1914. In fact the original document is dated 28 June 1915. The
original documents starts with: `The Kurdish revolts have increased
their scope. The districts Van, Bitlis, Mus and Dersim are
affected. Now the Ottoman Government is giving this its full
attention. Two Ottoman Bey’s, one from Erzingan and the other from
Komach, west of Erzingan, have been sent to negotiate with the
insurgents. Armenians and Kurds together have started to establish
their own political system with self-administration under Russian
guidance and assistance. [¦]’
Atilgan translates the same document as follows `Rebellions took place
in Van, Bitlis and Mush. Kurds and Armenians are working together to
establish their own states under Russian leadership.’ 20
The way document No. 163 (presented by the »Turkish side«) is
introduced contains two basic mistakes. Firstly the document is dated
Oct 23 ` Nov. 21 1918, which is not chronologically correct.
Secondly, this document is presented as one single document but in
fact includes 5 telegrams dated between Oct. 23 – Nov. 21 1918. Beside
this example of adding telegrams and counting them as one single
document the Turks presented 102 documents instead of `100 documents
as a maximum’21 It appears that the »moving« of the timelines of
documents could serve ` in old Turkish fashion ` the goal of
exchanging reaction and action. The rebellions had ` according to Turk
doctrine ` to take place before the deportations. But what if the
Armenians rose up during the `deportations’: then this would look like
self-defense and this is the picture the Turks want to avoid. Then the
Ottoman Turks `deported’ the Armenians for other reasons rather than
because of rebellious activities, as official Turkey always
claims. The excuse that Armenians and Turks fought and killed each
other is complete nonsense, because the Armenian men were mainly
serving in the Ottoman Army, which subsequently executed them.
Wrong translation
Atilgan and Moumdjian translated 73 documents from the `Armenian side’
` with the exception of document Nr. 70 ` wrongly.
For example, in document 23 the Austrian Ambassador Palavicini writes
about the `[¦] armenische Unruhen [¦]’ which means `[¦]
Armenian unrest [¦]’ Atilgan translates this as `[¦] Armenian
revolts[¦]’.22
In one of the key documents from the Austrian archive dated Sep. 30,
1915 from Karl von Trautmannsdorff to Count Stephan Burian,
Austro-Hungarian Imperial Foreign Minister, we can read, `[¦] It is
undeniable today that the Turks took the undoubtedly frequent cases of
treason and sedition as an excuse to carry out the extermination of
the Armenian race, which seems to have succeeded to a great
extent. Talaat Bay recently told me with some satisfaction that in
Erzurum, for instance, there is barely an Armenian left. [¦]But if
in further developments there is a war between Turkey and Greece I
fear that Turkey, which now lives under the delusion that
extermination of the Armenian race can be done with impunity, would
use this opportunity take action against the Greeks using force and
mass deportations. Given the impracticable nature of such measures,
the Greeks would face the same destiny as the Armenians in the months
before. [¦]’23
Atilgan `contents` the same Documents as following; `According to news
received from intelligence sources and Bank branches today, this
extermination policy against the Armenians might also apply against
Greeks because of Greece’s declaration of war [against the Ottoman
Empire]! The arguments used against the Armenians (economic, etc. )
can be applies to the Greeks too.’ 24
Atilgan’s translation changes the meaning of the document. Why did the
authors condense each document in such a delicate matter? The scholars
want to read the original or at least an unabridged very good
translation of the text and interpret the text themselves.
The Inspection Committee
To give the book greater credibility, Atilgan and Moumdjian introduce
an Inspection Committee on page 5 of the VAT book (Wolfdieter Bihl,
Markus Köhbach, Kemal Cicek, Garabet Moumdjian and Lojze
Wieser). Lojze Wieser is the owner of the »Wieser Verlag«
publishing house and responsible for the printing of the
book. Köbach and Bihl are both professors at the University of
Vienna. Kerstin Tomenendal and Inanç Atilgan ` who are married
to each other ` were their students.
At this point I remember Prof. Bihl’s speech in April 2005 in front of
the Viennese Armenian community on the occasion of the 90th
anniversary of the genocide of Armenians. He spoke about the rebellion
of the Armenians and that the Armenian behaviour was taken by the
Turks as a reason to deport the entire Armenian population from their
homeland. He quoted the two deniers Yusuf Halacoglu and Erich Feigl
[adopted father of Inanç Atilgan] and didn’t talk about the
concentration camps and the mass murder of the Armenians. Under the
line he didn’t want to evaluate all these events as genocide. The
Armenian audience was left by Bihl with the feeling that it was their
people’s own fault that they had been deported and murdered. Bihl
also bears the responsibility for Atilgan’s doctorate in which Atilgan
explains that the deportation was a `legitimized attempt to solve a
problem in an extreme manner.’ 25
Atilgan’s evaluation of the systematic killing of one and a half
million Armenian is based on Halacoglu, who `can’t see any Ottoman
intention behind the mass killing of Armenians.’ Bihl, according to
Atilgan `confirms this position but adds that the Ottoman leadership
should have known that deportations of families during wartime over a
distance of 1000km to the south will cost many lives because of
attacking gangs, no infrastructure and different reasons like hunger
and sicknesses.’ 26 Therefore Atilgan doesn’t call the Armenian mass
killing a genocide. 27
Bihl awarded Atilgan’s doctorate the best mark »very good«.
Scholarly or political
Atilgan does not tire of pointing out that his work in general and
this book in particular is scientifically motivated. By checking the
sources of the 177 documents you find out that all the documents are
known and were published in the 1980s. Practical all these Turkish and
Austrian documents can be found as facsimiles, either with English
translations or in the German original, in books which are available
in the university library in Vienna. What then is the intention of
the VAT book if it is just a simple reprint of already published
documents? Why did the `Turkish side’ travel to Vienna to present
documents which everyone had known for 30 years? The only difference
between the »British Documents on the Ottoman Armenians«28,
»Armenian Activities in the Ottoman Documents (1914-1918)«29,
the facsimile collection of Artem Ohandjanian and the book which has
now been printed is that the Turkish and the Austrian documents have
been brought together in one book.
Conclusion
Atilgan did once write `Audiatur et altera pars’ 30 : let us hear the
other side. The other side ` the Turkish scholars ` had the chance to
present a new interpretation, something interesting, thrilling or even
breathtaking. The chance to prove that Turkish human sciences have
caught up with international standards by working strictly according
to scientific methods and regulations is gone. For nearly 50 euros you
get impressive proof from Atilgan that until today Turkish human
sciences work by turning down the facts and by the false translation
of documents, denial tactics and half-truths which we have been
familiar with since the 1980s from the Turkish Historian Society. It
is disconcerting is that Austrian scholars have given their names for
such a book. For scholars who work according a political doctrine it
can be said that: If the hypothesis is the declared target of the
research then this is not science.
———
1 David L. Phillips; Unsilencing the Past, Tarck two Diplomacy and
Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation; Bergham
Books; New York Oxford; 2005; p. 23
2 David L. Phillips; Unsilencing the Past; p. 24
3 David L. Phillips; Unsilencing the Past; p. 24
4 David L. Phillips; Unsilencing the Past; p. 134
5 At the year of its founding
6 Atilgan Incanc, Moumdjian Garabet; Archival Documents of the Viennese
Armenian-Turkish Platform; Edition
Diwan im Wieser Verlag, 2009; p. 21
7 David L. Phillips; Unsilencing the Past; p. 43
8 Atilgan Incanc, Moumdjian Garabet; Archival Documents; p. 29
9 Atilgan Incanc, Moumdjian Garabet; Archival Documents; p. 29
10 Atilgan Incanc, Moumdjian Garabet; Archival Documents; p. 37
11 Atilgan Incanc, Moumdjian Garabet; Archival Documents; couver
12 Atilgan Incanc, Moumdjian Garabet; Archival Documents; p. 37
13 Atilgan Incanc, Moumdjian Garabet; Archival Documents; p. 44
14 Atilgan Incanc, Moumdjian Garabet; Archival Documents; p. 48
15 Atilgan Incanc, Moumdjian Garabet; Archival Documents; p. 23
16 Atilgan Incanc, Moumdjian Garabet; Archival Documents; p. 222
17 Atilgan Incanc, Moumdjian Garabet; Archival Documents; p. 184
18 Atilgan Incanc, Moumdjian Garabet; Archival Documents; p. 194
19 Atilgan Incanc, Moumdjian Garabet; Archival Documents; p. 782
20 Atilgan Incanc, Moumdjian Garabet; Archival Documents; p. 66
21 Atilgan Incanc, Moumdjian Garabet; Archival Documents; p. 37
22 Atilgan Incanc, Moumdjian Garabet; Archival Documents; p. 166f
23 Ohandjanian Artem; Armenien Der verschwiegene Völkermord, Böhlau,
Wien p. 105f and also Atilgan
Incanc, Moumdjian Garabet; Archival Documents; p. 581
24 Atilgan Incanc, Moumdjian Garabet; Archival Documents; p. 580
25 Atilgan Incanc doctorate, das Kriegsjahr 1915, page 197
26 Atilgan Incanc doctorate, das Kriegsjahr 1915, page 199
27 Atilgan Incanc doctorate, das Kriegsjahr 1915, page 199
28 To find at the library of the University of Vienna under:
»British Documents on the Ottoman Armenian Vol I«signature AC01691525
»British Documents on the Ottoman Armenian Vol II«signature AC01691538
»British Documents on the Ottoman Armenian Vol IIII«signature AC00252687
»British Documents on the Ottoman Armenian Vol IV«signature AC03172571
29 To be found in the library of the University of Vienna signature
AC06611553
30 Atilgan Incanc in a letter to the human rights organization `society
for threatened people’ 2006