The manufacturing of denial: the making of the Turkish ‘official thesis’ on the Armenian Genocide between 1974 and 1990

Abstract

This paper analyses the Turkish historiographical encounter with the Armenian genocide in the 1970s and 1980s. It shows how denialism was institutionalized by the 1980s by the post-1980 junta and its academic–political–security complex as a response to the revival of the obscured memories of 1915 after decades of oblivion due to the rise of the Armenian efforts to create an awareness regarding the genocide. Hence, the paper historicizes Turkish denialism. Furthermore, not seeing Turkish denialism as a monolithic discourse, it identifies three modes of Turkish denialism, left wing, right wing and centrist, all entrenched in different ideological sets. The paper also discusses the Turkish national security establishment’s strategies to counter Armenian activism.

Notes

1. R. J. Evans, Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, Basic Books, New York, 2001; D. E. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, Plume, New York, 1993; S. E. Atkins, Holocaust Denial as an International Movement, Praeger, Westport, CT, 2009. For Arab Holocaust denialism, see G. Achcar, The Arabs and the Holocaust, Metropolitan Books, New York, 2010; P. Vidal-Naquet, Assassins of Memory: Essays on the Denial of the Holocaust, Columbia University Press, New York, 1992; N. Fresco, ‘The denial of the dead: on the Faurisson Affair’, Dissent, 28(3), 1981, pp. 467–483.

2. For some studies on the Turkish culture of denialism and denialist discourses, see F. Ülgen, ‘Sabiha Gökçen’s 80 year-old secret: Kemalist nation formation and the Ottoman Armenians’, PhD thesis, University of California, San Diego, 2010; J. M. Dixon, ‘Defending the nation? Maintaining Turkey’s narrative of the Armenian genocide’, South European Society and Politics, 15(3), September 2010, pp. 467–485; F. M. Göçek, Deciphering Genocide: Ottoman Past, Turkish Present, and Collective Violence Against the Armenians, 1789–2009, book manuscript in preparation. I thank Fatma Müge Göçek for kindly supplying her book manuscript.

3. Ömer Turan and Güven Gürkan Öztan’s two early and recent versions of their ongoing study on the Turkish historiography on 1915 appeared just before the final version of this paper was concluded and hence, unfortunately, their very recent contributions could not be incorporated in the paper. See Ö. Turan and G. G. Öztan, ‘Türkiye'de Devlet Aklı ve 1915’, Toplum ve Bilim, 132, April 2015, pp. 78–131; Ö. Turan and G. G. Öztan, ‘1915 ve Devlet Aklı’, in Ü. Kurt and G. Çeğin (eds), Kıyam ve Kıtal, Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, İstanbul, 2015, pp. 195–249.

4. For some of the studies on the specifics of the Armenian genocide by Turkish scholars, see T. Akçam, Young Turks’ Crime against Humanity, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012; T. Akçam, From Empire to Republic: Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide, Zed Books, London, 2004; F. Dündar, ‘L’ingenierie ethnique du Comité Union et Progrés et la turcisation de l’Anatolie (1913–1918)’, PhD thesis, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 2006.

5. Ülgen, op. cit., pp. 367–368. For the trial of the Unionists for massacring Armenians, see T. Akçam and V. N. Dadrian, Judgment at Istanbul, Berghahn Books, New York, 2011.

6. A brief intermezzo to the deep silence back in the Kemalist regime came after the Hollywood giant Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer’s (MGM) decision to film Franz Werfel’s The Forty Days of Musa Dag in 1934–35. The Turkish government successfully prevented its screening. E. Minasian, ‘The forty years of Musa Dagh: the film that was denied’, Journal of Armenian Studies, 3(1–2), 1986–87, pp. 121–131; E. Minasian, Musa Dagh, Brentwood, Cold Tree Press, 2007; Ülgen, op. cit., pp. 455–461.

7. For some studies on the pre-1970s discourse on the Armenian issue and 1915, see Ülgen, op. cit., pp. 309–428.

8. For the pleas of the defendants in the trials, see Akçam and Dadrian, op. cit.

9. See F. Dündar, Kahir Ekseriyet: Ermeni Nüfus Meselesi (1876–1923), Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, İstanbul, 2012, pp. 153–154. For his short biography, also see Türk Parlamento Tarihi, TBMM-II. Dönem 1923–1927, Vol. III, Türk Parlamento Tarihi Araştırma Grubu, Ankara, 1993, pp. 55–56; Ülgen, op. cit., pp. 367–369.

10. See Ülgen, op. cit., p. 368; Ermeni Komitelerinin Amal ve Hareket-i İhtilaliyesi, Matbaa-ı Amire, İstanbul, 1332.

11. E. Uras, Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi, Belge Yayınları, İstanbul, 1987, p. xxiii.

12. Also see A. Erçikan, Tarihte Türk-Ermeni Münasabetleri, n/p, Ankara, 1949.

13. For a summary of the emergence and growth of the political science studies in the USA on Turkey, see S. Sayarı, ‘The study of Turkish domestic politics’, in D. Quataert and S. Sayarı (eds), Turkish Studies in the United States, Indiana University, Bloomington, 2003.

14. It was no coincidence that the 1970s was also the decade in which the new generation of left-leaning scholars in the US academia challenged and shattered the Cold War consensus and the historiography moulded amidst Cold War concerns and biases. This also brought a critical reappraisal of the post-Tanzimat Ottoman historiography by both Turkish and Western historians. The 1970s was also the decade in which the repressed hollow memories were revoked and hegemonic national narratives were demolished in the West. For example, see H. Russo, The Vichy Syndrome, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1984.

15. S. M. Koçaş, Tarih Boyunca Ermeniler ve Türk-Ermeni İlişkileri, Altınok Matbaası, Ankara, 1967, p. 11.

16. Another book based on a dissertation was also published in 1970 which was also stimulated by the awakening of the Armenian national sentiment from 1965 onwards. This is more or less a summary of the works of Esat Uras and Sadi Koçaş besides it provides an overview of the surge of Armenian anti-Turkish nationalism based on the documentation of Turkish newspapers. N. Başgün, Abdülhamid’in Cülusundan Zamanımıza kadar Türk-Ermeni İlişkileri, San Matbaası, Ankara, 1970. The first serious encounter with the issue was Salahi Sonyel’s study in 1972 which was based on the British diplomatic documents Sonyel encountered in London while working on a different subject. S. Sonyel, Yeni Belgelerin Işığı Altında Ermeni Tehcirleri, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, Ankara, 1972.

17. For the emergence and rise of Holocaust-awareness in the 1960s, see P. Novick, The Holocaust in American Life, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 2000.

18. For example, see the English translation of Der Minasian’s memoirs in 1963 into English. R. Der Minasian, Armenian Freedom Fighters, trans. James G. Mandalian, Hairenik Association, Boston, 1963.

19. For Yanıkyan’s murder and a comprehensive documentation of the assassinations of and attacks on Turkish diplomats, see Göçek, op. cit.

20. Bilal Şimşir, Şehit Diplomatlarımız, Ankara, Bilgi Yayınevi, 2000, p. 152.

21. See Göçek, op. cit.

22. See C. Kenar and D. Gürpınar, ‘Cold War in the pulpit: the presidency of religious affairs and sermons during the time of anarchy and communist threat’, in Cangül Örnek and Çağdaş Üngör (eds), Turkey in the Cold War, Palgrave, Basingstoke, 2013, pp. 21–46.

23. E. Copeaux, Espaces et temps de la nation Turque, CNRS Editions, Paris, 1997; Y. Taşkın, Milliyetçi Muhafazakar Entelijansiya, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 2007; B. Güvenç, G. Şaylan, İ. Tekeli and Ş. Turan, Türk-İslam Sentezi, Sarmal Yayınevi, İstanbul, 1994.

24. For the polemics around Abdülhamid II between Kemalists and Islamic conservatives, see D. Gürpınar, ‘Turkish radicalism and its images of the Ottoman ancien regime (1923–1938)’, Middle Eastern Studies, 51(3), May 2015, pp. 395–415.

25. For further information, see H. Hepkon, Jöntürkler ve Komplo Teorileri, Kırmızı Kedi, İstanbul, 2012.

26. For the materialist views of Abdullah Cevdet, see Ş. Hanioğlu, Bir Siyasal Düşünür olarak Doktor Abdullah Cevdet ve Dönemi, Üçdal Neşriyat, İstanbul, 1981. For the materialism of the Young Turks in general, also see Ş. Hanioğlu, The Young Turks in Opposition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, pp. 208–209.

27. For example, see N. Tepedelenlioğlu, Sultan 2. Abdülhamid ve Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Komitacılar, Bedir Yayınları, İstanbul, 1970; N. F. Kısakürek, Ulu Hakan, Ötüken Neşriyat, İstanbul, 1965; M. Müftüoğlu, Her Yönüyle Sultan İkinci Abdülhamid, Çile Yayınları, İstanbul, 1985; K. Mısıroğlu, Bir Mazlum Padişah: Sultan II. Abdülhamid, Sebil Yayınları, İstanbul, 2007.

28. A. Deliorman, Türklere karşı Ermeni Komitecileri, Boğaziçi Yayınları, İstanbul, 1975 (c.1973), p. 5.

29. Ibid., p. 63.

30. Ibid., p. 73.

31. Ibid., pp. 75–86.

32. M. Hocaoğlu, Abdülhamit Han’ın Muhtıraları, Oymak Yayınları, İstanbul, 1975.

33. M. Hocaoğlu, Tarihte Ermeni Mezalimi ve Ermeniler, Anda Dağıtım, İstanbul, 1975, pp. iii–iv.

34. B. Kodaman, Sultan II. Abdülhamid’in Doğu Anadolu Politikası, Orkun Yayınevi, İstanbul, 1983, p. 180.

35. M. K. Öke, The Armenian Question, K. Rustem & Brothers, Nicosia, 1988, p. 1.

36. Dixon, op. cit., p. 471. Also see K. Gürün, Fırtınalı Yıllar: Dışişleri Müsteşarlığı Anıları, Milliyet Yayınları, İstanbul, 1995, pp. 286–294.

37. For a Marxian interpretation of the non-Muslim commercial class by a leading Turkish intellectual and ideologue, see F. Georgeon, Aux origines du nationalism Turc: Yusuf Akçura, 1876–1935, ADPF, Paris, 1980. For Young Turks’ anti-imperialist discourses, see C. Aydın, The Politics of Anti-Westernism in Asia, Columbia University Press, New York, 2007.

38. H. Kaiser, Imperialism, Racism and Development Theories: The Construction of a Dominant Paradigm on Ottoman Armenians, Gomidas Institute, Ann Arbor, MI, 1997, p. 31.

39. Hilmar Kaiser also demonstrated succinctly that this view established the outlines of a disposition that is ostensibly scientific but in reality ideological (and also racial). For him, this racialist vision and its axioms had been influential not only in the Young Turk and later Kemalist mindset, but also in seemingly disinterested Turkish and Anglo-American academia and historiography. For Kaiser, these racial axioms had infiltrated not only the modernization school (Walt Rostow, Charles Issawi, Feroz Ahmad), but much more the world-systems school and dependency theory (Reşat Kasaba, Çağlar Keyder, Stephen Ted Rosenthal) scholars, both Turkish and non-Turkish. For him, this supposedly economic approach provided for the emergence of ‘nationalism in progressive garb’ under the disguise of objective scholarship. Kaiser, op. cit., p. 57. Also see S. Ihrig, Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination, Belknap, Cambridge, MA, 2014, pp. 177–179.

40. Z. Toprak, Türkiye’de ‘Milli İktisat’, Yurt Yayınları, Ankara, 1982.

41. A. Karaömerlioğlu, ‘Helphand-Parvus and his impact on Turkish intellectual life’, Middle Eastern Studies, 40(6), 2004, pp. 151–153; Ü. Kurt, ‘Türk’ün Büyük, Biçare Irkı’: Türk Yurdu’nda Milliyetçiliğin Esasları (1911–1916), İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 2012, pp. 211–236.

42. See his influential book, D. Avcıoğlu, Türkiye’nin Düzeni, Bilgi Yayınevi, Ankara, 1968.

43. Ibid., p. 91.

44. D. Gürpınar, Ulusalcılık: İdeolojik Önderlik ve Takipçileri, Kitap Yayınları, İstanbul, 2011, pp. 242–258.

45. For the Turkish left’s (unfavourable) view of non-Muslims, see E. Macar, ‘1960’lardan 2000’lere “Sol ve Azınlıklar”’, in M. Gültekingil (ed.), Modern Türkiye’de Siyasi Düşünce: Sol, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010, pp. 1237–1245.

46. M. Çayan, ‘Türkiye’nin Tarihi-Sosyal-Ekonomik Özellikleri ve Pratiğimize İlişkin Sorunlar’, in M. Çayan (ed.), Toplu Yazılar, Su Yayınları, İstanbul, 2008, p. 304.

47. For some insightful discussions of the transformations of the phrase imperialism from the late 19th century to its later usage in Marxism and Marxism–Leninism, see D. K. Fieldhouse, Economics and Empire, 1830–1914, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1973; P. J. Cain and M. Harrison, ‘Introduction’, in P. J. Cain and M. Harrison (eds), Imperialism, Vol. I, Routledge, London, 2001, pp. 1–31. For the emergence of the theory that associates imperialism with strict economic interests, see R. Koebner and H. D. Schmidt, Imperialism: The Story and Significance of a Word 1840–1960, University Press, Cambridge, 1964.

48. V. I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1948.

49. K. Kautsky, ‘Ultra-imperialism’, New Left Review, I/59, 1970, pp. 41–46.

50. For a classic criticism of Marxism in this fashion, see L. Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1978.

51. ‘Önsöz’, Orly Saldırısı Davası, 19 şubat-2 mart 1985: Şahit ve Avukat Beyanları, Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara, 1985, p. 5.

52. ‘Ankara Üniversitesi Profesörlerinden Dr. Mümtaz Soysal’ın Tanık Beyanı’, Orly Saldırısı Davası, 1985, p. 12.

53. Ibid., p. 7.

54. Ibid., p. 13.

55. Ibid., p. 27.

56. T. Ataöv, An Armenian Falsification, Sevinç Matbaası, Ankara, 1985, p. 4.

57. T. Ataöv, The ‘Andonian Documents’ Attributed to Talat Pasha are Forgeries, A.Ü.S.B.F. ve Basın-Yayın Yüksekokulu Basımevi, Ankara, 1984.

58. T. Ataöv, Hitler and the Armenian Question, Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara, 1984.

59. T. Ataöv, A ‘Statement’ Wrongly Attributed to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara, 1984.

60. ‘Ankara Üniversitesi’, op. cit., p. 39.

61. T. Ataöv, A Brief Glance at the ‘Armenian Question’, Ankara Chamber of Commerce, Ankara, 1984, p. 37.

62. N. Mazıcı, Belgelerle Uluslararası Rekabette Ermeni Sorununun Kökeni, 1878–1918, Der Kitabevi, İstanbul, 1987; Ş. Orel and S. Yuca, Ermenilerce Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların Gerçek Yüzü, Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, 1983; E. İlter, ‘Ermeni Mes’elesi’nin Perspektifi ve Zeytun İsyanları (1780–1880), Türk Kültürünü Araştırma Enstitüsü, Ankara, 1988; R. Şahin, Tarih Boyunca Türk İdarelerinin Ermeni Politikaları, Ötüken Yayınları, İstanbul, 1988.

63. E. Cengiz, ‘Sunuş’, Ermeni Komitelerinin A’mal ve Harekat-i İhtilaliyyesi, Başbakanlık Basımevi, Ankara, 1983, p. 7.

64. Gürün, op. cit., pp. 352–353.

65. The protagonist of the TV series was a certain Turkish youngster named Ali İhsan Bey who was studying law in Germany when Talat Pasha was assassinated by an Armenian survivor of 1915 named Soghomon Tehlirian in Berlin in 1920. His lawyers demanded the acquittal of Tehlirian on the grounds that he was a victim of horrendous massacres in 1915 and witnessed the killing of his relatives. Because the Unionists could not go to Turkey, they requested this Turkish youngster to gather the necessary evidence to demonstrate the innocence of Unionists and the fallaciousness of the Armenian allegations to present to the German court. Because he was about to join the National Struggle under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal and was furthermore inimical to the Unionists seeing them as responsible for the Ottoman defeat, initially Ali İhsan Bey refused the offer. Nevertheless, he was persuaded to gather necessary evidence in Anatolia. After several ventures and exploits, he managed to submit the conclusive evidence to the German tribunal and rebut all the Armenian allegations. For a critique of the series, see S. Ural, ‘“Duvardaki Kan”, Kemalistler, Ermeni Sorunu’, Saçak, 36, January 1987, pp. 34–37.

66. C. Küçük, Osmanlı Diplomasisinde Ermeni Meselesinin Ortaya Çıkışı, 1878–1897, İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, İstanbul, 1984, p. viii.

67. A. Süslü, Ruslara göre Ermenilerin Türklere Yaptıkları Mezalim, Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, Ankara, 1987, p. 1.

68. B. Şimşir, British Documents on Ottoman Armenians, Vol. 1, Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, 1989, p. xxx.

69. M. K. Öke, Ermeni Sorunu, 1914–1923, Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, 1991, p. 15. For similar observations, also see N. Banoğlu, Ermeni’nin Ermeni’ye Zulmü, Gündüz Matbaacılık, Ankara, 1976, pp. 8–9.

70. For example, see Kodaman, op. cit., pp. 9–11, 161–181; Küçük, op. cit.

71. B. Şimşir, ‘Introduction’, British Documents on Ottoman Armenians, Vol. 1, Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, 1989, p. xiv.

72. İlter, op. cit., p. 13.

73. S. Sonyel, The Ottoman Armenians, K. Rustem & Brothers, London, 1987, p. 33.

74. Ibid., p. 41.

75. Öke, Ermeni Sorunu, 1914–1923, op. cit., pp. 78–80.

76. Kamuran Gürün, Ermeni Dosyası, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1983, p. 113.

77. Sonyel, The Ottoman Armenians, op. cit., pp. 40–41.

78. Also see Öke, Ermeni Sorunu, 1914–1923, op. cit., pp. 78–83.

79. B. Şimşir, Malta Sürgünleri, Bilgi Yayınevi, Ankara, 1985, p. 83.

80. B. Şimşir, The Deportees of Malta and the Armenian Question, Foreign Policy Institute, Ankara, 1984, p. 3.

81. Ibid., p. 48.

82. Ibid., p. 49.

83. B. Şimşir (ed.), British Documents on Ottoman Armenians, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, 1982–83.

84. S. Sonyel, İngiliz Gizli Belgelerine göre Adana’da Vuku Bulan Türk-Ermeni Olayları/The Turco-Armenian ‘Adana Incidents’ in the Light of Secret British Documents, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, 1988.

85. J. McCarthy, Muslims and Minorities, New York University Press, New York, 1983.

86. For conceptualization of ‘extremely violent societies’ as a historical/sociological concept, see C. Gerlach, Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth Century, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2010; C. Gerlach, ‘Extremely violent societies: an alternative to the concept of genocide’, Journal of Genocide Research, 8(4), 2006, pp. 455–471.

87. Copeaux, op. cit., pp. 322–338.

88. Ataöv, A Brief Glance, op. cit., p. 15.

89. Sonyel, Yeni Belgelerin Işığı Altında Ermeni Tehcirleri, op. cit., p. 31.

90. See K. Gürüz, Aklımdan Başka Silahım Yok Ki!, İstanbul, Ka Kitap, 2015, pp. 257, 262.