April 26, 2009
April 25 (yesterday) is a holiday in Australia and New Zealand known as Anzac Day (which stands for Australia-New Zealand Army Corps), which commemorates soldiers who died in the British-led invasion of the western Ottoman Empire in 1915. On April 25 of that year, thousands of troops from (mainly) Britain, Australia, and New Zealand began what would become an eight-month siege of Çanakkale ("Cha-nak-ka-le"), on the Gallipoli (Gelibolu, in Turkish) peninsula between the Sea of Marmara and the Aegean Sea. Gallipoli is the entry point to the Dardanelle Straits which lead, through the Sea of Marmara, to Istanbul—the capital of the Ottoman Empire.
Map of contemporary Turkey. The Sea of Marmara is directly below Istanbul, and is connected to the Aegean (and through the Aegean, the Mediterranean) by the Dardanelle Straits.
The idea behind the invasion was for the allied forces to quickly knock out the Ottoman defenses, then steam up to Istanbul and capture the capital of one of the three (along with Germany and Austria) members of the Central Powers. Because of the vulnerability of the Dardanelles, the region was heavily defended. Approximately 250,000 Ottoman soldiers would die in the nine-month siege, a little more than twice the number of military casualties that the United States would suffer during the entirety of World War I. Altogether, it has been estimated that there were approximately 3,000,000 military and civilian deaths among Ottoman subjects during World War I, astonishingly high numbers for a country with a population of just 20 million at the start of the war. Hundreds of thousands of Ottoman subjects (including Christians, Muslims, and Jews) also died in fighting and massacres which took place in the Balkans and Anatolia during the years immediately preceding and following the First World War. Altogether, about twice as many civilian Ottoman subjects died during these years than soldiers.
In Turkey, April 25 draws to the peninsula large crowds of Australians and New Zealanders, as well as public figures overseeing military tributes from both of these countries and Turkey. This year, the Governor General of New Zealand and the Foreign Minister of Australia participated in ceremonies alongside Turkish officials. For all three countries, Çanakkale serves as a devastating reminder of the staggering loss of military life which occurred during the siege. Here's to also remembering the incredible loss of civilian life which occurred during this particularly cruel era.
Indeed, with this in mind, it is also important to note that this weekend also marks the day, April 24, in which the hundreds of thousands—perhaps more than one million—Ottoman Armenians who died and were killed in 1915 are remembered. Many of these individuals died under brutal and inhumane conditions as they were transported on freezing cold trains from eastern Anatolia to Ottoman territories farther away from the Russian front. Others were killed during the course of fighting—which often took the form of massacres and reprisal massacres—with their Muslim neighbors, who often outnumbered the Armenians and whose actions were, at the very least, condoned by many Ottoman state authorities.
In most Armenian historiography, these events are referred to as a 'genocide,' a term which is sharply contested by most people in Turkey, and especially by the Turkish government.
As Barack Obama is now learning,
anyone who tries to approach this issue from a more nuanced perspective
ends up angering both sides. On April 24, Barack Obama gave a speech in remembrance of the Armenian dead, a practice which has become an annual tradition for American presidents. While many Armenians feel betrayed that Obama stopped short of using the term 'genocide' in his speech, the Turkish government was nevertheless upset that Obama did not refer to 'Turks' who were killed during this time by Armenians.
It's one of the tragedies of the politicization surrounding the genocide issue that neither side can be brought to accept the reality of the other's losses. Indeed, it has often been ignored that many Turkish and Kurdish Muslims in Anatolia were killed in fighting with Armenians which, in some contexts, did take on the character of a 'civil war,' rather than a genocide, an aspect of these events which Armenian nationalist historians would rather forget. By the same token, however, Turkish nationalist historians would likewise prefer to pretend that the events of 1915 constituted only an armed conflict between Muslim and Armenian irregulars, and nothing more.
While April 25 is not a national day of mourning for Turks the way that April 24th is for Armenians, it is nevertheless an important day for Turkey, particularly in Çanakkale. One of the great things about the way in which this day is commemorated in Turkey is the unselfconscious ease with which the Turkish government and citizens of Turkey embrace the concept of reconciliation in honoring, alongside Australians and New Zealanders, the memory of soldiers who fell during the course of an invasion of land that is now Turkey. The successful Ottoman defense of the straits is of course celebrated in Turkey—in no small part due to the fact that one of the commanders of the defense was Mustafa Kemal (later Atatürk). But for the most part Turks, Australians, and New Zealanders are able to simply honor one another's dead without worrying about who is getting the most attention.
It's easier, of course, to be morally generous in this way when the erstwhile foes in question happen to be located on the other side of the world, rather than right next door. Nevertheless, my hope is that one day Turks, Kurds, and Armenians will likewise be able to recognize one another's historical suffering in relation to this era without feeling the need to diminish the losses of others or worry that an acknowledgment of regret or expression of remorse would come back to haunt them later.
Who knows? Stranger things have happened.
|
Jim,
Could you provide some more details about the following:
"Indeed, it has often been ignored that many Turkish and Kurdish Muslims in Anatolia were killed in fighting with Armenians which, in some contexts, did take on the character of a 'civil war,' rather than a genocide"
?
Where in the Ottoman empire and when exactly did conditions on the ground resemble a "civil war" rather than an organized campaign of expulsion and slaughter of Armenians? Are you talking about events in the Caucasus, following the war? Would appreciate any sources you have on this.
Also, is it really fair to say that "Armenian historiography" describes these events as having constituted genocide? I think there are also many non-Armenian scholars who argue the same.
Finally, your description of the deportations of Armenians (most of which did not involve trains) makes them more "understandable" than they ought to be. Many Armenians were expelled from regions far away from the front and unconnected to the fighting. Furthermore, they were often moved TO war zones, close to Ottoman army deployments [See Taner Akçam, A Shameful Act, trans. Paul Bessemer (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006), 10.].
Fascinating blog, by the way, and great name. I'm looking forward to reading more. I especially liked the "Eurasia" posts.
Reply to this
Hi Amos,
Thanks for writing--it's particularly nice to hear that you liked the 'Eurasia' posts.
My 'civil war' comment is not an endorsement of the official Turkish viewpoint, but rather an acknowledgment that both Muslims and Armenians engaged in killings, and were killed. For the official Turkish viewpoint, the works of Simsir, McCarthy, and the voluminous publications of the Ottoman archives are well known. In my opinion, however, these narratives are very one-sided, and it is precisely this one-sidedness which I was trying to get beyond in my posting. Nevertheless, these accounts are not fabricated and need to be taken into any comprehensive account of the events of 1915.
With regard to your second point, I agree that the term 'Armenian historiography' is problematic here. The posting was written mostly with Turks and Armenians in mind (wishing that we could one day see the sort of reconciliation that we see between Turks and the Anzac nations), which is why I used this shorthand. Of course there are non-Armenians who subscribe to the view that is described here as 'Armenian historiography,' just as there are non-Turks, like McCarthy, who are active in defending the "Turkish" side.
With regard to your third point, it certainly wasn't my intention to make the events seem 'understandable.' On the contrary, my goal here was to underscore the "brutal and inhumane conditions" under which people were transported.
Once again, thanks for writing, and for reading. As I said here and have said in other postings, I do think that an important first step for Armenian-Turkish reconciliation on this issue is a recognition of the incredible pain that both Ottoman Muslims and Ottoman Armenians associate with this period. Perhaps some people find such a view to be galling or insensitive to the suffering of one side or the other, and if that is the case I apologize for causing offense. Nevertheless, I don't think we will ever have a satisfying discussion about these events until this can take place.
Reply to this
Thanks for your very comprehensive response.
I agree that the road to reconciliation will require us to overcome these one-sided accounts. On the other hand, I'm not comfortable when people say that "we must look forward and not always look at the past." The two are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes one has to look honestly at the past in order to move forward.
I think it is important to recognize, as you say, that these memories exist among Azeris, Turks, and maybe Kurds. It is wrong to dismiss everything as fabrication, but these memories do have to be deal with critically (though not with condescension). And there has to be an acknowledgment of differences. I know it's bad to rank suffering, but as we know from debates about the Second World War, it will not do to describe the experiences of all peoples as simple, undifferentiated "suffering." In so doing, of course, we have to stay away from attempts to render one group as the "righteous victim" or to assign some kind of superior morality to it. It's also important to emphasize that there is nothing essential about victimhood. I'm sorry if this is a bit vague - it's such a sensitive topic - I hope it makes some sense.
BTW, though unfortunately I never took any classes with Kotkin, I took a lot of courses in the history department as an undergrad and it looks like we may have overlapped there.
Reply to this
Hello again, Amos!
As you mention, there's obviously a fine line to walk here. As I mentioned in an earlier posting, numbers do matter, and I believe the genocide discussion is one worth having. On the other hand, as an individual who generally follows this issue from the sidelines (my research interests do not relate to the genocide issue), I also think these discussions have become quite sterile. In particular, I'd like to see people move beyond the "no we didn't--yes you did" character of the debate, and especially the ubiquitous focus upon the word 'genocide.'
I saw that on your blog you had linked to Yigal Schleifer's interesting and amusing post regarding April 25. But there are a couple of points that Yigal doesn't mention. One is that, for Turkey, the genocide issue isn't simply one of national pride, but also one that's related to fears regarding possible demands for financial or territorial reparations. While it may sound paranoid for to think that a genocide acknowledgment could lead to such consequences, such a possibility is an extremely sensitive issue in a country that was founded in the face of European occupation and the territorial division of Anatolia, events which came on the heels of a century of increasing foreign intervention into Ottoman affairs on behalf of Christian communities. And as I mentioned in another post, both the Arm. declaration of independence and constitution make territorial claims on Turkey.
A second issue is the fact that, while many states have committed genocide under the definition laid out by the United Nations, the only contexts in which genocide tends to be discussed are a) Germany (an unavoidable example), b) Turkey, c) Rwanda, d) Sudan, and e) Cambodia. White Christians (other than 'Nazi' Germans) apparently don't commit genocide, a double-standard which, I think, contributes to the fears surrounding the first point cited above. The horrible things that states have done to their subjects need to be discussed. What seems odd, however, is that the term 'genocide' only seems to gain traction with regard to certain countries.
On the one hand, people in Turkey react strongly against the claims of 'genocide' because they've been told all their lives that such claims are lies. On the other hand, I also think that this defensiveness is a rather unsurprising response to discourses and double-standards which have demonized Muslims (and other non-'westerners')in European and American discourses since the mid-19th century.
None of this changes what happened in 1915. But endeavoring to find out where someone with an opposing view is coming from is not tantamount to waving the white flag of surrender. Maybe, just maybe, if Turks and Armenians can do a little more of this, and a little less shouting about the appropriateness of the word 'genocide,' they would find that they share more common ground on this issue than they think.
Once again, thank you for writing and best wishes,
Jim
Reply to this
Jim,
Those are all very good points. The financial and territorial demands present very serious challenges. I understand your desire to move beyond the old questions and claims. I think it's important that this happens, although I would not blame someone who insists on wanting an acknowledgment that "yes, we did" either.
I disagree with one thing you say above. You talk about the double-standard in who is accused of genocide. I know that this is the prevailing view in Turkey. However, I hear the word "genocide" tossed around with abandon in many discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Granted, Israelis are not "White Christians," but I still think this is a counter-example worth considering. I think the French have also been accused, in various forums, of having committed genocide in Algeria. But maybe you are talking specifically about scholars in the field of genocide studies? There is also some recognition that the German counter-insurgency against the Herrero uprising in SW Africa, in 1904, was an act of genocide - but again, this example still does not entirely refute your charge. Have you read Dirk Moses on some of this stuff?
Anyway, I realize that these debates can be tiresome, and I do not mean to heap up more and more arguments or challenges. I accept your post as a cautionary note and thank you for sharing this with me.
Reply to this
My pleasure--thanks again for reading.
Reply to this