Armenian, Assyrian and Hellenic Genocide News

Armenians were killed by a Special Organization
by Groong - Radikal (Turkish) - Oct 09 & 20, 2000
Posted: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 08:31 pm CST

An interview with Turkish historian Halil Berktay regarding the Armenian Genocide;

The Armenian incidents were, for the first time, discussed by Turkish and Armenian historians together at a symposium in Chicago last March. Professor Halil Berktay participated in this event. Professor Berktay, a specialist in Turkish history of the 19th and 20th centuries, has taught at Harvard University, the Middle East Technical University in Ankara, and Bogazici (Bosporus) University in Istanbul. He is currently on the faculy of Sabanci University in Istanbul. After receiving bachelor's and master's degrees in economics at Yale University, he completed his doctorate in history at the University of Birmingham. He has published three books in Turkish.

Nese DUZEL

The `Armenian Genocide' issue has once again become topical. In Turkey, this topic is taboo. We can't even discuss it among ourselves. No one knows the actual facts, and we don't even know very well whence these claims arise. With your permission, let's review the events of that time as objectively as we can. How and in what year did the events that form the basis of the genocide claim begin?

In fact, there is an entire 19th century that forms the background to the Armenian events. The violence reached its peak in 1915, but there were incidents underway from 1890 onwards. In other words, things started long before the night of 24/25 April 1915, which Armenians mark as a symbolic day of mourning. What occurred on 24/25 April was the arrest of the leading members of Armenian organizations in Istanbul. And it's interesting that 24 April was also the day on which the British, French, and ANZAC forces began out their landing at Gallipoli.

What sort of a connection do you see between these two developments?

The Allied landing at Gallipoli during the First World War created the fear among the Ottomans, who had suffered continuous losses throughout the 19th century and were now left with little but Anatolia, that `Now we're even going to lose Istanbul, and we won't even be able to hang on to Anatolia'. For this reason, there's an integral connection between the Ottoman psychosis of having its back to the wall, being desperate and harrassed, and the policy that the military dictatorship of the Committee of Union and Progress (Ittihat ve Terakki) would launch against the Armenians on the eastern front. The 24/25 April date was when this desperation was crystallized.

Well, why did the Armenian organizations support not their own country but rather the forces of the enemy during the First World War?

Whatever the problem had been with the Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians, Macedonians, and Arabs, all of whom had also been Ottoman subjects, the problem with the Armenians was the same. The Ottoman Empire suffered a complex process of dissolution during the 19th century. Trade, the money economy, and capitalism first developed among the non-Turkish and non-Muslim population groups within the Empire. In this way, these groups became more open to nationalist movements, and initiated efforts to establish their own national states. As for the Armenians, they experienced this process somewhat later. This is important, since the sufferings experienced during the uprisings in the Balkans had created a great deal of accumulated rancor within the Turkish Muslim population. The fate of the Armenians cannot be understood without taking into account this buildup of rancor.

Did the Armenian gangs kill a great many Muslims during those events?

Yes, they did. This was such a process that it's imposible to say just who cast the first stone, and who was guilty first. Everyone has his own story to tell. The Turks have their accounts, and the Bulgarians, Greeks, and Armenians have theirs. In each of these accounts, those who tell them are the victims; they themselves committed no crimes, and were always on the receiving end. For instance, some today say that `Why is it that the massacres of the Armenians of 1915 are remembered, but the massacres of the Turkish Muslims on Crete of the 1900's are not remembered?'

Well, what do you say to this?

I'm from a family that migrated from Crete. I know that two of my great uncles were hanged on a tree in front of their house by Greek insurgents. But prior to these incidents on Crete there were the things that the Ottomans did on Crete during every uprising throughout the 19th century. The Ottoman slaughter of about 900 people, including women and children, at the Arkadi Monastery in 1866, for instance: wasn't that a massacre? This was a period in which the Ottomans tried to put down the nationalist uprisings in the Balkans, and carried out massacres, and the others carried out massacres against the Turkish Muslim population, who then fled in droves to Istanbul and Anatolia. If we turn to the Armenians again…

Yes, what do we see?

Before 1915, there were the 1880's and 1890's. In the 1890's, during the reign of Abdulhamit II, there were great massacres of Armenians whenever indications of nationalist uprisings were perceived. There was a type of blood feud that developed between the Armenians and the Ottoman administration. In particular, Kurdish tribes and the Hamidiye Regiments (Hamidiye Alaylari), which were composed of Kurds, were unleashed against the Armenians. In fact, throughout this `century of dissolution', rather than regular military forces, it was such irregular, undisciplined forces that the Ottoman administration used, relying on their prmitiveness and violence. Meanwhile, with Czarist Russia moving into the Caucasus, there was a great wave of immigration not only from the Balkans but also from the Caucasus region. These people, bearing a great deal of rancor from the sufferings that they themselves had just experienced, moved into Eastern Anatolia. And in addition, it's necessary to understand something not just about the Ittihat ve Terakki, but also about the three-man military dictatorship of Enver, Cemal, and Talat that headed it. These were not traditional Ottoman notables. They were a new type of elite.

How were they different?

They were extremely ambitious and predatory. They were positivists, without roots, and had risen only as a result of their education and thanks to the army. They lived a life of violence. This violence was of a sort that had been imposed on them by the great powers and the revolts in the Balkans, and as a result they became extreme nationalists. They were fighting desperately for the survival of the Empire. In fact, this period of the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century was a time of rapacious, social-Darwinist nationalisms in Europe, in which it was `kill or be killed'. It was a time in which massacres, large and small, were carried out, and in which the Turkish Muslim population was also very much a victim. The Ittihat ve Terakki triumvirate of Enver, Cemal, and Talat was an extraordinary administration that had been born in these conditions of war and struggle.

The Ottoman state, led by these Unionists, ordered the deportation of the Armenians from their region to other areas, after the Armenian revolts and the assistance that Armenian bands gave to the Russians. Do we know how many Armenians were deported in this way?

At that time there were 1 million and 750 thousand Armenians living in Eastern Anatolia. The deportation order issued by the ruling military triumvirate was drawn up so as to include all the Armenians in the region, without exception. These things are documented in writing. There was no mention of massacres or slaughter. The provincial governors and garrison commanders were directed to deport the Armenians to the region south of Turkey's current borders. However, it's clear that, in addition to these official orders, separate, non-written orders were given to the most rapacious members of the `Teskilat-i Mahsusa' (`Special Organization'), who worshipped violence and were not bound by adherence to any normal moral code.

For the Armenians to be killed?

Yes. Historian Taner Akcam has demonstrated this in a very sound way. There was on the one hand a legal decision and implementation, and on the other another mechanism entirely that proceeded in an illegal manner.

How many Armenians died during the deportations?

At least 600 thousand.

How did they die? Who killed them?

Those who issued these orders had them carried out via a special organization, the Teskilat-i Mahsusa.. Think of it as a combination of the forces involved in the recent Susurluk scandal and the Turkish Hizballah organization. It is clear that Bahaettin Sakir, who operated as the Teskilat-i Mahsusa's man for Enver, Cemal, and Talat, set up death squads in the region. Some of these people were convicted criminals who were saved >from the gallows and released from prison just to carry out such activities.. Do you know what types of people carried out these crimes? It was the equivalent of today's `Yesil', Abdullah Catli, and the Turkish Hizballah organization. The whole affair is that simple and clear. Bahaittin was just like today's `Yesil' or Catli. In addition to them, Turkish and Kurdish tribes also attacked the convoys of Armenians being deported. In addition to these actual massacres, there were the terrible losses caused by the deportations carred out in appalling conditions of deprivation. Everywhere in the Western world, there are photographs of these incidents which we can't bear to look at. The first time I encountered these visual records, I cried and could hardly breathe for several minutes. They are no different from the images of the concentration camps, or the massacres in Africa. For there are huge numbers of people in these pictures.

Well, didn't the Ottoman state try and punish those officials found guilty of the deaths of Armenians?

Of course. These massacres were not the work of the regular Ottoman army and bureaucracy. Historically, in such situations, the regular army and bureaucracy hate and despise those `special teams' and gangs that carry out such deeds. We can see that the Ottoman army and bureaucracy understood just how terrible a thing this was , that they were repelled at the `special teams' set up independently of the governors and garrison commanders, and that there were even governors and commanders who issued an arrest order for Enver and Talat's man Bahaettin Sakir in 1915-16 and tried to capture him.

Did the Ottoman leaders make any statements to defend themselves?

The Ottoman regular army and state bureaucracy, both as a result of the repugnance it felt toward these events and in order to clear themselves before the rest of the world, tried as best it could to capture, try, and punish those responsible for this disaster. And there were definitely those who were punished. After the end of the war in 1918 and the Ottoman defeat and subsequent flight of Enver, Cemal, and Talat, who were the primary ones responsible, the parliament (Meclis-i Mebusan) established an investigatory commission just for this purpose. There was later a military trial in Istanbul. This was a famous trial. Books on it have been published in English and Turkish.

What were the losses of the Muslim population in that area during this same period?

They may be 10,000 or 20,000. But it's not a question of `They only killed a few, and the Ottomans killed a lot'. The issue is as follows: The activities of the Armenian guerrilla bands were generally localized, small-scale, and isolated. But for hundreds of thousands to die, there would have to be a population of this size, which couldn't be attained merely by wandering around the villages and hamlets. In addition, it's deceptive to turn the matter into a question as to whether or not Enver and Talat Pasha gave a written order to the `Yesil' or Catli of the day. They never did so, and no such document will ever be found. In this regard, the witnesses of the day are extremely important. There is a huge body of eyewitness accounts and visual material concerning the Armenian incidents that never reaches the Turkish public. Turkish public opinion is essentially ignorant of what the people of Germany, England, France, and America see and read.

Why did the Republic of Turkey, which destroyed the Ottoman Empire, not bring all this to light, but rather continue to conceal it just like the Ottomans?

This is a very serious question. This constitutes a crucial error on the part of the Turkish Republic. Turkey is undecided on the question of its political and legal relationship to the Ottomans. The republic has not fully understood and digested the fact that it did away with the old Ottoman system and established a modern republic in its place. There is a serious contradiction here. The republic is not responsible for these events. In my view, the selection of Mustafa Kemal to organize the resistance in Anatolia is also a very important factor.

Why is that?

It is very important that Mustafa Kemal was not implicated in the Armenian incidents. When these incidents were happening Mustafa Kemal was not in Eastern Anatolia. He was fighting at the battle of Anafartalar. In the years 1918-19, when Unionist circles were debating who would lead the resistance, who would be leader, a decision was taken in favor of Mustafa Kemal. Mustafa Kemal was a war hero, and had never been tarnished by inovlvement in the Armenian incidents.

Following the First World War, they killed the Unionist leaders Talat and Cemal Pasha. At that time things were still very fresh, and so in spite of everything such actions were somewhat understandable. But then years later Armenians killed Turkish ambassadors. There is no logical explanation for this. Why, in your view, did the Armenians initiate these savage incidents? Did someone incite them, or did certain Armenians have a savage thirst for revenge?

The ASALA attacks in the 1980's are a mystery to me. But there were these attacks, which some 65 years later poisoned the atmoshpere and made the matter impossible to resolve. They caused people to lose their objectivity on the Armenian issue and caused the topic to become taboo. Any state in the world, faced with such vicious attacks, would adopt a totally hard-line approach. And that's what Turkey did. And these attacks, paradoxically, created a defensiveness that greatly increased the feelings of identification with the old Ottoman regime and its history.

Why has the Armenian genocide once more come onto the world's agenda now? Is it a desire to come to terms with it in a moral sense, or is it a preparatory phase for demands for land and compensation?

It's difficult to say. But these efforts are forcing the Turkish state and Turkish society to become ever more defensive on this topic, and to withdraw inwards and take a harder line. The political polarization on this issue is so strong that it is extremely difficult to find the courage to speak on it. Because there is a great political polarization. One pole is the policy of `confirming and acknowledging the genocide', while the other is the policy of `genocide denial'. This polarization, which gives rise to an intellectual terrorization, makes it impossible to talk on any common ground. I think it would be wrong for Turkey to apologize. The U.S. Congress is behaving like some sort of morals police which carries out virginity tests. The Congress is being asked to say `Yes, this was a case of genocide' on something that happened 85 years ago in an entirely different part of the world. It's unbelievable naivety for any parliamentary body to see itself as having the right to decide such things on historical matters which are properly the concern of scholarship. In fact, the Turkish Republic should also stop talking about the Armenian issue.

How is that?

Turkey has been taking a number of different positions at the same time on this issue. It says `it never happened', and then suggests that `it happened, but there were serious provocations'. When the President recently said that `The topic should be left to historians', he was right. The Turkish Republic can say one very simple thing today: The Republic was established in 1923. This incident occurred in 1915. The army and state organizations of the Republic did not commit these acts. The Republic of Turkey is a new state, and not in any legal sense the continuation of the Ottomans or the Union and Progress administration. What occurred or did not occur in 1915, during the tumult of the First World War, does not concern us as a state or a government. We did not carry out these incidents, and we are not responsible. But discussion on this topic is free. Anyone can discuss it as they wish. We have no official position on the topic.

Related Information...

Armenian, Assyrian and Hellenic Genocide News Archives