soykırımların son aşaması inkardır. (bkz: #25127437
alanında dünyanın en önde gelen profesörlerinden biri olan roger smith, 1991 yılında yayınlanan "denial of the armenian genocide" adlı çalışmasında spesifik olarak ermeni soykırımının inkarının niteliğini incelemiş ve bu çalışmanın sonuna, açıklamalı bir bibliyografi eklemiştir. ermeni soykırımını inkar eden türkiye merkezli/destekli kimi çalışmaların da yer aldığı biyografi incelemeye değer.
--- alıntı ---
andonian, aram (ed.). 1920. documents officiels concernant les massacres armeniens. paris: h. turabian. 168 pp. (published in english in a highly compressed translation as: the memoirs of naim bey. london: hodder & stoughton. 83 pp.)
- this set of documents, most of them decoded telegrams from istanbul, provide, if authentic, compelling evidence that the armenian genocide was premeditated and directed by the highest elements of the young turk government. those who would deny the genocide have attacked the documents as forgeries. see, for example, orel 1985-86. dadrian (1986) has made a persuasive case for their authenticity. the question of premeditation and intention does not, however, stand or fall with the authenticity of these documents; other evidence exists, notably the pattern of destruction that was repeated over and over in different parts ofturkey, something that could only have come from a central administrative plan.
armenian assembly of america. 1988. armenian genocide resource guide. washington, d.c.: armenian assembly of america. 56 pp.
- resource guide to the best material available on the armenian genocide for use in the secondary school. includes curriculum guidelines, books, historical surveys, films, and posters designed for instructional purposes. the turkish government has strongly objected to introduction of material about the genocide into school curricula.
the armenian reporter. new york. june 29, 1978. transcript of the armenian reporter interview with mr. bulent ecevit, prime minister of turkey.
the armenian reporter. new york. july 6, 1978. transcript of the armenian reporter interview with professor gündüz ökçün, foreign minister of turkey.
- illustrations of how those at the top of the political hierarchy in turkey deny, justify, and excuse the genocidal actions of the young turk government in 1915.
armenian review. 1984. "the genocide of the armenian people." special issue of the armenian review 37(1). 2o2 pp.
- this special issue focuses on two aspects of the armenian genocide: historiography and documentation. it contains essays on the contributions social theory can make to the understanding of genocide once claims to the exclusivity of mass death are relinquished, treatment of the armenian genocide within ottoman and turkish historiography, and documentation of the genocide found in u.s. archives. the texts of thirty documents from u.s. archives are reproduced, many declassified only recently.
armenian review. 1987. "beyond scholarship: genocide and its discontents." special issue of the armenian review 40(1). 77 pp.
- this special issue is a "collective attempt to understand how and why the treatment of the armenian genocide has changed within and without scholarly works." it contains a series of essays on the moral implications of historical knowledge, the changing coverage of armenian terrorism by the media, and the nature and frequency of statements about the genocide before the u.s. congress. it also contains a remark- able essay, "memory of my memory," by gerard chaliand on the continuity between his family's past and his present.
assembly of turkish american associations. 1985. attention members of the u.s. house of representatives. the washington post, may 19, 1985; the new york times, may 19, 1985.
- this advertisement, which was paid for by the assembly of turkish american associations, was part of an intense lobbying effort to defeat passage of house joint resolution 192 which would have created a "national day of remembrance of man's inhumanity to man," with specific reference to "the one and one half million people of armenian ancestry who were victims of genocide perpetrated in turkey between 19l5 and 1921." it was signed by sixty-nine scholars, most of whom had received grants from the institute of turkish studies in washington, dc or the american research institute in turkey. they objected to the use of the term "turkey," stating that the republic of turkey bears no responsibility for what occurred in ottoman society; denied that genocide had been committed by the young turks; suggested that it was too early to sort out "responsibility between warring and innocent;" and called on congress not to attempt to "determine by legislation which side of a historical question is correct." the statement urged congress to defeat the resolution and vote instead to encourage "full and open access" to relevant historical archives in the soviet union, syria, bulgaria, and turkey. the process by which the signatures were collected is not clear, but the impact of the statement has been considerable. lending credence to efforts at denial in congress and the department of state.
assembly of turkish american associations. 1986. armenian allegations: myth and reality: a handbook of facts and documents. washington, dc: assembly of turkish american associations. 139 pp.
- the audience for this work is the u.s. congress; its purpose, to defeat any congressional resolution to recognize and commemorate the armenian genocide. it contains statements from the secretary of state and various members of congress opposing any genocide resolution, however worded, with the arguments consisting primarily of expressions over strategic interests and suppression of terrorism. other excerpts, statements, and articles come from figures like justin mccarthy and heath lowry, who have close connections with the turkish government. the volume is indispensable for grasping the content and flavor of the argument and tactic! of denial. it reveals, too, some of the ways in which powerful governments, such as that of the united states, aid and abet denial, putting power and short-term interest over both truth and national interest more realistically conceived.
ataöv, türkkaya. 1984. a brief glance at the "armenian question." ankara: ankara chamber of commerce. 48 pp.
- this short, popular account by a professor of international relations argues that armenians distort ottoman history, conceal facts from the public, and fabricate evidence in order to gain support for armenian statehood. it makes the usual claims; armenians were traitors and revolutionaries, the size of the armenian population in turkey in l915 has been exaggerated, and relatively few armenians lost their lives during l915-17, with none due to genocide. the book abounds in euphemism: deportation becomes "the transfer of population;" deaths due to forced marches into the desert are said to have resulted from "severe climatic conditions."
bardakjian, kevork b. 1985. hitler and the armenian genocide. cambridge, massachusetts: zoryan institute. 81 pp.
- in august, 1939, hitler justified his plan to eradicate polish society by asking, "who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the armenians?" the authenticity of this quotation has been challenged in recent years as part of the effort to deny that what took place in turkey was genocide, and to prevent recognition of similarities between it and the holocaust. bardakjian provides a thorough examination of the sources for the hitler quotation, documents the circumstances of its publication in 1942, explains why the document containing the rhetorical question was not used as evidence at nuremberg, and presents two other versions of hitler's speech, demonstrating their consistency despite variations in language and details. the larger issue, however, is not whether hitler referred to the armenians in this speech, but rather what lessons he drew from the genocide of the armenians, and how these affected his actions in poland and the decision to exterminate the jews and gypsies. the author indicates that hitler was quite familiar with the armenian genocide, that he saw the armenians as a *degenerate race," like the jews, whose elimination was desirable, and that he knew turkey had perpetrated genocide with impunity. moreover, in an interview in 1931, hitler invoked the armenian genocide in the con- text of deportation, resettlement, and massacre as means to larger territory and greater resources for germany and the superior race. finally, in 1943, talaat's body was returned to turkey from berlin, apparently in an attempt to bring turkey into the war by reviving the dream of a pan-turanic state, and with tacit approval of the young turks' attempt to eliminate the armenians during the previous world war.
boyajian, levon; haigaz crigorian. 1986. "psychological sequela of the armenian genocide." in hovannisian 1986a, pp. 177-185.
- genocide does not end with the last atrocity: aside from its physical and political consequences, its psychological and moral effects may continue for generations. where denial persists, these effects may be heightened, intensifying a desire for revenge. the authors, both psychiatrists, note that survivors often suffer from a sense of guilt, anxiety, depression, and an obsession with the past. the denial of the genocide has had a major impact in other ways on armenian identity: "how do you explain who you are to others as well as to yourself when no one acknowledges the reality and validity of your past?" they suggest that denial of the genocide has led to resentment and a desire for revenge on the part of many young armenians, turning into terrorism in some cases. unless there is recognition of the genocide by the world, rage, excessive pain, and distortion of individual identity will likely go on for generations.
chaliand, gerard; yves ternon. 1983. the armenians: from genocide to resistance. london: zed books. 125 pp.
- the "introduction" contains a brief survey of various aspects of denial, including the french response, and the role terrorism has played in bringing the "unremembered genocide" to the attention of the public.
charny, israel w. (ed.). 1984. towards the understanding and prevention of genocide. boulder and london: westview press. 396 pp.
charny, israel w.; shamai davidson (ed.). 1983. the book of the international conference on the holocaust and genocide: book 1, the conference program and crisis. tel aviv: institute of the international conference on the holocaust and genocide. 348 pp.
- the turkish government attempted to prevent discussion of the armenian genocide at an international conference held in tel aviv in 1982; vague threats against the lives of jews living in turkey were made, with demands that the israeli government not allow the conference to take place. similar threats have been made to the u.s. holocaust memorial council over the inclusion of the armenian genocide within the interpretive framework of the holocaust museum in washington, dc. the 1984 volume provides a transcript (pp. 364-3?2) of the spontaneous responses to a briefing on the crisis. the 1983 program book contains a section by israel charny on "the conference crisis: the turks, armenians and the jews." in this discussion (pp. 269-315), charny provides a detailed account of the efforts of the turkish government to disrupt the conference, the responses by the israeli government in that direction, and the decisions of the conference organizers and the majority of those attending the conference to go forward with it as a matter of conscience. the serious implications of governmental attempts to interfere with the pursuit of truth are also discussed as are the moral dilemmas posed for individual scholars where truth is held hostage to the possible loss of life.
corsun, andrew. 1982. "armenian terrorism: a profile." department of state bulletin 82(2065): 31-35.
- the state department added a note to this straightforward account of armenian terrorism and its background that signified official sanction for denial: "because the historical record of the l9l5 events in asia minor is ambiguous, the department of state does not endorse allegations that the turkish government committed a genocide against the armenian people. armenian terrorists use this allegation to justify in part their continuing attacks on turkish diplomats and installations."
dadrian, vahakn. 1986. "the naim-andonian documents on the world war i destruction of the ottoman-armenians: the anatomy of genocide." international journal middle east studies 18(3): 311-360.
- in the most thorough study to date of the naim-andonian documents, the author, who pioneered the sociological study of the armenian genocide, makes a persuasive case that the documents are authentic. in addition to the technical, critical tests he uses to examine the authenticity of the documents, he finds their content to be corroborated by the transcripts of the courts-martial that appeared in the official gazette of the ottoman government following world war i. he concludes that the genocide was premeditated, intentional, and organized and supervised by the young turk government. see the annotation of andonian (1920) and orel (1985-86).
des pres, terrence. 1986a. "on governing narratives: the turkish-armenian case." yale review 75(4): 517-531.
- des pres quotes the czech writer in exile, milan kundera: "the struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting." but he argues that today what passes for knowledge has increasingly become a matter of what serves the state; that the goal of knowledge is no longer liberation, but control; that "truth," in the new governing "narrative of power," is what officials say it is. he illustrates the narrative of power with examples from the denial by turkey of the armenian genocide and its support in this by the u.s. government. he sees bitburg as another example of the interests of power prevailing over historical truth.
des pres, terrence. 1986b. "introduction: remembering armenia." in hovannisian 1986a, pp. 9-17.
- in his introduction to the armenian genocide in perspective, des pres calls attention to the role of truth in healing the rage that sometimes explodes into terrorism. "what is now wanted is victory over denial and, in consequence, an end to obsession." he warns also of the dangers posed to scholarship by sheer power "in the orwellian world of modern governments" where the "past is rewritten or excised as shifting policy dictates."
elekdağ, şükrü. 1983-85. letters to the editor. the washington post, april 26, 1983; the new york times, may 11, 1983; the wall street journal, september 21, 1983; and the new york times, may 23, 1985.
- representative samples of the many letters the turkish ambassador to the united states has written to the media over a period of years denying that the armenian genocide took place. of particular interest is his attempt to deny the armenian genocide by acknowledging the jewish holocaust.
foreign policy institute. 1982. "the armenian issue in nine questions and answers." ankara: foreign policy institute. 39 pp.
- the purpose of this brief work, presented as a series of questions and answers, is to defend the image of turks and to destroy that of armenians. turks are presented as tolerant, patient, caring even in the midst of hostilities; armenians are depicted as vicious, rebellious, and disloyal. armenians committed many acts of genocide during the 1915-17 period, turks none, so it claims. this work is deeply expressive of the turkish denial of the genocide and, at the same time, the justification of it. it makes clear that turkey has no intention of recognizing the genocide, will accept no responsibility for it, pay no reparations, offer no apology. it goes further by denying that the armenians ever had a homeland in anatolia: hence, it says, there can be no sense to the demand for the return of armenian territory. in any number of ways - dehumanization, blaming the victim, denial of a right to a homeland - this pamphlet continues the genocide.
gunter, michael m. 1986. "pursuing the just cause of their people:" a study of contemporary armenian terrorism. westport, connecticut: greenwood press. 182 pp.
- an example of denial through the claim that there are two sides to every question, including the reality of the armenian genocide. he states that neither side has been objective, both have exaggerated, and both have wrongly claimed complete innocence, but, to date, the armenian case is what has largely been heard in the west. he asserts that the view that turkey committed genocide in l9l5 and is attempting a cover-up in the 1980s is contrary to the facts, and it is this one-sided version of history that has led to armenian terrorism. gunter acknowledges that the deportations involved widespread massacres, starvation, and disease and that the result was the indefensible loss of "several hundreds of thousands" of armenian lives. but he claims that there was no premeditated genocide, that the deportations and the loss of life were due to fear (the armenians were "provocative" and less than innocent victims), loss of control in a country torn by war and an empire in disintegration, a poorly trained gendarmerie, and attacks by kurds and criminals. his formula for reconciliation between turk and armenian goes like this: turkey would formally express "regret" for the sufferings of armenians during l915-17, and armenians, in turn, would express "regret" for the sufferings of turks during the same period gunter would, thus, substitute compassion for responsibility and regret for justice.
guroian, vigen. 1986. "collective responsibility and official excuse making; the case of the turkish genocide of the armenians." in hovannisian 1986a, 135-152.
- a philosophical analysis of turkish denial, justification, and excuse of genocidal acts. the essay also raises the question of the collective responsibility of a people for acts carried out by a previous regime. guroian argues that the "capacity of a nation to transcend its past depends upon its willingness to remember it conscientiously, report it truthfully, and criticize it publicly."
guroian, vigen 1988. "post-holocaust political morality: the litmus of bitburg and the armenian genocide resolution." holocaust and genocide studies 3(3): 305-322.
- truth as the victim of political expediency is the theme of this essay, illustrated by the reagan administration's stance with regard to bitburg and its opposition to a resolution that would have commemorated the seventieth anniversary of the armenian genocide. it further calls attention to the ways in which intellectuals ally themselves with power at the expense of truth.
gürün, kamuran. 1985. the armenian file: the myth of innocence exposed. london: weidenfeld & nicolson; nicosia: k. rustem & brother. 323 pp. also in turkish and french.
- this book by a former member of the turkish foreign service is the most sophisticated of the works of denial and justification, giving every appearance of scholarship, while proceeding by omission and distortion. it makes all the standard turkish arguments: the armenians had never possessed a homeland in anatolia, armenians were revolutionaries and traitors, few armenians were killed or even died during 1915-17, turkey did not commit genocide, armenians instigated a civil war that threatened the very existence of turkey, the deportations were justifiable in terms of military necessity, turkey did nor kill the armenians, but merely "relocated them," and accounts of massacres and atrocities by turks rest on nothing more than hearsay, forgery, bias, and wartime propaganda.
holmes, d.s. 1984. "defense mechanisms." in encyclopedia of psychology, vol. 1, ed. raymond j. corsini. new york: john wiley & sons. pp. 347-350.
a discussion of psychological defense mechanisms, among them, denial.
housepian dobkin, marjorie. 1986. "what genocide? what holocaust? news from turkey, 1915-1923: a case study." in charny 1984, pp. 100-112, and hovannisian 1986a, pp. 97-109.
- a brief account of how business, politics, and the changed context of missionary activity in turkey after world war i led to a shift in the media's perception of the armenian genocide. having given extensive coverage in 1915-16 to the destruction of the armenians the media now adopted the view that both sides were at fault, and, in any case, the time had come to let bygones be bygones. through silence, distortion, and the view that there are always two sides to a story, the press helped to erase memory of the genocide. the author argues that such actions encourage the repetition of genocide.
hovannisian, richard g. 1978. "the critic's view: beyond revisionism." international journal of middle east studies 93: 379-388.
- a critical review of the discussion by shaw and shaw (1977) of the armenian massacres of 1894-96 and of 1915 by the leading scholar of modern armenian history. hovannisian concludes that, through "nonscholarly selectivity and deceptive presentation," the shaws' history moves "beyond the realm of revisionism." for the authors' reply, see shaw and shaw 1978.
hovannisian, richard g. (ed.). 1986a. the armenian genocide in perspective. new brunswick, new jersey: transaction books. 215 pp.
- a pioneering work on the armenian genocide of 19l5-17, its context, causes, and continuing effects. denial of the genocide is one of the major themes of the book, with particular attention to the basic patterns of denial, the changing tactics used, the intensification of denial in recent years, and the consequences of denial. the style throughout is scholarly and analytical; more importantly, the essays reflect the authors' sensitivity to persons and respect for the complexity of events. the strength of the book lies both in the individual chapters and their cumulative impact.
hovannisian, richard g. 1986b. "the armenian genocide and patterns of denial." in hovannisian 1986a, pp. 111-133.
- a comprehensive account of the efforts by turkey to deny the armenian genocide. turkish denial has gone through several phases, but all have been characterized,,by efforts to avoid responsibility and the moral, material, and political consequences of admission." turkish writers and scholars are still unable to face their nation's past and are drawn into falsification and rationalization. continual denial by turkey bas shaped the perceptions of some public officials, journalists, and scholars, leaving the survivors and their descendants to prove "time and again that they have indeed been wronged, individually and collectively."
hovannisian, richard g. 1988. "the armenian genocide." in genocide: a critical bibliographic review, ed. israel w. charny. london: mansell; new york: facts on file. pp. 89-115.
- a brief introduction to the armenian genocide and its denial, with an annotated bibliography of documents, contemporary accounts, memoirs, secondary works, and selected examples of the literature of denial.
kuper, leo. 1982. genocide: its political use in the twentieth century. new haven, connecticut: yale university press. 255 pp.
- in the original draft of a report on the history of genocide as part of a larger study on the prevention and punishment of genocide, the united nations document mentioned the "existence of relatively full documentation dealing with the massacres of armenians, which have been described as 'the first case of genocide in the twentieth century.'" kuper shows in his account (pp. 219-220) how the united nations, under pressure from turkey, deleted such language from the document that was later approved. he speaks of the armenian genocide having disappeared down the united nations "memory hole." reference to the armenian genocide is restored in the united nations report on the prevention and punishment of genocide issued in 1985. see whitaker 1985.
lowry, heath w. 1985. "the u.s. congress and adolf hitler on the armenians." political communication and persuasion 3(2): 111-140.
- the author, who is with the institute of turkish studies, inc. in washington, dc, argues that the quotation attributed to hitler ("who, after all, speaks today of the extermination of the armenians?") is a fabrication, but that it has been influential among u.s. congressmen, who have used the quotation in support of resolutions for a day of remembrance of the armenian genocide. in lowry's view, there was no genocide, no comment by hitler, and no basis for remembrance of the destruction of the armenian people. those who deny the genocide typically cite this article as "proving" that the hitler quotation is a hoax.
mccarthy, justin. 1983. muslims and minorities: the population of ottoman anatolia and the end of the empire. new york: new york university press. 248 pp.
- this population study, which relies upon ottoman census records, has played an important role in the denial of the armenian genocide. it reduces the estimates of the size of the armenian population in turkey in 1912 to 1,500,000, and suggests that 600,000 armenians (i.e., 40% of the group) died during world war i, not the million or more that others have indicated. it then attributes these deaths, without providing any evidence, to civil war and disease. finally, it estimates that 2,500,000 muslims perished from the same causes. the death during this period, mccarthy concludes, was not so much an ethnic disaster as a generalized human one. it is interesting to note, however, that mccarthy's estimate of armenian deaths is two to three times higher than most turkish estimates.
melson, robert. 1986. "provocation or nationalism: a critical inquiry into the armenian genocide of 1915." in hovannisian 1986a, pp. 61-84.
- melson refutes the claim that the armenian genocide was the result of provocations by armenians, that the armenians were themselves responsible for the atrocities inflicted upon their group. problems with the provocation thesis are that it ignores the context in which behavior is perceived and disregards the selective perception of the perpetrators. the young turks did perceive the armenians as a threat, but this arose out of their own sense of vulnerability due to rapid loss of territory and population from 1908 to l9l3 as the ottoman empire continued to disintegrate, and from their susceptibility to an extreme turkish nationalism that rejected both the pluralistic ottomanism that had existed for years and the attempted revival of pan- islam after 1908. the radical nationalists came to see the armenians as not only threatening, but as aliens who had no place in a turkish state. the logic of such an exclusivist ideology was to eliminate the threat and unify society by eliminating the strangers in their midst.
minasian, edward. 1985-86. "the forty years of musa dagh: the film that was denied." journal armenian studies 2(2): 63-73.
- an account, based on metro-goldwyn-mayer's archives, of the successful turkish pressure on the u.s. state department in the 1930s to prevent filming of the forty days of musa dagh, franz werfel's classic novel about armenian resistance to genocide.
orel, şinasi. 1985-86. "the facts behind the telegrams attributed to talat pasha by the armenians." turkish review quarterly digest (winter) pp. 83-102.
- the authenticity of the andonian documents are questioned primarily on technical grounds, such as the type of paper used; the very existence of naim is also questioned. for a response to these claims, see dadrian (1986).
papazian, dennis r. 1986. "the changing american view of the armenian question: an interpretation." armenian review 39(4): 47-72.
- the essay attempts to identify and explain the major changes in perception of the armenian question by the american public, media, and government from the late nineteenth century to the present.
ravitch, norman. 1981. "the armenian catastrophe: of history, murder & sin." encounter 57(6): 69-84.
- in this ambivalent and inconclusive essay, more concerned with historians than events, the author radically alters the meaning of the armenian experience during l9l5-23 by substituting the term "catastrophe" for "genocide." he recognizes that hundreds of thousands of armenians were victims, but notes that not all historians agree that a "massive genocidal action against ottoman armenians was attempted or achieved." for ravitch the reality of the genocide comes down to numbers of victims - or, to use his term, "casualties" - and he calls attention to disputes about whether the number of victims was 200,000 or a million or more. what he fails to see is that genocide is not a question of numbers, but even if it were, is not the taking of 200,000 lives sufficient to constitute genocide?
shaw, stanford j.; ezel kural shaw. 1977. history of the ottoman empire and modern turkey, vol. 2. cambridge: cambridge university press. 518 pp.
- in this 500-page book, the destruction of the armenians receives three pages, and even this is placed under the misleading heading, "the northeastern front, 1914-1916." the shaws assert that armenians were removed from only a few strategic regions, were well-protected by turkish authorities, and that the 200,000 who perished, according to their extremely low estimate, died from famine, war, and disease, not as the result of ottoman efforts to kill them. they speak euphemistically of "abandoned property," as if the armenians simply walked away from their homes, of "transports" rather than deportation, and of "relocation" of armenians in "northern iraq" and "central syria," areas they fail to identify as deserts. in this account, violence and rebellion by armenians against turks is asserted again and again: the victims become the victimizers. by continually characterizing the armenians as disloyal and terroristic, the shaws justify the genocide even as they deny it. for criticism see hovannisian 1978.
shaw, stanford j.; ezel kural shaw. 1978. "the authors respond." international journal middle east studies 9(3): 388-400.
- in reply to a review by hovannisian 1978 of shaw and shaw 1977, the authors state their view that the "experience of the armenians, however terrible it undoubtedly was, was not unique to them. it was part of a general tragedy that engulfed all the people of the empire - turks, greeks, arabs, jews, and others as well, all of whom have traumatic memories of the period." they assert that there was no attempt to exterminate any group; rather mass death (including that of the armenians) resulted from the "final breakup of a multinational society," a period in which the ottoman government "found itself powerless to act despite numerous efforts to do so."
smith, roger w. 1989. "genocide and denial: the armenian case and its implications." armenian review 42(1): 1-38.
- this study is a comprehensive account of the denial and justification of the armenian genocide and its implications. presented in 1986 at the annual meeting of the american political science association, its attempts to clarify the concept of denial, show its relationship to justification, indicate the political and psychological roots of denial, suggest the kinds of tactics that are used to further denial, examine the ways in which other governments aid and abet denial of genocide by turkey, and assess the likelihood of any change in the turkish position which has been maintained for over seventy years. it points out that, although turkish denial of the genocide has been highly effective, cracks in the facade of denial are now beginning to appear. a wider knowledge of the genocide is not likely to put an end to denial, but it can lower the psychological costs that denial has imposed on the armenians and call attention to the dangers inherent in the manipulation of history by government. major portions of the present chapter are taken from this study.
sonyel, salahi ramsdam. 1987. the ottoman armenians: victims of great power diplomacy. london: k. rustem & brother. 426 pp.
- in a work heavily indebted to the shaws, the author describes the armenians in late nineteenth and early twentieth century turkey as revolutionaries and traitors, who were encouraged by outside powers for their own purposes to destroy the ottoman empire. sonyel claims that the armenians continually resorted to violence during this period and, on the eve of the first world war, planned a "general uprising." he accuses armenians of rewriting history, of responsibility for the death of over one million turks, and of bringing upon themselves the "300,000" deaths that occurred through a "civil war" initiated by armenians, with most armenian lives lost through direct combat against turkish forces rather than as the result of "relocation." he justifies the deportations as a military necessity but claims that armenians were treated well by their guards and new houses were to be built for them. his strategy is to dehumanize armenians, blame the victims, suggest that they were stupidly manipulated by outside forces, and project onto those subjected to the genocide the very acts of destruction committed by turks.
[talaat] 1921. "posthumous memoirs of talaat pasha." current history 15(2): 287-295.
- the figure most deeply implicated in the armenian genocide acknowledges that "unlawful" acts against armenians were carried out by some officials and simple villagers, though none of this was part of a central plan. unlike contemporary revisionists, he does not claim that the armenians were protected from harm during the deportations.
thomas, lewis v.; richard n. frye. 1951. the united states and turkey and iran. cambridge, massachusetts: harvard university press. 291 pp.
- the influence of both historicism and the cold war are evident in professor thomas's judgment about the destruction of the armenians. though he laments the loss of armenian lives, he concludes that blame for it must be assigned to impersonal forces of history, in this case, the "impact of western nationalism upon anatolia." but if there are costs to historical development, there are also benefits: without the "use of force" against the armenians, the turkish republic, a "valued associate of the united states," would not exist.
whitaker, ben. 1985. revised and updated report on the question of the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. 62 pp. (un doc. e/cn.4,/sub.2/1985/6, 2 july 1985; corr. 1, 29 august 1985).
- under pressure from turkey, the united nations deleted reference to the armenian genocide in a report on the history of genocide that was part of a larger study on the prevention and punishment of genocide. see kuper 1982. in 1985 the report of the sub-commission on prevention of discrimination and protection of minorities took recognition of both the reality of the armenian genocide and current turkish denial of that tragedy.
--- alıntı sonu ---
kaynak: smith, roger w. 1991. "denial of the armenian genocide." in genocide: a critical bibliographic review, vol. 2
, ed. israel w. charny. new york: facts on file. pp. 63-85.