No state would have been able to resolve its internal problems using the excuse of an external threat as a justification for violence (Tessa Hoffman) Faced with a barrage of criticism after his speech at the 2007 Avsar Elleri Symposium, Yusuf Halaçoğlu found himself quickly pushed into the side-lines by those who had previously championed […]
No state would have been able to resolve its internal problems using the excuse of an external threat as a justification for violence (Tessa Hoffman)
Faced with a barrage of criticism after his speech at the 2007 Avsar Elleri Symposium, Yusuf Halaçoğlu found himself quickly pushed into the side-lines by those who had previously championed him. Whilst not all of his statements were of earth shattering importance, they did contain some truths; but those fixated on their own religious or ethnic loyalties could not find the maturity to consider these truths as a possibility. Bearing in mind the history of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey, it should be a matter of course to expect to find both Turks who adopted Kurdish ethnic identity, and Armenians mixed in amongst the Alevis. Whilst issues of this type will not be resolved with emotional debate, Halaçoğlu’s allegiance to official history did cause an emotional outburst.
The preface to Halaçoğlu’s book “Turkey’s Deep Roots – Ottoman Identity and Tribes” contains the following sentences: “This is the Republic of Turkey and the Republic of Turkey has citizens (…) all the Armenians, Greeks, Kurds, Turks who live in our country are our citizens(…) Democracy is a form of administration in which everyone is equal”. Having read these words it occurred to me that perhaps my negative thoughts about Halaçoğlu were unfair. I looked again at the notes I had taken and decided to share some of its sections that border on the incomprehensible.
In several places, Halaçoğlu makes reference to Ottoman justice as a basis for some of his claims. For example:
“it’s accepted that the Ottoman administrative system treated everyone with understanding and tolerance regardless of religion or nation” (Halaçoğlu 2010:84)
The word “accepted” and it’s implication of being known by everyone is one of the “facts” that we will dispute on several grounds but first of all let’s consider these words from Halaçoğlu:
“One should look at the fact that the state accepted all people as Ottoman citizens regardless of religion or nation” ( ibid p.85), “the Ottoman state regarded its citizens as equal with no discrimination on the grounds of race or belief” ( ibid p.115)
Before examining the truth of this statement, in particular with regard to non-Muslims, it might be useful to look at the situation of Muslims themselves. Their situation should give us a benchmark. According to Ali Yidirim’s transcripts of Hammer, in 1476 Mehmet the Second passed a decree making it compulsory for Muslims to pray five times a day, as the sultan considered that “the Muslims who have settled in Rumelia have not yet found the true path“.(Yildirim 1996:52).
Another example is the fatwa issued to the Qadi of Vize by Suleyman the Magnificent in 1546. This outlined punishment for those who abandoned the Muslim practice of regular prayer.(ibid p.124-125)
Fatwa’s issued by the Sheikh ul-Islam, were in keeping with the decrees of the Sultan and show the level of pressure applied to Muslims. One example is as follows: “what can be done in the case where there is no dedicated place for Islamic prayer in the village and no communal prayer activity? The answer is: the ruler of the time can force them to have such a place, and a decree was issued to all the provincial heads in the year 944 to ensure that prayers continue to take place” (Yildirim 1996:163).
Whilst this and other similar fatwa indicate the level of oppression applied to Sunni Muslims, the treatment of heterodox Islam, fell little short of preaching massacre. Following his remarks on the activities of the Qizilbas people, Sheikh ul-Islam Ebussuud Efendi went onto say ”for all these reasons it is permissible to kill off the whole of this ridiculous group, young and old and remove them along with their homes and works. Those who doubt that the Qizilbas are infidels are infidels themselves”.
Is it feasible to think that those, who had this attitude to communities that from the point of view of their fundamental belief system are considered to be part of the Muslim world, and behaved so intolerantly towards the Alevis, could be so tolerant towards non-Muslim communities? Put purely and simply, even the legal status of ‘zimmi’ accorded to non-Muslim subjects in the Ottoman Empire was a way of alienating, denigrating and marginalising non-Muslims, so that consequently they could not be seen as equal to Muslims. In Islam, the concept of zimmi is tantamount to seeing members of another religion as second class citizens. This is the same in legal and social terms.”Zimmi was the name given to those religious people who were allowed to live and practise their religion on Muslim lands with the protection of the Caliph(…) The zimmi are tolerated and as long as they accept the authority of Islam they are protected(..) In summary it is not a relationship of equals but more one of endurance and tolerance” (Akçam 1994:69-70).
In fact it was only much later that awareness of concepts such as citizenship and equality came to Islamic lands. Even today, it’s not easy to findadvocates of these concepts amongst the communities living in this same geographical area. The reason for this can be sought in the parallel development of the Islamic belief system and the political order. Akçam writes “in Islam the foundation of general equality and citizenship is quite hard to find because of the unity of state and religion. In a state and religious system established according to the principles of Islam a non-Muslim cannot be a ruler. This is effected by recognising general citizenship rights to Muslims and denying them to others. It is extremely difficult to reconcile the fundamental principle of human rights that everyone is equal at birth with this situation which directly contradicts it. (…) As a result, non-Muslims are not equal and become second class citizens” (Akçam 1994:71).
In this same Ottoman society, where equal citizenship relationships did not exist and had no possibility to exist, the community and political organisation of non-Muslims was side-lined from several spaces. “For example, they were obligated to carry out prayers in a manner that would not make Muslims uncomfortable. Christians were generally forbidden from ringing bells and building new churches. State permission had to be sought in order to carry out church repairs. Additionally they were not allowed to ride horses, only donkeys and oxen. It was forbidden for them to carry a weapon or walk on the pavement when they were passing a Muslim (…).The Ottomans ruled that the hats and shoes of Armenians must be red, those of the Greeks black and those of the Jews blue. They also had to paint their houses specific colours. They were not allowed to wear the usual wooden clogs in the hamam and they had to attach bells to their clothing. Their houses could not be higher than those of the Muslims so they were forced to build their houses to a lesser height than those of their Muslim neighbours” (Akçam 1994:72-73).
An examination of the fatwas issued by the Ottomans reveals numerous similar examples: “is it from building high and grand houses, riding horses in the city, wearing fancy and expensive clothing, kaftans with collars, delicate muslin, furs and wrapping their heads in turbans, in short from treachery to Muslim people and puffing up their own importance with prominent charitable works that the zimmi living amongst the Muslims earn good deeds? The answer is: yes” . (Yıldırım 1996:121). (1)
It’s worth pointing out that this didn’t only apply to the houses, their places of worship also had to be built lower than the mosques. Christian buildings from this period were built from a point well below ground level. I had the opportunity to see an example of this in the city of Ruse in Bulgaria where there is a church that appears to have sunk into the ground and to enter it is somewhat like entering a cellar.
So far I have written about those who held religious beliefs but the situation of those who were non-believers was the worst of all. There was definitely no forgiveness for Muslims who turned their back on religion. “Example: If one person says to two others that they are non-believers should something be done to them?’ The answer is: no because maybe it is not true that they are non-believers.
Example: However if there is another witness to this what should be done? Answer: they should be killed because they have capitulated toblasphemy” (Yıldırım 1996:172).
The reality of these rulings, especially those applied to atheists meant that in İslam (and consequently in the Ottoman world) there could be no freedom of conscience.
“During the period of the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, the polytheists who were found mostly in North Arabia had only two choices – either Islam or death. There was no question of accommodating them” T. Akçam (1994:66)
The Ridde Wars which occurred in the first period of Islam show the incompatibility of Islamic religion and freedom of conscience. Bahriye Üçok, describes Ridde as “turning ones back on Islam and refusing the Muslim religion” (1996:35). As we know, in this period, those who turned away from Islam were dealt with harshly. According to the story of Seyf bin Omer, one of the letters received by Ebu Bekr containing orders against the apostates stated: ‘The ambassador of God fought until he had made his invitation accepted…… I call on you to closely observe the religion of God….I send to you Mucahir (*), Ensar (**) and as a kindness from Allah, an army of those on the path of God and henceforth a commander. I order that you fight with those who do not accept the call, do not leave any alive from those who are captured, burn them in fire and kill them with all forms of torture’ (Üçok 1996: 95-96)
Another example of the lack of equality, and lack of potential for it is shown by the tax system. A state which applies different taxes according to religion cannot be expected to be egalitarian. As a result of the unfair tax system, some non-Muslim citizens, most of whom were poor and oppressed by the excessive burden of tax either became Muslims or pretended they were Muslims. In a document that shows the inequality of the tax system the following is written “The Book of Statutes for the District of Mardin (article) 5 : Whether they are Muslims or non-believers they are to be taxed with one in five of their produce; but if they are Muslims one in seven is taken from their vineyards, cotton and orchards. This is how it is recorded. However one in five is taken from the non-believers” (Barkan, Türkiye Tarihi Üzerine p. 553). (2)
In giving an ideological interpretation of the numerical data from the census records, Yusuf Halaçoğlu (2010:81-82) finds himself at another dead end. In the example of Diyarbakir, he presumes the number of Muslims recorded is also the number of Turks. Therefore, the non-Turkish Muslims living in the area, such as Kurds are counted as Turks. As Halaçoğlu demonstrates, whilst Turkification was not widespread in Ottoman times it’s a policy which was always on the agenda. His interpretation of the figures can be seen as an example of the psychological extent of attempts at Turkification. The community name of Ekrad” which appears in the registers, is presented as a Turkish clan without explaining the meaning of the word. It’s not a particular issue for me which ancestry they had or which ethnic group they were seen as; but the simple fact that this word is related to the Arabic plural for the word Kurd is not given. Whilst we cannot say that this word was not also sometimes used for other nomadic peoples, we can say with certainty that it was used for Kurds. This should at least be mentioned in the book.
Ali Tayyar Önder who tows the same (official) line as Halaçoğlu, writes in the section subtitled ‘Ekrad’: “the Arab historian Mesudi describes the Kurdish tribes of the 10th century as ‘ekrad’ which is the plural word for Kurd in Arabic”. (Önder 2005:155). Afterwards he points out that the word was used for migrant settler tribes. According to the writer ‘”the same expression ( Ekrad) was used for nomadic tribes known to be Kurds”(ibid p. 156).
We know the rest – attempts to show that the Kurds are Turks! The fact that having attempted to show that the Kurds are Turks, Önder then arrives at a point of compromise can be considered as a good indicator of the resilience of the traditional denialist line. He writes: ”At this point, the matter that must be stressed with importance is that whilst their original roots may be Turkish, with the passage of time today’s Kurds have their own ethnicity which has developed from the bringing together of particularly Iranian, partially Arab and local factors. For this reason, it can be said that today’s Kurds are a Turkish, Iranian or mixed border population and Kurdish is a grouping of words from other languages or the dialect of another language” (Önder 2005:180). In Ottoman dictionaries the word Ekrad is given as the plural of Kurd. (Devellioğlu 1999)
In keeping with his or her position, a scholar should avoid subjectivity and be impartial. Halaçoğlu can only see events from one point of view, which is the Turkish nationalist one, and therefore the term scholar ascribed to him, is an adjective that sits in a manner both heavy and cumbersome. A piece of work does not become scholarly because you say it is, nor do you become an expert simply by calling yourself one. The fact that you have worked on a subject for a long time may not in itself hold any meaning, when considered in the light of the material you have collated during your period of work, the accumulation of knowledge and the conclusion you have reached,.
So now let’s move onto the issue of the Armenians….
Documents presented with the testimonials made in the Military Court (Divan-i Harb-i Örfî ) hold important evidence of the Armenian massacre. They consisted of “communications and coded telegraphs made between The Ministry of Internal Affairs and, the commandership of the 3rdand 4th brigade, the 5th Corps and the 15th Division Command, the Special Forces Unit (Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa Müdürlüğü),the Province of Ankara ,the central command of Istanbul and many other provincial and district governors”. (Hofmann 2003:77-78).
There were also local lawsuits taken out during the same era. Court statements given by the Commander of the 3rd Brigade and the Governor of Ankara Hasan Mazhar, along with the writings of Çerkes Hasan(3), not to mention texts published in national newspaper Sabah newspaper all constitute Ottoman documentation of the massacre.
The German missionary and Protestant priest Dr Johannes Lepsius was witness to the massacre (his report ‘the state of the Armenian people in Turkey was banned from publication in Germany on 7th August 1916) and Armin T. Wegner documented the massacre in photographs – these were (contrary) documents from the Ottoman collaborators front.
Halaçoğlu however, points us towards the reports of the American Consulate with the following statement:
“We know that from 1914-17 the Ottoman Empire was fighting with the French, English and Russians. It was not at war with the USA. For this reason the American consulates in Anatolia stayed on. The American missionaries, along with their schools and teachers remained in Anatolia and some teachers even took action along with the Armenians. One can first examine the reports of the American Consulates and later the reports of the League of Nations. It’s quite evident that events were not quite as they have been described. Clearly not as many people died as has been claimed” (Halaçoğlu 2010: 129).
The tendency to reduce the deaths to figures and then afterwards reduce the figures, as shown in the last sentence is completely unacceptable from a moral point of view. However we won’t pass over this without taking up some more points. Let’s consider the matter of the reports of the American Consulate. There are two reasons to refer back to the testimonial of Henry Morgenthau, who worked at the USA Istanbul Embassy between the years of 1913 and 1916. Firstly, because he was the person who actually sent most of the reports to America and secondly because he was trusted by the architects of the massacre. Talat Paşa wrote to Morgenthau “we saw you as unfailingly fair and thanks to you we respected America’s policy towards Turkey”. Presumably Talat’s moral heirs (4) take his words seriously!
Almost all of the reports in question passed through Morgenthau’s hands. In the section of the book where the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Nazırı Halit Bey asks Morgenthau to stop the American Consulates sending information about the situation of the Armenians, Morgenthau writes“the truth is that I was personally sending most of these reports and I didn’t stop” (Morgenthau 2005: 265)
In a conversation with the German Ambassador Wagenheim, he says “I know I am sending huge amounts of information to Washington. I send a copy of every report and document to the Foreign Ministry. There they are kept securely and whatever happens to me the evidence will be there, so the American public will not be dependent on my oral reports for information”. Morgenthau goes on to say “Do you think I can keep secret such a terrible atrocity? (…) Don’t forget, as well as the Americans, the German missionaries are also sending me information about the Armenians’. In response Wagenheim writes ‘ everything you say is right but the biggest issue is to win this war (…) The Armenians are a very unfortunate people (…) I recognise that they have been treated very badly. I sent someone to investigate and he reported that the widespread persecution of the Armenians was being inflicted not by the Turkish police but by mobs” (Morgenthau 2005: 278).
One Consular Report states, “The Armenians of Erzurum were transported away on consecutive days in the last week of June and most were killed en route either from beatings or drowning”. An Armenian woman called Zarouhi who saved herself by clinging to a rock in the Euphrates where she was thrown, told a representative from the USSR how “ the soldiers struck hundreds of children with their bayonets and threw them into the Euphrates, stripped men and women naked, tied them together and threw them into the river” (Morgenthau 2005:234)
It is not for nothing that Talat Paşa stated “after what we have done to them, we will no longer have even one Armenian friend” (Morgenthau 2005:249).
However much Halaçoğlu proposes that it is ‘clearly and explicitly’ shown that there was no deliberate attempt to wipe out the Armenians(Halaçoğlu 2010:129) the available documents and facts don’t corroborate this. Morgenthau says “the claims earnestly made by the Unity Government, to be ‘taking the Armenians to new homes’ are nonsense; the treatment of the convoys shows that the real aim of Enver and Talat is annihilation. (…) the treatment of just one of the convoys alone shows how this relocation plan evolved into an annihilation plan. The details I have mentioned came to me directly from the Halep American Consulate and are currently filed in the Foreign Office in Washington.” (Morgenthau 2005:234)
In witness statements, everyone is quick to say that the purpose of the implementations was the annihilation of the Armenians. One of these, from Provincial Governor Mazhar Bey who was working in Ankara states: “I pretended not to understand the order about the deportation of the Armenians that I received from The Interior Ministry, you know that although some of the provinces had begun the deportation process, I had not yet started. Atif Bey came and announced the Interior Ministry’s verbal command about the annihilation and destruction of the Armenians whilst they were being deported. I said no Atif Bey, I am a Provincial Governor not a bandit, I won’t do this. I’ll leave this seat now, you can sit down here and do it”. The following script appears about the Provincial Governor of Kastamonu, Governor Reşit, “As written in the concluding transcripts from the lawsuit against the Party Secretaries (Kâtib-i Mesuller) , Governor Reşit said ‘I won’t stain my hands with blood’, and for this reason he was removed from post following the intervention of Party Secretary Hasan Fehmi” (Akçam 2002:278).
It’s clear from all this that the annihilation of the Armenians was not as has been suggested, simply down to the work of some mobs and civil servants but rather down to the implementation of a grand plan. “During the 10th sitting of the Yozgat Case (5th March 1919) Mutsarrif Cemal stated that an unofficial order was given to him to annihilate the Armenians by the Party Secretary Necati. Necati said that the order was the wish of the Union Party and that he had shown the paper on which it was written but Cemal had not allowed him to read it” (Akçam 2002:279)
In a conversation with Enver, Morgenthau tries not to anger him by suggesting that the government will not be held responsible for the massacres: “Of course I know that the Council of Ministers would not implement such a terrible act. You, Talat and the other members cannot be held responsible. Doubtlessly, your subordinates did more than you envisaged. I know it’s not always easy to control your juniors”. However, fully aware of his role in the Armenian genocide, Enver counters the attempt to heap the blame on his subordinates and takes full responsibility: “you are making a big mistake – this country is under our absolute control. I have no intention of placing responsibility on our subordinates, I am prepared to take personal responsibility for everything that has happened. The order for the deportation was given directly by the Council. I believe we were right to do this because of the Armenian’s hostile attitude towards the Ottoman government, moreover we are the real rulers of Turkey and no civil servant would carry out such actions without a command from us”. (Morgenthau 205:257-258)
The following words from Talat to Morgenthau show that the true nature of the plan was not deportation but annihilation ”One day I might debate the whole Armenian issue with you however that day will never come” (Morgenthau 2005: 245)
Halaçoğlu’s statement that “additionally the government saw it as appropriate for the American Middle East Aid Foundation to give the money they had collected to all the Armenians of the region” (Halaçoğlu 2010:129) does not reflect reality.
Again let’s turn to the testimonial of Morgenthau: “In the second half of July, I heard there were 5000 Armenians in the areas of Zeytun and Sultaniye that had no food left to eat. I spoke to Enver about this and he said food would be provided. He would not accept any proposal for American representatives to go to the area to provide aid and care for the refugees”. “Enver insisted that the Americans stay away from the Armenian Provinces”. “(he said) we don’t want the Americans feeding the Armenians”. (Morgenthau 2005: 254-256).
Far from facilitating those who wanted to help, every effort was made to stop them. In fact, Enver wanted aid money sent to Morgenthau by the American Government to be given to his government. Morgenthau’s encrypted correspondence was blocked and the correspondence of the American consul Leslie Davis was seized.
On several occasions, Morgenthau points out that the genocide had reached such proportions that he didn’t reveal the ‘horrific details’ of the sadistic actions because he thought it might prevent them being published in the United States.
Despite the amount of documentation, fact and testimonial, they were brazen enough to claim that “no body of persons deliberately killed has been found” and that the genocide was nonsense. The reason for this degree of sang-froid was in the words of Akçam, because they were not in the least bit worried about plausibility.
The plan of The Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) was to Islamicise and Turkify Anatolia, and along with this create a secure zone for themselves inside the shrinking empire. The inspiration for this plan of action came from a figure held in high respect in the Ottoman army, Von der Golz Pasha and other German leaders. According to the plan, they would withdraw from the Balkan and Arab regions and make Anatolia their home. In writings published even before the Balkan wars started, Habi Adem, from the CUP, wrote of the capital moving to Ankara, a withdrawal from the Balkan and Arab lands, and even a Turkish state being established in Anatolia (Dündar 2008:60).
The points addressed up until here relate to the first stage of the plan which was the Islamicisation of Anatolia. This step was for the most part completed during the years of war. From here on, the discussion will briefly address the second stage, which is still the source of societal unrest today – Turkification.
“Today when we look around, we see that our way of life and dress is the same as the way of life, language, traditions and customs of our brothers and sisters in the Turkic States of Central Asia that have achieved independence” Halaçoğlu (2005:109).
Maybe someone whose knowledge of the world is limited by their own village, which they have never left, might believe this. Perhaps this is the target audience of the book! However, those whose world is bigger and who have had a chance to meet the people of the countries referred to, or even visit them know this is not true. The “lifestyle, speech and traditions” of the people from these countries are significantly different. Even the average internet user can work this out. This statement suggests that somehow a monoculture (that is the same speech, way of life and tradition) has formed in Turkey.
As long as Turkishness (as in Halaçoğlu’s showcase statement) is not a social value but a supra identity there is no meaning in the phrase “our brothers and sisters in the Turkic republics”. Let’s take for instance an Albanian who describes his supra identity as Turkish. The real sense of it is shown by the question of why he has relatives in Central Asia and not Central Africa. The meaning could be nationalism, a plan to create fictional societies made up of those who believe they are from the same race, along with its finishing touch of creating far off imaginary kinships. Accordingly, to describe the word ‘Turkish’ as a supra identity is a simple deception. The real intention is Turkification, that is the process of making all those living in Turkey see themselves as Turks whose roots are connected to Central Asia. In short, assimilation.
It’s true that Turkey has a democracy problem and that there is no freedom of expression etc. Moreover, within this truth are other truths which will not go away. Community and group rights for instance – it can’t be said that these rights are enjoyed by all communities living in Turkey. Whilst Turkish speaking communities have the opportunity to develop their own language on a theoretical and institutional level, other communities are prevented from doing so. Although Halaçoğlu knows that this right has not been given to the Kurds and will not be incorporated within the framework of individual rights, he rejects its ratification on the grounds that it will benefit the PKK. If there was any sincerity in his statements at all, he would call for the immediate recognition of these rights in order to facilitate the growth of democracy.
Halaçoğlu puts forward the theory that “when the Surname Law was passed, and surnames were being given, instead of using the old nicknames of people, the officials were over officious and made up names from the top of their heads, even giving different surnames to members of the same family”. Of course, there could undoubtedly have been a few exceptions which escaped the eye of the state.
On the other hand, when the law actually came about it seems the situation was quite different to the one described. Article 3 of The Surname Law which came into being in June 1934 states “Along with rank, status, tribe, foreign race and community names, surnames which offend common decency or are disgusting or comical cannot be used”. Article 8 states “to resolve controversies in the choice of surnames, or situations where people have not chosen a surname amongst themselves or where the child’s parents are not known, the authority for apportioning a name and deciding whether it is appropriate under the law lies with the highest official of the civil service where the main register is held” .Also, on 24th December 1934, the Surname Regulations put together by the Cabinet stated the following: article 5 “the new surnames must be taken from the Turkish language” article 7 “Foreign race or community names must not be used for surnames” article 8 “surnames which show membership of a tribe or clan cannot be used and must not be applied again” article 12 “Surnames which are contrary to articles 7,8,9,10 or 11 cannot be recorded on the family register or written on the birth records. Where surnames have been given which are contrary to the relevant clauses, with the intervention of the official department concerned, a case must be opened by the State Prosecutor in the Civil Court on duty in the place of habitation” .Thereby non-Turkish surnames became illegal.
I should add to this the lists of surnames sent to the registrars. The law concerned and regulations are there to see, making it clear that they contain a strategy for Turkification. Bearing all this in mind, it’s hardly appropriate to talk of these issues as simply resulting from the over officiousness of some civil servants. Add to this the fact that by law the use of any language other than Turkish, and the use of non-Turkish names and/or surnames is prohibited, and the renaming of places with non-Turkish names (it’s thought that from 1921 up to present times 30280 place names have been changed). Still it’s claimed “Anatolia is not a mosaic. It’s a Turkmen cradle” (Halaçoğlu 2010:109). In that case, this question comes to mind: if Anatolia is a Turkmen cradle why has so much effort been put into Turkification?
The motivation for showing injustice as justice and intolerance as tolerance is to enable the familiarisation and repetition of these negative behaviours.
I’m not sure if I need to say this or not but, we won’t let this happen.
Translated by Paula Darwish
Translator’s notes:
* Mucahir: name given to those who left Mecca and went to Medina with Muhammed.
** Ensar: name given to those from Medina who opened their doors to the refugees from Mecca and shared their property with them.
References:
(1)Also for details of a decree issued by Suleyman the Magnificent in 1537 concerning the zimmi, pages 119 and 120 of the same work can be referred to.
(2)For a similar law see, article 3 of the Assets and Produce of the Province of Erzincan p.562
(3) Çerkez Hasan ”forget the words deportation and murder. Just say this is actually a decision to annihilate the Armenians so there will be no cause for contention” Alemdar, 5 April 1919 (Akçam 2002:315)
(4) The expression “moral inheritance ”comes from Tessa Hoffman
Sources:
AKÇAM Taner, İslam’da Hoşgörü ve Sınırı, Başak Yayınları, 2. Baskı, Ankara Haziran 1994
AKÇAM Taner, ‘Ermeni Meselesi Hallolunmuştur’ – Osmanlı Belgelerine Göre Savaş Yıllarında Ermenilere Yönelik Politikalar, İletişim Yayınları, 2. Baskı, İstanbul 2008
AKÇAM Taner, İnsan Hakları ve
Ermeni Sorunu – İttihat ve Terakki’den Kurtuluş Savaşı’na, İmge Kitabevi, 2 Baskı, Ankara 2002
BARKAN Ömer Lütfi, Türkiye Tarihi Üzerine – Araştırmalar / Belgeler (içinde), Gözlem Yayınları, İstanbul 1980
DEVELLİOĞLU Ferit, Osmanlıca-Türkçe Ansiklopedik Lugât, Aydın Kitabevi Yayınları, 16. Baskı, Ankara 1999
DÜNDAR Fuat, Modern Türkiye’nin Şifresi – İttihat ve Terakki’nin Etnisite Mühendisliği (1913-1918), İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul 2008
HALAÇOĞLU Yusuf, Türkiye’nin Derin Kökleri – Osmanlı Kimliği ve Aşiretler, Babıali Kültür Yayıncılığı, 2. Baskı, İstanbul 2010
HOFMANN Tessa, Talat Paşa Davası – Bilinmeyen Belgeler / Yorumlar, Belge Yayınları, İstanbul 2003
MORGENTHAU Henry, Büyükelçi Morgenthau’nun Öyküsü, Belge Yayınları, İstanbul 2005
ÖNDER Ali Tayyar, Türkiye’nin Etnik Yapısı – Halkımızın Kökenleri ve Gerçekler, Pozitif Yayınları, İstanbul 2005
ÜÇOK Bahriye, İslâmdan Dönenler ve Yalancı Peygamberler – Hicrî 7.-11. Yıllar, Cem Yayınevi, İstanbul 1996
YILDIRIM Ali, Osmanlı Engizisyonu, Öteki Yayınevi, Ankara 1996
11 November 2011
