STUDIES ON THE ARMENIAN QUESTION (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Armenian Forced Relocation: Putting an End to Misleading Simplifications
This paper studies three aspects of the Turkish-Armenian conflict. First of all, contrary to what the main Armenian and pro-Armenian affirm, there were hundreds of thousands, likely 500,000 Armenians, who were exempted of relocation, particularly in Istanbul, Western and Central Anatolia as well as in the Arab provinces. Then, the policy of the Ottoman government vis-à-vis the Armenian exiles was a protective ones, even if this protection failed in a considerable number of cases. The orders from Istanbul are clear. In particular, it is false to assert that the Ottoman government did not provide food and opposed the foreign relief. Such accusations are based on manipulation of evidence and neglect Ottoman as well as American and German sources. The relocation of 1915-16 is also misrepresented if described as the only reason for the losses of the Ottoman Armenian community between 1914 and 1922. In fact, the Russian relocation and the flow of refugees have to be considered, as well as the direct responsibilities of the Armenian extremists in the emigration of Armenians from Cilicia during the French withdrawal and the Greek scorched earth policy in 1922, which included the forced exile of the Christians from Western Anatolia.
A memorandum on the armenian question ANCA
1947
The Armenian Question once more challenges the attention of the civilized world. This is not a new question; it is unfinished business remaining from World War I. Its equitable solution is indispensable for the establishment of a just and durable peace in the Near East. We, the undersigned, therefore, urgently request the Council of Foreign Ministers to place the Armenian Question on its agenda. We respectfully submit to your consideration a brief summary of the Armenian case.
Middle Eastern Studies, 2020
The Republic of Turkey of the 1920s and 1930s was a complex place to live. Kemalism was introduced to nurture and embrace a new citizen who had no other choice but that of being a Turk as stipulated by the 1924 constitution. The new era was particularly challenging for Christian minorities, or what was left of them, because of ultra-nationalism, persecutions, and the highly ideological nature of the Kemalist era. Many Armenians, who chose to stay or had to stay in Turkey, were not at ease with the existing state of affairs and deepening sense of insecurity. Most of them were still looking for ways to leave Turkey for safer places. It became a particular matter of contention in the 1940s when the Soviet Union launched a policy of encouraging Turkish Armenians to immigrate to Soviet Armenia. This article examines the following research question: how did the factors related to geopolitics, bilateral relations, and the domestic affairs of both Turkey and the Soviet Union determine and shape the migration and displacement trends of Turkish Armenians? Understanding the situation of Turkish Armenians in post-Ottoman Turkey is a complex task, as it requires not only examining the problem in the context of domestic political, social, and cultural reforms of Kemalist Turkey, but also discerning the geopolitical shifts before, during, and after the Second World War, and the complexities in the bilateral relations between Turkey and Soviet Armenia, at the very least. Based on Turkish, Russian, and Armenian sources, this article looks into hitherto unexplored features of Soviet policy towards Turkish Armenians. The archival materials help us examine the Soviet perspectives on Turkish Armenians, the plans the Soviet Union had concerning them, and how they manipulated ‘the Armenian question’ in the period under consideration. The article argues that the shifting dynamics of Soviet-Turkish relations during the Second World War made the Soviet leadership willing to transfer Turkish Armenians to the Soviet Union with two objectives in mind: exploiting the implications of the geopolitical rift and making Turkish Armenians its new citizens. The first part of the article deals with different migration and displacement trends of Turkish Armenians in the interwar period. The second part discusses various traces of geopolitical zigzagging during the Second World War and how they came to shape the Soviet government’s policy towards Turkish Armenians. Understanding the context of the relations between the two countries is important as it helps to better understand the various determinants of policy choices.
The Armenian Question in Turkey’s Domestic and International Policy
IIRF Reports, 2015
Even if the Armenian question does not have the importance of the Kurd question for Turkey’s domestic policy, it plays a central role for Turkey’s selfunderstanding. What lies at the center is not primarily the everyday discrimination of Armenians which emanates from the population. Rather, it is the combat against those who want to designate the widespread deaths of Armenians in the course of the alleged resettlement of Armenians during World War I as genocide. It has only been since the massive opposition by governments and parliaments of numerous countries that Turkey has initiated research into genocide at all. Together with the discrimination of religious minorities, this has become a stumbling block for entry into the EU.
AN ANALYSIS OF ARMENIAN ISSUE AT THE CONTEXT OF HISTORICAL DEPTH AND PUPLIC DIPLOMACY
Abstract: In this article, an analysis was made on the Armenian issue from a multidisciplinary perspective, at the context of historical depth and public diplomacy. In this study; descriptive method, historical comparison and discourse analysis are used on the basis on relevant sources and documents. Some of the decisions of the European Parliament as a case study are examined on the historical and scientific facts that were reached inductively. That is to say; the Armenian issue which reached a damaging stage in terms of Turkey’s foreign policy and its relations with other countries, now is much far from being a historical problem and now is politicized especially by performing public diplomacy and lobbying of Armenians and European parliaments. Genocide claims nowadays taken up by the parliaments of several countries to their agenda, and becoming enacted in states such as Greece and France, have been carried in the leadership of the European Parliament to the European Union platforms and have been connected to Turkey’s accession process. Evaluating the Armenian issue in the light of the facts and documents, it can be seen that it has no historical, scientific and legal basis for Armenian genocide claims. With propaganda and public diplomacy activities at international communication and relations, this situation brings into mind that a new version of a pressure diplomacy which was put into the sheath of a variety of colors and prints from 1878 to 1914 is exhibited. In recent years, Turkey is intensively accused of Armenian genocide, and especially in April of each year, the number of these attacks increases and becomes almost offensive. It can clearly be seen who all of these policies, encourage the Armenians not to recognize the existing borders and to make demand for new land as a repetition of history. It is necessary to evaluate the so-called Armenian genocide allegations of which propaganda is made and which are announced to the world with assassinations and terrorism and then are enacted at parliaments, as a communication strategy within the frame of the 4T plan. The Armenian issue, which is re-heated with allegations of genocide, now is beyond being a historical dimension and are put to the forefront in terms of international relations, and again has become a damaging factor for relations with some countries and an obstacle in front of Turkey’s foreign policy especially after the Cold War. In this context, under the cause-effect relationship and to make a historical comparison; evaluating the Armenian question in the historical process, it can be seen that this emerged as an extension of policies that were implemented in the XIX century by big states in order to break up the Ottoman Empire. During the struggle for dominance that started on the territory of the Ottoman in the XIX century and lasted until the first half of the XX century, the big states of Europe, the United States and Russia did not only create allies from different ethnic and religious groups from the Balkans, the Middle East and Anatolia within the empire but also provoked these groups against one another.Thus laid the foundations of policies and strategies to cover the XIX century and onwards period. Without know these basics, the events which will take place today and tomorrow cannot be analyzed accurately. Therefore, it is proved that Armenian genocide allegations considered in the light of the tragic facts and documents, there is no legal, historical and scientific basis. It is examined that no substantial change has been observed in the Armenian policy of Europe in the XIX century and the Armenian policy of today’s Europe towards Turkey. Keywords: European Union, Armenian Question, Relocation, 4T Plan, Public Diplomacy, Propaganda, International Communication.