This thesis analyses the Armenian Question and the state of affairs of Armenians. A°n 1914-1918 These old ages when the disruption of Armenians occured had been the turning point in the Armenian Question. Because the events happening during the disruption have been represented as race murder and today, this claim is one of the of import inquiry for Turkey. This thesis non merely represents the intelligence on Torahs, probationary Torahs and ordinances about the disruption but besides gives information about the societal, political, economic, legal and spiritual state of affairss of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.
There are today merely like in the yesteryear, several states endeavoring to procure themselves political and economic benefits at the disbursal of Armenian community. Memorials impeaching Turks and Turkey of holding committed race murder are being erected in some states ; determinations meaning to recognize the so called race murder are brought into the parliamentary docket in several states and even voted for in some others. Issues that need to be left to historiographers are turned into agencies of self involvement by the politicians. For many centuries historical scientific discipline has been abused for political terminals. Particularly This state of affairs come to the forefront Controversial issues, such as the Armenian inquiry. About of the this issue has to much different point of position. Some of those have looked after their benefits. whereas hence this attacks are non realistically capable of datefield. So when I want to explicate the Armenian inquiry ( so called Armenian race murder ) I have remained loyal to historical background. And my hunt mission tried every bit much as possible in an impartial mode. Today, Evaluation of the alleged Armenian race murder of issues need to take up comprehensively. On history of the fact that this job is non a job which all of a sudden sprung out it has a historical background. When Investigating the background of the first issue to be addressed that must be the issue of resettlement. The term of the Gallic revolution is the most of import thing about the minority involvement. Second cause is that the involvements of Britain and Russia make capital out of peace of land.
The term “ Armenian Question ” as used in European history, became common topographic point among diplomatic circles and in the popular imperativeness after the Congress of Berlin ; that in similar Eastern Question, refers to powers of Europe ‘s engagement to the Armenian topics of the Ottoman Empire get downing with the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78. However in footings, the Armenian inquiry refers to the protection and the freedoms of Armenians from their adjacent communities. [ 2 ] The “ Armenian inquiry ” explains the 40 old ages of Armenian-Ottoman history in the context of English, German, Russian political relations between 1877-1914.
I have studied about the so called Armenian race murder on history of the fact that position of this state of affairs in Armenian authors that, ”The Turkey authorities has ever denied what happened, while everyone else in the universe says that this historical event occurred. There is a batch of grounds that supports the fact that the Armenian Genocide had taken topographic point. Survivors, historical paperss, and remains of organic structures prove this event had occurred in history. On the other manus, the universe merely has the word of the Turkish authorities that the Armenian Genocide did non go on. ” So, who ‘s right? In my sentiment the first topic of research about the Armenian race murder that I have to looking for conditions of the period in 1915.
The first inquiry is ” How did the Ottoman Turks respond to the Armenians ‘ demand for equal rights? ” and was there equality in this period? was there any foreign intercession in that clip? had caused this job merely happened between the two provinces?
As a consequence we have to be cognizant of historical backround importance. Conflict between the Turks and the Armenians was non inevitable. The two peoples should hold been friends. When World War I began, the Armenians and Turks had been populating together for 800 old ages. The Armenians of Anatolia and Europe had been Ottoman subjects for about 400 old ages. There were jobs during those centuries — jobs caused particularly by those who attacked and finally destroyed the Ottoman Empire. Everyone in the Empire suffered, but it was the Turks and other Muslims who suffered most. Judged by all economic and societal criterions, the Armenians did good under Ottoman regulation. By the late 19th century, in every Ottoman state the Armenians were better educated and richer than the Muslims. Armenians worked hard, it is true, but their comparative wealths were mostly due to European and American influence and Ottoman tolerance. European merchandisers made Ottoman Christians their agents. European merchandisers gave them their concern. European consuls intervened in their behalf. The Armenians benefited from the instruction given to them, and non to the Turks, by American missionaries. While the lives of the Armenians as a group were bettering, Muslims were populating through some of the worst agony experienced in modern history: In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Bosnians were massacred by Serbs, Russians killed and exiled the Circassians, Abkhazians, and Laz, and Turks were killed and expelled from their fatherlands by Russians, Bulgarians, Greeks, and Serbs. Yet, in the thick of all this Muslim agony, the political state of affairs of the Ottoman Armenians invariably improved. First, equal rights for Christians and Jews were guaranteed in jurisprudence. Equal rights progressively became a world, every bit good. Christians took high topographic points in the authorities. They became embassadors, exchequer functionaries, even foreign curates. In many ways, in fact, the rights of Christians became greater than those of the Muslims, because powerful European provinces intervened in their behalf. The Europeans demanded and received particular intervention for Christians. Muslims had no such advantages. That was the environment in which Armenians revolted against the Ottoman Empire — 100s of old ages of peace, economic high quality, invariably bettering political conditions. This would non look to be a cause for revolution. Yet the 19th century saw the beginning of an Armenian revolution that was to climax in catastrophe for both.
How do we cognize that this analysis is true? It is, after all, really different than what is normally called the history of the Armenians. You know it is true because it is the merchandise of sound historical analysis, non political orientation.
To understand this, we must see the difference between history and political orientation, the difference between scientific analysis and nationalist belief, the difference between the proper historiographer and the ideologist. To the historian what matters is the effort to happen the nonsubjective truth. To the nationalist ideologist what matters is the victory of his cause. A proper historiographer foremost searches for grounds, so do up his head. An ideologist foremost makes up his head, so looks for grounds.
A historian expression for historical context. In peculiar, he Judgess the dependability of informants. He Judgess if those who gave studies had ground to lie. An ideologist takes grounds wherever he can happen it, and may contrive the grounds he can non happen. He does non look excessively closely at the grounds, possibly because he is afraid of what he will happen. As an illustration, the ideologists contend that the tests of Ottoman leaders after World War I prove that the Turks were guilty of race murder. They do non advert that the alleged tests reached their finding of facts when the British controlled Istanbul. They do non advert that the tribunals were in the custodies of the Quisling Damad Ferid Pasha authorities, which had a long record of lying about its enemies, the Committee of Union and Progress. They do non advert that Damad Ferid would make anything to delight the British and maintain his occupation. They do non advert that the British, more honest than their flunkies, admitted that they could non happen grounds of any “ race murder. ” They do non advert that the suspects were non represented by their ain attorneies. They do non advert that offenses against Armenians were merely a little portion of a long list of alleged offenses, everything the Judgess could contrive. The ideologists do non advert that the tribunals should best be compared to those convened by Josef Stalin. The ideologists do non advert this grounds.
A historian first discovers what really happened, so tries to explicate the grounds. An ideologue forgets the procedure of find. He assumes that what he believes is right, so constructs a theory to explicate it. The work of Dr. Taner Akcam is an illustration of this. He foremost accepts wholly the beliefs of the Armenian patriots. He so constructs an luxuriant sociological theory, claiming that race murder was the consequence of Turkish history and the Turkish character. This kind of analysis is like a house built on a foundation of sand. The house looks good, but the first strong air current knocks it down. In this instance, the strong air current that destroys the theory is the force of the truth.
A historian knows that one has to look back in history, sometimes far back in history, to happen the causes of events. An ideologist does non trouble oneself. Again, he may be afraid of what he will happen. Reading the Armenian Nationalists one would presume that the Armenian Question began in 1894. Very rarely does one discovery in their work reference of Armenian confederations with the Russians against the Turks stretching back to the 18th century. One ne’er finds acknowledgment that it was the Russians and the Armenians themselves who began to fade out 700 old ages of peace between Turks and Armenians. These are of import affairs for the historian, but they hurt the cause of the ideologist.
The historian surveies. The ideologist wages a political war. From the start the Armenian Question has been a political run. Materials that have been used to compose the long-accepted and false history of the Armenian Question were written as political paperss. They were written for political consequence. Whether they were articles in the Dashnak newspaper or false paperss produced by the British Propaganda Office, they were propaganda, non beginnings of accurate history. Historians have examined and rejected all these alleged “ historical beginnings. ” Yet the same falsities continually appear as “ cogent evidence ” that there was an Armenian Genocide. The prevarications have existed for so long, the prevarications have been repeated so many times, that those who do non cognize the existent history assume that the prevarications are true.