1915 Olayları ve Tarihsel Arka Plan Özeti

Historical Background of the Conflict

The historical background of the conflict highlights the multicultural social structure of the Ottoman Empire, which was based on respect for beliefs and identities for nearly six centuries. This period of the past empire is characterized as a distinct era within the age of conquests. The fact that all nations that were once part of the empire reached the $20^{th}$ century while strongly preserving their languages, beliefs, and cultures serves as comparative proof of this perspective. The culture of coexistence between Turks and Armenians, established over centuries, was clearly expressed within the administrative hierarchy. From $1850$ onwards under Ottoman administration, $29$ Armenians held the title of Pasha, $22$ Armenians served as government members, and $33$ were members of the Meclis-i Mebusan (Chamber of Deputies). Furthermore, Armenians served in $7$ Ambassadorships, $11$ Consul General positions, and held prominent roles in institutions such as the Barutçubaşılık (Chief of Gunpowder Mills), the Ministry of Finance, and the Mint.

World War I represented an unprecedented catastrophe, resulting in at least $16$ million deaths and $20$ million injuries. The Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian Empires collapsed, borders changed significantly, and mass migrations occurred. The war strategy of the Allies, which destroyed transportation, communication, and public services within the Empire, weakened the social order. This environment of broken public safety led to the two peoples distancing themselves from one another.

Pre-World War I Period and the Collapse of the Ottoman Empire

The process leading to the collapse began before the Great War, specifically when the alliance the Empire had been part of since the Crimean War took a stance against the Bab-ı Ali (Sublime Porte). The steps taken during the "Eastern Question Conference" held in London in $1876$ encouraged separatist movements among the nations of the Empire by leveraging nationalist trends. Between $1908$ and $1914$, the Bab-ı Ali's attempts to seek alliances with Britain and France (members of the Entente) on six separate occasions, as well as efforts to normalize relations with Russia, remained fruitless due to changing strategies, according to Pat Walsh in Britain’s Great War on Turkey ($2009$: $91$).

The Balkan Wars turned these strategies into a period of massive human destruction. Between $1864$ and $1923$, at least $4.5$ million Ottoman Muslims lost their lives. During the disintegration of the Empire, approximately $5$ million Ottoman citizens were expelled from their homelands in the Balkans and the Caucasus, seeking refuge in Istanbul and Anatolia. All peoples of the Empire suffered during this process, and Armenians shared this common fate. However, the support given by Armenian extremist organizations to Tsarist Russia's policies aimed at weakening and partitioning the Empire posed a serious security threat from the second half of the $19^{th}$ century. The separatist activities, terrorist attacks, and massacres carried out by these groups in regions inhabited mostly by Ottoman Muslims reached an uncontrollable level. During World War I, Armenian gangs joined the ranks of the invading Russian army to carry out massacres with the goal of establishing an ethnically homogeneous Armenia in the eastern regions of the Ottoman Empire.

Ideological Divisions: Tashnak and Hnchak Programs

According to Bedross Der Matossian in Shattered Dreams of Revolution: From Liberty to Violence in the Late Ottoman Empire ($2014$: $13$), the ideological goals of the primary Armenian groups differed significantly: "While the Tashnak program aimed for freedom and autonomy under the roof of the Empire, the Hnchak program targeted complete separation and independence." These groups employed various tactics; for instance, the Hnchaks organized mass demonstrations to bring the Armenian Issue to European attention. Notable actions included the Kumkapı Demonstrations on July $27$, $1890$, the Yafta Incident in Anatolia in $1893$, and the Sason Uprising initiated in August $1894$ against nomadic Kurdish tribes and government tax collectors.

World War I Period and the 1915 Resettlement Decision

On April $15$, $1915$, the second Van Rebellion broke out, and Armenians began attacking the Ottoman Empire from within while it faced Russian military assaults. The Ottoman Government initially summoned the Armenian Patriarch, deputies, and community leaders to demand an end to the massacres of civilians and attacks on the army. When warnings failed, the Government closed Armenian committees on April $24$, $1915$, and arrested those involved in anti-state activities. Subsequently, the Government decided to relocate the Armenian population living in or near strategic war zones to the southern provinces of the Empire, away from the supply and communication lines of the invading Russian army. This also included certain individuals suspected of collaborating with the enemy.

Historian Bernard Lewis, in Notes on a Century: Reflections of a Middle East Historian ($2012$: $287$), notes: "…it is misleading to suggest that the massacre of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was the same as what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany… What happened to the Armenians was a result of a massive armed rebellion of Armenians against the Turks, which began even before the war and continued on a larger scale." The "Relocation and Resettlement" (Sevk ve İskan) decision of May $27$, $1915$, was a last resort in a life-or-death struggle. At the time, the Empire was simultaneously facing the largest landing operation in history at Çanakkale and Tsarist Russian attacks in the East, while dealing with millions of migrants from the Balkan Wars and near-collapsed communication systems. Armenians were moved to territories in Syria and Mesopotamia; they were relocated within the empire, not deported abroad. The measures were restricted to the rebellious Eastern provinces; Armenians in Western provinces and those under the Istanbul Patriarchate were excluded.

Although the Ottoman Government attempted to provide protection and food for the relocated Armenians, losses were catastrophic due to war conditions, local groups seeking revenge, banditry, hunger, and epidemics. Archive documents show that some officials who abused their duties or were negligent were held responsible and sentenced to various punishments, including execution, in $1916$. Following the war, the national movement had to fight both invading states and Armenian gangs, particularly between $1918$ and $1920$. The period of suffering ended with the Treaty of Lausanne on July $24$, $1923$, which identified violations of the law of war among the Allies (Article $59$) but made no mention of Armenians.

Introduction of the 1915 Events to the Global Agenda

Nearly half a century after the events of $1915$, a new historiographical movement emerged. This movement, aiming to tell the story solely through Armenian eyes and popularize it globally, surfaced during the bipolar world order of the $1960$s. Initiated by Armenian groups within the Soviet Union, it turned into an organized propaganda campaign. This campaign posed a significant challenge for Turkey, which played a vital role in Western security during the Cold War.

Radical Armenian Groups and International Terrorism

The campaign shifted from Soviet borders to global Armenian groups, fueling radicalism and violence against Turkish identity. To draw the world's attention to Armenian theses, Armenian terrorists brutally murdered $31$ Turkish diplomats and their family members starting in $1973$, using the $1915$ events as justification. Groups such as ASALA, ARA, and JCAG were central to this terror phase. Once they succeeded in placing the issue on the world agenda, the movement shifted to constructing a narrative focusing exclusively on Armenian sentiments, sometimes using forged documents, false photographs, and exaggerated or untruthful memoirs.

The Construction Process of the Armenian Narrative

Armenian radicals strive to define the $1915$ events as "genocide," ignoring the historical background, concrete facts, and the legal dimension. This approach exploits humanitarian feelings by creating a deep sense of victimhood. Any alternative stance is labeled as "denialism" to suppress debate. However, an allegation cannot be "denied" by nature—it can only be questioned. The word "denial" is used deliberately to prevent discussion. Helped by the resources of the diaspora in Western countries, countless one-sided publications have been released, many of which are variations of just a few controversial core sources. For many Armenians, the "genocide thesis" functions as an "upper identity" that unifies the diaspora, yet it is a negative identity that isolates Armenia from the world and serves as a tool for third countries' foreign policies against Turkey.

Turkey does not deny the suffering of Ottoman Armenians. The losses during the conditions of WWI are acknowledged; however, Western historians often ignore the millions of Ottoman Muslims who perished in the same period. Insisting on the term "genocide"—a concept that did not even exist as a term in $1915$—while ignoring historical facts and law is not the only way to honor the deceased and prevents reconciliation between Turks and Armenians. Guenter Lewy states in Revisiting the Armenian Genocide ($2005$): "…the Armenian claims that describe the deaths in WWI as genocide remain insufficient to prove the accusation that the Young Turk regime committed deliberate massacres."

Legal Dimension and the Formal Definition of Genocide

Genocide is a specific crime clearly defined in international law. It was first defined in the $1948$ UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Events occurring before the effective date are outside the Convention's scope. The International Court of Justice, in Croatia v. Serbia ($2015$), stated: "The Court is of the view that the Convention is not retroactive… substantive provisions do not impose obligations on a state regarding events that occurred before it became a party." To qualify as genocide, there must be definitive proof of the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part based on their membership in that group. Defining the $1915$ events as genocide based on prejudices and opinions ignores the law. There is no international criminal court ruling characterizing the $1915$ events as genocide. Such a determination can only be made by a competent national or international court, as seen in the cases of the Holocaust, Rwanda, and Srebrenica.

The Distinction Between the 1915 Events and the Holocaust

The events of $1915$ cannot be equated with the Holocaust. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), in the Perinçek v. Switzerland case ($2013$), noted that the cases differ clearly: "What was denied in the Holocaust cases were crimes committed by the Nazi regime… established on a clear legal basis with world-recognized convictions… and determined by an international court… The same effects cannot be said to exist for the refusal to characterize the tragic events of $1915$ and subsequent years as 'genocide'."

Doğu Perinçek filed a case against Switzerland in $2008$ after being convicted for his words regarding the $1915$ events. The ECHR Grand Chamber decision on October $15$, $2015$, emphasized that the events of $1915$ are a legitimate subject of debate and that different opinions are protected under freedom of expression. This precedent was reinforced on November $28$, $2017$, in the case of Mercan and others v. Switzerland (Ali Mercan, Hasan Kemahlı, Ethem Kayalı), where the court unanimously ruled that Article $10$ of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression) had been violated.

Legal Victories in France, Belgium, and the United States

In France, a bill to penalize the denial of "genocide" claims regarding $1915$, supported by President Sarkozy, was passed in $2011$. However, the French Constitutional Council ruled on February $28$, $2012$, that the law was unconstitutional as it interfered with freedom of expression. On January $8$, $2016$, the Council highlighted that the denial of the Holocaust is an act of hate speech and racism, whereas the same cannot be said for denying the characterization of the $1915$ events. On January $26$, $2017$, the Council annulled another attempt to expand the scope of "genocide denial" crimes, stating it created legal uncertainty for historical debates and was a disproportionate intervention in freedom of expression.

In Belgium, the Constitutional Court on January $14$, $2021$, rejected a lawsuit by the Belgian Armenian Committee that sought to equalize the denial of the $1915$ events with the denial of genocides recognized by international courts. This decision reinforced the ECHR's Perinçek and Mercan rulings. In the United States, the Davoyan and Bakalian cases were filed in $2010$ against Turkey, the Central Bank, and Ziraat Bank for the alleged seizure of Armenian property. On March $26$, $2013$, the California District Court rejected the cases based on the "political question doctrine," stating the judiciary cannot solve what the Constitution reserves for the Executive and Congress. On August $8$, $2019$, the $9^{th}$ Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this, citing the "statute of limitations."

Rebuilding Historical Friendship and the Joint History Commission Proposal

Turks and Armenians should work to rebuild their historical friendship without turning the difficult periods of their common past into a matter of hostility. Before the propaganda that followed the assassinations of Turkish diplomats, Turks and Armenians were socially very close worldwide. To restore this, a dialogue process and respect for different perspectives are required to achieve a "just memory." In $2005$, Turkey proposed the establishment of a Joint History Commission composed of experts from Turkey, Armenia, and other countries to research the $1915$ events in various archives. Although this aims at a constructive discourse according to the spirit of the time, Armenia has not yet given a positive response.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s condolence message on April $23$, $2014$, was a turning point: "With the hope and belief that the peoples of an ancient and unique geography who share similar traditions and customs can talk about their past with maturity… we wish for the Armenians who lost their lives in the conditions of the early $20^{th}$ century to rest in peace and convey our condolences to their grandchildren." Since then, Turkey has taken further steps, such as ministerial participation in the religious ceremony held by the Istanbul Armenian Patriarchate on April $24$, $2015$. The ultimate goal is to open ways for reconciliation and replace feelings of hatred with mutual understanding and empathy for the younger generations.

Questions & Discussion

Hrant Dink (November 1, 2004): "The true arbitrator is the people and their consciences. In my conscience, no state power can compete with the conscience of a people. My only wish is to be able to talk about my common past with my dear Turkish friends as thoroughly as possible and freely, without producing any hostility from that history…"