|
Professor of political science, Tennessee Technical University, PhD in International Relations, The Kent State University.
Gunter has written more than 75 articles in scholarly journals and books including Middle East Journal, American Journal of International Law and World Affairs. He has authored nine books about the Kurdish people of Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Iran, and two of those books were among the first analyses in English of the Kurdish unrest in the Middle East. Gunter’s forthcoming publication is on the Armenian issue. [info]
major publications
relevant publications
SOURCE: Armenian History and the Question of Genocide
 "Without denying the tragic massacres the Armenians suffered during World War I, it is also important to place them in their proper context. When this is done, the application of the term 'genocide' to these tragic events is inappropriate because the Turkish actions were neither unilateral nor premeditated. As the testimony of Hovhannes Katchaznouni, the first Prime Minister of Armenia after World War I, makes clear, some Armenians killed as many Turks as they could in a misguided attempt to strike for independence. Additional Armenian writers such as Louise Nalbandian, James Mandalian, and Armen Garo, among others, have also detailed how some Armenians had long fought against the Turks in the lead-up to the massacres of World War I. Furthermore, such distinguished Western scholars as William Langer, Arnold Toynbee, and Walter Laqueur, among others, have also concurred with this judgment." Pp. 54-55
"The Armenian claim that they were victims of a premeditated and unprovoked genocide does not ring true….Decades of what the Turks saw as Armenian provocations and even treason during previous wars, armed revolutionary activity between the wars, the creation of Russian-Armenian guerrilla groups in the invading Russian army during the present one, the defection of certain Ottoman Armenians to the enemy, the armed resistance to conscription on the part of Armenians in Zeitun, incidents of revolutionary acts and sabotage in the countryside, and the Armenian uprising in Van in reaction to the unpardonable but probably unofficial policies of the local governor, Jevdet Bey--all led the Turks to believe they were in real danger from a fifth column." Pp. 20-21
"In addition, of course, the Ottoman Empire in 1915 was a badly decaying institution nearing the end of its long existence. In the throes of fighting a losing war, it was pushed beyond its capacities and lost control of the situation. Much of the gendarmerie who implemented the deportation orders, for example, was simply a poorly trained substitute for the original force that was now enrolled in the regular army. Indeed, some of these replacements were probably nothing more than brigands themselves." P. 21
"The Armenian claim to eastern Anatolia is a glaring anachronism. For almost a century practically none of them have lived there. Some twenty million Muslims do, however, and their right to do so has been internationally recognized since 1923 by the Treaty of Lausanne. If at this late date the Armenians were to be granted legal possession to the territory, the Cherokee Indians might as well be allowed to assume sovereignty in middle Tennessee, the English in northwestern France, or for that matter the Turks from the Balkans from which they were evicted in the nineteenth century. It is clear, therefore, that at this late date the Armenians have no valid international legal claim to eastern Anatolia. Pp. 22-23
"From approximately 1973-1985, Armenian terrorists earned a deadly and infamous international reputation by murdering 30 different Turkish diplomats or members of their immediate families. In addition, many other noninvolved third parties were killed in the crossfire. Some 188 terrorist operations occurred on four different continents including Western Europe, southwest Asia, North America, and even Australia. Nevertheless, some among the Armenian public tacitly sympathized with the terrorists because of what they saw as past wrongs committed by Turkey." P. 70
"The Armenian ability in capitalizing on hypermobilizing through two (now three) separate lobbies has contributed to their success. In addition, of course, the Armenian lobbies benefit from the historical view that the Armenians were an innocent Christian minority that suffered horrific genocide at the hands of their Turkish oppressors. Thus, the US public is predisposed to view Armenian-supported proposals favorably and Turkish replies unfavorably. Until historians can create a more balanced viewpoint of Turkey on these questions, only Turkey's considerable geopolitical position and its value to the United States manage to keep Turkey from being completely overwhelmed by this Armenian game of politicizing history." Pp. 95-96
"Further dialogue should involve a more honest examination of the historical relationship between the two peoples on the part of each. Such an analysis hopefully would reveal the more positive sides of their past historical association, while admitting candidly the transgressions each had committed against the other. Pp. 23-24
Source: "Pursuing the Just Cause of Their People": A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism
"Outraged over the alleged genocide of some 1.5 million Armenians by the Turks during WW I and the resulting loss of their ancestral homeland, Armenian terrorists in the past decade have murdered 30 Turkish diplomats or members of their immediate families, including 4 in the United States." Pp. 1
"In a later study Professor Toynbee, although not denying the accuracy of the Blue Book, did write that it had been “duly published and distributed as war propaganda." Pp. 14
 "The Armenian claim that they were victims of a premeditated genocide does not ring true, however. Rather, what appears more likely is that there was an honest, though inaccurate belief among the Turkish leaders that they were faced with a widespread and coordinated Armenian uprising from within at the very time their state was in mortal danger from without. Decades of what the Turks saw as Armenian provocations and even treason during previous wars, armed revolutionary activity between the wars, the creation of Russian-Armenian guerrilla groups in the invading Russian army during the present war, the defection of certain Ottoman Armenians to the enemy, the armed resistance to conscription on the part of Armenians in Zeytun, incidents of revolutionary acts and sabotage in the countryside, and the Armenian uprising in Van in reaction to the unjustified but probably unofficial policies of the local governor-all led the Turks to conclude they were in real danger from a fifth column. (Similarly, a much better organized U.S. government unjustly interned its citizens of Japanese descent at the start of World War II.)" P. 17
Source: The Politicizing of History and the Armenian Claims of Genocide, March 13, 2009, Letter to the Editor to NewYork Times
"Without denying the tragic massacres the Armenians suffered during World War I, it is also important to place them in their proper context. When this is done, the application of the term “genocide” to these tragic events is inappropriate because the Turkish actions were neither unilateral nor premeditated. As the testimony of Hovhannes Katchaznouni, the first prime minister of Armenia after World War I makes clear, some Armenians killed as many Turks as they could in a misguided attempt to strike for independence. Additional Armenian writers such as Louise Nalbandian, James Mandalian, and Armen Garo, among others, have also detailed how some Armenians had long fought against the Turks in the lead up to the massacres of World War I. Furthermore, such distinguished Western scholars as William Langer, Arnold Toynbee, and Walter Laqueur, among others, have also concurred with this judgment. Their positions along with others demonstrate that the Turkish actions were not unilateral, that the Armenians were not always innocent victims, and that what befell the Armenians was not entirely unprovoked. Sabrina Tavernise’s recent article in the New York Times “Nearly a Million Genocide Victims, Covered in a Cloak of Amnesia” jumps to the unwarranted conclusion of genocide because the number of Armenians within the Ottoman Empire declined by some 900,000 from 1915-17. However, this does not mean that all of these 900,000 Armenians died. Indeed, many survived as refugees, and eventually settled in other countries. Therefore, Tavernise misleads her readers by implying that Talaat Pasha’s figures documented that they all died.
As for the necessary attribute of premeditation to demonstrate genocide, there are no authentic documents that prove guilt. Although there are countless descriptions of the depravations suffered by the Armenians, they do not prove premeditation. The so-called Andonian documents that purport to demonstration premeditation are almost certain fabrications. As for the Armenian contention that the huge loss of Armenian lives illustrates premeditation, what then should be said about the enormous loss of Turkish lives among civilians, soldiers, and prisoners-of-war? Were these Turkish deaths also genocide or rather due to sheer incompetence, neglect, starvation, and disease? And if the latter were true of the ethnic Turkish population, all the more were they the fate of an ethnic group that had incurred upon itself suspicion of acting as a fifth column in a time of war. Even so Armenian communities in such large western cities as Constantinople and Smyrna were spared deportation probably because they were not in a position to aid the invading Russians. Is it possible to imagine Hitler sparing any Jews in Berlin, Munich, or Cologne from his genocidal rampage for similar reasons? If as the Armenians allege the Turkish intent was to subject their Armenian victims to a premeditated forced march until they died of exhaustion, why was this tactic not imposed on all of the Armenians? More logically, the huge task of relocating several hundred thousand Armenians in a short period of time and over a highly primitive system of transportation proved simply beyond the capacity of the Ottoman government. Therefore, until historians can agree on exactly what happened, it seems reasonable not to politicize history with unsubstantiated claims of genocide."
|
