Introduction to Archival Documents of the Viennese Armenian Turkish Platform Book

Introduction and Acknowledgements

The efforts for launching a dialogue between Yerevan and Ankara in the frame work of the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Committee (TARC) failed in 2001. The TARC process, which was being evaluated as a product of the resolution processes in western parliaments, had to be stopped as the nationalists of both sides were not involved in the reconciliation process. Taking lessons from the past processes, it was stated that all segments of both societies should be expressing their concerns, and everything should be put on the table, without avoiding the discussion of existing problems between the two states. But, while TARC was an attempt at a dialogue and interaction between public organizations and business associations for establishing mutual understanding, handling sensitive issues, and achieving prosperity in the region, the VAT was the first attempt to bring national scientific institutions together.

It has to be recognized that next to a very simply one way of understanding by the majority of Turks and Armenians on the basis of presumed polarization, there is an international and confusing presentation of what had happened before, during and after WWI. This “state of the art” is indeed controversial and very much politicized.

Since the question of 1915 is still with us as a historical, moral, and political issue, the VAT was an attempt in the frame work of conflict solution and reconciliation between academic representatives of the two nations. As VAT, we are aiming here at choosing to approach the issue without making any visible effort to qualify the events of 1914-1919. This question shall not be the main focus of this publication, since the documents presented by both sides should speak for themselves. The approach here has primarily to do with describing an academic attempt in favor of mutual understanding between Turkish and Armenian scholars.

Historical Sources in a Global Age

Currently, historians seem to discover the history of the post-colonial development endeavors. They aim at working together especially on sensitive questions like the Armenian-Turkish dispute. Several research results have been published and many are still under way, which focus on several aspects of the Armenian-Turkish dispute in the light of global phenomenon. This publication is only one of them. It is the result of a humble academic initiative that was started in Vienna. As a matter of fact, we, the members of the Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform too had to experience the almost “impossibility” of bringing Turkish and Armenian scholars together.

Is the Armenian Question a political or a scientific one? The answer depends on the perception. Without undermining the political complexity of the issue, VAT, for us, is a first step, and a scientific one.

However, for the large and influential Armenian Diaspora worldwide, the most important national issue remains the recognition of the events of 1915 as genocide. And the Turkish side is ready for a dialogue and is very active in finding a possible solution for the matter. The Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, suggested that teams of historians from the two countries should carry out research on the delicate topic.

As a genuine Austrian initiative, VAT served from 2003-2005 as an intermediary as well as a platform on equal terms which enabled the Armenian Academy of Sciences and the Turkish Historical Society to present their documents concerning the years 1914-1919 and showing their understanding of this delicate matter. As a final result of the meeting a “common handbook” was to be published giving both sides the opportunity of equally presenting their views on a very sensitive episode of history.

In July 2004 the first batch of documents from Armenian and Turkish sides were exchanged in order to get the dialogue started. Neither the Turkish nor the Armenians participants had any official capacity on behalf of their governments. However, due to the cancellation request of VAT’s Armenian partners, namely Professors Dr. Lavrenti Barseghian (at the time Director of the Museum of Genocide in Yerevan), and Prof. Dr. Ashot Melkonian (at the time Director of the Department of History at the Armenian Academy of Sciences), the closest contact of Turkish and Armenian scientists in the past 90 years, “The First Viennese Armenian-Turkish Round Table” (FVATR, Vienna 2005), did not take place. The Turkish partners, Prof. Dr. Yusuf Halaçoğlu (at the time President of the Turkish Historical Society, TTK) and Prof. Dr. Hikmet Özdemir (at the time President of the Department of Armenian Studies at TTK) had, in September 2004, already accepted to participate in the dialogue.

Being aware of the necessity of facing mutual and common history, not only the international community but especially Armenian and Turkish scholars have to seriously and systematically get involved with the Armenian Question. In this Edition the first batch of documents will at least serve as primary sources for the international community. This unsolved historical issue between the two neighboring nations is a huge burden for the region, as well as for the international community. If the first initiative of VAT would have been realized, it would have demonstrated to the international community the strong will and determination of both sides to solve their differences amongst themselves. Without basic scientific contact and dialogue with equal rights, a Turkish-Armenian scientific evaluation is not possible. Therefore, VAT encourages both sides to think in factual and realistic terms and start taking mutual steps toward understanding each other for a common future.

It is our hope that the concept of VAT can be taken as an example for a mutual dialogue in the future.

Writings from the past: Archival Documents Presented to VAT

We are publishing a total of 179 archival documents from Turkish, American, German, French and Austrian archives. The first document is dated 26 February 1914 and the last one 13 February 1919. Also, the correspondence of VAT with the respective Turkish and Armenian Institutions mentioned above is presented here so that the reader can be introduced to the VAT-process.

The Armenian side presented the Ottoman policy towards the Armenians through the mirror of the Austrian-Hungarian descriptions in WWI. In light of a mosaic of 80 Austrian texts in which one finds both the stark condemnation of the excesses against the Armenian deportees, the prophesy that unless the excesses are stopped Turkey will face condemnation for generations, and, on the other hand, reports on Armenian rebellions and sabotage actions branding the Armenians as well organized and separatist rebellious troublemakers on behalf of their nation, it was a dilemma for Austrians in the Ottoman Empire on how to present the events.

The Turkish side presented 99 documents from Turkish, American, German, French, and Austrian archives. The documents relate to a large field of content and they present a rich picture of the events.

While there is a difference in the way of how the Armenian and the Turkish sides are presenting their views, there are enough documents which mutually support each other. A very unique experience here is that both sides presented two identical documents to VAT (Document Nr. 77 and 94) which shows the different way of interpreting the archival documents. While the Turkish side is more interested in presenting the legal and technical nature of the events, the Armenian side mostly emphasizes the tragic nature of the deportations.

Documents in Ottoman-Turkish are given in modern Turkish transcription as long as they are not published before. In terms of some existing English translations, some corrections were made.

Although the majority of the documents had not yet been published 4 years ago when they were first presented to VAT (2003), many of them were published since then in several collections and books. This was due to the fact that the editorial process of VAT took a long time in order to overcome several differences in opinions within VAT.

Wherever possible, the standard spelling forms and transcription of modern Turkish have been followed for Turkish names and expressions. However those Ottoman place names outside the boundaries of the Turkish Republic which have a generally accepted English form, e.g. ‘Aleppo’, are referred to as such, rather than their modern Turkish form. Most official titles have been translated into English, though in a few cases forms such as ‘kaymakam’ (sub-province, county, or district) and ‘vilayet’ (province), which is familiar in English to many readers of Ottoman history, have been used along with their English equivalents. Because of its familiarity in English, ‘pasha’ has been used throughout rather than ‘paşa’. Some Armenian personal names which are usually spelt slightly differently from their English form in Turkish are given in their English form in this translation.

During our research of this very sensitive issue, we became very much aware of the complexity of the events mirrored in the treatment of the materials in question. While some may object to our descriptive and cautious style, the absence of the standard polarization leaves plenty of room for critical scholars to form their own hypothesis, reflect on different explanations, and form a much more detailed and close-to-life picture of the terrible ordeals of WWI. Our cautious style serves also as a platform for an Armenian-Turkish common future where both sides try to find a united way of dealing with the sensitive issue. First we arrange a common methodology, and than we can work on the topic in order to achieve a scientific result. However, all this can’t be accomplished if there isn't at least a certain dose of social interaction between the sides to the dispute.

It is said that Europe’s past is a sum of its national histories. However, European Empires with their multi-ethnic societies have often been considered as failures and their history is often perceived as a narrative of disintegration and decline. With the dominating premises of nation-state formation receding in recent historiography, the themes of integrating multi-ethnic societies and the threats of Empires' disintegration in an era of dynamic international competition since the late 19th century deserve new attention.

The Documents of The Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform can be looked at as an alternative way to answer the campaigns waged by Armenian nationalists to persuade Western parliaments to recognize the Armenian genocide claims and the agitation of Turkish nationalists who are inclined to forget what had happened. A strong burden in the frame work of a corporation in scientific terms is that the “Turks” just want the past forgotten and the “Armenians” feel themselves insulted in terms of any comparison and relating their destiny with the destinies of other nations in the framework of the zeitgeist in the last century.

VAT was not an effort to develop ties with scholars outside the official mainstream. In fact, it was intended to bring scholars and institutions from both sides that had high influence on their political decision makers.

The collection of documents published in this volume does not try to present a strategy beyond the dominant, conventional ones currently pursued by political perceptions. However, it exactly tries to seek an optional way of scholarly understanding between political antitheses.

It must be noted here that during the past several years progressive, non-official academic workshops in Europe, the USA, and even in Turkey and Armenia, which are organized by “non affiliated” scholars, showed us that the only way out is to bring antagonists and protagonists together in an official capacity to make Turkey and Armenia aware of examining their own past.

VAT was unique in the sense that no previous attempts had dealt with this issue with such an original infrastructure. It was only a private academic initiative to bring “official” historians of the official institutions who held diametrically opposite opinions. It is to be stressed here that both sides had to be presented equally in order for the endeavor to be considered a truly scholarly one.

The Armenian-American scholar Henry Theriault notes that Armenians and Turks are presented as people who have “long-standing conflicts over historical events that happened roughly a century ago. And the way to deal with this issue is to get these people to sit at the same table, talk about their problems, and somehow negotiate some way of changing their relationship.” He argues that there are some “obvious assumptions” that go with that kind of model. The most significant of those assumptions is that “there’s a kind of equality among the parties” and that through such meetings, “you can negotiate out of genocidal legacies.”

It is a pleasure and a privilege to publish this first common documentary. As VAT-Members we want to thank the Wieser Publishing House for making the publication of this volume a reality.



The Editors,
24 April 2009,
Los Angeles, California