mercredi 15 avril 2015

Les historiens Fikret Adanır (turc) et Hilmar Kaiser (allemand) parlent de "génocide arménien", mais qu'entendent-ils par là ?

Hakan Yavuz, "Contours of Scholarship on Armenian-Turkish Relations", Middle East Critique, volume 20, n° 3, automne 2011, p. 246-247 :

"(...) Fikret Adanır, a leading historian of Ottoman Macedonia, calls the events genocide, but also argues that the Turkish state should never recognize the events of 1915 as genocide since they were not genocide in legal terms.42 He occasionally uses the term, but also argues that there was neither intent nor an ideology to destroy the Armenians communities. After arguing that ‘I use genocide in terms of punishing a collective group’ and also ‘in terms of historical responsibility,’ he rejects using the legal meaning of genocide because, ‘I do not think one can prove the intent’ (kasıt) since there is no such document which calls for the killing of Armenians.’ The most critical part of the interview is where Adanır claims that ‘the establishment of the Turkish Republic became a possibility with the elimination of the possibility of creating an independent Armenia in Anatolia. We established the current Republic by eliminating this alternative.’ Adanır argues that the Ottoman state made a big mistake and is fully responsible for innocent Armenians who had nothing to do with the events but were all punished and suffered the consequences of the Ottoman decision.

We should openly apologize for what happened to these people. Then, we should tell the Armenians that there was the context in which these events took place. Why did the Ottomans not do this 100 years ago but did it in 1915 ? Thus, there are reasons such as the Armenian desire to establish a state and also Armenian terrorism that resulted in the suffering of Muslims.

Adanır accepts the security threat and the provocation by the Armenian organizations intended to bring the intervention of the major European powers. He also argues that the mentalities of the CUP and the Armenian nationalists were very similar, since ‘both groups believed in social Darwinism, i.e., that might will win and might is also right and if do not kill you, you will kill me.’ Adanır also asserts that the Armenian nationalists, just like the CUP, also defended homogenization. (...)

42 For Fikret Adanır’s interview, see 1915 hukuki anlamda bir soykırım değildir, Milliyet, June 22, 2009."

Hilmar Kaiser, "Regional Resistance to Central Government Policies : Ahmed Djemal Pasha, the Governors of Aleppo, and Armenian Deportees in the Spring and Summer of 1915", Journal of Genocide Research, volume 12, n° 3-4, septembre-décembre 2010, p. 210 :

"The case of the 4th Army cannot be taken as being representative for other Ottoman armies. It shows, however, that the notion of an empire-wide genocide of Ottoman Armenians perpetrated by a unified CUP is untenable. This kind of thinking needs to be revised and freed of claims that are based on imagination rather than evidence."

Voir également : Hasan Cemal est-il un clown ?

Halil Berktay et les tabous de l'historiographie nationaliste arménienne

Entretien avec Fuat Dündar

"Génocide arménien" : le saviez-vous ?

Sources bibliographiques sur le contentieux turco-arménien
"Génocide arménien" : la parole aux historiens turcologues et islamologues
"Génocide arménien" : connaître les thèses contradictoires en présence