The Armenian question remains one of the most complex and contentious issues of modern history, stirring intense debates across scholarly and political landscapes. The book “12 Interviews in 12 Months: Truth About The Armenian Claims”, spearheaded by the Turkish-American Security Foundation (TASFO) and published by Serbest Publishing, brings forward a series of nuanced perspectives on the historical, legal, and geopolitical dimensions of these claims. The project, featuring interviews with twelve distinguished scholars, seeks to deconstruct widely held narratives and explore lesser-known facets of the historical events, urging readers to rethink and question established perspectives.

The interviews, conducted over the span of a year, delve into various controversial topics, including the nature of the Armenian relocations during World War I, the role of Armenian revolutionary groups, and the consequences faced by both Armenian and Muslim populations in Eastern Anatolia. Here is a closer look at the key contributors and their findings, which collectively present a multi-dimensional view of a complex historical issue:

Interviewees, Key Insights and Revelations:

  • Prof. Justin McCarthy: McCarthy challenges the genocide label, arguing that the Armenian losses during World War I need to be contextualized within the broader suffering of the Turkish populations of Anatolia. His demographic research suggests that mass deaths occurred on all sides due to war, starvation, and displacement, rather than a one-sided extermination effort. He points out to the conditions of war, the fakeness of Andoyan letters and the racist approach of Morgenthau, among many other fake and unreliable evidence, making the Armenian genocide claim a defamation.
  • Prof. Michael Gunter: Gunter underscores the legal definitions of genocide, questioning whether the necessary premeditation by the Ottoman government can be proven. He highlights the role of Armenian revolutionary activities and alliances with Russia, suggesting that the term “genocide” is often used without a full understanding of its legal ramifications. He also asserts that the real reason behind the Armenian genocide propaganda is purely politics and has nothing to do with the genocide accusation itself legally as none of the claims can be supported by any evidence in a competent court of law.
  • Prof. Sean McMeekin: McMeekin offers a historical perspective on the geopolitical strategies of the Triple Entente powers and their manipulation of Armenian groups for military gains. He emphasizes that Armenian partisans played a significant role in destabilizing the Ottoman eastern front, leading to severe consequences for local populations.
  • Prof. Oleg Kuznetsov: Kuznetsov delves into the ideology of Armenian nationalism and its connection to systematic violence, discussing the roots of Armenian terrorist movements such as ASALA and their impact on regional politics throughout the 20th century.
  • Dr. Robert B. McKay: With a unique perspective shaped by decades of teaching in Turkey, McKay provides a personal account of the Armenian diaspora’s narratives and their inconsistencies. He critiques the portrayal of Armenians solely as victims, calling for a balanced view that acknowledges the suffering of all communities involved.
  • Prof. Jeremy Salt: Salt provides an analysis of the Armenian nationalist ambitions and their consequences for the Muslim populations of Eastern Anatolia. He argues that the expulsion and massacre of Muslims in these regions was part of a broader strategy aimed at establishing an Armenian state.
  • Prof. Ömer Lütfi Taşçıoğlu, a specialist in Turkish-Armenian relations and an expert historian, emphasizes that Anatolian lands claimed by Armenians have historically belonged to Turks for thousands of years. He asserts that foreign powers have long attempted to use the Armenian population to establish a base in Anatolia, undermining Turkish sovereignty. Based on archival documents, he argues that accusations of genocide lack historical and legal foundation, aligning instead with geopolitical aims of outside forces against the Ottoman Empire.
  • Dr. Patrick Walsh critiques the use of the term “genocide” in the Armenian case, stating that it is legally incorrect and was not part of international law until after World War II. He explains that applying this term to the events of 1915 lacks legal grounding and serves more as a political tool than a historical truth. Walsh elaborates on how British and Western interests historically exploited the narrative against Turks, largely ignoring similar conflicts in other regions where Western powers themselves were involved.
  • Dr. Christian Johannes Henrich discusses his work with the Research Center for Southeast Europe and the Caucasus (SOEK), focusing on areas like the Balkans and the Caucasus with a holistic approach to the historical context of regional conflicts. He argues that politicians often lack the scholarly rigor needed to address the Armenian issue, leading to decisions driven by politics rather than research. Henrich emphasizes that true understanding requires independent research, which is often hindered by limited resources and political biases.
  • Dr. Maxime Gauin critically examines the authenticity of key documents used in Armenian genocide claims, including the Andonian documents. He argues that these documents have been proven to be forgeries, which undermines much of the genocide narrative.
  • Attorney Bruce Fein: With a legal lens, Fein explores the inconsistencies in the application of international law to the Armenian claims. He argues that the lack of impartial evidence and the political motivations behind genocide recognitions make the claims questionable under legal scrutiny.
  • Dr. Mehmet Perinçek discusses the role of Armenian revolutionary groups like Dashnaks in fostering ethnic tensions and violence. He suggests that the Ottoman response, including relocations, was a counterinsurgency effort rather than a genocidal campaign.

Most Compelling Findings:

  • Armenians collaborated with the Russians although they were Ottoman citizens, committing treason: Several interviewees emphasize the collaboration between Armenian nationalists and Russian forces during World War I, which played a critical role in the destabilization of the Ottoman eastern front. This alliance led to significant suffering for local populations, challenging the narrative of Armenians solely as victims.
  • There is no evidence of any genocide despite the Malta trials and today’s continuing interrogation of the subject: A common theme among the interviews is the challenge to the use of the term “genocide” to describe the events of 1915. The scholars argue that the complexities of wartime conditions, including famine, displacement, and military conflict, make it difficult to attribute a single intent of extermination to the Ottoman government.
  • Turkish populations suffered mass deaths in the millions between 1914-1922: The book highlights the significant losses experienced by Turkish populations due to massacres and forced migrations by Armenian partisans. This aspect is often neglected in Western historiography, leading to an incomplete understanding of the region’s suffering during the war.
  • Authenticity of Key Historical Documents: The authenticity of documents like the Andonian papers and Talat Pasha telegrams, often cited as evidence of Ottoman intent, is rigorously questioned. The interviewees present evidence suggesting that these documents are fabrications, further complicating the historical narrative.
  • Armenian Terrorism in the 20th Century: The book also explores the history of Armenian terrorism against Turkish diplomats in the latter half of the 20th century, providing a broader context to the Armenian Turkish conflict that extends beyond the events of 1915.

Conclusion: A Call for Balanced Understanding

“12 Interviews in 12 Months: Truth About the Armenian Claims” is a critical contribution to the ongoing debate on the Armenian claims of genocide. It calls for a balanced and comprehensive understanding of a tumultuous period in history, urging readers to question simplistic narratives and explore the multifaceted realities of wartime Anatolia. The perspectives offered by the twelve scholars shed light on underrepresented aspects of the conflict, providing a valuable resource for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the Armenian question, the experiences of the Ottoman Muslims, and the complex legacy of the era. This book needs to be read and re-read with notes followed through by the great works of the scholars who were interviewed, each of which is providing further evidence to the Armenian question and its terrorist state.