Armenian “genocidier” scholars argue that ‘you are not even an expert; you do not even speak Turkish’. They also accuse Jewish origin American scholars of distorting history by denying the so-called genocide.

Prof. Guenter Lewy

I came to this topic as part of a planned comparative study of genocide. I am not a Middle East expert (even though I lived 8 years in the Middle East) and I do not read Ottoman Turkish. However, the archival materials and other original sources in Western languages are more than adequate to research this topic. The reports of American, German, Austrian consular officials who were on the spot in Anatolia, as well as the accounts of foreign missionaries who witnessed the deportations are richer and better sources than what is contained in the Turkish archives. A requirement that only persons fluent in the Turkish language be considered competent to write about this topic would, disqualify most Armenians who also do not know Turkish. The argument that Jewish scholars deny the genocide because they are Jewish and want to defend the uniqueness of the Holocaust is indecent as well as irrelevant. A book has to be judged by its content and not by the motive of its author.

The West was not at all concerned about the Muslim cleansing of the Balkans, but charities exist to help Ottoman Armenians all over the Western world. How do you explain the West’s astonishingly different reaction to the Muslim atrocities in the Balkans in 1912-1913 and the Armenian atrocities of 1915?

Obviously, all human life should be of equal worth. The West took its time in reacting to the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, but it did eventually react forcefully and halted these atrocities. Armenian misdeeds during World War I were often ignored because Armenian propaganda was well orchestrated and the Western world did not expect Christians to behave this way. The horrendous events of World War II have since taught us that no nationality, no matter what its religion or cultural achievements, is immune to outrageous criminal conduct in war.

You quote in your book (pg. 246) that “massacre, outrage and devastation have always been congenial to Turks.” Do you think this prejudice was pivotal in the Western attitude to Armenian massacres?

The allegation often made by Armenians that Turks love massacres and devastation because of their national character was indeed shared by many in the West who likewise condemned the “terrible Turk.”

Can you compare and contrast Shoah and the Armenian massacres?

Hitler’s Final Solution of the Jewish Question – the Holocaust or Shoah – aimed at the total destruction of the Jewish people. The Armenian massacres of World War I were not committed at the behest of the Ottoman government, and that fact alone makes a crucial difference. The fact that the large Armenian communities of Istanbul, Izmir and Aleppo were exempted from the deportation is another important indication that the Young Turks had no genocidal designs against the Armenian minority of their country.

What is the way out? You argue that there are some Armenians who will be satisfied “with an official statement by the Turkish government that it deeply regrets the great suffering of the Armenians during World War I” (pg 269) How plausible is this argument?

Since writing the book and expressing in it some optimism about Turkish-Armenian reconciliation I have been to Turkey, and I am now more pessimistic in this regard. European pressure has caused a nationalistic backlash among many Turkish intellectuals, and I think it extremely unlikely that the Turkish government will be willing to make a statement of regret of the kind that has been proposed. The Armenian Diaspora, too, appears to be getting more demanding and extreme.

How shall Turkey approach the issue? Should Turkey do more, other than offer to establish a joint commission, which was immediately refused by the Armenians?

The idea of a joint historical commission is a good one. In order to be credible, it will be important for the Turkish historical scholars to do better than the work of the Turkish Historical Society has done so far. The fact that the president of this society, Yusuf Halacoglu, is a person who does not even read English is a scandal.

Another interview with Prof. Lewy (in Turkish) has appeared in the publication Aksiyon. (aksiyon.com.tr/detay.php?id=22917) With thanks to reader Fatih Ipek for the translation, here is the English version:



Guenter Lewy, a historian who specializes in historical genocide, made important allegations regarding the events of 1915. “Genocide legislations are not legally binding,” According to Lewy, let alone committing genocide, the Ottoman Empire did not even have the intention of genocide. He said that history will be written by historians, not by parliaments. Lewy suggests that the goal of recent ‘genocide’ legislations by some parliaments is to provoke Turkish nationalism.

Prof. Guenter Lewy

One of the most renowned historians in the field of historical genocide, Dr. Lewy demonstrated in his book “The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide” that the Armenian allegations of genocide are based on fabricated documents. He did this at a time when the parliaments of 17 different countries which are led by European countries and the US, made announcements that the genocide should be recognized. Guenter Lewy has not just recently become interested in what happened in 1915, he has devoted 52 years of his life to historical genocide. His fact driven views on the alleged Armenian genocide have just begun being discussed in different platforms. His findings on the alleged genocide will be discussed by Armenian Diaspora and other historians. As he stated, “History will be written by historians and by facts, not by parliaments.” We talked to Lewy about his book and the alleged genocide claims in Ankara at Estergon castle. This is the second time he has been to Turkey and he was invited to Turkey by Gazi University and Avrasya Bir Vakfi which is a non-profit organization.

Q: What is the main claim in your book?

A: It does not matter what genocide means or what genocide does not mean. My goal is to try to find out what happened in 1915 and how and why without the question without focusing on whether it was genocide or not. This will enable us to understand the tragic events of 1915 better.

Q: Instead of focusing on whether there was genocide, you recommend focusing on the reasons for the events and deaths. Why?

A: To categorize the events is the biggest mistake. Instead of categorizing it, we need to understand what happened. Why and how? Before answering these questions, you cannot categorize the events. The term genocide does not really help us to understand what actually happened. On the contrary, it prevents the exchange of ideas and face to face communication. Because everyone who is fixated on genocide does not focus on why and how the events took place, which are the most important aspects in understanding what happened. In other words, the concept of genocide is the biggest reason why we cannot understand what happened in 1915. If we treat what happened in 1915 as historical events, this would result in a better understanding of each other among Armenians and Turks and a better understanding of what happened in 1915.

Q: Which countries' archives were you able to research?

A: American, Turkish, German, Russian and British. I would like to have access to Armenian archives as well. Dashnaks’ archives are very important. Historical research cannot be based on one document, different documents from varied sources need to be analyzed and compared.

Q: You state in your articles that Armenian deaths in the First World War were not planned massacres by the Ottoman Empire. What are the facts and documents that support this theory?

A: There is concrete evidence proving that mandatory relocation was not genocide. The first piece of evidence is that nothing happened to Armenians who were living in Istanbul, Izmir and Halep. This would be akin to Hitler leaving alone the Jews who lived in Munich or Berlin. Could this have happened under the Nazi rule in Germany? If it were genocide in 1915, the Armenians living in Istanbul, Izmir and Aleppo would have been killed as well. Secondly, the claims that the Ottomans took Armenians on a death trip are being debated by Armenians. The relocation was tough and the circumstances were hard. There were not a lot of transportation choices and The Ottoman government allowed more affluent Armenians use the railroad. Thus, the goal was not to kill the Armenians. If it were, the Ottoman government would not have allowed some Armenians to take the railroad.

Q: Is there any other evidence?

A: Another piece of evidence that proves that 1915 events were not planned is that the gendarmes were assigned to protect Armenians who had to relocate. In some cases, some gendarmes were very aggressive because of orders from commanding officers. Circassians and Kurds attacked convoys of Armenians who were relocating and in some cases Circassians and Kurds were partnering with the gendarmes. This proves that the Ottoman government did not have a master genocide plan, but Armenians were treated differently depending on the location where they were. All the facts prove that there was no intention of genocide.

Q: When debating mandatory relocation or alleged genocide, numbers of casualties are thrown out. In your view, how many people were killed in the events of 1915?

A: We cannot determine the exact number for the population of Armenians before the war. From my own research and from the documents that I have read, I think the Armenian population was 1.6 million before the war. 40% of the Armenian population died because of different causes. The majority of deaths was caused by illnesses, followed by killings and hunger. As a result of the 3 reasons that I stated, six hundred thousand people died. Either the deaths were definitively the result of genocide or there is no evidence that genocide was committed.

Q: You are making these unusual scientific assertions in the US where the Armenian lobby is very strong. What did people think of your findings? Any backlash?

A: The biggest problem in the US is to find people who would listen to me. I cannot find people or platforms where I can voice my findings because my findings conflict the generally accepted version of events. I am saying that there was no genocide. At first, I could not find a publishing company to publish my book. Finally, the University of Utah decided to publish my book.

Q: Are you receiving any kinds of death threats because you said there was no genocide. Are you afraid of radical Armenians?

A: No, I am not afraid. In the 1980s, Turkish diplomats were attacked with guns by radical Armenians. That is true, but these days they are using writing tools instead of guns (he’s smiling), so there is not a problem. I am a scientist and I do my job.

Q: The European Parliament passed a legislation which writes that Turkey needs to recognize the genocide before she can be a member of the European Union. What do you think of the European Parliament’s legislation and similar legislation approved by other parliaments? Do they have any legal bindings?

A: In my mind, this is a historical event. This is not the business of parliaments to comment on historical events. The European Parliament’s legislation has no legal binding. Parliaments need to avoid making assertions on historical issues. History should be written by historians, not by parliaments.

Q: The prime minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, proposed to form a committee of historians from both countries, but there was not a positive response from Yerevan. What do you think of the proposal and the fact that it was not accepted by Yerevan?

A: This is a very interesting proposal. In my opinion, this is a good attempt. The fact that there was not a positive response from Armenians is not surprising. I can understand why the Armenian Diaspora did not like this offer. According to them, for any debate to take place, The Turks need to recognize the alleged genocide and it is hard for the Turkish side to recognize the alleged genocide. Both sides need to exchange ideas on historical events. Both sides do not have the luxury of avoiding the exchange of ideas.

Q: Although the diplomatic relations between Ankara and Yerevan are frozen, $50 million of bilateral trade is taking place between the two nations. What do you think of the actions that are taken by business men and non government organizations?

A: It is very nice that business men to business men, non governmental organizations to non governmental organizations and trade relations exist. I hope politicians and historians follow suit.

Q: What do you think of the problems between Armenian people and Turkish people? When and how will they be solved?

A: I do not have a good answer for this question. I was more optimistic on my way to Ankara, but I do not think it’s going to be easy to solve the problems. Nationalist feelings in Turkey are on the rise as a result of the European Parliament’s legislation and the rejection of Erdogan’s proposal by the Armenian Diaspora. Armenians need to think about this issue. In order to open doors and to continue the relations between the two nations, The Armenians need to accept Erdogan’s proposal.


(The interview appears to have been conducted by Fatih Ugur.)



Who Is Guenter Lewy?

He was born in Germany in 1923. When Nazis were in power, he was 10 years old. As a result of Nazi’s oppression of the Jewish people, he and his family moved to Palestine in 1939. Then his family moved to the USA. He lost his relatives during the Jewish genocide. In 1953, he started his academic career at Columbia University. In his own words “All the painful memories of the past pushed him to become a historian”. He worked on a lot of books, articles and did a lot of research to uncover what happened in Spain and Germany under Hitler’s rule. His last book is the one which proves that alleged Armenian claims are not based on any evidence. He is still working as a professor of political science at Columbia University.