The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide: Language, History and “Medz Yeghern” 9780755641086, 9780755641116, 9780755641093

Citation preview

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

Armenians in the Modern and Early Modern World Recent decades have seen the expansion of Armenian Studies from insular history to a broader, more interactive field within an inter-regional and global context. This series, Armenians in the Modern and Early Modern World, responds to this growth by promoting innovative and interdisciplinary approaches to Armenian history, politics, and culture in the period between 1500-2000. Focusing on the geographies of the Mediterranean, Middle East, and Contemporary Russia [Eastern Armenia], it directs specific attention to imperial and post-imperial frameworks: from the Ottoman Empire to Modern Turkey/Arab Middle East; the Safavid/Qajar Empires to Iran; and the Russian Empire to Soviet Union/Post-Soviet territories. Series Editor Bedross Der Matossian, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA Advisory Board Levon Abrahamian, Yerevan State University, Armenia Sylvie Alajaji, Franklin & Marshal College, USA Sebouh Aslanian, University of California, Los Angeles, USA Stephan Astourian, University of California, Berkley, USA Houri Berberian, University of California, Irvine, USA Talar Chahinian, University of California, Irvine, USA Rachel Goshgarian, Lafayette College, USA Ronald Grigor Suny, University of Michigan, USA Sossie Kasbarian, University of Stirling, UK Christina Maranci, Tufts University, USA Tsolin Nalbantian, Leiden University, the Netherlands Anna Ohanyan, Stonehill College, USA Hratch Tchilingirian, University of Oxford, UK Published and Forthcoming Titles The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide: Language, History and ‘Medz Yeghern’, Vartan Matiossian Picturing the Ottoman Armenian World: Photography in Erzerum, Kharpert, Van and Beyond, David Low

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide Language, History and “Medz Yeghern” Vartan Matiossian

I.B. TAURIS Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA 29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland BLOOMSBURY, I.B. TAURIS and the I.B. Tauris logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2022 Copyright © Vartan Matiossian, 2022 Vartan Matiossian has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgments on p. viii constitute an extension of this copyright page. Series design by Adriana Brioso Cover image: A replica of the Genocide Monument in Yerevan, Armenia, carried to the monument as an offer during the commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the annihilation on April 24, 1990. The words “Yeghern” in Armenian and “Genocide” in English appear inscribed on the right side. Courtesy of Dr. Harutyun Marutyan, director of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute of Yerevan, Armenia. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: 978-0-7556-4108-6 ePDF: 978-0-7556-4109-3 eBook: 978-0-7556-4110-9 Series: Armenians in the Modern and Early Modern World Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

This book is dedicated to the memory of the Armenian clergy, both men and women, who were savagely tortured, murdered or dispatched into oblivion through the Medz Yeghern, like my great-great-grandfather Rev. Fr. Kaloust Isepian, born in Chomaklou (region of Caesarea/ Kayseri, 1851–1915) and pastor of St. Toros Armenian Apostolic Church in the nearby village of Yenijeh from his ordination in 1893 until his death in an unknown place of the desert during the deportation.

vi

Contents Acknowledgments A Note on Transliteration Introduction: Silencing the Name

viii xi 1

Part 1  Language and History 1 2 3

Yeghern until the Late Nineteenth Century Yeghern before and after 1915 Medz Yeghern and “Genocide” in Armenia and the Diaspora

19 27 51

Part 2  Politics and Language 4 5 6 7

John Paul II: “From the Depths of the Metz Yeghérn” Turkey: “The Denial of the Great Catastrophe” United States: “Genocide of the Armenians” and “Meds Yeghern” From Uruguay to the United States: On the Words of Recognition

89 95 105 123

Conclusion: Unsilencing the Name

135

Appendix A: The Meaning of Yeghern in Scholarship Appendix B: Yeghern and “Genocide” in Memorial Inscriptions Notes Bibliography Index

141 147 161 238 269

Acknowledgments Words are perverted by half-educated ideologues, divested of their ordinary meaning, and thrown left and right to the flock of submissive followers, who accept them as supreme political truth. Editorial of Droshak, April 1909 In 2001, during a visit to Armenia, Pope John Paul II used Medz (“Great”) Yeghern, the proper name for the annihilation of the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire starting in 1915. His mention in a prayer at the memorial in Yerevan catapulted the Armenian proper name for the genocide to the global stage. Successive non-Armenian utilizations of the name mostly tended to avoid the legal term “genocide” and rewrite facts. To this effect, the word yeghern was divested of its ordinary legal meaning and Medz Yeghern was weaponized as verbal chaff (Nadezhda Mandelstam dixit) or, even worse, fresh grist for the mill of linguistic and historical revisionism. Unexpectedly, the perversion of words found willful partners in the fertile ground of uninformed opinion and its flock of followers. Armenians, enmeshed in the web of genocide denial and anxiety for recognition, accepted the distortion of Medz Yeghern as political truth, failing to uphold the name of their own destruction. The vicious circle generated by two strange bedfellows, misrepresentation and substandard knowledge, motivated me enough to write two blog entries and a couple of online comments between 2010 and 2012. I did not intend to engage in a full critique of the glaring contempt for the testimony of language. My strong belief that the symbolic year 1915 represents neither the criminal beginning of Armenian history nor the catastrophic end of Armenian culture and my scholarly interests had positioned me at a healthy distance from the black hole of genocide, even though the proper name Medz (“Great”) Yeghern appeared in my research, writing, and translations with some frequency. However, serendipity intervened. Marginal as they were, those comments found an alert reader who reached out to share his concerns. I am deeply indebted to Donald Abcarian for vanquishing my reluctance to engage in a fulsome study of the use and abuse of Medz Yeghern, for which he did not spare his generous advice and assistance. When I published the first of a series of eleven essays (2012–13) thanks to Khatchig Mouradian, then the editor of The Armenian Weekly, I was already

Acknowledgments

ix

mulling the idea of giving them an afterlife. As I followed their impact, both explicit and implicit, the initial intention of producing a slightly revised version of those essays took a life of its own and, eight years later, became a book written anew. I am thankful to many other friends, colleagues, and acquaintances around the world, both named and unnamed, for their encouragement and support. Artsvi Bakhchinyan, Melissa Bilal, Talar Chahinian, Lerna Ekmekçioğlu, Hagop Gulludjian, Avedis Hadjian, Marc Mamigonian, Jennifer Manoukian, Razmik Panossian, and Talin Suciyan read different drafts and offered much-valued criticism and suggestions; Marc Nichanian and Archbishop Boghos Levon Zekiyan refined my grasp of certain points through our correspondence and conversations; Sevan Deirmendjian, Ara Sanjian, and Sassoun Simonian brought sources to my attention, and Harutiun Gobel, Narine Petrosyan, and Zaven Torikian helped locate others. Indeed, I am far from having covered the primary and secondary literature in their entirety, or read through all the nuances. The discoveries along this journey served to both enhance and correct some of my initial notions, but all views are my own and any shortcomings remain my responsibility. I benefited greatly from access to the New York Public Library, the Shnorhali Library of the Eastern Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church (New York), the Krikor and Clara Zohrab Information Center of the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern) (New York), the Bergen County Cooperative Library System (New Jersey), and the library of the Armenian Missionary Association of America (Paramus, New Jersey). It would not have been the same, however, without the libraries of the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (Belmont, Massachusetts), the National Library of Armenia, the Museum of Literature and Art “Yeghishe Charents” (Yerevan), the Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia (Antelias, Lebanon), and the Haigazian University (Beirut). The online collections of the National Library of Armenia, the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia, the Association pour la Recherche et l’Archivage de la Mémoire Arménienne (ARAM), the Digital Library of Armenian Literature, the Nayiri library of electronic dictionaries, as well as the blog Grahavak were also extremely useful along with standard sources like Google Books and Hathi Trust. I would like to express my gratitude to Bedross Der Matossian, series editor, and the advisory board for their decision to welcome this book as the inaugural publication of the “Armenians in the Modern and Early Modern World” series, as well as to the three anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. My thanks also go to Rory Gormley, commissioning editor for Middle East Studies at I.B. Tauris, for shepherding the process, along with editorial assistant Yasmin Garcha and everyone else, known and unknown, who contributed to bring this project to fruition. At the end of this road, I am deeply grateful to my wife, Nanor, for her continuous and patient support of my scholarly endeavors.

x

Acknowledgments

Feci quod potui, faciant meliora potentes (I have done what I could; let those who can, do better). Nevertheless, I hope that the reader may find accuracy and enlightenment amid error and darkness, and above all, be empowered with the real value of words that reclaim the names of the lost. Vartan Matiossian April 2021

A Note on Transliteration Armenian words have been transliterated according to the following rules: a) Proper names follow the phonetics of Western Armenian (WA, e.g., Hagop Oshagan, Kharpert) or Eastern Armenian (EA, e.g., Hakob Melik Hakobian, Tzitzernakaberd) according to birthplace or location. The rule does not apply to proper names (e.g., Echmiadzin, Karabagh, Archag Tchobanian) and names of periodicals and publishing houses (e.g., Haratch or Azatamart) that have an established Western spelling. b) Common nouns, other than in the case of quotations, follow Western Armenian phonetics (e.g., WA medz instead of EA metz). c) Titles of books and articles in the endnotes follow Classical Armenian (CA) phonetics. Author names follow Western spelling when applicable along with the standard Armenian transliteration (e.g., Yacoubian/Yaghubian; Kapikian/ Kapigian). d) The surname suffix –ian appears as yan when preceded by a vowel (e.g., Zekiyan) or already Romanized (e.g., Marutyan). WA EA CA WA EA CA  ա a a a յ y/h y/h y բ p b b ն n n n գ k g g շ sh sh š դ t d d ո o/vo o/vo o ե e/ye e/ye e չ ch ch č’ զ z z z պ b p p է e e ē ջ ch j ĵ ը e e ě ռ r r ŗ թ t t t’ ս s s s ժ zh zh ž վ v v v ի i i i տ d t t լ l l l ր r r r խ kh kh x ց ts ts c’ ծ dz tz c ւ v v w կ g k k փ p p p’ հ h h h ք k k k’ ձ tz dz j օ o o ō ղ gh gh ł ֆ f f f ճ j ch č մ m m m

A Note on Transliteration

xii Dipthongs եւ ev իւ iu ու u ոյ uy ույ –

ev – u – uy

ew iw u oy –

The alternative spelling of the letters ե (ye), յ (h), and ո (vo) only appears at the beginning of a word. The letter յ, when coming after a vowel at the end of a word, has not been transliterated. The transcription of words in Armenian script follows “traditional” orthography, used in Classical Armenian and Western Armenian, as well as by Eastern Armenian speakers from Iran (e.g., ցեղասպանութիւն), rather than the “reformed” Soviet orthography used by Eastern Armenian speakers living or emigrated from Armenia or other former Soviet republics.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

xiv

Introduction

Silencing the Name The degradation of Armenia and Armenians as a nation had started long before the 1915 “Yeghern” (the Great Crime)—the Jewish people have their “Holocaust,” we have our “Yeghern,” because the impersonal, contrived word “Genocide” cannot describe the inherent, peripheral horrors that these outrageous crimes against humanity entail. Tatul Sonentz-Papazian (2000)1 On the evening of December 7, 1909, a policeman knocked at the door of an Armenian woman in the district of Yedikule, in Constantinople, the capital of the Ottoman Empire, with the aim of taking advantage of her marital infidelity. In the end, he raped a nineteen-year-old Armenian seamstress who worked at the house, while a colleague attempting to imitate him escaped for fear of being caught. Both criminals were arrested, expelled from the police, and sentenced to forced labor in February 1910.2 Armenian and Turkish newspapers reported extensively on the episode. Initially, Azatamart (Armenian Revolutionary Federation, ARF) wrote that details lacked about “this savage yeghern” and Hairenik (independent) called it “a mysterious yeghern.” After they obtained the victim’s testimony, they were able to inform in full about the “evil yeghern.”3 Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Bible Student Association, passed away in 1916, when millions of copies of his six-volume series The Millennial Dawn (later renamed Studies in the Scriptures) had been distributed worldwide in several languages. The Armenian translation of the first volume, The Plan of the Ages, appeared in the same year, perhaps as part of an unfulfilled project to translate the whole series. The anonymous translator rendered “crime” as yeghern in the following paragraph: The Bible is the oldest book in existence; it has outlived the storms of thirty centuries. Men have endeavored by every means possible to banish it from the face of the earth; they have hidden it, buried it, made a crime punishable with death to have it in possession.4

Leo (Arakel Babakhanian, 1870–1932) published the first book of a multivolume history in 1917, where he referred to Roman general Mark Antony’s capture of

2

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

King Artavazd II of Armenia in 34 B.C. as scapegoat for his humiliating rout by the Parthians. The historian wrote that Antony’s callous behavior, “which the famous Roman historian Tacitus characterized with the word ‘crime’ [yeghern],” had inflicted a terrible blow to Rome’s influence in Armenia.5 Artavazd had been taken to Egypt and beheaded by order of Queen Cleopatra three years later, after her lover Antony committed suicide following his devastating defeat against Octavian, the future Emperor Augustus. The annihilation of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, mostly carried out in 1915–17, was a searing open wound when activist Bertha Sullivan Papazian pointed out to its symbolic representation in 1918: “How shall we name the dastardly crime which robbed them of life and homeland? How shall we describe that catastrophe?”6 In the first decades, the capitalization of words like Aghed (Catastrophe), Medz Aghed (Great Catastrophe), Medz Sarsap (Great Terror), Medz Sbant (Great Slaughter), Medz Suk (Great Mourning), Medz Voghperkutiun (Great Tragedy), Medz Vojir (Great Crime), or Sev Vojir (Black Crime) among others attempted to formulate an answer. It was the trio Yeghern (Crime), Abrilean Yeghern (Aprilian Crime), and Medz Yeghern (Great Crime) that provided the most common proper name. Names and attributes must be accommodated to the essence of things, Galileo Galilei observed in a letter of 1612. He justified his quibbling, presciently, on the grounds that anyone could impose names for his or her own benefit. Exactly four centuries later, he was proven right by a pseudonymous contributor to the “Armenian genocide” entry in Wikipedia, whose self-professed ignorance of the Armenian language was not an impediment to dismiss the translation of yeghern with the claim that the survivors of the Medz Yeghern “would not have used a trivial, everyday word like ‘crime’ to define the disaster that fell upon them.” Along came a tirade extolling the meaning “calamity” against the “propagandists who seek to exploit for their vain and selfish reasons the deaths of some two million people—and are so shameless that (…) try to alter even the wording the survivors used to define the disaster that fell upon them.”7 The repetition of unproven claims drives the facts, which are shaped into an alternative reality, giving further voice to a trend as old as the crime itself to rationalize, refuse, and rewrite what happened more than a century ago. The assault on the meaning of Medz Yeghern brings its own share to the efforts to silence the name of the act and its recognition, maintain it as an ongoing event, and keep its identity in flux, preventing the annihilation from gaining a place in history.8 The essence of genocide is denial, philosopher and literary scholar Marc Nichanian has remarked: “Why? Because those who conceived and carried out the extermination conceived and carried out, by the same token, the elimination of every trace of their act.”9

The Dastardly Crime against Humanity Six years after the revolution of 1908 that initiated the Second Constitutional Era in the Ottoman Empire, the government of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) welcomed the First World War as an opportunity to finish up with the contentious matter of Armenian reforms and European interference.10 After the Russo-Turkish war

Introduction

3

of 1877–8, the Treaty of Berlin stipulated the execution of administrative reforms in the provinces inhabited by Armenians and the guarantee of their physical safety by the government under supervision of the European powers. The Armenian question was front and center on the international stage for the next thirty-five years, while reform projects languished on paper and the lack of a political solution impulsed the creation of political parties primarily aimed at Armenian self-defense. Frequent misrepresentation has magnified the role, perceived or real, that the activities of those parties may have played in the peaks of state violence represented by Sultan Abdul Hamid II’s massacres of 1895–6, the Adana massacres of 1909, and especially the annihilation of 1915. In February 1914, a new European push for the application of reforms forced the ruling CUP to sign an agreement that was abolished in December, after the empire entered the war in alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary. The Ottoman offensive in the Caucasus, commanded by War Minister Ismail Enver, was crushed by the Russian army in the battle of Sarikamish (December 1914–January 1915). Enver blamed the defeat on Armenian volunteers—mostly Russian subjects—fighting with the enemy and issued an order in February 1915 to disarm and assign to labor battalions most Armenian conscripts of the Ottoman army, which were killed en masse in March and April. Local and regional massacres and removals of population started in early March. Several thousands of notables, politicians, and intellectuals were rounded up in April–May. The regional deportation orders issued by Interior Minister Mehmet Talat between May 10 and May 27 prompted US Ambassador Henry Morgenthau Sr. to report to the State Department on May 25 that Ottoman policy was breaking up the Armenians “by wholesale deportation which must deprive them of their ordinary means of livelihood.”11 On April 24–25, a police roundup decapitated the Armenian political and intellectual leadership in Constantinople, including the ARF Western Bureau, which had managed to send reports to the Central Committee of the Balkans in Sofia about the local massacres during March–April.12 A summary of those reports had been dispatched from Sofia to the Armenian National Bureau in Tiflis (Tbilisi), capital of the viceroyalty of the Caucasus, on April 18.13 Two days later, Gevorg V (1851–1930), Catholicos (Supreme Patriarch) of All Armenians, cabled Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Sazonov upon the suggestion of Viceroy Ilarion Vorontsov-Dashkov to ask the neutral powers, Italy and the United States, to stop the massacres “for the love of Christianity and humanity.” He also cabled their leaders, King Victor Emmanuel III “in the name of Christian faith and humanity” and President Woodrow Wilson “in the name of humanity and our holy Christian faith.” The Catholicos drafted appeals to President Raymond Poincaré of France “in the name of humanity and Christianity” and King George V of England “in the name of Christianity.”14 Sazonov and his British colleague Sir Edward Grey instructed their diplomatic representatives to lend support.15 The first official notice about the massacres in the United States was Gevorg V’s cable to Wilson, forwarded by Russian ambassador Georges Bakhmeteff on April 27. A day later, the Ottoman government tried to mollify Morgenthau and his Italian colleague Eugenio Garroni with claims of having issued orders to protect innocent people and punish disobeying officials.16 Also on April 28, Sazonov suggested to his French colleague Théophile Delcassé to release an Allied

4

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

statement holding Ottoman officials responsible and repeated this suggestion on May 5. The next day, Gevorg V sent his appeals to Poincaré and George V, probably on Sazonov’s cue, who drew upon their language on May 11 in a draft statement denouncing “these fresh crimes of Turkey against Christianity and civilization.” Delcassé and Grey objected to the use of Christianity, weary of fallout with Muslim subjects.17 The draft was still in limbo on May 23, when the British Press Bureau surprisingly published an English version of the statement using “these fresh crimes committed by Turkey.”18 After Russia consented to drop or replace her formula, the official statement in French condemned “these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization” on May 24, declaring that all government members and others involved would be held responsible.19 The news of the Allied statement probably spurred Talat to draft a temporary Law of Deportation (Tehcir Kanunu) and send it to Grand Vizier Said Halim on May 26 with a memorandum on the official anxiety aroused by Armenian claims for reforms, which stated that “a radical solution was needed to end and to completely wipe out the problem.”20 The draft was signed off by Said Halim and Enver the next day. After the formality of cabinet approval on May 30, it became law with its publication in the official journal Takvim-i-Vekayi on June 1. Meanwhile, the English translation of the Allied statement was cabled to the US State Department on May 28 and forwarded the next day to Morgenthau, who delivered it to Said Halim on June 3.21 The response, on June 4, used a draft provided by the German embassy to deny the existence of massacres; allege Armenian treason, massacres of Muslims, and collusion with the Entente, and argue matters of internal security and national sovereignty.22 Leslie A. Davis, American consul in the vilayet of Mamuret-el-Aziz (Kharpert), reported to Morgenthau on June 30 about the deportation as “another method (…) to destroy the Armenian race,” because “a wholesale deportation of this kind in this country means a lingering and perhaps even more dreadful death for nearly every one.”23 Secretary of State Robert Lansing appeared to echo the Ottoman narrative, writing on July 7 to James L. Barton, secretary of the American Board Commissioners for Foreign Missions, that “large bodies of Armenians are in armed rebellion against the Turkish Government,” which claimed that the measures were needed for its own protection.24 Morgenthau, who first informed the State Department on July 10 that many reports hinted at a “systematic attempt” of destruction through arrests, tortures, wholesale expulsions, and deportations often accompanied by rape, pillage, and massacre,25 may have caught wind of Lansing’s letter: his cable of July 16 warned that “a campaign of race extermination is in progress under a pretext of reprisal against rebellion.”26 The report of the American Committee on Armenian Atrocities, formed in New York under his inspiration, highlighted in October 1915 that “the crimes now being perpetrated upon the Armenian people” surpassed anything recorded during the prior millennium,27 and the American ambassador stated to Lansing in a confidential letter of November 18: “I am firmly convinced that this is the greatest crime of the ages.”28 A maelstrom of deportation, mass murder, dispossession, and forced assimilation whirled through the first phase carried out between June and November. Outside

Introduction

5

Constantinople and Smyrna, where deportations were relatively small in number, the Armenian population from Eastern Thrace to the Ottoman-Russian border was massacred, forced to convert to Islam, or expelled toward Syria and northern Mesopotamia. The Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, Archbishop Zaven Der Yeghiayan (1868–1947), wrote to Morgenthau on December 24 that the perpetrators could boast “that not a single Armenian is to be found in the districts under their jurisdiction” more than seven months after “History began to register the most horrible crime ever recorded in the annals of the human race, the carefully planned ignominious project of exterminating a whole nation.”29 Most deportees who managed to survive the decimation of the death caravans arrived in Syria numbering one tenth of the original contingents were assembled in rudimentary encampments, becoming victims of hunger, epidemics, and massacres during the second phase of the annihilation in the spring and summer of 1916, or dispatched to their ultimate destination in the desert area around Deir-ez-Zor. The notion that Turkish perpetrators committed a criminal act against Armenian victims has sufficient factual ground to override claims of unsophistication, notwithstanding the demand for a nuanced approach to an extremely complex issue. The Russian forces occupying part of Western Armenia in 1916–17 were evacuated in the wake of the October Revolution and abandoned the Caucasus altogether. The Ottoman Army Group East led by Enver’s uncle, Halil Kut, took back the lost terrain despite Armenian resistance and invaded Eastern Armenia in April 1918. It proposed onerous conditions of peace aimed at “the definitive occupation of the Armenian districts and the extermination [Ausrottung] of the Armenians,” Major General Otto von Lossow, German delegate, reported back on May 23.30 An Armenian last-minute stand stopped the attack, allowing the proclamation of the independent Republic of Armenia (1918–20). In August 1918, during a brief visit to Yerevan, the capital of the fledgling republic, Halil gave a speech from the balcony of his hotel where he offered “an amazingly clear insight into the thinking of a senior Young Turk leader” with an “astonishingly open confession”31 of his intent to destroy Armenians in whole: The Armenian nation that I tried to destroy down to the last individual [son ferdine kadar yok etmeye çalıştığım Ermeni milleti] for attempting to erase my homeland from history as slave to the enemy during my homeland’s most terrible and painful days (…). Yet if you stand attached to a group of mindless committee members and try to betray the Turks and the Turkish homeland, then I will order my army surrounding your entire country not to leave a single breathing Armenian on the face of the world [dünya üstünde nefes alacak tek Ermeni bırakmayacağım].32

Eight months after the Ottoman defeat, on June 17, 1919, Grand Vizier Damad Ferid Pasha submitted a memorandum to the Paris Peace Conference. He stated that “almost the entire civilized world was shocked by the account of the crimes [Fr. crime, Arm. vojir] that the Turks had reportedly committed” and targeted the CUP leaders, as he declared that his goal was “to show to the world, with supporting proofs, who are truly responsible for these horrific crimes [Fr. crime, Arm. yeghern].”33

6

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

Genocide and Literal Denial The nationalist movement headed by Mustafa Kemal reacted to the Ottoman defeat with strong support and participation of former CUP elements and finalized the annihilation, ethnic cleansing, and expulsion of Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians in 1920–2. In July 1923, when the Treaty of Lausanne marked the burial of the Armenian Question, the Armenian presence in Turkey was all but erased, with the short-lived Republic of Armenia already absorbed into the newly born Soviet Union. The treaty preserved and consecrated the Turkish core, omitted any mention of Armenia or Armenians, and declared amnesty for all crimes related to political events between 1914 and 1922, concealing the foundational crime that set up an ethno-national homogenous basis for the Republic of Turkey under a cloak of oblivion.34 The proposition that “the Turks are a people who speak Turkish and live in Turkey” had cleaned with blood the road to start “one of the major revolutions of modern times, involving a radical break with the social, cultural, political traditions of the past.”35 The People’s Republican Party (CHP) founded by Kemal governed Turkey during the Single Party period (1923–50). The future “Father of the Turks” (Atatürk) undertook the severance of the umbilical cord with the defunct empire as a way to cleanse the undesired element of crime and create a new mythology of yesteryear. The suppression and redefinition of collective memory, enhanced by surveillance and self-censorship, were the central elements for a denialist habitus.36 The ever-shrinking Armenian community was compelled to carry the weight of repressed history and forfeit the right to mourn; fear of reprisal forced generations of mothers to gloss over stanzas of lullabies that recalled loss and victimization.37 Multiple cases of institutional discrimination and violence against minorities, including financial pressure, forced labor, pogroms, press campaigns, and defamatory claims, were met with appeasement and political servility over the years.38 The political project to consolidate the position of the dominant ethnicity englobed confiscation of property and proscription of return for those who had been expelled or emigrated, which went hand in hand with expulsion and assimilation of non-Turkish remainders, obliteration of cultural monuments, renaming of geographical names, and prohibition to use minority languages in public.39 Decades of erasure of collective memory led many informants of anthropologist Leyla Neyzi to avoid addressing agency; silence and defensiveness about 1915 contrasted with sadness and regret in anecdotes about local individuals and events.40 Historian Ümit Kurt was piqued by unfamiliar writing on a coffee shop’s wall in Aintab (Gaziantep) to ask the owner about it: “He said ‘there were Armenians here!’ So I asked him where they were and he said ‘They are all gone.’ Just like that, so simple.”41 Sizeable groups have been historically victimized by human-induced means, and it is implausible that the commission of such actions lack explicit or implicit intent. Its demonstration relies on the procurement of accurate and verifiable information that may become circumstantial evidence. While massacres can be pinned on random actors like rogue troops, irregular militias, greedy mobs, nomadic tribes, or others, many examples show that they may not always transpire the intent to destroy proper to genocide, which does not require the proof of a smoking gun. It may be inferred

Introduction

7

from context, systematic commission of other culpable acts, targeting due to group membership, repeated destructive or discriminatory actions, or existence of plan or policy.42 The history and politics of the annihilation, like any murder case where the suspect claims innocence and blames someone else, have been suffused with denial since its very perpetration. Ottoman diplomats argued that the reports about massacres were fabrications;43 government propaganda books concocted rebellions and conspiracies,44 and the architects of the annihilation managed to set the parameters of an alternative narrative for generations to come.45 Atatürk completed and canonized that narrative as official history, with silence reigning unopposed as language of denial despite farfetched claims that his healthy and reasonable nationalism neither trampled on the rights of other nations nor rejected responsibility for the past.46 Hairenik Weekly (ARF) made a summary in an editorial of 1951: On the contrary, they tried to put the blame of their crime on their victims, and completed their abominable action by trying to destroy the very traces of their victims, closed their country against those who had miraculously survived their barbarous slaughter, and even tried to destroy the remnants of the Armenian people in the Caucasian section of their homeland.47

In January 1965, Spyros Kyprianou, Foreign Minister of Cyprus, mentioned the “wholesale massacre” of Armenians for the first time at the United Nations in a rebuttal to a claim of presumed destruction of the Turkish Cypriot community. Turkey’s representative Orhan Eralp criticized the reference “to certain massacres alleged to have been committed by Turks in the past.”48 In April, Prime Minister Ali Suat Hayri Ürgüplü regarded the worldwide commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the “Armenian massacres,” as they were known then, as an attempt “to revive a series of events which had no connection whatsoever with the Turkish Republic after these 50 long years,” while President Cemal Gürsel affirmed that “there is no such thing as Armenian massacres.”49 An editorial of The New York Times rejected the comparison of the Armenian and Jewish cases, equalized Armenian and Turkish deaths, and invited to “let the dead past bury the dead,” insinuating that “Armenians, naturally, cannot forget, but perhaps they can forgive.” Altemur Kiliç, press attaché of the Turkish embassy in the United States, doubled down in a letter to the editor with the suggestion to “forget [old and bitter memories] and to strive together for a better future for all citizens of Turkey in a better world.”50 The concept of genocide, which Armenians in the Diaspora started using in 1945, became more common when silence over the events was forcefully challenged: For years, during the Cold War, we were told not to oppose Turkish aid, not to follow an “anti-Turkish” line because it was against U.S. interests and the U.S. presence in Turkey was a good influence, etc., etc. In 1965, with the Genocide’s 50th anniversary, the Armenian people declared that policy of playing “power politics” dead and demanded that the leadership confront our enemy—Turkey—dead on.51

8

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

The litigation of the facts has completed the presentation of suffering in the production of history with a war of words. In 1971, the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities tasked special rapporteur Nicodème Ruhashyankiko with the preparation of a report on genocide. Turkish representative Osman Olçay criticized the preliminary version in the March 1974 session of the UN Commission of Human Rights for its mention of the Armenian “genocide myth” derived from the deportation of “those rebel populations (living in minority) (…) toward other regions of the Ottoman Empire where they could not threaten the rearguard of the defensive front.”52 Journalist Jean-Marie Carzou commented with thinly veiled irony: “Then what? Did we imagine this genocide? No. It is a perfect genocide: it has not happened …”53 Ruhashyankiko excluded the mention from his final version in July 1978 under Turkish pressure. It was reinstated in paragraph 24 of the updated report of special rapporteur Benjamin Whitaker, approved by the SubCommission on August 29, 1985. The acts of political violence by Armenian groups from 1975 to 1985 forced Turkish textbooks to break their silence on the existence of Armenians in the Ottoman past and claim that their level of violence before, during, and after the First World War had caused the deportation and was incomparable to the deaths due to lack of security and natural adverse conditions. They had reportedly conducted “the highest level of evil deeds, the cheapest of betrayals and the bloodiest murders in eastern, southeastern and southern regions.”54 Mustafa Șükrü Elekdağ, Turkish ambassador to the United States, pushed forward the “complex tragedy” of a civil war coupled with famine and epidemics claiming 2 million Turkish and a “grossly exaggerated” number of Armenian victims.55 A thread fashionable from the 1980s to the early 2000s and inspired by the thesis of Holocaust uniqueness espoused that genocide meant the elimination of an ethnic group, except for a few survivors, in a society that nourished a deep secular hatred, with the Shoah as sole example.56 The foundations of the past should not be stained by doubt or moral opprobrium, Frank Mankiewicz—vice chairman of Hill and Knowlton, the public relations firm then representing Turkey—railed in 1990: “When you start talking about genocide or extermination or systematic elimination of people—those are terrible words to say.”57 According to a survey of 2006, 82 percent of Turkish citizens conditioned the establishment of relations with the Republic of Armenia to the latter abandoning assertions of genocide and offering an apology.58 The CUP-Kemalist narrative adopted by Turkish historiography blamed the victims, lined up untoward circumstances, and minimized casualties, to which sympathetic Western scholars routinely added a patina of euphemism as a marginal concession: “unrelieved tragedy;” “part of a general tragedy that engulfed all peoples of the Empire;” “an appalling human tragedy” derived from the struggle for a single homeland; “a special tragedy” due to famine, epidemics, and warfare.59 The exhortation to study the history of Armenians and Turks “as a great human loss” and abandon “propagandistic terms”60 was echoed by Mankiewicz, who stated that the Turkish government was open to terminological transactions: “Tragic loss of life, brutal loss of life, widespread killings, sure. But on both sides.”61 The memory of a program step by step that first eliminated military-aged males, then political and intellectual leaders, and finally deported and massacred the remaining

Introduction

9

population has historically coalesced around the intent to destroy symbolized by genocide. The perpetrator is prone to rationalize the deed; his refusal of the evidence and his penchant for blaming the victims eliminate the possibility of mourning and sanction the impossibility of closure, putting the burden of weight, as historian Richard Hovannisian observed, on the survivors and their descendants “to prove time and again that they have indeed been wronged, individually and collectively.”62 As part of the denier’s agenda to which the victims are bound, the narrative based on the insanity of repetition demands to prove the factuality of the fact and relive the genocide, forcing “to enter into the endless game of proving it, to detach ourselves from ourselves in order to come forward as proofs, as so many living proofs of our own death.”63 The reaction to denial amounts to its rejection or the denunciation of its followers, which should not include falling “into the trap of talking about ‘recognition,’ of confusing commemoration, recollection, or observance with ‘recognition,’” commentator Leo Sarkissian stated, “when, in fact, they are simply expressions or extensions of a recognition and an acceptance that need not be restated.”64 The denialist discourse has continued unabated across the political spectrum, embracing “an overdetermined forgetfulness to spare [the] worldly embarrassment of making a full account of what they did and a willingness to assume responsibility for it.”65 In December 2008, the far-right Nationalist Action Party (MHP) drew upon the decades-old playbook to denounce the campaign of apology for the “Great Catastrophe” launched by a group of leftist intellectuals: “There is no single page in the honorable history of the Turkish nation for which we should be embarrassed, and no crime for which we should apologize.” The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) went down the same path in reaction to the recognition of the genocide by the German Parliament in June 2016. Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım repeated that “there is no shameful incident in our past that would make us bow our heads,” while President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan raised the stakes: “We have nothing in our past to be ashamed of, but those countries that often accuse Turkey of ‘Armenian genocide’ have the blood of millions of innocent victims.”66 Historian Mark Mazower’s remark carries the same weight twenty years later: The question of whether they were victims of genocide now matters intensely to the Armenians, whose lobbying has brought this issue to the fore again and again in the past few years; and it matters equally to the Turkish authorities, who do not seem to blanch at the term ‘massacre’ but are beside themselves when the G-word is mentioned.67

The Great Crime: Medz Yeghern The Ottoman assault shattered the historical pattern of “big catastrophes [aghed] enervating the whole of the Armenian people and squeezing their stamina,” political activist and historian Garo Sasuni (1889–1977) wrote, because “the Crime [Yeghern] of April 11/24, 1915, supersedes all disgraces of old times by its width, its indescribable horrors, and, especially, its fast and sudden execution.”68 Massacres and deportations, dehumanization and trauma pushed Armenians to the twilight

10

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

zone of history and collapsed the link between a living organism, the nation, and its environment, the ancestral land.69 In the words of survivor writer Aram Andonian (1875–1952), they were subjected to something infinitely more terrible than Dante’s hell, “whose horror will only know those who lived that inferno and will never be able to describe it, because human language is unable to do so.”70 The survivors, immersed in the harsh task of rebuilding their life and deprived of the power to have their voice heard, were forced to speak to themselves in their own language, except for a brief hiatus after the Second World War. “Those who avoided the great horror [medz arhavirk] for any reason—say, for being born under a lucky star—probably assess the savagery of the Crime [Yeghern] with whatever images imagination may create and the words ‘massacre’ [chart] and ‘exile’ [aksor],” as one of them wrote three decades later: It is not perhaps an exaggeration to say that the Crime [Yeghern] and its consequences went far and beyond the hopes and the imagination of its savage planners. They massacred, but not just the Armenian body, but particularly the soul. They exiled people on the road and into the human-forbidden deserts. The Armenian soul was particularly exiled, and later became a wanderer. That was the most terrible blow dealt by the Crime [Yeghern]: the destruction of the Armenian collectivity, the dissolution of the Armenian national soul.71

The words aksor (աքսոր “exile; ban; banishment”), chart (ջարդ “massacre; butchery; carnage; slaughter”), and godoradz (կոտորած “carnage; massacre; slaughter; butchery”)72 translated what the survivors had experienced and lived through, beyond and above legal issues or epistemological nuances. “When they were children in Armenia terrible things happened to them and hundreds of thousands of others,” a reporter of The Washington Post wrote in 1990. “The chart, they call it—the kill. The kodoradz—the genocide [sic].” The daughter of a survivor recalled that, unlike other families who told fairy tales to their children, Armenian families would gather at a social event “and at the end of the evening they would start talking about the chart.”73 In a different take, parents and grandparents rarely spoke, and when this happened, it was a private talk in whispers: “Was it a ‘grownups’ secret’? What had happened? What was this ‘Akhzor’ and ‘Chardt’ [sic]?”74 Despite their use in everyday language, aksor and chart, along with godoradz, reflected a partial side of the events, which explains why neither of them ever became a proper name. Conversely, yeghern (եղեռն) encapsulated all three words. The first part of this book, “Language and History,” presents a conceptual history of the word, its origin and usage from the beginning of written literature in the fifth century AD until the end of the nineteenth century, when the end of Classical Armenian as literary language and the early stage of Modern Armenian overlapped: the initial meaning “evil” gradually evolved to “crime” (Chapter 1). The current state of the etymology, the original meaning and evolution of the word, its use in Classical and Modern Armenian, and the grounds to translate it as “crime” have been recently discussed in a few articles.75 This meaning of yeghern continued unaltered during the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid, the massacres

Introduction

11

of Cilicia (1909), and the annihilation of 1915 and its aftermath. Indeed, the word has not been used in a contextual vacuum, with its agency thoroughly enhanced by the roots kordz (“work”) and portz (“attempt, try”) in the compound words yeghernakordz (“criminal, perpetrator of a crime”), yeghernakordzutiun (“crime, criminal action”), and yeghernaportz (եղեռնափորձ “criminal attempt”), and specialized terms like yeghernatad adean (եղեռնադատ ատեան “criminal court”) or yeghernapan (եղեռնաբան “criminologist”). The active verbs kordzel (“to work; commit”) and kordzatrel (“to put into action, execute, perpetrate, implement”) have strengthened the meaning “crime” in phrases like yeghern kordzel (“to commit, perpetrate [a] crime”) and yeghern kordzatrel (“to execute, implement [a] crime”). The first use of yeghern to name the destruction may be traced back to Hayastan, a biweekly published by the ARF Balkans Central Committee for seven months in Sofia. The Armenian historical core was being emptied, making impossible “to penetrate the essence of the new Exodus,” an editorial of June 1915 wrote, “because we do not know the name of this horrifying Turkish heinous crime [yeghern].” Another editorial about the mourning day held by Armenians of the Balkans in August 1915 used medz yeghern for the first time to point out to the responsibility of the civilized world as “accomplice to the great crime [medz yeghern].” The survivors would become a monument to it: “Thus, the future will be unable to forget the great crime [medz yeghern] ever.”76 The meaning “crime” was backed by various sources translated from and to Armenian, although a minority of authors, misleadingly, still preferred “tragedy.” Yeghern was capitalized alone or with the adjective medz, which highlighted the scope of the destruction. Medz Yeghern was mentioned in countless speeches and editorials, memoirs and testimonies, political discourse and historiography, inscriptions and advertisements. The semantic pattern continued in the Diaspora and Soviet Armenia and the understanding of yeghern as “crime” or “heinous crime” underwent a passage to collective crime in the period 1920–50. After 1965, yeghern would be gradually associated to the meaning of “genocide,” while tseghasbanutiun (ցեղասպանութիւն) became its premier translation and other calque translations fell along the way. Medz Yeghern became fully dominant as proper name of the annihilation and remains in use to this day, although subordinated to Hayots or Haygagan Tseghasbanutiun (“Armenian Genocide”) (Chapter 3). Yeghern became a concept of intergenerational transmission. “I am not a writer, I am a humble worker,” a survivor attested in 1937. “I had barely seen a school when the medz yeghern drowned everything in its blood.”77 It became commonplace to label April 24 as a darkest date in the annals of humanity, “when the criminal Turks gave the first signal of the unprecedented crime [vojir] known as the Armenian Great Crime [Haygagan Medz Yeghern],” and to refer to Talat, the architect of the genocide, as “the great criminal [yeghernakordz].”78 A sixth grader from the village of Anjar (Lebanon), descendant of survivors from the self-defense of Musa Dagh in 1915, wrote in 2004: “I have heard about the Yeghern from my grandfather and grandmother, from my parents, from scouts and youth clubs, from Armenian language and history teachers.”79 Aghed (Աղէտ), one of the denominations referring to 1915, has been cited along Yeghern as most used proper name.80 Literary works used aghed most often to name the catastrophic elimination of Western Armenians, which they represented and

12

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

narrated beyond historical testimonies or documents.81 Nichanian has borrowed the word from survivor writer and literary critic Hagop Oshagan (1883–1948) and expanded it into a metahistorical concept that encompasses the notions of catastrophe of memory and meaning. He has argued that Aghed is “the proper word for the Armenian genocide, one that expresses the complete annihilation of a people” as exact equivalent of Shoah,82 while making a clear distinction between genocide as a historical event and object of historical discourse, and Aghed as an event that “does not belong to history as historians conceive it.”83 Nevertheless, some historians have mistakenly cited Aghed as proper name for the genocide,84 despite the fact that its absence from newspaper advertisements and memorial inscriptions shows that it was not used either to publicize commemorations or to memorialize the annihilation. It failed to prevail in popular awareness and daily language, and today occupies a marginal place as a literary term.85 Noticeably, the survey of a bibliography of Armenian books on the genocide has yielded a total of five volumes published all over the world from 1915 to 1965 with Aghed in their title, while general bibliographies of Armenian books published in the United States (1915–2011) and Lebanon (1915–2012) show only one use as subtitle for the same book in both countries. In comparison, twenty-three books were published worldwide with the word Yeghern in their title from 1915 to 1965, nine in the United States (1915–2011), and twenty-five in Lebanon (1925–2012).86

Medz Yeghern and Interpretive Denial The absence of a conscious decision or intent to injure someone is typical of “acts of God” or force majeure, recorded in the case of natural (e.g., earthquakes, floods, pandemics) and human-made disasters (e.g., ship collision, nuclear accident) of unplanned origin and uncontrollable characteristics. The American Colonization Society, which promoted the resettlement of African-American freed slaves in Sierra Leone and Liberia, claimed in 1829 that slavery was the consequence entailed by “untoward circumstances” on slaveholders, as if they were mere victims, and had to be viewed “as a great national calamity; a public evil.” Abolitionist minister Amos Phelps responded five years later that slavery was “a moral evil, a sin, and a crime,” namely, the cause, and not “a mere undefined evil, or calamity, or misfortune” as effect.87 Conversely, in 1855, Ralph Waldo Emerson emphasized cause and consequence in a criticism of the Founding Fathers for their consent to return fugitive slaves to the southern states: “But always so much crime brings so much ruin. A little crime, a minor penalty; a great crime, a great disaster.”88 The logical relation of cause-effect between a malevolent action and its outcome makes unlikely that yeghern may singlehandedly represent both cause (e.g., crime, massacre, genocide) and effect (e.g., tragedy, calamity, catastrophe, disaster) in Modern Armenian. The failure to take this premise into consideration accounts for the semantic contradictions documented in the first part and the political misrepresentation discussed in the second part of this study.89

Introduction

13

In fact, the principle of causation reflects a binary relation that connects victimizer, who commits an evil action, and victim, who submits to that action. The victimizer performs the action (e.g., execution, explosion, arson, poisoning, death march) through active verbs (to do, make, cause, perpetrate, commit, execute, inflict) to effect agency (e.g., assassination, crime, plunder, mass murder, genocide). At its turn, the use of passive verbs (befell, fall upon, strike, happen) reflects the victim’s physical (e.g., injury, death, trauma) and mental/spiritual perception (e.g., catastrophe, calamity, disaster, tragedy, cataclysm) of the action. For this reason, the linguistic worldview including but not limited to English and Armenian vocabulary establishes that, for instance, neither a crime can befell a victim nor a catastrophe can be committed. The Maine Criminal Code offers a telling example of the straightforward relation between cause and effect: 1. A person is guilty of causing a catastrophe if the person recklessly causes a catastrophe by explosion, fire, flood, avalanche, collapse of a structure, release or dissemination of poison, toxin, radioactive material, bacteria, virus or other biological agent or vector or other such force or substance that is dangerous to human life and difficult to confine. (…) 4. Causing a catastrophe is a Class A crime (Title 17-A, §803-A).

In the aftermath of the massacres of Armenians in Adana (Cilicia) in April 1909, the seven Christian leaders of the town rebuked the view of certain local circles that the massacres had been a catastrophe of celestial decision in a letter submitted to the Ottoman Parliament on November 12, 1909: We do not think that God, abundant in piety and lover of justice, would have considered a most atrocious catastrophe [aghed] like the crime [yeghern] of Adana to be appropriate. This is something impossible, cannot happen. Random or sudden happening of a catastrophe of this kind is impossible because it is certainly known that there was premeditation in the action. Only natural catastrophes like earthquakes and other incidents happen by chance.90

The characterization of intentional actions as events without agency contributes to create or affirm a narrative of unspecified calamity. The Capital Tax (Varlık Vergisi) rubber-stamped by the Great National Assembly of Turkey in November 1942 and repealed in March 1944 under American and British pressure established confiscatory rates between 156 and 232 percent and arbitrary assessments for Armenian, Jewish, and Greek assets. The impact of bankruptcies, internments in labor camps for inability to pay, and deaths caused a huge transfer of wealth to the Turkish bourgeoisie taxed at 4.9 percent. The adoption of the equivocal label “Wealth Tax disaster”91 minimized the role of the Turkish government, as if the tax were “some sort of accident of nature or confluence of external pressures.”92 If any man’s death diminishes humanity as a whole, “and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls” (John Donne), then the conception, execution, and

14

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

memory of genocide as a unique embodiment of inhumanity become a tragedy, “or better, the Tragedy itself.”93 Hundreds of articles in the Armenian press throughout the world have used the word “tragedy” in different languages to refer to 1915. Those mentions have been always contextualized within agency. “A tragedy of such monstruous proportions,” a sentence typically stated in 1979, at a time when the genocide of Namibia was barely recalled, “it was indeed the first genocide of the 20th century—a genocide premeditated and perpetrated by the Turkish government.”94 Interpretive denial acknowledges the existence of facts, but introduces a different set of views through euphemism, technical jargon, or word change, re-allocating the meaning given to an event to a different type of event.95 At a White House reception in May 1978, President Jimmy Carter left agent, time, and place undefined in his reference to “one of the greatest tragedies,” which was tantamount to the omission of the cause: “But it’s generally not known that in the years preceding 1916, there was a concerted effort made to eliminate all the Armenian people, probably one of the greatest tragedies that ever befell any group. And there weren’t any Nuremberg trials.”96 Lack of agency was even more obvious in President Ronald Reagan’s “Statement about the Armenian Genocide” during his first presidential campaign in 1980. The text referred to “one of the greatest tragedies in the annals of recorded history” with the proviso that the 1980s were going to be “when Americans and its [sic] allies throughout the Free World resolve that the tragedy of 1915 never again be repeated,” but without any mention of genocide, agent, or place.97 All genocides become a tragedy, but since not all tragedies derive from genocide, the US State Department adopted the formula “the Armenian tragedy” while actively opposing genocide resolutions during Reagan’s years,98 and Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres reached the apex of denial in April 2001: “We reject allegations to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust happened. It is a tragedy what the Armenians went through but not a genocide.”99 In November 2013, the US National Security Council pretexted potentially inappropriate use of government property and transportation risks to deny to the Smithsonian Museum the loan of the Armenian Orphan Rug, kept in storage at the White House since 1982, for the launch of a book on its history. After public outcry, this remarkable rug weaved by genocide survivor girls in Lebanon and presented to President Calvin Coolidge in 1925 as token of appreciation for American humanitarian assistance was exhibited at the White House Visitor’s Center in November 2014, along gifts by France and Japan after American help for homelessness following the First World War and the tsunami of 2010. Ironically, the rug was shown without proper identification of the orphans and how and where they had become orphans, blurring the distinction between a criminal act (genocide) and catastrophic events (war, tsunami).100 In June 2018, a motion to acknowledge the humanitarian relief effort of Australia after the annihilation of 1915 was submitted to the country’s House of Representatives. During the ensuing debate, Rep. Tim Wilson noted that previous speakers had mentioned events befalling the Armenians like loss of life, desert marches, and people in desperate need, “but did not dare to speak the tragedy’s name: genocide.”101

Introduction

15

The legal definition of the United Nations declares that genocide means any of the five acts enunciated in article 2 of the Genocide Convention that are “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, any national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such.” The historical facts of the Armenian annihilation document exhaustively all five acts, from killing members of the group (clause a) to forcibly transferring children to another group (clause e). Its perpetration three decades before Raphael Lemkin’s coinage of genocide shows that the issue belongs more to language than to sociology.102 Language has occupied an important place in Armenian identity, becoming a fundamental component when the process of cultural awakening was underway in the nineteenth century. Powerless children witnessed the rape of their mothers and sisters, namely, the victimization of the mother tongue: Mother Armenia seated among the ruins, weeping—many of us grew up with that picture as children, and you can still see it here and there from Los Angeles to New York to Paris to Buenos Aires to Beirut. Ruins and graves make nations, and we Armenians have also millions of our unburied dead.103

The popular image of Mother Armenia, created in the early 1860s, was periodically subjected to Ottoman censorship from the 1880s, along with other cultural artifacts.104 Mother Armenia became Ravished Armenia, to paraphrase the title of survivor Aurora Mardiganian’s (1901–1994) memoir and the silent film she starred in 1919. Most speakers of Western Armenian and its dialects disappeared with the destruction of the milieu that fostered their sustainable development. The descendants of survivors worldwide are the remainder of the linguistic heritage that included some of the finest names in the letters. However, when non-Armenian actors who lacked “either the moral or the scholarly authority to assert what terms should or should not be used”105 applied the principles of interpretive denial to the Armenian name Medz Yeghern, those descendants forfeited their right to speak, namely, they rejected the words of their own language. In the ultimate stage of genocide, those bound to fight against denial were ensnared in the cruelest of ironies: denying themselves. It is hardly accidental that the instrumentalization of Medz Yeghern has been recorded in Turkey, the country that practices denial as state policy, and the United States, the country where a veneer of self-righteousness fails to cover the preeminence of power politics in its relationship with Turkey. The second part of this book, “Politics and History,” deals with the three key episodes closely related to Medz Yeghern: Pope John Paul II’s visit to Armenia, the Turkish apology campaign, and the presidential statements of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. The politics of language surrounding the name has not been addressed in the scholarship, other than discourse analysis of the statements by Bush and Obama.106 John Paul II’s prayed to God in 2001 to listen “to the call of the dead from the depths of the Metz Yeghérn” at the memorial of Tzitzernakaberd in Yerevan (Chapter 4). The prayer was contextualized within his recognition of the genocide, and his successors Benedict XVI and Francis explicitly used the translation “Great Evil,”

16

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

even though “Great Crime” was also widely recorded. In the wake of the Pope’s visit, however, media reporting gave primacy to translations of yeghern like “catastrophe,” “calamity,” “disaster,” or “tragedy” without further elaboration or acknowledgment for their source. Chapter 5 deals with initial mentions of Medz Yeghern in Turkey until the adoption of the major premise Medz Yeghern = Büyük Felâket = “Great Catastrophe” by the apology statement of 2008, which minimized or eliminated agency.107 The equation involved the minor premise that catastrophes have no legal standing and the obvious conclusion that Medz Yeghern does not have it either. The statement became a forerunner, from a different ideological standpoint, to the discourse of “just memory” and “shared pain” briefly embraced by the Justice and Development Party as a variation on continuing denial. After an overview of the single uses of “genocide” by Ronald Reagan and “crime against humanity” by his successor George H. W. Bush, Chapter 6 goes to the mentions of “Great Calamity” in George W. Bush’s statements of 2003 and 2005, which laid the logical groundwork for the statement of the apology campaign a few years later. The  equation “Great Calamity” = Medz Yeghern became conventional wisdom at the White House and the Department of State. From 2009 to 2020, the statements of Barack Obama and Donald Trump inherited this silver line of semantics threaded in the upper echelons of government, using Medz Yeghern without translation as a compromise between genocide and the preferred Turkish formulas, “events of 1915” or the unofficially used “catastrophe.”108 The policy of “no context” adopted by the apology campaign and the presidential statements was matched by the Armenian response of “no contest.” The refusal to consent terms of recognition other than genocide, including the formula “Armenian Genocide,” admitted the translations without further question and likened the use of Medz Yeghern, without attempting to own the name, to plain whitewash. Chapter 7 emphasizes context and the crucial importance of the Armenian language for any informed discussion of the issue, including the contemporary meaning of “genocide” for the word yeghern. It compares the official recognition in Uruguay without the use of genocide and what may be regarded as recognition by Obama—unbeknownst to him and his critics—with the use of Medz Yeghern, later imitated by Trump before the recognition by President Joseph Biden with the use of both genocide and Medz Yeghern. The conclusion reevaluates the place of Medz Yeghern as proper name and affirmation of the crime. The two appendices complement the issues developed in the book. Appendix A makes an overview of translations of yeghern by various scholars, as well as their use in the titles of Armenian books and articles published in the past hundred years. Appendix B presents a comprehensive collection of inscriptions found in genocide memorials using the words yeghern and “genocide.”

Part One

Language and History

18

1

Yeghern until the Late Nineteenth Century

Nevertheless, the destruction of Carthage was a crime [yeghern] which Caius Gracchus, Julius Caesar, and Augustus sought to repair. Napoleon III (1865)1

Yeghern in Classical Armenian: “Evil” and “Crime” The conventional view maintains that the family of Indo-European languages, which originally extended from the borders of China to the Iberian Peninsula and includes modern languages like English, Greek, Swedish, Russian, and Farsi, was derived from a mother language—usually called Proto-Indo-European (PIE)—that started branching out in a complex process of fragmentation around the end of the fourth millennium B.C. Over time, languages like Sanskrit, Latin, or Hittite disappeared or gave birth to new languages, while others went through various transformations to reach our days. The American language constitutes an isolated branch of the Indo-European family and was recorded in writing after the monk Mesrop Mashtots created an alphabet in the fifth century A.D. Krapar or Classical Armenian was spoken till the eleventh century and maintained the role of literary language until its replacement by the branches of the modern language, Western Armenian and Eastern Armenian, in the nineteenth century. Both are mutually intelligible but have different grammar, phonetics, and, after 1922, orthography. The noun “evil” had the meaning “harm, crime, misfortune, disease” in Old English, exemplifying its close link with the concepts of disaster and calamity.2 Classical Armenian reflected the same relation: the adjective char (չար “evil, bad”) originated the noun charik (չարիք “evil, evildoing, sin, crime; harm, blow, calamity, misery).”3 Since the beginning of times, the antagonistic duality of good and evil engaged in an unending battle as part of the human condition. Natural law set forth principles aiming at moral and social regulation, followed by a collection of rules enshrined in statute law that set boundaries to define and to enforce those principles. The word “evildoer” indicates the existence of an agent who does or commits a malevolent deed, or turns into an accomplice, intending harm to be part of or means to an end. Legal bodies and powers presume the existence of such a deed to determine whether

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

20 Table 1.1  Word

Meaning

yeghern

Lat. mala (evil), adversitas (adversity), malignitas (wickedness) evil, misdeed, sin, crime (charik) danger (vdank) crime (vojir) catastrophe (aghedk) evil event (badahar) everything that brings harm or privation (vnas)

aghed5

painful event (tsavali antsk) misery (tshvarutiun) impossible harm, blow, calamity, misery (anhnarin charik) everything that brings harm or privation (vnas) crime (vojir) wickedness (abiradutiun)

vojir6

Lat. actus dirus (dire act), scelus (crime), malum grave (grave evil), facinus (crime) some great evil (char inch medz) evil things (tzhnea irk) yeghern wickedness (abiradutiun) everything that brings harm or privation (vnas) offense and blow (hantsank yev argadzk)

4

crossing the boundaries between good and evil becomes the commission of a crime, and the evildoer turns into a criminal. Like its sister languages, Armenian contains a cluster of words derived from the original Indo-European core, including yeghern (եղեռն), pronounced in Classical Armenian as ełeŗn (vibrating rr as in Spanish). The words yeghern, aghed, and vojir were defined within the close-knit domains of evil, catastrophe, and crime (Table 1.1). The components of ełeŗn are eł + eŗ > + n = ełeŗ-n. Its root was the PIE verb *el– / *ol− (“to destroy, spoil”), which also originated cognate terms in Greek and Hittite, and combined with the Armenian suffix *eŗ to yield the intermediate form *ełeŗ (*եղեռ).7 The latter created the word ełeŗn through the association with another Armenian suffix, *no / *na.8 The active meaning (destruction) of *el− was to be expected in the two earliest mentions of yeghern in the translation of the Bible (finished c. 435), the first book in Classical Armenian. Amos 3:10-11 shows that agency: “They did not know their yeghern, said the Lord, [those] who stored up violence and misery in their provinces.”9 They do evil or harm, as implied by the Revised Standard Version (RSV): “They do not know how to do right.” The same happens in 2 Maccabees 4:50, where yeghern appears in Armenian as an adjective: “They sent Menelaus because of the cupidity of those in power. He grew in wickedness, causing great, evil [medz yeghern] harm [vnas] to

Yeghern until the Late Nineteenth Century

21

his citizens.”10 The RSV translated the last phrase as “having become the chief plotter against his fellow citizens.” The next three mentions of yeghern appeared in the theological treatise Refutation of the Sects by Yeznik Koghbatsi (c. 450), one of the Bible translators. The opposition of yeghern to goodness in the first case clearly implied evil, while the other mentions contextualized the word within crime: And it is clear that man has come into being free to do good and to dare evil [yeghern] (I: 11).11 If Ormizd knew the thought of his father, why did he not know the thought of his brother, the destroying worm, that he would pierce the womb and emerge, and go in advance and take the kingdom—which would occur from the offence [yeghern] of that one and his creatures (II: 4).12 Or when through places full of robbers someone sees his neighbor running and says, “he is going to meet with trouble [yeghern],” not at all [someone] would be a cause of the injury (II: 16).13

The Armenian translations of St. John Chrysostom’s homilies, originally written in Greek, also belonged to the fifth century. The word yeghern appeared in the commentaries on Isaiah and St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, where its English equivalent is “evil”: The evil [yeghern] will come round upon his head.14 When therefore the wicked man prospers, know thou that it is for evil [yeghern] on his own head.15

Printing of dictionaries, including Armenian ones, started in the West during the seventeenth century. In 1698, lexicographer Yeremia Meghretsi published a dictionary based on a medieval lexicon, where yeghern was listed as a noun. The Latin-Armenian dictionary of Jesuit missionary Jacques Villotte featured it as an adjective in 1714. Meanwhile, in 1701, Mekhitar Sebastatsi (1676–1749) founded the Armenian Catholic order of the Mekhitarists, which settled in Venice in 1717. After overcoming an internal division in 1773 that ended with the splinter branch settling in Vienna (1810), the congregation became a cultural powerhouse that played a central role in the Armenian revival of the nineteenth century. Its production included a wide variety of dictionaries and translations into Classical and Modern Armenian. Mekhitar only managed to compile the first of his two-volume Dictionary of Classical Armenian Language (henceforth, Haigazian), which was published on the eve of his death (1749) and expanded Yeremia Meghretsi’s definition of yeghern. Five of his disciples compiled the second volume (1769). It contained a glossary of Classical Armenian words explained in vernacular language and defined ełeŗn within the field of evil (Table 1.2).16

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

22 Table 1.2  Dictionary

Yeghern

Yeremia Meghretsi

evil, bitter evil

Villotte

facinorosus (“wicked, criminal”) impius (“wicked, impious, irreverent”) improbus (“wicked, flagrant”) malus (“evil, harmful”) maleficus (“wicked, evil”) sceleratus (“criminal, wicked”)

Haigazian I

evil, bitter evil, malice, greatly harmful action, wickedness

Haigazian II

great wickedness, evil

The Conflation of “Crime” and “Tragedy” A few decades later, the New Dictionary of Classical Armenian Language (henceforth, New Haigazian) would supersede the Haigazian to become the master dictionary of the classical language. It was compiled by three Mekhitarists from Venice, Gabriel Avedikian (1751–1827), Khachadur Surmelian (1751–1827), and Megerdich Avkerian (Jean-Baptiste Aucher, 1762–1854). Avedikian authored the letter A, including aghed, and Surmelian wrote the following six letters, including yeghern. After their death, Avkerian worked on the remaining twenty-nine letters, including vojir, and oversaw the publication in 1836–7. This dictionary strived to cover the entire lexicon of Classical Armenian and define the words with Armenian synonyms and, when possible, Latin, Greek, and/ or Turkish translations. It used yeghern in the definition of words like “malefaction,” “impious crime,” “great demonic work,” and “malefice,”17 confirming its connection with evil. Many medieval authors lamented the invasions and massacres ravaging their land and ascribed them to collective sin, following the biblical model.18 The impact of the concept of lamentation appears to have blurred the actual meaning of yeghern. Mekhitar Sebastatsi was the first to list and define yegher (եղեր / ełer) as “lament, mourning”.19 This word, of Indo-European origin too, has been derived from PIE *el–/*ol–, an onomatopoeic root for the sound of lamentation that also yielded several Greek words of similar meaning.20 The dictionary of Yeremia Meghretsi had previously included the derivative words yegheragan (“lamentable”), yegheramayr (“assembly of criers, interjecters, fighters”), and yegherergu (“mourning song”), but not yegher.21 The New Haigazian, however, adopted a different stance. It featured yegher [ełer], apparently due to their phonetic closeness, as a word derived from yeghern [ełeŗn], to which it ascribed the meaning “lament, mourning,” and established the adjectives yeghernagan and yegheragan as synonyms.22 The derivation ełeŗn > ełer followed a phonetic rule of Classical Armenian applied to roots that became part of derivative

Yeghern until the Late Nineteenth Century

23

or compound words: the consonant ŗ (strong r/ռ) turned into r (soft r/ր) (e.g., ամառն / amaŗ-n “summer” > ամարանոց / amaranots- “summer place”). However, the rule does not apply to this case, because the root of ełeŗ(n) is not ełeŗ, but eł, as we have seen. The dictionary offered two literary citations to back its case. First, it quoted a sentence from the fifth-century Armenian translation of Chronicon, a lost work by historian Eusebius of Caesarea, which Megerdich Avkerian had published in 1818 with a Latin parallel translation. It referred to the nefarious actions of Octhovis (Kheti I), founder of the Egyptian ninth dynasty: “And throughout the whole land of the Egyptians he committed villainies (Lat. scelera, Arm. yeghers/եղերս) and crimes (ojirs/օճիրս).”23 The quotation does not support the argument either: yegher-s is the plural of yegher-n (“villainy, evil”)—according to the ŗ > r rule cited above—and does not have a semantic relation with lament or mourning. In addition, the New Haigazian cited an unpublished medieval annotation to the Book of Lamentation by poet Grigor Narekatsi (Gregory of Narek, 951–1003), which explained the meaning of yeghernakordz as “evildoer [charakordz] who commits an act that is worth crying.”24 This annotation, however, made clear that an evildoer is someone who commits an evil act (yeghern-a-kordz means both “evil act” and “evildoer”) and causes grief, but did not give reason to suppose that it supported the meaning “lament” for yeghern. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, another Mekhitarist lexicographer, Manuel Chakhchakhian (Emmanuele Ciakciak, 1771–1835), translated sceleratezza (villainy), delitto (crime), and crimenlése (lese-majesty) as yeghern in his ItalianArmenian-Turkish dictionary.25 However, his Armenian-Italian dictionary, posthumously published in 1837, established a peculiar definition of yeghern as “evil that someone causes, crime, misdeed,” and “evil that someone suffers, catastrophe, event, misery,”26 although everywhere else he used yeghern as evil caused by someone.27 It is not unlikely that he relied independently on the abovementioned medieval annotation, which did not imply that yeghern could be interpreted as caused and suffered evil. Chakhchakhian’s double-edged definition has remained an outlier among Armenian dictionaries. His colleagues Harutiun Avkerian (Pascal Aucher, 1774–1854) and Sukias Somalian (1776–1846) kept the meanings “evil” and “crime” in their bilingual dictionaries (Table 1.3).28 Classical Armenian had been no longer intelligible to average people for centuries and the vernacular language, Modern Armenian (ashkharhapar), was moving forward to become the literary language. In 1846, Megerdich Avkerian presented the New Haigazian entries with simplified Modern Armenian definitions in his Portable Dictionary of Classical Armenian (henceforth, Portable Haigazian). The new definition “evil, misdeed, sin, crime” (charik) and “harm” (vnas) tacitly corrected the previous definition of yeghern.29 Interestingly, Avkerian rendered Latin scelus (“crime”) as yeghern in his Classical Armenian translation of Lucius Seneca’s essays (1849): “But many reasons recur to me why this crime [yeghern] should not come under the law.”30 The anonymous translation of Marcus Cicero’s Cato the Elder (1843) had previously used the same rendering: “In short, there is no criminal purpose [yeghern] and no evil deed which the lust for pleasure will not drive men to undertake.”31

24

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

Table 1.3  Dictionary

evil/crime

Avkerian

crime = hantsank, meghk, vojir, yeghern scélératesse = vojir, yeghern, abiradutiun, charik scélératesse, forfait, méfait, malice, crime, délit, méchancété

Avkerian Avkerian and Brand

crime = hantsank, meghk, vnas, charik, charik yeghern, vojir evil = charik, hantsank, yeghern flagitiousness = vojir, yeghern, abiradutiun, charik enormity = tzhntakutiun, yeghern

Brand and Avkerian Somalian

yeghern

rascality, offense, misdeed, malice, crime, wickedness, misfortune evil = charik, hantsank, yeghern

Somalian

rascality, wickedness, crime, sin

It is noteworthy that the definitions of words derived from yeghern in the Haigazian, the New Haigazian, and the Portable Haigazian lack any relation to catastrophe, lamentation, or tragedy (Table 1.4). This fact points out to the absence of valid support for the conflation of yeghern and yegher, which two Mekhitarists from Vienna, Pilibbos Chamchian (1819–53) and Srabion Eminian (1823–54), and a former member of the Venice branch, Guy Table 1.4  Word

Haigazian/New Haigazian32

yeghernabes

Portable Haigazian33 wickedly (1865)

yeghernagan

evil

evil, bad (1846/1865)

yeghernaham

disgusting

bad, tasteless (1846) / bad, tasteless, harmful (1865)

yeghernakordz

evildoer

evildoer (1846/1865)

yeghernakordzutiun

misdeed

misdeed (1846/1865)

yeghernalur

propense to listen to evil

propense to listen to evil (1846/1865)

yeghernatiur

perverse

perverse (1846/1865)

yeghernavor

nocive, evil

evil, nocive, harmful (1846/1865)

yeghernavor

massacre, terrible death (1865)

yeghernayin

malicious

evil, nocive, harmful (1846/1865)

yeghernutiun

misdeed

evil (1846/1865)

Yeghern until the Late Nineteenth Century

25

de Lusignan (1826–1906),34 maintained after the publication of the New Haigazian. Matthias Bedrossian, a Mekhitarist from Venice, was the last one to consider “catastrophe,” adding it as final meaning for yeghern in his update of the ArmenianEnglish dictionary of Avkerian and John Brand (1875–9).35 Avkerian and Brand had defined words derived from yeghern within the domain of crime and evil.36 Lusignan and another former Venice Mekhitarist, Néandre de Byzance (Norayr Buzandatsi, 1844–1915), did the same, although with exceptions.37 In the period 1769–1865, Classical Armenian-Turkish dictionaries, as well as the translations into Turkish in both the Haigazian and New Haigazian dictionaries, mostly mixed the concepts of sin (günah), crime (kabahat), and disgrace or calamity (bela) for yeghern (Table 1.5).38 Table 1.5  Dictionary

crime/evil

calamity/catastrophe/disaster

Haigazian

Arm. yeghern= Turk. zean, fesad, bela

Arm. aghed = Turk. derd. bela, fesad

Chakhchakhian

Arm. kreagan hantsank, yeghern = Turk. fesad; Arm. hantsank, yeghern = Turk suç, kabahat

Arm. tshvarutiun, aghed, charik = Turk. bela, müsibet

New Haigazian

Arm. yeghern = Turk. bela, ölet, fesad

Arm. aghed = Turk. derd, bela, zarar, fesad

Bozajian

Arm. yeghern = Turk. fesad, kemlik, çürm

Arm. aghed/aghedk = Turk. derd, tasa, bela, müsibet

Avkerian

Arm. hantsank, meghk, vojir, yeghern = Turk. kabahat, suç, cürm, günah; Arm. vojir, yeghern, abiradutiun, charik = Turk. fesad, yaramazlık

Arm. aghedk, tshvarutiun, vishd, charik = Turk. müsibet, sefillik, derdimendlik; Arm. neghutiun, vishd, darabank, tzakhortutiun, aghed, tshvarutiun = Turk. bela, müsibet, baksızlık, talehizlik, nuhuset

Somalian

Arm. yeghern = Turk. fesad, kemlik, cürm

Arm. aghedk = Turk. derd, bela, müsibet

Somalian

Arm. charik, hantsank, yeghern = Turk. fenalık, kemlik.

Arm. tshvarutiun = Turk. sefillik

Peshdimaljian

Arm. yeghern = Turk. zarar; bela

Arm. aghed = Turk. kala, bela, derd, melakkat

Chamchian

Arm. yeghern, vojir, abiradutiun = Turk. kabahat, töhmet, günah

Arm. aghedk, vishdk, tshvarutiun, tzakhoghank = Turk. müsibet, bela, sefillik; Arm. tzakhoghank, charik = Turk. felâket

Avkerian

Arm. yeghern = Turk. bela

Arm. aghed = Turk. derd, bela, zarar, fesad

Chakejian

Arm. yeghern = Turk. fesad, kemlik; bela

Arm. aghed = Turk. seklet, acı; derd, bela, müsibet; zarar, felâket; merhamet, acı

Eminian

Arm. charik, yeghern, meghk = Turk. kabahat, günah

Arm. aghioghorm vakhjan; yeghern; aghedk; charik = Turk. felâket

Aramian

Arm. yeghern = Turk. müfsidi

Arm. aghed = Turk. sefillik

Jelalian

Arm. yeghern = Turk. bela

Arm. aghed = Turk. derd, bela, zarar, fesad

26

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

The Mekhitarists did not relinquish their preference for Classical Armenian despite the momentous advance of the vernacular and continued producing an output of original and translated works until the end of the century, even though they also published works in the modern language. Sometimes they understood yeghern as evil, like in the translations of Marco Girolamo Vida’s poem The Christiad (“Say, in this deed is heav’n fierce anger shown, / Or spring these evils [yeghern] from thy crimes [vojir] alone?”)39 or Bossuet’s Discourse on Universal History: “You have also seen how (…) they [the Romans] looked not on their Poverty as an Evil [yeghern]”40 More often than not, they preferred the meaning of crime, as it happened in Jean Pierre Claris de Florian’s novel Numa Pompilius, Second King of Rome: “By a succession of crimes [yeghern hed yeghern hachorteal], which it is needless here to relate, I am the last of the Sabine princes.”41 This was also the case of a religious tract like Dionysius Frayssinous’ A Defense of Christianity, where “crime” was systematically translated as yeghern (e.g., “The crime [yeghern] of these idolaters consisted in not rendering to the only true God a holy and pure worship”).42 A reader of Classical Armenian published in 1900 included its vocabulary with Modern Armenian definition and English translation. The word vojrakordzutiun was defined as yeghern and translated into English as “crime.”43 The death warrant of the ancient language had been signed around the 1880s, when Modern Armenian was developing its full potential as written medium and had become the sole language of communication in the press. Writer and educator Reteos Berberian (1848–1907) quipped in 1901: “Oh, what a crime [yeghern] and what a catastrophe [aghed] to be recognized as a partisan of Classical Armenian! Still dare to express a view about anything in public!”44 The basic meaning of yeghern was shared by “evil” and “crime” in ancient and medieval times, and “crime” had already made its presence felt in the early modern and final period of Classical Armenian. However, the conflation of yeghern and yegher in the New Haigazian created a conundrum. This dictionary's authoritative weight a for the development of the modern lexicon contributed to that enduring conflation, which would become a key player of the politics of genocide more than a century after its insertion in Modern Armenian.

2

Yeghern before and after 1915

The responsibility for this despicable Crime [Yeghern] is shared in equal parts by the cabinets of pashas Said Halim and Talat, as well as senior and junior officials of the provinces, who did not spare any means to perfect the world-shattering catastrophe [aghed] of our unfortunate nation. Hagop Adiyamanian (1919)1

Modern Armenian: “Crime” The evidence of Classical Armenian shows that the word yeghern evolved from “evil” to “crime” as the product of a comparison between the original concept of moral transgression and the related one of legal transgression. The semantic evolution of yeghern in Modern Armenian became patent in translations from French and English from the 1860s and 1870s. Mons. Louis Gaston de Ségur’s popular book about the life and mystery of Christ commented about the repentance of Peter after his rejection of Christ and added that “Judas also repented, the Gospel says, when he saw the extreme sequel to his crime [yeghern].”2 The dialogue between Rodin, a Jesuit, and an Indian character, Faringhea, in a passage of Eugene Sue’s famous novel The Wandering Jew had Rodin saying: “I will humbly observe to you, Mr Faringhea, that I have not the time to give you a course of criminal [yeghernagan] jurisprudence.”3 An abridged translation of Thomas C. Upham’s Mental Philosophy stated that “a judge, from regard to justice and the duty of his office, dooms a criminal [yeghernakordz] to die, while from humanity or particular affection, he desired that he should live.” It noted elsewhere that, “by the law of the land, if a man has put another to death with malice aforethought (that is, with an evil design, or intention of so doing), it is murder [yeghernakordzutiun].”4 Émile du Girardin stated in the preface—translated in 1871—of his work About the Right to Punish: What it is condemned at a certain time, it is not at another time. What a country defends, another country does not defend. What religions sanctify, other religions condemn. What is a crime [yeghern] under a name, it is no longer one when changing names. Because society admits collective murder and robbery, glorified under the names of war and conquest, as evils to which she has to resign, why wouldn’t it admit, in the same way, individual murder and robbery condemned under the names of crime [yeghern] and offense?5

28

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

Eugene de Mirecourt wrote in his novel Confessions de Marion Delorme: “He was himself exposed to the terrible hate of the minister, and ordnances designated him as criminal [yeghernakordz] of lese-majesty.”6 A French manual depicted the sentencing to death of an assassin, for whom the court had decided “that the execution would take place in the town where the crime [yeghern] had been committed.”7 Later in the century, Hovhannes Masehian (1864–1931), a foremost translator of William Shakespeare’s plays, rendered “crimeful” as yeghernayin in Hamlet: It well appears; —But tell me Why you proceeded not against these feats, So crimeful and so capital in nature, As by your safety, wisdom, all things else, You mainly were stirr’d up.8

Classical scholar Heinrich Gelzer referred extensively to Anahit, the main female divinity, in an important study on Armenian mythology translated in 1897. In the late third century, King Terdat III had St. Gregory the Illuminator tortured because he had refused to homage Anahit, which was considered “an imperdonable crime [Germ. Verbrechen, Arm. yeghern].”9 He was then confined to the infamous prison of Khor Virap, where he remained for thirteen years according to tradition before achieving the conversion of Armenia to Christianism. An investigation of the contemporary Armenian press is pending. However, a short piece published in Sion, the journal of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, used the word yeghernakordzutiun as title with the meaning of “crime” or “murder” in 1874. It was a report on the savage assassination of a Greek woman near the Cave of the Innocents in Bethlehem with robbery purposes: “The inhabitants of Bethlehem delivered a petition to the Patriarchates of Jerusalem about this crime [yeghernakordzutiun], asking to intervene effectively to find the criminal [yeghernakordz].”10 In the case of Armenian literary works, famous novelist Raffi (Hakob Melik Hakobian, 1835–88) understood yeghernagan as “criminal” in Jalaleddin (1878) and The Fool (1881): The monastery of the Apostol Bartholomew … had witnessed many criminal events; it had seen all the cruelties of fire-worshipping Persians, Arabs, and Mongols.11 The bek had no reason to believe that his criminal conduct, the banditry and stupendous bloodletting he carried out with his own hands, would be upsetting to his wife.12

Another celebrated writer, satirist Hagop Baronian (1843–91), published his comedy Brother Baghdasar in 1886–7. The main character, Baghdasar, reacted in a predictably negative way to the news that his wife was cheating him: “She has committed a heinous crime [yeghern], an offense [vojir]. She deserves to be hanged.”13 In 1892, lexicographer Simon Kapamajian (1863–1940) published the first dictionary of Modern Armenian—still with features of Classical Armenian in the

Yeghern Right before and after 1915

29

choice of entries—which had a revised edition fifteen years later. His definitions of yeghern and derived words showed their evolution within the domains of evil and crime (Table 2.1). The definition of 1907 set yeghern at a higher level than vojir (“evil act; evil; harm; grave violation of a moral and civil law”).14 Remarkably, “tragedy” and “catastrophe” did not appear as translation of yeghern in most bilingual dictionaries from Armenian to French, English, Turkish, German, and Russian published in the years prior to 1915 (Tables 2.2–2.5). Table 2.1  Word

189215

190716

yeghern

evil, harm, crime [vojir]

rejection of a political or moral law; evil; harm; crime [vojir].

yeghernabes yeghernagan

illegally evil, bad

yeghernaham

evil, bad (man, action) bad; unsavory; harmful (thing, action)

yeghernakordz

evildoer

evildoer, criminal

yeghernakordzutiun

misdeed

misdeed, crime [vojir], wickedness

yeghernalur

ready to hear evil

yeghernatad adean

(neologism) court that judges crimes: cinayet mahkemesi (cour d’assises)

yeghernatiur yeghernavor

inclined to evil evildoer

yeghernayin yeghernutiun

evildoer; criminal/massacre // evil, bad, harmful evil, bad, harmful

evil

evil

Table 2.2  Armenian-French dictionaries (1887–1915)17 Dictionary

crime/yeghern

Voskian

yeghern = see vojir (crime, attentat, méfait, forfait) yeghernakordzutiun = scélératesse

Nubarian

scélératesse = yeghernakordzutiun, abiradutiun, anzkamutiun

Kaciuni

yeghern = forfait, crime, attentat

Demirjibashian

yeghern = crime, forfait

Lusignan

crime = yeghern, yeghernakordzutiun, … forfait = yeghern, yeghernakordzutiun, … mal = yeghern

Hovhannesian

crime = vojir, hantsank, yeghern forfait: vojir, yeghern, dzanr yev adeli hantsank (“grave and heinous offense”)

Lusignan and Basmadjian

yeghern = crime, forfait, attentat, délit; malheur, fatalité, catastrophe

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

30

Table 2.3  Armenian-English dictionaries (1892–1910)18 Dictionary

crime / yeghern

Hagopian

crime = vojir, yeghern

Minassian

yeghern = see vojir (crime, attempt at crime; offense)

Papazian

yeghern = see vojir (crime)

Yeran

crime = yeghern, vojiryeghern = crime

Minassian

crime = hantsank, yeghern, vojir

Papazian

crime = vojir, yeghernakordzutiun, medz aniravutiun

Table 2.4  Armenian-Turkish dictionaries (1891–1912)19 Dictionary

yeghern/cinayet

Apigian

cinayet = vojir, yeghern = crime, forfait

Apigian

yeghern = cinayet

Minassian

yeghern = kabahat, cürm, cinayet

Garabedian

cinayet = vojir, yeghern

Table 2.5  Other bilingual dictionaries (1889–1912) Dictionary

crime/yeghern

Goilaw

Frevel [crime] = yeghern Gräuel [horror] = yeghern

Daghbashian21

yeghern = zlodyanye [evildoing], zlodistvo [villainy]; prestuplenye [crime]

20

Yeghern in Abdul Hamid’s Time Yeghern and related words would have a more urgent nature during the despotic reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid II (1876–1909). They were used by future victims of the genocide such as Taniel Varuzhan (1884–1915), Siamanto (1878–1915), Yervant Sermakeshkhanlian (1870–1915), Kegham Parseghian (1884–1915), E. Aknuni (1861– 1915), and Hagop Terzian (1879–1915), among others. In June 1880, the ambassadors of the six European powers that guaranteed the reforms stipulated by Article 61 of the Treaty of Berlin (1878) in the provinces inhabited by Armenians submitted identical notes to the Ottoman government demanding their execution. Foreign Minister Abedin Pasha responded on July 5 that the most urging reforms were the grouping of villages and the establishment of itinerant criminal [yeghernatad] courts. He complained about the overzealousness of people who seemed to have undertaken the invention of “imaginary crimes [yeghernakordzutiun]” whenever there were misdemeanors in the Armenian provinces.22 The powers found

Yeghern Right before and after 1915

31

the response insufficient and submitted a collective note on September 7 about the lack of improvement in the administration of justice and the worsening of the situation “with regards to the independence of civil and criminal [yeghernagan] courts.” The note also highlighted that the language about “the crimes [yeghern] committed, or alleged to have been committed, in the provinces inhabited by Armenians” showed the unwillingness of the government to recognize the gravity of the situation.23 The failure in the reforms was among the causes leading to the formation of self-defense groups and then political parties: the short-lived Armenakan Organization (1885), the SocialDemocrat Hunchakian Party (1887), and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (1890). State-organized violence peaked in 1895–6 with the massacre of Armenians in the eastern provinces and Constantinople leaving 100,000 to 300,000 victims. The cover of Droshak, the central organ of the ARF, featured in July 1896 the corpses of two revolutionaries who “the criminal [yeghernatad]—better to say, criminal-acting [yeghernakordz]—court of Constantinople” had condemned to the gallows after liquidating two Armenian informants in Yozgat the year before.24 In 1898, an imperial decree freed thirty-two Muslims sentenced to life in prison after a massacre in Tokat (Eudokia) had cost the life of 120 Armenians: Indeed, it is recalled that this mass murder generated great ire in Europe. It was not possible to find the slightest pretext as motivation for this criminal action [yeghernakordzutiun]. The governments demanded to condemn those guilty. An investigative committee went to Eudokia and, after investigation, sentenced some criminals [yeghernakordz] to death and others to prison. A few months later, following an episode in Constantinople, the death sentences were changed to life in prison. And now, when 34 Armenians imprisoned as political felons are released, those simple criminals [yeghernakordz] obtain their freedom too.25

In the face of official inaction, an unsigned article stated in 1899, “the wild anarchy of crime [yeghernakordzutiun]” reigned in all Armenian provinces, where Turks and Kurds killed, plundered, and kidnapped daily.26 Pretexting the presence of revolutionaries, a Kurdish tribal chief orchestrated an attack of 2,000 Turkish soldiers and Kurdish irregulars on the village of Zpaghank, in the area of Sasun, on July 3, 1900. Only 10 out of 150 to 200 villagers were reported to have survived “this criminal [yeghernagan] conspiration,” carried out “in very tragic [yegheragan] circumstances.”27 The massacres of 1896 forced many intellectuals to leave the country. In September 1900, writer Yervant Srmakeshkhanlian (Yerukhan), who had started publishing a monthly in Varna (Bulgaria), scorned “the criminal [yeghernagan] silence” of Europe while the sultan celebrated “the twenty-fifth Jubilee of his criminal [yeghernagan] acts with cymbals and trumpets.” He later described the divisions among Armenians and called for the entire Armenian nation to engage in self-defense “despite the criminal [yeghernagan] attempts at stopping her.”28 The movement of the Young Turks advocated for a constitutional monarchy. Their organ Meshverett challenged Armenians to decide whether they would align with them if the Constitution of 1876 was restored. Yerukhan voiced his skepticism that “the country where criminal [yeghernagan] acts have reached an ideal height and

32

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

where unruly gangs of bloodthirsty bandits go around showing the horrifying victory of impunity” would become a paradise. Turkey’s population lacked cultural level to live under constitutional order; beneath their European varnish, the Young Turks “have the criminal [yeghernagan] will and dare to exploit the suffering fate of an entire nation.”29 A journal sponsored by the ARF, Pro Armenia, was launched in Paris by a group of French intellectuals to promote the solution of the Armenian Question. Its inaugural declaration denounced Abdul-Hamid, said to be thinking about unleashing a new round of massacres and repression, as the “author of the first crimes [yeghernakordzutiun].”30 The ARF organized an attempt against the sultan’s life in July 1905. The explosion of a powerful bomb placed in a carriage near the Hamidiye mosque of Constantinople left twenty-six people dead and fifty-eight wounded, but Abdul-Hamid saved his life by chance. Some of the authors were arrested and tried six months later at the criminal court (yeghernatad adean) of Constantinople. The Armenian translation of the proceedings, published in 1906, used yeghern and yeghernagan abundantly, along with yeghernakordz. The word yeghernagan appeared forty-three times in the prosecutor’s speech as part of “criminal act” and “criminal incident,” and also attached to “initiative,” “intent,” “decision,” “idea,” “operation,” “attack,” and “purpose.” The defendants had utilized explosives “to commit crimes [yeghern] in different places and to have them explode and destroy houses,” concluding that “these are evil anarchists who pursue these kinds of criminal reprehensible purposes.”31 The sentence used “criminal act” three times and “criminal explosion” once, declaring that “four people had planned this damned crime [yeghern].”32 Two leading voices of Western Armenian poetry made a blazing appearance in the 1900s. Siamanto (Adom Yarjanian) and Taniel Varuzhan (Chibukkiarian) captured the imagination of the readers, reflecting the tragedy and the violence of the time. For instance, Siamanto praised young revolutionaries who punished Turkish assassins and Armenian traitors in his poem “Glory to the Terrorists,” written in 1906. They “were the Law, watching over the shoulders of crime-worshipping [yeghernabashd] Evil,” who “entered through the closed doors of all dark and criminal [yeghernagan] souls.”33 “Night of Ravage” depicted a town expecting a frenzy of massacre, with “the brilliant and heart-wrenching innocents” who “notice the motherhood of the faraway stars / but ignore themselves and the crime [yeghern] ironing out around them.” The mix of terror and faint hope comes to the somber conclusion: “But, alas, dreams die, dreams become ashes, / and criminal [yeghernagan] midnight and embodied Death, like a cemetery from the skies, / tour around the destroyed town and my solitary and martyr soul.”34 Varuzhan based his poem “My Father’s Prison,” originally published in 1906, on the memory of an encounter with his father, a porter unfairly imprisoned in Constantinople during the massacres of 1896. The conclusion said: “I saw with you / saints of all religions, / drowned in crime [vojir], persecuted, / and all flowers and Christs spat upon.”35 In 1909, he reprinted the poem with the title “In My Father’s Prison.” Among other modifications, “flowers” became “lilacs,” and vojir was replaced by yeghern.36 He also made changes in his poem “The Rebirth Girl,” published as “Abriel,” a personal name forged after biblical names ending in –el and a pun on Abril (“April”)

Yeghern Right before and after 1915

33

and abril, “to live.” Varuzhan understood vojir and yeghern as synonyms, choosing the latter in the fourth line of the first stanza.37 Here he depicted the main character of the poem: I do not know from what dark cave or hut she has come out. She runs from the nearby valley. With fiery eyes, like filled with tremor of a new crime [yeghern], black hair to the wind, barefoot, she stands in the bleak field.38

The poet also used yeghern elsewhere. For example, “The Galley Slaves” depicted a group of slaves hauling to the peak of a mountain “that cannon of crime [yeghern], / the blind instrument of self-destruction.”39 The sword was a weapon that also killed crime, as the penultimate stanza of “To the Sword of a Hero” said: “Heroic comrade, come close so I hang the sword on you … / May it kill crime [yeghern].”40 “Sprouts of Tomorrow” described the murder of a peasant and the plundering of his oxen: “Wolflike crime [yeghern]! In the twilight now, / silent on the furrows, / he lies down in pieces.”41 Varuzhan even used medz yeghern as a point of comparison in a love poem, “Invitation” (1905), posthumously published more than sixty years later: Tell me, oh my beauty. Isn’t it a crime [vojir] to veil the bosom from the kiss of the zephyrs, not to make it an altar to frankincense and the God-lightened regard of the stars? Isn’t it a great crime [medz yeghern] to be loving and beautiful, to haul under the walls of the vile city (covering them with utmost care) the naked smiles of the eyes, the fire of the cheeks, the black tresses that suffocate the heart, and the captivating breasts that make man’s soul leap to the eye?42

Two successive murders in New York shocked the Armenian-American community in 1907. First, on May 22, two Armenians killed Rev. Caspar Vartanian for robbery motives. Azk, the Boston organ of the Reformed Hunchakian Party—founded by Hunchakian Party dissidents in 1896—called it “a terrible crime [yeghern].”43 After a splinter group of the Reformed Hunchakians murdered wealthy rug dealer Hovhannes Tavshanjian on July 22, following a failed attempt at blackmail, Azk condemned it as “one of those criminal acts without justification,” using the neologism yeghernarark (“criminal act”).44 Well-known writer and Reformed Hunchakian leader Arpiar Arpiarian (1851–1908) was assassinated by the same splinter group in Cairo (February 1908). It was “a heinous crime [yeghern] for which an entire nation would stand up crying revenge,” Yerukhan

34

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

wrote amid general outrage, “if our nation were not sliding towards the downfall of destruction.”45 Poet and editor Vahan Tekeyan (1878–1945) compared Arpiarian’s body to “a bulwark against the Greatest Heinous Crime [Medzakuyn Yeghern] ever perpetrated against Armenian national life, against the fratricidal Crime [Vojir] that does not satiate itself.”46 At the opening of a memorial upon Arpiarian’s tomb, poet Vahan Malezian (1871–1966) said in 1911: “At the same time, this black cover veils the shame of the hideous crime [yeghern], whose fratricidal hands hit the heart of all Armenians, nefariously striking one of their most honorable children from his back.”47 Various texts of legal content are relevant for this study. Dimitrios Cholakides (Cholakian, 1838–1907), a Greek scholar well-versed in the Armenian language, translated the marriage canons of the Greek Orthodox Church in 1893. An extensive introduction referred also to positive law and its non-retroactivity, except for criminal law: For when the punitive clause of the new law is lighter than the old one, the new one applies (retroactive), even if the offense [hantsank] or crime [yeghern] was previously committed, and if the new law contains more severe clauses, the old one applies; it is enough that the offense or crime [yeghern] was committed during the application of the old law.48

Four years later, in the second edition of his catechism, Fr. Sahag Der Sarkisian observed that ancient law intended to eradicate crime from society by punishing “crime [yeghern], namely, vojir” with death.49 He noted that suicide and homicide had been considered justified in some cases and that “paganism never fought against this crime [yeghernutiun].”50 French law heavily influenced Ottoman laws from the 1850s, which makes clear that yeghern designated a crime particularly heinous, the equivalent of French forfait. The comparison of forfait with crime shows that it was defined as “enormous crime”51 and “odious crime”52 in the eighteenth century, when the Encyclopédie explained it as the greatest of crimes (robbery and calumnies were crimes, and murder was a forfait).53 In the nineteenth century, M. F. Guizot observed that crime applied to punishable disturbances of social or moral order, while forfait was used for a deliberate and uncommon crime: “The crime may be the effect of circumstances and may be involuntary; the forfait is born from character and looks for audacity and enormity.”54 Elsewhere, he added that crime derived from wickedness, while forfait came from villainy and hurt the feelings of humanity, violated faith, and attacked public safety.55 Pierre Benjamin de Lafaye wrote that crime was commonly used for a type of punishable act, while forfait indicated something grave or enormous to the point of being unheard of.56 Émile Littré added that forfait was a great crime usually committed by an individual in high position or power.57 In 1904, lawyer Garabed Solakhian published the second part of a guide for merchants, which included a summary of Ottoman laws. The introduction to the section on criminal proceedings stated that the punishment for offenses was up to two years of prison. The defendant owning a property was free five days after the arraignment, but those “who have committed a crime [yeghern] (Turk. cinayet), other

Yeghern Right before and after 1915

35

crime [vojir], or have been in prison for more than a year are not eligible in this case, although they can be freed on bail.”58 During trials for a serious offense, Solakhian wrote, if it was question of “a crime [yeghern] (Turk. cinayet ise)” that called for a formidable punishment, the court issued an order of arrest and sent the defendant to the interrogator judge. In the case of “criminal [yegherni] proceedings,” a committee issued an indictment with the results of its investigation twenty-four hours before “an issue of grave punishment and crime [yeghern] went to the Criminal Court [Yeghernagan Tadaran] (Tr. mahkemeyi cinayet).”59 Only criminal [yeghernagan, Turk. cinayet] cases could be submitted to the Appellate Court.60 In an essay on criminality posthumously published in 1908, writer Kalusd Antreasian (1869–1906) gave an idiosyncratic translation of French criminalité (criminality) as yeghernakordzutiun (“all actions by an individual, which are perjudicial to an individual, or a people, or humanity in general”),61 a collective noun grouping all sorts of yeghern (“each action from which the individual or the people are materially or morally damaged”).62 The author took note of Italian psychiatrist Cesare Lombroso’s reference to kidagan yeghernapanutiun (French criminologie scientifique) and used yeghernakordz for the translation of French criminel in the titles of works by Enrico Ferri, Édouard Lefort, and Scipio Sighele, and his classification of “criminals.”63 He correlated the number of “crime-preventing” (yeghernarkel) associations organized in Geneva and London and the decline in criminal acts in proportion to the number of residents.64 Vartan Hatsuni (1870–1944), a philologist from the Venetian branch of the Mekhitarists, published an erudite study on the institution of oath among Armenians in 1910. He listed robbery, adultery, homicide, and banditry as criminal offenses according to the lawcode of Mekhitar Gosh (thirteen century), “which have been always considered crimes [vojir] in ancient times, and whose punishment being terrible and crushing for the defendant, the oath was necessary when there was no witness that confirmed the crime [yeghern] during the trial.”65

The Yeghern of Adana The Young Turk revolution of 1908 forced Abdul Hamid to reinstate the Constitution that he had abolished in 1878 and renounce his absolute powers. The Second Constitutional Period raised the stakes for an era of equality and rule of law for nonMuslims.66 Following a failed counterrevolutionary movement (April 13–27, 1909), the CUP, the Young Turks’ umbrella political party, dethroned the sultan and replaced him with his brother Mehmet V (1909–18), who became a figurehead. The political turmoil generated by the counterrevolution coincided with the double massacre in Adana and surrounding locations of the region of Cilicia (April 14–18 and 25–27, 1909). The massacres, initially ascribed to the ancien régime, also included the participation of local elements of the CUP. Two thirds of the victims, estimated from 20,000 to 30,000, were Armenians, along Greeks and Syriacs.

36

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

There had been instigators for “that inhuman and punishable criminal [yeghernakordz] act,” Droshak wrote in an editorial, and the timing fed “the assumption that it was a Crime [Yeghern] especially prepared against the Armenian people long time ago.”67 Manzume-i-Efkar, an independent daily of Constantinople, wrote about the Armenian warm reception of the troops that had crushed the counterrevolution, since “they just expect a fair punishment to those soulless criminals [yeghernakordz] who subjected the Armenians of Adana to sword and fire.” It remarked that “a human government must at least mete the most severe punishment to the criminal [yeghernakordz] scoundrels and their leaders.”68 In June 1909, Sahag II (1849–1939), Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia, demanded the punishment of the actual culprits in a telegram to the Sultan where he declared “his infinite grief for the homeland-ruining criminal actions [yeghernakordzutiun].”69 Writer and journalist Suren Bartevian (1875–1921) toured Cilicia in April–May 1909 and later collected his dispatches in a book. He made a pun on “the crime-shining [yeghernapayl] light”70 of Abdul Hamid’s palace, Yıldız Kiosk (“Star Pavilion”), and reported that the massacre was the outcome of a plan by local Muslim officials and notables with the knowledge of governor Mehmet Cevat, a Hamid loyalist: “Yıldız played its crime-printing [yeghernadib] finger there.”71 He condemned Ihsan Fikri, chairman of the CUP club of Adana and editor of its organ Itidal, for making false claims of rebellion and “crime-inviting [yeghernahraver] scrawls.”72 The “hunger and the horror of the crime [yeghern]” were reflected in the countless widows and orphans found in Mersin.73 The situation did not “constrain the dark and crime-charred [yeghernakhantz] forces, stop the hurricane of ruin, or put limits to the horror of blood.”74 Survivors would have been less in number if foreigners had not sheltered Armenians “fleeing from the Crime [Yeghern].” He protested the government inaction on May 8 to “stop the criminal [yeghernakordz] hands.”75 Bartevian described Adana as “the central scene of crime [yeghern] and tragedy [yeghererkutiun]”76 and denounced the bias of the court-martial and “the crime-decorated [yeghernazart] vali of Adana,”77 who tried to minimize the number of Armenian deaths, ascribe nefarious plans to them, and paint the Muslims involved in “this gigantic crime [yeghern]”78 as common criminals. Writer Kegham Parseghian (1884–1915) depicted the massacres as “an implacable, crime-thirsty [yeghernadzarav] and Armenian-destroying drought (…) incomparably more criminal [yeghernagan] than the Jewish pogroms.” He added in his flourishing style: The destructive flood of vandals, bubbling with the terror of fanatism, envy, and crime-inebriated [yeghernarpu] pleasure, asphyxiated you. (…) Many sinister ghosts, released from the temple of Crime [Yeghern] with a promise, burnt your human nest alive in a hell of barbarian sufferings.79

In May–June 1909, Siamanto wrote Bloody News from My Friend, based on letters sent by physician Diran Balakian (1878–1939) from Cilicia. The poem “Strangled” described a group of Armenians hidden in a dug-out cellar with the mob looking for them:

Yeghern Right before and after 1915

37

Then, a newborn baby began to squeal. That innocent would surely be our betrayer. We were just left with the hope of a decision—a heinous crime [yeghern], a crime [vojir]. The mother was sobbing …

This stanza anticipated the decision of a terrible crime, as the mother, pressed by the group to find a way to avoid the impending slaughter, would be forced to strangle her baby. The Turkish press promoted versions that Armenians had rebelled and organized the massacres. Sermakeshkhanlian, now editor of the independent daily Arevelk, denounced an incendiary article appeared in Tasvîr-i Efkâr, which did not want to be less than Itidal “and extends its hand from here to Adana to take the hand of Ihsan Fikri, that repugnant criminal [yeghernakordz].” After refuting the denialist arguments, he asked why the government was oblivious “to these criminal [yeghernagan] publications of the Turkish press,” which aimed at stirring Muslim sentiments and have Armenians annihilated.80 He wrote days later that it was not possible that “the bloodstained authors of the crime [yeghern], huddled in the shadows, continuously deny the truth, pointing at the sad remnants of the massacred race as authors of the gigantic slaughterhouse they built.”81 Bishop Mushegh Seropian (1869–1951), primate of Adana, was in Cairo at the time of the events. In a book he published shortly thereafter, he warned: “This great crime [medz yeghern] perpetrated under a Constitutional Regime will remain not just as the stain of the Liberated Ottoman Homeland, but as the incurable and eternally gaping wound in the Armenian heart.”82 He labeled the massacre as nameless in his French version, where he went even further: “This immense crime without name [crime immense et sans nom] perpetrated in broad daylight under a government called ‘Constitutional’ will soil the history of new and free Turkey with an indelible stain and bleed the Armenian people’s heart with an eternally gaping wound.”83 In the preface to his Armenian original, he said that it was a torture “just to write about the bestial criminal act [yeghernakordzutiun],” quoting from Henryk Sienkiewicz’s novel With Fire and Sword “if there is ever the wish to condense that widespread crime [yeghern].”84 Seropian denounced the Young Turk role, becoming persona non grata. In his response to Cevat, who accused him of having triggered the massacres with provocative actions, he labeled him as “the great accomplice and the organizer of the criminal act [yeghernakordzutiun],”85 and noted that the efforts for justification would not clean the innocent blood, “whose traces will remain eternally sealed on your forehead, behind of which the crimes [yeghern] that blooded and stained the Ottoman Homeland were conceived.”86 He later called upon Armenians worldwide to assist the victims, claiming that their indifference “would close with a string of tombs the bloody episode of that great crime [medz yeghern], which Turkish fanaticism recreated in the heart of Cilicia and whose monstrosity surpasses all crimes [vojir] of history.”87 Hagop Babikian (1856–1909), a CUP Parliament member from Edirne, went to Cilicia as part of an investigative committee despite strong Armenian opposition. He “was melting like a burning candle,” Very Rev. Kevork Arslanian (1869–1951)

38

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

stated, “when (…) heard up the stories of the unprecedented extremes of the crime [yeghern] committed by the Turkish mob in an official treason of sorts.”88 On his way back, Babikian told the Smyrna correspondent of the daily Ittihad that the central government had not been involved, but implicated local authorities like Cevat, military commander Mustafa Remzi Pasha, mutesarif Assaf Bey, Abdülkadir Bağdâdizâde, Salih Effendi Boşnak, and İhsan Fikri,89 who were arrested on July 24, but would receive light sentences from the court-martial. The ARF-leaning weekly Azdak observed that the press praised the Young Turks for decisions mostly based on political considerations, including the “arrest of the main culprits for the Cilician Great Crime [Medz Yeghern].”90 After showing to some colleagues a draft of his report, which was never submitted to the Parliament, Babikian died suddenly on August 1 in unclear circumstances. In November, Sermakeshkhanlian commented on the project of the new governor of Adana, Ahmed Cemal Bey—future member of the CUP government—to settle 5,000 Turkish migrants (muhacirs). He noted that Abdul Hamid never worried about hiding his actions, even though “the most common criminal [yeghernakordz]” tried to erase the traces of his crime. On the other hand, he wrote that the integrity showed by Cemal toward the restoration of Adana and its Armenian community “became very troubling to the main malefactors of the great crime [medz yeghern] of Adana, who not only roamed freely over there, but also had an authority of sorts.”91 Twentysix minor defendants were hung in December, and the daily Azatamart condemned “those rulers who sleep and keep silence while a crime [vojir] is being prepared and people go quietly towards the door of heinous crime [yeghern],” waking up to take punitive measures after the fact.92 The first anniversary of the massacres was commemorated in Adana on April 18, 1910, with a funeral ceremony at the only Armenian church standing. In his stirring message, Catholicos Sahag II stated that God was ready “to take revenge from enemies of justice, opponents of rights, and fratricidal criminals [yeghernakordz].”93 Touring the United States, Aknuni recalled that “the bad news of the Great Crime [Medz Yeghern]” had been “an indelible insult to the July revolution, a historical stain on the forehead of those who love to have positions, but not to govern; who have decorations on their chests, but have no heart underneath.” He hoped that better times would come: “We want to believe in the victory of Freedom and of tomorrow’s brotherhood, we want to enjoy smiles, we want to strengthen our faith that famine is not eternal, bloodshed is not eternal, crime [yeghern] is not eternal.”94 Official unwillingness and the impact of the “nation-betraying crime [yeghern] and the land-destroying evil,”95 however, dashed such hopes. The previous examples, including translations from Western literature and dictionary entries, confirm that yeghern was not the actual translation of “tragedy” or “catastrophe” in Modern Armenian. “Eight months after applauses, speeches, kisses, and fake demonstrations of brotherly love, the Crime [Yeghern] of Adana started,” survivor writer and editor Teotig (1873–1928) wrote in 1919. It would devolve “into a world-shattering, Armenian-exterminating mass killing [godoradz] that turned the entire Anatolia into a cemetery seven years later.”96

Yeghern Right before and after 1915

39

Threading the Crime of 1915 In 1911, the liberal wing of the Young Turks founded the Freedom and Accord Party (Hürriyet ve İtilâf Fırkası). After the defeat in the Italo-Turkish war in the same year and the rigged elections of June 1912, the new party managed to rout the CUP from power with a coup d’état. Members of the latter were arrested in September and charged with planning an “attempt [yeghernaportz] against the Sultan and Nazım Pasha,” the Ottoman chief of staff.97 However, the heavy territorial losses suffered through the First Balkan War (1912–13) allowed the CUP to make a comeback in January 1913 with another coup. The massacre of Adana had become a taboo subject. Survivor Hagop Terzian printed the first fascicles of an almost 900-page compilation of documents in September 1912.98 It included a partial translation of Babikian’s report,99 which may have come from a copy found amid its papers. Catholicos Sahag II praised the book as “the vivid picture of the Great Crime [Medz yeghern] extracted from beneath the ruins and the ashes (…), which will be an eternal affront to the much-touted civilization and the inexistent humanism of the twentieth century.”100 The government confiscated most copies released in late 1913 and had Terzian reportedly tried by a court-martial twice, issuing a death sentence against anyone who read the book.101 In early 1913, the Armenian Patriarchate released confidentially Babikian’s report in French translation.102 After the journal Pour les peuples d’Orient (continuation of Pro-Armenia) reprinted it with a preface by its editor François de Pressencé,103 Hagop Sarkisian undertook a full Armenian translation,104 which was likely ready for publication in late 1913, but the political situation forced postponement until 1919. Sarkisian’s experience of the deportation in 1915 colored his own foreword with Orientalist overtones, as it would happen in the memoirs and discourse of many other survivors. The Young Turks had “spat in the face of Civilization” in 1909 as “the result of the old and new Turkish mentality, which was never willing to understand that the past and future owners of this country could also have the right to live,” but “it was necessary to sow ashes over the Great Tragedy [Medz Yeghern] and conduct the burial of Justice crucified.”105 The French word tragédie in the title of Pour les peuples d’Orient was rendered as yeghern. However, Sarkisian translated the word differently in Babikian’s conclusion, which stated that “the [local] chiefs and members of the Committee of Union and Progress participated in the organization and the perpetration of the savage tragedy [yeghererkutiun] of Adana.”106 On May 12, 1913, the legislative body of the Armenian millet, the National Assembly, submitted a memorandum to Grand Vizier Mahmut Şevket about the lack of response to grievances and crimes in the provinces of Adana, Van, Diarbekir, and Bitlis. In a letter to Secretary of State Philander Knox (May 14, 1913), US Ambassador William Rockhill quoted from the first paragraph of the memorandum about disillusion and growth of killings, robberies, forced conversions, and others, including “disquieting symptoms, precursors of a massacre, of a catastrophe capable of overshadowing, in its horror, the most fearful tragedies of the past.”107 Several newspapers rendered “tragedies” from Turkish as yeghernagan tebker (reportedly “tragic events”)108 and yegherner.109

40

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

Şevket was assassinated in June 1913 and succeeded by Said Halim. The actual leading force of the government, however, was the CUP triumvirate formed by Mehmed Talat (Interior Minister), Ismail Enver (War), and Ahmet Cemal (Navy), which turned the empire into a one-party state under a constitutional façade. Shortly after the empire entered the First World War in November 1914, crimes and massacres against Armenians burst in small-scale in the east of the country, and a chain of political and military actions gradually propelled a program of wholesale destruction, “a criminal [yeghernagan] plan,” in the words of survivor ecclesiastic Rev. Fr. Grigoris Balakian (1875–1934).110 In December 1914, Very Rev. Sahag Odabashian (1875–1914) was murdered en route to his position as primate of Erzinga (Erzincan). In his report to the Patriarchate, Bishop Knel Kalemkearian (1861–1931), primate of Sebastia (Sivas), pointed out to official involvement: “The first travelers who crossed the crime site [yegherni vayr] noted the traces of European horseshoes, which only the horses of officials used. This proves that there were officials at the crime site [yegherni vayr] when passage was forbidden.”111 He expanded on another point in 1918: “At the moment when the awful crime [ksdmneli yeghern] was executed, circulation was forcefully forbidden by the gendarmes for a few hours, with the road blocked on both sides at one hour distance from the murder site.”112 He added that he had demanded a detailed investigation and punishment from Muammer, governor of Sebastia—actual mastermind of the killing and would-be liquidator of the Armenian population—“in a lengthy meeting about the crime [yeghern] that had been committed.”113 In his memoirs, published in 1919, survivor Sarkis Srents (Kelejian) testified: Upon Very Rev. Sahag Odabashian’s criminal [yeghernagan] death, it fell to Aknuni the preparation of a memorandum about the systematic crimes [vojir] committed against the Armenians since the mobilization. The memorandum had a very severe tone and was very fact-filled. Talat Bey expressed his amazement for the provision of such detailed proof. His amazement was explained by the fact that firstly he received official information by ciphered telegram about the crimes [vojir], and the editorial board of Azatamart came next. The criminals [yeghernakordz] reported to the nest of Crime [Yeghern], the Sublime Porte, and the victims reported, of course secretly, to their dear ones in Constantinople.114

Enver’s brother-in-law, Cevdet Tahir, was designated governor of the vilayet of Van in February 1915. He incited massacres in the Armenian villages surrounding the city of Van in March and then invited several Armenian leaders to mediate between the villagers and their Muslim neighbors only to have them killed. “The Armenian inhabitants of the City of Van took warning from the fate of the villagers and from this last and most sinister crime [yeghernakordzutiun],” Arnold Toynbee wrote in The Treatment of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, “and prepared themselves, in case of need, for self-defence.”115 The Allied landing in Gallipoli, started on March 18, and the self-defense of Van from April 20 until mid-May, an improvised action where 1,500 ill-armed civilians kept at bay 20,000 regular soldiers until the arrival of Russian troops and Armenian

Yeghern Right before and after 1915

41

volunteers, served as pretext to Talat to organize an empirewide roundup of Armenian leadership in April and May. Few of those arrested in Constantinople on the night of April 24–25 and following weeks would survive after the exile to the yeghernavayr (“crime site”) of Ayaş116 and Çankırı. Among those sent to Çankırı was writer Mikayel Shamdanjian (1875–1926), who noted that only fifteen survived from the approximately 120 people from their group: “So fate wanted that almost hundred people were delivered to the Crime [Yeghern]. (…) We were divided into two caravans; the first had fifty-two people and the second, twenty-four. Both caravans were dispatched to Der-Zor as their destination.”117 He observed that they did not know the fate of the first caravan in early July, “and we were still unaware of the Turkish will of crime [yeghern].”118 The entire chronology of the events was naturally unknown to Shamdanjian, who later wrote in his memoir of the deportation that, at the end of July, “the Turkish heinous crime [yeghern] had not been unleashed on the Armenians yet.”119 He recounted how a gang of villagers and bandits organized by the local CUP secretary murdered Taniel Varuzhan and fellow poet Rupen Sevag (1885–1915), along three other exiles, six hours away from Çankırı in late August 1915: “This heinous crime [yeghern] shook our souls to their core; the drop of bravery on which we counted when leaving Çankırı froze in our veins and our feet stumbled.”120 Shamdanjian nevertheless managed “to flee from the blacksmith of heinous crime [yeghern] now seated in Kastemuni” and “escape from the looming crime [yeghern]” with six other people.121 In June 1915, twenty members of the Hunchakian Party were tried and hanged in Constantinople. Hayastan labeled it as a “horrifying new Ittihadist criminal act [yeghernakordzutiun].”122 Writer Dikran Gamsaragan (1868–1943) observed in Arev, the organ of the Armenian Democratic Constitutional Party in Cairo: “The law does not punish intent; if there was an attempt, it was the job of the court to verify and judge it. Only the criminal [yeghernagan] act falls under the laws of the Criminal Court [Yeghernatad Adean].”123 Between June and September, Hayastan published a series of letters, entitled “The Great Crisis,” sent by journalist Shavarsh Missakian (1883–1957) from his hideout in Constantinople, where he led the decimated ARF ranks until his arrest in March 1916. He first asked: “What supreme force could bring these criminals [yeghernakordz] to order?” He later remarked that non-Armenian had made the first reports “on this monstrous crime [yeghern] of forced emigration.”124 In another letter, he pointed out that common words did not suffice “to characterize this Catastrophe [Aghed]”: How innocent is the sound of “massacre” [chart], “mass killing” [godoradz] and even “war”! I prefer to recall episodes as common history … I pick from here and there, from eyewitness accounts or echoes coming by chance, because (is there a need to say it?) the Ittihadist Monster is perpetrating this heinous crime [yeghern] in a citadel totally isolated from the world, and the history of the crime [vojir] remains in deep darkness.125

In July and August, Hayastan asked whether humankind was impotent “to force the few barbarians who have set their nest on the shores of the Bosphorus to stop their

42

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

criminal act [yeghernakordzutiun]” and whether Germany did not believe “that the world-shattering crime [yeghern]” was planned.126 Both yeghern and yeghernakordzutiun translated English “crime” and French forfait several times. Thus, the American Committee on Armenian Atrocities made an appeal to the press in September 1915 “to call upon the Turkish Government to put an end to this crime [yeghernakordzutiun] against humanity and return the exiles who may yet be living to their homes.”127 An editorial of The Times of London referred to Talat as main author of the “monstrous crime [yeghern]” and attacked German inaction: “We had thought that no deeper stain than the crimes [yeghernakordzutiun] of Belgium could sully the German ruler and the German people. We were wrong.”128 Days later, the same newspaper labeled German justifications as “frank defence of the wrong [yeghern] done.”129 Sir William Dunn, Lord Mayor of London, initiated a national fund for relief of Armenians and other victims on October 15. Former Prime Minister Lord Arthur Balfour apologized for his absence, referring to the treatment of Armenians as “a crime [yeghernakordzutiun] that surpasses the worst deeds of their predecessors.”130 In early November, the Human Rights League of France and the French-Armenian committees published an open letter to Wilson, which writer and political activist Archag Tchobanian (1872–1954) translated into Armenian. A relevant paragraph said: France is today impotent before this crime [Fr. crime; Arm. vojir] that is an irreparable disaster for the Turkish empire itself. (…) Your nation, benefactor and educator of the Armenians, is responsible to the same degree as us, French and British, towards these disciples who heeded those lessons, placed their trust in her, and made efforts to become, on her example, people of civilization and progress. She would carry part of this heinous crime [Fr. forfait; Arm. yeghern] before History if she did nothing to stop its course.131

Lord Robert Cecil, British Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs, stated at a hearing of the House of Commons on November 16 “that no more horrible crime [yeghernakordzutiun] has been committed in the history of the world.”132 In December, Randall Davidson, Archbishop of Canterbury, described the massacres of Armenians and Assyrians as “a crime [yeghernakordzutiun] which in scale and horror has probably no parallel in the history of the world.”133 In Paris, Le Temps blasted German silence, declaring that, when law had its turn, those who had been silent and passive “before the most monstrous crimes [yeghernakordzutiun] would just lament their abdication.”134 Toynbee concluded that the Ottoman government and the CUP were “directly and personally responsible, from beginning to end, for the gigantic crime [yeghern] that devastated the Near East in 1915,” and that uncertainty about “the exact quantitative scale of the crime [yeghernakordzutiun]” did not reduce responsibility.135 Activists Mihran Damadian (1863–1945) and Tchobanian noted the outrage in the Western press about “the widespread crimes [yeghernakordzutiun] emptying Armenia”136 and “the extraordinary heinous crime [yeghern] executed in Armenia.”137 Tchobanian inquired how Germany and Austria would justify themselves before history after “that monstrous crime [yeghern]” had been fully executed with their complicity.138

Yeghern Right before and after 1915

43

In February 1916, Balakian, who had also been exiled to Çankırı, was deported to Deir-ez-Zor together with his jailmates and local Armenians. Describing the heartbreaking departure, he wrote: “I could do nothing else than to be the live eyewitness of the martyrdom of my tortured race and, if the Lord conceded me the possibility of staying alive, to testify this great crime [medz yeghern] to all future Armenian generations.”139 He passed by Yozgat on his road of deportation. Riding along local police chief Şukri Bey, he asked about the massacre of 42,000 Armenians, thinking that, if he survived, one day he would be able “to shed light over such terrible, tragic [yegheragan] and criminal [yeghernagan] events, to which no Armenian would have been witness indeed.”140 Their dialogue was “filled with tragic accounts [yegherabadum] and criminal accounts [yeghernabadum].”141 Balakian recorded Şukri’s concern about “how we will come out of this,” with reference “to the Armenian crime [yeghern],”142 and retold the grisly testimony of Turkish gendarmes about the massacre of more than 6,400 women, young girls, and children, commenting that “it is not possible to imagine, yet write down this great crime [medz yeghern] or drama in its actual details.”143 In April 1917, the independent daily Hayastan (Tiflis) started publishing testimonies of survivors in the section “History of the Medz Yeghern.” Six months later, an editorial explained that the publication of “the eyewitness accounts about the Great Heinous Crime [Medz Yeghern] executed by the hand of the Ottoman state” was aimed at providing “materials to contemporary history, especially to European publications, in order that the details of the Great Crime [Medz Vojir] are not lost.”144 In the wake of the October Revolution, the Ottoman army reoccupied the areas of Western Armenia evacuated by Russia in early 1918. Armenian resistance managed to stop the attack on Eastern Armenia in three critical battles in late May. The independence of Armenia was recognized by the Ottoman Empire in the Treaty of Batum, signed on June 4.145 Writer and political activist Avetis Aharonian (1866–1948) headed a delegation of the new republic that traveled to Constantinople to negotiate about the unbearable conditions imposed by the treaty and wrote a series of essays based on his impressions. On June 15, 1918, he remarked: “I am going to the capital of the Great Crime [Medz Yeghern], to that accursed furnace where all the infernal conspiracies, all the crimes [vojir] against the Armenian world and the people were forged.”146 He would also meet the local community, reeling after four years of fear and terror. Aharonian returned to Armenia five months later. His essay written on November 14 reflected the harshness of reality: I am returning from Constantinople the same way I came, four months ago, to my Golgotha, the city of the Great Crime [Medz Yeghern] (…) And now, when I am escaping from the city of the Great Crime [Medz Yeghern], my soul emptied of hope and belief cries quietly in the darkness.147

The Armistice Years The Armistice of Mudros sanctioned Ottoman defeat on October 30, 1918, and the public mood in its wake, after the “Ittihadist criminal [yeghernagan] camarilla”148

44

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

fled Constantinople in early November ahead of the Allied occupation, prompted the following comment a few days later: “When anyone who applauded the policy of massacres yesterday cries today, it is not for the atrocious crime [yeghern], but because the definitive victory did not come to consecrate the crime [vojir].”149 The ARF leadership had held the Ottoman government and the CUP responsible in a lengthy French telegram sent on June 2, 1915. Its complete Ottoman Turkish translation appeared in a collection of denialist propaganda in 1916, including the following paragraphs: It is with deep sorrow that we send you this telegram to protest with all our might, with all our energy, and from the depth of our essence against the horrors [Fr. horreurs, Turk. facia ve mezalim] inflicted upon the Armenian people by the Kurds and Turks with the assistance, which is very grave, of the regular Turkish army. Who organized these massacres? Who is responsible for these atrocities [Fr. atrocités, Turk. facia] that leave the terrible horrors [Fr. horreurs, Turk. mezalim] of the Hamidian regime far behind? (…) And why these unheard-of crimes [Fr. crimes, Turk. cinayet]? Is it because the martyr people fought with all its forces against the Hamidian regime and contributed in a great part to the Turkish revolution?150

The French edition of the book included a back translation of the telegram with the words horreurs and atrocités switching places.151 Joghovourt (Armenian Democratic Constitutional Party) published a translation from Turkish in November 1918 to show how the CUP leaders had seen “a proof of blame and indictment in an otherwise praiseworthy expression, a voice of truth,” and rendered facia, mezalim, and cinayet as yeghern.152 After being a rubber stamp during the war, the Ottoman Chamber of Deputies held heated sessions in November 1918. Artin Boshgezenian, an Armenian CUP deputy from Aleppo, referred to the existence of “a great crime [vojir] that constitutes a most mournful, bloodiest page of Ottoman history” and the need to address the “horrifying criminal action [vojrakordzutiun] shaking both earth and heaven, known as the Armenian massacre, the Armenian tragedy [yeghererkutiun]” to obtain a favorable outcome from the Peace Conference. He faulted a minority in Constantinople and their subordinates in the interior for “the most dreadful link— that is, the Armenian tragedy [yeghernakordzutiun]—in the chain of this indictment thrown around the Turkish neck.”153 The violent response of the Armenian press against the attempt at shifting responsibility included Artaramard (ARF)—successor to Azatamart, closed in late March 1915—lashing out at the Armenian deputies as “accomplices of the great heinous crime [medz yeghern]”154 and reacting to the news that the alleged criminals would be included in a projected general amnesty: “Let blush those who stood up to demand punishment for the criminals [yeghernakordz] from the Turkish justice; let those who demanded justice from the court of complicits feel shame.”155 The new cabinet of Ahmet Tevfik Pasha appointed a commission to investigate and refer suspects to the Council of State on November 18. Jamanak (independent)

Yeghern Right before and after 1915

45

listed “common and abominable criminals [yeghernakordz]” who “should be tried before criminal courts [yeghernatad adean],” because the Council only dealt with fraud issues.156 Journalist Vahan Shahriman (Shahrimanian) referred to the “monstruous criminal act [yeghernakordzutiun]” as the result of a policy of periodical massacres. In response to attempts to point fingers at a few guilty people, he noted that “the dark crime [yeghern]” was the perfected continuation of the official plan of persecution, for which there was both individual and collective responsibility.157 The Ottoman press strived to show that the Turkish people had suffered as much as others, but many examples from the wartime press proved that “the big criminals [yeghernakordz]” could not have achieved their goals without popular support.158 Dikran Zaven (Chukasezian, 1874–1938), editor of Joghovourt, wrote on December 21 that the Chamber of Deputies had “encouraged or approved the criminal [yeghernagan] policy of the Executioners with its silence.” After its dissolution, most people were relieved to see “how the purple of popular representative [was] torn from the shoulders of the worshippers of Lie, Injustice, and Crime [Yeghern].”159 Ariamard— successor of Artaramard, victim of censorship—hailed the disbanding of “the home of the Great Crime [Medz Yeghern],” for the deputies were “sheer scarecrows of the great criminals [yeghernakordz]” and supporters and inspirers of the slaughter.160 After three courts-martial were created on January 8, 1919, an order of capture was issued against 120 CUP members on January 30 and twenty-three CUP members were immediately arrested. Djagatamart—which replaced Ariamard, also shut down—associated April 24, “the night of Heinous Crime [Yeghern], when the evil and savage enemy crowned his century-forged crime [vojir],” with January 30, “when yesterday’s criminals [yeghernakordz] (…) enter prison.”161 Survivor writer Yenovk Armen (Armenian, 1883–1968) asked how “the death-spreading criminal act [yeghernakordzutiun]” would be weighed and who would judge the staff and foot soldiers “of the Ittihad’s criminal [yeghernakordz] army.” He also decried some commentators as accessories in “the Ittihad’s land-devastating criminal act [yeghernakordzutiun],” who now repeated “the old sermon with a melody that eternized the worship of the half-finished Heinous Crime [Yeghern].”162 In March, the second court-martial issued an arrest order for the members of the cabinets of Great Viziers Said Halim and Talat (1913–18), who would be judged, Armen wrote, “for their responsibility in the Heinous Crime [Yeghern] by which they ruined the Ottoman Homeland and destroyed the roots of the Armenian Nation.” He added that “evildoers who were able to produce world-shattering crimes [yeghernakordzutiun] with monstruous talent” would surely find excuses for themselves.163 Shamdanjian noted in the conclusion to his memoirs: “The Turkish heinous crime [yeghern] succeeded materially but failed in its essence. There were many, many who went to fill the road to doom, but I believe that those who witnessed death and survived have returned more empowered.”164 In his first article after returning from the deportation, writer Yervant Odian (1869–1926) referred to “those infernal sites of crime [yeghern]” where his colleagues had been “shredded to pieces at the hands of the worthy heirs of Tamerlane and Genghis Khan.”165 A fact-gathering committee published a call to eyewitnesses of the “universe-shattering crime [yeghern]” to answer a detailed questionnaire that would help writing “the history of the Armenian martyrdom.”166

46

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

Two weeks later, Odian suggested turning April 24 into a day of commemoration. Churches, schools, and institutions would read “anathemas of malediction to the Wilhelms, the Franz Josephs, the Envers, the Talaats, the Cemals, and all those humanlike monsters that executed the Great Heinous Crime [Medz Yeghern] and tainted their hands with the innocent blood of the Armenians.”167 Medz Yeghern appeared on the cover of a book for the first time as the subtitle to a booklet by Simon Kapamajian in early 1919: “The Victims of the Medz Yeghern with Their Pictures, Poems and Articles by Our Best Writers.” It featured a section with pictures and brief biographies of twenty victims and a list of ninety-four others. The author apologized in his postface for being unable to present many talented people from the provinces “who became victims of the Great Crime [Medz Yeghern].”168 Kapamajian also published an Armenian translation of The Treatment of the Armenians, which recorded “the bitterest events of the Armenian Great Crime [Medz Yeghern].”169 The translator, Peniamin Bedrosian, stated that it was “the book of irrefutable evidence of the Armenian great Crime [medz Yeghern], written before the conscience and judgment of the world,” and “a reminder of the criminal act [yeghernakordzutiun] of 1915–1916 perpetrated in the Near East.”170 The Arabic press of Aleppo opposed the French occupation of Syria and, spurred by Turkish agents, attacked Armenians as pro-French. On February 28, 1919, a demonstration of the local branch of the Arab Club (al-Nadi al-‘Arabi) against the French ended with a pogrom, leaving 50 Armenians dead and 150–200 wounded. In May, a British court-martial condemned two people to the gallows for their participation in the massacre, and four others “among the perpetrators of the crime [yeghern]” were hanged in July.171 Mehmet Kemal, former deputy governor, and Tevfik, gendarme commander, were tried in February–March 1919 for the massacre of Armenians in Yozgat. The trial concluded in April; the defense tried “not only to justify both criminals [yeghernakordz], but also the Ittihadist government” with the closing argument that Armenians deserved the severe measures taken by the state “as excuse for the crime [yeghern].”172 While Tevfik was condemned to fifteen years of forced labor, Kemal was sentenced to death and executed on April 10. Public mourning and protest followed “on the occasion of the very ignoble end of a vile criminal [yeghernakordz],”173 and “their tears shed over the corpse of an executioner proved once again that the Turks were agreeable to the great crime [medz yeghern].”174 Meanwhile, an article entitled “An Instrument of the Ittihad Crimes [yeghern] before the Court-Martial” reported the indictment of Nevzat, main commander in Mosul, at the opening of his trial on April 9 as “one of the executors of the Ittihad crimes [vojir].”175 He was one of the convicts exiled to Malta by the British in May 1919, but later became a fugitive and his trial was never completed. The annihilation has been symbolically marked on April 24 since its first commemoration at the Evangelical temple of Holy Trinity in Constantinople (1919).176 A volume edited by Teotig, who survived one year of imprisonment and two years of exile, was published on the occasion. It included the biographies of 761 victims and referred to fellow writer Tlgadintsi (Hovhannes Harutiunian, 1860–1915) as “victim of the Medz Yeghern,”177 as well as to the role of American educational institutions in

Yeghern Right before and after 1915

47

Marsovan, Aintab, and Kharpert “producing an educated youth, mostly victim of the Medz Yeghern together with the professors who taught there.”178 Yenovk Armen referred in the foreword to his translation of Morgenthau’s memoirs to the time when “the world-shaking and monstrous Crime [Yeghern] of the extermination of the Armenian Race was being perpetrated in all corners of the Ottoman Empire.”179 His translation of the pamphlet The Tragedy of Armenia, added as appendix, used yeghern to render “tragedy,”180 despite the absence of this translation in English-Armenian dictionaries. Another case of semantic duality may be found in Aram Andonian’s documentary work The Great Crime, where he intertwined the memoirs of Naim Bey, a former employee at the deportation office in Aleppo, the facsimiles of Talaat’s telegrams with death orders, and testimonies from fellow survivors, using yeghern for “tragedy,” but yeghernakordzutiun for “criminal act.” His preface criticized the lack of a voice of conscience among Turks, “who are the people that bear the entire responsibility for this horrible tragedy [yeghern],”181 and likened their behavior to the German attitude during the plunder of Belgium. Both had committed “the crime [vojir] of silence, which was already consent, and consecrated all criminal acts [yeghernakordzutiun] executed on their behalf.”182 Andonian wrote that the Ottoman government had exploited the international conjuncture “to plan and execute that terrible criminal act [yeghernakordzutiun]” in retaliation for the Armenian claims that had led to European intervention and the agreement of February 1914, including the appointment of two inspectors general to oversee the reforms in the Armenian provinces.183 In his depiction of the abject situation in the death camps of Syria, the writer remarked that Dipsi, between Meskeneh and Abu Harrar, “was one of the most important crime sites [yeghernavayr],” where people were killed and thrown to the river.184 During the final phase of the annihilation in the spring and summer of 1916, he stated, most survivors arrived in Syria had fallen prey to “the most horrific criminal actions [yeghernakordzutiun] and the greatest massacres.”185 In his conclusion, Andonian used yeghern to translate the Turkish word trajedi in the following quotation from an article by journalist and politician Ali Kemal, who used the verb “to plan” for the tragedy, even though a tragedy, due to its unquantifiable nature, cannot be planned: It is already a proven fact that this tragedy [Arm. yeghern, Turk. trajedi] was planned by the decisions and the arrangements of the general center of the Ittihad. After special organizations and some ministries and ministers formulated the blueprint of the crime [Arm. vojir, Turk. suç], it was methodically put into execution by governors and governorships (namely, officials, police, and people of the governorship).186

In July 1919, an Ottoman court-martial condemned Talat, Enver, Cemal, and Dr. Mehmet Nazım, a leader of the paramilitary Special Organization (Teşkilât-ı Mahsusa), to death in absentia, but the sentences were never carried out. Three months later, the Ninth General Assembly of the ARF, held in Yerevan, approved a resolution to organize

48

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

a punitive action. Young killers liquidated CUP leaders, Armenian informants in Ottoman service, and Azerbaijani leaders implicated in Armenian massacres between 1919 and 1922. The highlight of the Operation Nemesis was the assassination of Talat, the “great Turkish criminal [yeghernakordz],”187 by Soghomon Tehlirian (1895–1960) on March 15, 1921, in Berlin. “In the otherwise pleasant and civilized Hardenstrasse,” the editorial of the Berliner Tageblatt wrote, “it is the end of the terrible tragedy that poisoned Asia Minor with corpses.”188 Andonian translated “tragedy” with his neologism yeghernerkutiun (եղեռներգութիւն), derived from yeghern,189 although the actual word, used in the translation of Babikian’s report on the massacre of Adana, should have been yeghererkutiun (եղերերգութիւն). In June 1921, Tehlirian’s shocking trial showed the German public and the world “what crimes against his people had been committed and gone unpunished,” Hannah Arendt pointed out four decades later, because he “was a member of an ethnic group that did not possess its own state and legal system” and “there was no tribunal in the world to which [the] group could have brought its victims.”190 The German court acquitted him on the basis of temporal insanity. Similarly, two months later, a British military tribunal absolved Misak Torlakian, who had liquidated Behbud Khan Jivanshir, former Minister of Interior of Azerbaijan, in Constantinople on July 18, 1921. The closing argument of his attorney, Hemayak Khosrovian (1874–1946), included the following points: Yes, there was no malice or a criminal [yeghernagan] intention to commit murder. There could not be malice or criminal [yeghernagan] intention because: a) It has been established that Torlakian arrived in Istanbul in early 1921, long before Jivanshir and his brother arrived in this city on June 25, 1921. b) It has been established that Torlakian carried a gun with him on the date he traveled from Batumi to Constantinople.191

Balakian had left Constantinople for Paris in January 1919. He announced that his memoirs described how intellectuals exiled to Ayaş and dispatched to Ankara along with the Armenian population had been killed by local Turks armed with axes and knives: “This tragic [yegheragan] and criminal [yeghernagan] scene was repeated until no more victims were left.”192 He published the first volume of The Armenian Golgotha in 1922, using yeghernabadum (“account, story of the crime”) in the first pages: This bloody writing is your holy book, read it without tiring. Never doubt at all my account of the crime [yeghernabadum] you suffered or think that it contains intentional exaggerations. (…) I have waited, in vain, for more able people to take up this painful obligation since the armistice. However, other than eyewitness accounts of foreign missionaries and the brief travel accounts of a few Armenian exiles, the story of the crime [yeghernabadum] of your unspeakable martyrdom has never seen the light of day until now. (…) Yes, I did not want to write it, because I felt that my heart and pen were too weak to write the account of the crime [yeghernabadum] you suffered that blackens even the bloodiest pages of human history. (…) For all of those with me on that thorny road to the Armenian

Yeghern Right before and after 1915

49

Golgotha implored me to write down the unspeakable story of the crime [yeghernabadum] of your suffering and exile.193

The ecclesiastic noted that what had seemed impossible “became possible during the world war, with tragic [yegheragan] and criminal [yeghernagan] episodes, as well as widespread horrible slaughter and carnage unprecedented in the annals of mankind,”194 and referred to “what terrible degree pitch the Turkish fury may reach and what criminal [yeghernagan] consequences it may have (…).”195 He also wrote that the Armenian parties had stayed “always friendly and never conspiratorial, as the major criminal [yeghernakordz] Ittihadist fugitives responsible for shedding Armenian blood are now making efforts to show, indeed in the hope of gaining exoneration for their great crime [medz vojir].”196 Writer Diran Chrakian (Indra, 1875–1921), who had reneged on literature after becoming a born-again preacher in the 1910s, was arrested in Constantinople and exiled on trumped-up charges of political agitation in 1921. He died of maltreatment and exhaustion, although the version reaching the Ottoman capital a year later stated that he had been killed by the Kemalists en route from Konia to Kharpert.197 Arev, which became the daily of the Armenian Democratic League (ADL) after its foundation in 1921, linked this “new great crime [medz yeghern]” to 1915: “Words fail to express the pain that the incurable loss of such a precious life causes us, and the wrath that such a monstrous criminal act [yeghernakordzutiun] inspires us.”198 After the armistice, Armenian survivors returned to their hometowns in Cilicia, which had been placed under French control. France, however, was unable to maintain its military positions against the growing attacks of the Kemalist forces and gradually evacuated its troops, leading to the massacre and final expulsion of Armenians in 1920–21. The Ankara Agreement of October 1921, which consecrated the French retreat, was denounced as “the criminal act [yeghernakordzutiun] of capitalist France.”199 The remaining Greek and Armenian population of Asia Minor was also massacred and driven out after the defeat of the Greek army against the Turkish nationalist forces, while thousands of Armenian residents of Constantinople fled ahead of the Allied evacuation and the Turkish entrance in the city in late 1922. Commentator Khosrov Tutunjian (1894–1982) wrote in 1925 that the Kemalists had completed “the implementation of the premeditated crime [yeghern] suddenly started in April 1915” with Soviet encouragement and indifference or collaboration from the great powers.200 From 1915 to 1922, yeghern occupied a remarkable place in the vocabulary of the destruction with its traditional meaning “crime” and “heinous crime,” although at times it was used with the meaning “tragedy.” The trend would continue both in the diaspora born from the annihilation and in Soviet and post-Soviet Armenia.

50

3

Medz Yeghern and “Genocide” in Armenia and the Diaspora

This year it is the fiftieth anniversary of the Big Crime of April 1915 [Abrilean yeghern] (…) But this year something is different in our sorrow, something has changed in our feelings, this year we do not just mourn, we do not just beseech Almighty God to grant peace to the immortal souls of the sainted victims of the Big Crime. This year we present ourselves in front of the tribunal of the world as plaintiff to protect the rights of our nation and claim what rightfully belongs to it. Archbishop Hrant Khachadourian (1965)1

Yeghern in the Post-Genocide Diaspora A close reading of Armenian textual sources, supported by translations from Western languages, shows that “crime” was present as the first meaning of yeghern before and after the genocide. During the 1880s, a little-known author called Khachik Tovmasian hailed from the port of Semarang in the island of Java, then part of the Dutch East Indies and now Indonesia. Like other writers isolated from the main Armenian cultural centers, he wrote in Classical Armenian, which was in its last throes. His publications included the translation (1887) of Thomas Macaulay’s biography of Robert Clive, one of the founders of the English East India Company rule in India, which referred to the controversial episode of the Black Hole of Calcutta (Kolkata) in the following terms: “Then was committed that great crime, memorable for its singular atrocity, memorable for the tremendous retribution by which it was followed.” Tovmasian translated “great crime” as medz yeghern.2 Thirty-five years later, in 1922, lexicographer Hovhannes Chakmakjian (1879–1973) provided a complete translation of the Constitution of the United States in the extensive supplement on civics of his English-Modern Armenian dictionary. He translated “crime” in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as vojir, but used the adjective yeghernagan to render “criminal case” and “criminal prosecution”:

52

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime [vojir], unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury (…); nor shall be compelled in any criminal [yeghernagan] case to be a witness against himself (…) In all criminal [yeghernagan] prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime [vojir] shall have been committed (…)3

The search for lexical representation in a post-genocidal conception of Armenian history led to associate heinous crime (yeghern) with the semantic field of lamentation, mourning, crying, pain, suffering, and catastrophe.4 The view that yeghern could mean both cause (crime) and consequence (tragedy) became received wisdom. However, two authorities of the Armenian language set temporal boundaries to this view by the 1940s. Linguist Hrachia Adjarian (1876–1953) followed the tradition of the New Haigazian and enunciated the meaning “calamity, evil” for yeghern in his seven-volume Armenian Etymological Dictionary (1926–35), but at the same time he clarified that the meaning for yeghern in the “new literary language” (Modern Armenian) was vojir (“crime”). Then, lexicographer Stepanos Malkhasiants (1857– 1947) explicitly referred the reader to vojir for the first acceptation of yeghern in his four-volume Explanatory Dictionary of the Armenian Language (1944–5), the mandatory reference source for all monolingual dictionaries. Moreover, his use of the sign “obsolete” for the second definition “evil [charik], catastrophe [aghed], calamity [portzank],” as well as similar marks for the derivative words yeghernagan, yeghernatiur, yeghernavor, and yeghernayin,5 repeated Adjarian’s contention that yeghern meant “crime” in Modern Armenian and all the other meanings were confined to Classical Armenian. However, the conflation of cause and consequence would remain alive. References to 1915 were bound to disappear from the Armenian press in Turkey, but in the 1920s and 1930s yeghern still appeared in unrelated subjects. The early Republican period was rife with real or imagined plots against Mustafa Kemal. In October 1924, the daily Son Telegraf concocted one such conspiracy by a group of Armenians from Greece who had reportedly “confessed their criminal [yeghernagan] goal.” Aravod (independent) castigated its Turkish colleague in three editorials. The first one was entitled “A Criminal Game,” using the neologism yeghernakhagh (yeghern + khagh “game”). The editorial observed: “People must have a really crime-bearing [yeghernadzin] imagination to conceive the news of such a death attempt, and perhaps they wish to have their diabolical imagination transported into the Armenian mind.” It offered a sample of diatribes and innuendo, arguing that such people “did all sort of death attempts [yeghernaportz] by constantly injecting the venom of hate against Armenians in people’s minds and hearts.”6 The Armenian and Greek communities in the United States campaigned actively to protest the establishment of diplomatic relations with Turkey. In 1928, lobbyist Vahan Cardashian (1883–1934) denounced Ahmet Muhtar, first Turkish ambassador to the United States, as “a war criminal [yeghernakordz], a self-confessed organizer of massacres of Christians, a common felon [charakordz]” in connection to the annihilation of 1915–17 and the follow-up of the early 1920s.7

Medz Yeghern and “Genocide” in Armenia and the Diaspora

53

Two years later, survivor Haigaz Ghazarian (1892–1972), a pioneering genocide researcher, prefaced Aris Kalfayan’s (later Rev. Fr. Garabed Kalfayan, 1884–1967) memoir of his hometown Chomaklou. He noted that no contemporary historian would be ever able “to represent the Great Crime [Medz Yeghern] of the Black Days of 1915” and assessed the book as “an illuminating torch on the history of other villages, because the crime [yeghern] was executed with the same system in the villages of the same province.”8 The political confrontation between the anti-Soviet ARF and the pro-Soviet bloc formed by the ADL, the Hunchakian Party, and the Armenian Progressive League reached its climax with the assassination of Archbishop Ghevont Tourian, primate of the Diocese of the Armenian Church, at the Holy Cross of Armenia church in New York on December 24, 1933. The murder committed by ARF members became a watershed in Armenian-American history. The word yeghern resonated in the aftermath. The daily Aztarar (Istanbul) wrote three days later that, even with details still missing, “it is evident that we are before a public crime [yeghern].”9 Hayastani Gochnag observed that “the crime [vojir] is unprecedented in the criminal [yeghernagan] annals of America, as the New York newspapers wrote.”10 The pastor of the Armenian Evangelical Church of New York read a declaration at a commemoration on December 31, which stated that “the crime [yeghern] committed against Archbishop Ghevont Tourian, Primate of the Armenians in America, has shaken the foundations of our soul and filled us with indescribable sorrow and pain.”11 Catholicos of All Armenians Khoren I (1873–1938) issued an encyclical on March 16, 1934, about “the odious criminal act [yeghernakordzutiun] that put our entire nation in grief ” committed “by misguided criminals [yeghernakordz].”12 Even though the official involvement of the ARF has never been conclusively proven, a commentator referred to “the political party regarded as author of this crime [yeghern].”13 An ad-hoc committee used vojir and yeghern as synonyms in the foreword to a booklet: “The day after the crime [vojir], The New York Times, after reporting the details of the heinous crime [yeghern] committed in the Armenian church, added … ”14 After the  nine defendants were tried and sentenced as material authors or co-conspirators, the committee published a compilation of press reports and documents in 1935, entitled “The Nation-Betraying Crime [Yeghern] and the Condemnation.” The use of yeghern intended to establish a tacit link with 1915.15 An editorial of Hairenik in 1945, with the Second World War winding down, stated that “the world has forgotten the Armenian Great Heinous Crime [Medz Yeghern]”: It was expected that the current crimes [vojir] would awake and revive the tragic memory of the greatest crime [vojir] committed in the immediate past. Mostly because the new crimes committed in greater extension in Europe during this war were very similar to the Armenian great Heinous Crime [Yeghern], and especially because the authors of the crimes of this war were complicits of the greatest crime [vojir] committed in the previous war as advisers and collaborators of the Turks. However, if foreigners have forgotten, we Armenians have not and will not want to forget the Heinous Crime [Yeghern] of 1915. We will not, as long as the criminals [vojrakordz] have not been deservedly punished and Armenians have

54

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide not received satisfaction of their fair demands as recognized for the entire world at the time.16

Days later, a contributor to Asbarez, the ARF organ in California, called it “the first and greatest crime [yeghern] of the twentieth century.”17 In 1947, a commentator observed in Zartonk, the ADL daily in Beirut: “National struggles frequently end in bloodshed, but never with a criminal act [yeghernakordzutiun]. In 1915, the Turkish state and, with its instruction and encouragement, the Turkish people committed that crime [yeghern].”18 The editorial of Arev in April 1948 commented: Our 1915 becomes the date of the greatest crime [yeghern] in the annals of all peoples. No other people have been subjected to such a terrible extermination like the Armenian people in a very brief period, and no people have clung to their hope of rebirth like ours. (…) Our 1915, that widespread ruin and horrific mass crime [vojir], was planned with cold-blooded premeditation by crime-worshipping [vojrabashd] brains and executed with equally and even more savage means. If we remained unsurpassed in our willingness to live, those criminal [yeghernakordz] brains remained equally and even more unsurpassed in their ability to massacre and destroy. (…) What was our 1915 on both sides? The crime-bearing [vojradzin] mind conceived and perpetrated the greatest crime in history to get rid of the legally fair demands of the Armenian people, bury our political dreams, create a homogeneous Turkey, clean up the road to Turan, and, at the same time, benefit from the natural advantages of the Armenian territories.19

While some texts from 1909 or 1915 may have used yeghern in the sense of collective crime, the context suggests this possibility in an article published in 1921: [E]ven in these harsh days, we must forget everything for a moment to be able to revive the entire terror of the massacre [yeghern] elaborated on April 11, 1915. On the other side of the border, we heard the news of the horrific deportation and the awful massacre [yeghern], but in our optimism we did not believe that the Massacre [Yeghern] had been so horrible and the Crime [Vojir], so widespread.20

Writer Yervant Mesiayan (1882–1956) also appears to have understood yeghern with a collective meaning in his preface to survivor Nazaret Piranian’s memoir The Yeghern of Kharpert (1937). He noted that the author’s warning to never forget came “from the reminiscences of the terrible massacre [yeghern], which undoubtedly ignited justifiable passions of vengeance and fury,” as well as a deep awareness of the Armenian fate, for which he called for maintaining “the sense of justice sparked by the Crime [Vojir] and the idea of rights.”21 In 1949, a commentator wrote in Baikar (ADL, Boston) that there was a commemoration proper to Armenians, “the Horrible Massacre [Ahavor Yeghern] by Turkish barbarians that happened in 1915, in that blood-drenched empire built on the slippery ground of crimes [vojir].”22 Hayastan, a weekly published by Soviet Armenian émigrés in Stuttgart, also used yeghern in the sense of massacre in an editorial of 1952, which alluded to Ottoman

Medz Yeghern and “Genocide” in Armenia and the Diaspora

55

annihilation and Stalinist repression: “For thirty-seven years, the same slaughter [sbant] and heinous massacre [yeghern] have continued both in the lost and saved sections of our homeland, but the world has not thought yet about riding over the criminals.”23 A year later, an unidentified contributor wrote about a mass killing of 5,300 prisoners in 1938 outside the notorious concentration camp of Vorkuta, north of the Arctic Circle, where “only the free and independent wind brought the bad news of the heinous massacre [yeghern] committed in the bosom of the deserted tundra.”24 The presence of vojir and yeghern in the title also shows that the latter did not mean “crime” in this context. Editor and political activist Vahan Navasardian (1888–1956) used Yeghern twenty times in his introduction to the memoirs of Soghomon Tehlirian (1953). He explicitly noted—using yeghern either as “crime” or “massacre”—that “the Medz Yeghern of April 1915 (…) has no precedent either as conception or as execution” and that no world leader had brought the perpetrators to court “and heard from them why they had committed the April Yeghern,” leaving “unpunished the incommensurable April Yeghern committed against an innocent people.”25 In June 1960, the Maison de la Culture Arménienne in Paris named posthumously one of its halls after Tehlirian, the killer of “the great criminal [vojrakordz] who conceived and executed the diabolical plan of the Medz Yeghern.”26 Monolingual and bilingual dictionaries established the primary meaning of yeghern as “crime” by the early 1960, and only Kegham Kerovpyan’s dictionary in 1962 still insisted on the word “calamity” after Malkhasiants had classified it as obsolete two decades before. Linguist Ashot Sukiasian (1922–2007) was the first to include eight words belonging to the secondary meaning of “collective death” in his thesaurus (1967) and relegated the domain of “catastrophe/calamity” to the third place. In 1968, the dictionary authored by Ardashes Der Khachadurian (1932–94) et al. recorded the collective meaning (“massacre,” “slaughter”) (Tables 3.1 and 3.2).27

Table 3.1  Yeghern in monolingual dictionaries (1934–68) Dictionary

Yeghern

Kevorkian

rejection of a political or moral law; evil [charik]; harm; crime [vojir].

Kayayan

crime, killing, misdeed, criminal offense

Malkhasiants

(obsolete) evil [charik], catastrophe [aghed], calamity [portzank]; (current) See crime [vojir]

Jizmejian

very big crime [vojir], grave harm, much evil

Kerovpyan

crime [vojir]; calamity [portzank]

Sukiasian

vojir, hantsank, hantsakordzutiun [crime], vojrakordzutiun, yeghernakordzutiun, charakordzutiun [criminal act]; sbanutiun [killing], godoradz [mass killing], chart [massacre], nakhjir [carnage], sbant [slaughter], ariunaheghutiun [bloodshed], sradzutiun, khoghkhoghum [butchery], yataghan, yeghernutiun (obsolete); charik, portzank, aghed

Der Khachadurian, Kankruni and Doniguian

crime [vojir], slaughter [sbant], criminal act [charakordzutiun], criminal offense [kreagan hantsank], massacre [chart]

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

56

Table 3.2  Yeghern in bilingual dictionaries (1922–61) Yeghern

Dictionary

Crime vojir, yeghern major offense = medz yeghern

Chakmakjian crime, forfait, attentat medz yeghern = grand crime

Bayan Yacoubian

crime, offence

Kouyoumdjian

crime, misdemeanor, offence, rascality

Froundjian

Verbrechen, Frevel

Kouyoumdjian

vojir

vojir, yeghern

The Genocide Convention and the Armenians The subtitle The Murder of a Nation in Arnold Toynbee’s book Armenian Atrocities suggested in 1915 that “the organised murder of the Armenian race” was directed against its existence.28 The term “people murder” would be often used in Norwegian (folkemord, folkemorde), Swedish (folkmord), and German (völkmord) in 1916–18.29 A full inventory of the Modern Armenian lexicon is still due, but available data seem to indicate that scholar and commentator Mardiros Ananikian (1875–1924) was the first to utilize the future legal denominations tseghasbanutiun and hayasbanutiun. First, he used hayasbanutiun (“killing of Armenians,” i.e., “Armenocide”) in November 1915, when he stated that “arrogant Envers and rapacious Talats would not recoil before any crime [yeghern],” and added that “those bloodthirsty cubs were feeding the desire for killing of Armenians [hayasbanutiun] and that today’s work is the consequence of yesterday’s thought.”30 Months later, in the opening paragraph of a two-part article, he used tseghasbanutiun with the meaning of “race murder”: Reliable evidence gradually surfaces to show that this terrible job was planned by Turks and Germans at least before October 1914, not under a strategic constraint of the current war, but for future political and economic goals. Germans and Turks have so far given mere pretexts as causes for this race murder [tseghasbanutiun]. The real cause is the old and blind hatred of the Turks towards their Christian subjects and the insatiable ambition by Germans that led them to this war of banditry.31

The adjective tseghasban appeared in the inaugural issue of a medical publication of Constantinople (1920) within the context of an alarming number of abortions: “Abortion is a race-murdering [tseghasban] epidemic that works silently inside our homes, and neither men nor Armenian authorities are aware of it.”32 However, despite the common use of tsegh (“race”) associated with nation, which could have fostered the utilization of tseghasbanutiun, the word does not seem to have resurfaced until 1933, when ARF former activist Mardiros Sarian (1872–1954) published an account

Medz Yeghern and “Genocide” in Armenia and the Diaspora

57

written down in 1918.33 In October 1915, Sarian (Sarıyan) and his family had been sentenced to death in Smyrna by a court-martial along with another family and six individuals, but Armenian notables and the governor Mustafa Rahmi interceded to have their sentences commuted to deportation to Aleppo via Konia.34 While staying at the Turque Hotel in Konia in February 1916, Sarian overheard a conversation between Hüsni, a military officer, and CUP official Necib at a nearby room with other officers as witnesses. Hüsni, who had traveled through the entire area of deportations, questioned the decision for the annihilation, which Necib had labeled as a fait accompli: What harm could this race have done us in that life and death struggle, since we had taken soldiers between the age of twenty and forty-five from the Armenians on the eve of the war during the general conscription? How could the old men, children, women, and young girls of the Armenians have hurt us? And furthermore, in what century, in what country, in what legend has a race murder [tseghasbanutiun] like that, carried out with such bestial methods, ever seen before?

Hüsni continued by characterizing Turks as those who had “horrifically exceeded all tyrants and monsters,” while Armenians were regarded as the greatest victims of the century: “Are we then to go on stubbornly believing that, in view of this, the greatest crime [medzakuyn yeghern], the fait accompli you have made so much of, has any power?”35 Sarian had joined the short-lived “Mardgots” movement, a dissident current of the ARF in France. In 1934, some members of the movement regrouped in the Western Armenian Liberation Alliance. Its “Credo” stated: “The Turks are our only racemurdering [tseghasban] enemy.”36 The Armenian annihilation had motivated Raphael Lemkin to pursue a career of prosecutor in his native Poland. He started in 1933 his efforts toward creating a term for planned and systematic annihilation in international law, which he continued after he escaped the Shoah in 1940. The lack of a term for the Nazi wipeout of whole peoples prompted him to come up with “genocide” in 1943,37 probably with the background of the words for “people murder” or “race murder” in Polish (ludobójstwo) and German (Völkermord).38 In the opening sentence of the ninth chapter of Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, Lemkin stated that new conceptions required new terms, and genocide—or its synonym “ethnocide”—denoted the modern development of an old practice. Rather than immediate destruction by mass killing, he viewed genocide as a coordinated process aimed at demolishing the essential foundations of national groups to achieve their destruction as such, and then imposing the oppressor’s national pattern upon those allowed to remain after collective destruction or removal, or upon the territory alone. Besides Nazi genocidal policy, his examples of extermination war covered up to early modern times (Carthage, religious wars of Islam and the Crusades, the Albigensian and Waldensian massacres, and the siege of Magdeburg in the Thirty Year War).39 The transnational memory of the Armenian destruction and the Allied declaration of 1915 resurfaced in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (1945), which

58

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

provided to prosecute crimes against humanity, defined as “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population … or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds.”40 The UN War Crimes Commission took note of Article 230 of the Treaty of Sèvres (1920), which “obviously intended to cover, in conformity with the Allied note of 1915 (…) offences which had been committed on Turkish territory against persons of Turkish citizenship, though of Armenian or Greek race.” The article stipulated that those responsible for massacres committed in the Ottoman Empire would be handed to the Allies, who reserved the right to designate a tribunal, and constituted “a precedent for Articles 6c and 5c of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters,” offering “an example of one of the categories of ‘crimes against humanity’ as understood by these enactments.”41 Lemkin managed to add the first legal mention of genocide—as part of war crimes and not crimes against humanity—to the Nuremberg indictment in October 1945. Sidney Alderman, the American ranking official in the group drafting the indictment, attested that their British colleagues regarded the word as too fancy for a legal document and that some of their graduates of Oxford University could not understand its meaning.42 In December 1945, Robert Borel discussed the concept and the word génocide for the first time in France.43 Four days later, his article in Le Monde was the subject of an editorial by survivor journalist Shavarsh Missakian, who had become the founding publisher and editor of Haratch, the ARF daily in France. He paired tseghasbanutiun and génocide also for the first time: [Génocide] is a new word used on the Nuremberg trial. It means tseghasbanutiun. The author of the word is Lemkin, an American professor who explains its origin and meaning in a recently published book. (…) In the opinion of the American professor, according to this new principle of international law, in the future not only war criminals will be punished, but also peoples, particularly minorities, will be ensured protection. We are reading these lines and following the Nuremberg trial, and our mind instinctively wanders to a faraway world where “war crimes” were also committed thirty years ago, according to a premeditated plan—developed three times thirty years ago—to annihilate a people left to its fate and on its own during the Great War. The same planification was utilized at that time to annihilate the head (leadership), to dismantle, to destroy, and to dry the order and the roots of political, social, cultural, and economic life; then, to massacre and exterminate collectively on the spot, on the road to exile, or in the desert; to annihilate by sword, dagger, gun, cannon, axe, stone, hatchet, hammer, or baton; by hanging or burning; by starving or throwing into the river or the sea; even to inject with deadly viruses, to nail still-nursing babies in wooden boxes. In one word, genocide [tseghasbanutiun]. (…) May the hyenas of genocide [tseghasbanutiun] be implacably tried and punished. However, where did the first and “exemplary” genocide [tseghasbanutiun] of modern times begin?44

Medz Yeghern and “Genocide” in Armenia and the Diaspora

59

While it is not possible to ascertain whether Missakian was aware of previous uses of tseghasbanutiun, it is natural to assume that the calque translation was the outcome of his own logical process. The meaning of “genocide” conveyed the concept of genos, “the unit against which the crime is directed and the unit from which it originates,”45 which was closely related to tsegh (“division; lineage, genre, tribe” in Classical Armenian and “tribe; race; species” in Modern Armenian).46 Word analysis allowed Armenian readers, unlike French ones, to easily grasp the literal meaning of tseghasbanutiun. Lemkin mentioned Armenians for the first time in April 1946 among examples of “destruction of entire nations, and ethnic and religious groups,” along with Nazi “mass obliteration of nationhoods.”47 The New York Times, which favored the new word, noted four months later that genocide existed before the Nazis: “The massacres of Greeks and Armenians by the Turks prompted diplomatic action without punishment.”48 Its science editor, Waldemar Kaempffert, saw through the global and temporal scope of the idea. He cited Carthage and the massacres of Crusaders and Muslims as he observed that “the Turks in their time did their best to destroy the Armenians.”49 In November 1946, the UN General Assembly approved a proposal to refer the outlawing of genocide to its General Committee. An editorial note in the journal Ararat (Buenos Aires) stated that Armenian territorial revindications were about “the reintegration to its owner of a centuries-old right usurped or violated, something that perhaps would exempt the current authorities of Turkey from the inevitable responsibility for the crime,” rather than “a reciprocal revenge or a material punishment for the crime of genocide committed.”50 The unanimous approval of Resolution 96 (1) by the General Assembly (December 11, 1946) recognizing genocide as an international crime reflected the first lasting fruits of Lemkin’s work. Genocide had not been admitted in Nuremberg as crime, Kaempffert stated in an editorial, but “defendant representatives of a guilty nation can no longer plead that ex post facto laws may not be applicable to them,” and the passing of appropriate laws would ensure that “such incidents as the pogroms of Czarist Russia and the massacres of Armenians and Greeks by Turkey would be punishable as genocide.”51 Hairenik Weekly (ARF, Boston) reprinted the editorial and wrote that Armenians had lost their lands and “a cool million and a half human lives,” with another million exiled. “In compensation for this colossal wrong the United Nations offers them a ‘Genocide,’” the newspaper noted wryly. “The Genocide is hardly the cure for Armenian wounds.”52 The Armenian National Council—which regrouped representatives of the Armenian Progressive League, the ADL, and the Hunchakian Party—decried the annihilation in a memorandum to the Council of Foreign Ministers (March 1947) as “a monstrous plan of genocide, that is, the plan to exterminate an entire nation,” conceived and executed with German connivance.53 The pro-Soviet daily Joghovourt referred in Paris to the commemoration “to respect the memory of our victims of the genocide that crowns continuous Turkish savagery.”54 After his landmark editorial of December 1945, Missakian referred to Lemkin’s word several times. After a speech by Hamdullah Suphi (Tanrıöver), a member of the Turkish Parliament, he recalled in May 1947 the Turkish Hearths (Türk Ocakları),

60

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

a Pan-Turanist hotbed presided by Suphi from 1912 to 1931, which had engaged in propaganda and agitation against non-Muslims on the eve of 1915. His recollection had an ironic tone: “Thanks to them, Turkey also had its ‘new,’ ‘avant-garde’ generation, which was at the forefront of genocide on ideological and practical levels.”55 Haratch published the Armenian translation of a commentary by Lemkin on Resolution 96 (1) in September 1947. Its original source does not match any of his articles of 1946–8 and remains unidentified. He wrote in particular: The names of the victims have changed over time. Sometimes are the Christians, sometimes the Muslims, sometimes the Armenians, the Protestants, the Poles, the Russians. (…) The delegates have understood that genocide does not mean just the extermination of a human group but causes very great damages to the entire humanity. (…) The extermination of the Armenians, who accomplished an especially important role in the trade of the Middle East, not only impacted on the commerce of that part of the Earth, but also on international trade.56

Lemkin cited “classical” genocide cases in January 1948: the destruction of Carthage, the Albigenses and the Waldenses, the Crusades, the march of the Teutonic Knights, the Christians in the Ottoman Empire, the Herero massacres, “the extermination of the Armenians,” the slaughter of Assyrians in Iraq in 1933, the destruction of the Maronites, and the pogroms of Jews in Russia and Romania.57 Three months later, Missakian published a guest editorial in the ARF daily Aztag during a sojourn in Beirut. He compared again the lack of Western punishment after 1915 with the reaction after 1945: Was the explosion of a new world-shaking storm necessary to make people learn the word “Tseghasbanutiun” (Génocide) … ? (…) The death attempt en masse—Tseghasbanutiun—forged against the Armenian people served to fill books and parchments or to create rhetorical jewels. The other led immediately to its logical conclusion: trial and gallows. Indeed, the Armenian blood was “local” and further away from their commercial metropolises, while the other had international weight. World conquest was cracking the heart of Europe. Thus, they took out the ready formula Tseghasbanutiun from the drawer to issue collective sentences, which continue until today.58

During the debates on the Genocide Convention, Missakian recalled that “tseghasbanutiun (génocide)” had been proclaimed a crime against humanity and that the word did not exist in 1915.59 After the approval on December 9, 1948, he noted that the Nazi crime had been called unprecedented “simply because the new [crime] happened before their eyes and nobody could fathom the other,” and asked: “Will the Genocide Convention be able to shed light over our history?”60 Both Hairenik and Hairenik Weekly reported the approval tersely.61 The latter insisted in an editorial on the claim for reparations:

Medz Yeghern and “Genocide” in Armenia and the Diaspora

61

To outlaw genocide, but to sanction the basic aims and results of the action is only a half measure. The Turks today are in possession of the fruits of their genocide. The Turks must be dispossessed of their loot. The United Nations owes justice to the Armenian people.62

In 1948, the Armenian National Council published the English translation of Josef Guttman’s study on the Armenian case. The pamphlet became the first book utilizing “genocide” in its title, which differed totally from the Yiddish original.63 Simultaneously, the first known use of “Armenian genocide” appeared in an editorial note of The Armenian Review (ARF, Boston) to the translation of a short memoir about 1915: The atrocities of the Nazis during World War II have to a large extent relegated into oblivion the far more heinous and reprehensible brutalities which the Turks inflicted on the Armenians during World War II. Factually, the Turks set the first pattern of genocide which thirty years later was to be followed by Nazi Germany. The story of the Armenian genocide has been recorded by eminent authorities, based on the incontrovertible testimony of countless eye-witnesses, and later even confirmed by Turkish admission of guilt.64

Neither Hairenik nor Hairenik Weekly mentioned the word in their April 24 editorials of 1949,65 but reported about a radio program on genocide featuring Aurora Mardiganian about the Armenian case66 and translated or reprinted several pieces on the Genocide Convention and Lemkin.67 Survivor Kevork Melidinetzi (1898–1986) wrote in Hairenik in April 1949 that “the Medz Yeghern was horrifying” because the Young Turks had “turned the physical extermination, the genocide of the Armenians into state work.”68 At the same time, writer Peniamin Nurigian (1894–1988) wrote in Baikar about the passage of the Convention, which he characterized as “a law against tseghasbanutiun (genocide) that forbids the extermination of subject races or people as a human and international crime.” He complained that the law had been passed “when the Germans [had] already taken the blood of six million Jews and the Turks killed a million Armenians in the bloody and tearful days of both global wars.”69 James G. Mandalian (1888–1973), editor of The Armenian Review and Hairenik Weekly, stated in a response to a Turkish graduate student in 1949 that “here was an example of a genocide which eclipsed the blood orgies of Attila and Jenghiz [sic] Khan, and set the pattern for Hitler’s subsequent ghettoes and gas chambers.”70 The Armenian Review also used “the Turkish genocide” in the title and contents of a report translated from Aztag about Armenian survivors remaining in the interior of Turkey.71

Genocide in the Cold War Years Meanwhile, in a CBS program of February 1949, Lemkin had remarked: “I became interested in genocide because it happened to the Armenians. And after the Armenians

62

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

got a very rough deal at the Versailles Conference because the criminals [who] were guilty of genocide were not punished.”72 The broadcast included footage provided by the Armenian National Council.73 In 1950, its short-lived journal, Armenian Affairs, attacked Lemkin, a “gentleman who claimed to be the architect of the Genocide Convention” and had visited their offices, for reportedly willing to accept support from anyone, including right-wing groups.74 Lemkin would continue to highlight the Armenian case in his quest to win support for the ratification of the Convention throughout the 1950s. He was prone to utilize almost exclusively Cold War arguments within a discourse that highlighted the crimes of the Soviet bloc and focused on the prospects of emancipation for so-called captive nations like Soviet Armenia, with rare references to the Jewish annihilation.75 The Foreign Relations Committee of the US Senate held hearings for the ratification in January 1950. Jacob Blaustein, president of the American Jewish Committee, mentioned the Russian pogroms, “the Turkish massacres of the Armenians in 1915,” and the slaughter of Assyrians in Iraq as genocide cases.76 His written statement contended that Tehlirian had been forced to kill Talat because the inexistence of a law against genocide in 1915 had tied the hands of the civilized world.77 The detailed statement of the Armenian National Council was published despite having been submitted after the March 8 deadline.78 An editorial of Hairenik Weekly in June 1950 advocated for the ratification, calling upon “Americans of Armenian ancestry who for centuries have been the victims of genocide” for a letter campaign to the Foreign Relations Committee. It added that “as citizens, and especially those of us who are survivors of genocide, we have a duty to perform which no other can perform.”79 In May 1951, the United States submitted its reservations to the International Court of Justice, citing “the Roman persecution of the Christians, the Turkish massacres of Armenians, the extermination of millions of Jews and Poles by the Nazis” as “outstanding examples of the crime of genocide.”80 Ratification would come almost forty years later. In 1950, lexicographer Mesrob Kouyoumdjian (1897–1983) incorporated tseghasbanutiun and “genocide” in his Armenian-English dictionary,81 preceding the inclusion of “genocide” in French (Encyclopédie Larousse, 1953) and English (Oxford English Dictionary, 1955) monolingual dictionaries.82 Both words had entered a dictionary five or six years after their first use in print, which shows the lack of grounds for the argument that Armenians did not make recourse to genocide until the 1960s and then they just used it sporadically until the 1980s.83 Logically, genocide would not be pervasive in April 24 editorials at the time, since it was far from wide international use and the Convention was undergoing a painstaking process of ratification worldwide. However, there were numerous references to genocide by commentators, speakers, and reporters in the press of the Diaspora between 1950 and 1960.84 Some results of a partial review are listed below by geographic region or country. Eastern United States: The April 24 editorials of Hairenik did not use tseghasbanutiun during the 1950s, although Melidinetzi continued his systematic use of the word along Medz Yeghern in his April 24 articles until 1968. Hairenik Weekly reported on the deportations of non-Slavic people, including Armenians, from the Caucasus to Kazakhstan in September and October 1949, and an editorial on the deportation of 17,000 Greeks condemned “this latest Soviet atrocity

Medz Yeghern and “Genocide” in Armenia and the Diaspora

63

which, in our opinion, differs very little from the Turkish abominable deportations and murders of 1915.” It added that “the recent Soviet deportations are nothing but another form of genocide, pure and simple” and that “genocide has been going on in the Soviet Union for months and years.”85 Yet, an editorial of January 1950 labeled those deportations, including 22,000 Armenians, as “genocide of the first order” and “genocide pure and simple at this very enlightened age when the nations of the world have outlawed genocide” without any reference to 1915,86 leading to the unwarranted claim that the newspaper only applied genocide to the Soviet case.87 Weeks later, Hairenik Weekly reprinted an editorial of The New York Times that recalled “the destruction of Armenians in the First World War” among the most recent examples of genocide.88 In 1950 and 1951, Levon Keshishian, the New York correspondent for Hairenik Weekly, published reports using genocide.89 Keshishian filed an extensive frontpage article in March 1952 on dangers lurking around the Convention, including its possible demise. He also made a profile of Lemkin with the mention of Tehlirian’s trial triggering his life work to stop mass destruction and create a legal instrument to punish those responsible for such crimes.90 Two months later, a press release of the Philadelphia chapter of the ARF about the republic of 1918–20 recalled that “the Armenians became the first modern victim of Genocide. 1,500,000 Armenians perished by massacre,”91 while David Coall, a member of the Canadian House of Commons, included Armenians in a call to ratify the Convention.92 In May 1955, Senator Herbert Lehman delivered a fiery speech as keynote speaker at the commemoration of the first independence of Armenia in New York.93 It has recently been highlighted for using several times genocide with regards to the Soviet Union, included Armenia, and glossing over 1915.94 However, in a statement of April 1954 entered into the Congressional Record, Lehman had asserted: The first organized genocide of an entire people in modern history was perpetrated on the Armenian peoples [sic], and over a million and a half Armenians were massacred because the dictators of that time wanted Armenia without Armenians. Since that time this pattern has been duplicated by Communist, Fascist, and Nazi dictators.95

Also in 1954, Hairenik Weekly made reference “to the circumstances of this monstrous genocide” for the first time in its editorial on April 24. It spoke in 1955 about “a genocide of such proportions which had never [been] equalled in the annals of human history,” adding in 1956 that eyewitnesses, documents, memoirs, and historical works affirmed “the hideous genocide of one million civilian population.” The editorial of 1957, like Lehman, linked Turkey, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union: [The Turks] were the originators of the devil’s invention which has now come to be known by the heinous name of genocide. They made it easier for Hitler to repeat the genocide. They enabled the followers of Karl Marx to practice genocide as a means to promote the dictatorate of the proletariat. The Turks made the task of future criminals a lot more easy.

64

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

In 1958, the editorial pointed out that it was “the first instance of what (…) has come to be known as the ‘dread genocide,’” while the following year referred to April as the month “in which the unutterable genocide took place,” and recalled in 1960 that the annihilation had been characterized “as the heinous genocide of the Twentieth Century.”96 The Armenian Mirror-Spectator (ADL) used genocide intermittently, starting with its editorial of 1952, “on the anniversary of the initial and most horrible genocidal attempt in modern times, that of the Armenians in their own homeland,” which protested the turnaround of The New York Times: “Even if the Turks feel no responsibility for the first modern attempt at genocide, made in the name of race and religion, can the Western world and the Times continue to condone the profligate arch criminals of the Young Turks’ regime?” The weekly remarked in 1955 that the Second World War was fought “to stop the recurrence of wholesale crimes against defenseless people—they call it genocide now—because of race and religion.” In 1957, the editorial noted that, “for a people who have been subjected to genocide,” it was hard to recall “the tragedy of genocide practices by the Turks,” and wrote in 1958 that April 24 was a mourning day, “for here was the first great attempt at genocide.”97 As early as 1950, Yeghia Sirvart (Krikorian, 1890–1985), editor of Eritassard Hayastan (Hunchakian Party), used azkasbanutiun, a synonym to tseghasbanutiun.98 The latter appeared in a commentary of 1954 that April 24 was “the date of the genocide committed by the Turks against the Armenian people,” which required reparations “like the current German government compensated for a similar crime [yeghern], the massacres committed by Hitler,” and return of territories.99 The editorial of 1957 used tseghasbanutiun for the first time to recall that “the Turkish government hoped to Turkicize the economic and cultural life of the country by perpetrating the crime of genocide.”100 In 1958, the newspaper referred to the “many martyrs who were victim of the inhuman policy of the genocidal [tseghasban] Ittihad.”101 Soviet Armenia, as we will see, practically ignored the concept of genocide, but, paradoxically, the most consistent use of tseghasbanutiun came from Lraper, the pro-Soviet biweekly of the Armenian Progressive League in New York, which noted in 1950 and 1954 that the annihilation was the first modern attempt of genocide.102 It defined genocide in 1952 as “the initiative to exterminate, to liquidate a whole people and its execution” and linked the presence of Turkey in the United Nations to the fact that the Convention referred to future genocides only, without condemning “for example, the genocide committed against the Armenian people thirty-seven years ago.”103 In a turn unexpected from a progressive newspaper, it blamed the Turkish people in 1954 for allowing their “bestial leaders to commit unheard-of crimes [vojir] against the Armenian people,” as well as participating “in the most terrible of the crimes, the crime of genocide.”104 The editorial of 1955 made the point abundantly: “[T]his was a genocide in the full sense; one of the few genocides recorded by history, the first genocide of modern times, and in any case, the most savage, implacable, and atrocious of all genocides, committed against a pacific, great, and creative people.”105 Survivor Vosgan Hovhannesian stated that “this bloody plan of Turkish genocide” had lowered the number of Armenians and weakened them.106 A. B. Kaghtzrouni (Arshavir Tatlian, 1902–85) wrote that “this darkest act of genocide (…) is recorded in history as Great Heinous Crime [Medz Yeghern]” because Armenians had never suffered such

Medz Yeghern and “Genocide” in Armenia and the Diaspora

65

an atrocious “massacre” [godoradz].107 In 1956, he published in the English section a poem by an author who, he surmised, “was one of the unfortunate orphans of the genocide of 1915.”108 In 1957, Kevork Derbabian’s historical outline called out Turkey and Germany as “the perpetrators of this crime of genocide.”109 In 1950, a contributor to Hayastani Gochnag labeled the Young Turks imprisoned in Malta from 1919 to 1921 as “a few dozens of criminals from Constantinople who had conceived that inferno of the genocide.”110 Survivor Krikor Giragosian wrote in 1955 that he was “unable to portray the entire horror of the colossal Crime [Yeghern] perpetrated by a bloodthirsty government,” and that no Turkish government had officially condemned “this huge crime of genocide [azkasbanutiun].”111 Another writer recalled that, “for a while, it looked like the savage genocide plans of the Red Sultans and the Talaats had been crowned by complete success.”112 Hayastanyaitz Yegehetzy, the monthly of the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America, also stated in 1955 that “in 1915 the first heinous genocide was recorded in universal history,” referring to “the inhuman genocide of a collectivity of noble generations.”113 Western United States: Nor Or (ADL, Fresno) noted in 1952 that Armenians had suffered “the most savage, most barbaric crime [yeghern] of genocide, which would become the prototype for the massive crimes [vojir] of the Nazis.”114 Very Rev. Fr. Shnork Kaloustian (1913–90), future Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, who served in California at the time, wrote in 1955 that “the crime [vojir] of genocide was being committed against a helpless people with terrible cold blood. ”115 In 1953, a former editor of Asbarez asked rhetorically whether Armenians would be able “to forget this terrible crime [vojir] of genocide (…)” and answered that they had “no right to forget this extraordinary crime [yeghern]” as long as they had not been compensated and earned their independence.116 An editorial in 1954 stated that “’the civilized nations’ signed the law of prohibition for genocide only when they had tombs and found their race endangered.”117 Argentina: Armenia (ARF, Buenos Aires) featured tseghasbanutiun for the first time in its editorial de 1954: “It seems like yesterday when these people were deported from their homeland in a great crime [vojir] unprecedented in the world. That was the crime of genocide.” The following year, it pointed out to “our secular enemy, the Turks,” as organizer and executor: “This name must become synonym to genocidal [tseghasban] barbarity in our language.”118 Survivor Harkan (Aram Dumanian, 1891–1971), who stated in 1955 that Armenians “would never forget that awful date, symbol of genocide and extermination,” later referred to “that diabolical plan of genocide” and noted that Turks “had not stopped before any human or divine law on the damned road of genocide.”119 France: At the Paris commemoration of 1949, writer Ghevont Meloyan (1883–1967) stated that “we could not even imagine a Der Zor; we could not tell the world that the Turks gave the example of genocide by trying to kill the Armenian race.”120 In 1950, the weekly Abaka (ADL, Paris) recalled that “the Ittihadist government, exploiting the war, wanted to solve the Armenian question forever by using a way that civilized humankind would label ‘crime of genocide’ only after World War II.”121 Pastor Karekin Sislian stated  in 1952 that the massacres were “a genocide in the full sense of the word,”122 while an article in the Belgian press by an Armenian contributor asked

66

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

whether nations would understand “the madness of war and the great crime [vojir] of genocide.”123 Missakian commented in 1954 that “Republican Turkey has signed the law on genocide, while the destroyed bones of more than one million Armenian victims do not have even a tombstone” and recalled in 1955 that “a curse called ‘genocide’ was disclosed after World War II.”124 A contributor noted in 1955 that Turkey tried to look as a true democracy: “She is one of the first to vote against genocide. But where is the practical part? Where is the reparation for the territorial, human, and personal losses of the Armenian people? How long is this ostrich policy bound to last?”125 Germany: In 1953, a writer in Hayastan referred to “a criminal act [yeghernakordzutiun] unparalleled in international history”: “[T]he criminal [yeghernakordz] was not brave enough to give them the opportunity to fight (…) and the vilest genocidaire [tseghasban] and homeland-killer attacked suffering Armenians and trampled Armenia with such inhumanity, lack of manliness, and cowardice.”126 Syria: Arevelk, the ARF daily in Aleppo, stated in 1949 that they had proclaimed “as genocide what we saw in 1915, only a version of which they tasted in World War II as a result of the Hitlerite atrocities.”127 The literary yearbook Yerguir wrote in 1957 that “the Armenian massacre [yeghern] … failed in the criminal [vojrayin] goal of its genocide.”128 Lebanon: In April 1949, survivor Piuzant Aintablian announced in the independent weekly Aztarar that “tseghasbanutiun (genocide) enters international dictionaries as a crime.” He noted that “the Western world needed a Hitler to understand the full dimension and meaning of genocide and create a new word that corresponded to the horrific reality,” while “the dictators of the century could have absorbed many things from the ‘delicate’ technique of the Turkish genocide.” The West and Soviet Russia had exonerated “the Turkish genocidaires [tseghasban],” but the victim could neither “forget nor forgive the greatest criminal act [yeghernakordzutiun] of human history.”129 Another writer spoke in 1956 about international responsibility and wrote that “if genocide expert Germany, which was on our opposite side, has the great responsibility in our destruction,” the allies’ support of Turkey made them not less responsible.130 In 1950, Aztag also recalled that the West condemned a crime against the existence of a nation as genocide after feeling what it meant. It contrasted the global indifference “when the most terrible act of genocide was being committed in the deserts of Mesopotamia” and the unpunished executioners at large with the “Nazi genocidaires [tseghasban] sentenced to the gallows before an international tribunal.” The daily referred in 1952 to “the million Armenian martyrs who were killed by the hands of genocidaires [tseghasban],” adding that it was not enough “to condemn the crimes of genocide with words and on paper.”131 Seven years later, it noted the political dimension of “the genocidal [tseghasban] crime of 1915,”132 while some commentators referred to the “first and singular carnage of genocide”133 and the execution of the “dark project of genocide to realize the ideal of Pan-Turanism.”134 Zartonk wrote in 1954 that “the Armenian homeland was emptied by the fire and the sword of the horrible crime of genocide unleashed on April 24” and noted the next year that “the voices of a few great humanitarians spurring the conscience of humanity, condemning barbarity and genocide, and reaffirming the trampled rights of the Armenians remained crying in the wilderness.”135 In 1954, a commentator in

Medz Yeghern and “Genocide” in Armenia and the Diaspora

67

the independent daily Ayk mocked the Turkish ratification of the Convention: “A genocidal race proclaimed genocide a crime … The inconfessable, unspeakable Turk of yore is praised today with dozens of adjectives.”136 An editorial reminded in 1956 that “the balance and the compensation of genocide have always been late due to political interests.”137 Poet Mushegh Ishkhan (1913–90) declared at a commemorative evening in 1958 that “April 24 was genocide, a devilish conspiration of national destruction.”138 The independent monthly Yeridassart Hayouhi stated in the aftermath of the antiGreek and anti-Armenian pogroms of Istanbul on September 6–7, 1955, that, at the view of the ruined streets, the plundered minorities, and the desecrated churches and cemeteries, “who will dare to speak and make speeches about the United Nations, the Human Rights laws, the condemnation of Genocide, the freedom and dignity of nations?”139 Iran: In an editorial of 1952, the daily Alik (ARF, Tehran) stressed that “the Great Crime [Medz Yeghern] of 1915 was the first and most cruel act of genocide” and added that “the Massacrer who attempted genocide on the Armenians for the first time was not subject to responsibility even after the Great Crime [Medz Yeghern].”140 In the same issue, survivor Haykak Kosoyan (1882–1968) wrote that the European powers “went to lick the bloody paw of genocide executioners.”141 He later labeled “the plan of Armenian genocide executed by decree of April 24, 1915” as “the blackest page in the history of Turkey.”142 Kosoyan continued using tseghasbanutiun in his articles published in the following years. A folk etymology published in the children magazine Lusaber reflected the fact that conventional wisdom conflating crime and consequence was alive and well in 1955: “There was mourning in that section of our country, in Western Armenia, and lamentation everywhere. That’s why our history recorded those days with the name ‘April Great Tragedy’ [Abrilean Medz Yeghern].”143 In the same year, sociologist Sarkis Atamian (1923–2005) appears to have published the first scholarly book in English that mentioned genocide for the Armenian case. He understood it as whole destruction of a group in his statement that, “while the Jews have lost greater numbers, no nation in history has come so close to genocide as the Armenians who lost almost their entire nation living in Turkey.”144 The edited book Genocide in the USSR (1958), produced by the Institute for the Study of the USSR in Munich, featured two essays by Sarkis Torossian (1898–1964) dealing with collectivization and purges in Armenia, and attacks against the Armenian Church. The latter stated that “the Soviet authorities have engaged in a form of national genocide.”145 The partial translation of the book into Armenian (1959) only included the first essay and featured the first appearance of tseghasbanutiun in a book title.146

Yeghern and Genocide in post-Stalinist Armenia The Armenian independent state founded in 1918 fell at the end of 1920, becoming a Soviet republic after two and a half years of turbulent history. As a cornerstone of Communist ideology, an anti-nationalist drive subjected many issues to restriction,

68

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

distortion, or simply oblivion. After the signature of a Turkish-Soviet pact of friendship in 1925, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Armenia commissioned the next year one of its members, Aramayis Erznkian, to negotiate the elimination of “the commemoration of the day of remembrance of the victims of the world war (April 24)” with the Catholicosate of All Armenians.147 The annihilation, including the use of yeghern, gradually became a taboo of sorts. Yeghishe Charents (1897–1937), the foremost poet who would be victim of the Stalinist purges of 1936–8, made the most explicit mentions in the early 1930s. For instance, his short poem “M. M.,” dedicated to Misak Medzarents (1886–1908), a talented Western Armenian poet victim of tuberculosis, used yeghern as counterpoint to the retreat into nature that had been the trademark of Medzarents’ poetry and to weave its memory subliminally, together with the “colossal forces” that recalled the First World War: There has been blood in the world; there has been crime [yeghern] and strife. Colossal forces have risen like mountains to go at each other untamed. In a village far from the world, with freshly cut reed flute, this sickly young genius sings of sun and spring.148

Outside the interlude of 1945–7, when the USSR denounced the pact of 1925 and claimed the territories of Kars and Ardahan, ceded by Soviet Russia to Turkey in 1921, no victims were publicly evoked, no perpetrators were clearly identified, and no recognition was explicitly granted for several decades. Memory was limited to private acts and symbols in hidden spaces merged into the Soviet cult of anti-fascist struggle.149 The population was forced “to put a stone on its heart and renounce to the memory of its dead”150 and “condemned to remain silent, as if nothing had happened.”151 Four decades later, novelist Sero Khanzadian (1915–98) reminisced that the mention of the names “Western Armenia,” “Armenian Karabagh,” and “Armenian Nakhichevan” was forbidden and added: “They plastered our mouth for fifty years to not utter the word yeghern.”152 His colleague Perch Zeituntsian (1938–2017), who had settled in Yerevan in 1948 during the repatriation from the Diaspora, recalled in 1995 that he “did not know what the yeghern was until 1965.” His fragmentary knowledge was based on eyewitness stories heard at his repatriate neighbors’ home: “Not just the school, but higher education institutions, the press, the radio, and everything that could be silenced were silent about 1915. April 25 came after April 23 on the calendar; April 24 was not there.”153 Soviet scholars paid little attention to genocide due to their caution toward international struggle against genocidal acts. The Soviet delegation to the deliberations leading to the Genocide Convention proposed, unsuccessfully, the use of culturalnational genocide to define “measures and actions aimed against the use of the national language or against national culture” and establish a link of genocide with fascism and Nazism.154 A Communist Youth League handbook for propaganda workers defined genocide as pertaining to nationalist, fascist, and capitalist countries,155 while the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1952) stated that it was an offshoot of decaying imperialism, characterized by extermination of peoples and creation of conditions for early death

Medz Yeghern and “Genocide” in Armenia and the Diaspora

69

of their members.156 Issues ranging from racism and discrimination against AfricanAmericans to apartheid, including class warfare and Nazi war crimes with scant note of the Shoah, were highlighted as proof that “cultural-national genocide” was part of national oppression and class exploitation.157 The post-Stalinist “thaw” became the springboard for national awakening and exploration of the past. During the official commemoration of his eightieth birthday in October 1955, poet Avetik Isahakian (1875–1957), who was president of the Armenian Writers Union, reminisced that the massacres of 1915 were unprecedented “even in the crime-filled [yeghernashad] Ottoman history.” He added the unexpected use of the Russian loanword genosidizm in his statement that “those criminal acts [yeghernakordzutiun]” were “the greatest crime [vojir] of the world, called genocidism [genosidizm], the total annihilation of a people.”158 Historian Mkrtich Nersisian (1910–99) published in the same year his summary of Armenian history from 1800 to 1917 for a forthcoming high school textbook. The opening paragraph of the section on the “mass killing” (godoradz) of Western Armenians in 1915–17 defined genocide without using the word: In the first months of the war, the Turkish government adopted a plan that anticipated the massacre and extermination of the entire population of Western Armenia. (…) The Young Turks regarded the Western Armenian population as a “damaging” element that could be a hurdle for the execution of their plan of conquest. From this vantage point, their government planned the physical extermination of the whole Western Armenian population. The Turkish government decided to take advantage of the world war, already started, and execute that horrifying plan of Armenian extermination during the war.159

The designation of Yakov Zarobian (1911–80) as first secretary of the Armenian Communist Party in 1960 marked a breakthrough. His negotiations with Moscow led to steps to restore public memory within acceptable ideological boundaries. The first scholarly articles using “genocide” in their titles appeared in 1963 (Armenian) and 1965 (Russian).160 Historians Tzatur Aghayan (1911–82), Hovhannes Injikian (1913–90), and John Kirakosian (1929–85) presented an extensive proposal to the Central Committee about the commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary, including the idea for a memorial monument. Zarobian transmitted the proposal almost literally to Moscow in December 1964. After securing consent, the Presidium of the Armenian Communist Party approved the construction on February 15, 1965, followed by the Council of Ministers’ resolution of March 16, “On the Construction of a Memorial to Perpetuate the Memory of the Victims of the Yeghern of the Year 1915,” which envisioned an architectural competition and the finalization of the construction at Tzitzernakaberd within the year. The bases were published on March 25, and the projects were submitted and evaluated in May–June 1965.161 The Soviet Union had renounced to its territorial demands from Turkey on behalf of Armenia and Georgia three months after Joseph Stalin’s death in March 1953. Following

70

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

an intermittent peace offensive from 1953 to 1960, Soviet-Turkish rapprochement hit solid ground in 1964–5.162 Nersisian’s article “Genocide, the Gravest Crime against Humanity” reflected Soviet disinclination to confront its neighbor. It was rewritten as a denunciation of genocide with the intervention of an otherwise unknown coauthor and published in Pravda on April 24, 1965.163 The essay dealt essentially with German fascism, apartheid, and discrimination against African Americans, and its anti-racist and anti-colonialist outlook fitted official ideology, devoting just one paragraph to Armenians. It put the blame on “Germany’s monopolistic groups” that “explicitly triggered genocide [genotsid, Arm. genotsid] in Turkey,” followed by praise of Soviet-Turkish friendship: Fifty years ago, the government of the Young Turks killed about one and a half million Armenians. Initially, the Armenian intelligentsia and the male population were secretly and treacherously annihilated. Then, the masterminds of the massacre moved to the methodic annihilation of women and children. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians were forced to flee into exile. Many died trying to escape from the fierce persecution. The organizers of this crime [zlodeyanye, Arm. yeghern] caused many calamities to the Turkish people. They earned the hatred of Turkey’s all progressive forces and working masses for their crimes. The Turkish people threw them out of the political arena after the defeat of German imperialism in World War I. The new Turkey, driving an anti-imperialist policy, instituted good neighbor relations with the young Soviet state. The Soviet people are sincerely committed that this relation develops successfully and becomes friendlier.164

An editorial of Sovetakan Hayastan, the official party daily in Armenia, noted on the same day that Armenians commemorated “the crime [yeghern] committed by the rulers of Ottoman Turkey in 1915.” It added that “the Armenian people, wholly dedicated to the most humane ideas of peoples’ friendship and socialist internationalism,” condemned “the policy of genocide [genotsid], one of whose first victims were the Armenian population under Ottoman Turkish rule fifty years ago, and which fascism carried out with fury and disproportionately bigger magnitude in Europe during the World War II years.”165 The program of events authorized by the central authorities in Moscow was unexpectedly marred by unprecedented peaceful demonstrations with a turnout estimated between 20,000 and 100,000 people. An exceptional historical event had been “jailed” in minds and hearts, novelist Mushegh Galshoyan (1933–80) attested posthumously: One involuntarily recalls April 24, 1965, when the most tragic episode and the bloodiest page of the Armenian people were timidly unlocked, when the fiftieth anniversary of the Armenian yeghern was commemorated officially for the first time. On that day, April 24, the Armenian people were confused. What is that procession? Where is it going? What do they want? Yeghern was simply a word so unknown that many people pronounced it yeghevni [“fir”]. The procession of

Medz Yeghern and “Genocide” in Armenia and the Diaspora

71

unaware people grew gradually, and imprisoned history, even if just fragmentarily, was resurrected from mouth to mouth.166

The multitude gathered to hear impromptu speakers and marched through the main streets of Yerevan carrying banners that said “2,000,000” (number of victims) and “Solve the Armenian question fairly,” among others, and making calls of “Our lands!” A group of demonstrators trying to submit a petition disrupted the official commemoration at the Opera Theater in the evening.167 The failure to prevent the outburst led to backlash from Moscow. The demonstrations were labeled as nationalist and anti-Soviet, and Zarobian and high-ranking ideology officials were removed in February 1966. During a party district conference on December 25, 1965, poet Silva Kaputikian (1919–2006) rejected the claim of Alexander Kamshalov, secretary of the all-Soviet Communist Youth League, that intellectuals and publications had been the catalyzers for “the exacerbated patriotic feelings of a multitude of close to 100,000 people.” Her brazen denunciation of Moscow’s passive stance was only printed by some periodicals of Beirut in the summer of 1966: Otherwise, how to explain the unresponsive attitude of our central authorities towards the fiftieth anniversary of the great grief of the Armenian people, the Yeghern? The Armenian people expected with good reason that the land of socialism, the land called to pick the relay of humanist traditions of humankind would raise its authoritative voice to condemn the biggest genotsid (tseghasbanutiun) in scale, the most planned until then in history, organized by the Turkish colonialists to pursue the extermination of an entire people, as it did on the twentieth anniversary of World War II, when it came to German fascism and its genocidal crimes. However, our expectations were not fulfilled. Out of a few halting measures in Armenia and three or four lines published in Pravda, no all-Union newspaper, no organization echoed the fiftieth anniversary and shared the grief and the emotion of the Armenian people. On the contrary, in those months vigorous negotiations of friendship started with Turkey, which not only ignored the letters of individuals, as well as collective letters of representatives to the editorial offices of the central organs and of Pravda, but also the state of mind of an entire people that had suffered so much from Turkey.168

The Fifth Congress of the Armenian Writers Union demanded in November 1966 to declare April 24 a mourning day. Nersisian’s collection of documents, The Genocide of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, was released in December with a run of 8,000 copies. The title featured “genocide of the Armenians” for the first time in a book in Russian.169 The “memorial of the Medz Yeghern” was inaugurated on November 29, 1967, to make it coincide and exalt the forty-seventh anniversary of Soviet Armenia and its achievements. It is composed by a 44-meter obelisk, which symbolizes national rebirth, and twelve slabs encircling an eternal flame dedicated to the victims at a depth of 1.5 meters.

72

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

From Medz Yeghern to “Armenian Genocide” after the 1960s The Diaspora spent its first decades in relative passivity, with little engagement in revindication, mostly immersed in rebuilding communal life amid internal strifes and mourning. It started articulating a political dimension in the postwar years and throughout the 1950s, which would take full shape in the 1960s.170 The coincidental publication of Raul Hilberg’s The Destruction of the Jews and the trial of Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann in 1961 helped insert the Shoah in the public sphere as the Cold War discourse was making a retreat, which may have benefited the Armenian approach. Hairenik compared Eichmann’s trial with the situation of Armenians, who had not seen justice,171 while The Armenian Mirror-Spectator wrote that the trial had brought back “the now already slumbering memories of genocide.” It added that the victims of 1915 were honored, “and our honors are their unmarked and bloody graves, honors of every moment of every day, for we are Armenian and we have felt the sword of genocide.”172 Ayk criticized the view that the new generations should be spared the recollections to avoid a complex of inferiority: On the contrary, the new generations must know, not only as Armenians, but as simple human beings, that a massive genocide was committed at the beginning of the twentieth century by the barbarous Turks. And as civilized people and Armenian people of the twentieth century, they must revolt against the monstrous genocide, in the same way that the conscience of the entire humanity revolted and raised the gallows in Nuremberg, and by creating the word “genocide” in the U.N., it voted punitive laws against it, due to the massacre of millions of Jews carried out by Germany, ally and teacher of our enemy. (…) The powerful and great Germany, Turkey’s master of genocide, was forced to pay the blood price of the massacred Jews to the state of Israel.173

Writer Simon Simonian (1915–86), founding editor of the independent weekly Spurk (Beirut), was the first to stress the need for a united commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary in 1963. He wrote that Turkey had “committed a crime, the greatest of crimes: genocide [azkasbanutiun],” while “the massacred (the Armenians) have not taken heed from the Yeghern” (possibly meaning “Calamity”) and “the massacrer (the Turks) have not remedied his crime [vojir].”174 Preparations for the fiftieth anniversary started in late 1964. Multiple translations of Medz Yeghern flourished on the fiftieth anniversary. The phrase used by Catholicos of All Armenians Vazken I (1908–94) in his encyclical, “fifty years after the medz yeghern,” had three different translations: “Great Atrocity,” “Great Massacre,” and “great tragedy,”175 while the mentions of Abrilean Medz Yeghern and Medz Yeghern in the encyclical by Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia Khoren I (1914–83) were translated as “Great Aprilian Tragedy” and “Great Tragedy.”176 In December 1964, Bishop Sion Manoogian (1908–86), Primate of the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America, issued a circular about the Diocese’s forthcoming commemoration, which mentioned Abrilean Yeghern twice, translated as “great tragedy” and “Great Atrocity,” and Medz Yeghern once, also translated as “Great Atrocity.”177

Medz Yeghern and “Genocide” in Armenia and the Diaspora

73

Religious denominations and political parties set up together in Beirut the Central Executive Committee for the Commemoration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the April Yeghern in early 1965.178 The short-lived Temporary Central Committee for the Pursuit of the Armenian Territorial Cause, created by the Social-Democrat Hunchakian Party and the Armenian Democratic League, issued a communiqué remembering the “victims of that savage genocide” and declaring to be a sacred duty for all Armenians to pursue their cause on the “fiftieth anniversary of the Great Crime [Medz Yeghern].” It recalled the encyclicals of Vazken I and Khoren I that instructed “to note the anniversary of the Great Crime [Abrilean Yeghern],” and reaffirmed that, “since the Great Crime [Medz Yeghern], our people have never resigned from their sacred cause in spite of unfavorable international conditions.”179 An editorial of The Armenian Mirror-Spectator announced that 1965 would be “the year of commemoration of the Great Crime of 1915.”180 The independent biweekly Hamazkaín and the monthly Nor Hadjin (Central Committee of the Compatriotic Union of Hadjin) in Buenos Aires displayed bilingual banners pairing Medz Yeghern and “Great Tragedy” in their mastheads throughout the year,181 while the independent weekly Nor Guiank used “massacre” in Beirut: The inhuman crime [vojir] committed by the Turk cost the Armenians one and a half million martyrs. The whole civilized world of the twentieth century became the sinful spectator of the Great Crime [Medz Vojir] that was committed. There was no voice that condemned the criminal [yeghernakordz]. The avenging Armenian arm brought to the floor those who conceived and executed the Massacre [Yeghern].182

Journalist Garo Kevorkian (1898–1974) devoted a section of his yearbook to the anniversary. He evoked the mourning ceremonies held “since that criminal [yeghernagan] date to the present” and noted that Turkey knew why the Ittihad had organized “that savage criminal act [yeghernakordzutiun]” and that the crime would be repaired even if a century had passed after “this criminal [yeghernagan] deed.” He observed that “humankind pardoned the great criminal [medz yeghernakordz] and cleaned away the Armenian blood spilled over her conscience with a sponge.”183 In his postface, he wrote about the need to call worldwide attention “to the Great Crime [Medz Yeghern] and the Great Criminal [Medz Yeghernakordz]” through propaganda and factual evidence.184 The Memorial Book of the Medz Yeghern (1965), edited by Kersam Aharonian (1916–81), was the richest collection of material dedicated to the “victims of the Turkish genocidal crime [tseghasban yeghern].”185 Survivor writer Antranig Antreasian (1909–96) indicted the agent: Turkey, “with criminal [yeghernagan] savagery, hit the Armenian neck with its genocidal yataghan (…) with criminally [yeghernaganoren] cold-blooded and savagely bestial rage.” Mourning and wrath had been present “before the enormity of that crime [yeghern]” leaving “the fruit of the first genocidal crime [tseghasban yeghern]” as victory trophy for the perpetrator, since the survivors “lived the most infernal suffering, misery, and terror” after “the crime [yeghern] forged by the Turkish authorities.”186

74

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

The Western Armenian translation of Aurora Mardiganian’s testimony of the annihilation, The Auction of Souls: The Christian Girl Who Lived through the Great Massacres, rendered “Great Massacres” as Medz Yeghern.187 On the eve of the commemoration, an extensive statement by Cardinal Richard Cushing, Archbishop of Boston, highlighted that “this Armenian Massacre [Haygagan Yeghern] was really ‘genocide’; it was an attempt to extinguish an entire race of people as such. The sole crime of the martyred people was that they were Armenians.”188 Charles Metjian (1931–2007) organized a march of silence in front of the Turkish mission to the United Nations on April 24, 1965, which became the forerunner to the Times Square commemoration. His appeal included the initial sentence “The 50th Anniversary of the Massacre [Yeghern] of 2,000,000 Armenians by the Turks draws close.”189 The translation “massacre” was not limited to the English language. The youth organizations of the Armenian community of Uruguay offered an unprecedented show of unity as they came together in 1963. In 1965, the “Year of the 50th anniversary of the April Massacre” (Año del Cincuentenario de la Masacre de Abril), a bilingual communiqué reported that an assembly of nineteen organizations from all orientations had designated the Youth Coordinating Board to plan the events. The Armenian version used Abrilean Yeghern, which appeared in a press release along with “April Massacre.”190 In Marseilles, the bilingual poster announcing the commemoration read in French: “Deuil national arménien / Commémoration solennelle du / 50me anniversaire des Massacres des Arméniens de Turquie” [Armenian National Mourning / Solemn Commemoration of the / 50th Anniversary of the Massacres of Armenians of Turkey]. The Armenian version read: “All-National Mourning / On the 50th anniversary of the Medz Yeghern.”191 The Armenian monolingual dictionaries published between 1969 and 1992 established the meaning of yeghern as “crime” and recorded the collective meaning (“massacre,” “slaughter”) already noted in the early 1960s (Table 3.3).192 It is noteworthy that Rev. Aristakes Bohjalian’s dictionary had “crime” as primary meaning of yeghern and translated it into Turkish as cinayet (“crime”), leaving “catastrophe/calamity” as secondary meaning in Armenian only. Although Simon Simonian’s unfinished dictionary and the first volume of Abp. Knel Jerejian’s dictionary placed “calamity/ catastrophe” as primary domain, the latter’s definitions of aghed, charik, and portzank did not mention yeghern.193

Table 3.3  Yeghern in monolingual dictionaries (1969–92) Dictionary

yeghern

Academy of Sciences of Armenia

vojir, vojrakordzutiun, charakordzutiun

Granian

vojir, kreagan hantsank; chart, sbant

Bokhjalian

vojir; charik, aghed, portzank

Aghayan

vojir, charakordzutiun, charik; godoradz

Simonian et al.

charik, aghed, portzank, vojir

Jerejian, Doniguian, and Der Khachadurian

charik, aghed, portzank; vojir, sbant, chart; kreagan hantsank.

Medz Yeghern and “Genocide” in Armenia and the Diaspora

75

In the meantime, the collective meaning of yeghern would continue evolving. The ARF Central Committee of America (Eastern) declared that 1965 was the Year of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Armenian Yeghern, translated into English as Year of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Turkish Genocide.194 The ARF-led Central Committee on the 50th Anniversary of the Yeghern, known in English as Commemorative Committee on the 50th Anniversary of the Turkish Massacres of Armenians,195 published six pamphlets in English. Interestingly, the English name of the committee was changed before April 24; the author of the third pamphlet, Setrak Minas (1908– 86), was identified as chairman of the Commemorative Committee on the 50th Anniversary of the Turkish Genocide of the Armenians.196 The non-ARF faction created the American Committee for the Restoration of Armenian Rights, which appears to have been a short-lived initiative, “on the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Genocide [Medz Yeghern] of Armenians at the hands of the Turks.” Its bilingual brochure printed in 1967 stated that the Committee was set to prove that “the Turkish government (…) had a policy of inciting periodic massacres, which culminated in the planned Genocide [April Yeghern] of 1915” and disprove that the lack of Armenian population made territorial demands futile, arguing that “the crime [yeghern] perpetrated by Turkey—namely, the genocide of the Armenian people—is itself, on the one hand, the proof for the claim.”197 Lemkin had coined “genocide” to be the legal designation for a type of crime. Its combination with a demonym (Armenian, Jewish, Ukrainian, Assyrian, Roma … ) did not offer specificity. The scientific sound of this generic word failed to suggest the unique identity of the Nazi annihilation to the Jewish survivors in a meaningful way and struck many people as too clinical.198 The adoption of shoah (“catastrophe”) stated that identity and, even though its literal meaning was different, became the ultimate source for “holocaust” and the proper name Holocaust.199 The word “holocaust” had taken the meaning of wholesale and organized destruction of civilians in the wake of the Armenian massacres of 1895, 1909, and 1915.200 Among many such examples since the 1920s, an editorial of Hairenik Weekly—renamed The Armenian Weekly in 1969—noted in 1945 that Germany “had aided and abetted in the Armenian holocaust.”201 Its use for the Armenian and the Jewish annihilations overlapped gradually; the latter became a full-fledged proper name after the success of the TV miniseries “Holocaust” (1978). Coincidentally, Richard Hovannisian’s bibliography The Armenian Holocaust was published in 1978 and reprinted in 1980.202 The Armenian Weekly criticized the common use of “Armenian Holocaust” in 1981 as the product of a bandwagon mentality common in American society and stated that public interest focused on “popular and widely current formulas” instead of terminology that asserted a unique identity.203 In a letter to the editor, Hovannisian replied that “the death marches were holocaust both physically and spiritually,” and that yeghern had been utilized with that meaning.204 After the 1980s, the use of “holocaust” was mostly abandoned. In 1964, a commentator in Hairenik wrote that “in our dictionaries there is not a word more powerful that yeghern, which we used to figure out the crucifixion of our people,” and went to suggest the creation of “a new word instead of yeghern to introduce the entire dimension and meaning of that historical genocide [tseghasbanutiun]; an

76

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

explanation that makes the foreigner understand that horror.”205 In the same year, survivor scientist Manasseh G. Sevag (1897–1967) gave a second life to hayasbanutiun, coining its English literal translation Armenocide as legal term.206 Under his leadership, the Armenian Historical Research Association reprinted The Memoirs of Naim Bey, the English distillation of Aram Andonian’s The Great Crime, as the first publication in the series “The Genocide of the Armenians by Turks (The Turkish Armenocide).” In his preface, Sevag wrote that he had created Armenocide, used interchangeably with genocide, to convey “specifically, the brutal extermination of the Armenians.”207 Unaware of this coinage, jurist Moussa Prince used arménocide in the introduction to his French study, published in 1967.208 Armenocide has been mostly used by Armenian authors, the same as hayasbanutiun as legal name instead of tseghasbanutiun, but never obtained the necessary traction. After forty years of silence and inward talk, the survivors, who had adapted a calque word (tseghasbanutiun) to a new meaning, discarded the word Yeghern as source for a designation in Western languages. They took to speak out by using the term “genocide” that was alien to their traditional vocabulary, but offered a juridical logic in which a singular plaintiff makes a claim against a singular defendant.209 In 1966, a letter to the editor in The Armenian Mirror-Spectator urged to “get our terminology straight,” arguing that the international recognition of Armenian rights would be enhanced “the sooner we stop using the word ‘massacre’ for 1915.”210 “Turkish genocide of the Armenians” and its contractions “genocide of the Armenians” and “Armenian genocide” were gradually becoming new descriptive terms with “genocide” capitalized on and off. Single-handed capitalization, fueled by the belief that continuous use would generate recognition in the long run, turned the generic name “Armenian genocide” into the formula “Armenian Genocide”: “It is ‘Armenian genocide’ with a capital A and a capital G. It is a fact, a proper noun, and it did happen.”211 However, “Armenian Genocide” and its abbreviation “Genocide” are not actual proper names, because “Armenian genocide” is a metonymical construction that substitutes a name by another linked term, like “big apple” (New York City) or “empire state” (New York State), and capitalization does not turn metonymies into proper nouns: neither Big Apple nor Empire State is an alternative name for New York City or New York State. A capital letter is a conventional sign and not an indication of a proper name, as the example of German shows; demonyms are not capitalized in Armenian or in Romance languages. The difference between lowercased and uppercased use became ostensible in 2004. The report that The New York Times had “lifted its-long standing policy against the use of the term ‘Armenian Genocide’” quoted the newspaper’s actual guidance that “the expression ‘Armenian genocide’ may be used freely and should not be qualified with phrasing like ‘what Armenians call,’ etc.”212 “Armenian genocide” had debuted in books as a subtitle to the posthumously published memoir by Rev. Abraham Hartunian (1872–1939), Neither to Laugh nor to Weep (1968).213 Its debut as book title came in the first edition of Richard D. Kloian’s (1937–2010) compilation of articles from The New York Times (1980), which also included “holocaust.”214 Simultaneously, French titles featured “genocide of the Armenians” and “Armenian genocide” for the first time.215

Medz Yeghern and “Genocide” in Armenia and the Diaspora

77

The April 24 editorials do not appear to have used haygagan tseghasbanutiun in the 1960s,216 and the expression began to circulate more assiduously in the early 1970s. The violent actions of militant organizations such as the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide (Haygagan Tseghasbanutian Artarutian Mardigner) and the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) from 1975 to 1985, but also the controversy about the mention of the Armenian case in the draft report on genocide by the UN Sub Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, extending from 1974 to 1985, elicited a surge in worldwide attention that boosted the capitalization of haygagan tseghasbanutiun in Armenian and “Armenian genocide” in English. In 1972, the Hamazkayin Armenian Educational and Cultural Society published an album in simultaneous editions in Armenian, English, and French to bring the ruinous situation of the monuments of historical Armenia to the attention of academic circles and the general public. The first sentence of the English foreword stated: “In 1965, on the fiftieth anniversary of the genocide of which the Armenians have been the victims, the nation, both in Armenia and in the Diaspora, commemorate the day in a spirit of prayer and solidarity.” The Armenian original text began with the following words: “In 1965, on the fiftieth anniversary of the Medz Yeghern (…).”217 The correspondence between Medz Yeghern and “Armenian Genocide” became more pronounced in 1975. The united diasporan body of 1965 was renamed AllNational Central Body for the Commemoration of the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Medz Yeghern218 and submitted a memorandum in English to the United Nations signed by the Central Committee [for the] Commemoration of [the] Sixtieth Anniversary of Armenian Genocide.219 The cover of a compilation of sources designated the All-National Body for the Commemoration of the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Medz Yeghern as ad-hoc committee formed by the LebaneseArmenian community (Commemoration of 60th Anniversary of Armenian Genocide—National Committee of Lebanon in English).220 In the United States, the committee kept an almost similar Armenian name (All-National Central Body for the Commemoration of the 60th Anniversary of the Yeghern), while the achievement of a unified commemoration led to the United Committee for the 60th Anniversary of Genocide of the Armenians.221 In 1978, a full-page bilingual advertisement of the commemorations in New York by the Eastern Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church referred to the “Armenian Genocide of April 1915” in English and to the “April Yeghern” in Armenian.222 Two years later, the first sentence of an editorial of The Armenian Weekly referred to the “chain that through 65 long years comes down under the name ‘Commemoration of the Aprilian Genocide,’”223 which indicated its relation to Aprilian Yeghern. The year 1985 became a turning point for the use of Haygagan Tseghasbanutiun as synonym of Medz Yeghern. The all-Armenian body was renamed Central Body for the Commemoration of the Seventieth Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide [Haygagan Tseghasbanutiun] in Armenian, which was interchangeable with Central Body for the Commemoration of the 70th Anniversary of the Medz Yeghern.224 Karekin II (1932–99), Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia, stated in an encyclical on January 30, 1985:

78

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide The seventieth anniversary, the wisdom gained from the experience of seventy years after the crime teaches us that the commemoration of the Aprilian Crime [Yeghern] should not be just a summatory of events within Armenian circles. The thinking and process that started with the Fiftieth Anniversary and strengthened with the Sixtieth Anniversary put the fact of the Aprilian Crime [Yeghern], the Armenian genocide, on the trail of recognition within an international dimension.225

In the same year, the Catholicos made clear that Haygagan Yeghern and Haygagan Tseghasbanutiun were interchangeable with his use of the conjunction “or” in a preface to the first book edition of Teotig’s deportation memoirs: On the Seventieth Anniversary of the Armenian Crime or Genocide [Haygagan Yeghern gam Tseghasbanutiun], I was looking once again over this sample of Teotig’s almanacs, printed in small lettering on grayish, almost unreadable paper, that had become so rare and hard to find for our people. I thought about extracting Teotig’s testimony on the Armenian Crime [Yeghern], written under the title “Years of Prison and Exile,” where he gave the image of the Armenian Crime [Yeghern] as a living experience with such immediate effusion, dominant sentimentalism, quick and lively description given with one stroke of a pen, and the characteristic features of the Armenian speech of Constantinople.226

Coincidentally, the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern) published for the first time Teotig’s unfinished monograph on ecclesiastics killed during the annihilation. The book included a bilingual notice that featured Armenian Yeghern and “Armenian Genocide” as synonyms: [Armenian] The mecenas of the publication of this book is SOMEONE WHO SURVIVED THE ARMENIAN YEGHERN OF 1915. [English] The sponsor of this book is A SURVIVOR OF [THE] 1915 ARMENIAN GENOCIDE.227

The Iranian Armenian Society of New York printed a half-page advertisement in 1986. Its bilingual “Invitation for United Commemoration of Seventyfirst [sic] anniversary of the Armenian Genocide” featured Medz Yeghern both in the Armenian title and text.228 Various bilingual unofficial stamps—called “cinderella stamps”—were issued in the period 1965–85 with the following legends: 1965 (East Coast of the United States) “Fiftieth anniversary of the Armenian Yeghern” (Armenian) “50th anniversary of the Turkish genocide of the Armenians” (English)229 1965 (Lebanon) “50th anniversary of the Yeghern” (Armenian) “The 50th commemoration of the Armenian genocide” (English)

Medz Yeghern and “Genocide” in Armenia and the Diaspora

79

1965 (France) “Fiftieth anniversary of the Yeghern” (Armenian) “50ème anniversaire du génocide arménien par les Turcs” (French) 1970 (Lebanon) “55th anniversary of the Medz Yeghern 50 anniversary of the Treaty of Sevres” (Armenian) “55th anniversary of the Armenian genocide 50 anniversary of the Treaty of Sevres” (English)230 1980 (East Coast of the Unites States) “April 24 1980 / 65th Anniversary of the Medz Yeghern” (Armenian) “1915–1980 / 65th Anniversary of the Turkish Genocide of 1.5 Million Armenians” (English)231 1985 (East Coast of the Unites States) “70th anniversary of the April Yeghern” (Armenian) “70th anniversary of the Armenian genocide” (English)232

The Karabagh Movement Meanwhile, in the mid-1960s, the Russian summaries of some scholarly articles published in Armenia had translated yeghern as “genocide.”233 A decade later, PatmaBanasirakan Handes, the Armenian Studies journal of the Academy of Sciences, featured a section entitled “Yeghern and Renaissance: 1915–1975,” which included a chronicle of the first official homage by the Soviet Armenian party leadership on April 24 at the memorial of Tzitzernakaberd. The word yeghern in the title was translated as “genocide” into English and Russian.234 This year started the tradition for the governing elite, as well as for endless caravans of people to visit the memorial and deposit flowers near the eternal flame to homage the victims. In 1981, the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia equated Medz Yeghern and hayeri tseghasbanutiun (“genocide of the Armenians”) in its unsigned entry: “Medz Yeghern, Medz vojir, Hayeri genotsid (tseghasbanutiun), massive slaughter of Western Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire during the First World War of 1914–1918.”235 These translations offered an embryonic sense of equivalence between the concept of genocide and the word yeghern, but were no match to a translation from another language. An Armenian collection of Robert Sheckley’s science fiction published in 1984 included the prize-winning novella “Shall We Have a Little Talk?” (1965). Through Jackson, an interstellar envoy (contactor) to establish first contact with new civilizations, Sheckley imagined a future when genocide had been eradicated from our planet. Translator Ruben Avetisian had tseghasbanutiun and the Russian loanword genotsid readily available, but rendered all four mentions of “genocide” as yeghern, explicitly establishing that equivalence: Whenever the contactor was killed, retribution followed with swift and terrible inevitability. Also with regret, of course, because Earth was an extremely civilized place and accustomed to living within the law. No civilized, law-abiding race

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

80

likes to commit genocide [yeghern]. In fact, the folks on Earth consider genocide [yeghern] a very unpleasant matter, and they don’t like to read about it or anything like it in their morning papers. Envoys must be protected, of course, and murder must be punished; everybody knows that. But it still doesn’t feel nice to read about a genocide [yeghern] over your morning coffee. News like that can spoil a man’s entire day. Three or four genocides [yeghern] and a man just might get angry enough to switch his vote.236

Echmiadzin, the journal of the Catholicosate of All Armenians, published the encyclical of Catholicos Vazken I that evoked “the memory of the April Yeghern martyrs” in 1985, together with his letter to the World Council of Churches and sister churches “on the seventieth anniversary of the Medz Yeghern” and a report on “the commemoration of the seventieth anniversary of the Medz Yeghern” at the Holy See. Those mentions appeared in the table of contents with the following equivalence237: Armenian

Russian

English

French

Abrilian Yeghern

genotsid armyan (“genocide of the Armenians”)

1915 genocide

génocide de 1915

Medz Yeghern

velikogo genotsid (“great genocide”)

Great Genocide

génocide de 1915

The meaning of yeghern was slightly different in March 1986, a month before the Chernobyl disaster. Three hundred and fifty Armenian scientists, cultural figures, engineers, workers, and students signed a letter to Mikhail Gorbachev, the last first secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, demanding to shut down the nuclear plant of Metzamor, cancel the construction of a second plant, and relocate four chemical plants away from populated areas. The letter was not published in the Soviet Union, but copies of the Armenian original reached the Diaspora press. It reflected growing concern about the environment, particularly regarding the hazards posed by nuclear energy. It claimed that close to half of the population of the plain of Ararat, the area where the plant was located, had various serious conditions, from cancer and leukemia to diabetes and organ inflammation, which was characterized as “biological yeghern in the most direct sense of the word.”238 The Russian translation used “extermination” (istreblenie) as translation of yeghern, with a footnote added to explain its semantics.239 Two years later, on February 20, 1988, the simmering claims for the historically Armenian region of Mountainous (Russian Nagorny) Karabagh, annexed to Soviet Azerbaijan in 1923, boiled down to a resolution of the Regional Soviet requesting the reincorporation of the region to Soviet Armenia. Huge public demonstrations of support in Yerevan marked the beginning of the Karabagh movement. The Azerbaijani reaction, including a pogrom of Armenians in the town of Sumgait, to the north of Baku (February 26–28, 1988), shocked a country based on the proclaimed “fraternity of peoples.” The Armenian parallel with 1915 was highlighted by the ethno-linguistic identification of Turks and Azerbaijanis: “It seemed that every social and political problem took on additional significance as containing a threat to the Armenians’ continued existence as a people.”240

Medz Yeghern and “Genocide” in Armenia and the Diaspora

81

The banners displayed in the massive demonstrations of Yerevan from 1988 to 1991 reflected the perceived threat. The seventh day of the Sumgait pogrom—Armenian funeral rituals include the observation of the seventh and fortieth day after death— was marked with a mourning march to the Tzitzernakaberd memorial on March 8, 1988. A banner exhibited the picture of the memorial with “1915” written underneath and a smaller version with “1988” below. The upper part said in Russian “We will not forget the Bloody Sunday of Sumgait,” while the lower part read in Armenian: “We will not allow the yeghern to be repeated.”241 At other times, various banners asked “To recognize the Medz Yeghern of 1915,” emphasized that “Sumgait is the continuation to the Medz Yeghern,” or merged both ideas: “If the government of the USSR had recognized the genocide [tseghasbanutiun] of 1915, Sumgait would not have happened in 1988.”242 Renowned actor Sos Sargsian (1929–2013) stated in a meeting of the Peace Defense Committee of Armenia with TV journalist Henrikh Borovik, president of the all-Soviet Peace Defense Committee, on March 28, 1988: “I suggest calling the catastrophe of Sumgait by its real name: Yeghern (genotsid).”243 A banner stressed the right of self-determination (“By respecting the inalienable right to self-determination of the people of Karabagh, we prevent the new yeghern, Red and White,” April 1988),244 and another ridiculed the Soviet slogan of peoples’ friendship: “What friendship after the yeghern of 1915–1988” (May 7, 1988).245 Anthropologist Nora Dudwick referred to the paradigm of suffering, oppression, and persecution symbolized by the presence of “cultural genocide,” “white genocide,” and “ecological genocide” in banners and posters.246 The actual word was yeghern, which rhetorically enlarged the concept of genocide. Banners and posters denounced the ongoing devastation of Armenian monuments in Azerbaijani territory (“The destruction of historical monuments is a spiritual yeghern,” November 18, 1988), the diminishing use of the Armenian language in Armenia (“Betrayal of the language is a white yeghern,” April 24, 1989), and the ecological struggle against the chemical giant “Nairit” in Yerevan (“Away with Nairit yeghern,” April 24, 1990).247 The concept of jermag chart, literally translated as “white massacre” and traditionally applied in the Diaspora to the perceived threat of cultural assimilation to the host societies and loss of Armenian identity, evolved to the non-literal translation “white genocide” by the late 1970s.248 In the case of Armenia, it was rebranded as sbidag yeghern and applied to the condemnation of the retreat in the use of the Armenian language and the destruction of monuments in the autonomous republic of Nakhichevan, under Azerbaijani control since 1921 and emptied gradually and forcefully from its Armenian population: “He protests through artistic means against the white genocide [sbidag yeghern] committed in Nakhichevan by artistic means” (Khorhrdayin Hayastan, October 21, 1989). A similar phrase using tseghasbanutiun confirmed the meaning of yeghern a month later: “It appeared to Polonski that (…) after the white genocide [sbidag tseghasbanutiun] of Nakhichevan (…) the solidarity guarantee would be possible again” (Yerekoyan Yerevan, November 21, 1989).249 According to anthropologist Harutyun Marutyan’s impressive collection of photographs, the number of Armenian and Russian posters and banners dedicated to 1915 (315) almost tripled those about Karabagh, Azerbaijan, Azerbaijanis, PanIslamism, and Pan-Turkism (121),250 which disproves the claim that “genocide” was

82

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

more often used to refer to Azerbaijanis than to Ottoman Turks.251 Four young people carried a replica of the memorial of Tzitzernakaberd toward the actual memorial on the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary (April 24, 1990). The words Yeghern in Armenian and “Genocide” in English, indicating that the latter translated the former, were inscribed along with the number “75” on the black fabric that upholstered the two-meter high obelisk. The date 1915 appeared across four of the slabs covered in black fabric, which also displayed the dates 1896 (Hamidian massacres), 1909 (Adana massacre), 1988 (Sumgait pogrom), and 1990 (Baku pogrom) at the bottom.252 In a study on Armenian political participation in American life during the 1980s, historian Mariam Ter-Grigorian mentioned in 1990 the Turkish lobby campaign “to pressure over Congress and the White House to stop any attempt of the American government to recognize the Armenian genocide [Hayots tseghasbanutiun].”253 She also referred several times to the “recognition of the Hayots Yeghern,” the “denial of the fact of the Hayots Yeghern,” and “the historical fact of the Hayots Yeghern.”254 About the elections of 1988, she quoted George H. W. Bush’s reported use of “genocide” in an answer to a journalist’s question in Fresno (May 1988)255 and candidate Michael Dukakis’ statement: “We know what happened to the Armenians; the historians wrote about it, past American presidents condemned the genocide, unlike some who now just want to forget. No man or woman of justice should ever forget what happened in 1915.”256 The translation of these quotations offered the key for her meaning of Yeghern: Bush characterized “the extermination of Armenians in Turkey in 1915 with the word Yeghern,” despite his reticence “to give the actual name to the extermination and deportation of 1.5 million Armenians by the Young Turks and use Yeghern in that sense.”257 She translated Dukakis’ quotation using Hayots Yeghern: “American presidents (…) condemned the Armenian Genocide [Hayots Yeghern] in the past (…). No man and no woman of justice should ever forget the Armenian Genocide [Hayots Yeghern] of 1915.”258 Law 1401-XI, passed by the Supreme Council—formerly Supreme Soviet—of Armenia on November 22, 1988, recognized officially April 24 as day of commemoration of the “genocide of the Armenians” (hayeri tseghasbanutiun), condemned as a crime against humanity.259 Less than two years later, on August 23, 1990, the Supreme Council (later National Assembly) included the formula hayots tseghasbanutiun in the paragraph 11 of the declaration on independence: “The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of international recognition of the genocide of the Armenians in 1915 in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.”260

The Independence Years The editorial board of the Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia undertook the publication of an encyclopedia entitled Armenian Question in Armenian and Russian. The Russian translation was published in 1991. The entry “National-Cultural Genocide” defined this type of genocide as “measures and actions directed against the national culture of any population group or people” and cited Lemkin’s remark that genocide was also the destruction of an ethnic or religious group through annihilation of its national-spiritual

Medz Yeghern and “Genocide” in Armenia and the Diaspora

83

culture.261 The same entry, slightly modified, was entitled “National-Cultural Yeghern” in the Armenian edition, which was delayed for financial reasons until 1996.262 The use of yeghern in relation to cultural genocide has been frequent during the past two decades. For instance, in 2006 the ARF Nikol Aghbalian Student Union of Armenia sponsored the photographic exhibition Mshagutayin yeghern (“Cultural genocide”), highlighting the dereliction and destruction of Armenian cultural monuments in Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. The news report used the title Mshagutayin tseghasbanutiun (“Cultural Genocide”).263 Four years later, historian Hayk Demoyan, director of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute (AGMI), presented a paper in Armenian, “The Cultural Genocide [Mshagutayin tseghasbanutiun]: Challenge for the 21st Century,” at the conference “Cultural Yeghern,” organized by the National Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Diaspora in Yerevan.264 In 2016, Research of Armenian Architecture (RAA) published a trilingual volume about the destruction of Armenian heritage in Turkey. The title was Yeghern Yeghernits hedo (Armenian), translated into Turkish as Soykırımdan sonra farklı bir soykırım and into English as “Another Genocide after the Genocide.”265 In 1995, literary scholar Grigor Hakobian (1959–2005) published an article about the reflection of the idea of catastrophe in the Western Armenian short novel from 1895 to 1915. He used yeghern and tseghasbanutiun interchangeably, translating “Genocide of 1915” in the title of his colleague Rubina Peroomian’s article as “Yeghern of 1915.”266 The use of yeghern has not been circumscribed to the cultural realm. A report on the forthcoming inauguration of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute (Hayots Tseghasbanutian Tankaran-Institut) in Yerevan called it “Museum of the Yeghern” in 1995,267 while the advertisements in the United States for the commemorations of the same year displayed the connection between Medz Yeghern, Haygagan Tseghasbanutiun, and “Armenian Genocide.” In the East Coast, the Joint Commemorative Committee of the 80th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide (in Armenian, Joint Commemorative Committee of the 80th Anniversary of the Medz Yeghern) published an advertisement on “the 80th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide of 1915” (English) and the “80th anniversary of the Medz Yeghern of the year 1915” (Armenian).268 The advertisement in the West Coast referred to the “80th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide” (English) and the “Commemoration of the 80th anniversary of the Haygagan Tseghasbanutiun” (Armenian).269 The April 24 message of Armenian President Robert Kocharian highlighted the equivalence of Medz Yeghern and Hayots Tseghasbanutiun in 1998: The Armenian genocide [Hayots Medz yeghern] is the most tragic and dark page of our people’s modern history. (…) Meanwhile, the Armenian genocide [Hayots tseghasbanutiun] is not only a tragedy for our people but for all humanity as well. (…) The murder [yeghern] has unfortunately become a part of our manner of thinking, and in this way we are entering the 21st century.270

His statement of 1999 said:

84

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide However bitter it is to acknowledge it, the fact is that the Armenian genocide [Hayots medz yeghern] has remained unpunished. (…) The issue of international recognition of the Armenian genocide [Hayots tseghasbanutiun] was sounded out at the highest level from the UN rostrum in September 1998.271

The official news agency Armenpress reported on the April 24 commemoration in Washington, DC, in 2006. Tatoul Margarian, Armenian ambassador to the United States, underscored the activities of the Diaspora toward “the international recognition of the Medz Yeghern” and observed that “the international recognition of the Armenian genocide [hayots tseghasbanutiun]” was on the foreign policy agenda of Armenia.272 In 2011, Major General Arkady Ter-Tadevosian (1939–2021), a veteran of the Karabagh war, noted that the Diaspora had worked “on the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide,” but the passive stance of Armenia had slowed down “the international recognition of Meds Yeghern” during the first years of independence.273 In December 2012, Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan equated “Genocide” and Medz Yeghern in a speech in France: “Many of those who had survived the Genocide established themselves in Marseilles. (…) We were strong enough to survive the Great Yeghern, and now, we are strong enough to demand justice.”274 The English official translation of his message on the ninety-ninth anniversary reaffirmed in April 2014 that Medz Yeghern and Hayots Tseghasbanutiun had the same translation: Today we bow to the memory of the innocent victims of the Armenian Genocide [Hayots Medz Yeghern]. (…) Up until now, all the parts of Armenian people and all generations have known what the outcomes of the Genocide [Medz Yeghern] feel like. (…) The 24th of April is just a symbolic date: it is clear that the Armenian Genocide [Hayots Tseghasbanutiun] was not initiated and put an end in one day. (…) Today, we stand on the threshold of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide [Hayots Tseghasbanutiun]. (…) We are approaching the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide [Hayots Tseghasbanutiun] with a straightening back, open-faced and having a state whose name is the Republic of Armenia.275

At the groundbreaking ceremony of the Museum of the Armenian Genocide in Buenos Aires (July 2014), Sargsyan noted that 2015 would mark “the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide,” and that “the 100th anniversary of [the] Mets Yeghern is not an endpoint; it is just a unique destination.”276 In January 2015, an allArmenian statement on the centennial declared that the state committee organizing the commemoration, in consultation with its committees of the Diaspora, condemned the blockade imposed by Turkey against Armenia, the anti-Armenian stance of Turkey in international fora, and the imposition of preconditions in the normalization of relations, which it considered “a consequence of the continued impunity of the Armenian Genocide, Meds Yeghern.”277 The analysis shows that the concept of genocide was applied by Armenians to their annihilation in a gradual yet consistent way practically since its appearance. The fiftieth anniversary (1965) became a turnaround for its utilization along yeghern. “Armenian genocide” came onto the scene in Armenian and other languages in the 1970s, and by

Medz Yeghern and “Genocide” in Armenia and the Diaspora

85

Table 3.4  1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

MY

7

3

HT

5

3

19

7

12

11

22

24

the early 1980s it was already uppercased and turned into synonym to Medz Yeghern. The synonymous nature of yeghern and tseghasbanutiun was crucially highlighted in the period of the Karabagh movement (1988–91). Since the 1990s, editorials on April 24 have used Haygagan or Hayots Tseghasbanutiun (HT) more often than Medz Yeghern (MY) in the Diaspora.278 Table 3.4 refers to their use in the titles of April 24 issues of newspapers of the United States (Asbarez, Hairenik, Massis, Nor Or), Lebanon (Aztag, Ararad), and Iran (Alik).279 The politics of naming the genocide of the Armenians, nevertheless, has focused on disregarding the facts of language in the first two decades of the present century, including the synonymous nature of yeghern and “genocide” and Medz Yeghern and “Armenian Genocide.”

86

Part Two

Politics and Language

88

4

John Paul II: “From the Depths of the Metz Yeghérn”

The Armenian expression employed to recall the ‘Great Crime,’ Hayoc’ C’eġaspanowt’yown or Medz Yeghern, also gives a sensation of great pain and of sharing of this pain. Giorgio Pacifici (2015)1

John Paul II: “Genocide” and “Metz Yeghérn” In 1915, the Vatican gradually became aware that it confronted a large-scale and farreaching program and deployed intense diplomatic and humanitarian activity through direct (contacts with Sultan Mehmet V) or indirect (Austria and Germany) channels. Pope Benedict XV was the only sovereign or religious leader to protest officially with a letter addressed to the Sultan in September 1915. Initially, the Holy See sought to save the Catholics, but its effort came to embrace all Christians without distinction.2 The fiftieth anniversary was the subject of correspondence between the Roman Catholic and the Armenian Apostolic churches. In September 1964, Catholicos Vazken I informed Pope Paul VI of the forthcoming commemoration of “the first great crime of genocide in modern history.”3 A month later, the Armenian Catholic Patriarch, Ignatius Bedros XVI Batanian (1899–1979), also wrote to Paul VI about the “painful commemoration of the great crime [medz yeghern].” The Pope’s response referred to his attendance to the Armenian rite mass that the Patriarch would celebrate at the opening of the third session of the Second Vatican Council on November 18, 1964. In the beginning of the mass, Monsignor Pericle Felici, secretary of the Council, read a short message in Latin on behalf of the Armenian Catholic hierarchy, which noted that “in the year 1915, when the first global war exploded, a horrible crime [Lat. facinus, Arm. yeghern] was consummated against the Armenian people.”4 Several visits to the Vatican by three Catholicoi of All Armenians (Vazken I, Karekin I, and Karekin II) and two Catholicoi of the Great House of Cilicia (Karekin II and Aram I) have cemented the rapprochement between both churches since 1970. Vazken I wrote to Pope John Paul II in January 1985 about the seventieth anniversary of the “Armenian genocide, committed by order of the Ottoman Empire” and its

90

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

worldwide commemoration with “Divine Liturgies and funeral ceremonies to pray for the souls of the innocent victims of the Armenian genocide.”5 In his response, the Pope referred to the “evocation of the memory of the tragic death of many children of the Armenian people,” recalling Benedict XV’s assistance during “that painful catastrophe” and the shelter offered by Pius XI to Armenian orphans in the summer residence of Castelgandolfo.6 This diplomatic wording changed abruptly fifteen years later, when John Paul II and Karekin II, Catholicos of All Armenians, signed a joint declaration during the latter’s visit to the Vatican in November 2000: For both of us, the 20th century was marked by extreme violence. The Armenian genocide, which began the century, was a prologue to horrors that would follow. Two world wars, countless regional conflicts and deliberately organized campaigns of extermination took the lives of millions of faithful.7

After using “genocide” as head of the Vatican, John Paul II was free to use Medz Yeghern as head of the Catholic Church. In September 2001, he traveled to Armenia as part of the celebrations for the 1700th anniversary of the proclamation of Christianism as state religion. The official program announced by the Vatican news service included a prayer at the memorial of Tzitzernakaberd on September 26: It is the prayer for the dead that is celebrated for all the victims of the first holocaust of the twentieth century. In front of the eternal flame, the Holy Father and the Catholicos pray together for the salvation of the souls of all those fallen in the great massacre and for world peace.8

The Pope read the following English prayer at the memorial: O Judge of the living and the dead, have mercy on us! Listen, O Lord, to the lament that rises from this place, to the call of the dead from the depths of the Metz Yeghérn, the cry of innocent blood that pleads like the blood of Abel, like Rachel weeping for her children because they are no more. Listen, Lord, to the voice of the Bishop of Rome, echoing the plea of his Predecessor Pope Benedict XV, when in 1915 he raised his voice in defence of “the sorely afflicted Armenian people brought to the brink of annihilation.” (…) We are appalled by the terrible violence done to the Armenian people, and dismayed that the world still knows such inhumanity.9

The name and the design of the “memorial of the Medz Yeghern” were the source for the metaphor about the “depths of the Metz Yeghérn.” Visitors have also reflected on the “call of the dead” evoked by the memorial. The “lament that rises from this place” echoed the contemplation imposed by the stirring vision reinforced through the continuous playing of religious and choral music.

“From the Depths of the Metz Yeghérn”

91

In 1995, literary scholar and novelist Antonia Arslan had translated historian Claude Mutafian’s Un aperçu sur le génocide des Arméniens (A Survey on the Genocide of the Armenians), published in the same year. The title of the book—the first in Western languages that used the name—became Metz Yeghérn: Breve storia del genocidio degli armeni (Medz Yeghern: Brief History of the Genocide of the Armenians). According to Arslan, “We decided to put [Medz Yeghern] in Italian, because this is the name that all Armenians give to their tragedy, like shoah for the Jewish holocaust.”10 The meaning of Medz Yeghern, which Mutafian had not used, was explained in the back cover of the translation: “Metz Yeghérn, the ‘Great Evil’ [Grande Male]: that’s how the Armenians remember their holocaust, with a word meaning altogether physical and also moral evil that hurts, tortures, kills.”11 Evil reaches through the core of human condition and requires the harmful action of an agent, perpetrator, or executor as a sin of commission that contravenes the will of God. The modified title, with the Classical and Eastern Armenian transcription Metz Yeghérn, was suggested by Armenologist and theologian Archbishop Boghos Levon Zekiyan,12 who stated that he had adopted “Great Evil” for lack of a better choice,13 but nevertheless translated yeghern as “crime” (crimine) in 1999.14 The book was the obvious source for Metz Yeghérn in the prayer of John Paul II, which L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s semiofficial newspaper, translated as “great crime or great evil.”15 Reuters repeated the translation with the addition that “some dictionaries say that over the years yeghern has come to mean genocide,”16 while Associated Press noted that yeghern meant “genocide” and “crime.”17 This use of Medz Yeghern, however, was stripped of its religious context. The BBC, whose editorial policies do not allow the label of genocide for the annihilation, overlooked the joint declaration of 2000 and stated that the utilization of Medz Yeghern, “which means great calamity,” had staved off a potential diplomatic storm from Turkey.18 Its news analyst Felix Corley referred to Medz Yeghern (“big calamity”) as the Armenian term that “has the same resonance as ‘Shoah’ does for Jews.”19 The reporting of The New York Times underscored two instances: medz yeghern meant “genocide” in Armenia, but was translated literally as “the big calamity”; Karekin II had used it at an ecumenical service in Armenian and it had been translated into English as “genocide.”20 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) labeled it as “equivalent to the word genocide” but noted that the pontiff had “referred to the ‘Mets Yeghern,’ which means a big catastrophe.”21 French sources followed the same trend, but Agence France Press and Le Monde recalled the use of genocide in the joint declaration of 2000, the former using “great disaster”22 and the latter “the great catastrophe” as translation for Medz Yeghern.23 Le Nouvel Observateur’s lead wrote that the Pope had preferred “great disaster” to “genocide,” while the text, contradictorily, stated that yeghern meant “crime” and “genocide.”24 Haratch remarked that French newspapers had chosen to translate yeghern as “disaster,” “catastrophe,” and similar words, but the actual translation was “crime.”25 When the Pope went back to his role of head of state on September 27, The New York Times and the BBC failed to report his new joint declaration with Karekin II referring to “the extermination of a million and a half Armenian Christians, in what is generally referred to as the first genocide of the Twentieth Century, and the subsequent

92

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

annihilation of thousands under the former totalitarian regime” as “tragedies that still live in the memory of the present-day generation.”26 The Turkish government immediately complained to Apostolic Nuncio Luigi Conti that this declaration had “darkened” the history of Turkey.27 The Armenian-American reaction was mostly positive. The Armenian Weekly reported that Aram Hamparian, executive director of the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), hailed the “principled” stance of the Pope who had referred to the genocide as Medz Yeghern: “We are pleased that he chose, on this occasion, to once again condemn the Armenian Genocide as a crime against humanity.”28 The independent weekly The Armenian Reporter noted that Medz Yeghern was used by Armenians when referring to the genocide and literally meant “the great crime” or “great calamity.”29 In a letter to The Boston Globe, which had recorded the meanings “genocide” and “crime,” Robert Kaloosdian, chairman of the Armenian National Institute (ANI), stated that it was incorrect that the pontiff had avoided using genocide on purpose, since “Pope John Paul II’s deliberate intoning of the phrase ‘metz yeghern’ in Armenia ha[d] the same resonance for Armenians as the Hebrew term ‘shoah’ in reference to the Holocaust does for Jews.”30 This letter elicited the observation that Armenians interpreted Medz Yeghern “as validation of their claim that a 1915 massacre of Armenians was genocide, and not the battle deaths claimed by Turkey.”31 The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, however, zeroed in on Medz Yeghern, “which for Armenians is synonymous with genocide, but which translated directly means ‘big calamity,’” and noted that the Pope had reportedly consented to a Turkish request to avoid controversial statements.32 Its editorial recorded the use of “genocide” in the joint statement with a parenthetical disclaimer of sorts, but nevertheless remarked: The pope knows, as everybody else does, that “metz yeghern,” at best has an emotional connotation while genocide has a legal definition and is punishable by international law. Deep in his heart he must have meant “genocide” which he had used before. But by failing to verbalize his true sentiments at that moment, he left the interpretation to the news media to determine whether what happened to the Armenians was genocide or something else.33

In 2004, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace released the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Paragraph 506 of the chapter “Failure of Peace: War” referred to “attempts to eliminate entire national, ethnic, religious or linguistic groups” labeled as “crimes against God and humanity itself.” It specifically noted that “the twentieth century bears the tragic mark of different genocides: from that of the Armenians to that of the Ukrainians, from that of the Cambodians to those perpetrated in Africa and in the Balkans,” with “the Holocaust of the Jewish people, the Shoah,” standing out among them.34 The Armenian-American press failed to report this indirect recognition by the Vatican, unlike media in Italy, Turkey, and Armenia.35 Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, declared in November 2008 that John Paul II’s visit to Armenia, “[where he] spoke about genocide,” had expressed the official position of the Holy

“From the Depths of the Metz Yeghérn”

93

See: “We visited the memorial of victims of what is called genocide, even though the Turkish [government] does not recognize this term. Normally it is called in this way.”36 However, in the period 2008–2011, some commentators referred to the mention without the context of the joint statements of 2000 and 2001.37 Edmond Azadian, senior editor of The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, recalled the “diversionary tactics” following the election of Pope Francis in 2013: We may even question the evasive formulation of John Paul II during his visit to Armenia, where instead of calling a spade a spade he reverted to the Armenian term Medz Yeghern, which is not exactly genocide (tseghaspanoutiun). He was not a politician and one would question his ruse to avoid a moral issue frontally. In fact, he caused more damage to the issue of Genocide recognition than good.38

“Great Evil” and “Great Crime” in Italy John Paul II used Shoah in pronouncements on the Jewish destruction, the role of Pope Pius XII, and the relations of the Catholic Church with the Jews. His statement that “the Shoah remains an indelible stain on the history of the century” in a prefatory letter to the pathbreaking document produced in 1998 under his auspices, “We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah,” influenced the adoption of Shoah in Italy.39 The same happened with Medz Yeghern, which appeared in many articles and books after 2001, including the following note about cases of child theft in a commented version of the Italian penal code: “Historically, frequent cases of child theft by insertion inside the persecuting group were verified during the metz yeghern, namely, the genocide perpetrated by the Turks against the Armenians between 1915 and 1923.”40 Robert Attarian, spokesperson for the Council of the Armenian Community of Rome, declared in a lecture of April 28, 2006: “The ‘Metz Yeghern,’ which means ‘Great Evil’ in Armenian, is the name we Armenians use for the genocide.”41 John Paul II’s successor, Benedict XVI, received the visit of Armenian Catholic Patriarch Nerses Bedros XIX Tarmouni (1940–2015) in June 2006. The Pope referred to “the sufferings that [Armenians] have undergone on behalf of Christian faith in the years of the terrible persecutions that remain in history with the sadly meaningful name of Metz Yeghèrn, the Great Evil.”42 In April 2013, the Council of the Armenian Community called on the media to discard the expression “Young Turks” as label for faction of the Italian Democratic Party. It stated that “for us those words recall the horror of the Great Crime (the Medz Yeghern, in Armenian) and of the regime of terror that led to genocide.”43 Two months later, a delegation accompanied Patriarch Nerses Bedros XIX to an audience with Pope Francis. It included an Armenian lady from Argentina who said that “she was the daughter of a family of survivors of the Medz Yeghern, the Great Crime, as it is defined.”44 At the Armenian mass held at St. Peter Cathedral on April 12, 2015, with the attendance of President Serzh Sargsyan and Catholicoi Karekin II and Aram I, the Pope recalled the first of “three massive and unprecedented tragedies,” which was “widely considered the first genocide of the twentieth century, [that] struck your own

94

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

Armenian people, the first Christian nation, as well as Catholic and Orthodox Syrians, Assyrians, Chaldeans and Greeks.”45 The official text of his message emphasized that “it truly was ‘Metz Yeghern,’ the Great Evil, as it is known by Armenians,” and remarked that Christian faith had accompanied and sustained them “during the tragic experience one hundred years ago ‘in what is generally referred to as the first genocide of the twentieth century’ (John Paul II and Karekin II, Common Declaration, Etchmiadzin, September 27, 2001).”46 On the eve of Pope Francis’ visit to Armenia in June 2016, Rev. Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican Press Office, was asked about his more frequent use of Metz Yeghern rather than genocide. He answered, quoting an Armenian friend, “that the word Metz Yeghern is even stronger that what the word ‘genocide’ says,” and that he preferred to avoid being trapped into questions about the use of a word. Mons. Antranig Ayvazian, head of the Armenian Catholic eparchy of Qamishli (Syria), remarked: “As an Armenian, I lost my entire family, and only my father remained, who became Muslim. When we speak about the genocide, we utilize the term Metz Yeghern, which means a great bloody eradication of population.”47 On June 24, during the first day of the visit, the Pope made the impromptu addition of “genocide” to his prepared script when making reference to Serzh Sargsyan’s visit to the Vatican the year before: The occasion was the commemoration of the centenary of the Metz Yeghérn, the “Great Evil” that struck your people and caused the death of a vast multitude of persons. Sadly, that tragedy, that genocide, was the first of the deplorable series of catastrophes of the past century, made possible by twisted racial, ideological or religious aims that darkened the minds of the tormentors even to the point of planning the annihilation of entire peoples.48

An article in the Italian edition of National Geographic included the following paragraph in April 2016: “In Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, a stone cenotaph commemorates the Medz Yeghern, the ‘great crime’ [grande crimine] perpetrated against the Armenian people.”49 The translation modified the watered-down interpretation of the English original, which had referred to the indeterminate “killing” of a million Armenians: “A stone cenotaph in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, commemorates this tragic event: the Medz Yeghern, or ‘great catastrophe,’ of the Armenian people.”50 On the other hand, journalist Simone Zoppellaro, who translated Medz Yeghern as “Great Evil,” devoted an editorial to the landmark recognition by the German Parliament in June 2016, which admitted the complicity of Germany in 1915 with the political support of the governing and opposition parties. The article noted in its first paragraph that “the German Parliament, the Bundestag, recognized the Armenian Genocide, and it did so with an overwhelming majority, an abstention and only one vote against,” while the title stated the equivalence of Medz Yeghern and “Armenian Genocide”: “Germany Recognizes Metz Yeghern.”51

5

Turkey: “The Denial of the Great Catastrophe”

It is unreasonable to suppose that during the reportedly two years that the apology was being pondered, the authors did not notice that Medz Yeghern / Great Catastrophe / Great Calamity was becoming the “not g-word” of choice when a political agenda disallows the ineffable g-word. Unfortunately, rather than openly acknowledge this concession to political expediency, an imaginary history has been conjured in which this usage is the only one Armenians knew before they were tainted by political agendas and started insisting on “genocide.” Marc Mamigonian (2009)1

Medz Yeghern = Büyük Felâket On April 26, 1987, the Armenian community of Stuttgart inaugurated a memorial to the annihilation of 1915 at the Steinhaldenfeld public cemetery. The local municipality had approved a German inscription with a vague text, “In memory of the victims of the Armenian people.” The Armenian inscription was much more certain: “In memory of the victims of the Armenian Medz Yeghern.” The Turkish consul general, Rashit Gürün, disputed it on the ground that Medz Yeghern meant “genocide” and described massacres perpetrated by the Turks. He claimed that the Armenian community had been instructed to avoid references to Turks or the date. The cemetery administration asked the Armenians to bring the inscription in line to the German text, but in the end, after a certified translator attested that Medz Yeghern did not mean “genocide,” it remained unchanged. The chairman of the Baden Wurttemberg Armenian Church community even demanded a formal apology from Gürün, but without success.2 Two years later, journalist Ralph Giordano referred to this controversy and translated Medz Yeghern as “great crime” (große Verbrechen), while giving the meanings of yeghern as “misfortune, disaster, mishap, catastrophe” (Unglück, Verhangnis, Missgeschick, Katastrophe).3 Whether result of received knowledge, surveillance of Armenian activities worldwide, or just the action of a local informant, this example shows that the relation of Medz Yeghern with genocide was not unfamiliar to the Turkish authorities, despite its absence from sources outside the Armenian language. Until the early 2000s, publishers and authors on Armenian issues took special precautions to avoid criminal prosecution in Turkey for views deemed unacceptable,

96

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

such as the use of soykırım (“genocide”) without the adjective sözde (“so-called”). In 2001, for example, the Turkish translation of Boghos Levon Zekiyan’s study on the gestation and development of Armenian modernity dropped its second subtitle— “An Inquiry into the Impact of the Modern World on Armenian Society from the Renaissance through Enlightenment up to the Genocidal Catastrophe of 1915”—and replaced the six mentions of “Genocide” by felâket and büyük felâket (“great calamity, disaster, catastrophe”).4 Various passages were eliminated, like the three last paragraphs of chapter VI, including a sentence about the “immense Catastrophe of the Genocide which uprooted the entire population of the Ottoman Armenians from their thousand years old ancestral Homeland.”5 In the same year, Zekiyan addressed an open letter to the Diaspora and used “Genocide (‘Metz Yeghern’)” in his discussion of the situation of Armenians in Turkey.6 Naturally, the Turkish press touched upon the visit of Pope John Paul II to Armenia and his use of Medz Yeghern. Hürriyet Daily News reprinted the dispatch of Reuters, including the translation “great evil or great crime,” which would become a rare exception.7 Milliyet lamented the mention of genocide in the joint statement of John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin II, and wrote that the meaning of Medz Yeghern was ambiguous, since its translation was “Immense Tragedy, which for many Armenians means genocide.”8 In late 2004, Archbishop Mesrob Mutafyan (1956–2019), Armenian Patriarch of Turkey, referred to the ninetieth anniversary of 1915 in a New Year message released in Armenian, Turkish, and English. Under the subtitle “The Memory of the Medz Yeghern” (translated into Turkish as Büyük Felaket), the Armenian message stated: Our dear People, one of the painful events referred to above is the Medz Yeghern [Turkish Medz Yeğern (Büyük Felaket)]. In the circumstances of World War I, the government of the Union and Progress Party of the Ottoman Empire, preoccupied by hypotheses of state security, exiled the compatriots of Armenian origin of the Empire to the Syrian desert. Since no necessary security measures were taken, hundreds of thousands of compatriots of Armenian origin died in places near their hometowns, on the journey of exile to the desert, directly in harsh desert conditions, or were victims of inhuman attacks by opportunists. Of the Ottoman Empire subjects of Armenian origin, only a relatively small proportion was saved from annihilation. Whatever the given justification, this unacceptable and unconscionable Medz Yeghern [Turkish büyük felaket] has passed into history as a human drama that took place at the beginning of the twentieth century. Wherever on the globe, today every Armenian still relives the pain caused by the Medz Yeghern [Turkish Büyük Felaket] and carries its imprint in his or her identity.9

The English version had the following mentions of Medz Yeghern under the subtitle “The Great Disaster”: One of the painful historical events (…) has become known in Armenian literature as Medz Yeghern (The Great Disaster).

“The Denial of the Great Catastrophe”

97

(…) Of the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire, only a small proportion was saved from annihilation. Whatever the given justification, this great unconscionable disaster has passed into history as a human drama that took place at the beginning of the 20th century. Wherever on the globe, every Armenian still feels the imprint of this Great Disaster in his or her identity and still lives with the trauma, in some way or another.10

The message fell straight in line with the official version of state security, exile, lack of security, and deaths on the road or by random attacks, except for the words “annihilation,” ascribed to security failures, and Medz Yeghern, deprived of any agency. Harut Sassounian, commentator and publisher of California Courier (Pasadena, independent), argued that Medz Yeghern (translated as “Great Disaster,” “Great Calamity,” or “Great Cataclysm”) described the genocide before the word, highlighting the Patriarch’s use of “annihilation” as “another way of saying genocide.”11 Former ambassador and deputy chairman of the CHP Önur Başaran Oymen criticized George W. Bush’s use of “Great Calamity” in April 2005, claiming that it corresponded to “the word used by the Armenians with the meaning of genocide. They also call ‘great calamity’ (büyük felaket) the events of 1915.”12 Another former ambassador, Ömer Engin Lütem, president of the Institute of Armenian Research, explained that Bush had used “Great Calamity” for Medz Yeghern, “an expression used by the Armenians to describe the ‘genocide.’” In 2006, he pointed out to Canadian Primer Minister Stephen Harper’s statement on “the ‘anniversary’ of the Medz Yeghern which means the Big Disaster in the Armenian language and is the term Armenians employ to mean genocide.”13 Zekiyan presented a paper in Turkish at an international conference held at Istanbul University in March 2006. The phrase “Thoughts over the Great Armenian Catastrophe, Medz Yeghern” in the subtitle, showed “Great Armenian Catastrophe” to be a qualifier of Medz Yeghern rather than a translation with poetic license.14 Medz Yeghern was not translated, except for a bibliographical reference where yeghern was rendered as felâket, which the revised English translation omitted.15

The Apology Campaign A few weeks before, sociologist Baskın Oran introduced Medz Yeghern with the claim that genocide was “the most important element that feeds denial in Turkey,” overlooking Raphael Lemkin’s role in bringing up its political-historical meaning and the fact that denial existed before the concept had been created: Armenians have characterized for many years these massacres as “Metz Yeğern” (Büyük Felaket), but when the term “genocide” became current, they immediately brought it up with a political-historical meaning, because it offered the opportunity to compare the Turks to the Nazis and the Armenians to the Jews.16

98

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

He repeated that the Diaspora “put the term forward for propagandistic reasons in order to pretend that this event is the same as the genocide [jenosid] of the Jews” during a failed parliamentary bid in 2007.17 In the same year, Hrant Dink (1954–2007), the outspoken founding editor of the Armenian weekly Agos, was murdered after being targeted by a media campaign and continuous judicial harassment. The assassination sent shockwaves throughout the Turkish society, as well as Armenians worldwide. “Hrant, kiss the blessed foreheads of each and every victim of the Medz Yeghern of 1915,” Khatchig Mouradian, editor of The Armenian Weekly, wrote. The Turkish translation of his essay included the meaning of Medz Yeghern as Büyük Felâket.18 The online “I apologize” (özür diliyorum) campaign launched by Oran and political scientist Cengiz Aktar, sociologist Ahmet İnsel, and journalist Ali Bayramoğlu on December 15, 2008, pushed Medz Yeghern and Büyük Felâket to the mainstream of public discourse. The campaign was aimed at addressing the Turkish people, since the politicization of genocide had closed other channels of communication.19 The English version of the statement said: My conscience does not accept the insensitivity showed to and the denial of the Great Catastrophe [Turkish Büyük Felâket; Armenian Medz Yeghern] that the Ottoman Armenians were subjected to in 1915. I reject this injustice and for my share, I empathise with the feelings and pain of my Armenian brothers. I apologise to them.20

The adoption of Medz Yeghern, assumed to have no strings attached, was aimed at showing respect toward Armenian culture and language, İnsel declared.21 “From 1915 until 1948,” Aktar explained in a televised debate on December 26, 2008, “the Armenian people who were subjected to this [calamity] were of course going to give a name to it. We used the name that they themselves used [for a long time].” One of his antagonists, former ambassador Șükrü Elekdağ, now a Parliament member (CHP), argued that Medz Yeghern and “genocide” were synonyms: Firstly, they are referring to Great Catastrophe; this is Metz Yeghern in Armenian. This word is a synonym for genocide. The difference between the two words is as little as the difference between mass slaughter and mass killing (kitle katliamı and kitlesel öldürme). There is no difference between them. When Metz Yeghern is used, Armenians understand genocide. When some official person goes to Armenia, visits the Monument and wishes to condemn genocide as well as not to offend the Turkish Republic they use Metz Yeghern; and Armenians accept this. This statement is tantamount to supporting the genocide campaign of the Armenian Diaspora. It would have been alright to use terms like great tragedy or pain. The concept of Great Catastrophe is an established term; it has a loaded meaning which is very difficult to change. Therefore, it naturally causes reactions.22

The statement, which gathered 32,454 signatures in a population of 70 million, lacked the elements of an apology, such as its exact object and the subject responsible for the action, and exhibited a calculated vagueness.23 The translation “Great Catastrophe,” as

“The Denial of the Great Catastrophe”

99

well as its variant “Great Man-Made Catastrophe” floated after the campaign,24 diluted responsibility through the isolation of the effect from an act of God outside human control. Laying the grounds for a post-genocide state required to create a commonality of catastrophe and humanize both language and the response to an “Anatolian fantasy” based on affinities of food, music, and customs.25 Aktar claimed that “Great Catastrophe” was more evocative than genocide, which was just the description of the act, and that there was a gap between the “closeness” of the Armenian word “massacre” (chart) and the Turkish words “disaster” (felâket), “catastrophe” (facia), and “slaughter” (kıyım), and the “cold, eerie and ‘distant’ meanings” in “genocide,”26 despite the mix of cause (massacre, slaughter) and consequence (disaster, catastrophe). He would insist in 2014 that “Great Catastrophe” aimed to express the common catastrophe endured after the genocide.27 Inhumanity was subsumed within humanistic concern, as a purported reflection of the reality lived by the survivors, with the conflation of cause and consequence suppressing agency. This discourse strived to void legal and political contents, silencing the word naming the cause. A report released by the International Crisis Group (ICG) in April 2009 attempted to illustrate the convergence among Turkish intellectuals “who now describe the Armenian Genocide as ‘Büyük Felaket,’ supposedly the translation of the Armenian Medz Yeghern (Mets Eghern), which is ‘frequently used by the Armenians to describe the 1915 events.’”28 This convergence was soon exploited with the claim that Armenians and Turks should adopt “Buyuk Felaket / Mets Yeghern or Great Catastrophe” instead of genocide,29 which reportedly impedes ordinary people to understand and ordinary Turks to recognize “the human story of the Medz Eghern.”30 Former Minister of Education Hasan Celal Güzel implied that Armenians had authored the statement: “[T]his traitorous text (…) hands everything over to those who prepared the text. Even the title of this text is perceived by both the diaspora and Armenia itself as a reference to ‘genocide.’”31 “The Primer Minister [Recep Tayyip Erdoğan] should be praying for our campaign,” claimed Oran. “Parliaments around the world were passing resolutions automatically. Those are going to stop now. The diaspora has softened. The international media has started to no longer use the word genocide.”32 However, two days before, Erdoğan had declared that he personally did not accept, support, or participate in the campaign, which he called “irrational” and “wrong”: “I have not committed a crime. Why should I apologize?”33 The Armenian-American view was that the statement simply avoided “the term Armenian Genocide by referring to it as the ‘Great Catastrophe,’”34 while the use of “a translation of our own, older, usage of ‘medz yeghern’” indicated that it was “more likely intentionally evasive for political and personal safety reasons, or possibly intentionally duplicitous.”35 Reportedly, some critics did not know the language of their ancestors and “declared that they had heard Medz Yeghern for the first time in their lives.”36 Medz Yeghern and its misrepresentation became widespread in the Turkish press. Commentator Yavuz Baydar contended that it was a popular term used as equivalent of Büyük Felâket in tragedies like the Greek deportations, Gallipoli, the Russian Front, the Balkans, and the Armenians. Others, like Doğu Ergil and Markar Esayan (1969–2020), repeated the argument that it was a humanitarian term produced by the victim beyond

100

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

Table 5.1  Dictionary

crime/evil

calamity/catastrophe/disaster

Yaghubian

Turk. cinayet = Arm. vojir, yeghern

Turk. felâket = Arm. argadz, tebk, aghed

Kerovpyan

Arm. yeghern [no meaning in Turkish]

Arm. aghed = Turk. felâket, afet

Bohjalian

Turk. cinayet = Arm. vojir, martasbanutiun; Turk. cinayet mahkemesi = yeghernatad adean

Turk. felâket = Arm. aghed, tzhpakhdutiun

Bohjalian

Arm. yeghern = Turk. cinayet; Arm. yeghernakordz = Turk. cinayet isleyen

Arm. aghed = Turk. felâket, afet, bela

Kondakjian

Turk. cinayet = Arm. hantsakordzutiun, vojrakordzutiun

Turk. felâket = Arm. aghed; tzhpakhdutiun, anpakhdutiun

Ghazaryan

Turk. cinayet = Arm. hantsank, hantsakordzutiun, vojrakordzutiun, vojir

Turk. felâket = Arm. aghed, baduhas, portzank, tzhpakhdutiun, tzhpakhd tebk, badahar.

Karaça

Arm. yeghern = Turk. katliam, kötülük

the debate around genocide, the political term representing the perpetrator.37 It also appeared in publications by Turkish and Turkish Armenian scholars who omitted “genocide” for various reasons.38 Historian and editor Rober Koptaş, however, gave a double meaning: Büyük Felâket (Great Catastrophe) and Büyük Suç (Great Crime).39 In fact, despite the claim that “the Armenian dictionary meaning of the term is ‘Büyük Felaket,’”40 Armenian-Turkish bilingual dictionaries and wordlists published after 1915 have consistently featured yeghern as “crime” (cinayet) or “massacre” (katliam) (Table 5.1).41

“Just Memory” and “Shared Pain” The group Irkçılığa ve Milliyetçiliğe DurDe (Say Stop to Racism and Nationalism) called to commemorate the 95th anniversary at Taksim Square of Istanbul on April 24, 2010, following the lack of agency that defined the apology statement: “There EXISTS the overwhelming ‘Great Pain’ that was laid upon the qualms of our conscience by the ‘Great Catastrophe’ [Büyük Felaket].” The French translation included Medz Yeghern.42 The message of 2011 was more explicit: “This is the date when the extermination of the Armenians began.” After the text of 2012 referred to tragedy, the statement of 2013 openly spoke of “remembering the victims of genocide,” and continued: “With the campaign of extermination that began on April 24, 1915, the Armenian people were eradicated en masse.”43 Ertuğrul Kürkçü, representative of the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, offered condolences “to the descendants of victims of the Great Catastrophe [Büyük Felaket], this heinous

“The Denial of the Great Catastrophe”

101

crime against humanity that the Armenian people calls with the name of Metz Yeğern” during the session of April 25, 2013. The news agency Bianet, intriguingly, used “Great Crime” in its English translation: “I would like to express our condolences in the name of our group to the grandsons and granddaughters of the victims of the Metz Yegern, the Great Crime, as the Armenian people name this heinous crime against humanity.”44 Months after the apology campaign, Parliament member Suat Kınıklıoğlu (AKP) declared that, despite his professed inability to fully comprehend its Armenian context, Medz Yeghern was “commonly known” to mean “Great Calamity/Great Disaster,” and could be “positive language” for a joint commemoration of the “great trauma” of the Turks, “who saw a multitude of peoples rebel against the state and side with the invading enemies of the time,” and the “Great Calamity” of the Armenians, “who had to be relocated during harsh war conditions and subsequently suffered immensely.”45 Ahmet Davutoğlu, chief adviser to Erdoğan before becoming Foreign Minister in 2009, inspired a discourse derived from a decades-long transactional argument, claiming that Armenians should both show respect for Turkish memory and expect respect for their memory. At the signature of the Armenia-Turkey protocols in October 2009, in a speech thwarted by the opposition of his Armenian colleague Eduard Nalbandian, Davutoğlu reportedly intended to state his confidence that the sub-commission of historians would shed light on the truth as the only way “for these two great and dignified nations to leave behind the conflict of their collective memories and reach together a just memory.”46 This proposal of “just memory” (adil hafıza) recreated the false equivalence of 1915 as “the year of deportation” and “the year of Canakkale and of Sarikamis,”47 as it advocated for new language: “We do not deny your pain, we understand; let’s do together whatever needs to be done. But this is not a unilateral declaration of a crime.”48 His call for mutual respect concealed a demand that Armenians change their collective memory.49 Alparslan Türkeş, a long-time MHP leader, had noted in the late 1990s that the Armenian alleged collusion with Russia did not justify the pain caused to “the other tens of thousands of Armenians.” He suggested opening the Turkish-Armenian border with a joint statement and a monument declaring: “We are sorry for the pain we have caused.”50 A decade later, there was a proposal to bring a “human dimension” with a declaration that acknowledged the commission of acts and deplored common suffering and loss of life.51 Erdoğan launched the “just memory” formula in his statement of April 23, 2014, which adopted the idea of condolences with no acknowledgment of any kind. It was interpreted as a pre-emptive strike to a presumed “very strong” statement by US President Barack Obama,52 as well as a way to counter international build-up toward the 1915 centennial.53 The claim that “the incidents of the First World War are our shared pain (ortak aci)” was matched with a call for evaluation “through a perspective of just memory” and “compassion and mutually humane attitudes” between Turks and Armenians who had “experienced events which had inhumane consequences—such as relocation—during the First World War.” The statement wished “that the Armenians who lost their lives in the context of the early twentieth century rest in peace” and conveyed condolences to their descendants, paying tribute to “all Ottoman citizens who lost their lives in the same period and under similar conditions.”54 Erdoğan proclaimed the statement to

102

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

be a “courageous” step, for which he expected a similar response from Armenia and the Diaspora.55 Predictably, President Serzh Sargsyan labeled the statement as “utter denial,” while Aram Hamparian declared that “Ankara is repackaging its genocide denials.”56 Davutoğlu noted that the answer would allow building a common future, as he equated once again the “shared pain” of the “unacceptable and inhuman” consequences of Armenian “exceedingly great tragedies” with the “tremendous tragedy” and the “colossal sufferings” of Ottoman Muslims.57 Commentator Mustafa Akyol saw the statement as an effort to reach out to the Armenians who “commemorate the Meds Yeghern, or the ‘Great Calamity’ that Turks inflicted [sic] on them in 1915,” while Elekdağ remarked that this “rational, humane, peaceful and reconciliatory approach” was neither an apology nor a step toward recognition.58 Mehmet Yilmaz applauded Erdoğan’s political courage, while questioning his sincerity: “This is because we know that he does not regard these topics as part of a comprehensive political programme. (…) This is what doing politics means to him; he says something if it’s needed today, and he says something else tomorrow. Consistency is not a priority.”59 As historian Ara Sanjian observed, just 5 percent of the message much touted by international media was a semblance of empathy, namely, the sentences of condolences and consequences of war events. The rest was business as usual and largely ignored: old attitudes and positions, common suffering, condemnation of “hierarchies of pain” and comparisons of suffering, warning against “accusatory, offensive and even provocative assertions and allegations,” and call for a historical commission, which had been repeated since 2005.60 No attention was paid either to the standard narrative deployed by the official Anadolu Agency about the uprising and relocation of “Armenians living in eastern Anatolia” with a number of victims “amid civil strife.”61 The account was even expanded in 2016: the Ottoman government was forced to relocate Armenians “in or near the war zone, as well as those collaborating with the Russian army,” due to support by volunteers and some army officials, and massacre of civilians by armed groups. Wartime conditions, epidemics, internal conflicts, and vengeful local groups were unintended “tragedies” that caused the death of a number of Armenians despite carefully planned transfer and the authors of “crimes against the relocated Armenians” had been punished.62 The agency has maintained an abridged formula since 2018, where Turkey “describes the events of 1915 as a tragedy for both sides,” but has used “Great Tragedy” from 2010 to 2013 and “Great calamity” from 2014 to 2018 as translations for Medz Yeghern before their surprising replacement by “Great Crime” in 2019–20. The dispatch of April 2019 about Turkey’s reaction to Donald Trump’s statement even bore the subtitle “In His Statement, US President Again Describes 1915 Events as ‘Meds Yeghern,’ or ‘Great Crime.’”63 In April 2015, during his tenure as prime minister, Davutoğlu repeated his plea for an approach based “on just memory and a common peaceful future,” while Erdoğan waxed lyrical a year later about Turkey as “the most meaningful place to share grief endured by the Ottoman Armenians” and Anatolia as the location “where humanitarian duties are never neglected and happiness and grief are sincerely shared.”64

“The Denial of the Great Catastrophe”

103

Davutoğlu resigned a month before the failed coup d’état of June 2016. Erdoğan left aside “just memory” in 2017 to claim that Turks and Armenians, “who have shared the grief and happiness of centuries,” pursued a common goal to heal wounds and strengthen ties. In 2018, he said that Turkey had a responsibility “to share the historical pain of our Armenian citizens” and called to prevent the actions of those “who are trying to ignite hatred and hostility by distorting [our] shared past.” The condolences to the descendants of “the Ottoman Armenians who lost their lives under the harsh conditions of the First World War” in 2017 became “condolences to the Turkish nation over loss of lives of millions of Ottoman citizens due to wars, migrations, conflicts and diseases during the same period” in 2018, although they returned to the prior vocabulary afterwards.65 In 2014, Aktar had anticipated that the condolences would be the final frontier, pointing out to Erdoğan’s design to become president in the same year and his ideas about the genocide,66 while French President François Hollande regarded the condolences as “a word that must be heard, but cannot suffice yet,”67 arguing the following year that there were “important words that have already been pronounced, but others are still expected so the share of grief becomes a share of fate.”68 In April 2019, Erdoğan signaled that no other word had to be expected in the foreseeable future, as he declared that “the relocation of the Armenian gangs and their supporters, who massacred the Muslim people,” was “the most reasonable action that could be taken in such a period.”69 Since 2009, the Turkish government had been unhappy with the use of Medz Yeghern, which basically meant “the same thing [as genocide],”70 and Davutoğlu had rejected Obama’s use of “great calamity” (Medz Yeghern) twice.71 The headline of Hürriyet Daily News, “Turkey Rejects Trump’s Characterization of 1915 as ‘Meds Yeghern,’” reported the Foreign Ministry’s rejection of Trump’s statement of April 2019 with the clarification that Medz Yeghern meant “great calamity.”72 Ten years after the apology campaign of 2009, Erdoğan recorded literally the “denial of the Great Catastrophe” that had been the leitmotiv of the apology campaign with a throwback to the most elementary enunciation of the narrative of denial: “The Armenian relocation was neither genocide nor great disaster [Ermeni tehciri ne bir soykırımdır ne de büyük felakettir], but a painful event [acı bir olaydan] took place under troublesome conditions a century ago.”73 The condolences presumed to be an important component in the evolution of the Turkish discourse had become the ultimate cliché in the failed experiment of “just memory” and “shared pain” or denialism with a human face.

104

6

United States: “Genocide of the Armenians” and “Meds Yeghern”

When they ran out of substitute English words for genocide, the President’s hardworking wordsmiths turned to an Armenian term, “Meds Yeghern,” without providing its English translation (Great Calamity), so no one other than Armenians would understand what Pres. Obama is speaking about! Harut Sassounian (2012)1 [Serzh Sargsyan] was referring to Pres. Obama’s use of the term ‘Meds Yeghern’ (Great Atrocity) rather than ‘Armenian Genocide’ in his annual April 24 commemorative statements. Harut Sassounian (2013)2 [Pope Francis] homilies repeatedly used the Armenian term “Meds Yeghern” (Great Crime) which was wrongly translated by the Vatican as “Great Evil.” Harut Sassounian (2016)3

Ronald Reagan and “Genocide of the Armenians” On April 19, 1969, 10,000 people witnessed the first commemoration of the Armenian annihilation at the memorial inaugurated in Montebello, California, the year before. Governor Ronald Reagan welcomed Khoren I, Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia, who was visiting the Armenian-American communities. In his fifteen-minute speech, according to excerpts quoted in the press, he said: “I bow my head reverently in the memory of the Martyrs who died in the dread genocide as martyrs of freedom.”4 A version published after Reagan’s death, whose official source has not been verified, says: “Today, I humbly bow in memory of the Armenian martyrs, who died in the name of freedom at the hands of Turkish perpetrators of Genocide.”5 President Ronald Reagan issued Proclamation 4838 about Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust on April 22, 1981, during the first hundred days of his first term. It included the first mention of genocide in relation to Armenians by an American sitting president: “Like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians which followed it—and like too many other such

106

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

persecutions of too many other peoples—the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten.”6 The mention amounted to an indirect recognition,7 similar to the reference in the document submitted to the International Court of Justice in 1951. The Armenian and Cambodian cases, along unnamed ones, represented the first—the 1906 genocide of the Hereros and Namas in the German colony of Southwestern Africa (now Namibia) was barely recalled at the time—and last genocides of the century at the time as historical backdrop for the Shoah. The proclamation was authored by Reagan’s chief speechwriter Kenneth L. Khachigian, who has recalled: While most proclamations routinely pass through the White House system, I felt a responsibility to ensure that the National Security apparatus was aware that this might be controversial. Thus, after completing the draft, I walked it over to the West Wing and first met with deputy national security advisor, Admiral James “Bud” Nance. I showed Admiral Nance the language and alerted him to the fact that it might be controversial. His exact words were: “Well, it’s the truth, isn’t it?” I said yes, and that, in fact, my father was a survivor—having lost his mother, sister and brother in that period. But out of even more precaution, I wanted Richard Allen, President Reagan’s national security advisor, to be aware of the wording. He looked at it and said there was nothing in there he would disagree with and signed off on it. Therefore, both supported the inclusion of this wording because the Armenian Genocide was an indisputable historical act.8

The proclamation came a month after the State Department’s report on human rights praised Turkey, in the aftermath of the bloody coup d’état of September 1980, “as an exemplary country, an epitome of Democracy, a bastion of Western Civilization in the East.”9 Khachigian has made a significant remark: The State Department never saw the draft and might have raised its natural objections. But Reagan’s national security advisors also had great sensitivity to international considerations, so I believe their thinking was that speaking the “truth” could not possibly disrupt the close NATO or other diplomatic ties with Turkey. And while there was some “outrage” in the Turkish press, the world did not come to an end.10

The Armenian reception was rather subdued; the English-language weeklies of the East Coast did not use “recognition” in their titles. The Armenian Reporter published the proclamation with a factual introduction and the quote of a declaration by the cochairmen of the Armenian Assembly of America that the “presidential recognition” would help include the genocide at the Holocaust Memorial Council and warn Turkey about the failure of denial.11 The other newspapers limited themselves to one-column news flashes. The Armenian Mirror-Spectator cited the sentence and the Assembly declaration,12 while The Armenian Weekly laconically acknowledged “a very important reference, since it constitutes a formal recognition of the Armenian Genocide,”13 and reprinted an editorial of Asbarez, which stated that Armenians possessed similar documents “which could fill several rooms wall to wall” and warned that “we cannot

United States: “Genocide of the Armenians” and “Meds Yeghern”

107

become complaisant in our efforts as the result of a Presidential proclamation which refers to ‘the Genocide of the Armenians.’”14 Hairenik reported the proclamation, inaccurately, as a “declaration for the victims of Genocide and Holocaust.” It quoted the Armenian paragraph and observed that it was the first time that an American president affirmed officially that there was a genocide of the Armenians before the Holocaust: “President Reagan’s common sense and bravery are commendable for having mentioned the genocide committed against the Armenians with an accurate presentation of the historical events.”15 The statement preceded the annual Day of Remembrance ceremony and the resolution of the Holocaust Museum Council on April 30, 1981, to include the Armenian genocide in its program.16 In the early 1980s, Armenian political violence aimed at Turkish state targets was in its heyday and reached the United States. The bombing of the Turkish consulate of Los Angeles in November 1981 preceded the assassinations of Kemal Arikan, consul general in Los Angeles (January 1982), and Orhan Gündüz, honorary consul in Boston (May 1982), almost ten years after survivor Gourgen Yanikian (1895–1984) killed two Turkish consuls (January 1973) during Reagan’s second term as governor of California. This factor may help explain the change of heart a year after the mention and the continuous attachment of genocide recognition to “Armenian terrorists.” Any practical purpose of the mention was overruled by the disclaimer added to an article published in the bulletin of the State Department (August 1982): Because the historical record of the 1915 events in Asia Minor is ambiguous, the Department of State does not endorse allegations that the Turkish Government committed a genocide against the Armenian people. Armenian terrorists use this allegation to justify in part their continuing attacks on Turkish diplomats and installations.17

Armenian continuous protests forced a vaguely phrased declaration that the publication was not intended to state or modify American policy,18 but the situation did not change substantially. In a briefing for editors of ethnic publications in October 1983, when asked about his administration’s position on the genocide of the Armenians, Reagan answered: I can’t help to believe that there is virtually no one alive who was living in that era of terrible troubles. It seems to me we ought be able to sit down now with an entirely new group of people, who know of that only from reading of it, to sit down and work on our differences and bring peace on that segment of humanity.19

The State Department participated actively in the shelving of the resolution approved by the House of Representatives in 1984.20 The ANCA noted that Reagan had failed to turn his statements into policy, refusing to assert his power over his administration.21 Harut Sassounian argued that the administration was engaged in blocking “all progress towards a solution of the Armenian issues”:

108

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

(…) Although Reagan himself has not denied the Genocide, he has allowed various White House aides and senior State and Defense Department officials to do the “dirty work” for him. Therefore, the President must share in the blame, as long as he knows about these distortions and remains silent. (…) How can we, in good conscience, vote for four more years of this administration without being sadistic [sic]? If you don’t care about your heritage, or if you don’t mind the constant insults hurled at the memory of your martyrs, then vote for those in power.22

After Reagan’s reelection, Sassounian forecasted that the second term would be “just as bad, if not worse than the last four years” for Armenians: In the short term, those Armenians who supported Reagan have a heavy responsibility on their shoulders. They now have to produce what they have promised. They have to use their access to the Republican leadership and the White House to obtain a more favorable stand on Armenian issues. If they can do that, we will be the first to applaud them and say that supporting Reagan was justified after all. If not, they will look quite silly for supporting the re-election of someone who has denied everything we stand for as Armenians.23

The administration engaged in the defeat of resolution projects in 1985 and 1987. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger testified to Congress in February 1985 that genocide resolutions would “encourage Armenian terrorists” and embarrass the United States, straining relations with Turkey.24 In March, Reagan reaffirmed his administration’s opposition and declared his sympathy “with all those who suffered during the tragic events of 1915” in an interview with Hürriyet.25 The reactions did not refer to his mention of 1981, which had been regarded as having “no special meaning” and to be “interpreted merely as a ceremonious gesture.”26 Asbarez stated that “the President has failed to exert his decisiveness and leadership” and denounced “continued American pandering to Turkey for political expediency reasons,” while The Armenian Mirror-Spectator called Reagan out for his misconception that dishonored the dead “by equating international terrorism with the Armenian Genocide” and denied ArmenianAmericans “their national and constitutional right to obtain Congressional recognition of their past suffering.”27 Sassounian declared that the opposition of “President Ronald Reagan, that senile actor,” did not surprise him, and asked how self-respecting Armenians could vote “for someone whose underlings, and he himself, lied, denied, distorted and dishonored the memory of our martyrs.” He concluded: We are just as confident that President Reagan’s name will go down in infamy in the annals of history as a man who prostituted the moral principles of this great nation. (…) We look forward to the time when we won’t have Reagan to kick around anymore.28

After a National Security Council (NSC) meeting on August 6, 1987, Reagan wrote in his diary that “our Turkish friends” were nervous, because Congress was considering

United States: “Genocide of the Armenians” and “Meds Yeghern”

109

once again “a bill demanding the Turks take blame for the Ottoman Empires [sic] persecution of Armenians when it was in power.”29 Secretary of State George Shultz urged the House of Representatives to vote against the bill, raising the Turkish tropes of “intercommunal strife” and “massive suffering among the mixed populations of the area” as justification. In a letter to survivor and benefactor Alex Manoogian (1901–96), Shultz contradicted his own claim that “our opposition to the Resolution (…) is not based on political expediency” with the statement that “passage of H.J.R. 132 would very seriously damage US-Turkish relations.” In the next sentence, he noted that, “were that not the case, I am sure that the president would not be personally opposed to the Resolution.”30 Following a NSC meeting on June 28, 1988, Reagan recorded his opposition to what he called “room dedicated to 1915 massacre of some Armenians by the Turks” at the Holocaust Museum that “someone has approved.”31 The lobbying of the President’s Commission on the Holocaust and the Holocaust Museum Committee by Turkish and Israeli officials, as well as American and Turkish Jewish organizations finished off the issue. At the opening of the museum in 1993, the “Armenian room” had been replaced by the display of photographs of Franz Werfel and Armin T. Wegner along Adolf Hitler’s phrase about the Armenian annihilation from his Obersalzberg speech of August 1939.32

George H. W. Bush and “Crime against Humanity” In October 1988, the Armenian Assembly released the answers to a questionnaire posed to presidential candidates George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis. In response to the first question about his support for a prospective new resolution, Bush wrote: The United States must acknowledge the attempted genocide of the Armenian people in the last years of the Ottoman Empire, based on the testimony of survivors, scholars, and indeed our own representatives at the time, if we are to insure that such horrors are not repeated. The American people, our government, and certainly the Bush Administration will never allow political pressures to prevent our denunciation of crimes against humanity.33

However, President Bush changed his tune with a letter in November 1989 to Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, where he stated his opposition to a genocide resolution.34 After painstaking negotiations by Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole, in February 1990 Bush agreed on using “genocide” in return for changing the joint resolution into a concurrent one, which avoided the need for a presidential signature. The modification divested the resolution of its legal standing, but still affirmed the fact. However, the compromise was rejected by Senator Robert Byrd, leader of the opponents, and the resolution was defeated after a bitter discussion.35 In his only official statement on April 20, 1990, Bush recalled “the terrible massacres suffered in 1915–1923 at the hands of the rulers of the Ottoman Empire”

110

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

and the American response “to the victims of the crime against humanity” with an implicit nod to his answer of October 1988: “I call upon all peoples to work to prevent future acts of inhumanity against mankind, and my comments of June [sic] 1988 represent the depth of my feeling for the Armenian people and the sufferings they have endured.”36 The coupling of “crime against humanity” with “acts of inhumanity against mankind”—rephrasing the House of Representatives’ resolutions of 1975 and 1984— and the mention of the agent would have situated Bush almost on a par with Reagan’s “genocide.” Seto Boyadjian, executive director of the ANCA, called the statement “a deeply-felt personal expression of sympathy addressed to the Armenian community (…) indirectly reiterating his early recognition of the Armenian Genocide.” The ANCA thanked Bush for the “thoughtful statement” and stated the “profound regret in the hearts of Armenian-Americans today for the fact that the terrible events of 1915 were not characterized in your testament [sic] by their true name, the Armenian Genocide.”37 Hirair Hovnanian, chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Armenian Assembly, regarded it as a “clear and welcome rejection of the Republic of Turkey’s global campaign of denial.”38 Sassounian characterized “crime against humanity” as “a term used at that time for such offenses prior to the creation of the word Genocide by Rafael Lemkin,”39 although Armenians and non-Armenians have freely used the word as synonym of “genocide” now and then.

George W. Bush and “Great Calamity” In 1994, President Bill Clinton introduced the practice of an annual declaration and issued six statements during his two terms. He used “massacre” in 1994–5 and then combined it with “deportation” (1996–2000), avoiding the use of genocide, which was annually criticized by Armenian-American press and organizations. In February 2000, during his primary campaign, Texas Governor George W. Bush wrote in response to the inquiry of two Armenian-American friends: The twentieth century was marred by wars of unimaginable brutality, mass murder and genocide. History records that the Armenians were the first people of the last century to have endured these cruelties. The Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension and commands all decent people to remember and acknowledge the facts and lessons of an awful crime in a century of bloody crimes against humanity. If elected President, I would ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people.40

Once elected, however, Bush followed Clinton’s example, although the terminology of his statements was markedly different, with the exception of “massacre” in 2002: “forced exile and annihilation” (2001), “mass killings and forced exile” (2003, 2006, 2007, and 2008), “annihilation” (2004), “forced exile and mass killings” (2005). In 2002, Jason Sohigian, editor of The Armenian Weekly, wrote in a letter to The New York

United States: “Genocide of the Armenians” and “Meds Yeghern”

111

Times: “We are waiting for [George W. Bush] to display the moral leadership shown by Reagan in 1981.”41 In 2003, Bush introduced “great calamity” as an Armenian name: “Many Armenians refer to these appalling events as the ‘great calamity,’ reflecting a deep sorrow that continues to haunt them and their neighbors, the Turkish people.”42 The Armenian translation of the message, broadcasted by RFE/RL, confirmed that the original source was Medz Yeghern: “Many Armenians call this horrifying event Medz Yeghern, which reflects the continuing deep despair [sic, Arm. husahadutiun] between them and their neighbors, the Turkish people.”43 Although “Great Calamity” had appeared in the American media twelve years before as translation of Medz Yeghern,44 its use was likely inspired by Pope John Paul II’s prayer of 2001, with the translation borrowed from the BBC report. Days later, a press release from the ANCA announced that more than 165 members of the House of Representatives had signed a letter urging Bush “to recognize the Armenian Genocide as ‘genocide’” and exhorted individuals “to send a note of appreciation to those Members of Congress who commemorated the 88th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.” Hairenik also published an Armenian translation where Bush was urged “to recognize the Yeghern appropriately” and the legislators had participated in the commemoration of “the 88th Anniversary of the Armenian Yeghern.” The newspaper was aware, however, that Hayots Yeghern and Haygagan Tseghasbanutiun were synonyms, and used the latter to translate a passage from a resolution on genocide drafted that year (“the lessons of the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, the genocides in Cambodia and Ruanda, among others, will be used to help prevent other genocides”).45 Critics did not mention Bush’s use of “great calamity” as proper name, perhaps due to the lack of capital letters. For instance, Sassounian mixed it into “a sample of the verbal gymnastics” used in the message: “‘horrible tragedy,’ ‘mass killings,’ ‘forced exile,’ ‘appalling events,’ ‘great calamity,’ ‘the suffering that befell Armenians in 1915,’ ‘a tragedy for all humanity,’ and ‘horrendous loss of life.’”46 Two years later, Bush’s statement was coordinated with the US embassy in Turkey and the Turkish embassy in the United States, but not with the American embassy in Armenia.47 This time, it uppercased the expression: “This terrible event is what many Armenian people have come to call the ‘Great Calamity.’”48 An Armenian translation provided by the American embassy in Armenia and RFE/RL confirmed again the allusion: “Many Armenians characterize these terrible events as Medz Yeghern.”49 Commentator Ken Sarajian claimed, without offering evidence, that Armenians “willing to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the denials of the last 90 years” had facilitated the use of “Great Calamity.” He added that Bush had taken advantage of Medz Yeghern, “an early term we used to describe what happened because, at the time, it was so horrendous that there was no word to describe it.”50 Sassounian recalled the Reagan proclamation, “which used the term ‘Armenian Genocide’ [sic],” and noted: “Therefore, Pres. Bush would not be saying anything new, should he use those words again. In fact, Pres. Bush does not need to make a statement recognizing the Armenian Genocide.”51 He made no reference to Medz Yeghern as he commented that the statement contained

112

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

“just about every euphemism in the English language to avoid saying genocide, such as forced exile, mass killings, terrible event, Great Calamity, horrible loss of life, human tragedy, and suffering.”52 He would observe in 2009, however, that Bush had used “the English translation of that same tricky word.”53 Meanwhile, in June 2008, Sassounian argued that the United States should be included in the list of countries recognizing the genocide on account of the report of 1951 to the International Court of Justice, the House resolutions of 1975 and 1984, Reagan’s mention of 1981, and resolutions by states and cities. Almost a quarter of a century after Reagan had “prostituted the moral principles” of the United States, his successors George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush became a trio of “infamous denialists” who had “failed to display such moral leadership” as Reagan, who “most people acknowledge that he was a man of principle.”54

In Canada: Stephen Harper and the “Anniversary of the Medz Yeghern” While George W. Bush’s speechwriters were setting their focus on “Great Calamity,” the House of Commons (2002) and the Senate (2004) passed bills of recognition in Canada. Stephen Harper, member of the House, was elected prime minister in February 2006 and supported the bills in a “Statement from Prime Minister on Day of Commemoration of Armenian Genocide” released on April 19, 2006. The words of the title matched “anniversary of the Medz Yeghern” in the text: I would like to extend my sincere greetings to all of those marking this somber anniversary of the Medz Yeghern. Ninety-one years ago the Armenian people experienced terrible suffering and loss of life. In recent years the Senate of Canada adopted a motion acknowledging this period as “the first genocide of the twentieth century,” while the House of Commons adopted a motion that “acknowledges the Armenian genocide of 1915 and condemns this act as a crime against humanity.” My party and I supported those resolutions and continue to recognize them today.55

Harper’s referral to parliamentary resolutions and his statement of support seem to have staved off potential complaints for using “genocide” only in the title and for omitting any reference to the perpetrator. There was no dispute about the use of Medz Yeghern, which may have been related to the reported involvement of the Diocese of the Armenian Church of Canada in the writing.56 Bishop Bagrat Galstanian, Primate, who had paid a visit of courtesy to Harper on March 21, wrote a letter of thanks, mentioning that the Canadian-Armenian communities “are commemorating the 91st Anniversary of Medz Yeghern.” On the other hand, the Diocese stated its “gratification that the accelerated pace of efforts of the Diocese for recognition of Medz Yeghern has been successful.”57 The Armenian National Committee of Canada declared that the statement had brought the policy of the executive branch in line with Parliament

United States: “Genocide of the Armenians” and “Meds Yeghern”

113

resolutions and its chairman Vagharch Ehramdjian added that Harper’s “principled and righteous stand” would bring closure.58 Horizon (ARF) published the statement along reports about commemorations of the “91st anniversary of the Medz Yeghern” in Montreal, Toronto, and Ottawa, and the “91st anniversary of the Haygagan Tseghasbanutiun” in Hamilton and Cambridge.59 Its editorial forecasted the positive impact of Harper’s statement on the efforts for American recognition.60 However, these events, including the use of Medz Yeghern, were minimally reported in the United States, although Harper’s “courageous and principled affirmation of recognizing the Armenian Genocide as the Canadian government’s official policy” earned him the Freedom Award of the Armenian National Committee-Western Region in 2007.61 The Canadian prime minister repeated his statement almost literally in 2011, including the use of Medz Yeghern,62 and Tim Uppal, Minister of State for Multiculturalism, reaffirmed Medz Yeghern and “Armenian Genocide” as synonyms in April 2014: “This year marks the 99th anniversary of Medz Yeghern. (…) Our Government not only acknowledges the historical reality of the Armenian Genocide in 1915, we join with all those around the world paying homage to the memory of its victims.”63 Ontario Premier Doug Ford issued a statement in April 2020 where he greeted “everyone honoring the memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide of 1915. (…) Today, we honor the victims of the Medz Yeghern,” while Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer stated that “today marks the sombre anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, also known as Medz Yeghern, in which 1.5 million innocent Armenians were killed.”64

Barack Obama and “Meds Yeghern” Senator Barack Obama had started his presidential campaign in January 2008, when he protested the decision to recall and fire John Marshall Evans, US Ambassador to Armenia, for publicly using “genocide.” He referred to his letter addressed to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on June 28, 2006, which stated his “firmly held conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence.” He announced his support to the resolutions introduced to the House and the Senate, and his recognition of the genocide if he became president, asserting that “an official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy.”65 Along with senators Norm Coleman, Robert Menendez, John Kerry, and Russell Feingold, who obtained identical responses, Obama questioned Evans’ successor Marie Yovanovitch on “the events surrounding the Armenian genocide” during her confirmation hearings in July 2008. Her quote from Bush’s 2005 message corroborated his use of Medz Yeghern: “The United States recognizes these events as one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, the ‘Medz Yeghern,’ or Great Calamity, as many Armenians refer to it.” When Yovanovitch was asked what she would do to remember

114

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

“the victims of the Armenian genocide,” she repeated that she would “refer to this great historic catastrophe as the ‘Medz Yeghern,’ the term often used within Armenia to refer to that dark chapter of history.”66 After his election, President Barack Obama was caught between moral pressure to honor his pledge and political pressure to avoid it. He confronted the traditional realpolitik impulsed by State Department personnel who prevailed upon him,67 and his own belief, periodically played by Turkey, that recognition would derail attempts at rapprochement.68 In March 2009, Obama’s aides allowed to be known that he might have to defer the promised declaration, since the United States had sought the assistance of Turkey on issues related to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran, and it was not appropriate to generate frictions. The editorial of Los Angeles Times added that, “of course Obama is being counseled not to antagonize the Turks; that’s what his predecessor was advised as well.”69 This was already anticipated at his stopover in Turkey during his first trip overseas, which coincided with the first hundred days of his first term. Except for Samantha Power, who had insisted that the genocide be mentioned, the remaining advisors wanted Obama to avoid it altogether.70 He referred to the historical past in his support to full normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia during his speech to the Turkish Grand National Assembly on April 6, 2009: Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future. I know there’s [sic] strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915. And while there’s been a good deal of commentary about my views, it’s really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive.71

During the ensuing press conference, Obama stated, “My views are on the record and I have not changed views,” but declined to reiterate them. He added that Turkey and Armenia were in negotiations, and he wanted to focus on the views of both peoples without using American leverage.72 Both countries agreed on April 22 to a road map to establish formal relations and reopen the border, closed by Turkey in 1993 after Azerbaijan lost control of Mountainous Karabagh. Almost six months later, on October 10, 2009, Turkey and Armenia would sign protocols in Zurich to normalize relations, which were inconsequential in the end given the intransigent attitude of Turkey regarding the issue of Karabagh due to Azerbaijani pressure and were declared null and void by Armenia in March 2018. The Turkish-Armenian road map enabled Obama’s reference to 1915 as Medz Yeghern (spelled “Meds Yeghern”). His statement was actually construed on the basis of Bush’s mention of “Great Calamity,” with the insertion of the original Medz Yeghern, despite the argument that it had followed the Turkish apology campaign in an “entire novel workaround” never used by Obama’s predecessors.73 Additional momentum may have been provided by a conversation in the WATS listserv reported by an American unidentified official in 2008, where “one camp suggested that Medz Yeghern could

United States: “Genocide of the Armenians” and “Meds Yeghern”

115

be an alternative term that could serve as a place marker to initiate conversations between Armenians and Turks without the added legal ramifications.”74 The camp in question was presumably the Turkish, after the claim that Medz Yeghern was “the only definition, the only expression, used until the Armenian Diaspora discovered the PR value of ‘Armenian Genocide.’”75 The presidential statements never translated “Meds Yeghern,” which was repeated to a total of thirteen times from 2009 to 2014,76 along other key words and phrases: 1) “I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view has not changed” (six times) 2) “1.5 million Armenians” (six times) 3) “Massacred or marched to their death” (six times) 4) In the “final” (five times) days of the Ottoman Empire 5) One of the “worst atrocities” of the twentieth century (six times) 6) “Full, frank, and just acknowledgment of the facts” (six times). Their combination yielded the following template: I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915 and my view has not changed: the Meds Yeghern was one of the worst atrocities of the twentieth century [that caused] 1.5 million victims massacred or marched to their death in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. [I want] the achievement of a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts.

The statements had three central tenets: a) The retrospective reference to have “consistently stated my own view”—the 2006 letter to Rice and the January 2008 statement—that “has not changed” aimed at bridging the gap between words used before and after Obama’s election. b) The admission of the facts (“1.5 million Armenians massacred or marched to their death in the final days of the Ottoman Empire”) rephrased and augmented George W. Bush’s words of 2008 (“mass killings and forced exile of as many as 1.5 million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire”).77 c) The call for a “full, frank, and just acknowledgment of the facts” echoed the expression “honest, open, and constructive” used in April 2009 and was implicitly addressed to the side that did not recognize them. Yusuf Halaçoğlu, president of the state-led Turkish Historical Society, had stated in 2005 that there were neither massacres (“Most Armenians who died, died of disease, whereas most Muslims who died were killed by Armenian gangs”) nor 1.5 million victims (“Those who keep talking about the nonsense of 1.5 million dead are politicizing this issue. Can you imagine where one would bury 1.5 million people?”).78 The call for acknowledgment was complemented in 2011 by a sentence that referred to the tainted memory of those massacred or deported: “Contested history destabilizes the present and stains the memory of those whose lives were taken, while reckoning with the past lays a sturdy foundation for a peaceful and prosperous shared future.” This

116

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

remark, AFP reported, implicitly pleaded for recognition by Turkey,79 which abused the idea that the meaning of history is open to debate. However, the ANCA labeled it as “deeply offensive” and “shameful” on the grounds that the facts were incontrovertible.80 The common denominator of all statements was the absence of genocide, continuing long-standing efforts to circumvent political mentions, including the passive construction of sentences to mask the agent. Hirair Hovnanian wrote to Obama on April 24, 2009: Your use of Mets Yehern [sic] (Great Catastrophe) was an inadequate substitute for Armenian Genocide. It was a regrettable retreat from the expressed promises you made as a candidate (…) and in so doing, may have taken a step backwards in genocide prevention around the world.81

ANCA chairman Ken Hachikian also declared his disappointment with Obama’s failure to honor his pledge.82 On the same day, Hairenik reported, he was keynote speaker at the commemoration of “the 94th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide [Hayots Tseghasbanutiun]” in Watertown, Massachusetts. The newspaper used Yeghern as part of the title (“the 94th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide [Hayots Yeghern]”) and, ironically, translated the title of Hachikian’s subject—probably “Genocide Recognition from a Current View”—as “Yeghern Recognition from a Current View.”83 The statements were built around another crucial omission: the meaning of Medz Yeghern. Turkish and Armenian commentators tried to fill that void. While Ahmet Taşgetiren charged Obama with political opportunism for referring to past statements and acknowledgment of facts, Hasan Celal Güzel put sarcasm to work: “Look at this comedy: the great U.S. President says ‘Meds Yeghern,’ which means the same thing in Armenian, to avoid saying ‘genocide’ and thus save face. He thinks that he is making a big political maneuver by acting this way.” Oktay Ekşi warned that Medz Yeghern was worse than genocide: “He can turn to the Armenians and say, ‘You use ‘Meds Yeghern‘ (great catastrophe, in Armenian) for ’genocide,‘ right? You’re saying just what I said.’”84 Today’s Zaman wrote that Obama had damaged the credit earned in Turkey: “The situation, after all, is not just based on the use of the Armenian term ‘Meds Yeghern’ (Great Disaster) rather than ‘genocide.’”85 Some commentators stated that Medz Yeghern and “genocide” meant the same, but only the latter had legal meaning.86 Mustafa Akyol repeated that Medz Yeghern meant “Great Catastrophe” and noted that Obama had seen 1915 as genocide, but also considered a nuance in his rhetoric: “If he had used the ‘G’ word, that would have amounted to a legal definition. Yet his choice of words shows that he didn’t want to take that step.”87 Kerim Balci defined the statement as constructive ambiguity: “Meds Yeghern provided the Turks with the face-saving relief that the US president didn’t use ‘the term’ and the Armenians with the explanation that Meds Yeghern is Armenian for genocide.”88 In an open letter, Mustafa Șükrü Elekdağ stated that Obama had twice used Medz Yeghern, “which is the exact translation of ‘genocide’ in the Armenian language.”89 Önur Basaran Oymen called out the statement of 2010: “The term Meds Yeghern in Armenian is equal to the term Armenian Genocide. Obama considers

United States: “Genocide of the Armenians” and “Meds Yeghern”

117

the 1915 events as Genocide.”90 Bülent Kenes and Fatma Dişli Zıbak wrote that Medz Yeghern (“Great Tragedy”) was “the proper rendering of genocide in the Armenian language.”91 A month later, Burak Bekdil created a “Medz Yeghern recognition” scenario for Obama: “Why should he not propose to Congress a resolution recognizing ‘Meds Yeghern’ instead of ‘genocide?’ Not many Turks would care if they are accused of having ancestors who had caused ‘Meds Yeghern.’”92 Political scientist Sinan Oğan claimed that Armenian “great clandestine promotional activity” was aimed at using Medz Yeghern in a way similar to “Holocaust.”93 His colleague Barış Özdal warned in April 2013 that the use of Medz Yeghern “would negate the Turkish thesis on the question, because the word has started to procure acceptance as ‘genocide’ in the terminology of international relations.”94 Policy analyst Konur Alp Koçak also noted the concern about Medz Yeghern: “Because this concept, which means ‘Great Crime’ [sic], is accepted by the Armenians as an equivalent of genocide.”95 On the Armenian side, a letter to the editor typically put the blame on the president, “who does not speak Armenian [and] used the Armenian phrase ‘Mets Yeghern’ (Great Catastrophe), thus shielding Turkey from any accountability from its crime of genocide under the UN convention and international laws.”96 Sassounian repeated Reagan’s reference of 1981 as proof of recognition and emphasized, in an open letter to Obama, that “if you did not want to say genocide, you did not have to say anything at all.” His conflation of proper name (Medz Yeghern) and common noun (tseghasbanutiun) suggested that Medz Yeghern had not been in use after the 1940s, when Tseghasbanutiun had become the proper name of choice: You may want to know that “Meds Yeghern” does not mean genocide; it means “Great Calamity.” Armenians used that term before the word “genocide” was coined by Raphael Lemkin in the 1940’s. “Genocide” in Armenian is “Tseghasbanoutyoun,” which is a much more precise term than “Meds Yeghern,” in case you decide to use it in the future.97

The ANCA criticized Obama in 2010 for the use of euphemisms and evasive terminology to avoid recognizing the genocide properly.98 A letter to the editor called out Asbarez’s headline “Obama Refuses to Recognize the Armenian Genocide” for failing to draw maximum advantage from such statements by taking them as actual recognition and forcing the deniers to prove that they were not.99 The editorial response quoted from Suat Kınıklıoğlu’s article of 2009 as proof that Obama’s “continued use of the word ‘Medz Yeghern’ as a means to dodge his promise … damages the Armenian Cause,”100 but failed to mention that Kınıklıoğlu’s arguments derived from the misuse of Medz Yeghern as “Great Catastrophe” during the apology campaign and the uncritical repetition of “Great Calamity” in the Armenian press. Meanwhile, the equation of yeghern and “genocide” was clearly present in the announcement of the event co-sponsored by the municipality of Pasadena for the “95th year commemoration of the Armenian Genocide,” advertised in Armenian as Hayots Yeghern.101 After a genocide resolution was submitted to Congress in February 2011, Sassounian was interviewed by Armenpress. The text, where he paradoxically

118

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

seems to have equated Medz Yeghern and “Armenian Genocide,” is only available in Armenian: Armenpress: How likely do you consider the approval of the congressional resolution about the Medz Yeghern? Sassounian: (…) In my view, the Armenian people does not need the US Congress to approve a congressional resolution about the Armenian Genocide [Hayots Tseghasbanutiun], because such a resolution, by which the events of 1915 are recognized as genocide, was passed by the House of Representatives in 1975 and 1984. (…) Turkey may deny forever the fact of the Medz Yeghern, despite being aware of and knowing the truth very well. (…) Armenpress: In what international instances do you see the solution to the issue? Sassounian: (…) The Armenian Genocide [Hayots Tseghasbanutiun] is a fact that nobody can deny. The legal successors to the people who were victims of the Medz Yeghern have started filing lawsuits in US federal courts and achieved success. As everybody knows, it was precisely through federal courts that the legal heirs of the victims of the Armenian Genocide [Hayots Tseghasbanutiun] were able to receive compensations from the American New York Life and French AXA companies. New York Life allocated about 20 million dollars to a few thousands of legal heirs of Medz Yeghern victims from different world countries. AXA compensated 7,000 legal heirs of Armenian Genocide [Hayots Tseghasbanutiun] victims with 17.5 million dollars. Armenpress: What cases are currently ongoing in federal courts with similar lawsuits? Sassounian: (…) The whole world knows the truth about the Medz Yeghern. It has been admitted and recognized by more than 20 world states, the U.N., and 43 US states.102

“Great Catastrophe,” “Great Calamity,” “Great Disaster,” or “Great Tragedy” would be mostly used as translation of Medz Yeghern in Western books103 and by writers who did not use them as euphemism.104 They also appeared in translated books105 and reports from news outlets of Armenia,106 and in books of fiction by ArmenianAmerican authors.107

The Calamity of Forgetting In 1985, the monthly Haytoug, organ of the Armenian Youth Federation (AYF) of Western America, published an issue dedicated to the seventieth anniversary. The Armenian editorial featured a parallel English translation. The grandchildren of survivors used four times Yeghern as proper name, rendered as “Genocide,” and four times tseghasbanutiun as legal term, also translated as “genocide.”108 A quarter of century later, the response to Obama’s statement of 2009 was staged as a return to the time of their grandparents, who used to evoke “what was then known as the ‘Meds

United States: “Genocide of the Armenians” and “Meds Yeghern”

119

Yeghern,’ or Great Calamity,” implying that Medz Yeghern had been no longer in use afterwards. The statement had “resuscitated that old Armenian term,” although “ever since Raphael Lemkin coined the term ‘genocide,’ Armenians have referred to those mass killings as ‘tseghasbanoutyoun’ which means genocide.”109 The rejection of Medz Yeghern was swiftly elaborated in the following terms: “Meds Yeghern is an Armenian phrase, which translates as ‘great calamity.’ A tornado is a ‘great calamity.’ A genocide is a crime. The concept of crime implies the concept of justice. ‘Genocide’ has a meaning in international law. ‘Calamity’ (yeghern) has none.”110 Historian Dennis Papazian argued that Medz Yeghern was a term reserved to highly educated people and that people in Armenia knew and used it “far more than people in the diaspora, who hardly know the term at all,”111 even though books published in the United States have featured Medz Yeghern and “(Armenian) Genocide” as synonyms since the 1980s.112 The driving force behind Armenian rejection was the demand for literal recognition, namely, the explicit use of the word “genocide” as the absolute parameter to affirm the self and seek the gaze of the Other. This response was drawn upon the gradual transformation of “Great Calamity” into a paradigm, leading to the misconception that the crime did not have an effect through the blend of cause and consequence: “No, Mr. President—it was not a great calamity, it was genocide pure and simple. No other word can be used to describe what happened to the Armenian people.”113 Some interpretations highlighted “persistent admonishment of Pres. Obama to refrain from substituting ‘Meds Yeghern’ (Great Calamity) for the Armenian Genocide” or singled out Obama among those who contributed to Turkish denial “by shamelessly bastardizing the Armenian term ‘Medz Yeghern’ for their own political benefit.”114 Medz Yeghern was listed as part and parcel of denialist presidential vocabulary and placed among substitute words used to deceive Armenian-Americans into allowing Obama not to keep his pledge and undermining decades of lobbying efforts for recognition.115 In 2012, after Hayk Demoyan utilized it as synonym of tseghasbanutiun at a press conference in Los Angeles, it was downgraded to the level of misrepresentation of facts, promotion of denial, and even desecration and blasphemy: During his remarks, Mr. Demoyan spoke at length about the Armenian Genocide and other issues without using the proper and legally indispensable term “Genocide” (“Tseghaspanutyun”). Instead, he carelessly misused the words “Meds Yeghern’ (“Great Calamity”) which misrepresent the facts of the Armenian Genocide (…) [and] amounts to an act of desecration of the memory of martyrs (…). Mr. Demoyan’s “invention” of duality in the usage of both terms of “Genocide” and “Great Calamity” may not be intentional but it does promote the Turkish denialist propaganda that seeks to weaken the magnitude of premeditated and state-organized genocide to mere “Great Calamity.”116

Incidentally, the website of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute displays side by side the titles “The Armenian Yeghern” in Armenian and “Armenian Genocide” in

120

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

English, and the text describing the annihilation uses “Armenian Genocide” ten times in Armenian and seven in English:117 Language

Title

Text

Armenian

Hayots Yegherne

Hayots tseghasbanutiun (10 times)

English

Armenian Genocide

Armenian Genocide (7 times)

Turkish

Ermeni Soykırımı

Ermeni Soykırımı (8 times)

Russian

Genotsid armyan

Genotsid armyan (7 times)

French

Génocide armenien

Génocide armenien (6 times)

Writer Ben Schott defined Medz Yeghern as “an Armenian term meaning ‘great calamity’—used to describe the murder of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Turks in 1915” in his blog of The New York Times.118 It is noteworthy that this claim was not based on an Armenian source, but on an article by commentator Ali Bulaç, probably selected for the statement that Medz Yeghern “was the best word” to describe the events of 1915, its best translation was Great Calamity, and its meaning was “very close to genocide.”119 Giro Manoyan, head of the Armenian Cause office of the ARF Bureau, showed the inaccuracy of the translation: yeghern meant crime, “something committed and not ‘an act of God,’” while yeghernakordz was the perpetrator and yeghernakordzutiun meant to carry out the crime.120 The lack of serious response to the language challenge met its test with Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung A.G. This class action was filed in 2003 by heirs of victims who had been policyholders from German insurance companies. It was based on section 354.4 in the California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), enacted by the state legislature in 2000, which provided that genocide victims or their heirs could bring insurance claims to state courts. On August 20, 2009, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth District overturned CCP §354.4 due to conflict with federal power to conduct foreign affairs. The court argued that the clause “Armenian Genocide victims” was at odds with the policy of the executive branch, which refused to provide official recognition, as proven by public statements and letters from Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. It added that, although “presidential foreign policy in the present case is not embodied in any executive agreement (…) [t]his does not (…) detract from the policy’s preemptive force.”121 Ken Hachikian claimed that Obama shared responsibility in the court decision for failing to keep his “repeated, crystal clear pledges to recognize the Armenian Genocide.”122 After a petition to rehear was granted, a new decision of the court in December 2010 upheld CCP §354.4 and allowed heirs of victims to sue. The majority opinion reviewed congressional debates and executive interventions, finding that there was no proof of compelling federal policy. It added that the Obama administration had also favored recognition and cited the statement of 2009 with the remark that “’Meds Yeghern’ is the term for ‘Armenian Genocide’ in the Armenian language.”123 Commentator C. K. Garabed observed in June 2010 that the Armenian adverse response to Obama’s statement had dampened the Turkish backlash, “as they knew, probably more than most Armenians, the true significance of the term Medz Yeghern.”124

United States: “Genocide of the Armenians” and “Meds Yeghern”

121

In fact, the appeal of Victoria Versicherung exploited the criticisms by Sassounian, the ANCA, and Hachikian to demonstrate how Obama’s use of Medz Yeghern “was forcefully criticized as a ‘disgraceful capitulation’ to ‘political expediency’ by many in the Armenian community precisely because it does not mean ‘Armenian genocide.’”125 The ANCA’s “prior objection that the terms have fundamentally different meanings” could not be squared with the claim raised by the Armenian Bar Association and the ANCA in an amicus curiae brief from September 2009 that Obama had used “the Armenian name for the Armenian Genocide.” The appeal relied on Schott’s blog and its Turkish source to assert that Medz Yeghern, “generally translated as ‘great calamity,’ not ‘genocide,’” was not “the term for ‘Armenian Genocide’ in the Armenian language.” An amicus curiae on behalf of Turkey put forth similar arguments: The panel refers to the President’s April 24, 2009 statement on Armenian Remembrance Day and recounts its use of the term, “Meds Yeghern.” But that term translates into “Great Calamity” in the Armenian language, not “genocide.” The major Armenian American advocacy groups clearly agree. The Armenian National Committee of America immediately reacted by declaring its “sharp disagreement with President Obama’s failure to honor his solemn pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide.”(…) The Armenian Assembly of America cited President Obama’s “failure to affirm” the alleged genocide and said that the President “has needlessly delayed the cause of genocide affirmation.”126

Movsesian’s response quoted Senator Obama’s “firmly held conviction that the Armenian Genocide is (…) a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence” from his letter of 2006 to argue that President Obama’s affirmation “that my view of that history has not changed” had reasserted the genocide in 2009.127 However, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down CCP §354.4 on a rehearing en banc in February 2012, arguing that it did not concern an area of traditional state responsibility and interfered on the field of foreign affairs, reserved to the federal government. The Solicitor General’s petition to the Supreme Court in May 2013 to not hear Movsesian’s appeal was regarded as evidence that “Obama’s deceptive use of ‘Meds Yeghern’ (…) does not amount to an acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, contrary to the gleeful pronouncements of some gullible souls.”128 The highest tribunal of the land decided not to hear the appeal and sealed the defeat for the plaintiff on June 10, 2013.

122

7

From Uruguay to the United States: On the Words of Recognition

Just suppose that we Armenian Americans were to applaud the president for using our word for the Armenian Genocide. Can you imagine the fits the Turks would have, and the quandary the president’s advisors would be in? If it really turned out that they had cautioned him about using the term genocide, could they now declare that it was not what he really meant? Not likely; and they would thus be forced to join our team. C. K. Garabed (2010)1

Uruguay: Recognition without a Word The indictment of the Nuremberg tribunal of 1945–6 used genocide rhetorically, and the trials focused on crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity with only sporadic mentions of genocide. The major defendants were not condemned for the Jewish destruction, which occupied less than 10 percent of the sentence.2 The Polish Supreme National Tribunal and American military tribunals issued sentences for genocide in the trials of second-tier Nazis in 1946–8 and afterwards, which apparently fell out of the global radar: in 1960, after Adolf Eichmann was abducted in Buenos Aires and taken to Israel to stand trial, President David BenGurion declared that “we want the nations of the world to know that there was an intention to exterminate a people.”3 Two legal norms approved in 1950 were available for the proceedings. While the Crime of Genocide (Prevention and Punishment) Law was considered not retroactive, the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law enumerated five acts—out of seven with intent to destroy the Jewish people, in whole or in part—that replicated the clauses of article 2 of the Genocide Convention. Eichmann was sentenced to death in December 1961 after he was found guilty of twelve charges of crimes against humanity and four charges against the Jewish people. Neither the “quasi-genocide statute” of 1950 nor the sentence used the word, but the Supreme Court of Israel confirmed in 1962 that the participation of the Nazi official in genocide had been the reason for the capital sentence.4 Incidentally, Hannah Arendt claimed in the wake of the trial that the Allies had conceived the concept of crime against humanity after the “reports of unheard-of-

124

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

atrocities, the blotting out of whole peoples, the ‘clearance’ of whole regions of their native population” during the Shoah.5 She ignored the May 1915 Allied declaration and Winston Churchill’s reference to “Turkish atrocities” like “massacring uncounted thousands of helpless Armenians, men, women, and children together, whole districts blotted out at one administrative holocaust.”6 Incidentally, the number of victims of what Arendt misrepresented as “Armenian pogroms of 1915,” namely, “a third (six hundred thousand people) of the Armenian population of Turkey,”7 was unmatched by any pogrom in history. The example of the Eichmann trial shows that the value of the conceptual definition of an annihilation falling within the parameters of genocide goes beyond the use of the term itself, even today when it is commonly applied. The special report issued by a committee of the US House of Representatives in 1955, at the height of the Cold War, made recourse to attempted total extermination and deliberate governmental act, possibly because genocide was mostly directed against the Soviet Union and Turkey was a highly valued ally of the United States within the newly formed NATO: [T]he Turks decided now to settle the Armenian question once and forever by exterminating the entire Armenian people. (…) That the Turkish deportations of 1915—the attempted extermination of an entire people—was a deliberate act of the Turkish Government has clearly been proven by the published directives of the Turkish Government, issued to the provincial governors and commanding officers of the army.8

In 1971, The Armenian Weekly reprinted the section of the special report related to the period 1914–20. An editorial note observed that “an authoritative Congressional document issued in 1955—during the heyday of the Turco-American alliance—tells this story of both the Genocide and the establishment of a free Armenian State.”9 It glossed over the fact that the story of the genocide omitted the word. The law passed in 1965 by the Parliament of Uruguay was the first legal norm about the annihilation. The all-community Youth Coordinating Board cooperated in the writing of the draft bill, which its author, Representative Enrique Martínez Moreno, submitted to the Chamber of Representatives on January 29. The exposition of motives used genocide four times. It described “one of the most terrible genocides that history has known,” stressing that the events “may look less important than those of the genocide of the Jewish people ruthlessly executed by the Nazis, but, however, it may be stated that it was planned with equal coldness and executed with incredible cruelty.” However, the only criminal act cited in the law was assassination: “The next April 24 is declared ‘Day of Remembrance for the Armenian Martyrs’ [Día de Recordación de los Mártires Armenios] in homage of the members of that nationality assassinated [asesinados] in 1915” (art. 1). Articles 2 and 3 were about official radio broadcasting in honor of Armenia and authorization to public employees of Armenian origin to take a leave of absence.10 The Chamber added article 4, naming a school in Montevideo as “Armenia,” and passed the bill unanimously on April 6. After the Senate followed suit unanimously on April 20, the bill became Law 13,325 on April 22 with its signature by Washington Beltrán, President of the National Council of Government, the executive body of the country from 1951 to 1967 with rotative presidency.11

From Uruguay to the United States: On the Words of Recognition

125

In April 1985, a Senate declaration asked the government to give instructions to the Uruguayan delegation to the UN to support Armenian demands for the inclusion of the crimes of 1915 within the prescriptions of the Genocide Convention.12 Fifteen years later (October 18, 2000), the Senate approved unanimously a draft bill to make April 24 a permanent day of commemoration. During the discussion, Senator Alberto Cid paid homage to those who had impulsed the law of 1965 and “turned Uruguay into the first country of the world to recognize the Armenian genocide.” The exposition of motives referred four times to genocide and the bill repeated articles 1 and 2 of the law of 1965, declaring “the day April 24 as ‘Day of Remembrance for the Armenian Martyrs’ [Día de Recordación de los Mártires Armenios] in homage of the members of that nationality assassinated [asesinados] in 1915.”13 For unexplained reasons, the bill remained in limbo for more than three years until the unanimous approval at the Chamber of Representatives on March 11, 2004, which President Jorge Batlle signed on March 26 into Law 17,152. Armenpress called the bill an indirect recognition for the lack of reference to genocide, misidentifying the commemoration as “national day of remembrance for the Armenian genocide.”14 The law of 1965—like its replacement of 2004—did not mention genocide, refer to the facts, name the perpetrator, or condemn the annihilation in its text, but it is usually hailed as the first case of modern recognition of the genocide of the Armenians.15 In 2000, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian recalled that Uruguay had been the first country “to recognize the Genocide” after the draft bill of the future Law 17, 152 was approved by the Senate,16 and his successor Edward Nalbandian, welcoming his colleague Luis Almagro on an official visit in Yerevan (2012), restated that “Uruguay is the first country which recognized the Armenian Genocide in 1965.”17 President Serzh Sargsyan repeated that it had been “the first country that recognized the 1915 Armenian genocide in 1965” during an official visit in 2014.18 The website of the Armenian National Committee of Uruguay states that “the approval of this law [of 1965], by which the Uruguayan state recognizes the existence of the Armenian Genocide, condemns it, and remembers its victims, was an unheard-of act, unprecedented on a world level.”19 In 1986, Uruguay issued the first official commemorative stamp in the world with the legend 71 Aniversario 1915–1986 Genocidio Armenio (71st anniversary 1915–1986 Armenian Genocide). When a new commemorative stamp was released in 2015, Foreign Minister Rodolfo Novoa Nin declared that “Uruguay was the first country to recognize the Armenian genocide by law 50 years ago, a transcendental step in a struggle that continues to the present day.”20

Yeghern = Genocide After President Barack Obama’s first utilization of Medz Yeghern in 2009, commentator Daniel Larison stressed that it conveyed “the message that these were criminal acts,” while the mention of crimes and atrocities implied “willful mass murder directed

126

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

against an entire people, which in the end is quite close to what people understand when someone refers to genocide.” He added that “in my modern Eastern Armenian dictionary, yeghern means ‘slaughter, carnage, genocide’ or a ‘crime’ or ‘evil deed,’ and the word yeghern has been and can be used in the context of referring to the genocide.”21 The claim that “the Armenian dictionary equivalent for ‘Meds Yeghern’ is interpreted to mean ‘Great Calamity’”22 failed to clarify the actual meaning of the references to dictionary equivalent and interpretation, as well as whether it referred to an Armenian monolingual or bilingual dictionary. The semantic relation between the root yeghern, the compound noun yeghernakordz, and the adjective yeghernagan in twelve bilingual dictionaries published in the period 1922–2002 shows no connection with the domain of tragedy or catastrophe/calamity, except for the translation of yeghernagan as “tragic, tragical” in one dictionary due to its obsolete misuse as synonym to yegheragan (“tragic”) (Table 7.1):23

Table 7.1  Yeghern and related terms in bilingual dictionaries (1922–2002) Dictionary

Yeghern

yeghernakordz

yeghernagan

Chakmakjian

crime

felon

crimeful, criminal, felon, felonious

Yacoubian

villain, crimeful

Kogian

crime

Kouyoumdjian

crime, misdemeanor, offence, rascality

flagitious, villainous; scoundrel; criminal

criminal, nefarious, villanous, flagitious

Kouyoumdjian

crime

felon

criminal, felonious

Koushakdjian and Khantrouni

crime

felon

criminal

Koushakdjian and Khantrouni

crime, atrocity, murder

atrocity, brutality, criminality

criminal, villainous

Kouyoumdjian

crime, offence

criminal, scoundrel, villain

criminal, nefarious

Tekeyan

crimen

criminal

criminal, facineroso, atroz

Samuelian

atrocity, crime

Baghdasarian and Zorc

crime, atrocity; murder, massacre; atrociousness, villainy, evildoing; malice, misdeed

villainous, nefarious; criminal, scoundrel, malefactor

criminal, nefarious, villainous, tragic, tragical

Chahinian

crime, massacre

criminal, assassin

criminal(le)

Hannessian

crime

Kouyoumdjian and Torosian

crime, misdemeanour, offence

criminal, scoundrel, villainous, flagitious

criminal, nefarious, villainous

criminal, nefarious

From Uruguay to the United States: On the Words of Recognition

127

Incidentally, the first bilingual dictionary that translated yeghern as “calamity” was published in 2010, seven years after the first “great calamity” use by George W. Bush and a year after Obama’s first “Meds Yeghern” statement.24 On the other hand, eleven bilingual dictionaries appeared in Italy, Armenia, Bulgaria, and the United States between 1996 and 2015 have included the contemporary meaning of yeghern as synonym to tseghasbanutiun and “genocide” (Table 7.2).25 More than three decades after its first publication, the revised edition of Ashot Sukiasian’s thesaurus (2003) showed the evolution of language. The synonyms for yeghern featured the semantic domains of the original edition of 1967. There were four words related to crime instead of the previous six and twelve linked to mass killing instead of ten, with tseghasbanutiun included in the latter. The third group that had three words about calamity now referred the reader to charik and aghed, but neither definition made mention of yeghern.26 From 2010 to 2018, the only attempt to indirectly affirm Medz Yeghern in the United States appeared in the yearly announcement of the commemoration of “the first genocide of the 20th Century, The Armenian Genocide (Medz Yeghern),” organized by the Knights and Daughters of Vartan at Times Square in New York. The use between parentheses was obviously intended to enact the correspondence between both designations. The press release of 2014 quoted Dennis Papazian—former leader of the Knights of Vartan—about the fact that “President Barack Obama used the Armenian phrase Medz Yeghern, which is the equivalent of the phrase genocide in Table 7.2  Yeghern as “genocide” in bilingual dictionaries (1996–2015) Author

Yeghern

Ohanian

crimine, genocìdio

Genocide

tseghasbanutiun genocìdio

Grigoryan

genocide; crime

Baratyan

slaughter, carnage, genocide; (heinous) crime, evil deed

Mesrob

Genotsid

Awde and Davidian

Holocaust [holocaust = tseghasbanootioon, yeghern]

Tseghasbanootioon

genocide, holocaust

Gasparian

génocide, massacre, carnage

yeghern, tseghasbanutiun

Génocide

Grigoryan

genocide; crime

Seferian et al.

Genocide

Tseghasbanutiun

Genocide

Barlezizian

génocide; massacre

Değirmencyan

kıtal-li, soykırım

Chilingaryan and Yerznkyan

See tseghasbanutiun; hantsakordzutiun, vojir

genocide, massacre, pogrom, holocaust Genotsid

génocide; ethnocide genocide = tseghasbanutiun genotsid = tseghasbanutiun, yeghern

genocide

128

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

the Armenian language.”27 Two years later, there was a significant semantic change: “Papazian further observes that President Barack Obama used the Armenian phrase ‘Medz Yeghern’ (‘Great Crime’) (…) words which the Armenians use as the equivalent of their genocide.”28 A few voices outside the country appeared aware of both contemporary issues and language. Eduard Nalbandian underscored that Obama had used Medz Yeghern in his first statement, while Armenians use both “genocide” and Medz Yeghern.29 The Council of the Armenian Community of Rome declared that Obama clearly reaffirmed “his own view that the events of 1915 are framed as ‘genocide’” using Medz Yeghern, “the expression utilized by the Armenian people in such circumstances.”30 Claude Mutafian noted that Obama had “openly accused the Ottoman Empire of committing a ‘great crime’” and “had the courage to say everything,” even though the road map signed by Armenia and Turkey had allowed him the strict minimum. The Turkish authorities had “immediately cried foul, because they made a much better analysis than the innumerable do-gooders of the diaspora bent over the word ‘genocide’ while the president of the United States has said the same thing.”31 The Council of the Bar Association of the Republic of Armenia assessed the statement’s passage praising Armenian contributions that “stand as a testament to the talent, dynamism and resilience of the Armenian people, and as the ultimate rebuke to those who tried to destroy them” as description of genocide: President Obama used the historical Armenian term “Meds Yeghern,” which is synonymous to “genocide,” a more contemporary term. The term “Meds Yeghern” was used by President Obama twice and was clearly described as an attempt to destroy the Armenian people. It is obvious that “Meds Yeghern” was referred to by President Obama in exactly the same meaning, as we, Armenians, refer to it. The terms “Meds Yeghern,” “Hayots Tseghaspanutiun,” and “Armenian Genocide” have been always absolutely identical. From the legal point of view President Obama has described a genocide, because an attempt to destroy a people is, by definition, a genocide.32

Political scientist Hovhannes Nikoghosyan observed that some analysts of Turkish-Armenian relations tended to forget Obama’s statement, where he “did utter the ‘G-word’ in his message, and perhaps he did it in a better way, introducing the new label of ‘Meds Yeghern,’ which is the common definition of the 1915 events in Armenian.”33 After the statement of 2010, Gegham Khalatyan, vice president of the Union of Armenians of Russia, also equated Medz Yeghern and “Armenian Genocide”: Meds Yeghern is a term, which means the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire from 1915–1923. (…) Meanwhile, Meds Yeghern is incorrectly translated as huge massacre, as it is a proper noun – term, which unequivocally means the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire from 1915–1923. (…) Anyway, analysts should pay attention to the capital letters and ask Armenians what this term means for them. In such case, they would find out that it is the name of the

From Uruguay to the United States: On the Words of Recognition

129

hugest Armenian genocide throughout the Armenian nation’s history. Thus, Meds Yeghern and Genocide of 1915–1923 are absolute synonyms for any Armenian.34

During his reelection campaign, Serzh Sargsyan created a stir in February 2013 when, in an answer to a question about the forthcoming genocide centennial, he commented offhand that “[the] words genocide and [y]eghern are the same, and even [without] pronouncing the word genocide, [the] USA President has said everything.”35 Although the goal pursued with the comment remained unclear, critics in Armenia acknowledged that Medz Yeghern and genocide had the same meaning. Political scientist Ara Papian observed that “‘Medz Yeghern’ means genocide for us, but it doesn’t mean genocide to the rest of the world,”36 while Vladimir Karapetian (Armenian National Congress) noted that yeghern was not an international term and that the “internationally accepted term—‘genocide’” should be emphasized when talking about recognition, although “in the plane of morality this is really the same thing.”37 In the United States, Ara Khachatourian, editor of Asbarez, stated that Sargsyan needed a dictionary to understand the political implications of genocide, given his “callous misrepresentation.”38 Sassounian abandoned his customary translation “Great Calamity” in favor of “Great Atrocity” and asked why Obama had not used “genocide” if it was equivalent to Medz Yeghern, which was meaningless for non-Armenians. He argued that those who claimed that equivalence wished to make people believe that the president of the United States had acknowledged the validity of the genocide and declare victory.39 In December 2013, a controversial ruling of the Lower Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), upheld by the Grand Chamber in 2015, dictated that the Swiss Federal Court had infringed the freedom of speech of Turkish politician Doğu Perinçek, whom the Swiss court had condemned in 2007 to ninety days of prison and a fine of 3,000 Swiss francs for his statements of 2005 that the Armenian genocide was “an international lie.” The opinion issued by the majority used Medz Yeghern six times and enshrined its meaning “Great Crime” in a document of international law.40 In a strong criticism of the ruling and the opinion, Sassounian noted that judges Guido Raimondi and Andras Sajo, who had omitted the mention of genocide, asserted “that the destruction of the Armenian people was governmentsponsored, thereby acknowledging its genocidal nature.” At the same time, he seemed to cast doubt over the translation in his remark that “yet they insisted on referring to the Armenian Genocide as ‘Mets Yegherrn’ (sic) which they translate as ‘the Grand Crime.’”41 Judges Nebojša Vučinić and Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque stated in their opinion in partial dissent that the suffering of Armenians was not worth less than Jewish suffering, “and the denial of the Hayots Tseghaspanutyun (Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն) or Meds Yeghern (Մեծ Եղեռն) is no less dangerous than the denial of the Shoah.”42 The use of the Armenian language evidenced the authors’ mindfulness to offer an expression of respect to the victims of suffering and denial. Significantly, the name(s) of the extermination, Medz Yeghern and Hayots Tseghasbanutiun, were recorded in the alphabet and the spelling of the victims, along their transliteration and without

130

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

any translation, and the use of the conjunction or reaffirmed the synonymous value of tseghasbanutiun and yeghern.

Barack Obama (and Donald Trump): Recognition with One Word On April 9, 2015, Mustafa Șükrü Elekdağ updated his open letter of 2010 and repeated that Barack Obama had reprised the year before the use of Medz Yeghern, “which is the exact translation of ‘genocide’ in the Armenian language.” He asked what should be inferred if the statement of 2015 used “the word’s exact Armenian translation ‘metz yeghern’ and allege[d] the massacre of the 1.5 million Armenians.”43 Recognition statements and resolutions from Pope Francis, the European Parliament, German president Joachim Gauck, and the Austrian Parliament in April 2015 triggered an internal debate in the Obama administration. It pitted White House and State Department officials engaged in human rights against State Department and Pentagon officials dealing with Turkey and the Middle East, ending with a public declaration that genocide would not be used in the statement of that year.44 The statements of 2015–16, however, revised substantially the template of 2009–14, as they included two legal terms: “mass atrocity” and “deportation.”45 Their criminal contents show the misconception of confusing them with common words like “dark days,” “horror,” “tragedy,” and “violence” as “latest verbal gymnastics.”46 The member states of the United Nations made a commitment in the outcome document of the 2005 World Summit to protect civilian populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The term “atrocity crime” refers to the three legally defined categories of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and was extended to embrace ethnic cleansing, which has no legal definition, but includes acts that may amount to crimes against humanity. The term “mass atrocity,” along “(mass) atrocity crime,” embraces all four categories.47 The United States government created the Atrocities Prevention Board in 2011 within the National Security Council to strengthen ability in the prevention and response “to genocide and mass atrocities.” The Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act passed in 2018 to help prevent acts of genocide and other “atrocity crimes” defines “atrocities” as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.48 Obama’s mention of “the Meds Yeghern, the first mass atrocity of the 20th century” in 2015 and 2016, which echoed Pope Francis’ quotation of “the first genocide of the 20th century” on April 12, 2015, referred to a criminal deed that included genocide, even if obliquely, rather than to a variation on the term of art “Armenian atrocities.” The second sentence in both statements referred to crime too: “The Armenian people of the Ottoman Empire were deported, massacred and marched to their deaths.” The passive voice strived to reflect an unnamed agent behind what was not a case of self-deportation, self-immolation, and voluntary death march. The extent of the actions indicated that the agent was the Ottoman Empire, a state actor capable of targeting the Armenian people in whole, and not a non-state actor like irregular forces or militia.

From Uruguay to the United States: On the Words of Recognition

131

Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, in effect since 2002, defines as crimes against humanity any of eleven acts committed by a state or organization as part of its widespread or systematic attack against civilians. Two such acts are deportation or forcible transfer of population, dealing with forced displacement from areas of lawful presence without internationally recognized legal grounds (paragraph 2, clause d), and extermination: “Intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population” (paragraph 2, clause b). The latter repeats article 2, clause c of the Genocide Convention with the addition of the phrase about deprivation. The sum of the acts of deportation and extermination with intent of substantial destruction constitutes genocide,49 which article 6 of the Rome Statute defines with the verbatim adoption of article 2 of the Convention. Genocide is to crimes against humanity as premeditated murder is to intentional homicide. Jurist William Schabas’ distinction condemns the annihilation of Jews, Tutsis, and Armenians as genocide “upon the supreme heinousness of ‘racial hatred.’”50 After his declaration of December 2013 that the “Armenian deportation” was wrong and inhumane,51 Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu may have provided a cue for Obama’s statement by telling European Parliament chairman Martin Schultz in April 2015 that “deportation is a crime against humanity [tehcir insanlık suçudur dedim], wherever it is.”52 The phrase contained a distinction with a statutory difference: it implied that deportation was a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute, but was not “tantamount to recognizing the Armenian Genocide.”53 The statements of 2015 and 2016 made good use of Obama’s 2006 letter to Condoleezza Rice, which had recalled that State Department officials “drew attention to the horrors, describing the massacres as a ‘campaign of race extermination’ (US Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913–16, Henry Morgenthau)” and that the study of the massacres by Raphael Lemkin was the motive “to coin the word ‘genocide’ in 1941 [sic]” and “to press for the drafting and passage of the United Nations Genocide Convention in 1948.”54 Both statements portrayed Lemkin as someone who helped “bring about the first United Nations human rights treaty” to avoid mentioning the Genocide Convention by name. But the statement of 2015 allowed an unforced semantic error when the active verb “to confront” disclosed the agent of the criminal deeds (mass atrocity and deportation) perpetrated against the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, namely, the Ottoman leaders: As the horrors of 1915 unfolded, U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, Sr. sounded the alarm inside the U.S. government and confronted Ottoman leaders. Because of efforts like his, the truth of the Meds Yeghern emerged and came to influence the later work of human rights champions like Raphael Lemkin, who helped bring about the first United Nations human rights treaty.

For this reason, the statement of 2016 turned Morgenthau into a passive actor who just “voiced alarm both within the U.S. government and with Ottoman leaders” in an action essential for “atrocity prevention.”

132

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

Bryan Ardouny, executive director of the Armenian Assembly, remarked that the statement of 2015 was an “exercise in linguistic gymnastics” but contained the definition of genocide, while Turkish commentator Emre Gönen noted that “everything but the word itself ” had been said to underscore that “the ‘Metz Yeghern’ (Great Calamity) was a terrible and genocidal act.”55 In 2011, Edmond Azadian had already observed that the statement of that year offered “every element to make a powerful case for the cause of genocide, except for the use of the actual word.”56 The discourse underlying Obama’s statements strived to avoid explicit acknowledgment and used Medz Yeghern in the belief that it did not carry the legal implications of a declaration of genocide.57 It has been argued that the use of Medz Yeghern represented de facto recognition, while “Armenian Genocide” would have implied de jure recognition.58 However, yeghern suffices to represent de jure recognition, irrespective of the language, because it is a synonym of tseghasbanutiun, “genocide.” Historian Vartan Gregorian (1933–2021) made this point clear in 2016: I do not know Obama personally, but speaking in general, I can say that, although he did not use the word “genocide,” he said Medz Yeghern instead, which is equivalent. He said that in Armenian. Open the dictionaries and you will see that Medz Yeghern is translated into English as genocide. We must thank Obama. He has recognized the slaughter, the facts, and the atrocities. Simply a note must be made and say that the Medz Yeghern is the genocide. This might have been presented as [the word] Holocaust. If I were Jewish and the president addressed me and said Shoah, then it would be equivalent to the people. We can appreciate this and do not attempt to cling to words, giving negative qualifications. (…) Soon Obama will no longer be an official, and all next presidents, those who will become presidents, will say that they would recognize the Armenian Genocide if elected. It would be possible to ask them how that would be expressed: are you going to say Medz Yeghern or will use the word “genocide,” which is equivalent?59

President Donald Trump ignored Armenians during his electoral campaign of 2016 but continued the annual statements, which copied the use of Medz Yeghern and the legal concepts of mass atrocity and deportation from Obama’s texts of 2015 and 2016 without any explicit mention of genocide. His press secretaries claimed the statements to be “perfectly in keeping with the language that’s been used over and over again” (Sean Spicer) and “consistent with past administrations as well” (Sarah Huckabee-Sanders).60 Armenians did not agree that Trump had also used a dictionary definition and the Armenian term for genocide.61 After switching from “Great Calamity” via “Great Atrocity” in 2013 to “Great Crime” in 2016 without further explanation, Sassounian denounced the statements of 2018 and 2019, now repeating, among others, the claim that Armenians had used Medz Yeghern meaning “Great Crime” “before the word genocide was coined by Jewish-Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin in the 1940’s.”62 He also decried the omission of genocide in the opening statement of Lynne Tracy, US Ambassador to Armenia, during her nomination hearing in November 2018 and took her to task, most significantly, for describing Medz Yeghern “inaccurately as ‘Great Calamity’ which actually means ‘Great Crime.’”63

From Uruguay to the United States: On the Words of Recognition

133

The estrangement in American-Turkish relations due to the Turkish invasion in Syria played a major role in the recognition of the annihilation as genocide by the US Congress in 2019 after forty-five years of failed expectations from the ArmenianAmerican community. On the eve of the House of Representatives’ approval (October 29), an unidentified spokeswoman stated that the State Department policy was that “the United States recognizes the Meds Yeghern was one of the worst mass atrocities of the 20th century.”64 After the White House managed three times to delay the approval, the Senate finally voted a concurrent resolution by unanimity on December 12. Five days later, spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus declared that the position of the Trump administration had not changed and that the president’s “definitive” statement of April 2019 reflected the views of the State Department. Sassounian remarked: In his April 24, 2019 statement, Trump used various euphemisms to refer to the “Armenian Genocide” without using that term (…). Furthermore, Trump used the Armenian term “Meds Yeghern” (Great Crime) to avoid using the words “Armenian Genocide.” Trump simply copied the same term used by Obama. Regrettably, Trump, who regularly rejects most of Obama’s policies, has decided to follow his predecessor’s rejection of using the term “Armenian Genocide.”65

Sassounian cited again “Great Crime” as translation in his reaction to Trump's statement of April 24, 2020, asserting that “Meds Yeghern was used by Armenians before Raphael Lemkin coined the term Armenian Genocide [sic] in the 1940’s.” He repeated the view that the use of Medz Yeghern misled politically naïve Armenians who thought that Trump had acknowledged the genocide.66 The case was fairly different, a correspondent to The Armenian Mirror-Spectator observed at the same time: “This ‘know-how’ of the Obama administration puts the White House in a somewhat strange situation, as the term is equal to Genocide in the Armenian language. However, it is deliberately used in avoidance of the latter term.”67

Biden: Recognition with Two Words On the same day, Obama’s former vice president and presidential candidate Joseph Biden released a statement that contained the following opening sentence: “Today we remember the atrocities faced by the Armenian people in the Metz Yeghern—the Armenian Genocide.” The next paragraph noted that Biden “was pleased to endorse bipartisan legislation in the House and Senate that officially recognized and established an ongoing U.S. commemoration of the Armenian Genocide” and pledged “to support a resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide.”68 The latter appeared to be a reference to a future joint and binding resolution of Congress after the concurrent and non-binding resolutions of 2019. Asbarez considered the statement a “tone-deaf acknowledgment” for reportedly overlooking those resolutions and interpreted it as touting Biden’s record supporting recognition efforts as senator without citing his “abominable record” when he was vice president.69 Sassounian took exception with the omission of the Ottoman Empire or Turkey, as well as with what sounded as the cardinal sin of using “the Armenian term

134

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

Meds Yeghern, following in the footsteps of Pres. Barack Obama,” notwithstanding the cautionary note that, “fortunately, he also used the term Armenian Genocide which Pres. Trump did not do.”70 Biden’s statement had adopted the Eastern Armenian form Metz Yeghern used by the Vatican, thus departing from the “Meds Yeghern” transliteration to be expected had it followed Obama’s footsteps. Incidentally, its opening sentence reaffirmed once again the correspondence Medz Yeghern = “Armenian Genocide.” The ongoing crisis in American-Turkish relations provided a window of opportunity for Biden, once elected president, to deliver on his promise and remain faithful to his longtime pro-Armenian positions. His statement of April 24, 2021, described the facts in the first paragraph, starting with the sentence, “Each year on this day, we remember the lives of all those who died in the Ottoman-era Armenian genocide and recommit ourselves to preventing such an atrocity from ever again occurring.” It built upon two paragraphs dedicated to the Armenian-American community and the respect of human rights and prevention of future atrocities to conclude with the following sentence: “The American people honor all those Armenians who perished in the genocide that began 106 years ago today.” Forty years and two days after Ronald Reagan’s fleeting mention that had never crystallized into policy, an American sitting president formally left realpolitik aside and ended “elaborate linguistic contortions to remain honest with history and truth.”71 Nevertheless, the statement made the Ottoman Empire solely accountable and declared its intent to “affirm history (…) not to cast blame” on its heir and beneficiary of the foundational crime, the Republic of Turkey. The third sentence in the first paragraph of President Biden’s statement did not leave aside the use of the proper name Medz Yeghern, which now followed the spelling of the Obama and Trump bureaucracies and had been previously signaled as synonym to the “Ottoman-era Armenian genocide”: “We honor the victims of the Meds Yeghern so that the horrors of what happened are never lost to history.”72

Conclusion

Unsilencing the Name

Until the creation of the word “genocide” during World War II, the Armenians used the expression metz yeghern, the exact Armenian translation of “great crime,” for 1915. As it happens, the Armenian word yeghern is now scarcely used to translate “crime” and has fallen in disuse to the advantage of the word vojir. Besides, by analogy with the Shoah, almost everyone, including Armenians themselves, who ignore the true meaning of the word yeghern, have believed and still believe that it means “catastrophe,” from which the received idea is to say that Armenians have called 1915 “the great catastrophe.” Claude Mutafian (2015)1 In 1976, survivor Leon Surmelian (1906–96) pointed out to the dearth of works on the genocide in the introduction to the English edition of Arshavir Shiragian’s (1900– 73) memoir about Operation Nemesis, The Legacy: “The dead tell no tales, and the living are mute.”2 Over the past forty years, there has been a veritable explosion of publications to make the dead speak, while the living broke their silence too. This study about the use, misuse, and abuse of the proper name Medz Yeghern has strived to obtain the testimony of a neglected but eloquent survivor, the Armenian language, providing extensive literary evidence that sheds light over the misrepresentation of facts and words in the politics of genocide. The power of language frames memory and legitimizes the knowledge of history, which makes possible to understand the past, but may limit the ways to see it.3 More than just the representation of a certain concept, words may sometimes be an embodiment of collective memory. After more than seven decades, whenever genocide is mentioned in any context, “there is not a single Armenian in the world—even those who cannot put two Armenian words together—who does not feel that felines (leopards, lions, sabre tigers) are clamping onto his or her soul, even without reflecting that whole zoo inside.”4 The instrumentalization of genocide for the goal of recognition has subsumed the generic legal denomination into the formula “Armenian Genocide,” which discounts the unique characteristics of the annihilation of 1915. “Today, [Armenians] are using a common name as a proper name. They do not respect the identity of the Event that has shaped them for the past 80 years. They do not respect their own memory of the Event,” remarked Marc Nichanian back in 2003.5

136

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

Medz Yeghern, the name born from the vocabulary and the experience of survivors, becomes the most suitable way to liberate the meaning of the annihilation from the shackles of semantic relativism and explain historically the experience of crime, in the same way that Aghed, “the name that will come at the end of history, when history as a series of denials will come to an end,”6 explains metahistorically the experience of catastrophe. Incidentally, the adjective medz may be elided as native speakers frequently do, with Yeghern standing alone—two syllables against the four of “genocide” and the five of tseghasbanutiun—for the sake of brevity. Several questions are at the core of the issue: 1. What does the common name yeghern mean? 2. Does Medz Yeghern explicitly point to the perpetrator’s central role or implicitly leave the executing agent out? 3. Is there a direct relationship between Medz Yeghern and genocide? Languages abound in words that have changed their meaning over time. The primary meaning of yeghern (evil > crime > massacre > genocide) indicates cause, and therefore Medz Yeghern points out to the central role of the perpetrator. The word yeghern designated moral (evil) and legal (crime) transgression in the classical language and developed to “crime” and “heinous crime” (French forfait) in the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century use of the modern language, before and after 1915. This heightened meaning of crime accounts for its preeminence over the more pedestrian word vojir. At a certain point after 1915, yeghern also acquired the sense of collective destruction and adopted the meaning “massacre” along “crime.” The metaphoric identification of Medz Yeghern with genocide led gradually to their semantic identification after 1965, which was paralleled by the normative use of tseghasbanutiun (literally “race murder”) as calque word for “genocide” over competing terms like azkasbanutiun (literally “nation murder”) and zhoghovrtasbanutiun (literally “people murder”). The evolution of yeghern from “massacre” to “genocide” mirrors the Arabic word ibādah (“annihilation, extermination, eradication, extirpation”), which was adapted to the generic term “genocide” (ibādah jama’iyyah “collective extermination”) and its particular cases (e.g., al-ibādah al-armaniyah = “the Armenian genocide”). The identification of the common name yeghern and the legal label “genocide,” which became more widespread after the turning point of the Karabagh movement in 1988, goes beyond the generic relationship of signifier (Medz Yeghern) and signified (genocide). In conclusion: a) Yeghern and tseghasbanutiun/genocide have become synonyms. The use of yeghern in the phrases “cultural genocide” and “genocide recognition,” for instance, supports their interchangeable nature. b) The literal translation of Medz Yeghern, according to context and time, may be “Great (Heinous) Crime” or “Great Genocide.” The secondary meaning “tragedy, catastrophe, calamity” for yeghern, derived from the conflation of yeghern and yegher in the New Haigazian Dictionary, was defined

Conclusion

137

as defunct or obsolete in the modern language by the 1940s and excluded by most monolingual and bilingual dictionaries published afterwards. However, it persisted as the outcome of a post-genocidal mindset relying on antiquated sources or received wisdom and oriented toward the idea of mourning. In the long run, it fostered a misrepresentation of facts, where interpretive denial managed to cross the language barrier and outsiders began dictating the terms of engagement with the past. The perversion of language turned Medz Yeghern into collateral damage of the war of words. The Turkish apology campaign of 2008 trivialized Medz Yeghern (= Büyük Felâket  / “Great Catastrophe”) in the public discourse as a name that was claimed to reflect the reality lived by the survivors and would have presumably advanced Turkish-Armenian reconciliation much further due to its “more human, more dignified” character,7 while “genocide” was said to be a term of legal and political contents lacking humanity. On a parallel track, President George W. Bush’s statements of 2003 and 2005 carried “Great Calamity” as implicit translation of Medz Yeghern. The Turkish misleading use of Medz Yeghern and the absence of an Armenian appropriate response became the driving force behind the follow-up: the mention of “Meds Yeghern” (= “Great Calamity”), untranslated, in the statements of Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump between 2009 and 2020. Paradoxically, the manipulation of Medz Yeghern by euphemism and equivocation offered Armenians an unexpected path to achieve the literal recognition that had been studiously avoided. The innate ability of native speakers to be the final arbiters of what their own words mean had the potential to thwart the ongoing assault on substance that victimized language once again. The presumed owners of the language, however, refused bearing witness to a cornerstone of their identity. Emphasis on the synonymous character of yeghern, tseghasbanutiun, and “genocide” would have likely countered the logical fallacy behind the translations “Great Catastrophe” and “Great Calamity.” Instead, the uncritical acceptance of those translations squandered the oportunity for a proactive response and delegitimized Medz Yeghern as an outdated expression without agency, overlooking its current use as synonym of Hayots Tseghasbanutiun (“Armenian Genocide”), as well as the existence of a sizable number of books, newspapers, memoranda, presidential speeches, and other sources between the 1960s and the 2010s where Medz Yeghern appears along its translation as “genocide,” “Armenian genocide,” “genocide of the Armenians,” or “Holocaust.” The connection of “Abrilean Yeghern” and “Armenian genocide” in the memorial of Soghomon Tehlirian in Fresno, California, and “1915 yeghern” and “1915 genocide” in the April 24 memorial in Niagara Falls, New York, for instance, was lost in the fog of genocide politics amid no less than two dozen memorials featuring similar translations worldwide. Word meanings are not etched in stone, but words etched in stone have a meaning.8 Foreign proper names and words are no longer exotic. Hebrew and Ukrainian speakers have thrown their substantial weight behind their language in the cases of Shoah and Holodomor, which disprove the claim that Medz Yeghern may

138

The Politics of Naming the Armenian Genocide

be  meaningless  outside the Armenian realm. Originally, the word “genocide” itself happened to have no meaning for the reader, given the absence of genos in English and French vocabulary.9 Official statements, press, and academia have adopted Shoah from Europe to the Americas following the impact of Claude Lanzmann’s homonymous film and the polemics over the meaning and trivialization of the name “Holocaust.” Obama’s statements on Holocaust Remembrance Day from 2011 to 2016 included the word Shoah and were called “Statement of the President on Yom HaShoah” in 2012– 14.10 The Yad Vashem Museum, which spearheaded the use of “Holocaust” since the 1950s, now favors the use of Shoah outside the Hebrew language due to the application of “holocaust” to mass murders in general.11 Holodomor (“killing by hunger”), which appears to have been coined in the Ukrainian community of North America in the 1960s and popularized in Ukraine during the final years of the Soviet Union, has replaced both “Famine” and “Ukrainian Holocaust” as name of choice, since no “single locution in English articulates what Stalin inflicted in 1933 on the people of the Ukrainian countryside.”12 For instance, the monument inaugurated in Washington, DC in 2015 is officially named Holodomor Memorial and not “Ukrainian Genocide Memorial” or “Great Famine Memorial.” Outside the media, Medz Yeghern enjoys a gradual recognition in academic works beyond the Armenian field and has made it to the title of Paolo Cossi’s graphic novel in Italian, Medz Yeghern: The Great Evil, with five translations from Spanish to Korean.13 It embodies the potential to become a meaningful carrier of memory in English like Shoah and Holodomor, along other foreign, older proper names like Reconquista, Renaissance, or Risorgimento. The double meaning “Great [Heinous] Crime” and “Great Genocide” eliminates the artificial opposition of Medz Yeghern and genocide by default as it upends and transcends denial. In November 1918, the first issue of the newspaper Artaramard evoked in Constantinople the editorial board of its predecessor Azatamart as victim of “the [Heinous] Crime of Crimes [Yegherneru Yeghern].”14 This preceded by three decades Raphael Lemkin’s characterization of genocide as “the crime of crimes” that “must be treated as the most heinous of all crimes.”15 At the onset of the Cold War, the encomium of Turkey as “a valued associate of the United States” owing “its strength and stability in no small measure to the homogeneity of its population” condoned the “almost total excision of the Armenians from Anatolia” and “Turkification and Moslemization (…) accelerated by the use of force” in an undisguised attempt at rationalization.16 Seventy years later, political expediency and strategic considerations do not appear to have fundamentally changed. A century of societal conditioning remains mostly in place, exacerbated by unyielding censorship and propaganda. Denial has become a Sisyphean task that continuously morphs into a garden variety of efforts “to permanently proscribe the existence of a word and its connotations” and ensure the “silencing of an entire history, which, for Turkey, carries an indelible and unwanted association of inhuman defacement and disfigurement,” as historian Harry Harootunian has summarized it.17 The heirs of the original perpetrators are naturally prone to uphold the foundational sin embedded into Turkish identity with an unrelenting replay of hackneyed assumptions and clichés, echoed by toneddown versions from outside purveyors with inflated credentials of dubious objectivity.

Conclusion

139

“Words cannot change or rewrite history,” Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu tweeted on April 24, 2021, in inmediate response to President Joseph Biden’s statement using “genocide” and Medz Yeghern.18 The irony should not have been lost to a keen observer. Words do not change the past, but, needless to say, the ultimate goal of their corruption is to rewrite the facts or, in other terms, “to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind” (George Orwell). Context matters even more than words, because “the nameless tell us what happened and that is all the evidence that we need,”19 including the proper name of the century-old crime that they bequeathed to their descendants and has been placed under a cone of silence that awaits to be lifted.

140

App endix A

The Meaning of Yeghern in Scholarship As we have documented throughout the text, writers, translators, and scholars, whether on their own volition or through intermediaries, have chosen one of the following criteria to translate the word yeghern: a) Word for cause, ranging from “crime” to “genocide” b) Word for consequence, ranging from “tragedy” to “cataclysm” c) Both of the above The list below includes available translations into English, French, Spanish, and Turkish of the titles of books and articles in Armenian using yeghern: Author, title, and date

Translation of yeghern

Hagop Babikian, The Yeghern of Adana (1919)

atrocity (Hovannisian, 1967; Chalabian, 1988)1 calamity (Hovannisian, 1985, 1986, 1997, 2007)2 tragedy (Arkun, 1999)3 massacre/s (Arpi and Arek, 2003; Svazlyan 2004, 2011, 2014; Arzoumanian, 2012; Gureghian, 2018)4

Mikael Shamdanjian, The Tribute of the Armenian Mind to the Yeghern (1919)

Crime (Thorossian, 1951)5 holocaust (Nichanian, 1985)6 Massacres (Oshagan, 1985, 1992)7 c/Catastrophe (Nichanian, 1993; Peroomian, 1993; Beledian, 1995; Coquio, 2003; Nichanian, 2007; Beledian, 2009)8 Genocide (Der Ohannessian, 2009)9 Extermination (Nichanian, 2013)10

Yenovk Armen, The Memoirs of American Ambassador Mr. Morgenthau and the Secrets of the Armenian Yeghern (1919)

genocide (Svazlian, 2011)11

Garabed Kapigian, Story of the Yeghern (1924)

Massacres (Krikorian, 1977; Der Matossian, 2005; Nichanian, 2008)12 Genocide (Sevag, 1978; Dadrian, 1993, 1995; Beugekian, 2017)13 Holocaust (Oshagan, 1985; Dadrian, 1999; Kevorkian, 2011)14 Mass Murder (Dadrian, 2003)15 Calamity (Meneshian, 2004; Matosyan, 2007; Üngor, 2014)16 Tragedy (Der Ohannessian, 2009; Akçam, 2010)17 Disaster or Calamity (Beledian, 2010)18 Crime (Nichanian, 2013)19 (continued)

142

Appendix A

Author, title, and date

Translation of yeghern

Mustafa Nedim, The Armenian Yeghern: My Testimonies (1925)

Massacres (Ozanian, 1964)20 Genocide (Dadrian, 1986)21

Hovsep Der-Vartanian, The Slaughter of Entilli-Airan, 1916: A Page Remaining Dark from the Medz Yeghern (1928)

Great Catastrophe (Kaiser, 1999)22

Garo Sasuni, The April Yeghern through Critical Lenses (1931)

Atrocity (Chalabian, 1988)23 Catastrophe (Beledian, 2001)24 genocide (Arpi and Arek, 2003; Harutyunyan, 2009)25

The Nation-Betraying Yeghern and the Condemnation (1935)

Crime (Chakmakjian, 1965)26

Nazaret Piranian, The Yeghern of Kharpert (1937)

Massacres (Krikorian, 1977)27 holocaust (Oshagan, 1985; Kévorkian, 2011; Tachjian, 2015)28 genocide (Payaslian, 2003)29

Arsen Jamgochian, Chapters of the Yeghern and Rebirth (1947)

tragedy (Armenian Affairs, 1950)30

Hampartzum Ashjian, The Yeghern of Adana and Memories of Konia (for History) (1950)

holocaust (Dadrian, 1988)31 catastrophe (Arkun, 1999)32 Massacre (Arzoumanian, 2012)33

Boghos Gadarigian, Lights That Have Gone Out: The Yeghern of the Village of Havav (1950)

tragedy (Armenian Affairs, 1950)34

Matteos Eblighatian, After the Medz Yeghern (1953)

holocaust (Hovannisian, 1982)35

K. Garoyan, The Physicians Who Were Victim of the Medz Yeghern (1957)

Great Massacre (Krikorian, 1977)36

Kersam Aharonian (editor), Memorial Book of the Medz Yeghern (1965)

Genocidal Crime (The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, 1966)37 Great Massacre (Svajian, 1977; Der Matossian, 2015; Messerlian 2015)38 Great Tragedy (A Question of Responsibility, 1980)39 Armenian Genocide (Chelebian, 1981; Derounian, 1981)40 Great Atrocity (Nassibian, 1984; Chalabian, 1988)41 Great Crime (Ternon, 1989; Payaslian, 2003, 2009, 2014)42 Great Genocide (Azadian, 1989; Arpi and Arek, 2003; Svazlian, 2011)43 Great Catastrophe (Minassian, 1995; Mouradian, 1999; Walker, 2001; Der Ohannessian, 2009)44 Great Calamity (Payaslian, 2004; Hovannisian, 2007; Kuyumjian, 2010; Messerlian, 2015)45 Colossal Crime (Payaslian, 2005, 2006)46 Great Holocaust (Akçam, 2006)47 Genocide (Ohanian, 2010)48 Great Disaster (Akçam, 2018)49

Aramayis Mnatsakanian, The Medz Yeghern of the Armenian People and the National Revival (1965)

Genocide (Chalabian, 1988; Arpi and Arek, 2003)50 Colossal Calamity (Payaslian, 2005)51 Great Calamity (Hovannisian, 2007)52

Appendix A

143

Author, title, and date

Translation of yeghern

V. Kesaratsi, The Blood Tribute of Kesaria and Surroundings to the Armenian Medz Yeghern (1965)

Colossal Catastrophe (Payaslian, 2005)53

Bishop Knel, The Red Easter or the Armenian Yeghern 1915–1918 (1965)

Genocide (Messerlian, 2015)54

Hagop Dj. Siruni, A Yeghern and Its History (1965)

Holocaust (Dadrian, 1993)55 Genocide (Dadrian, 1995)56

Yervant Pambukian, The April Yeghern (1965)

hecatomb (Habeshian, 1990)57

Aghan Daronetsi, The Responsible Ones for the Yeghern of Daron (1966)

catastrophe (Ter Minassian, 1995, 1999)58 massacre (Arpi and Arek, 2003)59

Haig Aramian, The Message of the Medz Yeghern (1970)

Holocaust (Jebejian, 1994)60

Zohrab’s Diary on the Eve of the Yeghern (1975)

Genocide (Dadrian, 1989)61

Levon Daghlian, Memoirs of the Yeghern (1976)

Holocaust (Toumayan, 1976)62

Avedis Yapudjian, The Medz Yeghern in the Assessment of Foreign Intelligentsia. Brief Bibliography on the Medz Yeghern (1980)

Great Atrocity (Chalabian, 1988)63 Great Armenian Genocide, Great Massacre (Arpi and Arek, 2003)64

Antranig Dzarukian, Love in the Yeghern (1987)

Deportation (Nichanian, 2006)65

Azat Yeghiazarian, The Reflection of the Yeghern in Soviet Armenian Literature (1990)

genocide (Marutyan, 2008)66

Ardashes Der Khachadurian, The Armenian Cultural Yeghern (1993)

genocide (Marutyan, 2008)67

Verzhine Svazlian, The Medz Yeghern: Western Armenian Oral Testimonies (1995)

Great Holocaust (Vartan, 1995)68 Genocide (Bardakdjian, 1998)69 Great Genocide (Svazlyan, 2004, 2011)70 Great Catastrophe (Peroomian, 2008)71

Verzhine Svazlian, The Medz Yeghern in Western Armenian Memoirs and Turkish Language Songs (1997)

Great Crime (Chahinian, 2008)72

Hagop A. Seropian, My Memoirs of the Yeghern (2005)

Great Crime (Mouradian, 2015)73

Papken Tcharian, The Loss of Our Clergy during the Medz Yeghern (2005)

Armenian Genocide (Der Ohannessian, 2009)74

144

Appendix A

Author, title, and date

Translation of yeghern

Shahen Khachatrian, The Color of Pain: The Reflection of the Yeghern in Armenian Painting (2010)

Armenian Genocide (Sevag, 2010)75

It is worthy of note that the translation “genocide” has been anachronistically used for works published before the invention of the word (Mikayel Shamdanjian, Yenovk Armen, Garabed Kapigian, Mustafa Nedim, Garo Sasuni, Nazaret Piranian), while the translations used by an author (Antranig Chalabian) in English have been modified in the translation of the book into Turkish fifteen years later. Besides the translation of titles, many translators and scholars have referred to the meaning of Medz Yeghern in their works. In 1963, Soviet Armenian historians Ruben Sahakian (1929–98) and Yervand Sarkisian (1913–2010) published a critique of Turkish distortions in Armenian modern history. Elisha Chrakian (1900–97) produced an English translation (1965), where he rendered medz yeghern first as “wholesale massacres” and then as “great Armenian Tragedy” and “great Tragedy” without any contextual reason.76 In the decade 1981–91, we find silent translations of Yeghern as “Massacres” by poet and literary critic Vahé Oshagan (1921–2000), and of Medz Yeghern as Grand Forfait (literally “Great Heinous Crime”) and “Great Catastrophe” respectively by attorney Roupen Boghossian (1926–2017) and theologian Vigen Guroian.77 Meanwhile, Marc Nichanian translated yeghern with the French word catastrophe in a sentence from Hagop Oshagan in his seminal interview of 1932, and also utilized catastrophe for Oshagan’s Aghed in the statement that “Oshagan’s life is divided in two: before the Catastrophe and after the Catastrophe.”78 He remarked in 1985 that the ordinary meaning of yeghern was “crime, collective massacre” as he made recourse to poetic license to translate a sentence from Oshagan’s monograph about Suren Bartevian with the use of “disaster.”79 Afterwards, he has consistently translated yeghern as “pogrom.”80 The translation “catastrophe” for yeghern became usual in scholarly circles from the 1990s and has been interpreted as a reflection of Judeo-Christian worldview.81 Philosopher Mihran Dabag translated Medz Yeghern as “great catastrophe” (große katastrophe) in 1993, while he paraphrased Nichanian: “Armenians divide their memories in Yegherne arach, yegherne verch, before the Catastrophe and after the Catastrophe.”82 Historian Anahide Ter Minassian (1929–2019) wrote in 1994 that the genocide was “a catastrophe (Yeghern)” unprecedented in Armenian history.83 In the wake of Barack Obama’s statement of 2009, linguist Anaïd Donabedian declared that “‘Meds Yeghern’ means ‘Great Catastrophe,’ a more subjective meaning as an outward statement of a person’s feelings, for whom nothing would be the same now.”84 The joint consideration of cause and consequence has been present since the first claim of an English dual translation “great crime” and “great calamity” for medz yeghern, which may be traced back to 1975.85 Writer and literary critic Krikor Beledian, who observed in 1995 that yeghern “only define[d] the peril, the misfortune being lamented, before designating the crime today,”86 gave its meaning as “disaster, (massive) crime” in 2004 as he translated medz yeghern as “great crime.”87 Five years later, however, his

Appendix A

145

remark that “the Catastrophe (aghed, yeghern) is the Armenian name of the genocide” identified both names.88 Some scholars have shifted from cause to consequence and vice versa without further explanation or analysis. Historian Claire Mouradian had initially rendered the title of the entry “Medz Yeghern” in the Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia as “Great Massacre” (Grand Massacre, 1983),89 which she changed to “Great Catastrophe” (Grand Catastrophe) in 1999.90 Her colleague Aldo Ferrari went from the translation “crime” (crimine) in 2003 to “tragedy” (tragedia) in 2016.91 Dabag switched to yeghern as “unfortunate persecution” (Verfolgungsunglück), “crime” (Verbrechen), and “misfortune and murder” (Unglück und Mord) and translated Medz Yeghern as “great massacre” (großes massaker) in 1996.92 Historian Yves Ternon first used “great catastrophe” (grand catastrophe) in 2003 and then opted for “great crime” (grand crime) in 2016,93 while political scientist Gaïdz Minassian started with “catastrophe” in 2005 and went to “Great Crime” in 2009 and “Great Carnage” in 2015.94 Genocide scholar Khatchig Mouradian, who had initially used “Great Crime,” afterwards paired it with “Great Catastrophe” in 2009 before returning to “Great Crime.”95 Richard Hovannisian suggested “Great Crime” and “Great Tragedy,” and later continued with “Great Calamity” and “Great Crime” before settling on the latter alone.96 Philosopher Siobhan Nash-Marshall went from “Great Calamity” (2010, 2013) to “Great Crime” in 2017,97 while anthropologist Harutyun Marutyan shifted from “Great Calamity” and “Great Catastrophe” (2008, 2015) to “Great Crime” in 2020.98 Between 2003 and 2015, literary scholar Rubina Peroomian cited half a dozen translations mostly using cause, but sometimes mixed with consequence.99 Jurist Geoffrey Robertson engaged in a similar back and forth during 2014–15, when he first gave the translation of Medz Yeghern as “the great calamity” and “the great massacre” and then turned to “Great Crime” and “the great catastrophe” to end up back to “Great Crime.”100 In 2007, anthropologist Hrag Varjabedian regarded “Great Crime” as an approximate translation for Medz Yeghern.101 Seven years later, psychiatrist Meliné Karakashian used “Great Crime” as explicit translation of Medz Yeghern for the first time in the title of an English book about survivor ethnomusicologist Komitas Vardapet (1869–1935).102 Boghos Zekiyan remarked in 2010 that Yeghern could mean a crime, as well as something very sad and tragic in a more general way, and that “Great Crime” and “Great Evil” could be somewhat approximate, but good translations.103 However, the translation of yeghern as “evil” becomes problematic in a famous passage of Don Quixote (second part, ch. 58), where the words of Don Quixote to Sancho reflect Miguel de Cervantes’ own experience as Ottoman captive after the battle of Lepanto (1571): Freedom, Sancho, is one of the most precious gifts that heaven has bestowed upon men; no treasures that the earth holds buried or the sea conceals can compare with it; for freedom, as for honour, life may and should be ventured; and on the other hand, captivity is the greatest evil [el cautiverio es el mayor mal] that can fall to the lot of man.

146

Appendix A

While the standard translator of “captivity is the greatest evil” would render “evil” as charik, Armenologist Valentina Calzolari chose yeghern as translation for a multilingual edition published in 2004.104 A back translation of kerutiune amenamedz yeghernn e (գերութիւնը ամենամեծ եղեռնն է), however, would yield “captivity is the greatest crime.” Two years later, Calzolari listed “crime, evil, misfortune, pogrom” as meanings of yeghern and translated Medz Yeghern in French as “Great Evil” (Grand Mal),105 but turned to “Great Crime” (Grand Crime) in 2017.106 Nichanian’s ingenious suggestion to characterize Yeghern (Եղեռն) as “the Event par excellence” relies on a presumed identification with yegher (եղեր “what happened”), the aorist tense of the verb yeghanem “to be, to exist” in Classical Armenian.107 However, the absence of phonetic grounds—the passage from soft r (ր) to strong r (ռ) has not been attested in Classical Armenian—and literary examples makes this connection improbable.

App endix B

Yeghern and “Genocide” in Memorial Inscriptions The first memorials to the annihilation appeared as early as the 1930s in the courtyards of the Armenian school of Plovdiv (Bulgaria) in 1930 and the Armenian church of the Virgin Mary (Nicosia, Cyprus) in 1932; the latter remained non-operational after falling within the Turkish zone of Nicosia in 1963. The Martyrs’ Chapel at the monastery of Antelias, Lebanon (1938) and the stele at the Armenian Catholic Patriarchate in Beirut (1939) followed suit. After a long hiatus, the first memorial outside Eastern Europe and the Middle East was built in South America, more specifically in the courtyard of the St. Gregory the Illuminator Cathedral in Buenos Aires (1961). “Finally, why each Armenian community should not have its memorial? Each town, each village that has its school and church, why should not have its memorial for April 24?,” writer Dikran Varjabedian asked in 1953.1 Their construction would start non-stop with the fiftieth anniversary in 1965, when the word yeghern appeared for the first time in commemorative inscriptions. The first memorial unofficially erected in Soviet Armenia was dedicated by the residents of the neighborhood of Erebuni (Yerevan) to the victims of Sepastia “in memory of the fiftieth anniversary of the Medz Yeghern.” A composite series of khachkars (stone crosses) inaugurated on October 16, 1965, in the courtyard of the monastery of Holy Echmiadzin was inscribed “to the memory of the Armenian martyrs of the 1915 April Yeghern [Abrilean Yeghern].” A marble monolith was erected in the courtyard of the St. Paul and St. Peter Armenian Apostolic Church (Alexandria, Egypt), including the name Medz Yeghern in the Armenian inscription. The ARF Central Committee of North America launched a worldwide fundraiser in 1965 to build a memorial on Soghomon Tehlirian’s tomb at the MasisArarat Cemetery of Fresno, California, “on the eve of the 50th anniversary of the Armenian massacres [Abrilean Yeghern],” with the aim to show “that the Armenian people, 50 years after the Aprilian Massacres [Abrilean Yeghern]” had recovered and paid tribute to their heroes.2 The stele was dedicated on August 31, 1969, displaying the first bilingual inscription including yeghern and its translation as “Armenian genocide.” The Armenian text cites Talat as genocidaire, executioner, and responsible for the crime: This monument has been erected by the donation of the Armenian people in memory of national hero Soghomon Tehlirian who, on March 15, 1921, liquidated the genocidaire [tseghasban] of the Armenian people, Taleat Pasha, Turkish

148

Appendix B

executioner and individual mainly responsible for the one and a half million Armenian martyrs of the April Yeghern [Abrilean Yeghern] of 1915.

The English version translates “April Yeghern of 1915” as “Armenian genocide of 1915,” subsuming Talaat’s triple role under the word “perpetrator”: This monument has been erected by the Armenian people in memory of Soghomon Tehlerian [sic], the national hero who, on March 15, 1921, brought justice upon Talaat Pasha, a principal Turkish perpetrator of the Armenian genocide of 1915 which claimed the lives of 1,500,000 Armenian martyrs.

The first memorial dedicated to the annihilation in the United States that displayed the word yeghern was a khachkar inaugurated in Niagara Falls (New York) on December 5, 1980. The Armenian inscription “Khachkar in memoriam of the Armenian martyrs of the 1915 yeghern” was matched by the English “In memoriam Armenian martyrs of the 1915 genocide.” Twenty-four trees were planted in 1988 at Acropolis Park in Nicosia “in memory of the martyrs of the April Yeghern,” according to the Armenian text of the trilingual inscription, while the Greek and English texts had “the Armenian martyrs of the genocide of 1915” and “the victims of the Armenian genocide of 1915.” The English inscription of an altar-memorial consecrated in the Armenian section of the Macquarie Park cemetery in Sydney (Australia) on April 23, 1989, used “Holocaust” as equivalent for Medz Yeghern in Armenian. A khachkar sculpted on one of the courtyard walls of the historical church of Forty Martyrs (Aleppo) and unveiled on May 28, 1991, established the literal correspondence between the Armenian inscription “April Yeghern” and the English “Armenian Genocide 1915.” The bilingual inscription in the Armenian Evangelical Church of Betel (Aleppo), inaugurated on April 24, 1995, states in English that “we have erected this memorial monument in honor of the Armenian martyrs of the Great Genocide of April 1915,” where “Great Genocide” appears as Medz Yeghern in Armenian. In June 2000, commentator Hagop Aintablian argued, on the basis of selective evidence, that the meaning of yeghern in Armenian dictionaries undermined genocide recognition. He offered as proof Hrachia Adjarian’s etymological dictionary, which reportedly gave the meanings “calamity, evil, crime, crying, pain”—the first two belong to Classical Armenian, as we have seen before, while the last two are inexistent—as well as monolingual dictionaries (“carnage, massacre, crime”), and Armenian-English and English-Armenian dictionaries (“crime, atrocity, murder, brutality, tragedy, massacre”). On this flimsy basis, he made an appeal to Armenian publications and fellow commentators to exclude the proper name Yeghern from their writings, demanding that the press reject all pieces using the word; writers, events, and TV programs abstain from it, and tseghasbanutiun replace yeghern in memorial inscriptions. The coda was: “If we want to see the Armenian Genocide committed by the Turks in 1915–1923 recognized by foreign nations and states, we should start using that word accurately and forgetting Yeghern.”3

Appendix B

149

Curiously, this call to send the word yeghern to a memory hole did not request the insertion of Raphael Lemkin’s word in memorial inscriptions where both yeghern and tseghasbanutiun are conspicuously absent (Buenos Aires, 1961; Kolkata, 1965; Emerson, New Jersey, 1965; Tehran, 1973; Isfahan, 1975; Buenos Aires, 1985, London, 2015, etc.). After a survey of all available texts in memorials inaugurated worldwide between 1965 and 2018, we have managed to establish a corpus of 114 inscriptions that include the words yeghern and/or “genocide,” which we divided in two periods using Aintablian’s article as terminus ad quem. For practical reasons, the inscriptions have been translated from their original languages, with relevant foreign words quoted between brackets. This list should not be considered exhaustive, since there are missing inscriptions due to the lack of reliable textual evidence, but it is sufficiently representative for statistical purposes.4 Table A2.1 1965–2000 Place

Date

Text

Yerevan (Armenia)

1965

[Armenian]: In memory of the fiftieth anniversary of the Medz Yeghern by the residents of the neighborhood, 1915–65.

Holy Echmiadzin (Armenia)

1965

[Armenian]: Khachkar of prayer and covenant to the memory of the Armenian martyrs of the April Yeghern of the year 1915. Built in the year 1965.

Alexandria (Egypt)

1965

[Armenian]: We are/We remain/Medz Yeghern/April 24, 1915/1915–65/Fiftieth anniversary/memorial. [Arabic]: Memorial to the Armenian martyrs.

Montebello, California

1968

[Armenian]: Armenian Martyrs Memorial Monument/ [English]: This monument erected by Americans of Armenian descent is dedicated to the 1,500,000 Armenian victims of the genocide perpetrated by the Turkish government, 1915–21, and to men of all nations who have fallen victims to crimes against humanity.5

Bikfaya (Lebanon)

1969

[Armenian]: This memorial was erected on the fiftieth anniversary of the April Yeghern with the united cooperation of the whole Armenian community of Lebanon to celebrate the rebirth of the Armenian people and to express gratitude to Lebanon. / [Arabic]: This monument was erected on the fiftieth anniversary of the Armenian massacres with the full cooperation of the Armenian people in Lebanon to revive the glory of the Armenian nation and as a token of gratitude toward the Lebanese homeland. April 24, 1969.

Marseilles (France)

Early 1970s

[French] To the memory of 1,500,000 Armenians victims of the genocide of 1915. / [In Armenian]: To the memory of all Armenian martyrs of 1915.

Décines (France)

1972

[French]: To the memory of 1,500,000 Armenians massacred during the genocide of 1915. (continued)

Appendix B

150 Place

Date

Text

Marseilles (France)

1973

[French]: To the memory of the 1,500,000 Armenians victim of the genocide ordered by the Turkish leaders of 1915. To the glory of the Armenian combatants and resisters who died for freedom and for France. [Armenian]: To the memory of the 1.500.000 victims of the genocide [tseghasbanutiun] by the Turkish leaders of 1915. To the glory of the resisters and combatants sacrificed for freedom and for France.

Montevideo (Uruguay)

1975

[Spanish]: 1915 April 24, 1975. In memory of 1.5 million Armenian martyrs victim of the genocide perpetrated by the Turkish government in 1915.

Arnouville-surGonesse (France)

1975

[French]: To the memory of the 1,500,000 victims of the genocide.

Phoenix, Arizona

1978

[English]: (…) This Monument is dedicated to the 1,500,000 Armenian victims of the genocide in Turkey from 1915–1921, and to people of all nations who have fallen to crimes against humanity.

Watertown, Massachusetts

1979

[English]: In memory of the Armenian martyrs who perished in the genocide. April 24, 1915. [Armenian]: In memory of the many Armenian martyrs who perished in the genocide [azkasbanutiun]. April 24, 1915

Detroit, Michigan

1980

[English]: We Detroit Armenians dedicate this monument to the memory of our 1,500,000 Armenian martyrs massacred during the 1915 genocide.

Niagara Falls, New York

1980

[English]: In memoriam Armenian martyrs of the 1915 genocide. [Armenian] Khachkar in memoriam of the Armenian martyrs of the 1915 yeghern.

Albuquerque, New Mexico

1981

[English]: A living commemoration to the 1915 genocide of the Armenian nation.

Denver, Colorado

1982

[English]: In memory of one and one half million Armenians victims of the first genocide of the twentieth century.

Vienne (France)

1982

[French]: To the memory of the 1,500,000 Armenians victim of the genocide perpetrated by the Turks in 1915. [Armenian]: To the memory of the 1,500,000 Armenian victims of the genocide [tseghasbanutiun] of 1915 perpetrated by the Turks.

Aix-en-Provence (France)

1983

[French]: To the 1,500,000 Armenians massacred by the Turks during the first genocide of the twentieth century in 1915. [Armenian]: To the memory of the 1,500,000 Armenian victims who were massacred by the Turks.6

Alfortville (France)

1984

[French]: To the memory of the 1,500,000 Armenians victim of the genocide ordered by the Turkish government in 1915. [Armenian]: To the memory of the 1.5 million Armenians who were victims of the genocide [tseghasbanutiun] ordered by the Turkish government in 1915.

Appendix B

151

Place

Date

Text

Toulon (France)

1985

[French]: To the memory of the victims of the Armenian genocide of 1915.

Valence (France)

1985

[French]: To the memory of the 1,500,000 Armenians victim of the genocide perpetrated by the Turkish state in 1915 / [Armenian]: To the memory of the tseghasbanutiun of 1.5 million Armenians executed by the Turkish state of 1915.

Montpellier (France)

1986

[French]: To the memory of the 1,500,000 Armenians victim of the genocide ordered in 1915 by the Turkish leaders.

Toronto (Canada)

1986

[English]: This monument is dedicated to the 1,500,000 Armenians who perished during the 1915–22 genocide.

Charvieu (France)

1987

[French]: Avenue of April 24, 1915—Armenian genocide.

Vitrolles (France)

1987

[French]: Homage to the martyrs of the first genocide of the twentieth century.

Cannes (France)

1987(?)

[French]: To the memory of the 1,500,000 Armenians victims of the genocide perpetrated by the Young Turk government of 1915.

Southfield, Michigan

1987

[English]: Dedicated by St. John Armenian Church community to the memory of the one and a half million Armenian martyrs of the faith to the genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Turkish government during the years 1915– 1920 / [Armenian]: Dedicated by St. John Baptist Church community to the memory of the 1.5 million Armenian martyrs who were sacrificed during the tseghasbanutiun perpetrated by Ottoman Turkey in the years 1915–20.

Stuttgart (Germany)

1987

[Armenian]: To the memory of the victims of the Armenian Medz Yeghern. / [German]: To the memory of the victims of the Armenian people.

Ruse (Bulgaria)

1987

[Armenian]: Memorial to the victims of the Yeghern / [Bulgarian]: Memorial to the victims of the genocide of the Armenian people [genotsid nad Armenskiya narod] 11/244-1915.

Avignon (France)

1988

[French]: To the memory of the 1,500,000 Armenians victim of the genocide ordered by the Turkish leaders in power in 1915.

Nicosia (Cyprus)

1988

[Armenian]: These twenty-four trees are planted in memory of the martyrs of the April Yeghern. [Greek]: These 24 trees are planted in memory of the Armenian martyrs of the genocide [genoktonias] of 1915. [English]: These 24 trees are planted in memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide of 1915.

Saint-Etienne (France)

1989

[French]: To the memory of the 1,500,000 Armenians victim of the first genocide of the twentieth century perpetrated by the Turkish leaders of 1915.

Appendix B

152 Place

Date

Text

Sydney (Australia)

1989

[English]: This altar-memorial in sacred memory of the Armenian martyrs of the 1915 Holocaust was erected under the patronage of His Holiness Vazken I, Catholicos of All Armenians and blessed by Bishop Aghan Baliozian, Primate of the Australian Diocese, constructed by the Armenian Near East Society in conjunction with the Armenian Church in Sydney. April 1989. / [Armenian]: In the patriarchate of His Holiness Vazken I, Catholicos of All Armenians, and the primacy of Bishop Aghan Baliozian, this altar-memorial to the martyrs of the 1915 Medz Yeghern was built by the Near East Armenian Society with the participation of the Holy Resurrection Church of Sydney. April 1989.

Hackensack, New Jersey

1990

[English]: In remembrance of the Armenian Genocide 1915–1923 where 1,500,000 innocent Armenians were massacred by the Ottoman Turks.

Brussels (Belgium)

1990

[French]: To the 1,500,000 Armenians victim of the genocide [Flemish, volkenmord] ordered by the Ottoman leaders of 1915.

Aleppo (Syria)

1991

[Armenian]: To the memory of the April Yeghern / [Arabic]: To the memory of the Armenian martyrs. / [English]: To the memory of the Armenian Genocide 1915.

North Andover, Massachusetts

1993

[Armenian]: Homage to the victims of the 1915 Medz Yeghern. / [English] In memory of the 1915 Armenians.

Ridgefield, New Jersey

1994

[English]: In memory of the 1915 Armenian martyrs of the Turkish genocide and to the martyrs of KarziYalova, Ortakugh-Boursa, and Keghi-Erzerum of Turkey. [Armenian]: In memory of the 1915 martyrs of the Turkish tseghasbanutiun and the victims of Karzi-Yalova, Ortakiugh-Bursa, and Keghi-Erzerum of Turkey.

Santa Ana, California

1995

[English]: To the memory of the Armenian Genocide 1915. In remembrance of the 1,500,000 genocide victims.

Aleppo (Syria)

1995

With heartfelt thanks and praises to our God the Almighty, we have erected this memorial monument in honor of the Armenian martyrs of the Great Genocide of April 1915, to bring alive this manifestation before the conscience of the whole world and humanity. / [Armenian]: (…) With gratitude to God Almighty we erected this memorial complex to the memory of the sanctified martyrs of the April Medz Yeghern (…)

Aleppo (Syria)

1995

[Armenian]: This memorial to the April martyrs was erected on the 80th year of the Yeghern of April 24, 1915.

Damascus (Syria)

1995

[Armenian]: In the memory of the 80th anniversary of the Medz Yeghern. 1915–95.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

1996

[Armenian]: But we are eternal like our mountains. / [English]: This monument is dedicated to the immortal memory of the 1,500,000 Armenian martyrs massacred by the Turkish government during the 1915 genocide.

Appendix B

153

Place

Date

Text

Watervliet, New York

1996

[English]: In memory of the 1,500,000 Armenians martyred during the genocide in Turkey.

Charenton-le-Pont (France)

1996

[French]: This stele inscribes in time the passion that the Armenian people lived on the ancestral soil for its country, its church, its culture: on April 24, 1915, by order of the Turkish government, the first genocide of the twentieth century started.

San Francisco, California [Mt. Davidson cross]

1998

[English]: (…) This revered site is cared for in memory of the 1,500,000 victims of the Armenian Genocide perpetrated by the Turkish government from 1915 to 1918. Over half of the Armenian population on its ancient homeland was killed, and no Armenian community remained in historical western Armenia. (…) / [Armenian]: In memory of the victims of the genocide.

Providence, Rhode Island

1999

[English]: We Armenians dedicate this monument to the immortal memory of the 1,500,000 Armenian martyrs massacred by the Turkish government during the 1915 genocide. / [Armenian]: We Armenians dedicate this monument to the immortal memory of the 1,500,000 Armenian martyrs who were victims of the Turkish tseghasbanutiun of 1915.

Grenoble (France)

1999

[French]: To the memory of the 1,500,000 victims of the Armenian genocide executed by the government of the Young Turks in 1915.

Sevran (France)

1999

[French]: To the memory of 1,500,000 Armenians, victims of the first genocide of the twentieth century, perpetrated by the Ottoman Turkish leaders in 1915.

Meyzieu (France)

2000

[French]: April 24, 1915. Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Young Turk government. [Armenian]: April 24, 1915. To the memory of the innocent victims of the Yeghern.

Budapest (Hungary)

2000

[Armenian]: This holy cross was erected in memory of the 1700th anniversary of the adoption of Christianism in Armenia and the 85th anniversary of the Armenian Yeghern. [Hungarian]: This holy cross was erected in the 1700th anniversary of the adoption of Christianism in Armenia and the 85th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide [Ormény Genocíd].

Glendale, California

2000

[Armenian]: To the memory of the Medz Yeghern.

The analysis of the inscriptions of fifty-two memorials built in thirteen countries (United States, Canada, Armenia, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, France, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Uruguay, Australia) from 1965 to 2000 yields the following conclusions: a) The names Medz Yeghern, Abrilean Yeghern, or Yeghern appeared in seventeen inscriptions (32.69 percent). Six of those inscriptions had Yeghern translated either as “Genocide” or “Holocaust” (1989). b) “Genocide” was featured in 80.39  percent of the inscriptions. In fact, fortyone inscriptions displayed tseghasbanutiun and its translations as legal qualifiers

154

Appendix B

in Armenian, English, French, Spanish, Greek, Bulgarian, and Flemish, génocide arménien as qualifier, and Armenian Genocide as proper name. These conclusions were furthered in the last two decades. The bronze statue “Mother Arising from the Ashes,” placed at the courtyard of the Ararat-Eskijian Museum in Mission Hills, California, had a replica installed near the memorial of Tzitzernakaberd in 2002. A bilingual plaque explains in its first sentence in English: “This statue is a memorial to those who perished, survived and escaped the 1915 Genocide.” The Armenian translation uses “1915 Yeghern.” Two khachkars were inaugurated on April 24, 2005, in Germany. A bilingual plaque for the Brunswick memorial says “on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Medz Yeghern” in Armenian, while the German text reads “on the 90th anniversary of the genocide [Völkermord] of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.” The bilingual inscription for the memorial in a park of Bremen also featured “Armenian Medz Yeghern” in Armenian and “genocide of the Armenians” in German. In 2008, a memorial inaugurated in Larnaca (Cyprus) featured an inscription in four languages (Armenian, Greek, English, and Turkish), which noted that the monument marked the place “where Armenian refugees fleeing persecution during the genocide [Armenian tseghasbanutiun]” had first landed in Cyprus and stood “in memory of the countless victims of the Armenian Genocide [Armenian Medz Yeghern].” The city of Piteşti (Romania) unveiled the first memorial installed in a public place of the country on September 26, 2014. The Armenian inscription on the khachkar featured “during the Medz Yeghern,” which the Romanian version rendered as “in the time of the genocide” (in timpul genocidului). The case was similar with another khachkar dedicated by the Armenian community of the state of Saxony-Anhalt (Germany) and the municipality of Halle on May 10, 2015. The bilingual inscription also used “during the Medz Yeghern” in Armenian, while the German text replaced Medz Yeghern with Völkermord (“genocide”). Throughout 2015, memorials were dedicated in various localities of Armenia and Mountainous Karabagh. A khachkar in the village of Darpas (province of Lori, Armenia) was inscribed with the text “To the memory of the victims of the Armenian Medz Yeghern,” and the village of Ddmashen (Gegharkunik, Armenia) has another khachkar with a bilingual inscription. The Armenian text reads “In memory of the innocent victims of the Armenian medz yeghern of the year 1915,” while the English translation says: “In memory of the 1915 Armenian Genocide innocent victims.” The proportional use of “genocide” rose almost 10 percent (88.70 percent) in the inscriptions of sixty-two memorials erected in seventeen countries (United States, Lebanon, Iran, Romania, Venezuela, France, Canada, Germany, Argentina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Wales, Ireland, the Netherlands, Australia, Armenia, and Karabagh) during the period 2001–18. It appeared in fifty-five cases as “Armenian Genocide” or its variants and/or “genocide” in Armenian, English, French, Spanish, German, Romanian, Bulgarian, Greek, Welsh, Dutch, Italian, Arabic, and Turkish. On the other hand, (Medz) Yeghern was recorded a total of nineteen times, but its participation fell to 30.64  percent. Eight inscriptions contained its translation into English, German, Italian, or Romanian as genocide, one was attached to tseghasbanutiun, and one to “Armenian Genocide,” Armeniki Genoktonias, and Ermeni Soykırım.

Appendix B

155

Table A2.2 2001–18 Place

Date

Text

Springfield, Massachusetts

2000s (?)

[English]: In memory of the 1.5 million martyrs who died during the 1915 Armenian Genocide.

Bikfaya (Lebanon)

2000s

[English, Armenian, and Arabic]: This monument dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide [Armenian, Haygagan Tseghasbanutiun; Arabic, al-ibadāh al-armaniyah] was built by the Armenian community of Lebanon as a reminder of the genocide [Armenian, tseghasbanutiun; Arabic, ibadāh] perpetrated by Ottoman Turkey against the Armenian people in 1915, which caused more than one and a half million victims. It is also a testimony to the renaissance of the Armenian people, and an expression of gratitude to Lebanon.

Ottawa (Canada)

2002

[Armenian]: In homage to Armenia, whose symbol, Mount Ararat, became the first cradle of humanity, which first accepted Christianity (301) and was also the first to climb to the cross as a nation, becoming the victim of the first tseghasbanutiun of the twentieth century, the Armenian Medz Yeghern (1915–23).

Yerevan (Armenia)

2002

[Armenian]: Mother Resurrected Out of the Ashes / It is dedicated to the memory of the martyrs and those who miraculously escaped the 1915 Yeghern. It is a reminder of the unheard-of crime perpetrated on the Armenian people who did not renege of its faith and national heritage. (…) [English]: Mother Arising Out of the Ashes / This statue is a memorial to those who perished, survived, and escaped the 1915 Genocide. It is a reminder of the indignities perpetrated on the Armenian people who stood resolute in their Christian faith and heritage.

Caracas (Venezuela)

2002

[Spanish]: The first genocide that a race ever suffered is commemorated on April 24, 1915. (…)

Bucharest (Romania)

2002

[Armenian]: Frankincense and prayer to the imperishable memory of our countless martyrs / [Romanian]: Eternal remembrance of the Armenian martyrs victim of genocide [genocidul] in the Ottoman Empire 1915.

Paris (France)

2003

[French]: In homage to Komitas, composer and musicologist, and to the 1,500,000 victims of the Armenian genocide of 1915 perpetrated in the Ottoman Empire / [Armenian]: In memory of Komitas Vardapet and the 1,500,000 Armenian victims of the tseghasbanutiun committed by the Ottoman Empire in 1915.

Bayside, Maine

2003

[English]: This memorial is dedicated to the survivors of the Armenian Genocide, 1915–1923, who settled in Bayside. By the early twentieth century over 250 Armenian families lived in Portland where they established businesses and a vibrant social life.

Binghamton, New York

2004

[English]: These trees are a living memorial to the victims of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 committed by the Ottoman Turkish government. (continued)

Appendix B

156 Place

Date

Text

Arnouville-lesGonesse (France)

2004

[French] Monument to the memory of 1,500,000 Armenians victim of the genocide perpetrated by the Turkish government in 1915. [Armenian]: To the victims of the Haygagan Tseghasbanutiun of 1915.

Gardanne (France)

2004

[French]: Homage to the memory of 1,500,000 martyrs and victims of the Armenian Genocide perpetrated starting on April 24, 1915, by the government of the Young Turks.

Montreal (Canada)

2005

[Armenian]: This khachkar-memorial, “Red Gospel,” was erected for the sacred Armenian martyrs on the 90th anniversary of the tseghasbanutiun of the Medz Yeghern, April 24, 2005.

Bremen (Germany)

2005

[Armenian]: On the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Medz Yeghern, dedicated to the memory of the 1,500,000 victims. / [German]: On the 90th anniversary of the genocide [Völkermord] of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, we commemorate the 1,500,000 assassinated Armenians.

Brunswick (Germany)

2005

[Armenian]: On the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Medz Yeghern, dedicated to the memory of the 1,500,000 victims. / [German]: On the 90th anniversary of the genocide [Völkermord] of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, we commemorate the 1,500,000 assassinated Armenians.

Sarcelles (France)

2005

[French]: To the memory of the 1,500,000 victims of the genocide of the Armenian people perpetrated in 1915 by the Ottoman Empire.

Rosario (Argentina)

2005

[Spanish]: Armenian community of Rosario in the 90th anniversary of the genocide of 1,500,000 Armenians perpetrated by the Turks.

Padua (Italy)

2005

[Italian]: In memory of the martyrs of the genocide of the Armenians.

Fort Lauderdale, Florida

2005

[English]: In memory of the martyrs of the Armenian Genocide and our parents. George and Naomi Davitian.

Azatavan (Armenia)

2005

[Armenian]: In memory of the innocent victims of the yeghern of 1915.

Varna (Bulgaria)

2006

[Bulgarian]: In memory of the victims of the genocide of the Armenian people [genotsida Armyanskya naroda] committed by Turkish oppressors in the year 1915. [Armenian]: In memory of the victims of the Hayots Tseghasbanutiun committed by Turkish oppressors in the year 1915.

Rome (Italy)

2006

[Italian]: In memory of the victims of the Armenian genocide. Metz Yeghern – The Great Evil. April 24, 1915

Boise, Idaho

2006

[English]: In memory of 1.5 million Armenian victims of genocide, Turkey. April 24, 1915.

Cardiff (Wales)

2007

[English]: In memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide. / [Armenian]: In memory of the martyrs of the Hayots Tseghasbanutiun. [Welsh]: In memory of the victims of hil laddiad yr armeniaid.

St-Martin d’Hères (France)

2007

[French]: April 24, 1915. To the memory of the 1,500,000 Armenians victims of the first genocide of the twentieth century perpetrated by the Young Turk government.

Appendix B

157

Place

Date

Text

Vanadzor (Armenia)

2007

[Armenian]: In memory of the victims of the yeghern of 1915.

Shnogh (Armenia)

2007

[Armenian]: To the victims of the yeghern of 1915.

Arles (France)

2008

[French]: To the memory of the 1,500,000 Armenians victim of the genocide of 1915 perpetrated by the government of the Young Turks under the Ottoman Empire. / [Armenian]: To the memory of 1,500,000 victims of the tseghasbanutiun of Armenians of 1915, organized by the government of the Young Turks of the Ottoman Empire.

Larnaca (Cyprus)

2008

[English]: This monument marks the spot where Armenian refugees fleeing persecution during the genocide [Armenian tseghasbanutiun, Greek genoktonias, Turkish soykırım] of 1915 first landed in Cyprus. It represents the gratitude of the Armenian nation toward the people of Cyprus for their assistance and generosity to those refugees and stands in memory of the countless victims of the Armenian Genocide [Armenian Medz Yeghern, Greek Armenikis Genoktonias, Turkish Ermeni Soykırım].

Padua (Italy)

2008

[Italian and English]: Metz Yeghern (genocide of the Armenians) 1915–1916. The extermination of the Armenians in Anatolia was planned and executed by the Turks of the “Unity and Progress” party that governed the Ottoman Empire since 1908. (…)

Burgas (Bulgaria)

2008

[Armenian]: In memory of the 1,500,000 martyrs of the Hayots Tseghasbanutiun committed in 1915. / [Bulgarian]: In memory of the 1,500,000 victims of the genocide of the Armenian people [genotsid nad Armanskiya narod] committed in 1915.

Antoura (Lebanon)

2010

[Arabic]: In commemoration of the victims of the Turkish genocide perpetrated against the Armenian people by the Ottoman authorities. / [Armenian]: In memory of the Armenian martyrs, who were victims of the genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman authorities. / [French]: In homage to the victims of the Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman authority. / [English]: In commemoration of the martyrs of the tseghasbanutiun perpetrated against the Armenians by the Ottoman authorities.

Boston, Massachusetts

2012

[English]: (…) This sculpture is offered in honor of the one and one half million victims of the Armenian Genocide of 1915–1923. (…)

La Tour d’Aigues (France)

2012

[French]. First genocide of the twentieth century. / [Armenian] To the 1.5 million Armenian victims of the first genocide [tseghasbanutiun] of the twentieth century.

Lowell, Massachusetts

2013

[English] In memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide 1915–1923. (…) This ancient culture lives forever, just as the imprint of the first genocide of the twentieth century lives in the collective memory of the Armenians. The blossoming cross stone is the permanent reminder that the massacre of more than 1.5 million Armenians within the Ottoman Empire will never be forgotten, that in spite of the pain and horror of the genocide, knot by knot, the Armenian People everywhere weave their hopes and dreams, as they bloom and prosper.

Appendix B

158 Place

Date

Text

Troy, New York

2013

[English]: Dedicated to the victims of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 and the survivors who settled in and around the city of Troy.

Laval (Canada)

2013

[French]: To the memory of the 1.5 million Armenians victim of the first genocide of the twentieth century perpetrated by the Turkish government in 1915 in the hope that such crimes against humanity will not be ever reproduced (…)

Lusignan (France)

2014

[French]: To the memory of the 1,500,000 victims of the Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Young Turk government in 1915. / [Armenian]: In memory of the 1500000 Armenian victims who died in 1915 in the tseghasbanutiun planned by the government of the Young Turks.

Piteşti (Romania)

2014

[Armenian]: This khachkar has been erected as a memorial to the many victims of our Armenian nation, who died during the Medz Yeghern in the year of our Lord 1915, in Western Armenia. Prayer and blessings for our martyrs. / [Romanian]: This cross has been erected in memory of the 1,500,000 sons and daughters of the Armenian people killed in Western Armenia during the genocide [genocidului] in the year of our Lord 1915. Prayers and blessings for our martyrs.

Vancouver (Canada)

2014

[English]: This Monument honours the 1.5 million innocent souls who lost their lives in the Armenian Genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Turkish government in 1915. An ancient race was almost extinguished on its historic homeland in the first genocide of the twentieth century.

Twin Falls, Idaho

2014

[English]: In memory of the Armenian Genocide and the contribution that the Armenian Americans have made to our community.

Verin Karmiraghbiur (Armenia)

2015

[Armenian]: To the victims of the 1915 Yeghern.

Dublin (Ireland)

2015

[Armenian]: Memory of the sacred martyrs of the Hayots tsegasbanutiun. [English]: In memory of the victims of the Armenian genocide.

Fresno, California

2015

[English]: Armenian Genocide Monument 1915–2015. / [Armenian]: Monument of Hayots Tseghasbanutiun 1915–2015.

Las Vegas, Nevada

2015

[English]: (…) It is offered in honor of the one and half and million victims of the Armenian Genocide of 1915–1923. May it stand in remembrances of all genocides that followed (…)

Paris (France)

2015

[French]: 1915–2015 Centennial of the genocide of the Armenians. In homage to the Armenian women victim of genocide, to those who disappeared, to those who survived and transmitted the memory.

Marseilles (France)

2015

[French]: 1915–2015 Armenian Genocide. To the Armenian women victim of genocide, to those who disappeared, to those who survived and transmitted life and memory.

Appendix B

159

Place

Date

Text

Martigues (France)

2015

[French]: 100th anniversary of the first Genocide of the twentieth century. To the memory of 1,500,000 Armenians victims of this tragedy, ordered by the Ottoman Empire in 1915. (…)

Troyes (France)

2015

[Armenian and French]: To the memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide [Armenian Hayots Tseghasbanutiun].

Rasht (Iran)

2015

[Armenian]: To the memory of the Medz Yeghern.

Mechelen (Netherlands)

2015

[Dutch]: In memory of the victims of the Armenian genocide [Armeense genocide].

Halle (Germany)

2015

[Armenian]: This khachkar was erected to evoke the memory of our many martyrs who died during the Medz Yeghern [ յընթացս Մեծ Եղեռնի] in the Ottoman Empire, in Western Armenia. Prayer and blessing to the Armenian martyrs and to the German friends helping the Armenian survivors. / [German]: This cross stone has been built in memory of the millions of victims of the genocide [Völkermord] of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, in Western Armenia. Prayer and blessing to the Armenian martyrs. In memory of the Armenian victims and the German helpers of the survivors.

Leer (Germany)

2015

[Armenian]: Armenian Medz Yeghern/1915 / [German]: Genocide [Völkermord] in the Ottoman Empire. In memory of 1.5 million Armenian victims.

Ddmashen (Armenia)

2015

[Armenian]: In memory of the innocent victims of the Armenian medz yeghern of the year 1915 / [English]: In memory of the 1915 Armenian Genocide innocent victims.

Darpas (Armenia)

2015

[Armenian]: To the memory of the victims of the Armenian Medz Yeghern.

Kashatagh (Mountainous Karabagh)

2015

[Armenian]: 1915–2015 100th anniversary of the Hayots Tseghasbanutiun. / [English]: 1915–2015 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

Ghukasavan (Armenia)

2015

[Armenian]: To the memory of the 1.5 million innocent victims of the Armenian Medz Yeghern.

Berlin (Germany)

2016

[Armenian, German, and English]: This Cross-stone (“Khachkar” in Armenian) was erected in memory of the innocent victims of the Armenian genocide [Armenian Hayots tseghasbanutiun, German Völkermord an der Armenier] during World War I in the Ottoman Empire. It was here in St.-Hedwig’s Cathedral that the first Commemoration Service was held at the request of the German-Armenian Society on May 14, 1919. Participants included Weimar Republic officials as well as foreign diplomats.

St. Catherines (Canada)

2016

[English and French]: To the memory of the 1,500,000 victims of the Armenian Genocide. They will be never forgotten.

Cologne (Germany)

2017

[German]: To the memory of the victims of the genocide of the Armenians [Völkermord an der Armenier] 1915–1918

Appendix B

160 Place

Date

Text

St. Maurice-desBeynost (France)

2017

[French]: 1915–2015 Armenian genocide. In homage to the Armenian women victims of the genocide, to those who disappeared, to those who survived and transmitted life and memory.

Évreux (France)

2018

[French]: Cry of the innocents. In memory of the genocide of the Armenians perpetrated on April 24, 1915, and of the minorities.

Sydney (Australia)

2018

[English]: Symbol of gratitude from the Armenian community to Saint Mary’s Cathedral commemorating the celebration of mass for the centenary of the Armenian Genocide in 2015 presided by the Most Rev. Abp. Anthony Fisher OP. / [Armenian]: Remembrance of Christian love.

The word yeghern was never linked to calamity, catastrophe, tragedy, or crime in the period 1965–2018, except for the khachkar in the courtyard of the Armenian Catholic church of San Nicola di Tolentino (Rome), inaugurated in 2006, which features the pair “Metz Yeghern – Il Grande Male” along the word “genocide.” Conversely, several inscriptions from the United States, Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Germany, Hungary, Romania, and Syria indicate the semantic relation of yeghern with genocide. The consideration of the period 1965–2018 concludes with the overwhelming use of the word “genocide” in 84.21 percent of the cases, with Medz Yeghern lagging far behind with 31.58 percent. Out of this survey, the Holocaust memorial inaugurated in 2008 at the Ring Park of Yerevan presents a crossover of yeghern and Shoah. The Hebrew text only mentions the Jewish victims, “Lihyot o lishkoakh / lizkor korbanot ha-shoah” (“To be or to forget / In memory of the victims of the Shoah”). The members of the Jewish community, who are citizens of Armenia and fluent in Armenian, have memorialized the victims of both genocides in the Armenian text: “Ապրել / Չմոռանալ / Հայ եւ հրեայ ժողովուրդների եղեռնի զոհերի յիշատակին” (“To live / To not forget / In memory of the victims of the yeghern of the Armenian and Jewish peoples”). It is unreasonable that such homage would have meant “crime” or even “massacre,” thus downplaying the magnitude of both annihilations. Like Shoah, the meaning of yeghern can only be “holocaust” or “genocide.” The approximate translation by a news agency discloses the equivalence of the crime: “To live and not to forget: In the memory of the Armenian and Jewish peoples’ Genocide.”7

Notes Introduction Tatul Sonentz-Papazian, “Reflections on Time, Crime, and Commemoration,” The Armenian Weekly, May 20, 2000. See idem, “Beyond Genocide: The Semantics of Deception and Elimination,” The Armenian Weekly/Aztag Daily, special issue, April 24, 2005, p. 8. 2 “Eēdi-Gulēi očirě” (The Crime of Yedikule), Azatamart, December 3/16, 1909; “Օr. Annijayi datavarut’iwně” (The Trial of Miss Annitza), Azatamart, January 26/ February 8, 1910. 3 “Vayrag bŗnut’iwn mě” (A Savage Violation), Azatamart, November 27/December 10, 1909; “Eēdi-Gulēi očirě” (The Crime of Yedikule), Hairenik, November 30/December 13, 1909; “Eēdi-Gullēi očirě” (The Crime of Yedikule), Azatamart, December 1/14, 1909; “Eēdi-Gulēi ełeŗně” (The Crime of Yedikule), Hairenik, December 1/14, 1909. 4 Millennial Dawn, vol. 1, Allegheny, PA: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1902, p. 38. See Hazarameayi aršaluysě (The Dawn of the Millennium), vol. 1, Brooklyn, NY: International Bible Students Association, 1916, p. 51. 5 Leo, Hayoc’ patmut’iwn (History of the Armenians), vol. 1, Tiflis: Slovo, 1917, p. 436. Tacitus wrote about “the crime of Antonius, who had enticed Artavasdes, the king of the Armenians, in a display of friendship, then weighing him down with chains and finally killing him” (Tacitus, The Annals, translated by A. J. Woodman, Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Co., 2004, p. 43). 6 Bertha S. Papazian, The Tragedy of Armenia: A Brief Study and Interpretation, Boston and Chicago: The Pilgrim Press, 1918, p. 112. On the genocide, see, for instance, Yves Ternon, The Armenians: History of a Genocide, translated by Rouben C. Cholakian, Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1981; Christopher J. Walker, Armenia: The Survival of a Nation, second revised edition, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990, p. 198–240; Vahakn Dadrian, The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus, Providence and Oxford: Berghahn, 1995; Donald Bloxham, The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism, and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians, New York: Oxford University Press, 2005; Taner Akçam, A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility, translated by Paul Bessemer, New York: Henry Holt, 2006; Raymond H. Kévorkian, The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History, London: I.B. Tauris, 2011; Ronald G. Suny, “They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else”: A History of the Armenian Genocide, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015. 7 Quoted in Vartan Matiossian, “When Dictionaries Are Left Unopened: How ‘Medz Yeghern’ Turned into Terminology of Denial,” The Armenian Weekly, November 24, 2012. 8 See Michael Stanford, The Nature of Historical Knowledge, Oxford: Blackwell, 1986, p. 32, quoted in Gregory F. Goekjian, “Diaspora and Denial: The Holocaust and the ‘Question’ of the Armenian Genocide,” Diaspora, 1, 1998, p. 14. 1

162 9

Notes

David Kazanjian and Marc Nichanian, “Between Genocide and Catastrophe,” in David L. Eng and David Kazanjian (eds.), Loss: The Politics of Mourning, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2003, p. 133. On denial, see Richard G. Hovannisian, “The Armenian Genocide and Patterns of Denial,” in idem (ed.), The Armenian Genocide in Perspective, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 1986, p. 113–34; Vigen Guroian, “Collective Responsibility and Official Excuse-Making: The Case of the Turkish Genocide of the Armenians,” in idem, p. 135–52; Walker, Armenia, p. 379–89; Dennis R. Papazian, “Misplaced Credulity: Contemporary Turkish Attempts to Refute the Armenian Genocide,” Armenian Review, 1–2, 1992, p. 185–213; Vahakn N. Dadrian, “Ottoman Archives and Denial of the Armenian Genocide,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian Genocide: History—Politics—Ethics, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992, p. 281–310; Roger W. Smith, Eric Markusen, and Robert Jay Lifton, “Professional Ethics and the Denial of the Armenian Genocide,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 1, 1995, p. 1–22; Vahakn Dadrian, Warrant for Genocide: Key Elements of Turko-Armenian Conflict, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 1999; Richard G. Hovannisian, “Denial of the Armenian Genocide in Comparison with the Holocaust,” in idem (ed.), Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999, p. 201–36; Marc Nichanian, “The Truth of the Facts: About the New Revisionism,” in Hovannisian, Remembrance and Denial, p. 249–70; Henry C. Theriault, “Denial and Free Speech: The Case of the Armenian Genocide,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Looking Backward, Moving Forward: Confronting the Armenian Genocide, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 2003, p. 231–62; Richard G. Hovannisian, “Armenian Genocide Denial as a Prototype,” in Barlow Der Mugrdechian (ed.), Between Paris and Fresno: Armenian Studies in Honor of Dickran Kouymjian, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2008, p. 571–98; Marc Nichanian, The Historiographic Perversion, translated by Gil Anidjar, New York: Columbia University Press, 2009; Marc A. Mamigonian, “Academic Denial of the Armenian Genocide in American Scholarship: Denialism as Manufactured Controversy,” Genocide Studies International, Spring 2015, p. 61–82; Richard G. Hovannisian, “Denial of the Armenian Genocide 100 Years Later: The New Practitioners and Their Trade,” Genocide Studies International, Spring 2015, p. 228–47; Siobhan F. Nash-Marshall, The Sins of the Fathers: Turkish Denialism and the Armenian Genocide, New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2017. 10 See A. O. Sarkissian, History of the Armenian Question until 1885, Champagne, IL: University of Illinois-Champagne, 1938; Louise Nalbandian, The Armenian Revolutionary Movement: The Development of Armenian Political Parties through the Nineteenth Century, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1963; Richard G. Hovannisian, “The Armenian Question in the Ottoman Empire 1876 to 1914,” in idem (ed.), The Armenian People: From Ancient to Modern Times, vol. 2, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997, p. 203–38. 11 Ara Sarafian (ed.), United States Official Records on the Armenian Genocide, 1915–1917, Princeton and London: Gomidas Institute, 2004, p. 33. See Wolfgang Gust (ed.), The Armenian Genocide: Evidence from the German Foreign Office Archives, 1915–1916, New York and Oxford: Berghahn, 2014, p. 183–93; Kamuran Gürün, The Armenian File: The Myth of Innocence Exposed, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985, p. 209–10. 12 See Yervant Pambukian (ed.), Niwt’er H. Y. Dašnakc’ut’ean patmut’ean hamar (Materials for the History of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation), vol. 11, Beirut: Armenian Revolutionary Federation, 2015, p. 228–42.

Notes

163

13 Letter from Bureau vicepresident H. Khununts to Gevorg V, April 6/19, 1915, in Sandro Behbutian (ed.), Vaveragrer Hay Ekełec’vo patmut’yan (Documents of the History of the Armenian Church), vol. 13, Yerevan: Mughni, 2005, p. 355–6. The date has been misread as September 6 (September 19 in the Gregorian calendar). 14 See M. G. Nersisian (ed.), Genotsid armyan v Osmankoi imperii: sbornik dokumentov i materialov, second edition, Yerevan: Hayastan, 1983, p. 278; “T’iwrk’[akan] paterazmě ew hayerě” (The Turkish War and the Armenians), Mshak, May 2 [15], 1915. The appeals to Victor Emmanuel III and Wilson were sent on April 22 (Ternon, The Armenians, p. 336; Boghos Nubar’s Papers and the Armenian Question 1915–1918, edited and translated by Vatche Ghazarian, Waltham: Mayreni, 1996, p. 17). For another appeal by Gevorg V to Wilson in June 1915 “in the name of humanity and our holy Christian fate,” see Simon Payaslian, United States Policy toward the Armenian Question and the Armenian Genocide, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, p. 95. 15 John S. Kirakosian (ed.), Hayastaně miĵazgayin divanagitut’yan ev sovetakan artak’in k’ałak’akanut’yan p’astat’łt’erum (1828–1923) (Armenia in the Documents of International Diplomacy and Soviet Foreign Policy, 1828–1923), Yerevan: Hayastan, 1972, p. 368–9; Behbutian, Vaveragrer, vol. 13, p. 315, 318–9; Zaven Messerlian, Before and after the Armenian Genocide, translated by Maral O. SarkissianKaloustian, Beirut: Chemaly and Chemaly, 2015, p. 39. 16 “Appeal to Turkey to Stop Massacres,” The New York Times, April 28, 1915; “Morgenthau Intercedes,” The New York Times, April 29, 1915. See Sarafian, p. 18–9, 22; Messerlian, Before and After, p. 39. 17 See Arthur Beylerian (ed.), Les Grandes Puissances, l’Empire Ottoman et les Arméniens dans les archives françaises (1914–1918). Recueil de documents, Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1983, p. 15, 18–20, 22, 26–7; Messerlian, Before and after, p. 40–1. 18 “Allies’ Stern Warning to Turkey,” The Times, May 24, 1915; “Allies to Punish Turks Who Murder,” The New York Times, May 24, 1915. See Walker, Armenia, p. 231. 19 “Les massacres en Arménie. La Triple-Entente tiendra par responsable le gouvernement turque,” Le Matin, May 25, 1915. See Beylerian, Les Grandes Puissances, p. 29–30. 20 Muammer Demirel, Birinci Dünya Harbinde Erzurum ve çevresinde Ermeni harekitleri, Ankara: General Staff, 1996, p. 52–3, quoted in Dadrian, Warrant for Genocide, p. 124. 21 See Beylerian, Les Grandes Puissances, p. 31; Sarafian, United States Official Records, p. 29–30. 22 Esat Uras, The Armenians in History and the Armenian Question, translated by Süheyla Artemel, Istanbul: Documentary Publications, 1988, p. 869–73; Gust, The Armenian Genocide, p. 198–201. 23 Leslie Davis, The Slaughterhouse Province: An American Diplomat’s Report on the Armenian Genocide, edited by Susan K. Blair, New Rochelle: Aristide D. Caratzas, 1989, p. 144–5. 24 Simon Payaslian, “The United States Response to the Armenian Genocide,” in Hovannisian, Looking Backward, Moving Forward, p. 69. 25 Payaslian, United States Policy, p. 95. 26 Sarafian, United States Official Records, p. 55.

164

Notes

27 “Tell of Horrors Done in Armenia,” The New York Times, October 4, 1915. 28 Sarafian, United States Official Records, p. 373. 29 Idem, p. 423. 30 Johannes Lepsius (ed.), Deutschland und Armenien 1914–1918. Sammlung Diplomatischer Aktenstücke, Potsdam: Tempelverlag, 1919, p. 388–9. 31 Thomas de Waal, Great Catastrophe: Armenians and Turks in the Shadow of Genocide, New York: Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 72. The correlation of Halil’s threat with the Genocide Convention (“acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”) has been overlooked by the sophism that the use of crimes against humanity is applicable to the Armenian case where “the perpetrators may not have intended to eradicate an entire nation but have still killed an awful lot of innocent people” (idem, “The G-Word: The Armenian Massacre and the Politics of Genocide,” Foreign Affairs, January-February 2015, p. 148). 32 Ittihat ve Terakki’den Cumhuriyete Bitmeyen Şavaş: Kutülamare Kahramanı Halil Paşanın Anıları, edited by M. Taylan Sorgun, Istanbul: Yedigün, 1972, p. 241. Halil was imprisoned by the British in 1919 and boasted to a visiting British officer about having killed around 300,000 Armenians by using reserve forces to punish those he claimed as rebels and by asking to deport those likely to rebel (idem, p. 274). 33 “La Turquie devant la Conférence,” La Renaissance, July 20, 1919. See “T’iwrk’in mahavčiŗě” (The Death Sentence of the Turk), translated by G. M. Manavian, Gochnag Hayastani, July 5, 1919, p. 851–2. 34 Suny, “They Can Live,” p. 349. See Ugor Ümit Ümgör, The Making of Modern Turkey: Nation and State in Eastern Anatolia, 1913–1950, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011; Taner Akçam, The Young Turks’ Crime against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire, Princeton and London: Princeton University Press, 2012. On the annihilation of Assyrians and Greeks, see George N. Shirinian (ed.), Genocide in the Ottoman Empire: Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks, 1913–1923, New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2017. 35 Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, London: Oxford University Press, 1961, p. 1. 36 Talin Suciyan, The Armenians in Modern Turkey: Post-Genocide Society, Politics and History, London: I.B. Tauris, 2015, p. 17–27. 37 See Melissa Bilal, Thou Need’st Not Weep, for I Have Wept Full Sore: An Affective Genealogy of the Armenian Lullaby in Turkey, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 2013, p. 228–32. 38 See Uğur Ümit Üngor, “Lost in Commemoration: the Armenian Genocide in Memory and Identity,” Patterns of Prejudice, 2, 2014, p. 147–66; Suciyan, The Armenians in Modern Turkey, p. 126–42; Lerna Ekmekcioĝlu, Recovering Armenia: The Limits of Belonging in Post-Genocide Turkey, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2016, p. 101–30. 39 See Bedross Der Matossian, “The Taboo within the Taboo: The Fate of the ‘Armenian Capital’ at the End of the Ottoman Empire,” European Journal of Turkish Studies [online], complete list, 2011, p. 2–19 (ejts.revues.org); Uğur Ümit Üngor and Mehmet Polatel, Confiscation and Destruction: The Young Turk Seizure of Armenian Property, London: Continuum, 2013; Ümit Kurt, “The Plunder of Wealth through Abandoned Property Laws in the Armenian Genocide,” Genocide Studies International, 1, 2016, p. 37–51; Lusine Sahakyan, Turkification of the Toponyms in the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey, Montreal: Arod Books, 2010; Soner Cagaptay, Islam,

Notes

165

Secularism, and Nationalism in Modern Turkey: Who Is a Turk, London and New York: Routledge, 2006, p. 57–62. 40 Leyla Neyzi, “‘Wish They Hadn’t Left’: The Burden of Armenian Memory in Turkey,” in Leyla Neyzi and Hranush Kharatyan-Araqelyan, Speaking to One Another: Personal Memories of the Past in Armenia and Turkey, Bonn: DVV International, 2010, p. 20. 41 “Visiting Kazan Scholar Ümit Kurt at Fresno State,” Hye Sharzhoom, October 2015. See also Eric Bogosian, Operation Nemesis: The Assassination Plot that Avenged the Armenian Genocide, New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2015, p. 336. 42 Geoffrey Robertson, An Inconvenient Genocide: Who Remembers the Armenians, London: Biteback, 2014, p. 109. 43 “Les Arméniens,” Journal de Geneve, August 28, 1915; “Turkish Official Denies Atrocities,” The New York Times, October 14, 1915. 44 Verité sur le mouvement révolutionnaire arménienne et les mesures gouvernementales, Constantinople: n. p., 1916; Ermeni komitalarının amâl ve harekât-ı ihtilâliyesi: ilân-ı meşrutiyetten evvel ve sonar, Istanbul: Matbaa-i Amire, 1332 [1916]. 45 “Posthumous Memoirs of Talaat Pasha,” translated by M. Zekeria, The New York Times Current History, November 1921, p. 287–95; Djemal Pasha, Memoirs of a Turkish Statesman 1913–1919, New York: George H. Doran, 1922. 46 Lewis, The Emergence, p. 286. 47 “Striking Contrast,” Hairenik Weekly, October 25, 1951. On the foundational period of denial, see Levon Chorbajian, “‘They Brought It to Themselves and It Never Happened’: Denial to 1939,” in Alexis Demirdjian (ed.), The Armenian Genocide Legacy, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016, p. 167–82. 48 “1915 Armenian Atrocities Cited at UN by Cyprus Foreign Minister,” Hairenik Weekly, February 4, 1965. 49 “Turkish President, Prime Minister Deny Massacre,” Hairenik Weekly, May 20, 1965. 50 “Armenia Remembers,” The New York Times, April 24, 1965; “Turkish Citizens All,” The New York Times, May 3, 1965. See Vahagn Avedian, Knowledge and Acknowledgement in the Politics of Memory of the Armenian Genocide, New York: Routledge, 2019. 51 Leo Sarkisian, “The Old Refrain,” The Armenian Weekly, March 24, 1979. 52 Levon Keshishian, “The Turkish Genocide of Armenians and the U.N. Commission on Human Rights,” The Armenian Reporter, June 20, 1974. 53 Jean-Marie Carzou, Un génocide exemplaire: Arménie 1915, Paris: Flammarion, 1975, p. 210. 54 Hamza Eroğlu, Türk Inkilâp Tarihi, Istanbul: Devlet Kitapları, 1982, p. 226, quoted in Çakır Ceyhan Suvari, “The Effect of Religious Identity on the Construction of Otherness: Perception of Armenian Identity in the Turkish Education System,” in History Lessons of the 20th Century: “Our Neighbours” and “Us” (Turkey and the South Caucasus), Tbilisi: Heinrich Boell Foundation, 2011, p. 102. See Jennifer M. Dixon, “Education and National Narratives: Changing Representations of the Armenian Genocide in History Textbooks in Turkey,” The International Journal for Education Law and Policy, special issue, 2010, p. 103–26. 55 “Turks Protest Inclusion of Armenians in Holocaust Memorial,” The Armenian Reporter, July 24, 1980; “Turkish-Armenian Issue: The Complex Tragedy of 1915,” The New York Times, May 5, 1983. On the modern development of denialism, see Doğan Gürpınar, “The Manufacturing of Denial: The Making of the Turkish ‘Official Thesis’ on the Armenian Genocide between 1974 and 1990,” Journal of Balkan and

166

56

57 58

59

60 61 62 63 64 65 66

67 68

Notes Near Eastern Studies, 3, 2016, p. 218–40; Jennifer M. Dixon, “Defending the Nation? Maintaining Turkish Narrative of the Armenian Genocide,” South European Society and Politics, 3, 2010, p. 467–85. Lerna Ekmekcioğlu, “A Climate for Abduction, a Climate for Redemption: The Politics of Inclusion during and after the Armenian Genocide,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 3, 2013, p. 526; Hans-Lukas Kieser, “Relocation, Banishment, and Migration in Armenia” (hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/rezensionen/ type=rezbuecher&id=6897, accessed on December 23, 2014). See Ahmet İnsel and Michel Marian, Dialogue sur le tabou arménien, Paris: Liana Levi, 2009, p. 113. Elizabeth Kastor, “The Armenian Tragedy That Has No Name,” The Washington Post, April 25, 1990. Turkish Daily News, November 28, 2006, cited in Nava Löwenheim, “Turkey’s Dual Problem: Between Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora,” in Dan Miodownik and Oren Barak (eds.), Nonstate Actors in Intrastate Conflicts, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014, p. 122. Lewis V. Thomas and Richard N. Frye, The United States and Turkey and Iran, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951, p. 60–1; Stanford J. Shaw and Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. 2, second printing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978, p. X (emphasis in the original); Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice, New York and London: W. W. Norton and Company, 1986, p. 21, quoted in Rouben Paul Adalian, “The Ramifications in the United States of the French Court Decision on the Denial of the Armenian Genocide and Princeton University,” Revue du monde arménien moderne et contemporaine, 3, 1997, p. 110; Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, Salt Lake City: Utah University Press, 2005, p. 241. See also Lewis, The Emergence, p. 356. Similarly, Valerii Soldatenko, the former director of the Institute of National Memory, echoed the argument of Russian historians in the claim of 2012 that the Holodomor was a “common tragedy shared by all the people of the former Soviet Union” (quoted in Olga Andriewsky, “Towards a Decentred History: The Study of the Holodomor and Ukrainian Historiography,” East/West: Journal of Ukrainian Studies, 1, 2015, p. 29). Justin McCarthy and Carolyn McCarthy, Turks and Armenians: A Manual on the Armenian Question, Washington, DC: Assembly of Turkish American Associations, 1989, p. 66. Kastor, “The Armenian Tragedy.” The same transactional model allowed suggesting that Armenians abandoned the use of genocide in exchange for recognition of their suffering (Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, p. 271). Hovannisian, “The Armenian Genocide and Patterns of Denial,” p. 131. Kazanjian and Nichanian, “Between Genocide,” p. 133. Leo Sarkisian, “As I See It …,” The Armenian Weekly, February 8, 1992. Harry D. Harootunian, The Unspoken as Heritage: The Armenian Genocide and Its Unaccounted Lives, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2019, p. 142. Esra Özyürek, “A Turkish ‘I Apologize’ Campaign to Armenians,” Los Angeles Times, January 5, 2009; “German Parliament Recognizes Armenian Genocide, Angering Turkey,” The New York Times, June 3, 2016; “Armenian Issue Exploited to Blackmail Turkey, President Erdoğan says,” Daily Sabah, June 4, 2016. Mark Mazower, “The G-Word,” London Review of Books, February 8, 2001, p. 21. Garo Sasuni, Aprilean Ełeŗně k’nnakan aknoc’ov (The April Yeghern Seen through Critical Lenses), Paris: Imprimerie de Navarre, 1931, p. 5.

Notes

167

69 Anahïde Ter Minassian, “Histoire contemporaine et mémoire du peuple arménien: leur rôle dans la formation de la conscience nationale et des options politiques de la Diaspora,” in Marc Nichanian and Remo Pomponio (eds.), La struttura negata: cultura armena nella Diaspora, Milano: ICOM, 1979, p. 40. 70 Aram Andonian, Mec Očirě. Haykakan verĵin kotoracnerě ew T’alēad P’aša (The Great Crime: The Last Armenian Massacres and Talaat Pasha), Boston: Bahag, 1921, p. 78. 71 Arsen Jamgochian, Druagner haykakan Ełeŗnēn ew veracnund (Chapters from the Armenian Yeghern and Rebirth), Paris: H. Turabian, 1947, p. 4–5. 72 Z. D. S. Papazian, A Practical Dictionary Armenian-English, Constantinople: H. Matteosian, 1905, p. 65, 232, 410. The use of “the Armenian Genocide” as meaning of Charte (= “the Chart) (Louisa Baghdasarian and R. David Zorc, (Eastern) ArmenianEnglish Dictionary, Kensington, MD: Dunwoody Press, 1995, p. 655) has been negligible. 73 Kastor, “The Armenian Tragedy.” 74 Haig Sarajian, The Silent Generation, n.p.: n.p., 2009, p. IV–V. 75 Antranik Granian, “Baŗeru miws eresě (G.)” [The Other Side of the Words III], Haigazian Armenological Review, XV, 1995, p. 34–5; idem, “Baŗerun miws eresě. ‘Ĵardabanut’iwn’ ew masamb norin” [The Other Side of the Words: Words Denoting Massacres, Etcetera], Haigazian Armenological Review, XXXV, 2015, p. 422; Parandzem Meytikhanian, “Ełeŗn baŗi lezvakan k’nnut’yun” (Linguistic Examination of the Word Yeghern), Vem, 1, 2009, p. 144–7; Seda Gasparyan, “Ełeŗn baŗi hamarzhek’ut’yan daště anglerenum” (The Field of Equivalence of the Word Yeghern in English), Vem, 1, 2010, p. 125–35, translated in idem, The Armenian Genocide: A Linguocognitive Perspective, Yerevan: Yerevan State University Press, 2014, p. 167–86; Vazgen Hambardzumian, “Hayeren ełeŗn baŗi cagumě yev tipabanut’yuně” (The Origin and Typology of the Armenian Word Ełeŗn), Lezu yev lezvabanutyun, 2016, p. 40–9. 76 “Hayastaně kě parpui” (Armenia is Being Emptied), Hayastan, June 3 [16], 1915; “Patmut’ean` ew oč’ mardkut’ean hamar” (For History and Not for Humankind), Hayastan, August 3 [16], 1915. The dates of the newspaper are in the Julian calendar used in Bulgaria until late March 1916. 77 Harutiun Kefelian, Ašxarhadašt (Ełeŗni druagner Andrēasi ew šrĵanneru) (World Field: Chapters of the Yeghern in Antreas and Surroundings), Paris: Araz, 1937, p. 3. 78 “Nahatakneru patgamě” (The Message of the Martyrs), Asbarez, April 25, 1948. 79 Shiraz Tashjian, “Mec Ełeŗn” (Medz Yeghern) in Musa Leŗ taregirk’ (Musa Dagh Yearbook), Beirut: Vahe Sethian, 2003–4, p. 46–7. 80 Boghos Levon Zekiyan, L’Armenia e gli armeni. Polis lacerata e patria spirituale: la sfida di una sopravvivenza, Milan: Guerini e Associati, 2000, p. 35; idem, “ArmenianTurkish Relations in the Framework of Armenian and Turkish Scholarships,” Iran and the Caucasus, 14, 2010, p. 371. See also 99: All You Should Know about the Genocide, translated by Nazareth Seferian, Yerevan: Pan-Media LLC, 2014, p. 4. 81 Krikor Beledian, “L’expérience de la catastrophe dans la littérature arménienne,” Revue d’histoire arménienne contemporaine, 1, 1995, p. 131; idem, “From Image to Loss: The Writers of Kharpert and Provincial Literature,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian Tsopk/Kharpert, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2002, p. 271–2; Marc Nichanian, Writers of Disaster, vol. 1: The National Revolution, Princeton and London: Gomidas Institute, 2002, p. 10. 82 Marc Nichanian, “Sarafian: The Conquest of the Exile,” in Nigoghos Sarafian, The Bois de Vincennes, translated by Christopher Atamian, Dearborn: The Armenian

168

Notes

Research Center, University of Michigan-Dearborn, 2011, p. 9. The French original was published in 1993. 83 Nichanian, Writers of Disaster, p. 247; idem, The Historiographic Perversion, p. 9. Despite the claim that Oshagan was the first to use systematically Aghed in its full intent or invent it as proper name in his interview published in 1932 and his posthumously published monograph of 1944 about Aram Andonian (Nichanian, “The Truth of the Facts,” p. 269; Kazanjian and Nichanian, “Between Genocide and Catastrophe,” p. 128; Nichanian, The Historiographic Perversion, p. 15), the word always appears lowercased in both sources (Peniamin Tashian, “Mayrineru şuk’in tak (grakan zruyc’ Y. Ōşakani het)” [Under the Shade of Cedars: Literary Conversation with H. Oshagan], Hairenik monthly, March 1932, p. 128–31; Hamapatker arewmtahay grakanut’ean [Panorama of Western Armenian Literature], vol. 9, Antelias: Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia, 1980, p. 255, 267, 282–3, 286). 84 Donald Bloxham, “Determinants of the Armenian Genocide,” in Hovannisian, Looking Backward, Moving Forward, p. 24; Mark Levene, Genocide in the Age of the Nation-State, vol. 1: The Meaning of Genocide, New York and London: I.B. Tauris, 2005, p. 70; Stefan Troebst, “Europäisierung der Vertreibungserinnerung? Eine deutsch-polnische Chronique scandaleuse 2002–2008,” in Martin Aust, Krzysztof Ruchnewicz and Stefan Troebst (eds.), Verflochtene Erinnerungen: Polen und seine Nachbarn im 19. und 20. Jahrundert, Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 2009, p. 245 (“Aghet or Yeghern [genocide of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire]”). Historian Stephan Astourian, who used Aghed as denomination in the early 1990s (Stephan Astourian, “The Armenian Genocide: An Interpretation,” The History Teacher, 2, 1990, p. 113, 145, 147, 159; idem, “Genocidal Process: Reflections on the Armeno-Turkish Polarization,” in Hovannisian, The Armenian Genocide: History, Politics, Ethics, p. 5) most recently has cited Medz Yeghern translated as “Great Crime” (idem, “Hybrid Warfare, a Pseudo-Scandal and the Armenian Genocide Museum Institute,” EVN Report, June 21, 2020 (www.evnreport.com/raw-unfiltered/hybridwarfare-a-pseudo-scandal-and-the-armenian-genocide-museum-institute, accessed on June 24, 2020). 85 Nichanian, “The Truth of the Facts,” p. 269; Kazanjian and Nichanian, “Between Genocide and Catastrophe,” p. 128. See Taline Voskeritchian, “Between Massacre and Genocide: On Eric Friedler’s ‘Aghét: Nation Murder,’” Jadaliyya, May 16, 2011 (www. jadaliyya.com/pages/index/1591/between-massacre-and-genocide_on-eric-friedlersag, accessed on May 6, 2013). The claim that Medz Aghed (“Great Catastrophe”) was used in Soviet Armenia has no factual grounds (99: All You Should Know, p. 52). 86 See Nersisyan, Genotsid armyan, p. 621–38; Hovsep Nalbandian, Amerikahay girk’i patmut’iwn 1858–2011 (History of the Armenian-American Book 1858–2011), Los Angeles: Yerevan, 2011; Antranik Dakessian and Armen Urneshlian (eds.), Libananahay girk’ě 1894–2012. matenagitakan c’ank (The Armenian Lebanese Book 1894–2012: Bibliographical List), Beirut: Haigazian University Press, 2012. 87 Amos A. Phelps, Lectures on Slavery and its Remedy, Boston: New England AntiSlavery Society, 1834, p. 113, 162. 88 Ronald A. Bosco and Joel Myerson (eds.), The Later Lectures of Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1843–1871, vol. 2: 1855–1871, Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2001, p. 8. 89 See Vartan Matiossian, “Medz Yeghern,” in Alan Whitehorn (ed.), The Armenian Genocide: The Essential Reference Guide, Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2015, p. 181–3; idem, “Mec očirě kam ‘Mec Ełeŗn’i nšanakut’iwně” (The Great Crime or the

Notes

90 91 92

93 94 95 96 97

98

99

100

101

169

Meaning of Medz Yeghern), in Karnig Koyounian (ed.), Nerelu xndirě (The Issue of Pardoning), Montreal: Sourp Hagop Armenian Church, 2017, p. 114–29. Hagop Terzian, Kilikioy ałētě (The Catastrophe of Cilicia), Constantinople: Hagop Asadurian and Son, 1912, p. 431. Stanford J. Shaw, Turkey and the Holocaust: Turkey’s Role in Rescuing Turkish and European Jewry from Nazi Persecution, 1933–1945, New York: New York University Press, 1993, p. 43. Bernard Wasserstein, “Their Own Fault—Attempts to Shift the Blame for the Holocaust,” Times Literary Supplement, January 7, 1994, p. 4. On the Capital Tax, see Faik Ökte, The Tragedy of the Turkish Capital Tax, translated by Geoffrey Cox, London: Croom Helm, 1987; Ayhan Aktar, “’Tax Me to the End of My Life!’: Anatomy of an Anti-Minority Tax Legislation (1942–3),” in Benjamin C. Fortna, Stefanos Katsikas, Dimitris Kamouzis, and Paraskevas Konortas (eds.), StateNationalisms in the Ottoman Empire, Greece and Turkey: Orthodox and Muslims, 1830–1945, London and New York: Routledge, 2013, p. 188–220. Boghos Levon Zekiyan, “Reflections on Genocide. The Armenian Case: Radical Negativity and Polivalent Dynamics,” Annali di Ca’ Foscari, 3, 1998, p. 231–2. Vahan H. Tootikian, “What Does April 24 Means for Us Today?,” The Armenian Weekly, April 28, 1979. Stanley Cohen, States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001, p. 8. The Armenian Genocide: Facts and Documents, New York: St. Vartan’s Press, 1985, p. 48. “Gov. Reagan Issues Statement on April 24,” The Armenian Reporter, April 24, 1980; “Ronald Reagan’s Letter to Hairenik Publications,” The Armenian Weekly, April 26, 1980. For the original, see www.reaganlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/digitallibrary/ smof/cos/cicconi/box-6/40-94-6914308-006-008-2016 (accessed on May 27, 2020). The title appears in Michael Bobelian, Children of Armenia: A Forgotten Genocide and the Century-Long Struggle for Justice, New York: Simon and Schuster, 2009, p. 169. John M. Evans, Truth Held Hostage: America and the Armenian Genocide—What Then? What Now?, London: Gomidas Institute, 2016, p. 71. About American policy in the 1980s, see Peter Balakian, The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response, New York: HarperCollins, 2003, p. 373–91; De Waal, Great Catastrophe, p. 167–77. “Israeli Foreign Minister Says No Similarity between Genocide and Holocaust,” The Armenian Weekly, April 14, 2001. On the subject, see Yair Auron, The Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide, New Brunswick, NJ and London: Transaction Publishers, 2003; Eldad Ben Aharon, “A Unique Denial: Israel’s Foreign Policy and the Armenian Genocide,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 4, 2015, p. 638–54. Richard Simon, “White House Urged to Display Armenian Orphan Rug Commemorating Genocide,” Los Angeles Times, November 12, 2013; Rafael Medoff, “With Armenian Orphan Rug, Obama Stumbles Again on Genocide,” The Jewish Press, October 20, 2014. See Hagop Martin Deranian, President Calvin Coolidge and the Armenian Orphan Rug, Arlington, MA: Armenian Cultural Foundation, 2013. “MP to Australia—‘Speak the Tragedy’s Name on Armenian Genocide,’” Panarmenian, June 26, 2018 (www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/257213/MP_to_ Australia__Speak_the_tragedys_name_on_Armenian_Genocide, accessed on June 26, 2018).

170

Notes

102 Irving Louis Horowitz, Genocide: State Power and Mass Murder, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1977, p. 183. 103 Leon Surmelian, “Wanted: A New Armenian Image,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, February 24, 1973. Thanks to Hagop Gulludjian for bringing the concept of victimization to my attention. 104 M. Hakobian, “Mayr Hayastani gałap’arě hay azatasirakan mtk’i olordnerum” (The Idea of Mother Armenia in the Realms of Armenian Freedom-Loving Thought), Echmiadzin, April 1985, p. 73–5. An editorial noted in 1914, among other examples of repression, that the police had confiscated an image of “Mother Armenia” hanging in a coffee shop of Constantinople (“Hay grk’eru dēm halacank’” [Persecution against Armenian Books], Azatamart, May 10/23, 1914). Very Rev. Fr. Kevork Nalbandian, primate of Chemeshgadzak—Aurora Mardiganian’s hometown—was arrested and tortured to death in 1915 for having a copy, sent from the United States in 1911, hanging in the diocesan hall (Haigazn K. Ghazarian (ed.), Patmut’iwn Čmškacagi (History of Chemeshgadzak), Beirut: Compatriotic Union of Chemeshgadzak, 1971, p. 315). Ermeni komitalarının amâl ve harekât-ı ihtilâliyesi included its facsimile as “evidence” of revolutionary activities (document 27). 105 Marc Mamigonian, “A Commentary on the Turkish ‘I Apologize’ Campaign,” The Armenian Weekly, special issue, April 25, 2009, p. 21. 106 Vicky Tchaparian, “The Armenian Genocide in American Presidency Discourses from George W. Bush to Barack Obama: A Political Discourse Analysis Study,” Haigazian Armenological Review, 34, 2014, p. 221–56; Suren Zolyan, AMN naxagahnerě Hayoc’ c’ełaspanut’yan masin (xusanavoł diskursi imasta-gorcabanakan verlucum (American Presidents on the Armenian Genocide: The Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis of the Evasionist Discourse), Yerevan: Limush, 2015, p. 40–82; idem, “How Not to Do Things with the Word: Barack Obama on the Armenian Genocide,” Russian Journal of Linguistics, 1, 2019, p. 62–82. 107 See Ayda Erbal, “Mea Culpas, Negotiations, Apologias: Revisiting the ‘Apology’ of Turkish Intellectuals,” in Birgit Schwelling (ed.), Reconciliation, Civil Society, and the Politics of Memory: Transnational Initiatives in the 20th Century, Bielefeld: Transcript, 2012, p. 85–6. 108 Tessa Hofmann, “Մեծ եղեռն: Das ultimate Verbrechen,” Pogrom, 6, 2014, p. 46, 51.

Chapter 1 1

2 3

Napoleon III, History of Julius Caesar, vol. 1, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1865, p. 215. The Classical Armenian translation gave more emphasis by adding the word medz (“great”) (Patmut’iwn Yulios Kesaru (History of Julius Caesar), translated by Abraham Jarian, Venice: St. Lazarus Press, 1867, p. 199). The Compact Edition of the Oxford Etymological Dictionary, vol. 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971, p. 909, which has recorded the meaning of “evil” as “a calamity, disaster, misfortune” (last example in 1791). Nor bargirk Haykazian lezvi (New Dictionary of the Classical Armenian Language), vol. 2, Venice: S. Lazarus Press, 1837, p. 571. The meaning in Modern Armenian is “evil, evildoing; calamity, misfortune; harm” (Stepanos Malkhasiants, Hayerēn bac’atrakan baŗaran, vol. 4, Yerevan: Armenian SSR Academy of Sciences, 1945, p. 16).

Notes 4 5 6 7

8 9 10

11

12 13 14

15 16

171

Nor baŗgirk Haykazean lezui (New Dictionary of the Classical Armenian Language), vol. 1, Venice: S. Lazarus Press, 1836, p. 654. Idem, p. 39. Nor baŗgirk Haykazean lezui, vol. 2, p. 515. Julius Pokorny, Indogermanisches etymologisches wörterbuch, vol. 1, Bern and Munich: Francke Verlag, 1959, p. 306. See also Eduard Aghayan, Baŗak’nnakan ev stugabanakan hetazotut’yunner (Lexicological and Etymological Studies), Yerevan: ASSR Academy of Sciences, 1974, p. 17–18; Gevorg Jahukian, Hayeren stugabanakan baŗaran (Armenian Etymological Dictionary), Yerevan: Asoghik, 2010, p. 213. Reconstructed words unattested in any written document are conventionally marked with an asterisk. Marlena Muradian, “Baŗeri kaŗuc’vack’ayin tarrerě patmakan k’erakanut’yan hayec’aketic’” (The Structural Elements of Words from the Point of View of Historical Grammar), Lraber hasarakakan gitutyunneri, 2, 1973, p. 38. Astuacašunč’ matean Hin ew Nor Ktakaranac’ (Holy Bible: Old and New Testaments), edited by Hovhannes Zohrabian, vol. 3, Venice: Mekhitarist Congregation, 1805, p. 452. Idem, vol. 2, p. 621. Some manuscripts combined medz and yeghern as medzyeghern (մեծեղեռն) (idem), also defined within the field of evil. See John Brand and Paschal Aucher, A Dictionary Armenian and English, Venice: Armenian Academy of S. Lazarus, 1825, p. 80 (“enormous, execrable, abominable, very wicked”); Emmanuele Ciakciak, Dizionario armeno-italiano, Venice: Tipografia Mechitaristica di San Lazzaro, 1837, p. 966 (“most evil”), and Matthias Bedrossian, New Dictionary Armenian-English, Venice: St. Lazarus, 1875–9, p. 464 (“execrable, abominable; very wicked, heinous”). For the translation of “crimeful” and “heinous” as medzyeghern, see Paschal Aucher and John Brand, A Dictionary English and Armenian, Venice: Armenian Academy of S. Lazarus, 1821, p. 213, 421. A Treatise on God Written in Armenian by Eznik of Kołb (floruit c. 430–450), translated by Monica J. Blanchard and Robin Darling Young, Leuven: Peeters, 1998, p. 56. See Eznkay Kołbac’woy Bagrewanday episkoposi Ełc ałandoc’ (Refutation of the Sects by Yeznik Koghbatsi, Bishop of Bagrevand), Venice: St. Lazarus Monastery, 1926, p. 46. A Treatise on God, p. 110. See Eznik Kołbac’woy, p. 140. A Treatise on God, p. 134. See Eznik Kołbac’woy, p. 180. Nor baŗgirk’ Haykazean lezui, vol. 1, p. 654; Eranelwoyn Yovhannu Ōskeberani Meknut’iwn Esayeay Margarēi (Blessed John Chrysostom’s Commentary of Prophet Isaiah), Venice: St. Lazarus, 1880, p. 19. We have not located the English version of this commentary, but the same line was repeated in the commentary on Matthew’s Gospel (see The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1851, p. 835). The Armenian version of the commentary has two other mentions of yeghern that may also be translated as “evil” (Eranelwoyn Yovhannu Ōskeberani, p. 41, 120). Nor baŗgirk’ Haykazean lezui, vol. 1, p. 654. See The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Epistle of S. Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, Oxford: James Parker and Rivingtons, 1877, p. 71. Yeremia Meghretsi, Baŗgirk’ hayoc’ (Armenian Dictionary), Livorno: Sarkis Evdokiatsi, 1698, p. 83; Jacobus Villotte, Dictionarium novum latino-armenium, Rome: Propaganda Fide, 1714, p. 297, 364, 367, 459–60, 646; Baŗgirk’ Haykazean lezui (Dictionary of Classical Armenian Language), vol. 1, Venice: Antoni Bortoli,

172

Notes

1749, p. 227; Baŗgirk’ Haykazean lezui (Dictionary of Classical Armenian Language), vol. 2, Venice: Antoni Bortoli, 1769, p. 113. 17 Nor baŗgirk’ Haykazean lezui, vol. 1, p. 116 (anarzhanakordzutiun, Lat. nefarium), 198 (anjarakordzutiun, Lat. nefandum facinus; vol. 2, p. 235 (medzativutiun, Lat. magni daemonis opus), p. 835 (vrizhakordzutiun, Lat. maleficium, scelus, etc.). 18 Piuzant Yeghiayan, “Hašuepahanĵk’ Aprilean Ełeŗni yisnameaki” (Balance of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the April Yeghern), Spurk, October 25, 1964; Rubina Peroomian, Literary Responses to Catastrophe: A Comparison of the Armenian and Jewish Experience, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993, p. 18–26; Beledian, “L’expérience de la catastrophe,” p. 134–44. 19 Baŗgirk’ Haykazean lezui, vol. 1, p. 227. 20 Aghayan, Baŗak’nnakan, p. 63. 21 Meghretsi, Baŗgirk’ hayoc’, p. 83. 22 Nor baŗgirk’ Haykazean lezui, vol. 1, p. 654. 23 Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis episcopi Chronicon bipartitum, part 1, edited and translated by J.-B. Aucher, Venice: San Lazarus Press, 1818, p. 210 (ojir is a variant of vojir). See Nor baŗgirk’ Haykazean lezui, vol. 1, p. 654. 24 See Nor baŗgirk’ Haykazean lezui, vol. 1, p. 654. 25 Emmanuele Ciakciak, Dizionario italiano-armeno-turco, Venice: Monastery of San Lazzaro, 1804, p. 221, 236, 702. See also idem, Nuovo dizionario italiano-armenoturco, Venice: Tipografia Armena di San Lazzaro, 1829, p. 174, 737. 26 Ciakciak, Dizionario armeno-italiano, p. 444. 27 Idem, p. 488, 589, 1079, 1123. 28 Paschal Aucher, Dictionnaire abrégé français-arménien, vol. 1, Venice: Académie Arménienne de S. Lazare, 1812, p. 114, 450; idem, Dictionnaire français-arménienturc, Venice: Imprimerie de Saint Lazare, 1840, p. 177, 636); idem, Dictionnaire abrégé français-arménien, vol. 2, Venice: Académie Arménienne de S. Lazare, 1817, p. 201; Aucher and Brand, A Dictionary English and Armenian, p. 213, 265, 302, 318; Brand and Aucher, A Dictionary Armenian and English, p. 80; Pocket Dictionary of the English and Armenian Languages, Venice: Press of the Armenian College of St. Lazarus, 1835, p. 83; A Pocket Dictionary of the English, Armenian and Turkish languages, Venice: Press of the Armenian College of St. Lazarus, 1843, p. 145; Pocket Dictionary of the Armenian and English Languages, Venice: Press of the Armenian College of St. Lazarus, 1835, p. 102; A Pocket Dictionary of the Armenian, English and Turkish languages, Venice: Press of the Armenian College of St. Lazarus, 1843, p. 127. 29 Mgrdich Avkerian, Aŗjeŗn baŗaran Haykaznean lezui (Portable Dictionary of the Classical Armenian Language), Venice: Mekhitarist Congregation, 1846, p. 233. See also Rev. Krikor Jelalian’s revised edition (Aŗjeŗn baŗaran Haykaznean lezui [Portable Dictionary of the Classical Armenian Language], Venice: Mekhitarist Congregation, 1865, p. 260). The New Haigazian set forth yeghernagan and yegheragan as synonyms, meaning “lamentable, tragic,” which Avkerian repeated (Avkerian, Aŗjeŗn baŗaran Haykaznean lezui, p. 233), but Jelalian discarded (Aŗjeŗn baŗaran Haykaznean lezui, p. 260). 30 Lucius Anneus Seneca, Moral Essays, vol. 3, Loeb Classical Library, translated by John Basore, London: W. Heinemann, 1935, p. 136–7. See Łukiosi Annēosi Senekay Čaŗk’ imastasirakank’ (Philosophical Essays by Lucius Anneus Seneca), translated by Mgrdich Avkerian, Venice: Mekhitarist Congregation, 1849, p. 497. 31 Cicero, Cato the Elder on the Old Age, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1923, p. 48–9. See M. T. Kikeroneay Katon Erēc’ kam t’ē

Notes

173

vasn cerut’ean (M. T. Cicero’s Cato the Elder or On the Old Age), Vienna: Mekhitarist Congregation, 1843, p. 18. 32 Baŗgirk’ haykazean lezui, vol. 1, p. 227; Nor baŗgirk’ Haykazean lezui, vol. 1, p. 654. 33 Avkerian, Aŗjeŗn baŗaran Haykaznean lezui, p. 233; Aŗjeŗn baŗaran Haykaznean lezui, p. 260. 34 Nuovo dizionario Italiano-Francese-Armeno-Turco, Vienna: PP. Mechitaristi, 1846, p. 357, 581, 641, 850, 880, 885, 924 (yeghern among translations for Italian flagillo [punishment, misfortune], male [evil], nefandezza [enormous crime], rovina [ruin, desolation], sceleraggine [villainy], sciagura and sfortune [misfortune]); Srabion Eminian, Erek’lezuean baŗagirk’ gałłierēn-hayerēn-tačkerēn (French-ArmenianTurkish Trilingual Dictionary), Vienna: Mekhitarist Congregation, 1853, p. 155, 743; Ambroise Calfa [Guy de Lusignan], Dictionnaire arménien-français et françaisarménien, Paris: L. Hachette and Maisonneuve, 1861, p. 239. 35 Bedrossian, New Dictionary Armenian-English, p. 155. 36 Aucher and Brand, A Dictionary English and Armenian, p. 51, 265; Brand and Aucher, A Dictionary Armenian and English, p. 80. Cf. Bedrossian, New Dictionary Armenian-English, p. 155. 37 Calfa, Dictionnaire arménien-français et français-arménien, p. 239; Néandre de Byzance, Dictionnaire français-arménien, Constantinople: A. H. Boyajian, 1884, p. 325–6, 382, 1230. The latter did not include yeghern in any translation, except for an example for “evil” (idem, p. 772). 38 Baŗgirk’ Haykazean lezui, vol. 2, p. 9, 113 (Classical Armenian section); Ciakciak, Nuovo dizionario italiano-armeno-turco, p. 83, 174, 236; Nor baŗgirk’ Haykazean lezui, vol. 1, p. 654; Hagopos Bozajian, Hamaŗōt baŗaran i hayē i tačik (Armenian-Turkish Concise Dictionary), vol. 1, Vienna: Mekhitarist Congregation, 1838, p. 5, 98; Aucher, Dictionnaire français-arménien-turc, p. 100, 177, 211, 636; A Pocket Dictionary of the Armenian, English and Turkish languages, p. 20, 127, 316; A Pocket Dictionary of the English, Armenian and Turkish languages, p. 76, 145; Krikor Peshdimaljian, Baŗgirk’ haykazean lezui (Dictionary of the Classical Armenian Language), Constantinople: Boghos Arabian, 1844, p. 17, 325; Nuovo dizionario Italiano-Francese-ArmenoTurco, p. 143, 166, 581; Avkerian, Aŗjeŗn baŗaran Haykaznean lezui, p. 14, 233; Yeprem Chakejian, Nor barbaŗaran hamaŗōt hayerēn-tačkerēn (New ArmenianTurkish Concise Dictionary), Vienna: Mekhitarist Congregation, 1850, p. 9, 117; Eminian, Erek’lezuean baŗagirk’ gałłierēn-hayerēn-tačkerēn, p. 155, 743; Djanig Aram, Dictionnaire abrégé Arménien-Turc-Français, Paris: Typographie Arménienne, 1860, p. 2, 17; Aŗjeŗn baŗaran Haykaznean lezui, p. 17, 260. 39 Marcus Hieronymus Vida, The Christiad, A Poem in Six Books, translated by J. Cranwell, Cambridge: J. Archdeacon, 1768, p. 133; Vitayi Kristosakan (Vita’s The Christiad), translated by Yeghia Tomajan, Venice St. Lazarus: Mekhitarist Congregation, 1832, p. 128. In the examples discussed here, the English translation has been compared with the Latin or French original. 40 James Benigne Bossuet, An Introduction to, or a Short Discourse Concerning Universal History, Belfast: Samuel Wilson and James Magee, 1743, p. 169; Bosuetay Mełtac’ episkoposi xōsk’ vasn tiezerakan patmut’ean (Discourse on Universal History by Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux), Vienna: Mekhitarist Congregation, 1841, p. 433. 41 Florian, Numa Pompilius, Second King of Rome, translated by J. A. Ferris, Boston: Ticknor, Reed, and Fields, 1850, p. 234–5. See Numa Pompilios erkrord ark’ay Hŗomay, vipasanut’iwn i Florianē (Numa Pompilius, Second King of Rome, Novel by Florian), translated by Eduard Hurmuzian, Venice: St. Lazarus, 1853, p. 352.

174

Notes

For other examples, see Florian, Numa Pompilius, Second King, p. 103, 170 (Numa Pompilios erkrord, p. 161, 257). 42 D. Frayssinous, A Defence of Christianity, or Conferences on Religion, translated by John Benjamin Jones, vol. 1, London: Gilbert and Rivington, 1836, p. 97. See Paştpanut’iwn k’ristonēakan hawatoy Teaŗn Dionisesi Frēsinu (Defense of Christian Faith by Monsignor Dionysius Frayssinous), vol. 1, translated by Rev. Auxendios Kurkenian, Venice: Mekhitarist Congregation, 1866, p. 76. For other examples, see Frayssinous, A defence of Christianity, p. 247, 252, 290, 322; Paştpanut’iwn, p. 194, 197, 227, 251. 43 Grabaŗ ěnt’erc’aran handerj angłiakan nšanakut’eamb baŗic’ (A Reader of Classical Armenian with Words in English Meaning), part 3, Venice: St. Lazarus, 1900, p. 105. 44 R. H. Berberian, “Darjeal grakan xndirě” (The Literary Issue Again), Massis, May 12, 1901, p. 291.

Chapter 2 1 2

3

4

5 6

7

Hagop Adiyamanian, “Hazarēn mēkě” (One among Thousand), Gohag, February 24, 1919. L.-G. De Ségur, Qu’est-ce que Jésus-Christ? Considérations familières sur la personne, la vie et le mystère du Christ, third edition, Paris: Jacques Lecoffre, 1856, p. 143. See Teaŗn Sēkiwray k’ahanayi Xorhrdacut’iwnk’ i Yisus K’ristos (Meditations on Jesus Christ by Mons. Ségur), translated by Rev. Vahan Boyajian, Venice: St. Lazarus, 1861, p. 155. Eugene Sue, The Wandering Jew, London: E. Appleyard, 1845, p. 223 (idem, T’ap’aŗakan hreay [Wandering Jew], translated by Garabed S. Utujian, vol. 3, Constantinople: Masis, 1867, p. 94). For the translation of yeghernagan as criminel, see Yeghia Demirjibashian, Grpani baŗaran hayerēnē gałłierēn (Armenian-French Pocket Dictionary), Constantinople: H. Matteosian, 1894, p. 55. Thomas C. Upham, Mental Philosophy, vol. 2, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1869, p. 500 and 529. See idem, Kamk’, kam kamakan hangamank’ mtac’ (Will, or Voluntary Circumstances of the Mind), translated by Ghazaros Boghosian, Constantinople: Aramian, 1870, p. 63, 94. For the translation of “criminal” as yeghernakordz, see I. A. Yeran, Pocket Dictionary or Pocket Companion EnglishArmenian, Boston: Hairenik, 1906, p. 64; Papazian, Illustrated Practical Dictionary English-Armenian, p. 252. Émile du Girardin, Du droit du punir, Paris: Plon, 1871, p. 4. See “Gorcelu azatut’iwne,” Arevelian Mamoul, December 1871, p. 571–2. Eugène de Mirecourt, Confessions de Marion Delorme, vol. 3, Paris: Collection de Chefs-d’Oeuvre de France, 1903, p. 87 (idem, Mariōn Dělōrmi xostovanank’ě kam patmakan taŗp’ank’ [The Confessions of Marion Delorme or Historical Lust], translated by K. Chilingirian, Smyrna: Dedeyan, 1877, p. 126). For the translation of criminel as yeghernakordz, see M. Nubar, Dictionnaire français-arménien, Constantinople: Baghdadlian, 1891, p. 239. M. J. J. Rapet, Manuel de morale et d’économie politique à l’usage des classes ouvrières, Paris: Guillaumin, 1858, p. 365 (idem, Arjeŗn baroyakan ew k’ałak’akan tntesut’iwn [Manual of Moral and Political Economy], Venice: St. Lazarus, 1879, p. 342).

Notes

175

The Works of William Shakspere, London: H. G. Bohn, 1859, p. 663. See [William] Shakespeare, Hamlet Daněmark’i išxan (Hamlet Prince of Denmark), translated by Hovhannes Masehian, Tiflis: M. Sharadze, 1894, p. 169. For the translation of “crimeful” as yeghernagan, see H. H. Chakmakjian, A Comprehensive EnglishArmenian Dictionary, Boston: I. A. Yeran, 1922, p. 350. 9 H. Gelzer, “Zur armenischen Götterlehre,” Berichte der königlichen sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 48, 1896, p. 117; idem, Hetazōtut’iwn hay dic’abanut’ean, translated by Hovhannes Torosian, Venice: St. Lazarus, 1897, p. 61. 10 “Ełeŗnagorcut’iwn” (Crime), Sion, 9(10), 1874, p. 240. 11 Raffi, Xent’ě. Ĵalalēddin (The Fool. Jalaleddin), second edition, Moscow: Mkrtich Barkhudarian, 1880, p. 525. See idem, Jalaleddin, translated by Donald Abcarian, London and Reading: Taderon Press, 2006, p. 34 (yeghernagan tebker “atrocities”). 12 Raffi, The Fool, translated by Donald Abcarian, London: Taderon Press, 2006, p. 40 (idem, Xent’ě, p. 87). See idem, The Fool, translated by Jane S. Wingate, Boston: Baikar Press, 1950, p. 83. For the translation of yeghernagan as “criminal,” see Hagopian, A Dictionary Armenian-English, p. 141; Minassian, A Handy Dictionary Armenian-English, p. 117; Papazian, A Practical Dictionary Armenian-English, p. 119. Interestingly, “criminality” appeared translated as yeghernaganutiun in Z. D. S. Papazian, Illustrated Practical Dictionary English-Armenian, Constantinople: H. Matteosian, 1910, p. 252. 13 Hagop Baronian, Erkeri žołovacu (Collection of Works), vol. 1, Yerevan: ASSR Academy of Sciences, 1962, p. 315. 14 Simon Kapamajian, Nor baŗagirk’ hayerēn lezui (New Dictionary of the Armenian Language), second edition, Constantinople: R. Sakayan, 1907, p. 1075. 15 Simon Kapamajian, Nor baŗagirk’ hayerēn lezui (New Dictionary of the Armenian Language), Constantinople: Nshan Berberian, 1892, p. 159. 16 Kapamajian, Nor baŗagirk’ hayerēn lezui, second edition, p. 407. 17 Gomidas A. Voskian, Aŗjeŗn baŗaran hayerēnē i gałłierēn (Armenian-French Portable Dictionary), Constantinople: Nshan G. Berberian, 1887, p. 95, 344 (idem, Aŗjeŗn baŗagirk’ hayerēn gałłierēn (Armenian-French Manual Dictionary), Constantinople: H. Matteosian, 1893, p. 195, 641); Nubar, Dictionnaire français-arménien, p. 239, 932; Emanuel Kaciuni, Dictionnaire des arts, des sciences et des lettres, vol. 2, Venice: Imprimerie de St. Lazare, 1892, p. 60; Demirjibashian, Grpani baŗaran hayerēnē gałłierēn, p. 55; Guy de Lusignan, Nouveau dictionnaire illustré français-arménien, vol. 1, Constantinople: H. Matteosian, 1900, p. 626, 938, 954; idem, vol. 2, p. 138; Mihran Hovhannesian, Grpani baŗaran fransahay (French-Armenian Pocket Dictionary), Constantinople: Zartarian, 1911, p. 111, 244; Guy de Lusignan and K. J. Basmadjian, Dictionnaire portatif armenien moderne français, Constantinople: Librairie B. Balentz—Imprimerie O. Arzouman, 1915, p. 199. Lusignan confided the manuscript to philologist Karapet Basmadjian (1867–1942), who abridged the original text. This dictionary repeated the definitions of Lusignan’s Classical Armenian-French dictionary of 1860 with the addition of the neologisms yeghernapan (“criminalist”) and yeghernatad (“who judges the crimes”). The fact that it gave priority to “crime, heinous crime” over “catastrophe” shows that the latter was a secondary meaning. 18 V. H. Hagopian, A Dictionary English-Armenian, Constantinople: Servitchen, 1892, p. 159; M. K. Minassian, A Handy Dictionary Armenian-English, Constantinople: H. Matteosian, 1902, p. 117; Papazian, A Practical Dictionary Armenian-English, p. 119; Yeran, Pocket Dictionary or Pocket Companion English-Armenian, p. 64; idem, 8

176

Notes

Pocket Dictionary or Pocket Companion Armenian-English, Boston: Hairenik, [1906], p. 58; M. K. Minassian, A Dictionary, English, Armenian and Armeno-Turkish, Constantinople: V. and H. Der Nersessian, 1908, p. 246. 19 Mihran Apigian, Erek’lezuean ēndarjak baŗaran hayerēn tačkerēn gałłierēn (Armenian, Turkish, and French Trilingual Comprehensive Dictionary), Constantinople: N. G. Berberian, 1888, p. 313; idem, Ēndarjak baŗaran hayerēnē tačkerēn (ArmenianTurkish Comprehensive Dictionary), Constantinople: Nshan G. Berberian, 1891, p. 94 (thanks are due to Bedross Der Matossian for making available the contents of this dictionary); Minassian, A Handy Dictionary Armenian-English, p. 117; Bedros Zeki Garabedian, Mec baŗaran ōsmanerēnē hayerēn (Great Ottoman-Armenian Dictionary), Constantinople: Arshag Garoyan, 1912, p. 270. 20 Avedik Goilaw, Deutsch-armenisches Wörterbuch, Vienna: Mechitaristen, 1889, p. 337, 346, 656, 777, 782. Yeghern was listed here among translations of Frevel (“crime”) and Gräuel (“horror”); yeghernakordzutiun appeared among words for freveltat (“heinous crime”) and yeghernakordz as a translation for Bösewicht (“villain”), while the translations for the adjective frevelvoll (“criminal”) included yeghernavor. Finally, Göttlos (“godless”) had yeghernakordz as a translation in figurative sense. 21 H. Daghbashian, Liakatar baŗaran hayerēnic’ ŗuserēn (Armenian-Russian Complete Dictionary), Tiflis: n.p., 1911, p. 237. 22 Gustave Rollin-Jacquemyns, Armenia, the Armenians, and the Treaties, London: John Heywood, 1891, p. 85–6. See Leo, Hayoc’ harc’i vaweragrerě (The Documents of the Armenian Question), Tiflis: N. Aghanian, 1915, p. 167, 169–72. 23 Rollin-Jacquemyns, Armenia, the Armenians, p. 88–9; Leo, Hayoc’ harc’i, p. 174–5. 24 “Kaxałan” (Gallows), Droshak, July 15, 1896, p. 129. 25 “Evdokioy vočragorcnerě” (The Criminals of Evdokia), Nor Guiank, November 1, 1899, p. 336. 26 “Hayastani vičakě” (The Situation of Armenia), Droshak, October 1899, p. 134. 27 “Hayastani vičakě. Paštōnakan tełekagir” (The Situation of Armenia: Official Report), Droshak, January 1901, p. 28. 28 Yervant Srmakeshkhanlian, “Yobeleanin aŗt’iw” (On the Occasion of the Jubilee), Shavigh, September 1, 1900, p. 177–8; idem, “Kac’ut’iwnnis” (Our Situation), Shavigh, November 1, 1900, p. 245. 29 Yervant Srmakeshkhanlian, “Ōsmanean Sahmanadrut’iwn” (Ottoman Constitution), Shavigh, November 15, 1900, p. 257, p. 260. 30 “Déclaration,” Pro Armenia, November 25, 1900. See “Pro Armenia,” Shavigh, November 15, 1900, p. 265. 31 Mec mardaspani dēm. Paštōnakan arjanagrut’iwn ełeŗnakan ateani datavarut’ean kataruac K. Polsum, 1905 Noyemberin (Against the Great Assassin: Official Transcription of the Trial of the Criminal Court Held in Constantinople in November 1905), Geneva: Armenian Revolutionary Federation, 1906, p. 93–4. 32 Idem, p. 97. On the attempt, see Houssine Alloul, Edhem Elhem, and Hank de Smaele (eds.), To Kill a Sultan: A Transnational History of the Attempt on Abdülhamid II (1905), London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. 33 Siamanto, Hayordinerě (The Sons of Armenia), Geneva: Armenian Revolutionary Federation, 1906, p. 9, 11–13. 34 Siamanto, Hogewark’i ew yuysi ĵaher (Torches of Agony and Hope), Paris: Hamazkayin Press, 1907, p. 12–13. 35 Taniel Varuzhan, “Hōrs bantě” (My Father’s Prison), Bazmavep, September 1906, p. 415.

Notes

177

36 Taniel Varuzhan, C’ełin sirtě (The Heart of the Race), Constantinople: Ardziv, 1909, p. 69. See the following translation: “Along with you, drowned in genocide [yeghern], / I saw lilacs and saints of all religions, / And Christs who were spit upon” (Herand M. Markarian, The Martyred Armenian Writers, 1915–1922: An Anthology, Congers, NY: Libra-6 Productions, 2015, p. 202). 37 Taniel Varuzhan, Erkeri liakatar žołovacu (Complete Collected Works), vol. 1, Yerevan: Armenian SSR Academy of Sciences, 1986, p. 428. 38 Varuzhan, C’ełin sirtě, p. 133. 39 Idem, p. 58. 40 Idem, p. 176. 41 Idem, p. 59–60. 42 G. Aznavurian, “Anhayt ēĵer Daniel Varužani žaŗangut’yunic’” (Unknown Pages of Taniel Varuzhan’s Legacy), Banber Yerevani hamalsarani, 3, 1969, p. 158. Thanks are due to Sevan Deirmendjian for bringing this poem to our attention 43 “Ahŗeli ełeŗn mě” (A Terrible Crime), Azk, June 8, 1907. 44 “Očirě” (The Crime), Azk, July 27, 1907. The next issue had yeghernakordzutiun for “criminal act” (“Tawšančeani spannut’iwně” [Tavshanjian’s Killing], Azk, August 3, 1907). 45 Yervant Sermakeshkhanlian, “Ełeŗnēn etkě” (After the Crime), Loussaper, February 18, 1908. 46 “V. Tēk’ēeani dambanakaně” (V. Tekeyan’s Eulogy), Loussaper, February 18, 1908. 47 “Malēzean kě xōsi yušarjani bacman aŗt’iw” (Malezian Speaks on the Opening of the Memorial), in Sahag-Mesrob (ed.), Hayreni tarecoyc, Constantinople: Manoug H. Kochounian, 1912, p. 103. 48 Dimitrios Cholakian, Ōrinagirk’ amusnut’ean kam ěndanekan irawunk’ (Law Code of Marriage or Family Law), Constantinople: K. Baghdadlian, 1893, p. 28. 49 Sahag Der Sarkisian, K’nnakan krōnagitut’iwn (Critical Cathecism), Constantinople: Sariyan, 1897, p. 527. 50 Idem, p. 521. The author argued that many people lacked conscience and lived in “the most horrible crimes [yeghern, vojir] by their own volition” as the result of education (idem, p. 43). 51 Dictionnaire portatif de jurisprudence et de pratique, vol. 2, Paris: Leclerc, 1763, p. 187. 52 Abbé Feraud, Dictionnaire critique de la langue francaise, Marseilles: Jean Mossy, 1787, p. 272. 53 Oeuvres de Denis Diderot, vol. 2, first part, Paris: A. Belin, 1818, p. 597. 54 M. F. Guizot, Nouveau dictionnaire universel des synonymes de la langue française, first part, Paris: Maradan, 1809, p. 428. 55 Idem, p. 138. 56 M. [Pierre Benjamin de] Lafaye, Dictionnaire des synonymes de la langue française, second edition, Paris: L. Hachette, 1861, p. 482–3. 57 E. Littré, Dictionnaire de la langue française, vol. 1, second part, Paris: Hachette, 1863, p. 1729. 58 Garabed Solakhian, Ułecoyc vačaŗakani ew amēn anhati (Guide for the Merchant and Every Individual), Constantinople: V. Minasian, 1904, p. 133. 59 Solakhian, Ułecoyc vačaŗakani, p. 135. 60 Idem, p. 138. 61 Kalusd Antreasian, “Ěnkerayin usumnasirut’iwn” (Social Study), Arevelean mamul, 3, 1908, p. 306.

178 62 63 64 65

Notes

Idem, p. 304. Idem, p. 312. Idem, p. 321–2. Vartan Hatsuni, Erdumě hayoc’ mēj (The Oath among Armenians), Venice: St. Lazarus, 1910, p. 17. 66 See Bedross Der Matossian, Shattered Dreams of Revolution: From Liberty to Violence in the Late Ottoman Empire, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2014, p. 23–48. A letter from Mush (vilayet of Bitlis) complained in early April 1909 that the general amnesty decreed by the government was extended “to those Kurdish criminal [yeghernakordz] tribal chiefs” or common criminals working for Hamid’s tyranny (Vahakn, “Zulumi erkrēn” [From the Land of Calamity], Asbarez, May 14, 1909). 67 “Kilikian ariwnawer” (Cilicia Ruined and Bloodied), Droshak, April 1909, p. 46. On the massacres of Cilicia, see Vahakn Dadrian, “The Circumstances Surrounding the 1909 Adana Holocaust,” Armenian Review, Winter 1988, p. 1–16; Aram Arkun, “Les relations arméno-turques et les massacres de Cilicie de 1909,” translated by Catherine Ter-Sarkissian, in L’actualité du génocide des Arméniens, Creteil: Edipol, 1999, p. 57–74; Raymond Kévorkian, “The Cilician Massacres, April 1909,” in Richard G. Hovannisian and Simon Payaslian (eds.), Armenian Cilicia, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2008, p. 339–69; Der Matossian, Shattered Dreams of Revolution, p. 163–72. 68 “Atanayi xžduž ĵardě” (The Atrocious Massacre of Adana), Manzume-i Efkar, reprinted in Gochnag, May 29, 1909, p. 508. 69 “Atanayi ałētě” (The Catastrophe of Adana), Arevelk, July 1, 1909. 70 Suren Bartevian, Kilikioy arhawirk’ě (The Horror of Cilicia), Constantinople: Nshan Babikian, 1909, p. 25. 71 Idem, p. 38. 72 Idem, p. 64. The military committee of Adana closed Itidal in late May (“Azgayin keankě,” Arevelk, June 1/14, 1909). After the government finally acknowledged Armenian innocence, the newspaper Neçat became “the worthy successor to Adana’s crime-famed [yeghernahrchag] Itidal” (Bartevian, Kilikioy, p. 116). 73 Bartevian, Kilikioy, p. 31. 74 Idem, p. 36. 75 Idem, p. 55–6. 76 Idem, p. 152. 77 Idem, p. 56. 78 Idem, p. 76. 79 Kegham Parseghian, “Kotoracě” (The Mass Killing), Azdak, May 9/22, 1909, p. 321–2. 80 Yerukhan, “Azat karcik’ner” (Free Opinions), Arevelk, June 20/July 3, 1909. 81 Y. Sermakeshkhanlian, “Čşmartut’iwně kě k’alē … ” (Truth Walks), Arevelk, June 24/ July 7, 1909. 82 Bishop Mushegh, Atanayi ĵardě ew patasxanatunerě (The Massacre of Adana and the Responsible Ones), second edition, Boston: Azg, 1910, p. 2 (first edition, 1909). 83 Mgr. Mouchegh, Les Vêpres ciliciennes: Les Responsabilités. Faits et documents, Alexandria: I. Della Rocca, 1909, p. 4. Seropian anticipated Winston Churchill’s label of “crime without a name” for the killing during the German invasion of the Soviet Union, which had not existed on such scale “since the Mongol invasions of Europe in the sixteenth [sic] century” (The Unrelenting Struggle: War Speeches by the Right Hon. Winston S. Churchill, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1942, p. 234). The Mongols invaded Europe between 1237 and 1241.

Notes

179

84 Bishop Mushegh, Atanayi ĵardě, p. I. 85 Idem, p. 53. The French version says “the criminal Vali, the great organizer of the butchery” (Mgr. Mouchegh, Les Vêpres ciliciennes, p. 35). 86 “Atanayi aŗaĵnord T. Muşeł epis[kopos]i ink’napaştpanut’iwně ir masin ełac ambastanut’eanc’ dēm” (The Self-Defense by Bishop Mushegh, Primate of Adana, against the Accusations Made about Him), Jamanak, June 6/19, 1909. 87 “Koč artasahmani ew ambołĵ hayut’ean ariwnazard Kilikiayin hamar” (Appeal to Armenians Abroad and to All Armenians for Bloody Cilicia), Bazmavep, June 1909, p. 288. 88 Tlgadintsin, “Arews tar, mahs łrkē” (Take My Sun, Send My Death), Anahit, MarchApril 1910, p. 273. Thanks to Donald Abcarian for bringing the source to my attention. See Hrachik Simonyan, The Destruction of Armenians in Cilicia, April 1909, translated by Melissa Brown and Alexander Arzoumanian, London: Gomidas Institute, 2012, p. 219 (the sentence has been truncated as “heard up close what had happened … ”) 89 “Inč k’ěsē Papikean ēf. Atanayi ĵardi masin?” (What Does Babikian Efendi Say about the Massacre of Adana?), Arevelk, June 23/July 6, 1909. 90 “Xmbergě” (The Choir), Azdak, July 4/17, 1909, p. 461. See Ashot H. Bazbazian, “Hamerašxut’iwn” (Concord), Bythania, March 1, 1910, for another use of Medz Yeghern. 91 Yerukhan, “Cragri mě šurĵě” (About a Project), Jamanak, November 19/December 2, 1909. See Arshaguhi Teotig, Amis mě i Kilikia (A Month in Cilicia), Constantinople: V. and H. Nersesian, 1910, p. 91, for another use of medz yeghern. I thank Sevan Deirmendjian and Melissa Bilal respectively for pointing out these references. 92 “Kaxałanneru dimac’. oč miayn kaxelov” (In Front of the Gallows: Not Only Hanging), Azatamart, December 1/14, 1909. 93 Khachadur Kruzian, “Ĵardin taredarjě” (The Anniversary of the Massacre), Puzantion, April 22/May 5, 1910. 94 E. Aknuni, “Amerikayi łaribakan hayerin” (To the Armenian Migrants of America), Hairenik, September 20, 1910. 95 Piuzant Kechian, “Erkrord tarelic’” (Second Anniversary), Puzantion, April 2/15, 1911. 96 Teotig, “Grigor Zōhrap” (Krikor Zohrab), in idem (ed.), Amēnun tarec’oyc’ě (Everyone’s Almanac), 1916–1920, Constantinople: M. Hovagimian, 1920, p. 57. 97 “Ełernaporj Kayser ew Nazěm Pašayi dēm” (Attempt against the Emperor and Nazım Pasha), Puzantion, November 13/26, 1912. 98 See the advertisement in Puzantion, August 27/September 9, 1912. 99 Terzian, Kilikioy, p. 446–54. 100 Idem, p. 862. See Simonyan, The Destruction of Armenians, p. 7 (Medz yeghern “Great Calamity”). 101 N. Vart, “Yakob Tērzean (Yaktēr)” [Hagop Terzian (Hagter)], Djagatamart, May 8, 1919; Haygazn P. Ghazarian, “Kilikioy ĵardin 40-rd taredarjin aŗtiw” (On the 40th Anniversary of the Massacre of Cilicia), Hairenik, April 10, 1949; Vruyr Mazmanian, “Aprilean mŗayl tarinerě` Polsoy mēĵ” (The Dark Years of April in Constantinople), Ayk, May 5, 1965. 102 La situation des Arméniens en Turquie exposée par des documents 1908–1912, vol. 3 [Constantinople: n. p., c. 1913], p. 5–31. The report has been mistakenly regarded as written in French (Simonyan, The Destruction of Armenians, p. 224).

180

Notes

103 “La tragédie d’Adana. Le rapport de Babiguian effendi,” Pour les peuples d’Orient, 10 mai, 25 mai, 25 juillet and 10 août 1913. 104 See Atanayi ełeŗně. Tełekagir Yakob Papikeani (ōsmanean eresp’oxan Ētirnēi) (The Yeghern of Adana: Report of Hagop Babikian, Ottoman Deputy from Edirne), translated by Hagop Sarkisian, Constantinople: Librairie La Cilicie, 1919, p. 43. For claims that the translation was from Turkish, see Antranig Chalabian, General Andranik and the Armenian Revolutionary Movement, Southfield, MI: n. p., 1988, p. 196; Verjiné Svazlian, The Armenian Genocide: Testimonies of the Eyewitness Survivors, translated by Tigran Tsulikyan and Anahid Boghikian-Tarpinian, Yerevan: Gitoutyoun, 2011, p. 23; Hagop Babiguian, The Adana Massacres: An Eyewitness Account, translated and annotated by A. B. Gureghian, Beirut: Haigazian University Press, 2018, p. 18. 105 Atanayi ełeŗně, p. 5. See Babiguian, The Adana Massacres, p. 23 (Medz Yeghern “Genocide”). 106 La situation des Arméniens en Turquie, p. 26; “La tragédie d’Adana,” 10 août 1913, p. 8. See Atanayi ełeŗně, p. 42; Babiguian, The Adana Massacres, p. 42. 107 Quoted in Ralph Elliot Cook, The United States and the Armenian Question, 1894– 1924, Ph.D. dissertation, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, 1957, p. 114. 108 “Hayoc’ yišatakagirě” (The Armenian Memorandum), Puzantion, April 30/May 13, 1913. Novelist Nar-Dos (Mikayel Hovhannisian, 1867–1934) used yeghernagan in the case of a suicide: “She remembered her acquaintance with Shahian and, although she did not have particularly soft feelings for him, she considered him a very goodhearted and harmless young man, and now she deplored his tragic [yeghernagan] end from the bottom of her heart” (Nar-Dos, Mahě [The Death], Tiflis: N. Aghanian, 1912, p. 519). 109 “Haykakan patuirakut’ean kołmē varč’apetin matuc’uac yišatakagrin patčēně” (The Copy of the Memorandum Submitted by the Armenian Delegation to the Prime Minister), Jamanak, May 3/16, 1913. 110 Grigoris Balakian, Hay Gołgot’an. Druagner hay martirosagrut’enēn (The Armenian Golgotha: Episodes of the Armenian Martyrdom), vol. 1, Vienna: Mekhitarist Press, 1922, p. 111. See idem, Armenian Golgotha: A Memoir of the Armenian Genocide, 1915–1918, translated by Peter Balakian with Aris Sevag, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009, p. 77 (yeghernagan was omitted); idem, Le Golgotha arménien: de Berlin à Deir es-Zor, translated by Hratch Bedrossian, vol. 1, Paris: Le Circle des Écrits Caucasiens, 2002, p. 107 (yeghernagan “criminal”). 111 Quoted in Kevork Mesrob, “T’rk’ahayern u t’urk’erě (1914–1918). antip u paštōnakan p’astat’ułt’er” (Turkish Armenians and Turks [1914–1918]: Unpublished and Official Documents), Haykashēn taregirk’, Constantinople: H. Asadurian Sons, 1922, p. 119–20. The author confirmed the meaning by repeating the sentence with the use of vojravayr (“crime site”) (Knel Kalemkearian, “Sebastahay martirosagrut’iwně” (The Martyrology of Sebastia Armenians), Joghovourt, December 14/27, 1918). 112 Kalemkearian, “Sebastahay.” For the same label, see Teotig, Gołgot’a hay hogeworakanut’ean ew ir hōtin ałētali 1915 tariin (Golgotha of the Armenian Clergy and Its Flock in the Catastrophic Year 1915), edited by Ara Kalaydjian, New York: St. Vartan Press, 1985, p. 179. 113 Kalemkearian, “Sebastahay.” Survivor writer Garabed Kapigian (1861–1925) wrote that “the crime [yeghern] was so absolutely the result of the conspiracy of the Turkish government … ” (Garabed Kapigian, Ełeŗnapatum P’ok’un Hayoc’ ew norin meci

Notes

181

mayrak’ałak’in Sebastioy [The Yeghern Story of Lesser Armenia and Its Great Capital Sebastia], Boston: Hairenik, 1924, p. 48). 114 “Ceruk’in yišataknerě 1915–1918” (The Memories of the “Old Man”: 1915–1918), Djagatamart, March 2, 1919. 115 The Treatment of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire: Documents Presented to Viscount Grey of Fallodon, London, New York, and Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1916, p. 639. See “1915i tełahanut’iwnnerě. gorcadrut’ean met’otě” (The Deportations of 1915: The Method of Perpetration), translated by M. G. [Mikayel Gurjian], Arev, March 12, 1917. 116 Teotig, Gołgot’a hay hogeworakanut’ean, p. 291. 117 Teotig (ed.), Yušarjan April Tasněmēki [Memorial to April Eleven], Constantinople: O. Arzuman, 1919, p. 114. For different translations of Yeghern, see Rita Soulahian Kuyumjian, Teotig: Biography, and Teotig, Monument to April 11 (henceforth Teotig, Monument), translated by Ara Stepan Melkonian, London: Gomidas Institute and Tekeyan Cultural Association, 2010, p. 212 (“to be massacred”); Theodik, 11 Nisan Anıtı/Memorial to April 11, edited by Dora Sakayan, Istanbul: Belge, 2010, p. 226 (Felâket “Disaster”). 118 Teotig, Yušarjan, p. 115. See idem, Monument, p. 213 (“criminal will”); Theodik, 11 Nisan Anıtı, p. 228 (katliam iradesinin “will of massacre”). 119 Mikayel Shamdanjian, Hay mtk’in harkě Ełeŗnin. Ak’sorakani mtacumner ew zgac’oghut’iwnner (The Tribute of the Armenian Mind to the Yeghern: Thoughts and Feelings of an Exile), Constantinople: O. Arzuman, 1919, p. 54. See Mikayel Shamtanchian, The Fatal Night: An Eyewitness Account of the Extermination of Armenian Intellectuals in 1915, translated by Ishkhan Jinbashian, Studio City, CA: H. and K. Manjikian Publications, 2007, p. 35 (yeghern “Genocide”). 120 Shamdanjian, Hay mtk’in harkě Ełeŗnin, p. 57. See Shamtanchian, The Fatal Night, p. 37 (yeghern “slaughter”). 121 Shamdanjian, Hay mtk’in harkě Ełeŗnin, p. 58. See Shamtanchian, The Fatal Night, p. 38 (the first paragraph was omitted and yeghern was translated as “slaughter” in the second). The “blacksmith of yeghern” referred to Atıf bey, deputy governor of Ankara, and his record of massacres. 122 “Kaxałannerě” (The Hanged Ones), Hayastan, June 6 [19], 1915. 123 Antsort [Dikran Gamsaragan], “K’saně” (The Twenty), Arev, July 14, 1915 (emphasis in the original). 124 Razmig [Shavarsh Missakian], “Mec čgnažamě” (The Great Crisis), Hayastan, June 10 [23], 1915; Varaz [Shavarsh Missakian], “Mec čgnažamě” (The Great Crisis), Hayastan, August 3 [16], 1915. 125 Varaz, “Mec čgnažamě” (The Great Crisis), Hayastan, August 19 [September 1], 1915. Balakian, who was exiled in Çankırı, recalled that “due to instructions of extraordinary secrecy from the top, we were unaware of all these Armenianexterminating criminal actions [yeghernakordzutiun] happening around us” (Balakian, Hay Gołgot’an, p. 114). See idem, Armenian Golgotha, p. 80 (“actions”); idem, Le Golgotha arménien, p. 109 (“criminal actions”). 126 “Patmakan dasě” (The Historical Lesson), Hayastan, June 24 [July 7], 1915 (emphasis in the original); “’Inč’ uzenk’` kěnenk’’” (“We Do What We Want”), Hayastan, August 1 [14], 1915. 127 “Tales of Armenian Horrors Confirmed,” The New York Times, September 27, 1915. See “Haykakan halacank’nerě k’nnoł amerikean yanjnaxmbin aŗaĵin tełekagirě” (The

182

Notes

First Report of the American Committee Investigating the Armenian Persecutions), Gochnag, October 2, 1915, p. 862. 128 “Wiping Out the Armenians,” The Times, September 30, 1915. See “Hayeru bnaĵnĵumě” (The Extermination of the Armenians), translated by Mihran Damadian, Arev, October 15, 1915. 129 “The Armenian Massacres,” The Times, October 8, 1915. See “Anglia ew hayerě” (England and the Armenians), Arev, October 29, 1915. 130 “Help for Armenia,” The Times, October 16, 1915. See “Anglia ew hayerě” (England and the Armenians), Arev, November 5, 1915. 131 “Pour les Arméniens,” Le Temps, November 4, 1915. See Arshag Tchobanian, “Fransakan koč’ mě aŗ Amerika” (A French Call to America), Gochnag, December 11, 1915, p. 1113–14. For a previous translation of forfait in this paragraph as yeghernakordzutiun, see “Fransa Amerikayin hayoc’ hamar” (France to America for the Armenians), Arev, November 22, 1915. 132 “House of Commons,” The Times, November 17, 1915. See “Haykakan xndirě Anglioy xorhrdaranin mēĵ” (The Armenian Issue in the Parliament of England), Arev, November 29, 1915. 133 “Armenians and Serbians,” The Times, December 15, 1915. See “Anglia ew hayerě” (England and the Armenians), Arev, December 29, 1915. 134 “La situation diplomatique,” Le Temps, December 17, 1915. See “’Hayastan piti veracni ariwni ew awerakneru mējēn’” (Armenia Will Be Reborn from Blood and Ruins), Arev, December 29, 1915. 135 The Treatment of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, p. 651, 653. See “1915i tełahanut’iwnnerě. gorcadrut’ean met’otě” (The Deportations of 1915: The Method of Perpetration), translated by M. G. [Mikayel Gurjian], Arev, April 2, 1917. 136 Mihran Damadian, “Amēn yuys korac č’ē” (Not All Hope Is Lost), Arev, October 29, 1915. 137 Arshag Tchobanian, “Loysě piti cagi” (The Light Will Rise), Gochnag, November 20, 1915, p. 1038. 138 Tchobanian, “Fransakan koč’,” p. 1116. 139 Balakian, Hay Gołgot’an, p. 194. See idem, Armenian Golgotha, p. 126 (“great crime”); idem, Le Golgotha arménien, p. 176 (“monstrous heinous crime”). 140 Balakian, Hay Gołgot’an, p. 217. See idem, Armenian Golgotha, p. 140 (only yeghernagan “criminal”); idem, Le Golgotha arménien, p. 197 (“criminal acts and tragic events”). 141 Balakian, Hay Gołgot’an, p. 227. See idem, Armenian Golgotha, p. 145 (yegherabadum and yeghernabadum substituted by “deportations and massacres”); idem, Le Golgotha arménien, p. 202 (both words replaced by “bloody heinous crimes”). Balakian added that “they were not ashamed from telling and bragging about these criminal [yeghernagan] exploits” to the rare Armenians they came across (Balakian, Hay Gołgot’an, p. 227). For the same translation, see idem, Armenian Golgotha, p. 145; idem, Le Golgotha arménien, p. 202. 142 Balakian, Hay Gołgot’an, p. 233. See idem, Armenian Golgotha, p. 149–50 (yeghernagan “criminal”; yeghern “massacre”); idem, Le Golgotha arménien, p. 207 (only yeghernagan “criminal”). 143 Balakian, Hay Gołgot’an, p. 231. See idem, Armenian Golgotha, p. 148 (“crime”); idem, Le Golgotha arménien, p. 205 (“carnage”). 144 ‘“Mec Ełeŗni patmut’iwně’” (The History of the Medz Yeghern), Hayastan, November 10, 1917.

Notes

183

145 On the process leading to the independence, see Richard G. Hovannisian, Armenia on the Road to Independence 1918, Berkeley and London: University of California Press, 1967, p. 157–215. 146 Avetis Aharonian, Hayrenik’is hamar (For My Homeland), Boston: Hairenik, 1920, p. 70. 147 Idem, p. 102. 148 Balakian, Hay Gołgot’an, p. 117. See idem, Armenian Golgotha, p. 82 (yeghernagan omitted); idem, Le Golgotha arménien, vol. 1, p. 110 (“criminal”). 149 Aram Jumbushian, “Mi xabuik’ ew t’uyl mi tak or xaben” (Don’t Be Fooled and Do Not Allow Them Fooling You), Nor Gyank, November 9, 1918. 150 See the French original in Yervant Pambukian (ed.), Niwt’er H. Y. Dašnakc’ut’ean patmut’ean hamar (Materials for the History of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation), vol. 12, Beirut: Armenian Revolutionary Federation, 2016, p. 56 (translated into Armenian in ‘“Drōšak’i heŗagirě Talēat’ pēyin” (Droshak’s Telegram to Taleat Bey), Hairenik, June 29, 1915). Thanks are due to Talin Suciyan for retrieving and discussing the Ottoman Turkish translation in Ermeni komitelerinin âmal ve harekât-ı ihtilâliyesi, p. 243–4. 151 Aspirations et agissements révolutionnaires des comités arméniennes avant et après la proclamation de la Constitution Ottomane, Constantinople: n. p., 1917, p. 229–31. 152 “Perčaxōs p’astat’ułt’ mě” (An Eloquent Document), Joghovourt, November 17/30, 1918. 153 “Haykakan kotoracě xorhrdaranin mēĵ” (The Armenian Massacre in the Parliament), Jamanak, November 11/24, 1918. See the translation in Ayhan Aktar, “Debating the Armenian Massacres in the Last Ottoman Parliament, November-December 1918,” History Workshop Journal, 64, 2007, p. 257: “This great murder that has shaken both earth and heaven is known as the Armenian massacre, the Armenian tragedy (…) The most dreadful link in the chain of suspicion thrown around the neck of the Turks, namely the Armenian tragedy.” The use of yeghernakordzutiun for “tragedy” appears to have been a misprint. 154 “Al kaxałan č’kay inč’u ēk kec’er?” (There Are No Gallows Anymore, What Are You Waiting For?), Artaramard, November 22, 1918. Several of those deputies, despite their efforts, had lost many family members and relatives in the deportation (Taner Akçam, Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, p. 125–35). 155 “Dahičnerě kě c’ncan” (The Executioners Rejoice), Artaramard, November 30, 1918. 156 “Haykakan kotoracin k’nnut’iwně” (The Examination of the Armenian Massacre), Jamanak, November 10/23, 1918. 157 Vahan Shahriman, “Ambastanut’iwn mě II. Džoxayin cragir mě” (An Accusation (II): An Infernal Plan), Artaramard, November 22, 1918. 158 Onnig, “Turk’ mamulin ahawor patasxanatuut’iwně Mec Ełeŗnin mej” (The Terrible Responsibility of the Turkish Press in the Medz Yeghern), Artaramard, November 28, 1918. 159 D. Zaven, “Młjawanĵi mě halacumě” (The Chasing Out of a Nightmare), Joghovourt, December 9/22, 1918. 160 “Očiri boyně k’antuac” (The Nest of Crime Has Been Destroyed), Ariamard, December 22, 1918. 161 “April 24, 1915 ew 1919 Yunuar 30” (April 24, 1915 and January 30, 1919), Djagatamart, January 31, 1919. 162 Yenovk Armen, “Mak’ragorcum ew ardarut’iwn” (Cleansing and Justice), Jamanak, January 21/February 3, 1919.

184

Notes

163 Yenovk Armen, “Očiri aspetnerun vaxčaně … ” (The End of the Knights of Crime … ), Jamanak, March 3/16, 1919. On the trials of the Young Turks, see Vahakn N. Dadrian and Taner Akçam, Judgment at Istanbul: The Armenian Genocide Trials, New York: Berghahn, 2011. 164 Shamdanjian, Hay mtk’in harkě Ełeŗnin, p. 80. See Shamtanchian, The Fatal Night, p. 53 (yeghern “Genocide of the Armenians”). 165 Yervant Odian, “Ołĵoyn jez” (Greetings to You), Jamanak, November 8/21, 1918. See Teotig, Monument, p. 75, where yeghern has been omitted. 166 “Pētk’ ē p’astel hay martirosagrut’iwně” (The Armenian Martyrdom Must Be Proven), Artaramard, November 22, 1918. 167 Yervant Odian, “Azgayin nor tōně” (The New National Feast), Joghovourt, November 23/December 6, 1918. The Second Congress of Western Armenians (Yerevan, February 1919) demanded “the punishment of the monsters who were authors and culpables of the Armenian Great Crime [Medz Yeghern] by military court: Wilhelm, Enver, Talat, Cemal, Nazım, Behaeddin Şakir, governors, prefects, and all leaders accompanying them” (“Arewmtahayeru erkrort hamagumarě” [The Second Congress of Western Armenians], Asbarez, August 22, 1919). See Richard G. Hovannisian, The Republic of Armenia, vol. 1, Los Angeles and Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971, p. 453 (Medz Yeghern “Great Atrocity”). 168 Simon Kapamajian, Hayastani Kałandč’ek’ě (The New Year Gift of Armenia), Constantinople: Simon Kapamajian Bookstore, 1919, p. 12. 169 James Bryce, Angłiakan kaŗavarut’ean Kapoyt Girk’ě haykakan mec Ełeŗni masin (1915– 1916) (The Blue Book of the English Government on the Armenian Great Yeghern), translated by Peniamin Bedrosian, Constantinople: O. Arzuman, 1919, back cover. 170 Idem, p. 1. 171 “Halēpi kaxałaně” (The Gallows of Aleppo), Asbarez, June 27, 1919; “Halēpi jardararnerēn č’ors hogi al kaxałan hanuac en” (Four More People from the Massacrers of Aleppo Have Been Hanged), Asbarez, September 19, 1919. About the pogrom, see Vincent Mistrih, “Un incident à Alep contre les Arméniens (Février 1919),” Studia Orientalia Cristiana. Collectanea, 32, 1999, p. 277–348. 172 “Inč’pēs kě verĵanay Yōzłati ĵardararnerun datě. ełeŗnin č’k’mełank’ě” (How Does the Trial of the Yozgat Massacrers End? The Excuse for the Crime), Djakatamart, April 9, 1919. 173 “Dahičnern u zoherě” (The Executioners and the Victims), Djakatamart, April 13, 1919. 174 K. Kachperuni, “P’rkarar ayc’elut’iwnner” (Life-Saving Visits), Djakatamart, April 18, 1919. For the trial and the aftermath, see Kriger [Krikor Gergerian], Eozłati hayaspanut’ean vaweragrakan patmut’iwnê (The Documentary History of the Armenocide of Yozgad), New York: Vosguedar, 1980; Annette Höss, “The Trial of Perpetrators by the Turkish Military Tribunals: The Case of Yozgat,” in Hovannisian, The Armenian Genocide: History, Politics, Ethics, p. 208–21. 175 “It’t’ihati ełeŗnnerun mēk gorcik’ě paterazmakan ateanin aŗĵew” (An Instrument of the Ittihad Crimes before the Court-Martial), Djakatamart, April 13, 1919. 176 “Erēkuan sgahandesě” (Yesterday’s Mourning Feast), Djakatamart, April 26, 1919. 177 Teotig, Yušarjan, p. 57. See Teotig, Monument, p. 146 (“victim of the genocide”); Theodik, 11 Nisan Anıtı, p. 112 (Büyük Felâketin kurbanı “victim of the Great Disaster”). 178 Teotig, Yušarjan, p. 69. See idem, Monument, p. 146 (“victims of the massacres”); Theodik, 11 Nisan Anıtı, p. 136 (Büyük Felâket’e kurban “victim of the Great Disaster”).

Notes

185

179 Henry Morgenthau, Amerikean despan Mr. Morgant’aui yišataknerě ew haykakan ełeŗnin gałtnik’nerě (The Memoirs of American Ambassador Mr. Morgenthau and the Secrets of the Armenian Yeghern), translated by Yenovk Armen, Constantinople: O. Arzuman, 1919, p. 1. 180 Idem, p. 342 (Henry Morgenthau, The Tragedy of Armenia, London: Spottiswoode, Ballantyne, and Co., 1918). The purported mix of crime and tragedy was exemplified in the call of a commentator, amid the quarrels that engulfed the ArmenianAmerican community in 1915–16, to “refrain from replicating the same political tragedy [yeghern]” often recorded in Armenian history (Aram Yervantian, “Xnayenk’ c’ełin” (Let’s Spare the Race), Gochnag, April 8, 1916, p. 375). In 1917, all factions put aside their disputes and created the Armenian National Union of America, which proclaimed in a statement that “the dawn of freedom is opening through the red vapors of Blood and Tragedy [Yeghern] for all peoples deprived of rights” (“Hay Azgayin Miut’iwně kazmuac” [The Armenian National Union Formed), Azk, April 6, 1917). 181 Andonian, Mec Očirě, p. 5. See idem, Documents officiels concernant les massacres arméniens, translated by M. S. David-Beg, Paris: Imprimerie Turabian, 1920, p. 11 (crime); The Memoirs of Naim Bey: Turkish Official Documents Related to the Deportations and Massacres of Armenians, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1920, p. IX (“crime”). On the issue of Talaat’s telegrams, see Vahakn N. Dadrian, “The Naim-Andonian Documents on the World War I Destruction of Ottoman Armenians: The Anatomy of a Genocide,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, August 1986, p. 311–60; Yves Ternon, Enquête sur la négation d’un génocide, Marseilles: Parenthèses, 1989; Akçam, Killing Orders. 182 Andonian, Mec Očirě, p. 6. See idem, Documents officiels, p. 12 (crime). The English abridged translation did not include this and the three next mentions. 183 Andonian, Mec Očirě, p. 121. See idem, Documents officiels, p. 91 (crime). 184 Andonian, Mec Očirě, p. 104. See idem, Documents officiels, p. 79 (théâtres des crimes). 185 Andonian, Mec Očirě, p. 15. 186 Idem, p. 249. See idem, Documents officiels, p. 168 (tragédie); The Memoirs of Naim Bey, p. 71 (“crime”). For the Turkish original (Sabah, January 28, 1919), see Gülçiçek Günel, İttihat Terakki’den günümüze yek tarz-ı siyaset: Türkleştirme, Istanbul: Belge Yayınları, 2006, p. 127. 187 “T’alēat’ spannuac. t’urk’ mec ełeŗnagorcě kiynay hay teroristi mě gndakov” (Taleat Killed: The Great Turkish Criminal Falls by the Bullet of an Armenian Terrorist), Hairenik, March 17, 1921. Hairenik also used yeghernakordz in the translation of a Boston Evening Transcript cable (“Bērlin aylews apahov vayr me č’ē t’urk’ ełeŗnagorcnerun” [Berlin Is No Longer a Safe Place for the Turkish Criminals], Hairenik, March 18, 1921). 188 T. W. [Theodor Wolff], “Das Ende Talaats,” Berliner Tageblatt, March 16, 1921. 189 Mephisto [Aram Andonian], “T’alēad p’ašayi satakumě” (The Killing of Talat Pasha), Bahag, April 2, 1921. The standard form used until the present is yeghererkutiun (եղերերգութիւն), derived from yegher. 190 Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, second edition, New York: Viking, 1965, p. 265–6. About the Operation Nemesis, see Jacques Derogy, Resistance and Revenge: The Armenian Assassination of the Turkish Leaders Responsible for the 1915 Massacres and Deportations, translated by A. M. Berrett, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 1990; Edward Alexander, A

186

Notes

Crime of Vengeance: An Armenian Struggle for Justice, New York: Free Press, 1991; Mariam Mesrobian MacCurdy, Sacred Justice: The Voices and Legacy of the Armenian Operation Nemesis, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 2015; Bogosian, Operation Nemesis. 191 Vartkes Yeghiayan and Ara Arabyan, The Case of Misak Torlakian, Glendale, CA: Center of Armenian Remembrance, 2006, p. 268. See Misak Torlakian, Orerus het (With My Days), Los Angeles: Horizon, 1953, p. 476. On the Torlakian trial, see Eyal Ginio, “Debating the Nation in Court: The Torlakian Trial (Istanbul, 1921),” Armenian Review, 1–2, 2015, 1–16. 192 Yervant Jiuherian, “P’arizean surhandak” (Parisian Messenger), Gochnag, March 29, 1919, p. 405. 193 Balakian, Hay Gołgot’an, vol. 1, p. 17–19. See idem, Armenian Golgotha, p. 453–4 (yeghern “great crime,” “annihilation,” “great annihilation,” and “mass annihilation”); idem, Le Golgotha arménien, vol. 1, p. 15–16 (yeghern appeared as “tragedy” in the first and third sentences and was left untranslated in the others). 194 Balakian, Hay Gołgot’an, vol. 1, p. 33. See idem, Armenian Golgotha, p. 24 (yegheragan “tragic” and yeghernagan “criminal”); idem, Le Golgotha arménien, vol. 1, p. 47 (“tragic events”). 195 Balakian, Hay Gołgot’an, vol, 1, p. 40. See idem, Armenian Golgotha, p. 28 (yeghernagan “criminal”); idem, Le Golgotha arménien, vol, 1, p. 51 (yeghernagan translated as “tragic”). 196 Balakian, Hay Gołgot’an, vol. 1, p. 53 (emphasis in the original). See the same translation in idem, Armenian Golgotha, p. 39; idem, Le Golgotha arménien, vol. 1, p. 63. In his second volume, Balakian referred to the British attempt to impart a semblance of justice by the sudden arrest and imprisonment in Malta of “more than fifty famous Turkish criminals [vojrakordz], who were certainly responsible for the great crime [medz yeghern] of the Armenian extermination.” See idem, Hay Gołgot’an. Druagner hay martirosagrut’enēn (The Armenian Golgotha: Episodes of the Armenian Martyrdom), vol. 2, Paris: Araxes, 1959, p. 252; idem, Armenian Golgotha, p. 420 (medz yeghern “great crime”); idem, Le Golgotha arménien: de Berlin à Deir es-Zor, translated by Hratch Bedrossian, vol. 2, Paris: Le Circle des Écrits Caucasiens, 2004, p. 219 (medz yeghern was not translated). 197 “T. Č’rak’eani ełerakan mahě” (The Tragic Death of D. Chrakian), Joghovourti Tzayne, August 11, 1922. 198 “T’rk’akan nor mec ełeŗn” (Turkish New Great Crime), Arev, August 23, 1922. 199 S. Sabah-Gulian, “Kapitalist Fransayi ełeŗnagorcut’iwně” (The Criminal Act of Capitalist France), Eritassard Hayastan, October 22, 1920. On the French presence in Cilicia, see Vahé Tachjian, La France en Cilicie et en Haute Mésopotamie. Aux confins de la Turquie, de la Syrie et de l’Irak (1919–1933), Paris: Karthala, 2004, p. 21–177. 200 Kh. T. [Khosrov Tutunjian], “Mer uxtě” (Our Promise), Punik, April 25, 1925.

Chapter 3 1 “Editorial,” Giligia, April 1965, p. 51. The second mention of “Big Crime” did not appear in the original (see “Xmbagrakan” [Editorial], Giligia, April 1965, p. 1). Giligia was the organ of the Eastern Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America.

Notes

187

Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lord Clive, London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1851, p. 37. See idem, Patmut’iwn kenac’ Klayvay (History of Clive’s Life), translated by Khachig Abraham Thomas, Venice-San Lazzaro: Mekhitarist Congregation, 1887, p. 73. 3 Chakmakjian, A Comprehensive English-Armenian Dictionary, p. 1397. The Armenian version of the Manual of the United States, published by the Daughters of the American Revolution, used vojir and vojrakordzagan in the Fifth Amendment, but vojir and yeghernagan in the Sixth (Elizabeth C. Barney Buel, Jeramatean Miac’eal Nahangac’ [Manual of the United States], Washington, DC: National Association of the Daughters of the American Revolution, 1926, p. 95). 4 Gevorg Kherlopian, C’ełaspanagitut’iwn (Genocide Studies), Beirut: n. p., 2006, p. 277; Seta B. Dadoyan, 2015 – The Armenian Condition in Hindsight and Foresight: A Discourse, Ottawa: Printbridge, 2014, p. 44, who has translated yeghern as “great catastrophe” and created the neologism yeghernazkatsutiun to express the mindset of “catastrophe-consciousness.” 5 Hrachia Adjarian, Hayerēn armatakan baŗaran (Dictionary of Armenian Roots), vol. 2, Yerevan: Yerevan University Press, 1928, p. 694; Stepanos Malkhasiants, Hayerēn bac’atrakan baŗaran (Armenian Explanatory Dictionary), vol. 1, Yerevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1945, p. 558. 6 “Ełeŗnaxał mě” (A Criminal Game), Aravod, October 26, 1924. A report on the US government crackdown on anarchists in 1919 stated that anarchists and radicals “want to turn this land of safety and shelter into a place of crime [yeghernaran]” (“Šabat’akan k’ronik” [Weekly Chronicle], Gochnag, June 21, 1919, p. 804), while the title of an editorial on the “war against crime” of the Calvin Coolidge administration in 1925 used yeghernamard (“crime-battling”) (“Ełeŗnamart šaržumě” [The CrimeBattling Movement], Hayastani Gochnag, August 15, 1925, p. 1026). These are two of several neologisms noted in this book that have not entered dictionaries. 7 Vartkes Yeghiayan (comp.), Vahan Cardashian: Advocate Extraordinaire for the Armenian Cause, Glendale: Center for Armenian Remembrance, 2008, p. 340–1. See Vahan Cardashian, “Ahmēt Muxt’arě K’ēmali ‘despan’” (Ahmed Muhtar, Kemal’s “Ambassador”), Hairenik, June 17, 1928. 8 Aris D. G. Kalfaian, Č’ōmaxlu, New York: Gochnag, 1930, p. 5, 8. 9 “Anlur vočir mě” (An Unheard-of Crime), Aztarar, December 27, 1933. On the murder, see Ben Alexander, “Contested Memories, Divided Diaspora: Armenian Americans, the Thousand-day Republic, and the Polarized Response to an Archbishop’s Murder,” Journal of American Ethnic History, Fall 2007, p. 32–59. 10 “Azgayin sugě” (The National Mourning), Hayastani Gochnag, December 30, 1933, p. 1229. See also “Anvčar partk’ mě” (An Unpaid Debt), Hayastani Gochnag, January 20, 1934, p. 51. 11 “Yargank’ ołbac’eal Durean Srbazani yišatakin” (Homage to the Memory of Late Archbishop Tourian), Hayastani Gochnag, January 13, 1934, p. 43. See also “NiwEōrk’i ełeŗně” (The Yeghern of New York), Abaka, January 9, 1934. 12 “Hayrapetakan kondak” (Patriarchal Encyclical), Hayastani Gochnag, May 5, 1934, p. 411–12. Khoren I used the same word in answer to condolences by Mesrob I, Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, and Papken I, Coadjutor Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia (Behbutian, Vaveragrer, vol. 2, p. 390–1). 13 Tede [Hovhannes Aliksanian], “Nšmarner mer ditaranēn” (Notes from Our Observatory), Hayastani Gochnag, March 17, 1934, p. 252. 14 Ghevont Tourian, Patmut’ean hamar (For History), New York: Archbishop Leon Tourian Committee, 1934, p. 3. 2

188

Notes

15 Azgadaw ełeŗně ew datapartut’iwně (The Nation-Betraying Crime and the Condemnation), New York: Archbishop Leon Tourian Committee, 1935. Historian Gerard Libaridian has noted that “the assassination of the Archbishop was even labeled a ‘yeghern’ or holocaust by his supporters” (Gerard J. Libaridian, “The Church and Political Parties in Armenian History,” unpublished conference paper, University of Michigan, 2004, quoted in Arus Harutyunyan, Contesting National Identities in an Ethnically Homogeneous State: The Case of Armenian Democratization, Ph.D. dissertation, Western Michigan University, 2009, p. 62). 16 “Ahawor taredarjě (Haykakan Mec Ełeŗni 30-ameakin aŗit’ov)” (The Terrible Anniversary: On the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Armenian Medz Yeghern), Hairenik, April 24, 1945. 17 Misak Harutiunian, “In memorium [sic]. Mec Ełeŗni tarelic’in (1915–1945)” (In memoriam: To the Anniversary of the Medz Yeghern 1915–1945), Asbarez, April 27, 1945. 18 T. Tatul, “Mer nahataknerě” (Our Martyrs), Zartonk, April 25, 1947. 19 “Mer sugin mēĵ anparteli” (Invincible in Our Mourning), Arev, April 24, 1948. 20 Vardges Aharonian, “Duk’ mez erbek’ cēk hasni…” (You Will Never Reach Us…), Djagatamart, April 24, 1921. 21 Nazaret Piranian, Xarberdi Ełeŗně (The Yeghern of Kharpert), Boston: Baikar, 1937, p. [II]. 22 D. Mardirosian, “Nahatakneru tōně” (The Commemoration of the Martyrs), Baikar, April 23, 1949. 23 Vostanik, “Aprilean ełeŗně” (The April Massacre), Hayastan, April 26, 1952. 24 V. A., “Očirneri ew ełeŗneri erkirě” (The Land of Crimes and Massacres), Hayastan, July 18, 1953. 25 Soghomon Tehlirian, Veryišumner (Recollections), Cairo: Houssaper, 1953, p. 9, 16–17. See Derogy, Resistance and Revenge, p. 104 (Medz Abrilean Yeghern “great April catastrophe”). 26 “Hay Mšakoyt’i Tan S. T’ehlirean srah” (Soghomon Tehlirian Hall of the Maison de la Culture Arménienne), Haratch, June 4, 1960. 27 Vartan Kevorkian, Arjeŗn nor baŗaran hayerēn lezui (Portable New Dictionary of the Armenian Language), Beirut: Hraztan, 1934, p. 391; H. T. Kayayan, Baŗaranganjaran hayerēn lezui (Dictionary-Thesaurus of the Armenian Language), Cairo: Kalfa, 1938, p. 112; Malkhasiants, Hayerēn bac’atrakan baŗaran, vol. 1, p. 559; Bedros Jizmejian, Hayerēn ašxarhabar lezui liakatar baŗaran (Complete Dictionary of the Modern Armenian Language), vol. 1, Aleppo: Ani, 1954, p. 218; Kegham Kerovpyan (Işkol), Hayerēn baŗgirk’ ašxarhabar lezui (Dictionary of Modern Armenian Language), Istanbul: Ghalatio Bouket, 1962, p. 167; Sukiasian, Hayoc’ lezvi homanišneri baŗaran, p. 179; Der Khachadurian, Kankruni, and Doniguian, Hayoc’ lezui nor baŗaran, p. 129; Chakmakjian, A Comprehensive English-Armenian Dictionary, p. 350, 912; B. P. G. [Père Georges Bayan], Dictionnaire arménien-français, Venice-San Lazare: Imprimerie Arménienne, 1926, p. 677; Adour Yacoubian, English–Armenian and Armenian-English Dictionary Romanized, Los Angeles: Armenian Archives Press, 1944, p. 168, 170; Kouyoumdjian, A Comprehensive Dictionary Armenian-English, p. 168; Dirair Froundjian, Armenisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch, Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1952, p. 134; Kouyoumdjian, A Comprehensive Dictionary English-Armenian, p. 312.

Notes

189

28 Arnold Toynbee, Armenian Atrocities: The Murder of a Nation, London, New York, and Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915, p. 106. The subtitle was acknowledged as source for a chapter title (J. Selden Willmore, The Great Crime and Its Moral, London, New York, and Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1917, p. 213–24) and used as title for the chapter on the Armenian annihilation in Henry Morgenthau’s memoirs (Henry Morgenthau, Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page and Co., 1919, p. 301). 29 Matthias Bjørnlund, “’The Big Death’: Finding Precise Terminology for the Murder of the Armenian People,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, April 23, 2015. See also Göran Gunner, Genocide of Armenians through Swedish Eyes, Yerevan: Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute, 2013, p. 209–10. Writer Maria Anholm’s use of folkmord in 1906 for the Hamidian massacres and historian Samuel Zurlinden’s völkermord in 1918 for the annihilation of 1915 have been anachronistically translated as “genocide” (Gunner, Genocide of Armenians, p. 16; Vahakn N. Dadrian, “The Convergent Aspects of the Armenian and Jewish Cases of Genocide. A Reinterpretation of the Concept of Holocaust,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 2, 1988, p. 167). 30 M. H. Ananikian, “Hay ałētin patasxanaduut’iwně” [The Responsibility of the Armenian Catastrophe], Gochnag, November 27, 1915, p. 1062. On the term hayasbanutiun, see Davit Gyurjinian, “Hayaspanut’yun baŗi patmalezvabanakan k’nnut’yuně” (The Historico-Linguistic Study of the Word Hayasbanutiun), Echmiadzin, 4, 2016, p. 99–113, where Ananikian’s use has not been mentioned. 31 M. H. Ananikian, “Azgayin čgnažamě ew k’ristonēut’ean patgamě” (The National Crisis and the Message of Christianity), Gochnag, April 22, 1916, p. 421–2. 32 Dokt. Yaghub, “Vižumneru hamačarakě” (The Epidemic of Abortions), Tarman, January–February 1920, p. 11. 33 Ternon, Enquête, p. 218. See also Kurt Jonassohn and Karin Solveig Björnson, Genocide and Gross Human Rights Violations in Comparative Perspective, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1998, p. 151. 34 Arshag Tomajian, “Izmirēn ew Polsēn noragoyn lurer” (Latest News from Smyrna and Constantinople), Arev, May 15, 1916. In a telegram sent to Afyon-Karahisar on February 9, 1916, Talat identified Sarian as a textile factory owner “deported from Izmir on account of his being a member of the Dashnaktsoutiun Committee” to Mosul via Diarbekir (Akçam, The Young Turks’ Crime against Humanity, p. 408). Sarian wrote that he was deported, along with his wife and three of his six children, to Afyon and then Konia, Bozanti, Tarsus, Adana, Cihan, Osmaniyeh, and Islahiye, where he spent two years in prison (Mardiros Sarian, “Yušer ew xoher” [Memories and Thoughts], Nayiri, September 4, 1967). 35 Mardiros Sarian, Fē t’agōmbli ew Astucoy dēm paterazm. Polis Nuri Ōsmaniyēi mēĵ It’t’ihatakanneru gałtni orošumnerě hayoc’ bnaĵnĵman šaržaŗit’neru masin (Fait Accompli and War against God: The Secret Decisions of the Ittihadists in Nuri Osmaniyeh, in Constantinople, on the Motives for the Extermination of the Armenians), Paris: n. p., 1933, p. 40. 36 “Dawanank’ A. A. Uxti” (Credo of the Western Armenian Liberation Alliance), Amrots, special issue, August 1, 1942, p. 1. 37 Raphael Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress, Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944, p. 79–80. See idem, “Genocide—A Modern Crime,” Free World, April 1945, p. 39.

190

Notes

38 Inside a Gestapo Prison: The Letters of Krystyna Wituska, 1942–1944, edited and translated by Irene Tomaszewski, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2006, p. XIII; Philippe Sands, East West Street: On the Origin of “Genocide” and “Crimes against Humanity,” New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2016, p. 181; Annette Becker, Messagers du désastre: Raphael Lemkin, Jan Karski et les genocides, Fayard: Paris, 2018, p. 161. It has been suggested that Lemkin was actually inspired by Morgenthau’s “race murder” (Perry S. Bechky, “Lemkin’s Situation: Toward a Rhetorical Understanding of Genocide,” Brooklyn Law Review, 2, 2012, p. 595, citing Samantha Power, “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide, New York: Perennial, 2002, p. 6), although Morgenthau referred to Abdul Hamid’s massacres as “destroying a whole race by murder” (Morgenthau, Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, p. 290). “Murder of a nation” could have been a better candidate. 39 Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, p. 79–80. 40 Egon Schwelb, “Crimes against Humanity,” British Yearbook of International Law, vol. 23, 1946, p. 178. A memorandum to the Allies submitted by the FrenchArmenian community recalled the declaration of 1915 (misdated June 23, 1915) and stated “that the crimes of Buchenwald and Dachau were literally surpassed in the Armenians’ living flesh.” The Turks had “tried to exterminate them as a nation,” which pointed out that, “like today, it was about ‘crimes against humanity, assassinations, enslavement, deportations, and persecutions for political, racial, or religious motives’” (La cause nationale arménienne: documents concernant le probleme de la liberation de l’Arménie Turque, Paris: Union Nationale Arménienne de France and Comité de Defense de la Cause de l’Arménie Turque, 1945, p. 24). 41 United Nations War Crimes Commission, History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and the Development of the Laws of War, London: His Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1948, p. 45. 42 H. B. Phillips (ed.), The Reminiscences of Sidney Alderman, New York: Columbia University, 1955, p. 818, quoted in John Q. Barrett, “Raphael Lemkin and ‘Genocide’ at Nuremberg, 1945–1946,” in Christopher Safferling and Eckart Conze (eds.), The Genocide Convention Sixty Years after Its Adoption, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2010, p. 45. 43 R. Borel, “Le crime de génocide, principe nouveau de droit international,” Le Monde, 5 decembre 1945, reprinted in Anne-Claude Ambroise-Rendu, “La découverte du génocide au prisme de la presse,” Le temps des médias, 5, 2005/2, p. 268–9. It preceded an editorial of Le Monde (December 11, 1945), which has been inaccurately regarded as the first mention of genocide in French (Becker, Messagers du désastre, p. 187). 44 Sh., “Genocide” [sic], Haratch, December 9, 1945. 45 Totally Unofficial: The Autobiography of Raphael Lemkin, edited by Donna-Lee Frieze, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2013, p. 181–2. 46 Boghos Levon Zekiyan, “Expulsion (tehcir) and Genocide (soykırım): From Ostensible Irreconcilability to Complementarity. Thoughts on Metz Yeghern, the Great Armenian Catastrophe,” Annali di Ca’Foscari, vol. 50, supplement, 2014, p. 270. For the ancient and modern meanings of the word tsegh, see Nor baŗgirk’ Haykazean lezui, vol. 2, p. 912 (Classical Armenian); Malkhasiants, Hayerēn bac’atrakan baŗaran, vol. 4, p. 462 (Modern Armenian). 47 Raphael Lemkin, “Genocide,” American Scholar, April 1946, p. 227. 48 “Genocide,” The New York Times, August 26, 1946.

Notes

191

49 Waldemar Kaempffert, “Genocide Is the New Name for the Crime Fastened on the Nazi Leaders,” The New York Times, October 20, 1946. 50 “Será crimen internacional perseguir a las personas por sus creencias o razas,” Ararat, November-December 1946, p. 84 (emphasis in the text). 51 W. K., “Genocide under the Law of Nations,” The New York Times, January 5, 1947. 52 “Genocide,” Hairenik Weekly, January 30, 1947. 53 A Memorandum on the Armenian Question, New York: Armenian National Council of America, 1947, p. 3. 54 Sh. D. [Shahe Dadourian], “Yargenk’, bayc’ xorhrdacenk’ naew” (Let us Respect, But Also Reflect), Joghovourt, April 20, 1947. 55 Sh., “Xelk’i ekac en, t’ē…?” (Have They Come to Their Senses, Or…?), Haratch, May 14, 1947. On the Turkish Hearths, see Jacob M. Landau, Pan-Turkism: From Irredentism to Cooperation, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1995, p. 41–2. 56 Raphael Lemkin, “C’ełaspan ĵarderě” (The Genocidal Massacres), Haratch, September 3, 1947. The text is unrelated to Lemkin’s only known commentary on Resolution 96(1) (idem, “Genocide as a Crime under International Law,” American Journal of International Law, 1, 1947, p. 145–51). He referred to the economic impact of genocide in 1949, observing that the volume of foreign trade in Turkey was down 32 per cent “even sixteen years after the genocide of the Armenians,” according to American consular reports of 1932 (idem, Totally Unofficial, p. 183). 57 Raphael Lemkin, “War against Genocide,” Christian Science Monitor, January 31, 1948, quoted in A. Dirk Moses, “Empire, Colony, Genocide: Keywords and the Philosophy of History,” in idem (ed.), Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History, Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2008, p. 8. 58 Sh., “C’ełaspanut’iwn” (Genocide), Aztag, April 25, 1948. 59 Sh., “Baŗn al vičeli?” (Is the Word Also Debatable?), Haratch, October 13, 1948. 60 Sh., “Miĵazgayin očir” (International Crime), Haratch, December 12, 1948. 61 “Miac’eal Azgeru Ěndhanur Žolově orēnk’ē durs kě nkatē cełaspanut’ean očirě” (The General Assembly of the United Nations Outlaws the Crime of Genocide), Hairenik, December 14, 1948; “United Nations Outlaw Race Murder—Genocide,” Hairenik Weekly, December 23, 1948. French génocide was used in Armenian transliteration (“Inč’ ē ženosidi hamajaynut’iwně” [What Is the Genocide Convention?], Arev, December 11, 1948), showing that tseghasbanutiun was not fully adopted yet. 62 “Exit Genocide,” Hairenik Weekly, December 30, 1948. 63 Josef Guttmann, “Di shiite oyf Armener hit draysik yor tsurik” (The Extermination of the Armenians Thirty Years Ago), YIVO Bleter, Winter 1946, p. 239–53; Joseph Guttmann, The Beginnings of Genocide: A Brief Account of the Armenian Massacres in World War I, New York: Armenian National Council of America, 1948. See also Khatchig Mouradian, “From Yeghern to Genocide: Armenian Newspapers, Raphael Lemkin, and the Road to the UN Genocide Convention,” Haigazian Armenological Review, vol. 29, 2009, p. 135. 64 H. Saro (Harutiun Sargsian), “Terrors from the Crime of 1915,” The Armenian Review, Summer 1948, p. 105. See idem, “Sarsuŗner 1915-i ełeŗnic’” (Tremors from the Yeghern of 1915), Hairenik, January 11, 1948. 65 “Lest We Forget,” Hairenik Weekly, April 28, 1949. 66 “Jaynasp’iwŗ zroyc’ mě c’ełaspanut’ean masin” (A Radio Talk on Genocide), Hairenik, May 5, 1949; “Author of ‘Auction of Souls’ Speaker at Genocide Forum,” Hairenik Weekly, May 5, 1949.

192

Notes

67 George Barrett, “29 Organizations for Genocide Convention,” Hairenik Weekly, May 5, 1949 (reprinted from The New York Times, April 10, 1949); “T’urk’eru očirě hayeru dēm zrkec’ ašxarhě azgi mě mšakut’ayin turk’en, kěsē p’rof. Lēmk’in” (The Crime of the Turks against the Armenians Deprived the World from the Cultural Tribute of a Nation, Prof. Lemkin Says), Hairenik, July 2, 1949; John H. Fenton, “Dr. Lemkin Urges U.S. Senate Ratify Genocide Convention,” Hairenik Weekly, July 14, 1949 (see idem, “Approval Is Urged for Genocide Pact,” The New York Times, June 30, 1949); “Prof. Raphael Lemkin Cites Talaat Episode in Article on ‘Genocide,’” Hairenik Weekly, July 21, 1949 (reprinted from United Nations News Features). 68 Kevork Melidinetzi [Topalian], “Mec Ełeŗn” (Medz Yeghern), Hairenik, April 24, 1949. 69 Peniamin Nurigian, “Taredarj” (Anniversary), Baikar, April 24, 1949. 70 James G. Mandalian, “The Armenian Side (A Response to Miss Temel),” The Armenian Review, Spring 1949, p. 54. 71 “Remnants of the Turkish Genocide,” The Armenian Review, Winter 1949–50, p. 49. The phrase was missing in the Armenian original (Hayorti, “T’urk’ioy nerk’in gawaŗneru hayut’ean masin” [About the Armenians in the Interior Provinces of Turkey], Hairenik, September 30, October 1 and 2, 1949). 72 Eugene L. Taylor and Abraham D. Krikorian, “Educating the Public and Mustering Support for the Ratification of the Genocide Convention: Transcription of United Nations Casebook Chapter XXI Genocide, a February 13, 1949 Television Broadcast Hosted by Quince Howe with Raphael Lemkin, Emanuel Celler and Ivan Kerno,” War Crimes, Genocide, and Crimes against Humanity, 5, 2011, p. 116. 73 “Genocide Subject of Television Program,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, February 19, 1949. On October 9, Lemkin supervised a special NBC feature that supported “the fight against ‘genocide’—the elimination of racial minorities through violence”— and presented “a dramatization of the horrors of the Armenian massacres” (“Broadcast Will Cite Turkish Massacre,” Hairenik Weekly, October 6, 1949). 74 “Concerning Genocide,” Armenian Affairs, Spring 1950, p. 215. 75 Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life, Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1999, p. 101–3; Bobelian, Children of Armenia, p. 119–20; Anton WeissWendt, The Soviet Union and the Gutting of the UN Genocide Convention, Madison, WI and London: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2017, p. 159–74. 76 Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Eighty-first Congress, Second Session, on Executive O, the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1950, p. 86. 77 Idem, p. 96. 78 Idem, p. 548–55. The statement probably borrowed the inaccurate date June 23 for the declaration of 1915 from the French-Armenian memorandum of 1945 (idem, p. 549). The Council used tseghasbanutiun in 1954 and 1955 (“Aprilean Sgatōnin aŗtiw” [On the Occasion of the April Mourning Event], Nor Or, April 23, 1954; “Mec Ełeŗni k’aŗasnameakě” [The Fortieth Anniversary of the Medz Yeghern], Eritassard Hayastan, April 22, 1955). 79 “Genocide Convention Must Be Ratified,” Hairenik Weekly, June 22, 1950. Hairenik also made a similar appeal (“C’ełaspanut’ean očirin dēm” [Against the Crime of Genocide], Hairenik, June 23, 1950). 80 Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Advisory Opinion of May 28th, 1951), The Hague: International Court of Justice, 1951, p. 25.

Notes

193

81 Mesrob G. Kouyoumdjian, A Comprehensive Dictionary Armenian-English, Cairo: Sahag Mesrob Press, 1950, p. 827. See also idem, A Comprehensive Dictionary English-Armenian, Cairo: Sahag-Mesrob Press, 1961, p. 568. The word tseghasbanutiun was paired with its synonyms azkasbanutiun and zhoghovrtasbanutiun in 1967 (Ashot Sukiasian, Hayoc’ lezvi homanišneri baŗaran (Thesaurus of the Armenian Language), Yerevan: Armenian SSR Academy of Sciences, 1967, p. 637) and defined as “total extermination of a race or a people” a year later (Ardashes Der Khachadurian, Hrant Kankruni, and Paramaz G. Doniguian, Hayoc’ lezui nor baŗaran (New Dictionary of the Armenian Language), Beirut: G. Doniguian et Fils, 1968, p. 865). These sources have been overlooked in the claim that tseghasbanutiun was not recorded in dictionaries before the 1970s (Beledian, “L’expérience de la catastrophe,” p. 131). 82 Power, “A Problem from Hell,” p. 526. 83 For instance, Meline Toumani, There Was and There Was Not: A Journey through Hate and Possibility in Turkey, Armenia and Beyond, New York: Metropolitan Books, 2014, p. 278; Hulusi Köse and Kevork Kalloshyan, “1915 için ortak dil: ‘Büyük felaket ve ortak acı,’” Star, April 18, 2015. For an initial approach to the subject, see Mouradian, “From Yeghern to Genocide,” p. 129–33. 84 See Mouradian, “From Yeghern to Genocide,” p. 133. Oddly enough, a commentator complained in 1954 that humanity “has been unable to invent a word stronger than crime [vojir] to qualify that crime of crimes” (Baruyr Samuelian, “April 24-ě” [April 24], Nor Or, April 23, 1954. 85 “Seventeen Thousand Greeks,” Hairenik Weekly, October 13, 1949. 86 “More Deportations,” Hairenik Weekly, January 12, 1950. 87 De Waal, Great Catastrophe, p. 138. 88 “N.Y. Times Calls for ‘Genocide’ Adoption,” Hairenik Weekly, February 2, 1950 (see “Wanted: A Genocide Treaty,” The New York Times, January 2, 1950, translated in “Anhražešt ē c’ełaspanut’ean (čenosayt) očirin dēm dašnagir mě” [A Treaty against the Crime of Genocide Is Necessary], Hairenik, January 7, 1950). 89 Levon Keshishian, “This and That in New York,” Hairenik Weekly, January 19, 1950; idem, “International Court Mulls Genocide Problem,” Hairenik Weekly, April 26, 1951; idem, “This and That in New York,” Hairenik Weekly, June 7, 1951. See Mouradian, “From Yeghern to Genocide,” p. 131–2. 90 Levon Keshishian, “Honduras Is 35th Nation to Ratify Genocide, but Life of Convention Is Menaced,” Hairenik Weekly, March 13, 1952. The front page also featured a short news piece on Lemkin’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize (“Dr. Lemkin Nominated for Nobel Prize,” Hairenik Weekly, March 13, 1952). 91 “The Armenians & May 28,” Hairenik Weekly, May 29, 1952. 92 “Canadian M.P. in Call to Ratify Genocide Law,” Hairenik Weekly, July 10, 1952. Italy’s ratification was previously reported (“Italian Nation Is Thirty-Eighth to Ratify ‘Genocide,’” Hairenik Weekly, June 19, 1952). 93 “Senator Lehman Calls for Liberation Program in New York Address,” Hairenik Weekly, June 2, 1955. 94 De Waal, Great Catastrophe, p. 138–9. 95 “Sen. Lehman Statement on Our Martyrs Day,” Hairenik Weekly, May 6, 1954 (inserted in Congressional Record, April 23, 1954). 96 “Armenian Memorial Day,” Hairenik Weekly, April 29, 1954; “Our Million Martyrs,” Hairenik Weekly, April 21, 1955; “April 24,” Hairenik Weekly, April 19, 1956; “Lest We Forget,” Hairenik Weekly, April 25, 1957; “We Remember Our Martyred Dead,” The

194

97

98

99

100

101 102 103 104 105

106

107 108 109 110 111 112

Notes Hairenik Weekly, April 24, 1958; “Lest We Forget,” Hairenik Weekly, April 23, 1959; “Our Unavenged Martyrs,” Hairenik Weekly, April 21, 1960. “Lest We Forget,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, April 26, 1952; “Lest We Forget,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, April 23, 1955; “The Sad Yesterday,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, April 27, 1957; “Forty Three Years Later,” The Armenian MirrorSpectator, April 19, 1958. See A. Nurhan [Yeghia Sirvart], “April 24, 1915,” Eritassard Hayastan, April 21, 1950 (azkasban “genocidaire”); idem, “Mec Ełeŗni 37-rd taredarjě” (The 37th Anniversary of the Medz Yeghern), Eritassard Hayastan, April 25, 1952 (azkasbanutiun “genocide”). Chrvezh [Mgrdich Kasbarian], “Ēj mě ‘Ariwnot anapat’ēn” (A Page from “Bloody Desert”), Eritassard Hayastan, April 23, 1954. See also Hagop Kuyumjian, “Inčpēs karoł enk’ moŗnal” (How We Can Forget), Eritassard Hayastan, April 23, 1954; idem, “Areamb u sarsuŗov gruac t’uakaně” (The Date Written with Blood and Terror), Eritassard Hayastan, April 26, 1955. “P’ark’ partuacnerun…” (Gloria Victis), Eritassard Hayastan, April 23, 1957. Another synonym, zhoghorvrtasbanutiun, was used in the same year (Vahan Chukaszian, “April 24 (žołovrdaspanut’ean porjě)” [April 24: The Genocide Attempt], Eritassard Hayastan, April 23, 1957). “Č’arałēt taredarjě” (The Calamitous Anniversary), Eritassard Hayastan, April 24, 1958. “Mec Ełeŗni 35-ameakě” (The 35th Anniversary of the Medz Yeghern), Lraper, April 22, 1950; “Hay žołovrdi ołberkut’ean 39-rd tarelic’in aŗt’iw” (On the Occasion of the 39th Anniversary of the Tragedy of the Armenian People), Lraper, April 24, 1954. “Nahatakneru yišatakin” (In Memory of the Martyrs), Lraper, April 26, 1952. “Hay žołovrdi ołberkut’ean 39-rd tarelic’in aŗt’iw.” “Mec Ełeŗni k’aŗasnameakě” (The Fortieth Anniversary of the Medz Yeghern), Lraper, April 23, 1955. For other uses, see “Mec Ełeŗni tarelic’ě” (The Anniversary of the Medz Yeghern), Lraper, April 24, 1956; “April 24i taredarjin aŗt’iw” (On the Occasion of the Anniversary of April 24), Lraper, April 23, 1957; “43 tari verĵ” (Forty-Three Years Later), Lraper, April 24, 1958; “Ahawor twakaně” (The Terrible Date), Lraper, April 23, 1959. Vosgan Hovhannesian, “Inč en Mec Ełeŗni nahataknerun t’eladrut’iwnnerě hay žołovurdin?” (What Are the Suggestions of the Medz Yeghern Martyrs to the Armenian People?), Lraper, April 23, 1955. See also idem, “Hay c’ełi bnaĵnĵman cragri gorcadrut’iwně” (The Execution of the Plan to Exterminate the Armenian Race), Lraper, April 24, 1958; Jack Petro [Hagop Bedrosian], “Patmut’ean mēk sew ēĵě” (A Black Page of History), Lraper, April 24, 1958; Arakel Yeghigian, “Yisec’ēk Aprilean Ełeŗně” (Remember the April Yeghern), Lraper, April 23, 1959. Arshavir B. Kaghtsruni, “Mec Ełeŗni k’aŗasnameakě” (The Fortieth Anniversary of the Medz Yeghern), Lraper, April 23, 1955. A. B. Kaghtzrouni, “Haleede Edibe [sic] Up to Her Old Tricks,” Lraper, April 26, 1956. Kevork Derbabian, “Crime Does Pay!,” Lraper, April 23, 1957. Reshduni, “Haykakan martirosut’ean 35-ameakin aŗit’ov” (On the 35th Anniversary of the Armenian Martyrdom), Hayastani Gochnag, April 25, 1950, p. 367. K. Giragosian, “Mahašuk’ k’aŗasnameakě” (The Mournful Fortieth Anniversary), Hayastani Gochnag, April 23, 1955, p. 389. V. H., “Mer mec nahataknerun ‘k’aŗasunk’ě” (The “Forty Days” of Our Great Martyrs), Hayastani Gochnag, April 23, 1955, p. 387.

Notes

195

113 “Aprilean Ełeŗni k’aŗasnameakě” (The Fortieth Anniversary of the April Yeghern), Hayastanyaitz Yegehetzy, April 1955, p. 100. 114 “Aprili sugn u patgamě” (The Mourning and the Message of April), Nor Or, April 25, 1952. 115 Shnork Dz. Vartabed, “K’aŗasnameak biwrawor nahatakac’n meroc’” (Fortieth Anniversary of Our Many Martyrs), Nor Or, April 22, 1955. 116 Melik-Shah [Armenag Melikian], “Krnank’ moŗnal?” (Can We Forget?), Asbarez, April 24, 1953. 117 “April 24,” Asbarez, April 23, 1954. 118 “Aprilean Ełeŗně” (The April Yeghern), Armenia, April 24, 1954; “Aprilean Ełeŗně” (The April Yeghern), Armenia, April 24, 1955. 119 Harkan, “Moxirnerun vrayēn dēp yaŗaj” (Over the Ashes, Going Forward), Armenia, April 24, 1955; idem, “Nahatakneru surb avandě” (The Sacred Legacy of the Martyrs), Armenia, April 23, 1958. See idem, “C’ełin Gołgot’an” (The Golgotha of the Race), Armenia, April 24, 1959. 120 “Aprilean sgahandēsě P’arizi mēĵ” (The April Mourning Event in Paris), Haratch, April 30, 1949. A speaker at a commemoration near Marseilles analyzed “the unprecedent nation murder [azkasbanutiun] of 1915, the genocide” (Virabian, “April 11–24ě Kartani mēĵ” [The April 11/24 in Gardanne], Haratch, May 15, 1950). 121 “Xorhrdacuti’wnner Mec Ełeŗni taredarji art’iw” (Thoughts on the Anniversary of the Medz Yeghern), Abaka, April 29, 1950. 122 “Mec ełeŗni sgatōně P’arizi mēĵ” (The Mourning Event of the Medz Yeghern in Paris), Haratch, April 27, 1952. 123 Massis, “Le martyre d’un people,” Courier du Soir, April 23, 1952. See “Žolovrdi mě martirosut’iwně” [The Martyrdom of a People], Haratch, April 30, 1952. 124 Vahe [Shavarsh Missakian], “Ayo, katarec’in ew kotoruec’an” (Yes, They Complied and Were Massacred), Haratch, February 20, 1954; idem, “’Oj’ kě p’ntŗen” (They Are Looking for “Snakes”), Haratch, September 18, 1955. 125 Hagop Der Khachadurian, “C’ełaspanut’ean barjumě ew hatuc’man xndirě” (The Cancelation of Genocide and the Issue of Reparation), Haratch, May 4, 1955. 126 Vostanik, “Anōrinak ełeŗně” (The Extraordinary Crime), Hayastan, April 25, 1953. 127 “Anonc’ patgamě” (Their Message), Arevelk, April 24, 1949. 128 “Yargank’ Mec Ełeŗni mēg u gēs milion zoheru yišatakin” (Respect to the Memory of the One and a Half Million Victims of the Medz Yeghern), Yerguir, vol. 2, Aleppo: Shirazi, 1957, p. 66. 129 Puzant Aintablian, “Anmar xŗovk’ě” (The Inextinguishable Agitation), Aztarar, April 21, 1949. 130 H. Arakelian, “Pahanĵatēr enk’ ew vrēžxndir” (We Are Revindicative and Vengeful), Aztarar, April 26, 1956. 131 “Inču kazmakerpuec’aw April 24e ew inč ardiwnk’ unec’aw?” (Why Was April 24 Organized and What Result Did It Have?), Aztag, April 23, 1950; “April 24i uxtě” (The Vow of April 24), Aztag, April 24, 1952. 132 “Erku Aprilneru yuškov… (1915 ew 1937 Aprilneru xorhurdě)” (With the Memory of Two Aprils: The Symbol of April 1915 and 1937), Aztag, April 23, 1959. 133 Yervand Khanatasian, “Inču čen tōnum Hayastanum” (Why They Do Not Commemorate in Armenia?), Aztag, April 23, 1959. 134 H. K. Bursalian, “Astuacěntir hayě” (The God-Chosen Armenian), Aztag, April 23, 1959.

196

Notes

135 “Nahataknern u veraprołnerě” (The Martyrs and the Survivors), Zartonk, April 24, 1954; “Xokumner April 24i (40rd taredarjin aritov)” (Reflections of April 24: On the 40th Anniversary), Zartonk, April 24, 1955. 136 Yeghia Najarian, “Misě misin ew oskorě oskorin” (Flesh to the Flesh and Bone to the Bone), Ayk, April 24, 1954. 137 “April 24,” Ayk, April 24, 1956. 138 “Aprilean sgahandēs Hay Awetaranakan K’olečēn ners” (April Mourning Event in the Armenian Evangelical College), Ayk, April 26, 1957. 139 “September 6,” Yeridassart Hayouhi, September 1955, p. 1–2. 140 “April 24” (April 24), Alik, April 24, 1952 (italics in the original). 141 H. Kosoyan, “April 24-i patgamě” (The Message of April 24), Alik, April 24, 1952. 142 H. Kosoyan, “Hałordumi ōr…” (Communion Day), Alik, April 24, 1953. 143 M. Vaché, “Mec Ełerně” [The Medz Yeghern], Lusaber, 4, 1955, p. 29. 144 Sarkis Atamian, The Armenian Community: The Historical Development of a Social and Ideological Conflict, New York: Philosophical Library, 1955, p. 194. See idem, p. 87, 90, 125, 177–8, 278 (“near genocide”), 181 (“genocide”), 262, 265 (“attempted genocide”), 258 (“holocaust”). 145 Sarkis V. Torossian, “The Armenian Gregorian Church,” in Nikolai K. Deker and Andrei Lebed (eds.), Genocide in the USSR: Studies in Group Destruction, New York: Scarecrow Press, 1958, p.159. 146 C’ełaspanut’iwně Xorhrdayin Miut’enēn ners. Usumnasirut’iwn` zanguacayin spanut’eanc’ (The Genocide in the Soviet Union: Study of Mass Killings), translated by Yeghishe Manukian, Beirut: Institute for the Research of the Soviet Union, 1959, p. 100–8. 147 Sandro Behbutian (ed.), Vaveragrer Hay Ekełec’vo patmut’yan (Documents of the History of the Armenian Church), vol. 2, Yerevan: Board of Archival Cases, 1996, p. 214. 148 Yeghishe Charents, Girk’ čanaparhi (Book of the Road), Yerevan: Pethrat, 1933, p. 281. See Eghishe Charents, Land of Fire: Selected Poems, edited and translated by Diana Der Hovanessian and Marzbed Margossian, Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1986, p. 151 (yeghern “massacres”). 149 Tsypylma Darieva, “’The Road to Golgotha’: Representing Loss in Postsocialist Armenia,” Focaal-European Journal of Anthropology, 52, 2008, p. 95–6. There were programs of ten or fifteen minutes for foreign audiences broadcasted by Radio Moscow on April 29, 1948 (“Moskuayi jaynasp’iwŗě April 24i masin” [The Radio of Moscow on April 24], Zartonk, May 1, 1948) and Radio Yerevan on May 14, 1949 (“Erewani ‘April 24’ě [‘Sp’iwŗk’i hamar’…]” (The “April 24” of Yerevan for the Diaspora…), Hairenik, September 2, 1949). 150 “Mer merelneru patgamě” (The Message of Our Dead), Aztag, April 24, 1949. In 1949, Radio Yerevan reportedly dedicated most of its programs to a commemoration of the “April medz yeghern” held in all towns of Armenia “with great pomp” (“Sovet Hayastan kogekoč’ē April 24-ě” [Soviet Armenia Commemorates April 24], Zartonk, April 26, 1949). Thanks are due to Sassoun Simonian for this information. The absence of any mention in the Soviet Armenian press makes the report suspect; an editorial of Baikar stated in May 1965 that “(…) Soviet Armenia, for the first time, marked the fiftieth anniversary of the Medz Yeghern with great pomp” (“Mec Eleŗni yisnameaki yušatōneru vałordaynin” [On the Wake of the Commemorations of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Medz Yeghern], Baikar, May 4, 1965, emphasis added).

Notes

197

151 Dikran Vosguni, “Hpart enk’ mer sugov” (We Are Proud with Our Mourning), Aztag, April 23, 1950. 152 Eduard Zohrabian, “Sero Xanzadyan. Ayo, da č’petk’ ē krknvi’” (Sero Khanzadian: “Yes, That Must Not Be Repeated”), Grakan Tert, December 2, 1988. 153 Perch Zeytuntsian, “Himi ēl lŗenk’?” (Should We Keep Silence Now?), Azg, May 17, 1995. 154 Hirad Abtahi and Philippa Webb, The Genocide Convention: The Travaux Préparatoires, vol. 1, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2008, p. 697, 963. See Weiss-Wendt, The Soviet Union and the Gutting, p. 64–80. 155 A. H., “I pēts zargac’eloc’” (To Serve the Needs of Educated People), Haratch, September 13, 1949. 156 Nikolai K. Deker, “Genocide,” in Nikolai K. Deker and Andrei Lebed (eds.), Genocide in the USSR: Studies in Group Destruction, New York: Scarecrow Press, 1958, p. 2. 157 Aron Trainin, Zaschita mira i bor’ba s prestupleniyami protiv chelovechestva, Moscow: USSR Academy of Sciences, 1956, p. 226, quoted in De Waal, Great Catastrophe, p. 138 (first name misspelled as Anton). 158 “Avetik’ Isahakyani patasxan xosk’ě” (Avetik Isahakian’s Response Speech), Grakan Tert, November 7, 1955. 159 M. Nersisian, “Hay žołovrdi patmut’yun (1900–1917)” (History of the Armenian People: 1900–1917), Teghekagir Haykakan SSR Gitutyunneri Akademiayi. Hasarakakan gitutyunner, 5, 1955, p. 50. See M. Nersisian and V. Parsamian, Hay žołovrdi patmut’yun (History of the Armenian People), Yerevan: Haypetusmankhrat, 1957, p. 255, which corrects the view that textbooks only tackled the issue after 1965 (Claire Mouradian, “La mémoire en République d’Arménie: Les contraintes de la politique,” in L’actualité du génocide, p. 280) 160 S. M. Hakobian, “Hayeri genoc’idě Ōsmanyan kaysrut’yunum ev imperialistakan Germaniayi patasxanatvut’yan harc’ě” (The Genocide of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and the Question of Responsibility of Imperialist Germany), Patma-banasirakan handes, 1, 1963, p. 53–66; R. G. Saakyan, “Dokument mladoturetskogo komiteta o genotside zapadnikh armyan v 1915–1916 gg.,” Teghekagir Haykakan SSR Gitutyunneri Akademiayi. Hasarakakan gitutyunner, 3, 1965, p. 73–86. 161 See Amatuni Virabian, “Mec Ełeŗni hušahamaliri otisakaně. azgayin hušarjan ev xorhrdayin irakanut’yun” (The Odyssey of the Memorial Complex of the Medz Yeghern: National Monument and Soviet Reality), Banber Hayastani arkhivneri, 1, 2008, p. 292–6. The decision to build a memorial, anticipated to be ready by April 1965, had been reported in the Diaspora months before (“Nahatakac’ yuşarjan Erewani mēj” [Martyrs’ Memorial in Yerevan], Baikar, January 24, 1965). 162 See, for instance, “Turk-Soviet Communicational Media Hail ‘New Era of Friendship’ between Nations; Reds Applaud Kemalist Turks,” Hairenik Weekly, January 14, 1965; “Gromyko Visits Ankara; Turks, Soviet Abnegate Land Claims,” Hairenik Weekly, May 27, 1965. 163 Nikita Zarobian and Armen Grigorian, “Rubikon-65” (Rubicon-65), Yerevan, April 2006, p. 139. 164 M. Nersisian and N. Ushakov, “Genotsid—tyagchaysheye prestupleniye pered chelovechestvom,” Pravda, April 24, 1965. See idem, “Genoc’idě amenacanr hanc’agorcut’yunn ē mardkut’yan handep” (Genocide Is the Gravest Crime against Humanity), Sovetakan Hayastan, April 25, 1965.

198

Notes

165 “Žołovurdn aprum ē, stełcagorcum” (The People Live and Create), Sovetakan Hayastan, April 24, 1965. 166 Mushegh Galshoyan, “Ayspes koč’vac nac’ionalizmi masin” (About So-Called Nationalism), Garun, 8, 1988, p. 41. 167 See “The Full Story of the Yerevan Incident; Near Riot as Youth Asks Turks, Reds for ‘Our Lands,’” Hairenik Weekly, May 27, 1965. The keynote speech by astrophysicist Victor Hambardzumian (1908–96), president of the Armenian Academy of Sciences, was published in two of its journals. The translation of yeghern became “tragedy” in Russian (Victor Hambardzumian, “Ełeŗn ev veracnund” [Yeghern and Rebirth], Patma-banasirakan handes, 2, 1965, p. 54) and “carnage” in English (idem, “Ełeŗn ev veracnund” [Yeghern and Rebirth], Teghekagir Haykakan SSR Gitutyunneri Akademiayi. Hasarakakan gitutyunner, 4, 1965, p. 36). 168 “Silva Kaputikeani ušagraw čaŗě Hay Komkusi ID. hamagumari naxōreakin” (Silva Kaputikian’s Remarkable Speech on the Eve of the XXIV Congress of the Armenian Communist Party), Aztag, June 2, 1966, reprinted with minor revisions in Silva Kaputikian, Ēĵer p’ak gzroc’neric’ (Pages from Closed Drawers), Yerevan: Apolon, 1997, p. 72, 74–5. The speech was reported in Sovetakan Hayastan (December 28, 1965) as having referred to “the problem of youth education in the Leninist spirit of Soviet patriotism” (Claire Mouradian, De Staline à Gorbatchev. Histoire d’une république soviétique, l’Arménie, Paris: Ramsey, 1990, p. 255; idem, “La mémoire en République d’Arménie,” p. 288–9). 169 M. G. Nersisian (ed.), Genotsid armyan v Osmanskoii imperii: sbornik dokumentov i materialov, Yerevan: Armenian SSR Academy of Sciences, 1966. The book, inaccurately dated 1960 (De Waal, Great Catastrophe, p. 141), has been mentioned as source for the architects of the Tzitzernakaberd memorial, Sashur Kalashian and Artur Tarkhanian, during the preparation of their project for the 1965 competition (idem, p. 146–7). 170 Gerard J. Libaridian, Modern Armenia: People, Nation, State, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2004, p. 190–1. 171 “Patmut’ean mecagoyn očragorcě” (The Greatest Criminal of History), Hairenik, April 12, 1961. 172 “Mute Testimony,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, April 29, 1961. 173 “April 24-ě parz krōnakan sgatōn me cē, ayl hayoc’ datin hetapndman orě” (April 24 Is Not a Simple Religious Mourning Feast, but the Day to Pursue the Armenian Cause), Ayk, April 24, 1961. 174 Simon Simonian, “Dēpi yisnameakě Aprilean Ełeŗni” (Towards the Fiftieth Anniversary of the April Yeghern), Spurk, April 24, 1963. 175 “Gontag,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, September 26, 1964; “The Message of His Holiness the Catholicos of All Armenians in the Sad Anniversary,” Aregak, special issue, April 1965, p. 5; “Pontifical Gontag (Encyclical) in Memory of the Armenian Martyrs on Their Fiftieth Anniversary,” Hayastani Gochnag, April 1965, p. 113. See “Amenayn Hayoc’ Hayrapeti kondakě aprilyan mec ełeŗni 50-amyaki aŗt’iv” (The Encyclical of the Patriarch of All Armenians on the 50th Anniversary of the April Medz Yeghern), Echmiadzin, August–September 1964, p. 4. 176 “On the 50th Anniversary of the Massacres,” Hairenik Weekly, October 8, 1964. See “Meci Tann Kilikioy Vehapaŗ Katołikosi srbadaŗ kondakě Aprilean Ełeŗni yisnameaki aŗt’iw” (The Encyclical of the Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the April Yeghern), Hairenik, September 26, 1964.

Notes

199

177 “The Primate’s Directive on the Memorial Observance,” The Armenian Church, January 1965, p. 2. See “Aprilean Ełeŗni yisnameakě” (The Fiftieth Anniversary of the April Yeghern), Hayastanyaitz Yegehetzy, January 1965, p. 22. 178 “Paštōnakan hałordagrut’iwn Aprilean Ełeŗni Yisnameaki Tōnakatarut’ean Kedronakan Gorcadir Yanjnaxumbi” (Official Communique of the Central Executive Committee for the Commemoration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the April Yeghern), Aztag, March 11, 1965. 179 “An Appeal to the Armenian People for the Pursuit of Armenian Territorial Demands,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, January 30, 1965. See “Koč’ hay žołovurdin hayoc’ hołayin dati hetapndman šurj’” (Appeal to the Armenian People about the Pursuit of the Armenian Territorial Cause), Baikar, January 21, 1965. 180 “This Is the Time to Read,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, January 9, 1965. 181 Hamazkaín matched “1915 Fiftieth Anniversary of the Medz Yeghern 1965” in Armenian with 1915 Cincuentenario de la Gran Tragedia Armenia 1965 (1915 Fiftieth Anniversary of the Great Armenian Tragedy 1965) in Spanish, while Nor Hadjin featured “1965 Year of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Medz Yeghern” in Armenian and 1965 Cincuentenario de la Gran Tragedia Armenia (1965 Fiftieth Anniversary of the Great Armenian Tragedy) in Spanish. 182 “Aržēk’awor yušangar mě” (A Valuable Memorial Picture), Nor Guiank, Beirut, April 25, 1965. 183 “Mer arean hatuc’umě” (The Compensation of Our Blood), in Garo Kevorkian, Amēnun taregirk’ě (Everyone’s Yearbook), Beirut: Atlas, 1965, p. 151–3. 184 “Inč’er ěrin mezi anc’ealin mēĵ” (What Did They Do to Us in the Past), in Garo Kevorkian, Amēnun taregirk’ě (Everyone’s Yearbook), Beirut: Atlas, 1965, p. 280. 185 Kersam Aharonian (ed.), Yušamatean Mec Ełeŗni (Memorial Book of the Medz Yeghern), Beirut: Zartonk, 1965, p. IV. It is inaccurate that this book generalized the use of Medz Yeghern instead of tseghasbanutiun (Hagop Aintablian, ‘“Mec Ełeŗn’ ‘C’ełaspanut’iwn’ č’i nšanaker” [Medz Yeghern Does Not Mean “Genocide”], Nor Or, February 28, 2013). For instance, a special issue on “the 97th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide [Haygagan Tseghasbanutiun],” jointly published by Aztag and the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute of Yerevan in 2012, included six articles with Hayots Tseghasbanutiun in their title and two with Yeghern or Medz Yeghern (Aztag, special issue, April 24, 2012). 186 Antranig Antreasian, “Sugi ew uxti yisnameak” (Fiftieth Anniversary of Mourning and Covenant), in Aharonian, Yušamatean, p. XII–XIV. 187 H. L. Gates, Hogineru ačurdě. Mec Ełeŗnēn veraproł hayuhi Ōrōra Martikaneani vawerakan patmut’iwně (Auction of Souls: The Authentic Story of Aurora Mardiganian, an Armenian Woman Survivor of the Medz Yeghern), translated by Mardiros Koushakjian, Beirut: Zartonk, 1965. The Eastern Armenian translation, from the edition Ravished Armenia: The Story of Aurora Mardiganian, the Christian Girl Who Survived the Great Massacres, also used Medz Yeghern (Hošotvac Hayastan. Ays patmut’yuně Mec Ełeŗnic’ hrašk’ov p’rkvac mi hay ałĵka masin ē [Ravished Armenia: This Story Is about an Armenian Girl Miraculously Saved from the Medz Yeghern], translated by Gurgen Sargsyan, Los Angeles: n. p., 1995). 188 James Nazer (comp.), The First Genocide of the 20th Century, New York: T & T Publishing, 1968, p. 140. See “N. V. Kartinal K’ušink kě bnorošē Haykakan Ełeŗně” (H.E. Cardinal Cushing Characterizes the Armenian Yeghern), Hairenik, April 24, 1965.

200

Notes

189 “Commemoration March,” The Armenian Mirror Spectator, April 17, 1965; “Yišatakut’ean tołanc’k’” (“Commemoration March”), Eritassard Hayastan, April 23, 1965. 190 “Gorcunēut’iwn urukuahay gałut’i” (Activity of the Armenian Community of Uruguay), Hamazkaín, March 16, 1965; “Actividad de la comunidad armenia del Uruguay,” Hamazkaín, March 16, 1965. 191 See Kersam Aharonian, Xoher yisnameaki awartin (Thoughts at the End of the Fiftieth Anniversary), Beirut: Atlas, 1966, p. 159. 192 Žamanakakic’ hayeren lezvi bac’atrakan baŗaran (Explanatory Dictionary of the Contemporary Armenian Language), vol. 1, Yerevan: ASSR Academy of Sciences, 1969, p. 549; Antranig Granian, Gorcnakan baŗaran hayerēn lezui (Practical Dictionary of the Armenian Language), Beirut: Shirag, 1970, p. 105; Aristakes Bohjalian, Hayerēnē hayerēn bac’atrakan aŗjeŗn baŗaran (Armenian-Armenian Pocket Explanatory Dictionary), Istanbul: Armenian Turkish Teachers’ Organization, 1991, p. 142 (first printing, 1974); Eduard Aghayan, Ardi hayereni bac’atrakan baŗaran (Explanatory Dictionary of the Modern Armenian), vol. 1, Yerevan: Hayastan, 1976, p. 323; Simon Simonian et al., Sewan ěndardzak baŗaran (Sevan Comprehensive Dictionary), Beirut: Sevan, 1970–80, p. 293; Knel Jerejian, Paramaz G. Doniguian, and Ardashes Der Khachadurian, Hayoc’ lezui nor baŗaran (New Dictionary of the Armenian Language), vol. 1, Beirut: G. Doniguian et Fils, 1992, p. 533. 193 Jerejian, Doniguian, and Der Khachadurian, Hayoc’ lezui nor baŗaran, vol. 1, p. 27 (aghed); vol. 2, p. 615, 1057–8 (charik, portzank). 194 “A Public Declaration of the ARF Central Committee of North America,” Hairenik Weekly, January 7, 1965. See “1915–1965. Yisnameak Ełeŗni” (1915–1965: Fiftieth Anniversary of the Yeghern), Hairenik, January 1, 1965. 195 “Ełeŗni 50-ameaki siwnak” (Column on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Yeghern), Hairenik, April 3, 1965; “Appeal of Commemorative Committee,” Hairenik Weekly, April 22, 1965. 196 Setrak Benjamin Minas, April 24 Armenian Memorial Day: Why Armenians Commemorate This Day, Boston: Commemorative Committee on the 50th Anniversary of the Turkish Massacres of Armenians, 1965, p. 32. The final three pamphlets were published with the new name (Leo Sarkisian, 1915: Before and After, Boston: Commemorative Committee on the 50th Anniversary of the Turkish Genocide of the Armenians, 1965; Is the U.S. Interested… in Human Rights… in Justice?, Boston: Commemorative Committee on the 50th Anniversary of the Turkish Genocide of the Armenians, 1965; These Were the Children…, Boston: Commemorative Committee on the 50th Anniversary of the Turkish Genocide of the Armenians, 1965). 197 Purposes and Propositions of the American Committee for the Restoration of Armenian Rights, November 1967, p. 3–4 (Armenian text) and 8–9 (English text). 198 Sol Steinmetz, Dictionary of Jewish Usage: A Guide to the Use of Jewish Terms, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005, p. 71; William Safire, Safire’s Political Dictionary, New York: Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 319. 199 Novick, The Holocaust, p. 132. 200 Israel W. Charny, “Genocide,” in idem (ed.), Encyclopedia of Genocide, vol. 1, Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1999, p. 42. For the specific application of “holocaust” to the massacre of Adana, see Z. Duckett Ferriman, The Young Turks and the Truth about the Holocaust at Adana in Asia Minor, during April 1909, London: n. p., 1913. 201 “The Armenian Memorial,” Hairenik Weekly, April 26, 1945.

Notes

201

202 Richard Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian Holocaust: A Bibliography Relating to the Deportations, Massacres, and Dispersion of the Armenian People, Cambridge, MA: Armenian Heritage Press, 1978 (second edition, 1980). The last English book that used “holocaust” in its title was Hagop Terjimanian, The First Holocaust: The Genocide against the Armenian Nation 1915–1923, Pasadena: Siran Editions, 1982. 203 “Ours Was Not a Holocaust,” The Armenian Weekly, April 11, 1981. 204 “Questions Editorial on Holocaust,” The Armenian Weekly, May 2, 1981. For the translation of French holocauste as yeghern, see Khatchig Babikian, “Il y a 55 ans…,” Magazine (Beirut), April 24, 1970; idem, “55 tari aŗaĵ” (Fifty-Five Years Ago), Aztag, May 9, 1970. For a recent translation of yegheŗn as “holocaust,” see James R. Russell, “The Bells: From Poe to Sardarapat,” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, 21, 2012, p. 153. 205 Sarkis Harutiunian, “Aprilean Ełeŗně ew ōtarneru vkayut’iwně” (The April Yeghern and the Testimony of Foreigners), Hairenik, April 24, 1964. 206 Manase G. Sevag, Haykakan Mec Ełeŗně ew menk’ (t’rk’akan hayaspanut’iwn) (Turkish Armenocide) (The Armenian Medz Yeghern and Us: Turkish Armenocide), New York: n. p., 1964, p. 4–6, 14, 19. 207 The Memoirs of Naim Bey, Newtown Square, PA: Armenian Historical Research Association, 1964, p. [II]. 208 Moussa Prince, Un génocide impuni: l’arménocide (Dans le cadre des crimes contre l’humanité). Introduction, Beirut: Heidelberg Press, 1967, p. 13. Prince has been inaccurately credited with the coinage (“Hayaspanut’yun” [Armenocide], Haykakan Sovetakan Hanragitaran, vol. 6, Yerevan: Armenian SSR Academy of Sciences, 1980, p. 176; Nikolay Hovhannisyan, The Armenian Genocide: Armenocide. Causes, Commission, Consequences, translated by Svetlana Margaryan, Yerevan: Zangak-97, 2002, p. 17). 209 David Kazanjian, “(Re)flexion: Genocide in Ruins,” Discourse, Fall 2011, p. 374. 210 Vehig S. Tavitian, “Important to Use Right Term,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, May 14, 1966. 211 Kim Theriault, “The Crisis of Arshile Gorky,” talk at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, September 12, 2010, quoted in Melissa Ruth King, Survivors: An Ethnographic Study of Armenian American Activism and Expression, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Riverside, 2013, p. 41. 212 “New York Times Revises Policy on Armenian Genocide,” The Armenian Weekly, April 24, 2004. 213 Abraham H. Hartunian, Neither to Laugh nor to Weep: A Memoir of the Armenian Genocide, translated by Vartan Hartunian, Boston: Beacon Press, 1968. For early rare cases of “Armenian Genocide,” see Atamian, The Armenian Community, p. 188; “An Exchange of Letters with the Turkish Ambassador,” Armenian Review, November 1960, p. 5–6; Samuel H. Toumayan, “The Fiftieth Anniversary of Armenian Massacres,” The Armenian Guardian, April 1965, p. 4; “Until Justice Is Done,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, June 25, 1966. 214 Richard D. Kloian (ed.), Armenian Genocide: First 20th Century Holocaust, Berkeley, CA: Anto Printing, 1980. “Holocaust” was dropped in the second edition (idem, The Armenian Genocide—News Accounts from the American Press: 1915–1922, Berkeley: Anto Printing, 1985). 215 Gerard Chaliand and Yves Ternon, Le génocide des Arméniens, 1915–1917, Brussels: Complexe, 1980; Justicier du génocide arménien. Le procès Tehlirian, Paris: Diasporas, 1981.

202

Notes

216 Mouradian, “From Yeghern to Genocide,” p. 134. For Haygagan Tseghasbanutiun (capitalized) in a commentary, see Mardiros Sarkissian, “Mer aprilean sugě” (Our April Mourning), Lraper, May 1, 1965. 217 Monuments of Armenian Architecture, Beirut: Hamazkaine, 1972, p. I; Haykakan jartarapetut’ean yušarčanner (Monuments of Armenian Architecture), Beirut: Hamazkaine, 1972, p. I. 218 “Koč’ hayut’ean” (Call to the Armenians), Aztag, April 24, 1975. 219 Memorandum, Beirut: Central Committee Commemoration of Sixtieth Anniversary of Armenian Genocide, [1975], p. [8], which corrects the denomination “The National Council for the Sixtieth Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide” (Libaridian, Modern Armenia, p. 47). 220 Hagop A. Tarkmanian (ed.), The Truth about the Massacres and Deportations of the Armenian Population of the Ottoman Empire 1915–1922, Beirut: Commemoration of 60th Anniversary of Armenian Genocide—National Committee of Lebanon, 1975, cover. 221 “A Progress Report on Joint Commemoration of Genocide from the United Committee,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, January 25, 1975; “Paštōnakan zekoyc’ Ełeŗni 60-ameaki Miac’eal Yanjnaxumbi” (Official Report from the United Committee of the 60th Anniversary of the Yeghern), Hairenik, January 21, 1975. 222 See The Armenian Reporter, April 20, 1978. 223 “April 24th and Beyond,” The Armenian Weekly, April 26, 1980. 224 Vatche Ghazarian and Krikor Achekian (eds.), Alpom-yušamatean Haykakan C’ełaspanut’ean 70ameaki (Album-Memorial of the 70th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide), Beirut: Vahe Setian Press, 1987, p. 75, 185. This book was the first to feature Haygagan Tseghasbanutiun in its title. 225 “Hayrapetakan kondak Mec Ełeŗni 70-ameakin aŗit’ov” (Patriarchal Encyclical on the 70th Anniversary of the Medz Yeghern), Hask, January 1985, p. 3. 226 Teotig, “Azgě č’ē meŗac, ew anhnar ē or meŗni…”. Banti ew ak’sori tariner (“The Nation Has Not Died, and It Is Impossible that It Dies…”: Years of Prison and Exile), Antelias: Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia, 1985, p. XVII (emphasis in the original). 227 Teotig, Gołgot’a hay hogeworakanut’ean, p. [III] (capitalized in the original). Archbishop Torkom Manoogian, the diocesan Primate, referred to the sponsor as “an Armenian individual survivor of the Yeghern of the 1915 genocide” (idem, p. [XIII]). On the subject, see Simon Payaslian, “The Destruction of the Armenian Church during the Genocide,” Genocide Studies and Prevention, 2, 2006, p. 149–72. 228 See The Armenian Weekly, April 12, 1986. 229 “Ełeŗni yisnameaki yišataki namakatrošmnerě” (The Commemorative Stamps of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Yeghern), Hairenik, May 3, 1965. 230 See 99: All You Should Know, p. 77–8, 80. 231 “Armenian National Committee Issues 65th Anniversary Commemorative Stamps,” The Armenian Weekly, March 22, 1980. 232 See 99: All You Should Know, p. 81. 233 See H. G. Vardanian, “Mec Ełeŗni patmut’yan ējeric’” (From the Pages of the History of the Medz Yeghern), Teghekagir Haykakan SSR Gitutyunneri Akademiayi. Hasarakakan gitutyunner, 4, 1965, p. 60; M. H. Mkhitarian, “Č’ex žołovrdi azatagrakan payk’ari artac’olumě hay mamuli ēĵerum” (The Reflection of the Liberation Struggle of the Czech People in the Pages of the Armenian Press), Lraber hasarakakan gitutyunneri, 9, 1966, p. 99, 103.

Notes

203

234 See Patma-banasirakan handes, 2, 1975, p. 264, 267. 235 “Metz Yeghern,” Haykakan Sovetakan Hanragitaran (Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia), vol. 7, Yerevan: Armenian SSR Academy of Sciences, 1981, p. 423. 236 Robert Sheckley, The People Trap, New York: Dell Books, 1968, p. 49–50. See idem, Mtk’i burmunkě (The Odor of Thought), Yerevan: Sovetakan Grogh, 1984, p. 84. 237 See Echmiadzin, April 1985, p. 77–80. 238 “Hayastani mtaworakanut’iwně havak’akan namakov mě kě dimē Korpač’ovi” (The Intelligentsia of Armenia Addresses Gorbachov with a Collective Letter), Hairenik, June 25–26, 1986. 239 Katja Doose, “Green Nationalism? The Transformation of Environmentalism in Soviet Armenia, 1969–1991,” Ab Imperio, 1, 2019, p. 188–9. 240 Nora Dudwick, “The Karabagh Movement: An Old Scenario Gets Rewritten,” Armenian Review, Autumn 1989, p. 64. On the Karabagh movement, see Levon Chorbajian, Patrick Donabedian and Claude Mutafian, The Caucasian Knot: The History and Geopolitics of Nagorno-Karabagh, London: Zed Books, 1994; Mark Malkasian, Gha-ra-bagh! The Emergence of the National Democratic Movement in Armenia, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1996; Michael P. Croissant, The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications, Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998; Laurence Broers, Armenia and Azerbaijan: Anatomy of a Rivalry, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2019. 241 See the picture in Harutiun Marutyan, Iconography of Armenian Identity, vol. 1: The Memory of Genocide and the Karabagh Movement, translated by Nune Torosyan, Yerevan: Gitutyun, 2009, p. 96–7. In the 1990s, three fighters were buried near the Tzitzernakaberd memorial. A. Tarkhanian, one of its architects, noted that the meaning of the monument was incompatible with the tombs (Ruzan Khachatrian, “Inč’ ē asum k’arełen ayd xorhrdanišě” [What Does That Stony Symbol Say?], Azg, April 23, 1994). Those tombs were relocated to the military cemetery of Yerablur in the early 2000s, but helped create the odd claim that Medz Yeghern, translated as “Great Catastrophe,” does not designate just 1915 (Frédéric Encel, “Retour d’Arménie, retour de mémoire,” L’Arche, September 2004, p. 131–3). On the perception of the memorial as cemetery, see Marutyan, Iconography, p. 40–6. 242 Harutyun Marutyan, “C’ełaspanut’yan hišołut’yuně orpes nor ink’nut’yan jewavorič’ (1980 t’vakanneri verĵ—1990 t’vakanneri skizb)” (The Memory of Genocide as Former of New Identity: Late 1980s—Early 1990s), Patma-banasirakan handes, 1, 2005, p. 59. 243 Quoted in Bagrat Ulubabian, Arc’axyan goyapayk’ari taregrut’yun (Annals of the Existential Struggle for Artsakh), Yerevan: n. p., 1997, p. 58. 244 Marutyan, “C’ełaspanut’yan hišołut’yuně,” p. 63, translated as “By respecting the inalienable right of the people of Gharabagh to self-determination, we will prevent new genocide, be it red or white” (idem, Iconography, p. 268). 245 Marutyan, “C’ełaspanut’yan hišołut’yuně,” p. 61, translated as “What friendship after the genocides of 1915–1988?” (idem, Iconography, p. 198). 246 Dudwick, “The Karabagh Movement,” p. 64, who translated Medz Yeghern as “the great murder or atrocity” (idem, Memory, Identity and Politics in Armenia, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1994, p. 82), and later as “great slaughter” (idem, “Armenia: Paradise Regained or Lost?,” in Ian Bremmer and Ray Taras (eds.), New States, New Policies: Building the Post-Soviet Nations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 475).

204

Notes

247 Marutyan, “C’ełaspanut’yan hišołut’yuně,” p. 63, translated as “The destruction of historical monuments is spiritual genocide,” “Betrayal of one’s language is a white genocide,” “Away with Nairit genocide” (idem, Iconography, p. 255, 259, 265). On this subject, see idem, p. 253–72. 248 Aram Keshishian, The Witness of the Armenian Church in a Diaspora Situation, New York: Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America, 1978, p. 23. 249 Quoted in R. N. Shalunts, “Verĵin tarineri hasarakakan-k’ałak’akan verap’oxumnerě ev norabanut’yunnerě grakan hayerenum” (The Socio-Political Transformations of the Last Years and the Neologisms in Literary Armenian), Lraber hasarakakan gitutyunneri, 2, 1993, p. 79. The term “white genocide” (spitak yeghern) was used to criticize the economic policies of the presidencies of Robert Kocharian and Serzh Sargsyan (see “Bnakič’nerin spitak ełeŗn ē spaŗnum” [A White Genocide Threatens the Residents], A1+, April 28, 2005, www.a1plus.am/9872.html (accessed on August 21, 2018); “Ayn, inč’ katarvum ē Hayastanum aysōr, spitak Ełeŗn ē” [What Is Happening Today in Armenia Is a White Yeghern], Haykakan Zhamanak, April 25, 2013). 250 Harutyun Marutyan, “Iconography of the Gharabagh Movement: An Index of the Transformation of Armenian Identity,” Armenian Forum, 4, 2003, p. 43. 251 De Waal, Great Catastrophe, p. 198. In 1992, a hotel receptionist saw the conflict, which had become an all-out war between the self-defense forces of Karabagh and the Azerbaijani army, as “a logical extension of the almost-impossible-to-fathom Mets Yeghern (genocide) (…)” (Lawrence Scott Sheets, Eight Pieces of Empire: A 20Year Journey through the Soviet Collapse, New York: Crown Publishers, 2011, p. 131). 252 Marutyan, Iconography, p. 55–6. 253 M. G. Ter-Grigorian, “AMN-i hay hamaynk’ě erkri k’ałak’akan kyank’um (1980-akan t’vakanner)” (The Armenian Community of the U.S.A. in the Political Life of the Country in the 1980s), Lraber hasarakakan gitutiunneri, 3, 1990, p. 20. 254 Idem, p. 18–22 255 Irvin Molotsky, “Bush Remark on Armenians’ Deaths Stirs Debate,” The New York Times, May 22, 1988. 256 “Armenians Plan Nationwide Campaign to Support Dukakis,” The Armenian Reporter, November 12, 1987. 257 Ter-Grigorian, “AMN-i hay hamaynk’ě,” p. 18. 258 Idem, p. 19. 259 “Haykakan Xorhrdayin Soc’ialistakan Hanrapetut’yan ōrenk’ě Ōsmanyan T’urk’iayum hayeri 1915 tvakani c’ełaspanut’yan datapartman masin” (The Law of the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic on the Condemnation of the 1915 Genocide of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey), Avangard, April 26, 1989. The Armenian translation of the Young Turk trials of 1919 used hayeri tseghasbanutiun as book title for the first time in 1988 (Hayeri c’ełaspanut’yuně ěst eritt’urk’eri datavarut’yan [The Genocide of the Armenians According to the Trial of the Young Turks], translated by Avetis Papazian, Yerevan: ASSR Academy of Sciences, 1988). 260 “Hŗč’akagir Hayastani ankaxut’yan masin” (Proclamation on the Independence of Armenia), Hayreniki Dzayn, August 29, 1990. For the translation “Armenian Genocide,” see “Declaration of Armenian Independence,” The Armenian MirrorSpectator, September 1, 1990. 261 M. Asratyan, “Natsionalno-kulturii genotsid,” in Armyansky vopros entsiklopediya, Yerevan: Armenian Encyclopedia, 1991, p. 239.

Notes

205

262 A. Hovhannisian, M. Hasratian and Sedrak Krkiasharian, “Azgayin-mšakutayin ełeŗn” (National-Cultural Yeghern),” in Haykakan Harc’ hanragitaran (Armenian Question Encyclopedia), Yerevan: Armenian Encyclopedia, 1996, p. 11–12. 263 “Mšakut’ayin c’ełaspanut’iwn” (Cultural Genocide), Horizon, April 24, 2006. 264 “Meknarkec’ ‘Mšakutayin Ełeŗn’ miĵazgayin gitažołově” (The International Conference “Cultural Yegheŗn” Started), Azg, April 21, 2010. The museum website has a section on the destruction of Armenian cultural monuments in Turkey (in Armenian, Mshagutayin Yeghern; in English, Cultural Genocide; in Turkish, Kültürel Soykırım; in Russian, Etnotsid; in French, Génocide culturel) (www.genocidemuseum.am/arm/cultural_genocide.php, accessed on April 22, 2015), as well as the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (in Armenian, Mshagutayin Yeghern; in English, Cultural Genocide; in Russian, Kul’turnyj genotsid; in French, Génocide culturel) (www.mfa.am/hy/cultural-genocide, accessed on April 22, 2015). 265 Samvel Karapetian (comp.), Yeghern Yeghernits hedo/Soykırımdan sonra farklı bir soykırım/Another Genocide after the Genocide, Yerevan: Byurakn, 2016. 266 G. Hakobian, “Ałeti ev dimakayut’yan andradarjnerě arevmtahay noravipagrut’yan mej” (The Reflections of Catastrophe and Confrontation in Western Armenian Short Novel), Lraber hasarakakan gitutiunneri, 1, 1995, p. 150. The reference was to Rubina Peroomian, “Hagop Oshagan’s Literature of Catastrophe: Struggle to Confront the Genocide of 1915,” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, 4, 1988–1989. 267 A. T., “Ełeŗni tangaraně kě bac’vi Aprili 24-in” (The Yeghern Museum Will Be Inaugurated on April 24), Nor Or, March 4, 1995. In 1995, the formula Hayots Tseghasbanutiun debuted in three book titles: Ruben Sahakian and Kostandin Khudaverdian, Hayoc’ c’ełaspanut’yuně tasnamyakneri luysi nerk’o (The Genocide of the Armenians under the Light of Decades), Yerevan: Hakob Meghapart, 1995; Mkrtich Nersisian (ed.), Hayoc’ 1915–1916 t’t’. c’ełaspanut’yuně. Matenagitut’yun (The Genocide of the Armenians of 1915–1916: Bibliography), Yerevan: Areresum-Ani, 1995; Ruben Safrastian (ed.), Hayoc’ c’ełaspanut’yuně. patmut’yan ev patmagrut’yan harc’er (The Genocide of the Armenians: Questions of History and Historiography), Yerevan: n. p., 1995. 268 See The Armenian Reporter, April 1, 8, and 15, 1995; Angakhoutioun, April 20, 1995. An editorial probably referred to Medz Yeghern by using “80th anniversary of the Great Catastrophe, the first genocide of the 20th century” (“The Need,” The Armenian Weekly, April 22, 1995). 269 See Nor Or, April 22, 1995. 270 “President Kocharian’s Address to the Armenian People on April 24,” The Armenian Reporter-International, May 2, 1998. See “C’ełaspanut’yan čanač’umě kcaŗayi taracašrĵanum xałałut’yan hastatmaně” (The Recognition of the Genocide Will Serve to the Establishment of Peace in the Region), Azg, April 24, 1998. 271 “President Kocharian Addresses Nation on 1915 Genocide,” The Armenian Reporter-International, May 1, 1999. See “H. H. naxagah Ŗobert K’oč’aryani ułerjě c’ełaspanut’yan zoheri hišataki ōrva kapakc’ut’yamb” (Republic of Armenia President Robert Kocharian’s Message on the Day of Remembrance of the Victims of the Genocide), Azg, April 24, 1999. 272 “Hayoc c’ełaspanut’yan 91-rd tarelici miĵocaŗumner en anckacvel ašxarhi mi šark’ erkrnerum” (Events on the 91st Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide Were Held in Different Countries of the World), Armenpress, April 26, 2006 (armenpress.am/ arm/print/429264/, accessed on April 26, 2016).

206

Notes

273 “Arkady Ter-Tadevosyan Says International Recognition of Genocide Intensified,” Armenpress, April 24, 2011 (armenpress.am/eng/news/650302/html, accessed on April 26, 2016). 274 “Sargsyan Asks Turkey to ‘Repent,’” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, December 17, 2011. 275 www.president.am/en/statements-and-messages/item/2014/04/23/Address-byPresident-Serzh-Sargsyan-on-remembrance-day-of-Armenian-Genocide-victims; www.president.am/hy/statements-and-messages/item/2014/04/23/Address-byPresident-Serzh-Sargsyan-on-remembrance-day-of-Armenian-Genocide-victims (accessed on April 23, 2016). 276 “Breaks Ground for Armenian Genocide Museum in Buenos Aires,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, July 18, 2014. 277 “Pan-Armenian Declaration Made on Cusp of Genocide Centennial,” The ArmenianMirror Spectator, February 7, 2015. 278 Mouradian, “From Yeghern to Genocide,” p. 129. 279 Nor Or, April 22, 1995 (“on the 80th anniversary of the Medz Yeghern”); Alik, April 23, 1995 (“80th anniversary of the April Yeghern”); Alik, April 22, 2000; Aztag, April 24, 2000; Asbarez, April 23, 2005 (“dedicated to the 90th anniversary of the Yeghern”); Alik, April 23, 2005 (“90th anniversary of the Medz Yeghern”); Aztag, April 24, 2005; Aztag, April 24, 2010; Hairenik, April 2010; Horizon, April 2010; Alik, April 22, 2010 (“on the 95th anniversary of the Hayots Tseghasbanutiun”); Massis, April 24, 2010 (“on the 95th anniversary of the Hayots Tseghasbanutiun”); Alik, April 23, 2015; Ararad, April 24, 2015; Aztag, April 24, 2015; Hairenik, April 2015; Horizon, April 2015.

Chapter 4 1 2

3

4

Giorgio Pacifici, Le maschere del male. Una sociologia, Milan: Franco Angeli, 2015, p. 49. See the documents of the Vatican Secret Archives and the Historical Archive of the State Secretary for the 1915–18 period in Georges-Henri Ruyssen, La Questione Armena, vol. 4: 1908–25, Rome: Lilamé, 2014; idem, “The Holy See and the Beginnings of the Armenian Genocide in the Light of Vatican Archives,” Relations internationales, 1, 2018, p. 65–78. About the Vatican intervention in 1915 and references to the genocide after 2000, see Gabriel Quicke, A Spiritual Discovery of the Christians in the Middle East, Oud-Turnhout/’s-Hertogenbosch: Gompel & Svacina, 2020, p. 62–8. “Amenayn Hayoc’ Vehapaŗ Hayrapeti namakě k’uyr ekełec’ineri hogevor peterin aprilyan ełeŗni 50-amyaki aŗt’iv” (The Letter of the Supreme Patriarch of All Armenians to the Spiritual Leaders of Sister Churches on the 50th Anniversary of the April Yeghern), Echmiadzin, 11, 1964, p. 8. See “Aprilean nahatakneru yišatakě Vatikani mēj” (The Memory of the April Martyrs in the Vatican), Bazmavep, April–July 1965, p. 178–82. Ignatius Bedros XVI used “genocide” in a booklet published in the same year (Ignace Pierre XVI Batanian, Une page de la tragédie arménienne, [Beirut: n. p., 1965], p. 19, 28).

Notes 5

207

“Ekełec’ineri hamašxarhayin xorhrdin ev k’uyr ekełec’inerin՝ Mec Ełeŗni 70-amyaki ogekoč’man aŗit’ov” (To the World Council of Churches and the sister churches on the 70th anniversary commemoration of the Medz Yeghern), Echmiadzin, 4, 1985, p. 13. 6 “Hŗomeakan Kat’olik ekełec’u pet Norin Srbut’yun Hovhannes-Połos B-i namakě” (The Letter of His Holiness John Paul II, Head of the Roman Catholic Church), Echmiadzin, 4, 1985, p. 15. 7 “Joint Communiqué of Pope John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin II,” The Armenian Reporter International, November 18, 2000. 8 www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/documents/ns_lit_doc_20010925_armeniapresentazione_it.html, accessed on September 25, 2012. 9 “Pope Recognizes ‘Mets Yeghern,’” Asbarez, September 26, 2001. 10 Antonia Arslan, “Metz Yeghern (il grande male): il genocidio degli Armeni. Storia e attualità del primo genocidio del ventesimo secolo (Anatolia, 1915),” in Boghos Levon Zekiyan, Antonia Arslan, and Aldo Ferrari, Del Caucaso al Veneto: gli Armeni tra storia e memoria, Padova: ADLE Edizioni, 2003, p. 39. 11 Claude Mutafian, Metz Yeghérn. Breve storia del genocidio degli armeni, translated by Antonia Arslan, Milan: Guerini e Associati, 1995, back cover. 12 B. Levon Zekiyan, e-mail to the author, September 11, 2013. 13 Boghos Levon Zekiyan, “La formazione e gli sviluppi tra gli armeni di correnti ecclesiali simpatizzanti per la comunione romana: Spunti per una rilettura delle dinamiche storiche,” in Vincenzo Ruggieri and Luca Pieralli (eds.), Eukosmia: studi miscellanei per il 75o di Vincenzo Poggi S.J., Catanzaro: Rubbettino, 2003, p. 653. 14 Zekiyan, L’Armenia e gli armeni, p. 35. 15 “We Are Appalled by the Terrible Violence Done to the Armenian People,” L’Osservatore Romano, October 3, 2001 (weekly edition in English). 16 Philip Pullella, “Pope Mourns Armenia’s Lost Generation,” The Guardian, September 27, 2001. See also Richard Boudreaux, “Pope Addresses the Wounds of a Nation’s Greatest Loss,” Los Angeles Times, September 27, 2001; Alan John Day, Roger East, and Richard Thomas, A Political and Economic Dictionary of Eastern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge International Reference on Current Affairs, 2002, p. 26. 17 Victor L. Simpson, “Pope Honors Armenians Killed under Ottoman Rule,” Boston Globe, September 27, 2001. 18 “Pope Avoids Armenia Controversy,” BBC, September 26, 2001 (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ europe/1564257.stm, accessed on September 25, 2012). 19 Felix Corley, “Pope Treads Cautiously in Armenia,” BBC, September 26, 2001 (news. bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1564927.stm, accessed on September 25, 2012). 20 Melinda Henneberger, “Delicately, Pope Deplores 1915 Killings of Armenians,” The New York Times, September 27, 2001. 21 Emil Danielyan, “Pope Remembers Armenian Genocide with Delicate Wording,” The Armenian Reporter International, October 6, 2001. 22 “Papa causa polêmica por não usar a palavra genocidio,” Folha de São Paulo, September 26, 2001. The Catholic news agency Zenit used the same translation (“Hommage au victimes du ‘grand désastre,’” Zenit, September 26, 2001, www.zenit.org/fr/articles/ hommage-au-victimes-du-grand-desastre, accessed on September 26, 2015). 23 Henri Tincq, “Reçu à Erevan, Jean-Paul II se montre solidaire des souffrances du peuple arménien,” Le Monde, September 28, 2001. 24 “Hommage du Pape aux Arméniens de 1915,” Le Nouvel Observateur, September 27, 2001.

208

Notes

25 “Papě Hŗom veradarc’aw” (The Pope Returned to Rome), Haratch, September 29–30, 2001. 26 “Pope Says Armenian Massacres Were Genocide,” Asbarez, September 28, 2001. 27 “Turkey Protests Vatican’s Recognition of Armenian Genocide,” The Armenian Reporter International, October 6, 2001. 28 “Pope Recognizes Armenian Genocide,” The Armenian Weekly, September 29– October 6, 2001. 29 “When Pope John Paul II Departs Armenia, He Again Terms 1915 Annihilation of Armenians ‘Genocide,’” The Armenian Reporter International, October 6, 2001. For the use of “great calamity,” see also Abp. Khajag Barsamian, “A Tender Branch, Putting Forth Its Leaves…,” The Armenian Reporter International, October 20, 2001. 30 Robert A. Kaloosdian, “The Pope Didn’t Skirt the Issue of Genocide,” The Boston Globe, October 9, 2001. 31 Michael Paulson, “As It Celebrates Past, Armenian Church Worries over Future,” The Boston Globe, October 20, 2001. 32 “Pope Leaves Armenia for Vatican,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, October 6, 2001. 33 “The Word the Pope Failed to Utter,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, October 6, 2001. 34 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Dublin: Veritas, 2005, p. 236. 35 Accatoli Luigi, “Il Vaticano: una bestemmia uccidere in nome de Dio,” Corriere della Sera, October 26, 2004; “Soykırım iddiası Vatikan’ın el kitabında,” Hürriyet, October 27, 2004; H. Chakrian, “‘Kat’oliki sełani grk’um’ Vatikaně matnanšum ē hayoc’ c’ełaspanut’yuně” (The Vatican Mentions the Armenian Genocide in the “Table Book for Catholics”), Azg, October 28, 2004. 36 Emil Sanamyan, “Vatican: Memories of Armenian Genocide Need to Be Overcome,” The Armenian Reporter, November 28, 2008. 37 Emil Sanamyan, “Turkish ‘Apology to Armenians’ Aims to Improve Relations,” The Armenian Reporter, December 18, 2008; Harut Sassounian, “Et Tu, Obama? Letter from a Former Admirer,” The California Courier, April 30, 2009; Edmond Azadian, “Limits of Obama Bashing,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, June 13, 2009; idem, “Message from President Obama Once Again Causes Trauma,” The Armenian MirrorSpectator, April 29, 2011. 38 Edmond Azadian, “New Pope, New Hope,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, March 20, 2013. 39 Robert S. C. Gordon, The Holocaust in Italian Culture, 1944–2010, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2012, p. 180. 40 Mauro Ronco and Salvatore Ardizzone (eds.), Codice penale ipertestuale. Leggi complementari, Milan: UTET Giuridica, 2007, p. 836. 41 Quoted in Vartan Matiossian, “The Turkish-Made ‘Great Calamity’: How ‘Medz Yeghern’ Became ‘Büyük Felâket,’” The Armenian Weekly, November 7, 2012. The text of the lecture is no longer available online. 42 Insegnamento di Benedetto XVI, vol. 2, Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2007, p. 341. 43 “Armenians in Rome Call on Media to Scrap ‘Young Turks’ Term,” ANSA, April 24, 2013 (www.ansa.it/ansamed/en/news/sections/politics/2013/04/24/ArmeniansRome-call-media-scrap-young-Turks-term_8608160.html, accessed on April 28, 2013).

Notes

209

44 Franca Giansoldati, “Papa Francesco riconosce il genocidio del popolo armeno: fu ‘il primo del XX secolo,’” Il Messaggero, June 3, 2013. 45 “Full Text of Pope’s Message,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, April 19, 2015. 46 “The Pope’s Message to Armenians,” Asbarez, April 13, 2015 (official text of Pope Francis’ message). Despite the Pope’s use of “Great Evil,” an article about the mass translated Medz Yeghern as “Great Crime” (Victor Gaetan, “Remembering the Armenian Genocide,” National Catholic Register, April 14, 2015). 47 Iacopo Scaramuzzi, “Armenia, il Papa con discendenti di superstiti del ‘Metz Yeghern,’” La Stampa, June 21, 2016. 48 “Armenian Genocide Was the First in the List of the Deplorable Catastrophes of the Past Century—Pope Francis,” Armenpress, June 24, 2016 (armenpress.am/eng/ news/852135/medz-yeghern-was-the-first-of-the-deplorable-series-of-catastrophesof-the-past-century–pope-francis.html). 49 www.nationalgeographic.org/projects/out-of-eden-walk/articles/2016-03-walkingthrough-a-landscape-of-pain-in-the-caucasus/?language=it. 50 Paul Salopek, “Ghost Land: A Century Later, Slaughter Still Haunts Turkey and Armenia,” National Geographic, April 2016, p. 112. The lead of the online version stated: “Where Armenians once flourished, the ‘great catastrophe’ is an enduring reminder of pain and controversy” (www.nationalgeographic.com/ magazine/2016/04/armenia-massacre-turkey-kurds-history/, accessed on April 26, 2014). 51 Simone Zoppellaro, “Germany Recognizes Metz Yeghern,” Gariwo, June 10, 2016 (en.gariwo.net/editorials/germany-recognizes-metz-yeghern-15206.html). About the German recognition, see Benjamin Nienass, “Transnational Memories, National Memory Regimes: Commemorating the Armenian Memory in Germany,” German Studies Review, 1, 2020, p. 127–47.

Chapter 5 1 2

3

4

Mamigonian, “Commentary,” p. 22. “Germans Back Off on Threat to Tear Down Armenian Memorial,” The Armenian Reporter, September 3, 1987; “Turkish Consul Refuses to Apologize for Actions,” The Armenian Reporter, February 18, 1988. See also Ralph Giordano, “Kleines Volk mit großem Erbe. Zur Geschichte der Armenier,” in Wilm Sanders (ed.), Armenien: Kleines Volk mit grossem Erbe, Hamburg: Katholische Akademie Hamburg, 1989, p. 22–3; Annette Schaefgen, “Die Rezeption des Völkermordes an der Armeniern in der Bundesrepublik (1949 bis in die Gegenwart),” in Martin Tamcke (ed.), Daheim und in der Fremde: Beiträge zur jüngeren Geschichte und Gegenwartslage der orientalischen Christen, Hamburg and London: Lit Verlag, 2002, p. 308. Giordano, “Kleines Volk mit großem Erbe,” p. 23. See also Annette Schaefgen, “Von der treuen millet zum Sündenbock oder Die Legende vom armenische Dolschtoß,” in Wolfgang Benz (ed.), Vorurteil und Genozid: Ideologische Prämische der Völkermords, Vienna, Cologne and Weimar: Böhlau, 2010, p. 58–9. Boghos Levon Zekiyan, The Armenian Way to Modernity: Armenian Identity between Tradition and Innovation, Specificity and Universality, Venice: Supernova, 1997, p. 26, 29, 81–2, 90. For instance, “the Genocide trauma and the diasporic status pose very special problems” (idem, p. 26) became “büyük felaketin yarattığı travma

210

Notes

ve diaspora durumu, beraberlerinde çok özel sorular getiren konulardır” (Boghos Levon Zekiyan, Ermeniler ve Modernite: Gelenek ve Yenileşme/Őzgüllük ve Evrensellik Arasında Ermeni Kimliği, translated by Altuğ Yilmaz, Istanbul: Aras Yayıncılık, 2001, p. 33, emphasis added). 5 Zekiyan, The Armenian Way, p. 82. See idem, Ermeniler, p. 103. 6 Boghos Levon Zekiyan, “An Open Letter to the Armenian People,” The Armenian Reporter International, February 24, 2001. 7 “Pope Avoids Word ‘Genocide,’” Hürriyet Daily News, September 27, 2001. For another exception, see “Obama Avoids ‘G-Word,’ Brands Armenian Killings ‘great atrocity,’” Today’s Zaman, April 26, 2009. 8 “ … And the Expected Turkish Complaint,” Asbarez, September 28, 2001; “Papal Visit to Armenia Receives Wide Coverage in Turkey,” The Armenian Reporter International, October 6, 2001. 9 “N. A. T. Mesrop S. P’atriark’ Hōr Amanori patgamě” (The New Year Message of His Eminence Mesrob Patriarch), Nor Marmara, December 31, 2004; “Patrik 2. Mesrob Hazretleri’nin 2005 Yılbaşı Mesajı” (2005 New Year Message of His Eminence Patriarch Mesrob II), Agos, December 31, 2004. 10 Quoted in Harut Sassounian, “Armenian Patriarch of Turkey Issues Bold Message on Genocide,” The California Courier, January 5, 2005. The English translation was likely authored by the Patriarch himself. 11 Idem. Incidentally, the “selection of President Bush’s evasive and euphemistic words” in his 2004 message included “the annihilation of as many as 1.5 million Armenians through forced exile and murder at the end of the Ottoman Empire” (Harut Sassounian, “Kerry Says Genocide, Bush Doesn’t—A Clear Choice,” The Armenian Weekly, May 1, 2004, emphasis added). 12 Fikret Bila, “Bush’un açıklamasına CHP’nin eleştirisi,” Milliyet, April 27, 2005. 13 Ömer Engin Lütem, “Facts and Comments,” Review of Armenian Studies, 7–8, 2005, p. 38; idem, “Facts and Comments,” Review of Armenian Studies, 10, 2006, p. 16. 14 Erbal, “Mea Culpas, Negotiations, Apologias,” p. 85–6. 15 B. L. Zekiyan, “Tehcir ve soykırım: Bağdaşmaz görünümden tamamlayıcı işleve. Büyük Ermeni Felâketi, ‘Medz Yeğern’ üzerine antropoljik ve felsefi-hukuki görüş açısından düşünceler,” in Şafak Ural and Feridun Emecan (eds.), Türk-Ermeni ilişkilerinde yeni yaklaşımlar. The New Approaches to Turkish-Armenian Relations, Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Basım ve Yayincilik, 2008, p. 815. See idem, “Expulsion (tehcir) and Genocide (soykırım),” p. 298. 16 Ertuğrul Mavioğlu, “Ermeni Sorunu (3),” Radikal, February 14, 2006. See also Oran’s posting on the Workshop for Armenian/Turkish Scholarship (WATS) listserv on December 24, 2006, quoted in www.collectifvan.org/article.php?r=0&id=15262 (accessed on December 23, 2014). 17 Quoted in Mamigonian, “Commentary,” p. 21. See also Khatchig Mouradian, “An Interview with Baskin Oran: ‘That Much Ignorance Is Possible with Education,’” The Armenian Weekly, July 12, 2008. 18 Khatchig Mouradian, “Letter to Hrant Dink,” The Armenian Weekly, February 3, 2007; Haçig Muradyan, “Hrant’a mektup,” Agos, February 16, 2007. 19 İrfan Aktan, “Ahmet İnsel ile söylesı: Milliyetçilik sorunlu bir ‘onur’dur,” Yeni Aktuel, May 17, 2010, quoted in Seyhan Bayraktar, “Remembering the Armenian Genocide in Contemporary Turkey,” Testimony between History and Memory, April 2015, p. 67. 20 Robert Tait, “Writers Risk Backlash with Apology for Armenian Genocide,” The Guardian, December 8, 2008. The statement was released in eleven languages, using

Notes

21 22 23 24 25

26 27

28 29 30 31 32

33 34 35 36

211

literal translations of “Great Catastrophe,” except for Italian (grande tragedia) and German (Katastrophe). Ragip Duran, “Des intellectuels turcs demandent ‘pardon,’” Libération, December 16, 2008. keghart.org/live-tv-debate-32nd-day-on-the-apology-statement-on-kanal-d-turkeyturkish-December 19, 2008/. Mamigonian, “Commentary,” p. 22–3; Ayse Hur, “I Apologize for Not Apologizing,” The Armenian Weekly, special issue, April 25, 2009, p. 16–17; Bayraktar, “Remembering the Armenian Genocide,” p. 66. Hugh Pope, “We Are All Armenians,” The Wall Street Journal, April 27, 2009. Alice von Bieberstein, “Surrogated Apologies, Sublated Differences: Contemporary Visions of Post-National Future in Turkey under the Spectre of the Left,” in L. Karakatsanis and N. Papadogiannis (eds.), The Politics of Culture in Turkey, Greece and Cyprus: Performing the Left since the 1960s, London: Routledge, 2017, p. 62–3. Cengiz Aktar, “Beyond Genocide, the Great Catastrophe,” Hürriyet Daily News, February 24, 2009. Cengiz Aktar, “Heterogeneous Memory vs. Homogeneous Nation,” The Armenian Weekly, May 7, 2014. See also idem, “Entering 1915,” Today’s Zaman, December 31, 2014; idem, “Re-entering 1915,” Today’s Zaman, January 6, 2016. In 2015, İnsel pointed to Turkey’s moral obligation to recognize 1915 as genocide and crime against humanity to become a modern democracy (Mark Lowen, “Armenian tragedy still raw in Turkey 100 years on,” BBC News, April 22, 2015 (www.bbc.com/news/ world-europe-32396080, accessed on April 24, 2015), and after the failed coup of 2016, Aktar declared that impunity and evil would haunt Turkish society unless it confronted a massive crime like the genocide and made reparations (idem, “Confronting Past Violence with More Violence,” Ahval, December 30, 2017, ahvalnews.com/armenians/confronting-past-violence-more-violence, accessed on January 1, 2018). Bedross Der Matossian, “Looming Dangers. Turkey and Armenia: Opening Minds, Opening Borders: A Perilous Blueprint,” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, 18:1, 2009, p. 7. Michael M. Gunter, Armenian History and the Question of Genocide, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, p. 169. Ara Tadevosyan, “Thomas de Waal: ‘Great Catastrophe’ Is a Very Powerful Term,” Mediamax, February 2, 2015, www.mediamax.am/en/news/interviews/13042, accessed on February 10, 2017. Hasan Celal Güzel, “If You’re All intellectuals, I Guess I’m Not,” Today’s Zaman, December 19, 2008. Serhat Oğuz, “Aydınların öfkesi,” Milliyet, December 19, 2008, quoting Baskın Oran. See Ayse Gunaysu, “About the Apology Campaign,” The Armenian Weekly, January 10, 2009, who portrayed some initiators of the campaign as contributors to the demonization of “genocide” users in Turkey. Sanamyan, “Turkish ‘Apology to Armenians.’” Harut Sassounian, “Turks Apology for Armenian Genocide: Good First Step, but Not Good Enough,” The Huffington Post, December 18, 2008 (www.huffingtonpost.com/ turks-apology-for-armenia_b_151959, accessed on October 7, 2012). Garen Yegparian, “Cheering and Hissing,” Asbarez, December 24, 2008. Baskın Oran, “Özür Kampanyası ve Hrant’ın cenazesi kapıları araladı,” Radikal, July 6, 2009. The same writer argued in 2014 that Ermeni Kiyimi or Ermeni Kirimi

212

37

38

39

40 41

42 43

Notes was equivalent to “‘Metz Yeghern’ in Armenia, which means Great Calamity, a term unknown to the Diaspora who usually doesn’t speak Armenian” (Viviana Vestrucci, “Turkey Needs Powerful and Reliable Opposition: Interview with Baskin Oran,” Gariwo, December 9, 2014, en.gariwo.net/persecutions/armenian-genocide/ turkey-needs-powerful-and-reliable-opposition-11918.html, accessed on April 24, 2015). Yavuz Baydar, “What Did He Say?,” Today’s Zaman, April 27, 2009; Doğu Ergil, “Meds Yeghern,” Today’s Zaman, May 3, 2009; Yonca Poyraz Doğan, “TurkishArmenian Writer Says Obama’s Words Should Not Worry Turkey,” Today’s Zaman, May 4, 2009. “Great Calamity”: Fuad Dundar, Crime of Numbers: The Role of Statistics in the Armenian Question (1878–1918), New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2010, p. 6; Mitat Celikpala, “Turkish Foreign Policy and Cross-Border Cooperation in the Southern Caucasus,” in Ayca Ergun and H. Isaxanli (eds.), Security and CrossBorder Cooperation in the EU, the Black Sea and the Southern Caucasus, Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2013, p. 130. “Great Catastrophe”: Selçuk Akşin Somel, Christoph K. Neumann, and Amy Singer, “Introduction: Re-Sounding Silent Voices,” in Amy Singer, Christoph K. Neumann, and Selçuk Akşin Somel (eds.), Untold Histories of the Middle East: Recovering Voices from the 19th and 20th Centuries, Oxford and New York: Routledge, 2011, p. 6; Susae Elanchenny and Narod Maraşliyan, Breaking the Ice: The Role of Civil Society and Media in Turkey-Armenia Relations, Istanbul: Istanbul Kültür University, 2012, p. 14. “Big disaster/calamity”: Deniz Ünan Göktan, Hate Crime in Turkey: Implications of Collective Action, Media Representations and Policy Making, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017, p. 89. For the use of genocide and “Great Catastrophe,” see Melissa Bilal, “Longing for Home at Home: Armenians in Istanbul,” in Marie-Aude Baronian, Stephane Besser, and Yolande Janssen (eds.), Diaspora and Memory. Figures of Displacement in Contemporary Literature, Arts and Politics, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007, p. 57; Maksudyan, “Walls of Silence,” p. 644. Rober Koptaş, “’Büyük felaket’ dogmaya dönüşmesin,” Radikal, May 3, 2009. Büyük Felâket and Büyük Kıyım (“Great Slaughter”) were used together, for instance, in the translation of Barack Obama’s 2012 statement (“Obama’nın açıklamaları iki tarafı da memnun etmedi,” Agos, April 25, 2012). See the double meaning büyük felaket and büyük cinayet in Fuad Dündar, Modern Türkiye’nin şifresi: İttihat ve Terakki’nin etnisite mühendisliği 1913–1918, Istanbul: Iletişim, 2008, p. 39. Zeynep Gürcanlı, “Soykırım demedi ama beter etti,” Hürriyet, April 26, 2009. Adur H. Yaghubian [Yacoubian], Hayataŗ t’rk’erēnē hayerēn baŗaran (ArmenianScript Turkish-Armenian Dictionary), New York: n. p., 1919, p. 111, 218; Bohjalian, T’rk’erēnē hayerēn, p. 60, 138; Bohjalian, Hayerēnē hayerēn, p. 12, 142; Katarine Kondakjian, T’urk’eren-hayeren baŗaran (Turkish-Armenian Dictionary), Yerevan: Antares, 2003, p. 109, 137; R. S. Ghazarian, T’urk’eren-hayeren baŗaran (TurkishArmenian Dictionary), Yerevan: Mitk, 2003, p. 82, 164; Birsen Karaca, Doğu Ermeniçe-Turkçe sözluk, second edition, Ankara: Ankara University, 2007, p. 76. “Turkish Scholars Urge Countrymen to Mark Armenian Genocide in Istanbul,” Asbarez, April 21, 2010. Orhan Kemal Cengiz, “Is Turkey Overcoming the Armenian Taboo?,” Al-Monitor, April 22, 2013 (www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/04/armenian-genocidetaboo-turkey-anniversary.html, accessed on April 24, 2014).

Notes

213

44 “Kürkçü: Metz Yegern Gerçekliğini Ortaya Çıkartacağız,” Bianet, April 26, 2013 (www.bianet.org/bianet/azinliklar/146161/kurkcu-metz-yegern-gercekligini-ortayacikarmaktacagiz, accessed on April 26, 2014); “Kürkçü: We Will Unfold Medz Yeghern Reality,” Bianet, April 26, 2013 (www.bianet.org/english/politics/146164kurkcu-we-will-unfold-medz-yegheŗn-reality, accessed on April 26, 2014). 45 Suat Kiniklioğlu, “‘Meds Yeghern,’” Today’s Zaman, April 27, 2009. 46 “What Was Turkish Premier [sic] to Say in Zurich,” News.am, October 21, 2009 (news.am/eng/news/7011.html, accessed on October 21, 2016). 47 Murat Yetkin, Radikal, March 26, 2010, quoted in Taner Akcam, “What Davutoglu Fails to Understand,” translated by Fatima Sakarya, The Armenian Weekly, May 22, 2010. Armenians were not expected to empathize for Ottoman tragedies in the Balkans, Gallipoli, or the Middle East (Ömer Taşpinar, “Ermeni meselemiz, adil hafıza ve 2015,” Sabah, July 16, 2012). 48 Aslı Aydıntaşbaş, “Davutoğlu’ndan Ermenilere: Sizin acınızı reddetmiyorum gelin konuşalım,” Milliyet, July 7, 2012. Thanks are due to Ayda Erbal for providing this article and its translation. 49 Gerard Libaridian, “Professor Libaridian Responds to Turkish FM’s Call for a ‘Just Memory,’” Hürriyet Daily News, July 22, 2014. See also Ara Khachatourian, “’Just Memory’: Davutoglu Urges the Armenians to Deny Genocide,” Asbarez, June 26, 2014. 50 Avni Özgürel, “Soykırım bir endüstri oldu,” Radikal, March 13, 2005. See Ayda Erbal, “Lost in Translation: The Monument’s Deconstruction,” in Demirdjian, The Armenian Genocide, p. 213–14. 51 Philip H. Gordon and Omer Taspinar, Winning Turkey: How America, Europe, and Turkey Can Revive a Fading Partnership, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2008, p. 79. 52 Ahu Özyurt, “The Fine Print of the White House Statement,” Hürriyet Daily News, April 26, 2014. 53 Suat Kiniklioğlu, “The Armenian Issue,” Today’s Zaman, April 23, 2015. 54 “Erdoğan Offers Turkey’s First Condolences to Armenians for 1915,” Today’s Zaman, April 24, 2014. 55 “Armenian Religious Leader Hails Turkish PM’s Condolence, Urges Follow-Up,” Hürriyet Daily News, May 1, 2014. This step had been preceded by the would-be apology for the massacre of Dersim in 2011; see Bilgin Ayata and Serra Hakyemez, “The AKP’s Engagement with Turkey’s Past Crimes: An Analysis of PM Erdoğan’s ‘Dersim Apology,’” Dialectical Anthropology, 1, 2013, p. 131–43. 56 Dorian Jones, “Armenia Calls Turkish PM’s Condolences on WWI Deaths Political Ploy,” Voice of America, April 28, 2014 (www.voanews.com/europe/armenia-callsturkish-pms-condolences-wwi-deaths-political-ploy); “Erdogan Issues Statement on ‘Events of 1915,’” The Armenian Weekly, April 26, 2014. 57 “Davutoğlu Says Turkey’s 1915 Statement Achieved Its Goal,” Today’s Zaman, April 25, 2014; Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Turks and Armenians—We Must Follow Erdoğan’s Lead and Bury Our Common Pain,” The Guardian, May 2, 2014; idem, “TurkishArmenian Relations in the Process of De-Ottomanization or ‘Dehistoricization’: Is a ‘Just Memory’ Possible?,” translated into English by Robert Johnson, Turkish Policy Quarterly, Spring 2014, p. 28. 58 Şükrü Elekdağ, “Armenia Should Constructively Consider PM’s Proposal,” Today’s Zaman, June 2, 2014; Mustafa Akyol, “Erdoğan and the Armenians,” Hürriyet Daily News, April 26, 2014.

214

Notes

59 Mehmet Y. Yilmaz, “Why Is Erdogan Unrivaled?,” Hürriyet Daily News, April 25, 2014. 60 Ara Sanjian, “Erdogan’s Condolences: Too Little, Too Late within a Steadily Changing Context,” E-International Relations, May 8, 2014 (www.e-ir.info/2014/05/08/ erdogans-condolences-too-little-too-late-within-a-steadily-changing-context/, accessed on October 10, 2019). Another historian, Eldad Ben Aharon, has noted that “in practice, the message was a sophisticated form of denial that placed the Armenian genocide within the context of a world war, alongside the loss of ethnic Turks” (Eldad Ben Aharon, “Recognition of the Armenian Genocide after Its Centenary: A Comparative Analysis of Changing Parliamentary Positions,” Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, 3, 2019, p. 339). 61 “Turkish PM Pays Tribute to People Who Died in 1915,” Anadolu Agency, April 23, 2014 (aa.com.tr/en/turkey/turkish-pm-pays-tribute-to-people-who-diedin-1915/164944, accessed on April 24, 2016). 62 Esma Kaymak Avci, “Obama Describes Events of 1915 as ‘Meds Yeghern,’” Anadolu Agency, April 22, 2016 (aa.com.tr/en/world/obama-describes-1915-events-as-medsyeghern/559761, accessed on April 24, 2016). 63 Jeyhun Aliyev, “Turkey Rebuffs Trump’s Statement on 1915 Events,” Anadolu Agency, April 24, 2019 (www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/turkey-rebuffs-trumps-statement-on1915-events/1461847, accessed on April 24, 2019). 64 Ayşe Şahin, “Turkey’s PM Davutoğlu Extends Condolences to Descendants of Deceased Armenians,” Daily Sabah, April 20, 2015; “Turkey Calls on US to Adopt Objective Approach after Obama’s ‘Meds Yeghern’ remarks,” Hürriyet Daily News, April 23, 2016; “President Erdoğan Releases 1915 Message, Honors Memory of Ottoman Armenians,” Daily Sabah, April 24, 2016. 65 “Erdoğan Marks Armenian Dead from 1915 Events in Message,” Daily Sabah, April 24, 2017; “Turkey Has ‘Responsibility’ to Share Armenian Pain over 1915: Erdoğan,” Hürriyet Daily News, April 24, 2018; “Erdoğan Commemorates Ottoman Armenians Who Died during WWI, 1915 Events in Letter to Patriarchate,” Daily Sabah, April 24, 2019; “Erdoğan Offers Condolences to Turkey’s Armenian Community over 1915 Events,” Daily Sabah, April 24, 2020. 66 Jones, “Armenia Calls Turkish PM’s Condolences.” 67 “Génocide arménien: Hollande salue l’évolution’ du discours turc,” Le Monde, 25 avril 2014. 68 “Hollande appelle la Turquie à reconnaître le genocide arménien,” Liberation, 25 avril 2015. 69 “Erdogan Says Deporting Armenians Was ‘Appropriate’,” The Armenian MirrorSpectator, May 2, 2019. 70 Daniel Steinvorth, “Turkish-Armenian Relations: ‘There Is Hope Once Again’,” Spiegel Online, April 30, 2009, quoting Archbishop Aram Ateshian, then Patriarchal Vicar of the Armenians of Turkey (www.spiegel.de/international/world/turkish-armenianrelations-there-is-hope-once-again-a-622182.html, accessed on April 30, 2014). 71 Philip Elliott, “Obama Fails to Call Armenian Massacre a Genocide,” The Washington Post, April 25, 2010: “If we are going to share grief for humanitarian reasons, then we would expect respect for our own grief as well.” See Burak Bekdil, “‘We Have to Apologize to the Armenians,’” Hürriyet Daily News, May 1, 2013, who labeled Davutoğlu’s condemnation of the “standard ‘Medz Yeghern (Great Disaster)’ reference to the Armenian genocide” as Kemalist.

Notes

215

72 “Turkey Rejects Trump’s Characterization of 1915 as ‘Meds Yeghern,’” Hürriyet Daily News, April 24, 2019. 73 www.akparti.org.tr/en/news/president-erdogan-the-armenian-relocation-wasneither-a-genocide-nor-a-great-disaster/ (accessed on April 30, 2019); “Erdoğan Says Armenian Relocation ‘a Tragedy’ but ‘Neither Genocide, Nor Great Disaster,’”Yeni Şafak, April 27, 2019. The basics of the Turkish narrative had been stated by an editorial of 1965: “The Armenian massacres are referred to as ‘painful events’ in which both the Armenians and the Turks suffered alike” (“Turkey Condemned,” Hairenik Weekly, June 24, 1965).

Chapter 6 1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Harut Sassounian, “Why Does Pres. Obama Torture Himself and Armenians Every April 24?,” The California Courier, May 3, 2012. Harut Sassounian, “Genocide Is the Right Word, Justice Is the Ultimate Goal!,” The California Courier, February 14, 2013. Harut Sassounian, “Pope Listens to His Heart, Not Handlers, on Genocide during Armenia Pilgrimage,” The California Courier, June 28, 2016. “Gov. Reagan, Sen. Cranston, Mayor Yorty Meet Catholicos,” The Armenian Weekly, May 6, 1969. “ANCA Mourns Passing of Ronald Reagan,” Asbarez, June 11, 2004. A shortened version appeared in California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proclamation of April 24, 2005: “Today, I humbly bow in memory of the Armenian martyrs, who died in the name of freedom” (“Assembly Praises Governor Schwarzenegger on Armenian Genocide Proclamation,” The Armenian Reporter International, April 30, 2005). “President Reagan Makes Reference to Armenian Genocide in Holocaust Proclamation,” The Armenian Reporter, May 7, 1981. Nikolaus Schrodt, Modern Turkey and the Armenian Genocide: An Argument about the Meaning of the Past, Heidelberg and New York: Springer, 2014, p. 13. Kenneth L. Khachigian, e-mail to the author, December 11, 2012. See also Bobelian, Children of Armenia, p. 169. “Repeat Performance,” The Armenian Weekly, March 28, 1981. Khachigian, e-mail, December 11, 2012. “President Reagan Makes Reference to Armenian Genocide.” “Reagan Mentions Armenians in Holocaust Talk,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, May 9, 1981. See also Barbara J. Merguerian, “Commentary,” The Armenian MirrorSpectator, May 9, 1981. “President Reagan Makes Reference to Armenian Genocide,” The Armenian Weekly, May 16, 1981. “Our Liberation Struggle Is an Everyday Concern,” The Armenian Weekly, May 16, 1981. “Naxagah Rekěni yaytararut’iwně C’ełaspanut’ean ew Ołĵakizumi zoherun hamar” (President Reagan’s Statement for the Victims of Genocide and Holocaust), Hairenik, May 12, 1981. “US Holocaust Museum to Include 1915 Massacres,” The California Courier, May 14, 1981; “Armenian Genocide Included in Holocaust Council Programs,” The Armenian Weekly, May 23, 1981.

216

Notes

17 Andrew Corsun, “Armenian Terrorism: A Profile,” Department of State Bulletin, August 1982, p. 34. Department officials rewrote the historical sections of the article, which initially acknowledged the genocide (Papazian, “Misplaced Credulity,” p. 203). 18 “Editor’s Note,” Department of State Bulletin, April 1983, contents page. See also “It’s Not Good Enough,” The Armenian Weekly, May 14, 1983, and “Letters to the Editor,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, May 14 and May 21, 1983. 19 Kevork Donabedian, “President Reagan Defines U.S. Position on Armenian Genocide,” The Armenian Weekly, October 22, 1983. 20 “Coelho Blasts State Dept. for Denying Armenian Genocide,” The Armenian-Mirror Spectator, April 21, 1984. The State Department had pursued the same course of action in 1975 (“Kissinger Is Said to Have Blocked Passage of April 24 Resolution,” The Armenian Reporter, May 15, 1975) 21 “Armenians Urged to Vote for Mondale-Ferraro on November 6,” The Armenian Weekly, November 3, 1984. 22 Harut Sassounian, “Vote Your Conscience or Don’t Vote at All,” The California Courier, November 1, 1984. 23 Harut Sassounian, “Four More Years?,” The California Courier, November 15, 1984. 24 “Defense Secretary Weinberger Intervenes against Genocide Commemoration Day,” The Armenian Weekly, March 2, 1985. See Vigen Guroian, “The Politics and Morality of Genocide,” in Hovannisian, The Armenian Genocide: History, Politics, Ethics, p. 315–27. 25 “Reagan States Opposition to Congressional Resolutions,” Asbarez, April 6, 1985; “Reagan Regrets Lack of Progress in Armenian Case,” The Armenian Weekly, April 6, 1985; “President Reagan Announces Opposition to Resolutions,” The Armenian Reporter, April 11, 1985; “President Reagan Opposes Genocide Resolution,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, April 13, 1985. 26 Lawrence Terzian, “An Ambiguous Genocide,” The Armenian Weekly, special issue, April 23, 1983, p. 8. 27 “Lack of Leadership?,” Asbarez, April 6, 1985; “President Reagan and the Armenian Genocide,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, April 13, 1985. 28 Harut Sassounian, “What Can You Expect from a Senile Actor?,” The California Courier, April 11, 1985. See also idem, “Who Are You Kidding, Mr. President?,” The California Courier, May 9, 1985. 29 The Reagan Diaries, edited by Douglas Brinkley, New York: HarperCollins, 2009, p. 524. 30 “US House Rejects Armenian Resolution. Secretary of State Shultz Plays Important Role in Defeat,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, August 15, 1987; “Where Is the Forum for Armenian Grievances to Be Heard?,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, August 15, 1987. 31 The Reagan Diaries, p. 624. 32 See Edward T. Linenthal, Preserving Memory: The Struggle to Create America’s Holocaust Museum, New York: Columbia University Press, 2001, p. 230–40; Rifat N. Bali, Model Citizens of the State: Jews of Turkey during the Multi-Party Period, translated by Paul F. Bessemer, Madison, and Teaneck: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2012, p. 286–95. 33 “Vice President George Bush and Governor Michael Dukakis Respond to Armenian Assembly Questionnaire,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, October 15, 1988. 34 “Bush Personally Opposed S.J. 212,” The Armenian Weekly, November 18, 1989. 35 “Senate Votes to Block Consideration of Genocide Bill,” The California Courier, March 1, 1990; “Genocide Resolution Stalemated,” The Armenian Weekly, March

Notes

217

3, 1990; “Senate Again Blocks Resolution; Sen. Dole Vows to Continue Fight,” The California Courier, March 8, 1990; “Historic U.S. Senate Debate on Armenian Genocide Resolution Lasts for Four Days,” The California Courier, March 8, 1990. See also Guroian, “The Politics and Morality,” p. 327–36; Bobelian, Children of Armenia, p. 177–206. 36 “Pres. Bush Issues Unexpected Statement on Eve of April 24,” The California Courier, April 26, 1990. 37 “Bush Issues Statement on 75th Anniversary of Genocide,” The Armenian Weekly, April 28, 1990; “ANCA Sends Reply to President Bush,” The Armenian Weekly, May 5, 1990. 38 “Assembly Says Bush Statement on Occasion of Genocide Rejects Turkish Denial Campaign,” The Armenian Reporter, April 26, 1990. 39 Harut Sassounian, “Pres. Bush’s Long and Tortuous Road for Truth about Genocide,” The California Courier, April 26, 1990. See also idem, “What Did the President Say and When Did He Say It?,” The California Courier, May 3, 1990. 40 “Bush Acknowledges Armenian Genocide,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, February 26, 2000. 41 Jason Sohigian, “Armenian Genocide,” The New York Times, April 12, 2002. 42 “Pres. Bush Once Again Issues Insulting Statement on April 24,” The Armenian Weekly, May 3, 2003. 43 “AMN-i naxagahi ułerjě hay žołovrdin Hayoc’ c’ełaspanut’yan 88-rd taredarji aŗt’iv” (The Message of the US President to the Armenian People on the 88th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide), Azg, April 26, 2003. 44 Ashley Dunn, “Armenians Abroad Torn over Return to Homeland,” Los Angeles Times, September 2, 1991. 45 “Never Underestimate the Power of a Thank You,” The Armenian Weekly, May 3, 2003. See “Šnorhakalut’iwn yaytnenk’ Hayoc’ Ełeŗni 88ameaki jeŗnarkin masnakc’oł nerkayac’uc’ičnerun ew cerakutakannerun” (Let’s Thank the Representatives and Senators Who Participated in the 88th Anniversary Event of the Armenian Yeghern), Hairenik, May 2, 2003. 46 Harut Sassounian, “President Bush Once Again Issues an Insulting Statement on April 24,” The California Courier, May 1, 2003. Richard Sanikian, ANC Fresno (California) repreentative, remarked in a letter to the editor: “I tested President Bush’s statement and asked our Fresno community if they refer to what happened to Armenians as ‘the great calamity.’ As I sensed stomachs turn in disbelief, no positive response was heard from the crowd at our annual April 24 Genocide commemoration” (“From the Letterbox,” The Armenian Weekly, May 24, 2003, reprinted from The Fresno Bee, May 10, 2003). 47 Evans, Truth Held Hostage, p. 77. 48 “President Bush Fails to Properly Characterize Armenian Genocide,” The Armenian Reporter International, April 30, 2005. 49 Emil Danielyan, “Bush Remembers Armenian ‘Great Calamity,’” RFE/RL, April 27, 2005 (www.azatutyun.am/content/article/1576673.html, accessed on April 30, 2014). 50 Ken Sarajian, “President Bush’s ‘Great Calamity,’” The Armenian Reporter International, April 30, 2005. 51 Harut Sassounian, “President Bush’s April 24 Statement … From Bad to Worse,” The California Courier, April 28, 2005; idem, “Acknowledging the Armenian Genocide Would Be in Pres. Bush’s Best Interest!,” The California Courier, January 17, 2008.

218

Notes

52 Sassounian, “President Bush’s April 24 Statement.” The Armenian translation of this article rendered “Great Calamity” as medz aghed (“great catastrophe”) (idem, “Naxagah Puši April 24-i eluytě … vadēn` shad vad” [President Bush’s April 24 Statement … From Bad to Very Bad], Hairenik, April 29, 2005). 53 Sassounian, “Et Tu, Obama?” See also Mouradian, “From Yeghern to Genocide,” p. 129. 54 Harut Sassounian, “US Recognized Armenian Genocide in 1951, World Court Document Reveals,” The California Courier, June 12, 2008. See also idem, “All 3 Branches of US Government Recognize the Armenian Genocide,” The California Courier, June 7, 2012. 55 “Prime Minister Stephen Harper Issues a Statement on the Armenian Genocide,” Abaka, May 1, 2006. 56 Idem. 57 “Primate Galstanian Makes an Appeal to the Government of Canada,” Abaka, May 8, 2006. 58 “Prime Minister Harper Recognizes the Armenian Genocide,” Horizon, May 1, 2006; “ANCC Thanks PM for ‘Honourable and Courageous Policy Shift,’” Horizon, May 1, 2006. 59 See Horizon, May 1, 2006. 60 “Darjeal šnorhakalut’iwn, Ganata” (Thanks Again, Canada), Horizon, May 1, 2006. 61 “ANC-WR Annual Banquet Celebrates Unprecedented Year of Grassroots Achievements,” Asbarez, October 5, 2007. For reporting without reference to the text, see “Canada’s Prime Minister Recognizes Genocide,” The Armenian Weekly, April 22, 2006; “Prime Minister Harper Affirms Genocide,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, April 29, 2006. 62 “Canada’s Prime Minister Issues Statement on Genocide,” Asbarez, April 28, 2011. 63 “A Message from Minister Tim Uppal: Remembering the Armenian Genocide,” Horizon Weekly, May 5, 2014. 64 “Ontario Premier Doug Ford Issues Statement on 105th Anniversary of Armenian Genocide,” Horizon Weekly, April 22, 2020 (horizonweekly.ca/en/conservativeleader-andrew-scheer-issues-statement-on-armenian-genocide-memorial-dayupholding-his-partys-strong-stance-on-its-recognition/, accessed on April 27, 2020); “Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer Issues Statement on Armenian Genocide Memorial Day Upholding His Party’s Strong Stance on its Recognition,” Horizon Weekly, April 24, 2020 (horizonweekly.ca/en/conservative-leader-andrew-scheerissues-statement-on-armenian-genocide-memorial-day-upholding-his-partysstrong-stance-on-its-recognition/, accessed on April 27, 2020). 65 “Barack Obama Calls for Passage of Armenian Genocide Resolution,” Asbarez, January 21, 2008. On the recall, see Evans, Truth Held Hostage, p. 53–98. 66 “Sen. Barack Obama Asks Amb. Yovanovitch about Decriminalizing Discussion of the Genocide in Turkey,” The Armenian Reporter International, July 19, 2008. 67 Azadian, “Message from President Obama.” 68 Nahal Toosi, “Top Obama Aides ‘Sorry’ They Did Not Recognize Armenian Genocide,” Politico, January 19, 2018 (www.politico.com/story/2018/01/19/ armenian-genocide-ben-rhodes-samantha-power-obama-349973, accessed on January 20, 2018). See Samantha Power, The Education of an Idealist: A Memoir, New York: Dey St., 2019, p. 242–3. 69 “Obama’s Promises, Then and Now,” Los Angeles Times, March 22, 2009 (emphasis in original).

Notes

219

70 Ben Rhodes, The World as It Is: A Memoir of the Obama White House, New York: Random House, 2018, p. 43; Power, The Education, p. 237–9. Edmond Azadian assumed that Power crafted the statement of 2009 on the precedent of John Paul II to avoid the use of “genocide” (Azadian, “Limits of Obama Bashing”; idem, “Are We in for Another Deception?,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, March 30, 2012; idem, “All Power and No Integrity,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, June 13, 2013). For a firsthand account of the writing process, see Power, The Education, p. 240–1. 71 “Obama: Reckoning with the Past Can Help Us Seize a Better Future,” The Armenian Reporter, April 11, 2009. 72 “Obama: I Have Not Changed Views,” The Armenian Reporter, April 11, 2009. 73 Toumani, There Was and There Was Not, p. 273. 74 Quoted by historian Elyse Semerdjian, online comment, May 28, 2013 (www. armenianweekly.com/2013/05/15/the-exact-translation-how-medz-yeghern-meansgenocide, accessed on May 28, 2013). 75 Baskın Oran, statement to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, December 12, 2008, quoted in Mamigonian, “Commentary,” p. 21. 76 See “Obama Fails to Honor Pledge,” The Armenian Weekly, May 2, 2009; “Statement of President Barack Obama,” The Armenian Weekly, May 1, 2010; “Obama Once Again Betrays Promise to Recognize Genocide,” The Armenian Weekly, April 30, 2011; “Obama Again Betrays Pledge to Recognize Armenian Genocide,” The Armenian Weekly, April 28, 2012; “Obama Commemorates ‘Meds Yeghern’ with Statement,” The Armenian Weekly, April 27, 2013; “Obama Stops Short of ‘Genocide’ in April 24 Message,” The Armenian-Mirror Spectator, May 3, 2014. 77 “President Bush Declines to Mention Genocide in His Last Message,” Massis, May 3, 2008. 78 Quoted in Ayse Gul Altinay, “In Search of Silenced Grandparents: Ottoman Armenian Survivors and Their (Muslim) Grandchildren,” in Kieser and Plozza, Der Völkermord an den Armeniern, p. 124. 79 “Obama Remembers Armenian Massacre,” Taipei Times, April 25, 2011. See Azadian, “Message from President Obama.” 80 “President Obama Once Again Betrays Promise to Recognize Armenian Genocide,” The Armenian Weekly, April 23, 2011. 81 “Armenian Group Expresses Disappointment in Obama Letter,” Hürriyet Daily News, April 29, 2009. 82 “Obama Fails to Honor Pledge, ANCA Expresses ‘Sharp Disappointment,’” The Armenian Weekly, April 24, 2009. 83 “Uot’ěrt’auni Hay Kedronēn ners Hayoc’ Ełeŗni 94-ameaki jeŗnark” (Event on the 94th Anniversary of the Armenian Yegheŗn at the Armenian Center of Watertown), Hairenik, April 29, 2009. 84 Ahmet Taşgetiren, “Obama oportünizmı,” Bügün, April 28, 2009; Hasan Celal Güzel, “Obama’nın yaptığı ayıptır,” Radikal, April 28, 2009; Oktay Ekşi, “Laf cambazı,” Hürriyet, April 26, 2009. 85 “Obama’s Different Image,” Today’s Zaman, April 29, 2009. 86 Markar Esayan, “Medz Yeghern kimin felaketi?,” Taraf, April 27, 2009; Beril Dedeoğlu, “Curiosity about What Obama Was Going to Say,” Today’s Zaman, April 30, 2009. See also Murat Yetkin, “Armenians Should See the Hypocrisy over ‘Meds Yeghern,’” Hürriyet Daily News, April 25, 2012. 87 Mustafa Akyol, “Turks and ‘Meds Yeghern,’” Hürriyet Daily News, April 29, 2009.

220

Notes

88 Kerim Balci, “Constructive Ambiguity and Destructive Obscurity,” Today’s Zaman, March 18, 2010. 89 M. Ŝükrü Elekdağ, “An Open Letter to US President Barack Obama,” Hürriyet Daily News, April 20, 2010. 90 “Obama Recognized the Armenian Genocide, Says Turkish Opposition,” Tert. am, April 26, 2010 (www.tert.am/en/news/2010/04/26/turkishopposition/135652, accessed on April 30, 2015). 91 Bülent Kenes, “Meds Yeghern,” Today’s Zaman, April 26, 2010; Fatma Dişli Zıbak, “Obama and ‘Meds Yeghern,’” Today’s Zaman, April 27, 2010. 92 Burak Bekdil, “Shoah Is All Right; Holocaust Isn’t,” Hürriyet Daily News, April 27, 2010. 93 Sinan Oğan, “Would Armenia Like to Solve the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict?,” Hürriyet Daily News, August 19, 2010. 94 “Obama Expected to Avoid G-Word in April 24 Speech,” Today’s Zaman, April 24, 2012. 95 Konur Alp Koçak, “Superior President vs. Submissive Congress: Relations between Executive and Legislative in the US and Its Reflection on the ‘Armenian Genocide’ Bills,” Review of Armenian Studies, 27, 2013, p. 175. 96 Berge Jololian, “Obama’s Statement Was ‘Astonishing,’” The Armenian Reporter, April 25, 2009. 97 Sassounian, “Et tu, Obama?” Another commentator had used “Great Crime” in a similar remark about Pope Benedict XVI in 2006: “Armenians need to lead the way and advise the Pope that ‘metz yeghern,’ the ‘great crime’—words that he used— have been replaced by the modern, accurate and more precise word ‘genocide,’ or ‘tseghasbanoutiun’” (Moorad Mooradian, “Pope Benedict XVI: It Was a Genocide,” The Armenian Reporter International, April 22, 2006). 98 “Obama Refuses to Recognize the Armenian Genocide,” Asbarez, April 24, 2010. 99 Antranig Jarchafjian, “Obama Recognizes the Armenian Genocide,” Asbarez, May 7, 2010. 100 Idem. 101 See the announcement in Massis, April 24, 2010. 102 Armen Khachatrian, “H. Sasunyan: ‘Hayoc’ c’ełaspanut’yan čanač’man harc’ě hark ē tełap’oxel iravakan hart’ut’yun’” (H. Sassounian: The Question of Armenian Genocide Recognition Needs to Move to the Legal Level), Armenpress, February 23, 2011 (armenpress.am/arm/print/641456/,accessedon April 24, 2015). 103 See, for instance, James Nixey, “The South Caucasus: Drama on Three Stages,” in Robin Niblett (ed.), America and a Changed World: A Question of Leadership, London: Wiley, 2010, p. 134; Benjamin Lieberman, The Holocaust and Genocides in Europe, London: Bloomsbury, 2013, p. 84; Stefan Engert, “Turkey—Armenia: From Denial to Excuse?,” in Christopher Daase, Stefan Engert, Michel-André Horelt, Judith Renner, and Renate Strasser (eds.), Apology and Reconciliation in International Relations: The Importance of Being Sorry, New York: Routledge, 2016, p. 218. 104 See Christopher Atamian, “April 24th: Remembering the Armenian Dead,” Huffington Post, April 24, 2012 (www.huffpost.com/entry/april-24th-rememberingth_b_1447345, accessed on April 24, 2013); Michael Mensoian, “2015: A Rededication or a Last Hurrah?,” The Armenian Weekly, April 28, 2012; Brandy Hilboldt Allport, “‘Sandcastle Girls’ A Story of Love, World History and Human Condition,” Florida Times-Union, July 22, 2012; Haroutune Iskahadian, “Testimonials from the Armenian Genocide,” Zartonk, April Special, 2013, p. 72; Tigran Kalaydjian,

Notes

105 106

107

108 109

110

111 112

221

Sentinel of Truth: Gourgen Yanikian and the Struggle against the Denial of the Armenian Genocide, second edition, Houston: Strategic Book Publishing and Rights, 2013, p. 17; Philip Kennicott, “Armenian ‘Orphan Rug’ Is in White House Storage, as Unseen as Genocide Is Neglected,” The Washington Post, October 21, 2013; Rafael Medoff, “Armenian Genocide Rug’s Freedom a Worthy Cause for American Jews,” South Florida Sun Sentinel, November 20, 2013. Tatul Hakobyan, Armenians and Turks: From War to Cold War to Diplomacy, translated by Heghinar Melkom Melkomian and Hrant Gadarigian, Yerevan: Lusakn, 2013, p. 352 (“Great Calamity”). “Turkish BDP Party Urges the Authorities to Offer Apology to Armenians,” Armenian Public Radio, April 24, 2013 (www.armradio.am/en/2013/04/24/turkishBDP-party-urges-the-authorities-to-offer-apology-to-Armenians, accessed on April 24, 2014); “Obama Marks ‘Meds Yegheŗn’ Anniversary,” RFE/RL, April 24, 2014 (www.azatutyun.am/content/article/25361138.html, accessed on April 24, 2014); Sako Arian, “The Holocaust and the Great Calamity,” Hetq, August 9, 2013 (hetq.am/ eng/news/28620/yair-auron-the-holocaust-and-the-great-calamity.html, accessed on April 24, 2014). Medz Yeghern was translated as “Great Crime” in idem, “Rakel Dink: ‘We Will Continue the Path Forged by Hrant, Both in Life and Death,’” Hetq, November 28, 2013 (hetq.am/eng/news/31008/rakel-dink-we-will-continue-thepath-forged-by-hrant-both-in-life-and-death.html, accessed on April 24, 2014). For instance, “great cataclysm” (Aris Janigian, Riverbig, Berkeley: Heyday Books, 2009, p. 66; see also idem, “PBS’ Perverse Genocide Debate,” Los Angeles Times, March 9, 2006) and “Great Catastrophe” (Chris Bohjalian, The Sandcastle Girls, New York: Doubleday, 2012, p. 6). For the use of “g/Great c/Calamity,” see idem, “Teens Give Peace a Chance,” The Burlington Free Press, July 31, 2011; idem, “The Kernel That Led to the ‘Sandcastle Girls,’” The Armenian Weekly, special issue, April 2012, p. 10). “K’erduenk’ šarunakel payk’arě” (We Vow to Continue the Struggle), Haytoug, April 1985, p. 3–4. Harut Sassounian, “Genocide Recognition and a Quest for Justice,” Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 115, 2010, p. 116, cited as source to the mention of Obama as sidestepping genocide by using “‘Meds Yeghern,’ a term known as ‘Great Calamity’ in the Armenian language” (Mykil Bachoian, “The Cost of Denial: ‘Meds Yeghern’ and the Quest for Restorative Justice for Descendants of Armenian Genocide Victims,” Law Journal of Social Justice, vol. 2, 2011, p. 134–5). See Harut Sassounian, “Genocide Recognition and Quest for Justice,” The Armenian Weekly/Hairenik, April 2011, special issue, p. 37, for a repeat of the paragraph with “revived” as substitute for “resuscitated.” Eric Black, “President Obama Breaks a Promise to Call the Armenian Genocide a Genocide,” MinnPost, April 26, 2009, quoting Lou Ann Matossian (www.minnpost. com/eric-black-ink/2009/04/president-obama-breaks-promise-call-armeniangenocide-genocide, accessed on October 27, 2012). Quoted in C. K. Garabed, “‘Medz Yeghern’ Revisited,” The Armenian Weekly, June 5, 2010. See the chapter “The Medz Yeghern (1915–1917),” and its English version, “The Genocide (1915–1917),” in Garbis Armen, Historical Atlas of Armenia, New York: Armenian National Education Committee, 1987, p. 25–6 (cf. Vartan Matiossian (ed.), Historical Atlas of Armenia, New York: Armenian National Education Committee, 2012, p. 64–5); the chapter “The Medz Yeghern” (Kersam Aharonian, Mec Erazi čambun vray, Beirut: Atlas, 1964, p. 55) and its English version “The Genocide”

222

Notes

(idem, A Historical Survey of the Armenian Cause, translated by Krikor Maksoudian, Watertown: Baikar, 1989, p. 51), and the translation The Orphans of the Armenian Genocide for Libarid Azadian, Hay orberě Mec Ełeŗni (The Orphans of the Medz Yeghern), 3 vols., Los Angeles: 1995, 1999, 2002. 113 William Paparian, chairman of the Armenian Genocide Commemoration Committee of Pasadena, California, quoted in Brenda Gazzar, “Armenian Genocide Victims Remembered in Ceremony at Pasadena City Hall,” Pasadena Star-News, April 24, 2013. 114 Harut Sassounian, “Mr. President, Armenian-Americans Reject Your Offensive Word Games on Genocide,” Asbarez, April 28, 2011; Ara Khachatourian, “Sarkisian Should Educate Himself about Genocide,” Asbarez, February 6, 2013. 115 Harut Sassounian, “Obama Should Forfeit His Nobel Prize until He Tells the Truth on Genocide,” The California Courier, December 10, 2009; idem, “Mr. President, Armenian-Americans Reject”; idem, “Genocide Is the Right Word.” 116 Appo Jabarian, “Demoyan Commits Blasphemy to Memory of Armenian Genocide Martyrs and Artsakh,” USA Armenian Life, March 26, 2012. 117 See www.genocide-museum.am/arm/armenian_genocide.php and www.genocidemuseum.am/eng/armenian_genocide.php, as well as relevant pages in Turkish, Russian, and French (accessed on April 22, 2015). 118 Ben Schott, “Meds Yeghern,” Schott’s Vocab, May 6, 2009 (schott.blogs.nytimes. com/2009-05-06/meds-yeghern, accessed on October 27, 2012), referred as source for “Great Calamity” in Michael J. Bazyler, “From ‘Lamentation to Liturgy to Litigation’: The Holocaust-Era Restitution Movement as a Model for Bringing Armenian Genocide-Era Restitution Suits in American Courts,” Marquette Law Review, 249, 2011, p. 267. 119 Ali Bulaç, ‘“Great Catastrophe!’,” Today’s Zaman, April 28, 2009. 120 schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2009-05-06/meds-yeghern (accessed on October 27, 2012). 121 American International Law Cases, fourth series, 2009, vol. 6, New York: Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 1950. I thank Marc Mamigonian for bringing the trial to my attention. 122 “ANCA Cites Obama’s Responsibility for Court Ruling against Genocide-Era Claims,” The Armenian Weekly, August 26, 2009. 123 “Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law,” The American Journal of International Law, 2, 2011, p. 335. 124 Garabed, “‘Medz Yeghern’ Revisited.” 125 earthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/Movsesian-defts-PFREB.pdf (accessed on May 15, 2015, emphasis in the original). Sassounian commented that the appeal justified the behavior of the companies “by citing this writer as an ‘authority’ and quoting from one of my articles in which I criticize President Obama for referring to the Armenian Genocide as ‘Meds Yeghern.’ Ken Hachikian, the chairman of the ANCA, is also listed as an ‘authority’” (Harut Sassounian, “German Insurance Companies Should Stop Cheating Armenian Clients,” The California Courier, January 28, 2011). The listing was done in the “table of authorities,” the usual index of citations of a legal brief. 126 earthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/Movsesian-Turkey-amicus-brief.pdf (accessed on May 15, 2015). 127 earthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/Movsesian-pltfs-response-to-PFREB.pdf (accessed on May 15, 2015).

Notes

223

128 Harut Sassounian, “White House Files Politically Motivated, Anti-Armenian Brief to Supreme Court,” The California Courier, May 16, 2013. Van Krikorian later commented that the court had not applied the statute due to an inaccurate reading of the United States record, but “thankfully, President Obama’s April 24, 2013 Remembrance Day statement corrected that mistake,” without clarifying the nature of the correction (A Century of Denial: The Armenian Genocide and the Ongoing Quest for Justice, Hearing before the Commission on Security and Cooperation with Europe, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2015, p. 41).

Chapter 7 1 Garabed, “‘Medz Yeghern’ Revisited.” 2 Cole, Images of the Holocaust, p. 66–7; Moses, “Raphael Lemkin,” p. 36–7. 3 David Ben-Gurion, “The Eichmann Case as Seen by Ben-Gurion,” New York Times Magazine, December 18, 1960, p. 62. 4 John Quigley, The Genocide Convention: An International Law Analysis, London and New York: Routledge, 2016, p. 23–6. 5 Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem, p. 257–8. 6 Winston Churchill, The World Crisis, vol. 4: Aftermath, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1929, p. 15 (italics added). 7 Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem, p. 265. The figure repeated the lower end estimate (“one third to one-half of the Armenians in Turkey”) of the American Committee for Armenian and Syrian Relief (The Treatment, p. 664) publicized in January 1916 (“Relief Work in the Turkish Empire: The Extent of the Catastrophe,” The Friend of Armenia, August 1916, p. 7). 8 Communist Takeover and Occupation of Armenia, Special Report No. 5 of the Select Committee on Communist Aggression, House of Representatives, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1955, p. 3. 9 “Demonstrations Showed Armenian Independence Day Spirit Alive,” The Armenian Weekly, May 27, 1971. 10 For the account of the commemoration and the approval of the law, see Daniel Karamanoukian, “Apuntes para una reconstrucción histórica de la conmemoración del 24 de Abril en Uruguay,” Hay Endanik, April 1999, p. 44–6. At the time, the passing of the law was ignored and Martínez Moreno’s submission, dated February 1, was reported as a resolution to mark April 24 passed by the Chamber of Representatives (“Uruguay Deputies Pass Resolution,” Hairenik Weekly, April 22, 1965; “Official Day of Mourning in Uruguay,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, April 24, 1965). See Balakian, The Burning Tigris, p. 378. 11 Karamanoukian, “Apuntes,” p. 46. The law has been inaccurately dated April 20, 1965, and the phrase “members of that nationality assassinated in 1915” mistranslated as “victims of this national massacre in 1915” (Harut Sassounian (comp.), The Armenian Genocide: The World Speaks Out 1915–2015, Glendale: California Courier, 2015, p. 72–3). 12 “El Senado del Uruguay ratifica la posición de apoyo a la causa armenia,” Armenia, 24 de abril de 1985. 13 Gustavo Zulamian, “El Senador uruguayo y el 24 de abril,” Hay Endanik, marzo de 2001, p. 15–17.

224

Notes

14 “Uruguay Parliament Recognizes Armenian Genocide,” Asbarez, March 11, 2004. 15 See, for instance, Claude Mutafian, Un aperçu sur le génocide des Arméniens, Paris: Comité pour la Commémoration du 24 Avril 1915, 1995, p. 28; Varoujan Attarian, Le génocide des Arméniens devant l’ONU, Brussels: Complexe, 1997, p. 127; Mouradian, “La mémoire en République d’Arménie,” p. 290. Ömer Engin Lütem wrote in 2005 that Uruguay was the first country to issue a parliamentary resolution “that recognized Armenian genocide claims” (Lütem, “Facts and Comments,” p. 34). 16 “Uruguay Senate Recognizes Genocide,” Asbarez, October 20, 2000. 17 www.mfa.am/en/press-releases/2012/05/04/nalbandian-uruguay/2929 (accessed on October 1, 2020). 18 “El pueblo armenio nunca olvidará la actitud de Uruguay,” La República, 11 de julio de 2014. 19 www.causaarmenia.org/reconocimiento-de-uruguay (accessed on September 21, 2015). 20 “Uruguay Releases Stamp Marking Armenian Genocide Centennial,” Asbarez, April 8, 2015. 21 Daniel Larison, “A Decent Compromise (II),” The American Conservative, April 26, 2009 (www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/a-decent-compromise-ii, emphasis in original, accessed on April 15, 2013). 22 Mitch Kehetian, Giants of the Earth, Baltimore: PublishAmerica, 2009, p. 12. 23 Chakmakjian, A Comprehensive English-Armenian Dictionary, p. 350, 557; Yacoubian, English–Armenian and Armenian-English Dictionary Romanized, p. 170; S. L. Kogian, Armenian Grammar (West Dialect), Vienna: Mechitharist Press, 1949, p. 280; Kouyoumdjian, A Comprehensive Dictionary Armenian-English, p. 168 (see here the translation of yeghernavor as “tragic,” equally obsolete); Kouyoumdjian, A Comprehensive Dictionary English-Armenian, p. 312, 507; Mardiros Koushakdjian and Dicran Khantrouni, English-Armenian Modern Dictionary, Beirut: G. Doniguian and Sons, 1970, p. 135, 201, 318; Mardiros Koushakdjian and Dicran Khantrouni, Armenian-English Modern Dictionary, Beirut: G. Doniguian and Sons, 1970, p. 94 (the translation of yeghernavor as “tragic” also appears here); M. G. Kouyoumdjian, A Practical Dictionary for Adults Armeno-English, Cairo: Vosguedar, 1972, p. 103; Pascual Tekeyan, Diccionario armenio-español, Buenos Aires: Akian Gráfica Editora, 1984, p. 183; Thomas Samuelian, Armenian Dictionary in Transliteration, New York: Armenian National Education Committee, 1993, p. 16, 127; Baghdasarian and Zorc, (Eastern) Armenian-English Dictionary, p. 250; Krikor Chahinian, Gorcnakan baŗaran hayerēn-franserēn (Practical Dictionary Armenian-French), Beirut: Chirak, 1997, p. 76; Ohannes Hannessian, Shirak’s English-Armenian Dictionary with Transliteration, Los Angeles: Shirak, 1998, p. 74; Mesrob Kouyoumdjian and Levon Torossian, A New Pocket Dictionary English-Armenian Armenian-English, Beirut: Chirak, 2002, p. 68. 24 Gilda Buchakjian, Armenian English Practical Heritage Dictionary, New York: St. Vartan Press, 2010, p 24, 108. 25 P. Vahan Ohanian, Dizionario armeno-italiano, Venice: Casa Editrice Armena, 1996, p. 125, 424; Kh. Grigoryan, English-Armenian Armenian-English Concise Dictionary, Yerevan: Ankyunakar, 1999, p. 291; N. Baratyan, Armenian-English Dictionary, Yerevan: Macmillan Armenia, 2002, p. 158, 539; Philip K. Mesrob, Hamaŗōt hayerēn-pulkarerēn pulkarerēn-hayerēn baŗaran (Armenian-Bulgarian, Bulgarian-Armenian Concise Dictionary), Sofia: Komo OOD, 2005, p. 50, 174; Nicholas Awde and Vazken-Khatchig Davidian, Western Armenian Dictionary and

Notes

26

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

36 37 38 39 40 41

42

225

Phrasebook, New York: Hippocrene Books, 2006, p. 56, 72, 74; Samvel Gasparian, Dictionnaire arménien-français français–arménien, Yerevan: Areg, 2007, p. 149, 435, 648 Kh. Grigoryan, Hayeren-angleren hamaŗot baŗaran (Armenian-English Concise Dictionary), Yerevan: Ankyunakar, 2009, p. 60; Sona Seferian et al., EnglishArmenian, Armenian English Dictionary, Yerevan: Areg, 2009, p. 83, 456, 569; Aram Barlezizian, Dictionnaire arménien-français, Yerevan: Yerevan State University Press, 2009, p. 275, 893; Mayranuş Değirmencyan, Ermenice-Turkçe Sözlük, Yerevan: author’s edition, 2013, p. 111; D. Chilingaryan and Y. Yerznkyan, Defense Security Explanatory Armenian-Russian-English, Russian-Armenian, English-Armenian Unabridged Dictionary, Yerevan: D. Kanayan Institute for National Strategic Studies, 2015, p. 174, 685, 1040. Ashot Sukiasian, Hayoc’ lezvi homanišneri bac’atrakan baŗaran (Explanatory Thesaurus of the Armenian Language), Yerevan: Yerevan State University Press, 2003, p. 264. For aghed and charik, see idem, p. 20, 894. It should be noted that yeghern does not appear among synonyms for tseghasbanutiun (idem, p. 1129). april24nyc.wordpress.com, accessed on February 25, 2014. “101st Anniversary of Genocide to Be Commemorated at Times Square,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, March 12, 2016. Papazian had suggested “Great Armenian Cataclysm” in 2010 (Garabed, “‘Medz Yeghern’ Revisited”). “Nalbandian Praises Obama’s Statement as ‘Step Forward’ for Yerevan,” Asbarez, April 27, 2009. www.comunitaarmena.it/comunita/comunicati/comunicato%20stampa%20 240409%20obama9.html (accessed on April 15, 2013). Claude Mutafian, “Obama et le mot génocide,” Europe et Orient, 8, 2009, p. 6. “Has Obama Already Recognized the Armenian Genocide?,” Tert.am, March 4, 2010 (www.tert.am/en/news/2010/03/04/genocide/114380, accessed on April 15, 2013). Hovhannes Nikoghosyan, “It’s the Time for Requiem?,” Hürriyet Daily News, March 23, 2010. “Gegham Khalatyan: Meds Yeghern Means Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Empire,” Panarmenian, April 30, 2010 (www.panarmenian.net/eng/world/news/47942/, accessed on April 15, 2013). “We Will Struggle for the Recognition of Armenian Genocide as Long as Needed. Serž Sargsyan,” Armenpress, February 5, 2013 (armenpress.am/eng/news/707316/ hayoc-cexaspanutyan-mijazgayin-tchanachman-hamar-menq-payqarelu.html, accessed on February 16, 2013). “Sarkisian’s ‘Yeghern’ Remark Draws Harsh Criticism from Armenia, Diaspora,” The Armenian Weekly, February 16, 2013. Susanna Petrosian, “Absurdity and Irresponsibility,” Vestnik Kavkaza, February 18, 2013 (vestnikkavkaza.net/analysis/politics/37171.html, accessed on April 15, 2013). Khachatourian, “Sarkisian Should Educate Himself.” Sassounian, “Genocide Is the Right Word.” hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-139724 (accessed on December 30, 2013). Harut Sassounian, “Switzerland Must Appeal European Court’s Verdict on the Armenian Genocide,” The California Courier, December 26, 2013. The French original said Mets Yegherrn and le Grand Crime, and the English version, Meds Yeghern and Great Crime. hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-139724 (accessed on December 30, 2013). The Human Rights Association of Turkey—the first institution that consistently commemorated the genocide since 2005—paraphrased the dissenting opinion in a letter demanding

226

Notes

a Swiss appeal: “Denial of the Meds Yeghern (‘Great enormity,’ i.e. ‘infamous crime’ in Armenian) is not less dangerous than the denial of [the] Shoah” (“Turkey Rights Group Dissapointed in ECHR Decision, Urges Appeal,” The Armenian Weekly, February 24, 2014). 43 www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2015/04/11/e-buyukelci-sayin-sukru-elekdag-inbaskan-obama-ya-mektubu (accessed on April 11, 2015). 44 “Barack Obama Will Not Label 1915 Massacre of Armenians a Genocide,” The Guardian, April 22, 2015. 45 See “Obama Statement a Misguided Attempt to Appease Ankara,” The Armenian Weekly, May 1, 2015; “President Obama Issues Statement on Armenian Remembrance Day,” The Armenian Weekly, April 30, 2016. 46 Harut Sassounian, “Who Should Be Pitied More: President Obama or Naive Armenians?,” The California Courier, April 28, 2016. 47 Gareth Evans, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2008, p. 11; Adama Dieng and Jennifer Welsh, “Assessing the Risk of Atrocity Crimes,” Genocide Studies and Prevention, 3, 2016, p. 4. 48 www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s1158/text (accessed on January 14, 2019). 49 Robertson, An Inconvenient Genocide, p. 114–15. See also Bloxham, The Great Game of Genocide, p. 69. 50 William A. Schabas, Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes, second edition, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 15. Schabas later argued that using crimes against humanity in the Armenian case would allow common understanding (idem, “These New Crimes of Turkey against Humanity and Civilization…” in Aram Harutyunyan (ed.), The Crime of Genocide: Prevention, Condemnation and Elimination of Consequences, Yerevan: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia, 2011, p. 50). See also Sands, East West Street, p. 364. 51 Cansu Çamlıbel, “Turkish FM: 1915 Armenian Deportation Inhumane,” Hürriyet Daily News, December 13, 2013. 52 “Turkish PM Says Deportation Is Crime against Humanity,” Hürriyet Daily News, April 22, 2015; Zeynep Gürcanlı, “Efkan Ala: Biz tehcir yaptık,” Hürriyet, April 23, 2015. The remark in the statement of 2015—eliminated in 2016—that 1.5 million Armenians had perished “amid horrific violence that saw victims on all sides” was a vague echo of the “shared pain” discourse perhaps intended as compensation. 53 Harut Sassounian, “Armenians Should Now Pursue Legal Claims Rather than Further Genocide Recognition,” The California Courier, April 28, 2015. 54 Quoted from the facsimile posted on the website armeniansforobama.com (discontinued around 2018). 55 “Obama Refuses to Say Genocide; Assembly Responds,” The Armenian MirrorSpectator, April 30, 2015; Emre Gönen, “Israel and the Armenian Tragedy,” Daily Sabah, April 27, 2015. 56 Azadian, “Message from President Obama.” 57 Bill Park, Modern Turkey: People, State and Foreign Policy in a Globalised World, New York: Routledge, 2012, p. 166. 58 Zarine Avetisyan, “Persuasion and Suggestion as Priorities in Psycholinguistic Survey of Political Discourse,” CLEaR 2015: Conference Proceedings, Prague: SlovakEdu, 2015, p. 55–6. 59 “‘Mec ełeŗn’-ě ev ‘cełaspanutyun’-ě hamaržek’ barer en. Vardan Gregorian” (Medz Yeghern and “genocide” Are Equivalent Words: Vardan Gregorian), Tert.am, April

Notes

60

61 62 63

64 65

66

67

68

227

24, 2016 (www.tert.am/am/news/2016/04/24/vardangregorian/2000577, accessed on April 30, 2016). Cameron Joseph, “President Trump Avoids Calling Mass Killing of Armenians a ‘Genocide,’” New York Daily News, April 25, 2017; Harut Sassounian, "Statements on the Armenian Genocide by US, French and Turkish Presidents," The California Courier, May 1, 2018. For the statements, see “Trump Avoids Use of ‘G’ Word,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, April 27, 2017; “Trump Issues Statement on Meds Yeghern,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, April 26, 2018; “President Trump Doubles Down on ‘Turkey First’ Armenian Genocide Policy,” The Armenian Weekly, April 24, 2019; “Trump Again Refrains from Saying ‘Genocide,’” The Armenian MirrorSpectator, May 2, 2020. David L. Phillips, “Rebutting Erdogan,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, November 23, 2019. Sassounian, “Statements on the Armenian Genocide”; idem, “Trump: A Coward on the Armenian Genocide like Obama, Bush Jr., Clinton, and Bush Sr.,” The California Courier, April 30, 2019. Harut Sassounian, “U.S. Ambassador to Armenia Should Call the Armenian Genocide, a Genocide,” Asbarez, December 4, 2018. The Armenian branch of RFE/ RL, which systematically used “Great Calamity” until 2015 (“Obama Marks ‘First Mass Atrocity of 20th Century,’” April 24, 2015, www.azatutyun.am/a/26976917. html, accessed on October 6, 2019), adopted the translation “Great Crime” in 2017 (Emil Danielyan, “Trump Sticks with Obama’s Policy on Armenian Genocide Issue,” www.azatutyun.am/a/28449375, accessed on October 6, 2019). The contradiction is compounded by the fact that in 2012, while the English edition went with “Great Calamity,” the Russian edition used Velikaya reznya (“Great Massacre”) (Emil Danielyan, “Obama Remembers Armenian ‘Great Calamity,’” April 24, 2012, www.azatutyun.am/a/24558754.html; “Obama vnov izbezhal slova ‘genotsid,’” April 24, 2012, www.azatutyun.am/a/24558955.html, both accessed on October 6, 2019). Lindsey Wise, “House to Vote on Resolution to Mark Armenian Genocide,” The Wall Street Journal, October 26, 2019, where the name was translated as “great calamity.” Harut Sassounian, “President Trump Is Not Worthy of Recognizing the Armenian Genocide,” The California Courier, December 26, 2019; idem, “Pres. Trump Is Not Worthy of Recognizing the Armenian Genocide,” The Armenian Weekly, December 23, 2019. Another version read: “Furthermore, Trump used the Armenian term ‘Meds Yeghern’ (Great Calamity) to avoid using the words ‘Armenian Genocide’” (idem, “Pres. Trump Is Not Worthy of Recognizing Armenian Genocide,” Asbarez, December 24, 2019). Harut Sassounian, “Trump Does Not Have the Guts to Call It ‘Armenian Genocide,’” The California Courier, April 29, 2020. The claim that Lemkin “was the first to use Armenian Genocide” (Peter Balakian, “Raphael Lemkin, Cultural Destruction, and the Armenian Genocide,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 1, 2013, p. 60–1) does not have any support in his published writings. Haykaram Nahapetyan, “Washington Virtually and Symbolically Commemorates the Armenian Genocide amid COVID-19,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, April 29, 2020 (mirrorspectator.com/2020/04/29/washington-virtually-and-symbolicallycommemorates-the-armenian-genocide-amid-covid-19/). “… And Biden’s Tone-Deaf Acknowledgment of Armenian Genocide,” Asbarez, April 24, 2020.

228

Notes

69 Idem. The newspaper did not follow up on its promise of an upcoming op-ed. The reference to the “abominable record” conflated Biden’s vice-presidential status with Obama’s statements. 70 Sassounian, “Trump Does Not Have the Guts.” 71 Daniel Fried, “Inside America’s Long Handwringing over the Armenian Genocide,” Politico, April 24, 2021 (www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/04/24/insideamericas-long-handwringing-over-the-armenian-genocide-484547, accessed on April 24, 2021). Fried, who “for eight years, first in the Bush administration, then in the Obama administration, (…) helped draft the U.S. government’s annual statements on that remembrance,” was not remiss to mention the translation “‘The Great Calamity,’ as the Armenian Genocide is often called in the Armenian language,” despite its absence from Biden’s text. 72 For the text of the statement, see “President Biden Recognizes the Armenian Genocide,” The Armenian Weekly, May 1, 2021.

Conclusion Claude Mutafian, “Génocide des arméniens: de l’importance des mots,” Libération, February 19, 2015. 2 Arshavir Shiragian, The Legacy: Memoirs of an Armenian Patriot, translated by Sonia Shiragian, Boston: Hairenik Press, 1976, p. XIV. 3 Jay Winter, War beyond Words: Language of Remembrance from the Great War to the Present, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017, p. 124–5. 4 Gohar Markosyan-Kasper, Penelopa puskaetsya v put’ (Penelope Starts the Journey), Tallinn: K & G, 2007, p. 70. Thanks are due to Artsvi Bakhchinyan for providing the citation and its translation. 5 Kazanjian and Nichanian, “Between Genocide and Catastrophe,” p. 127. 6 Idem, p. 128. Nichanian paraphrases a sentence by Hagop Oshagan that prefaced his inquiry into the moral grounds of the perpetrators: “History can prove nothing, since it is a display [hantes] of denials” (Oshagan, Hamapatker, p. 276). 7 “Armenian-Turkish Relations by a ‘Historian of the Present,’” Agos, February 3, 2017, www.agos.com.tr/en/article/17632/armenian-turkish-relations-by-a-historian-ofthe-present, accessed on February 10, 2017. Political analyst and “historian of the present” Thomas de Waal appears to have adopted “great calamity” (Thomas de Waal, The Caucasus: An Introduction, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 58) after George W. Bush’s statement of 2005 and “Great Catastrophe” (idem, Armenia and Turkey: Bridging the Gap, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Policy Brief 87, October 2010, p. 7) following the apology campaign of 2009. Before 2005, he had credited Nora Dudwick as source for his use of “great slaughter” (idem, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, New York: New York University Press, 2003, p. 103). 8 See Appendix B, “Yeghern and Genocide in Memorial Inscriptions.” 9 Bechky, “Lemkin’s Situation,” p. 614. 10 See obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-and-releases. 11 www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/resource_center/the_holocaust.asp (accessed on April 30, 2016). Charles Passy, “New Word to Replace Holocaust Wins Favor,” Palm Beach Post, April 18, 2004; Philologos, “Roots of the Holocaust,” Forward, September 16, 2005. See also Gordon, The Holocaust in Italian Culture, p. 177–8. 1

Notes

229

12 Michael Naydan, “A lasting imprint,” The Ukrainian Weekly, January 22, 1995. See also Andriewsky, “Towards a Decentred History,” p. 25–6. On the origin of the name, see Jean-Paul Himka, “Encumbered Memory: The Ukrainian Famine of 1932–1933,” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 2, 2013, p. 419–20; Andriewsky, “Towards a Decentred History,” p. 19. 13 Paolo Cossi, Medz Yeghern, il grande male, Milan: Hazard Edizioni, 2007 (translated into French, Spanish, Dutch, Greek, and Korean). 14 Artaramard, November 20, 1918. See the use of Yeghernneru Yeghern in the book review by Hagop Oshagan, “Mer xačě (Tr. M. Salbi)” (Our Cross, by Dr. M. Salpi), Djakatamart, October 17, 1921. It also appeared in the gruesome description of the ordeal of a group of Armenian women in Malatia, where “the heinous crime of crimes [yeghernneru yeghern] was committed” (Bedros Bondatsi, “Ełeŗnayin harsanik’” (Criminal Wedding), “Erevan”-i taregirk’, Constantinople: Yerevan, 1920, p. 30). Thanks are due to Lerna Ekmekcioĝlu for this reference. 15 Raphael Lemkin, “Genocide as a Crime under International Law,” UN Bulletin, January 15, 1948, p. 70. 16 Thomas and Frye, The United States, p. 61. 17 Harootunian, The Unspoken as Heritage, p. 30. On the relation of Turkish identity and the genocide, see Marc Nichanian, “L’Empire du sacrifice,” L’Intranquille, 1, 1992, p. 87–108; Stephan Astourian, “Modern Turkish Identity and the Armenian Genocide: From Prejudice to Racist Nationalism,” in Hovannisian (ed.), Remembrance and Denial, p. 23–47; Taner Akçam, From Empire to Republic: Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide, London and New York: Zed Books, 2004, p. 59–114. 18 twitter.com/MevlutCavusoglu/status/1385988990080360448 (accessed on April 24, 2021). 19 Harootunian, The Unspoken as Heritage, p. 127.

Appendix A 1 Hovannisian, Armenia on the Road to Independence, p. 268, 336; Chalabian, General Andranik, p. 557. 2 Richard G. Hovannisian, “The Armenian Question, 1878–1923,” in Gerald J. Libaridian (ed.), The Crime of Silence, London: Zed Books, 1985, p. 31; idem, “The Historical Dimensions of the Armenian Question, 1878–1923,” in idem (ed.), The Armenian Genocide in Perspective, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 1986, p. 39; idem (ed.), The Armenian People: From Ancient to Modern Times, vol. 2, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997, p. 461; idem, “The Armenian Genocide: Wartime Radicalization or Premeditated Continuum?,” in idem (ed.), The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 2007, p. 15. 3 Arkun, “Les relations arméno-turques,” p. 71. 4 Antranik Çelebyan, Antranik Paşa, translated by Mariam Arpi and Nairi Arek, Istanbul: Pêrî Yayinları, 2003, p. 384; Verzhine Svazlyan, The Armenian Genocide and Historical Memory, translated by Tigran Tsulikyan, Yerevan: Gitutyun, 2004, p. 122; Svazlian, The Armenian Genocide, p. 71; Simonyan, The Destruction of Armenians, p. 264; Verzhine Svazlyan, “The Adana Massacre and the People’s Historical Memory,” Journal of Genocide Studies, 1, 2014, p. 150; Babiguian, The Adana Massacres, p. 18.

230

Notes

H. Thorossian, Histoire de la littérature arménienne des origines jusqu’à nos jours, Paris: Araxes, 1951, p. 315. 6 Marc Nichanian, “The Style of Violence,” translated by Garth McGavanaugh, Armenian Review, Summer 1985, p. 4. 7 Vahé Oshagan, “The Theme of the Armenian Genocide in Diaspora Prose,” Armenian Review, Spring 1985, p. 54; idem, “The Image of the Turk,” p. 204. 8 Marc Nichanian, “Identität und Katastrophe in der Sprache,” in Mihran Dabag and Kristin Platt (eds.), Identität in der Fremde, Bochum: Brockmeyer, 1993, p. 184; Peroomian, Literary Responses to Catastrophe, p. 5; Beledian, “L’expérience de la catastrophe,” p. 171; Catherine Coquio, “La littérature arménienne et la Catastrophe: actualité critique,” Revue d’Histoire de la Shoah, 177–8, 2003, p. 402; Marc Nichanian, “Testimony: From Document to Monument,” in Hovannisian, The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies, p. 60; Krikor Beledian, “Introduction,” in Yervant Odian (ed.), Accursed Years: My Exile and Return from Der-Zor, 1914–1919, translated by Ara Stepan Melkonian, London: Gomidas Institute, 2009, p. X. 9 Papken Tcharian, The Great Loss of the Armenian Clergy during the Armenian Genocide, translated by Tamar Topjian Der-Ohannessian, n. p.: n. p., 2009, p. 235. 10 Hayg Toroyan and Zabel Essayan, L’Agonie d’un peuple, translated by Marc Nichanian, Paris: Classiques Grenier, 2013, p. 171. 11 Svazlian, The Armenian Genocide, p. 71. 12 Mesrob K. Krikorian, Armenians in the Service of the Ottoman Empire 1860–1908, London, Henley, and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977, p. 129; Bedross Der Matossian, “Historiography of the Armenian Genocide: Development, Impediments and Suggerences for the Future,” The Armenian Weekly/Aztag Daily, special issue, April 24, 2005, p. 29; Marc Nichanian, Entre l’art et le témoignage: Littératures arméniens au XXe siècle, vol. 3: Le roman de la Catastrophe, Geneva: MetisPresses, 2008, p. 230, 462. 13 Garabed Kapikian, Yeghernabadoum (Story of Genocide), abridged by Arakel Patrik and translated by Aris G. Sevag, New York: Pan-Sebastia Rehabilitation Union, 1978; Vahakn N. Dadrian, “The Secret Young-Turk Ittihadist Conference and the Decision for the World War I Genocide of the Armenians,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 2, 1993, p. 200; idem, The History of the Armenian Genocide, p. 229, 239; Yervant Alexanian, Forced into Genocide: Memoirs of an Armenian Soldier in the Ottoman Turkish Army, translated by Simon Beugekian, New York: Transaction Publishers, 2017, p. 144. 14 Oshagan, “The Theme of the Armenian Genocide,” p. 52; Dadrian, Warrant for Genocide, p. 121; Kevorkian, The Armenian Genocide, p. 914. 15 Vahakn N. Dadrian, “The Armenian Genocide: An Interpretation,” in Jay Winter (ed.), America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 66. 16 Murad A. Meneshian, “Rural Sebastia: The Village of Govdun,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian Sebastia/Sivas and Lesser Armenia, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2004, p. 353; Tigran Matosyan, “Comparative Aspects of the Armenian and Jewish Cases of Genocide,” in Hovannisian, The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies, p. 301; Üngor, “Lost in Commemoration,” p. 152. 17 Tcharian, The Great Loss, p. 237; Taner Akçam, “The Relationship between Historians and Archival Records: A Critique of Single Source Scholarship on the Armenian Genocide,” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, 19:2, 2010, p. 59, where the title appears in Turkish (Trajedi). 5

Notes

231

18 Beledian, “Introduction,” p. XI. 19 Toroyan and Essayan, L’Agonie, p. 176. 20 Meroujan Ozanian, “Testimony of Two Turks in the Armenian Massacres,” Hairenik Weekly, December 3, 1964. 21 Dadrian, “The Naim-Andonian Documents,” p. 353. 22 Hilmar Kaiser, “The Baghdad Railway and the Armenian Genocide, 1915–1916: A Case Study in German Resistance and Complicity,” in Hovannisian (ed.), Remembrance and Denial, p. 108. 23 Chalabian, General Andranik, p. 564. 24 Krikor Beledian, Cinquante ans de littérature arménienne en France. Du même à l’autre, Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2001, p. 202. 25 Çelebyan, Antranik Paşa, p. 385; Harutyunyan, Contesting National Identities, p. 401. 26 Hagop A. Chakmakjian, Armenian Christology and Evangelization of Islam, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965, p. 117. 27 Krikorian, Armenians in the Service, p. 130. 28 Oshagan, “The Theme of the Armenian Genocide,” p. 53; Kévorkian, The Armenian Genocide, p. 898; Vahé Tachjian, “Building the ‘Model Ottoman Citizen’: Life and Death in the Region of Mamüretülaziz (1908–1915),” in Hans-Lukas Kieser, Kerem Öktem and Maurus Reinkowski (eds.), World War I and the End of the Ottomans: From the Balkan Wars to the Turkish Republic, London: I.B. Tauris, 2015, p. 239. 29 Simon Payaslian, “The Death of Armenian Karin/Erzerum,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian Karin/Erzerum, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2003, p. 359; idem, “The Destruction of the Armenian Church,” p. 168. 30 “Publications Received,” Armenian Affairs, Spring 1950, p. 227. 31 Dadrian, “The Circumstances,” p. 15. 32 Arkun, “Les relations arméno-turques,” p. 69. 33 Simonyan, The Destruction of Armenians, p. 263. 34 “Publications Received,” p. 227. 35 Richard G. Hovannisian, The Republic of Armenia, vol. 2, Los Angeles, Berkeley, and London: University of California Press, 1982, p. 562. 36 Krikorian, Armenians in the Service, p. 129. 37 “Commemorative Genocidal Album in Library of Congress,” The Armenian MirrorSpectator, April 2, 1966. 38 Stephen G. Svajian, A Trip to Historic Armenia, New York: GreenHill Publishing, 1977, p. 642; Bedross Der Matossian, “Explaining the Unexplainable: Recent Trends in the Armenian Genocide Historiography,” Journal of Levantine Studies, Winter 2015, p. 159; Zaven Messerlian, The Evolution of the Armenian Question (1939–2010), translated by Maral O. Sarkissian-Kaloustian, Beirut: Chamaly and Chamaly, 2015, p. 122. 39 A Question of Responsibility: The Genocide of the Armenians 1914–1922, New York: n. p., 1980, p. 7. 40 Antranig Chelebian, “Kersam Aharonian and His Work,” The Armenian Reporter, March 12, 1981; Avedis Derounian, “Kersam, in Memoriam and in Nostalgia,” The Armenian Reporter, March 19, 1981. 41 Akaby Nassibian, Britain and the Armenian Question, 1915–1923, London and Sydney: Croom Helm, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1984, p. 278; Chalabian, General Andranik, p. 555. 42 Ternon, Enquête, p. 24; Payaslian, “The Death of Armenian Karin/Erzerum,” p. 350; idem, “The Fate of the Armenians in Trebizonda, 1915,” in Richard G. Hovannisian

232

Notes

(ed.), Armenian Pontus, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2009, p. 279; idem, “The End of the Armenian Communities of Asia Minor,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian Communities of Asia Minor, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2014, p. 271. 43 Edmond Y. Azadian, “Preface,” in Aharonian, A Historical Survey, p. 14; Çelebyan, Antranik Paşa, p. 381; Svazlian, The Armenian Genocide, p. 71. 44 Gaïdz F. Minassian, “Les relations entre le Comité Union et Progrès et la Fédération Révolutionnaire Arménienne à la veille de la Première Guerre Mondiale d’après les sources arméniennes,” Revue d’histoire arménienne contemporaine, I, 1995, p. 97; Mouradian, “La mémoire en République d’Arménie,” p. 299; Christopher Walker, “The End of Armenian Taron and Baghesh, 1914–1916,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian Baghesh/Bitlis and Taron/Mush, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2001, p. 197; Tcharian, The Great Loss, p. 236. 45 Simon Payaslian, “The Armenian Resistance at Shabin-Karahisar, 1915,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian Sebastia/Sivas and Lesser Armenia, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2004, p. 415; Hovannisian, “The Armenian Genocide: Wartime Radicalization,” p. 16; Andonian, Exile, Trauma and Death, p. 158; Messerlian, Before and after, p. 63. 46 Payaslian, United States Policy, p. 212; idem, “The Destruction of the Armenian Church,” p. 168. 47 Akçam, A Shameful Act, p. 462. 48 Pascual C. Ohanian, La Cuestión Armenia y las relaciones internacionales, vol. 6, Buenos Aires: Academia de Ciencias de la República de Armenia, 2010, p. 1417. 49 Akçam, Killing Orders, p. 37. 50 Chalabian, General Andranik, p. 562; Çelebyan, Antranik Paşa, p. 388. 51 Payaslian, United States Policy, p. 212. 52 Hovannisian, “The Armenian Genocide: Wartime Radicalization,” p. 16. 53 Payaslian, United States Policy, p. 212. 54 Messerlian, Before and after, p. 64. 55 Vahakn Dadrian, “The Role of the Special Organisation in the Armenian Genocide during the First World War,” in Panikos Panayi (ed.), Minorities in Wartime: National and Racial Groupings in Europe, North America and Australia during the Two World Wars, London: Berg, 1993, p. 57. 56 Dadrian, The History of the Armenian Genocide, p. 229. 57 Hratch Dasnabedian, History of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation Dashnaktsutiun 1890/1924, translated by Bryan Fleming and Vahe Habeshian, Milan: Oemme Edizioni, 1990, p. 111. 58 Anahide Ter Minassian, “Mouch 1915 selon Alma Johansson,” Haigazian Armenological Review, 15, 1995, p. 81; idem, “Une example, Mouch 1915,” in L’actualité du génocide, p. 249. 59 Çelebyan, Antranik Paşa, p. 386. 60 Robert Jebejian (ed.), A Pictorial Record of Routes and Centers of Annihilation of Armenian Deportees in 1915 within the Boundaries of Syria, Aleppo: Library Violet Jébéjian, 1994, p. 21. 61 Vahakn N. Dadrian, “Genocide as a Problem of National and International Law: The World War I Armenian Case and Its Contemporary Legal Ramifications,” Yale Journal of International Law, 2, 1989, p. 259. 62 Levon Daghlian, Ełeŗni yušer/Memoirs of the Holocaust, translated by Boston: H. Haig Toumayan H. Haig, 1976.

Notes

233

63 Chalabian, General Andranik, p. 568. 64 Çelebyan, Antranik Paşa, p. 382. 65 Nichanian, Entre l’art et le témoignage, p. 447. 66 Marutyan, Iconography, p. 295. 67 Idem, p. 347. 68 Levon Vartan, review of Vergine Svazlian, “The Great Holocaust,” Haigazian Armenological Review, 15, 1995, p. 602 (English table of contents). 69 Mireille Bardakdjian, “Le genocide dans la mémoire arménienne,” in L’actualité du génocide, p. 333. 70 Svazlyan, The Armenian Genocide, p. 123; Svazlian, The Armenian Genocide, p. 71. 71 Rubina Peroomian, “The Tears and Laughters of Cilician Armenia: Literary Representations of Destruction and Revival, 1909–1918,” in Richard G. Hovannisian and Simon Payaslian (eds.), Armenian Cilicia, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2008, p. 393. 72 Talar Chahinian, The Paris Attempt: Rearticulation of (National) Belonging and the Inscription of Aftermath Experience in French Armenian Literature between the Wars, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles, 2008, p. 8. 73 Khatchig Mouradian, “The Meskeneh Concentration Camp, 1915–1917: A Case Study of Power, Collaboration, and Humanitarian Resistance during the Armenian Genocide,” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, 24, 2015, p. 46. 74 Tcharian, The Great Loss, p. 9. 75 Shahen Khachatrian, The Color of Pain: The Reflection of the Armenian Genocide in Armenian Painting, translated by Aris Sevag, Yerevan: Printinfo, 2010. 76 E. K. Sarkisian and R. G. Sahakian, Vital Issues in Modern Armenian History: A Documented Exposé of Misrepresentations in Turkish Historiography, translated and edited by Elisha B. Chrakian, Watertown: Library of Armenian Studies, 1965, p. 19, 30–1. See R. G. Sahakian and Y. Gh. Sargsian, Hay žołovrdi nor šrĵani patmut’yan nengap’oxumě t’urk’ patmagrut’yan meĵ (The Distortion of Modern History of the Armenian People in Turkish Historiography), Yerevan: Haypethrat, 1963, p. 14, 27–8. 77 Vahé Oshagan, “The Self-Image of Western Armenians in Modern Literature,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian Image in History and Literature, Malibu, CA: Undena Publications, 1982, p. 206, 208, 211, 216–17; Roupen Boghossian, Le conflit turco-arménien, Beirut: Altapress, 1987, p. 151–9; Vigen Guroian, “Armenian Genocide and Christian Existence,” Cross Currents, Fall 1991, p. 331. 78 Marc Nichanian, “Hagop Ochagan tel qu’en lui-même,” in Agopik Manoukian (ed.), Dissonanze: Images pour une culture arménienne, vol. 1, Milan: ICOM, 1984, p. 74. 79 Marc Nichanian, “The Style of Violence,” translated by Garth McGavanaugh, Armenian Review, Summer 1985, p. 9; idem, Entre l’art et le témoignage, p. 446. For the translation “massacres,” see Peroomian, Literary Responses to Catastrophe, p. 118. 80 Nichanian, Writers of Disaster, p. 232; Kazanjian and Nichanian, “Between Genocide,” p. 127; Nichanian, The Historiographic Perversion, p. 7. For an isolated use of “Great Catastrophe,” see idem, “Testimony,” p. 61. 81 Haroutiun Kurkjian, “Contre … une catastrophe conceptuelle (A propos de ‘Medz Yeghern’),” Nor Haratch Hebdo, March 3, 2016. Armenologist Jean-Pierre Mahé has stated that Yeghern–which he translated as “catastrophe”—becomes an insult to the memory of the victims, leaving the impression “that the genocide was something inevitable like an earthquake” (Tigrane Yegavian, Arménie: À l’ombre de la montagne sacrée, Paris: Nevicata, 2015, p. 58).

234

Notes

82 Mihran Dabag and Kristin Platt, “Diaspora und die Kollektive Gedächtnis. Zur konstruktion kollektiver Identität in der Diaspora,” in idem, Identität in der Fremde, p. 131, 137. See also Mihran Dabag, “Traditionelles Erinnern und historische Verantwortung,” in Kristin Platt and Mihran Dabag (eds.), Generation und Gedächtnis: Erinnerungen und kollektive Identitaten, Opladen: Leske and Budrich Opladen, 1995, p. 103; idem, “Feien des Gedenkens,” in Bernhard Scheneider and Richard Jochum (eds.), Erinnerungen an das Töten: Genozid reflexiv, Vienna, Cologne and Weimar: Böhlau, 1999, p. 49. 83 Anahide Ter Minassian, “La diaspora arménienne,” Espace géographique, 2, 1994, p. 118. See also idem, “Les arméniens au 20e siècle,” Vingtième Siècle, July–September 2000, p. 135; Nélida Boulgourdjian-Toufeksian, “La recordación del Genocidio Armenio en la etapa de entreguerras,” in Nélida Boulgourdjian-Toufeksian, Juan Carlos Toufeksian and Carlos Alemian (eds.), Los derechos humanos y la vida histórica, Buenos Aires: Centro Armenio, 2002, p. 52; Paola Mildonian, “Autori e traduttori e mechitaristi,” in Boghos Levon Zekiyan and Aldo Ferrari (eds.), Gli Armeni e Venezia. Dagli Sceriman a Mechitar: il momento culminante di una consuetudine millenaria, Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2004, p. 245; Anouche Kunth, “La diaspora arménienne,” Études, 3, 2007, p. 324; Denis Donikian and Georges Festa (eds.), Arménie: de l’abîme aux constructions d’identité, Paris: L’Harmattan, 2009, p. 9; Tachjian, “Building the ‘Model Ottoman Citizen,’” p. 216. 84 Ahu Özyurt and Sabetay Varol, “Demedi ama ‘soykırımı’ zarifçe tanıdı,” Milliyet, April 26, 2009. 85 Aram Terzian, “1915: The Darkest Year,” The Armenian Review, Summer 1975, p. 158. 86 Beledian, “L’expérience de la catastrophe,” p. 131. See Catherine Coquio, Des crimes contre l’humanité en République française (1990–2002), Paris: L’Harmattan, 2006, p. 55. The allusion to lamented misfortune appears to have partly echoed the medieval annotation to Gregory of Narek cited by the New Haigazian. 87 Krikor Beledian, “Spuren, Themen und Allegorien der Katastrophe in der modernen armenischen Literatur,” Zeitschrift für Genozidforschung 5, 2004, p. 66. 88 Krikor Beledian, “Traduire un témoignage écrite dans la langue de l’autre,” in Janine and Vahram Altounian (eds.), Mémoires du génocide arménien: heritage traumatique et travail analitique, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2009, p. 134. 89 Claire Mouradian, “Problèmes linguistiques et culturels en Arménie depuis Stalin: resistance nationale ou intégration soviétique?,” Slovo, 5, 1983, p. 130 (Grand Massacre). See idem, De Staline à Gorbatchev, p. 289. 90 Mouradian, “La mémoire en République d’Arménie,” p. 279 (Grand Catastrophe). See also idem, p. 271, 300. A French country guide to Armenia stated that “Armenians quite modestly call it the ‘great catastrophe’ (medz yegherm) [sic],” and later rephrased Medz Yeghern as an “elliptic (and modest) formula (literally, great catastrophe)” to name the genocide (Gari Ulubeyan, Petit Futé Country Guide: Arménie, Paris: Petit Futé, 2003, p. 145, 205; Gary [sic] Ulubeyan, Arménie 2012–2013, sixth edition, Paris: Petit Futé, 2012, p. 30). For the translation of yeghern as “loss” and “grief and mourning,” see Tsypylma Darieva, “Bringing the Soil Back to the Homeland. Reconfigurations of Representation of Loss in Armenia,” Comparativ, 16, 2006, p. 88; idem, “‘The road to Golgotha,’” p. 95–6. 91 Aldo Ferrari, L’Ararat e la gru: Studi sulla storia e la cultura degli armeni, Milan: Mimesis, 2003, p. 233 (crimine); idem, Armenia, una cristianità di frontera, Rimini: Il Cerchio, 2016, p. 135 (tragedia).

Notes

235

92 Mihran Dabag, “Katastrophe und Identität: Verfolgung und Erinnerung in der armenischen Gemeinschaft,” in Hanno Loewy and Bernhard Moltmann (ed.), Erlebnis-Gedächtnis-Sinn: Autentische und konstruierte Erinnerung, Frankfurt and New York: Campus Verlag, 1996, p. 178–9. 93 See Yves Ternon, “Arméniens et Juifs: pour le dialogue et la reconnaissance mutuelle,” L’Arche, August–September 2003, p. 70 (grand catastrophe); idem, Génocide. Anatomie d’un crime, Paris: Armand Colin, 2016, p. 184 (grand crime). 94 See Gaïdz Minassian, Geopolitique de l’Arménie, Paris: Ellipses, 2005, p. 16 (catastrophe); idem, “Le dialogue arméno-turc,” La revue internationale et stratégique, 3, autumne 2009, p. 51 (Grand Crime); idem, “Dans la mémoire de la diaspora,” Le Monde, April 23, 2015 (Grand Carnage). 95 Khatchig Mouradian, “Explaining the Unexplainable: The Terminology Employed by the Armenian Media when Referring to 1915,” The Armenian Weekly, September 23, 2006; idem, “From Yeghern to Genocide,” p. 128; idem, “The Book with a Black Cover,” The Armenian Weekly, January 23, 2016. For the option “Great Catastrophe/ Great Crime,” see Ronald G. Suny, “The Cost of Turkey’s Genocide Denial,” The New York Times, April 24, 2015; De Waal, Great Catastrophe, p. 92, 135. 96 Mike O’Sullivan, “20th Century Mass Killings Remembered,” Voice of America, April 17, 2011 (www.voanews.com/usa/20th-century-mass-killings-remembered, accessed on September 17, 2018); Naheed Rajwani, “Awareness Week Recalls, Educates about Different Genocides,” Daily Bruin, April 25, 2012; Hovannisian, “Denial of the Armenian Genocide 100 Years Later,” p. 228. 97 See Siobhan F. Nash-Marshall, “Genocide,” in Robert L. Fastiggi (ed.), New Catholic Encyclopedia, supplement 2009, Detroit: Gale/Cengage Learning, 2010, p. 352–3; Siobhan Nash-Marshall and Rita Mahdessian, “Lies, Damned Lies, and Genocide,” Metaphilosophy, 1–2, 2013, p. 133; Nash-Marshall, The Sins of the Fathers, p. 212. 98 Marutyan, Iconography, p. 58; idem, “Trauma and Identity: On Structural Particularities of Armenian Genocide and Jewish Holocaust,” International Journal of Armenian Genocide Studies, 1, 2015, p. 53; idem, “Genocide Museum Director Clarifies Pseudo-Scandals: A Response to Prof. Stephan Astourian,” EVN Report, August 25, 2020 (www.evnreport.com/raw-unfiltered/genocide-museum-directorclarifies-pseudo-scandals, accessed on September 25, 2020). 99 See Rubina Peroomian, “New Directions in Literary Responses to the Armenian Genocide,” in Hovannisian, Looking Backwards, Moving Forward, p. 157 (“Great Crime”); idem, “Historical Memory: Threading the Contemporary Literature of Armenia,” The Armenian Weekly and Aztag Daily, special issue, April 24, 2005, p. 39 (“Massacres”); idem, “Historical Memory: Threading the Contemporary Literature of Armenia,” in Hovannisian, The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies, p. 108 (“Great Calamity, Great Event, Genocide”); idem, The Armenian Genocide in Literature: Perceptions of Those Who Lived through the Years of Calamity, Yerevan: Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute, 2012, p. 398, 404 (“Catastrophe, Genocide”); idem, “The Memory of Genocide in Soviet Armenian Literature,” Banber Matenadarani, 21, 2015, p. 239 (“Great Massacre”). 100 Robertson, An Inconvenient Genocide, p. 10, 157; idem, “The Armenians Want an Acknowledgment that the 1915 Massacre Was a Crime,” The Guardian, January 23, 2015; Siranush Ghazanchyan, “Geoffrey Robertson Discusses the Armenian Genocide on the Charlie Rose Show (Video),” Armenian Public Radio, March 18, 2015 (www.armradio.am/en/2015/03/18/geoffrey-robertson-discusses-the-

236

101 102 103 104

105

106 107

Notes armenian-genocide-on-the-charlie-rose-show-video/, at 10:27, accessed on March 18, 2015); Geoffrey Robertson, “Remembering the Armenians,” Al-Jazeera, April 24, 2015 (www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/4/24/remembering-the-armenians). Hrag Varjabedian, “Historicization of the Armenian Catastrophe: From the Genocide to the Mythical,” in Hovannisian, The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies, p. 171. Meliné Karakashian, Komitas: Victim of the Great Crime, Morganville, NJ: n. p., 2014, p. 4. Zekiyan, “Armenian-Turkish Relations,” p. 371. Aquel a quien la fama quiere dalle el nombre que se tiene merescido. 105 versions et 16 illustrations d’un fragment de Miguel de Cervantes, selected by Carlos Alvar and Jenaro Talens, Geneva: El Dragon de Gales, 2004, p. 109. Thanks are due to Artsvi Bakchinyan for bringing this source to our attention. Valentina Calzolari, “1915 dans la littérature arménienne: Le Golgotha arménien de Grigoris Balakian,” in Hans-Lukas Kieser and Elmar Plozza (eds.), Der Völkermord an den Armeniern, die Türkei und Europa/The Armenian Genocide, Turkey, and Europe, Zurich: Chronos, 2006, p. 102. Valentina Calzolari, “L’American Committee for Armenian and Syrian Relief et l’instrumentalisation du témoignage d’Aurora Mardiganian (1918–1919),” Relations internationales, 3, 2017, p. 22. Nichanian, “The Style,” p. 9; Kazanjian and Nichanian, “Between Genocide and Catastrophe,” p. 127; Nichanian, The Historiographic Perversion, p. 7. Nichanian even used “event” (Ereignis) for yeghern in Oshagan’s 1932 sentence (idem, “Identität und Katastrophe,” p. 188). For the use of this meaning, see Mihran Dabag, “Der Genozid an den Armeniern im Osmanischen Reich,” in Volkhard Knigge and Norbert Frei (eds.), Verbrechen erinnern. Die Auseinandersetzung mit Holocaust und Völkermord, Munich: C. H. Beck, 2002, p. 50; Calzolari, “1915 dans la littérature arménienne,” p. 102; Hrag Varjabedian, “Historicization of the Armenian Catastrophe,” p. 143; Aurelia Kalisky, “D’une catastrophe épistemologique ou la catastrophe genocidaire comme négation de la mémoire,” in Thomas Kinkert and Günther Oesterle (eds.), Katastrophe und Gedächtnis, Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2014, p. 67.

Appendix B 1 2 3 4

D. Varjabedian, “Mer lac’i patě” (Our Wailing Wall), Zartonk, April 25, 1953. “Soghomon Tehlirian,” Hairenik Weekly, January 7, 1965. See “Koč’ hamayn hayut’ean Sołomon Tēhlireani yušarjanin kaŗuc’man aŗit’ov” (Appeal to All Armenians on the Construction of Soghomon Tehlirian’s Memorial), Hairenik, January 9, 1965. Hagop Aintablian, “Ełeŗn t’ē c’ełaspanut’iwn?” (Yeghern or Genocide?), Nor Or, June 3, 2000. The texts of all inscriptions included in the list have been gathered from assorted printed and online sources, including the Armenian Genocide Memorials Database of ANI (www.armenian-genocide.org/memorials.html), the section “Toponymie et monuments arméniens” of the Association Culturelle Arménienne de Marne-laVallée (www.acam-france.org), and Wikipedia among others. Thanks are due to Rev. Fr. Stephan Baljian and Barlow Der Mugrdechian for providing the pictures of the inscriptions in North Andover (Massachusetts) and Fresno (California).

Notes 5

237

The original English text read: “This monument, erected by Americans of Armenian descent, is dedicated to men of all nations who have fallen victims to crimes against humanity” (“Ground-Breaking Ceremonies for Armenian Memorial Monument in Montebello, Calif.,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, May 27, 1967). Upon State Department advice, the City Council of Montebello had refused any reference to genocide (Bobelian, Children of Armenia, p. 129–31), which was added later. 6 The inscription was updated in 2011. The previous inscription said, in French, “To the two million Armenians massacred by the Turks during the first genocide of the twentieth century 1892–1922,” and, in Armenian, “To the memory of the two million Armenian victims who were massacred by the Turks” (www.acam-france.org/ contacts/contact_lieu.php?cle=14#, accessed on February 24, 2020). 7 See www.epress.am/en/2010/10/20/city-staff-busy-cleaning-traces-of-anti-semitismon-yerevans-holocaust-memorial.html (accessed on April 20, 2015), where it is inaccurately claimed that the Hebrew and Armenian texts are identical. Thanks are due to Levon Avdoyan for providing the picture of the inscription and to Bedross Der Matossian for translating from Hebrew.

Bibliography 1. Primary Sources

Armenian newspapers and journals Abaka (Montreal), 2006 Abaka (Paris), 1934, 1950 Agos (Istanbul), 2004, 2007, 2012–13 Alik (Tehran), 1952–3, 1975, 2000 Anahit (Paris), 1910 Angakhoutioun (Wallington, NJ), 1995 Arakadz (Constantinople), 1919 Ararad (Beirut), 2015 Ararat (Buenos Aires), 1946 Aravod (Constantinople), 1924 Aregak (London), 1965 Arev (Alexandria-Cairo), 1915–17, 1922, 1948 Arevelian Mamoul (Smyrna), 1871 Arevelk (Constantinople), 1909 Ariamard/Artaramard/Djagatamart (Constantinople), 1918–19, 1921 Armenia (Buenos Aires), 1955, 1958–9, 1985 Armenian Affairs (New York), 1950 Asbarez (Fresno/Glendale, CA), 1909, 1919, 1945, 1948, 1954, 1985, 2000–1, 2005, 2007–9, 2011–15 Avangard (Yerevan), 1989 Ayk (Beirut), 1955, 1958, 1961, 1965 Azatamart (Constantinople), 1910–11, 1914 Azdak (Constantinople), 1909 Azg (Yerevan), 1994–5, 1998–9, 2004, 2009, 2010, 2013 Azk (Boston), 1907, 1917 Aztag (Beirut), 1948–50, 1952, 1959, 1965–6, 1970, 1975, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2012, 2015 Aztarar (Istanbul), 1933 Aztarar (Beirut), 1949, 1954, 1956 Baikar (Boston), 1949, 1965 Bazmavep (Venice), 1906, 1909, 1965 Bythania (İzmit), 1910 Droshak (Geneva), 1896, 1899, 1901, 1909 Echmiadzin (Holy Echmiadzin), 1964, 1985 Eritassard Hayastan (Chicago/New York), 1920, 1950–9 Europe and Orient (Paris), 2009

Bibliography

239

Garun (Yerevan), 1988 Giligia (New York), 1965 Gochnag/Gochnag Hayastani/Hayastani Gochnag (New York), 1909, 1915–16, 1919–20, 1925, 1933–4, 1950, 1955, 1965 Gohag (Constantinople), 1919 Grakan Tert (Yerevan), 1955, 1988 Haiastan (Sofia), 1915 Hairenik (Boston-Watertown, MA), 1907, 1910, 1915, 1921, 1928, 1948–50, 1964, 1976–7, 1980–11, 1986, 2003, 2005, 2009–10, 2015 Hairenik Weekly/The Armenian Weekly (Boston-Watertown, MA), 1947–59, 1964–5, 1969, 1971, 1976–7, 1979–81, 1983–6, 1989–90, 2001, 2003–4, 2008–19, 2021 Hamazkaín (Buenos Aires), 1965 Haratch (Paris), 1931, 1945–60, 1992, 2001 Hayastan (Tiflis), 1917 Hayastan (Stuttgart), 1953 Hayastanyaitz Yegehetzy (New York), 1955, 1965 Hay Endanik (Montevideo), 2001 Haykakan Zhamanak (Yerevan), 2013 Hayreniki Dzayn (Yerevan), 1990 Horizon (Montreal), 2006, 2010, 2014–15 Hye Sharzhoom (Fresno), 2015 Jamanak (Constantinople/Istanbul), 1909, 1913, 1918, 1920 Joghovourt (Constantinople), 1918–19 Joghovourt (Paris), 1947 Joghovourti Tzayne (Constantinople), 1922 Khigar (Constantinople), 1886 La Renaissance (Constantinople), 1919 Loussaper (Alexandria), 1908 Lraper (New York), 1950–8 Lusaber (Teheran), 1955 Massis (Constantinople), 1901 Massis (Pasadena, CA), 2008–10, 2013, 2015 Mshak (Tiflis), 1915 Nayiri (Beirut), 1967 Nor Guiank (London), 1899 Nor Guiank (Constantinople), 1918 Nor Guiank (Beirut), 1965 Nor Haratch Hebdo (Paris), 2016 Nor Marmara (Istanbul), 2004 Nor Or (Fresno-Altadena, CA), 1952, 1954–5, 1995, 2000 Patma-banasirakan handes (Yerevan), 1975 Punik (Beirut), 1925 Puzantion (Constantinople), 1911, 1913 Shavigh (Varna), 1900 Sovetakan Hayastan (Yerevan), 1965 Spurk (Beirut), 1963 Tarman (Constantinople), 1920 The Armenian Guardian (New York), 1965 The Armenian Mirror-Spectator (New York-Boston-Watertown, MA), 1949–60, 1964–6, 1973, 1975, 1981, 1983–5, 1987–8, 1990, 2000–1, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2013–20

240

Bibliography

The Armenian Reporter/The Armenian Reporter International (New York-Paramus, NJ), 1974–5, 1978, 1987, 1980–1, 1983, 1987, 1995, 2000–1, 2005–6, 2008–10 The California Courier (Pasadena, CA), 1981, 1984, 1990, 2003, 2005, 2008–9, 2011–13, 2015–16 USA Armenian Life (Glendale, CA), 2012 Yeridassart Hayouhi (Beirut), 1955 Yerevan (Yerevan), 2006 Zartonk (Beirut), 1947–9, 1953–5

Non-Armenian newspapers and journals Bügün (Istanbul), 2009 Corriere della Sera (Rome), 2004 Daily Bruin (Los Angeles), 2012 Daily Sabah (Istanbul), 2014–17, 2019–20 Department of State Bulletin (Washington, DC), 1982–3 Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville, FL), 2012 Folha de São Paulo (Sao Paulo), 2001 Forward (New York), 2005 Hürriyet (Istanbul), 2004, 2009, 2015 Hürriyet Daily News (Istanbul), 2001, 2009–10, 2012–16, 2018–19 Il Messaggero (Rome), 2013 La República (Montevideo), 2014 La Stampa (Rome), 2016 Le Matin (Paris), 1915 Le Monde (Paris), 2001, 2014–15 Le Nouvel Observateur (Paris), 2001 Libération (Paris), 2008, 2015 L’Osservatore Romano (Vatican City), 2001 Le Temps (Paris), 1915 Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles), 1991, 2006, 2009, 2013 Milliyet (Istanbul), 2005, 2008–9, 2012–13 National Catholic Register (Kettering, OH), 2015 National Geographic (Washington, DC), 2016 New York Daily News, 2017 New York Times Magazine (New York), 1960 Palm Beach Post (Palm Beach, FL), 2004 Pasadena Star-News (Pasadena, CA), 2013 Pravda (Moscow), 1965 Radikal (Istanbul), 2005–6, 2009, 2010 Sabah (Istanbul), 2012 South Florida Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL), 2013 Star (Istanbul), 2015 Taipei Times (Taipei), 2011 Taraf (Istanbul), 2009 The Boston Globe (Boston, MA), 2001

Bibliography

241

The Burlington Free Press (Burlington, VT), 2011 The Friend of Armenia (London), 1916 The Guardian (London), 2001, 2008, 2014–15 The Jewish Press (New York), 2013 The New York Times (New York), 1915, 1946–7, 1949–50, 1965, 1975, 1983, 1985, 1988, 2001–2, 2010, 2015, 2016 The Seattle Times (Seattle), 2009 The Times (London), 1915 The Ukrainian Weekly (Jersey City, NJ), 1995 The Wall Street Journal (New York), 2009, 2019 The Washington Post (Washington, DC), 1990, 2010, 2013 Today’s Zaman (Istanbul), 2008–12, 2014–16 Yeni Şafak (Istanbul), 2019

Yearbooks Amēnun tarec’oyc’ě (Constantinople), 1910, 1916–20 Amēnun taregirkě (Beirut), 1965 “Erewan”-i taregirk’ (Constantinople), 1920 Haykashēn taregirk’ (Constantinople), 1922 Hayreni tarec’oyc’ (Constantinople), 1912 Musa Leŗ taregirk’ (Beirut), 2003–4 Yerguir (Aleppo), 1957

Dictionaries and encyclopedias Adjarian, Hrachia, Hayerēn armatakan baŗaran (Dictionary of Armenian Roots), vol. 2, Yerevan: Yerevan University Press, 1928. Aghayan, Eduard, Ardi hayereni bac’atrakan baŗaran (Explanatory Dictionary of Modern Armenian), vol. 2, Yerevan: Hayastan, 1976, p. 1474. Apigian, Mihran, Erek’lezuean ēndarjak baŗaran hayerēn tačkerēn gałłierēn (Armenian, Turkish, and French Trilingual Comprehensive Dictionary), Constantinople: N. G. Berberian, 1888. Apigian, Mihran, Ēndarjak baŗaran hayerēnē tačkerēn (Armenian-Turkish Comprehensive Dictionary), Constantinople: Nshan G. Berberian, 1891. Aram, Djanig, Dictionnaire abrégé Arménien-Turc-Français, Paris: Typographie Arménienne, 1860. Aucher, Paschal, Dictionnaire abrégé arménien-français, vol. 1–2, Venice: Académie Arménienne de S. Lazare, 1812–17. Aucher, Paschal and Brand, John, A Dictionary English and Armenian, Venice: Armenian Academy of S. Lazarus, 1821. Aucher, Paschal, Dictionnaire français-arménien-turc, Venice: Imprimerie de Saint Lazare, 1840. Avkerian, Mgrdich, Aŗjeŗn baŗaran Haykaznean lezui (Portable Dictionary of Classical Armenian), Venice: S. Lazarus Press, 1846.

242

Bibliography

Awde, Nicholas and Davidian, Vazken-Khatchig, Western Armenian Dictionary and Phrasebook, New York: Hippocrene Books, 2006. Baghdasarian, Louisa and Zorc, R. David, (Eastern) Armenian-English Dictionary, Kensington, MD, Dunwoody Press, 1995. Baratyan, N., Armenian-English Dictionary, Yerevan: Macmillan Armenia, 2002. B. P. G. [Bayan, Père Georges], Dictionnaire arménien-français, Venice-San Lazare: Imprimerie Arménienne, 1926. Bedrossian, Matthias, New Dictionary Armenian-English, Venice: St. Lazarus, 1875–9. Brand, John and Aucher, Paschal, A Dictionary Armenian and English, Venice: Armenian Academy of S. Lazarus, 1825. Bohjalian, Aristakes, Hayerēnē hayerēn bac’atrakan aŗjeŗn baŗaran (Armenian-Armenian Pocket Explanatory Dictionary), Istanbul: Armenian Turkish Teachers’ Organization, 1991. Bozajian, Hagopos, Hamaŗōt baŗaran i hayē i tačik (Armenian-Turkish Concise Dictionary), vol. 1, Vienna: Mekhitarists, 1838. Buchakjian, Gilda, Armenian English Practical Heritage Dictionary, New York: St. Vartan Press, 2010. Byzance, Néandre de, Dictionnaire français-arménien, Constantinople: A. H. Boyajian, 1884. Calfa, Ambroise [Guy de Lusignan], Dictionnaire arménien-français et français-arménien, Paris: L. Hachette and Maisonneuve, 1861. Chahinian, Krikor, Gorcnakan baŗaran hayerēn-franserēn (Armenian-French Practical Dictionary), Beirut: Chirak, 1997. Chakejian, Yeprem, Nor barbaŗaran hamaŗōt hayerēn-tačkerēn (New Armenian-Turkish Abridged Dictionary), Vienna: Mekhitarists, 1850. Chakmakjian, H. H., A Comprehensive English-Armenian Dictionary, Boston: E. A. Yeran, 1922. Chilingaryan, D. and Yerznkyan, Y., Defense Security Explanatory Armenian-Russian-English, Russian-Armenian, English-Armenian Unabridged Dictionary, Yerevan: D. Kanayan Institute for National Strategic Studies, 2015. Ciakciak, Emmanuele, Dizionario italiano-armeno-turco, Venice: Monastery of San Lazzaro, 1804. Ciakciak, Emmanuele, Nuovo dizionario italiano-armeno-turco, Venice: Tipografia Armena di San Lazzaro, 1829. Ciakciak, Emmanuele, Dizionario armeno-italiano, Venice: Tipografia Mechitaristica di San Lazzaro, 1837. Daghbashian, H., Liakatar baŗaran hayerēnic’ ŗuserēn (Armenian-Russian Complete Dictionary), Tiflis: n. p., 1911. Day, Alan John, East, Roger, and Thomas, Richard, A Political and Economic Dictionary of Eastern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge International Reference on Current Affairs, 2002. Değirmencyan, Mayranuş, Ermenice-Turkçe Sözlük, Yerevan: author’s edition, 2013. Demirjibashian, Yeghia, Grpani baŗaran hayerēnē gałłierēn (Armenian-French Pocket Dictionary), Constantinople: H. Matteosian, 1894. Der Khachadurian, Ardashes, Kankruni, Hrant, and Doniguian, Paramaz G., Hayoc’ lezui nor baŗaran (New Dictionary of the Armenian Language), Beirut: G. Doniguian et Fils, 1968. Eminian, Srabion, Erek’lezuean baŗagirk’ gałłierēn-hayerēn-tačkerēn (French-ArmenianTurkish Trilingual Dictionary), Vienna: Mekhitarist Press, 1853.

Bibliography

243

Feraud, Abbé, Dictionnaire critique de la langue francaise, Marseilles: Jean Mossy, 1787. Froundjian, Dirair, Armenisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch, Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1952. Garabedian, Bedros Zeki, Metz baŗaran ōsmanerēnē hayerēn (Great Dictionary OttomanArmenian), Constantinople: Archag Garoyan, 1912. Gasparian, Samvel, Dictionnaire arménien-français français–arménien, Yerevan: Areg, 2007. Ghazarian, R. S., T’urk’eren-hayeren baŗaran (Turkish-Armenian Dictionary), Yerevan: Mitk, 2003. Goilaw, Avedik, Deutsch-armenisches Wörterbuch, Vienna: Mechitaristen, 1889. Granian, Antranig, Gorcnakan baŗaran hayerēn lezui (Practical Dictionary of the Armenian Language), Beirut: Shirag, 1970. Grigoryan, Kh., English-Armenian Armenian-English Concise Dictionary, Yerevan: Ankyunakar, 1999. Grigoryan, Kh., Armenian-English Concise Dictionary, Yerevan: Ankyunakar, 2009. Guizot, M. F., Nouveau dictionnaire universel des synonymes de la langue française, first part, Paris: Maradan, 1809. Hagopian, V. H., A Dictionary Armenian-English, Constantinople: Servitchen, 1892. Hagopian, V. H., A Dictionary English-Armenian, Constantinople: H. Matteosian, 1907. Hannessian, Ohannes, Shirak’s English-Armenian Dictionary with Transliteration, Los Angeles: Shirak, 1998. Hovhannesian, Mihran, Grpani baŗaran fransahay (French-Armenian Portable Dictionary), Constantinople: Zartarian Bookstore, 1911. Jahukian, Gevorg, Hayeren stugabanakan baŗaran (Armenian Etymological Dictionary), Yerevan: Asoghik, 2010. Jerejian, Knel, Doniguian, Paramaz, and Der Khachadurian, Ardashes, Hayoc’ lezui nor baŗaran (New Dictionary of the Armenian Language), vol. 1–2, Beirut: G. Doniguian et Fils, 1992. Jizmejian, Bedros, Hayerēn ašxarhabar lezui liakatar baŗaran (Complete Dictionary of the Modern Armenian Language), vol. 1, Aleppo: Ani, 1954. Kaciuni, Emanuel, Dictionnaire des arts, des sciences et des lettres, vol. 2, Venice: Imprimerie de St. Lazare, 1892. Kapamajian, Simon, Nor baŗagirk’ hayerēn lezui (New Dictionary of the Armenian Language), Constantinople: Nshan Berberian, 1892. Kapamajian, Simon, Nor baŗagirk’ hayerēn lezui (New Dictionary of the Armenian Language), Constantinople: R. Sakayan, 1907. Karaca, Birsen, Doğu Ermeniçe-Turkçe sözluk, second edition, Ankara: Ankara University, 2007. Kayayan, H. T., Baŗaran-ganjaran hayerēn lezui (Dictionary-Thesaurus of the Armenian Language), Cairo: Kalfa, 1938. Kerovpyan (Işkol), Kegham, Hayerēn baŗgirk’ ašxarhabar lezui (Dictionary of the Modern Armenian Language), Istanbul: Ghalatio Bouket, 1962. Kevorkian, Vartan, Arjeŗn nor baŗaran hayerēn lezui (New Portable Dictionary of the Armenian Language), Beirut: Hraztan, 1934. Kogian, S. L., Armenian Grammar (West Dialect), Vienna: Mechitharist Press, 1949. Kondakjian, Katarine, T’urk’eren-hayeren baŗaran (Turkish-Armenian Dictionary), Yerevan: Antares, 2003.

244

Bibliography

Koushakdjian, Mardiros and Khantrouni, Dicran, Armenian-English Modern Dictionary, Beirut: G. Doniguian et Fils, 1970. Koushakdjian, Mardiros and Khantrouni, Dicran, English-Armenian Modern Dictionary, Beirut: G. Doniguian et Fils, 1970. Kouyoumdjian, Mesrob G., A Comprehensive Dictionary Armenian-English, Cairo: Sahag Mesrob Press, 1950. Kouyoumdjian, Mesrob G., A Comprehensive Dictionary English-Armenian, Cairo: SahagMesrob Press, 1961. Kouyoumdjian, Mesrob G., A Practical Dictionary for Adults Armeno-English, Cairo: Vosguedar, 1972. Kouyoumdjian, Mesrob and Torossian, Levon, A New Pocket Dictionary English-Armenian Armenian-English, Beirut: Chirak, 2002. Lafaye, M. [Pierre Benjamin de], Dictionnaire des synonymes de la langue française, second edition, Paris: L. Hachette, 1861. Littré, E., Dictionnaire de la langue française, vol. 2, Paris: Hachette, 1873. Lusignan, Guy de, Nouveau dictionnaire illustré français-arménien, vol. 1–2, Constantinople: H. Matteosian, 1900. Lusignan, Guy de and Basmadjian, K. J., Dictionnaire portatif arménien moderne français, Constantinople: Librairie B. Balentz—Imprimerie O. Arzouman, 1915. Malkhasiants, Stepanos, Hayerēn bac’atrakan baŗaran (Armenian Explanatory Dictionary), vol. 1, 4, Yerevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1944–45. Meghretsi, Yeremia, Baŗgirk’ hayoc’ (Armenian Dictionary), Livorno: Sarkis Evdokiatsi, 1698. Mesrob, Philip K., Hamaŗōt hayerēn-pulkarerēn pulkarerēn-hayerēn baŗaran (ArmenianBulgarian, Bulgarian-Armenian Concise Dictionary), Sofia: Komo OOD, 2005. Minassian, M. K., A Handy Dictionary Armenian-English, Constantinople: H. Matteosian, 1902. Minassian, M. K., A Dictionary, English, Armenian and Armeno-Turkish, Constantinople: V. and H. Der Nersessian, 1908. Nubar, M., Dictionnaire français-arménien, Constantinople: Baghdadlian, 1891. Ohanian, Vahan, Dizionario armeno-italiano, Venice: Casa Editrice Armena, 1996. Papazian, Z. D. S., A Practical Dictionary Armenian-English, Constantinople: H. Matteosian, 1905. Papazian, Z. D. S., Illustrated Practical Dictionary English-Armenian, Constantinople: H. Matteosian, 1910. Peshdimaljian, Krikor, Baŗgirk’ haykazean lezui (Dictionary of the Classical Armenian Language), Constantinople: Boghos Arabian, 1844. Pokorny, Julius, Indogermanisches etymologisches wörterbuch, vol. 1, Bern and Munich: Francke Verlag, 1959. Safire, William, Safire’s Political Dictionary, New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Samuelian, Thomas, Armenian Dictionary in Transliteration, New York: Armenian National Education Committee, 1993. Seferian, Sona et al., English-Armenian, Armenian-English Dictionary, Yerevan: Areg, 2009. Simonian, Simon et al., Sewan ěndarjak baŗaran (Sevan Comprehensive Dictionary), Beirut: Sevan, 1970–80. Steinmetz, Sol, Dictionary of Jewish Usage: A Guide to the Use of Jewish Terms, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005.

Bibliography

245

Sukiasian, Ashot, Hayoc’ lezvi homanišneri baŗaran (Thesaurus of the Armenian Language), Yerevan: ASSR Academy of Sciences, 1967. Sukiasian, Ashot, Hayoc’ lezvi homanišneri bac’atrakan baŗaran (Explanatory Thesaurus of the Armenian Language), Yerevan: Yerevan State University Press, 2003. Tekeyan, Pascual, Diccionario armenio-español, Buenos Aires: Akian Gráfica Editora, 1984. Voskian, Gomidas A., Aŗjeŗn baŗaran hayerēnē i gałłierēn (Armenian-French Portable Dictionary), Constantinople: Nshan G. Berberian, 1887. Voskian, Gomidas A., Aŗjeŗn baŗagirk’ hayerēn gałłierēn (Armenian-French Manual Dictionary), Constantinople: H. Matteosian, 1893. Yacoubian, Adour, English–Armenian and Armenian-English Dictionary Romanized, Los Angeles: Armenian Archives Press, 1944. Yaghubian, Adur, Hayataŗ t’rk’erēnē hayerēn baŗaran (Armeno-Turkish-Armenian Dictionary), New York: n. p., 1919. Yeran, I. A., Pocket Dictionary or Pocket Companion English-Armenian, Boston: Hairenik Press, 1906. A Pocket Dictionary of the Armenian, English and Turkish languages, Venice: Press of the Armenian College of St. Lazarus, 1843. A Pocket Dictionary of the English, Armenian and Turkish languages, Venice: Press of the Armenian College of St. Lazarus, 1843. Aŗjeŗn baŗaran Haykaznean lezui (Portable Dictionary of the Classical Armenian Language), Venice: Mekhitarist Congregation, 1865. Armyansky vopros entsiklopediya, Yerevan: Armenian Encyclopedia, 1991. Baŗgirk’ haykazean lezui (Dictionary of the Classical Armenian Language), vol. 1–2, Venice: Antoni Bortoli, 1749–69. Dictionnaire portatif de jurisprudence et de pratique, vol. 2, Paris: Leclerc, 1763. Haykakan Harc’ hanragitaran (Armenian Question Encyclopedia), Yerevan: Armenian Encyclopedia, 1996. Haykakan Sovetakan Hanragitaran (Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia), vol. 6–7, Yerevan: Armenian SSR Academy of Sciences, 1980–81. Merriam-Webster’s French-English dictionary, Springfield, MD: Merriam-Webster, 2000. Nor baŗgirk’ Haykazean lezui (New Dictionary of the Classical Armenian Language), vol. 1–2, Venice: S. Lazarus Press, 1836–37. Nuovo dizionario Italiano-Francese-Armeno-Turco, Vienna: PP. Mechitaristi, 1846. Oeuvres de Denis Diderot, vol. 2, first part, Paris: A. Belin, 1818. Pocket Dictionary of the English and Armenian Languages, Venice: Press of the Armenian College of St. Lazarus, 1835. Pocket Dictionary of the Armenian and English Languages, Venice: Press of the Armenian College of St. Lazarus, 1835. Žamanakakic’ hayeren lezvi bac’atrakan baŗaran (Explanatory Dictionary of the Contemporary Armenian Language), vol. 1, 4, Yerevan: ASSR Academy of Sciences, 1969, 1981.

Documents Abtahi, Hirad and Webb, Philippa, The Genocide Convention: The Travaux Préparatoires, vol. 1, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2008.

246

Bibliography

Andonian, Aram, Documents officiels concernant les massacres arméniens, translated by M. S. David-Beg, Paris: Imprimerie Turabian, 1920. Andonian, Aram, Metz Očirě. Haykakan verĵin kotoratznerě ew Talēat P’aša (The Great Crime: The Last Armenian Massacres and Taleat Pasha), Boston: Bahag Press, 1921. Babiguian, Hagop, The Adana Massacres: An Eyewitness Account, translated and annotated by A. B. Gureghian, Beirut: Haigazian University Press, 2018. Behbutian, Sandro (ed.), Vaveragrer Hay Yekełetsvo patmut’yan (Documents of the History of the Armenian Church), vol. 2, Yerevan: Board of Archival Cases, 1996. Behbutian, Sandro (ed.), Vaveragrer Hay Yekełetsvo patmut’yan (Documents of the History of the Armenian Church), vol. 13, Yerevan: Mughni, 2005. Beylerian, Arthur (ed.), Les Grandes Puissances, l’Empire Ottoman et les Arméniens dans les archives françaises (1914–1918). Recueil de documents, Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1983. Bryce, James, Angłiakan kaŗavarut’ean Kapoyt Girk’ě haykakan mec Ełeŗni masin (1915– 1916) (The Blue Book of the English Government on the Armenian Great Yeghern. 1915–1916), translated by Peniamin Bedrosian, Constantinople: O. Arzuman, 1919. Davis, Leslie, The Slaughterhouse Province: An American Diplomat’s Report on the Armenian Genocide, edited by Susan K. Blair, New Rochelle: Aristide D. Caratzas, 1989. Ghazarian, Vache and Achekian, Krikor (eds.), Alpom-yušamatean Haykakan C’ełaspanut’ian 70ameaki (Album-Memorial of the 70th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide), Beirut: Vahe Setian Press, 1987. Gust, Wolfgang (ed.), The Armenian Genocide: Evidence from the German Foreign Office Archives, 1915–1916, New York and Oxford: Berghahn, 2014. Kapamajian, Simon, Hayastani Kałandč’ekě (The New Year Gift of Armenia), Constantinople: Simon Kapamajian Bookstore, 1919. Kirakosian, John S. (ed.), Hayastaně miĵazgayin divanagitut’yan ev sovetakan artak’in k’ałak’akanut’yan p’astat’ułt’erum (1828–1923) (Armenia in the Documents of International Diplomacy and Soviet Foreign Policy, 1828–1923), Yerevan: Hayastan, 1972. Lepsius, Johannes (ed.), Deutschland und Armenien 1914–1918. Sammlung Diplomatischer Aktenstücke, Potsdam: Tempelverlag, 1919. Nersisian, M. G. (ed.), Genotsid armyan v Osmankoii imperii: sbornik dokumentov i materialov, second edition, Yerevan: Hayastan, 1983. Pambukian, Yervant (ed.), Niwt’er H. Y. Dasnakcut’ean patmut’ean hamar (Materials for the History of the A. R. Federation), vol. 11–12, Beirut: Edition of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, 2015–16. Ronco, Mauro and Ardizzone, Salvatore (eds.), Codice penale ipertestuale. Leggi complementari, Milan: UTET Giuridica, 2007. Sarafian, Ara (ed.), United States Official Records on the Armenian Genocide, 1915–1917, Princeton and London: Gomidas Institute, 2004. Sarian, Mardiros, Fē t’agōmbli ew Astucoy dēm paterazm. Polis Nuri Ōsmaniyēi mēj It’t’ihatakanneru gałtni orošumnerě hayoc’ bnaĵnĵman šaržaŗit’neru masin (Fait Accompli and War against God: The Secret Decisions of the Ittihadists in Nuri Osmaniyeh, in Constantinople, on the Motives for the Extermination of the Armenians), Paris: n. p., 1933. Sassounian, Harut (comp.), The Armenian Genocide: The World Speaks Out 1915–2015, Glendale: California Courier, 2015.

Bibliography

247

Tarkmanian, Hagop A. (ed.), The Truth about the Massacres and Deportations of the Armenian Population of the Ottoman Empire 1915–1922, Beirut: Commemoration of 60th Anniversary of Armenian Genocide—National Committee of Lebanon, 1975. Taylor, Eugene L. and Krikorian, Abraham D., “Educating the Public and Mustering Support for the Ratification of the Genocide Convention: Transcription of United Nations Casebook Chapter XXI Genocide, a 13 February 1949 Television Broadcast Hosted by Quince Howe with Raphael Lemkin, Emanuel Celler and Ivan Kerno,” War Crimes, Genocide, and Crimes against Humanity, 5, 2011, p. 91–124. Terzian, Hagop, Kilikioy ałētě (The Catastrophe of Cilicia), Constantinople: Hagop Asadurian and Son, 1912. Toroyan, Hayg – Essayan, Zabel, L’Agonie d’un peuple, translated by Marc Nichanian, Paris: Classiques Grenier, 2013. Toynbee, Arnold J. (ed.), The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire: Documents Presented to Viscount Grey of Fallodon, London, New York, and Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1916. Yeghiayan, Vartkes (comp.), Vahan Cardashian: Advocate Extraordinaire for the Armenian Cause, Glendale: Center for Armenian Remembrance, 2008. Yeghiayan, Vartkes and Arabyan, Ara, The Case of Misak Torlakian, Glendale, CA: Center for Armenian Remembrance, 2006. A Century of Denial: The Armenian Genocide and the Ongoing Quest for Justice, Hearing before the Commission on Security and Cooperation with Europe, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2015. A Memorandum on the Armenian Question, New York: Armenian National Council of America, 1947. American International Law Cases, fourth series, 2009, vol. 6, New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Aspirations et agissements révolutionnaires des comités arméniennes avant et après la proclamation de la Constitution Ottomane, Constantinople: n. p., 1917. Atanayi ełeŗně. Tełekagir Yakob Papikeani (The Yeghern of Adana: Hagop Babikian’s Report), translated by Hagop Sarkisian, Constantinople: Librairie La Cilicie, 1919. Azgadaw ełeŗně ev datapartut’iwně (The Nation-Betraying Crime and the Condemnation), New York: Archbishop Leon Tourian Committee, 1935. Boghos Nubar’s Papers and the Armenian Question 1915–1918, edited and translated by Vatche Ghazarian, Waltham: Mayreni Publishing, 1996. Communist Takeover and Occupation of Armenia, Special Report No. 5 of the Select Committee on Communist Aggression, House of Representatives, Eighty-Third Congress, Second session under Authority of H. Res 346 and H. Res. 438, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1955. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Eighty-first Congress, Second Session, on Executive O, the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1950. Inside a Gestapo Prison: The Letters of Krystyna Wituska, 1942–1944, edited and translated by Irene Tomaszewski, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2006. La cause nationale arménienne: documents concernant le problème de la libération de l’Arménie Turque, Paris: Union Nationale Arménienne de France and Comité de Defense de la Cause de l’Arménie Turque, 1945. “La tragédie d’Adana. Le rapport de Babiguian effendi,” Pour les peuples d’Orient, 10 mai, 25 mai, 25 juillet and 10 août 1913.

248

Bibliography

Mec mardaspani dēm. Paštōnakan arjanagrut’iwn ełeŗnakan ateani datavarut’ean kataruac K. Polsum, 1905 Noyemberin (Against the Great Assassin: Official Transcription of the Trial of the Criminal Court Held in Constantinople in November 1905), Geneva: Press of the A. R. Federation, 1906. Memorandum, Beirut: Central Committee Commemoration of Sixtieth Anniversary of Armenian Genocide, [1975]. On the 50th Anniversary of the Treaty of Sevres: Memorandum Concerning the Armenian Question, Beirut: Committee for the Restitution of the Armenian Lands, 1970. Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Advisory Opinion of May 28th, 1951), Hague: International Court of Justice, 1951. The Armenian Genocide: Facts and Documents, New York: St. Vartan’s Press, 1985. The Memoirs of Naim Bey, Newtown Square, PA: Armenian Historical Research Association, 1964. The Memoirs of Naim Bey. Turkish Official Documents Related to the Deportations and Massacres of Armenians, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1920. The Unrelenting Struggle: War Speeches by the Right Hon. Winston S. Churchill, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1942. Yušarjan April Tasněmēki (Memorial to April Eleven), Constantinople: O. Arzuman, 1919.

Memoirs Alexanian, Yervant, Forced into Genocide: Memoirs of an Armenian Soldier in the Ottoman Turkish Army, translated by Simon Beugekian, New York: Transaction Publishers, 2017. Andonian, Aram, Exile, Trauma and Death: On the Road to Chankiri with Komitas Vartabed, translated, edited, and annotated by Rita Soulahian Kuyumjian, London: Gomidas Institute and Tekeyan Cultural Association, 2010. Balakian, Krikoris, Hay Gołgot’an. Druagner hay martirosagrut’enēn (The Armenian Golgotha: Episodes of the Armenian Martyrdom), vol. 1, Vienna: Mekhitarist Press, 1922; vol. 2, Paris: Araxes, 1959. Balakian, Grigoris, Le Golgotha arménien: de Berlin à Deir es-Zor, translated by Hratch Bedrossian, vol. 1, Paris: Le Circle des Écrits Caucasiens, 2002. Balakian, Grigoris, Armenian Golgotha: A Memoir of the Armenian Genocide, 1915–1918, translated by Peter Balakian with Aris Sevag, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009. Bartevian, Suren, Kilikioy arhawirk’ě (The Horror of Cilicia), Constantinople: Nshan Babikian, 1909. Harootunian, Harry D., The Unspoken as Heritage: The Armenian Genocide and Its Unaccounted Lives, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2019. Hovannisian, Garin K., Family of Shadows: A Century of Murder, Memory, and the Armenian American Dream, New York: HarperCollins, 2010. Ittihat ve Terakki’den Cumhuriyete Bitmeyen Şavaş: Kutülamare Kahramanı Halil Paşanın Anıları, edited by M. Taylan Sorgun, Istanbul: Yedigün, 1972. Jamgochian, Arsen, Druagner haykakan Ełeŗnēn ew veracnund (Chapters from the Armenian Yeghern and Rebirth), Paris: H. Turabian, 1947. Kalfaian, Aris D. G., Č’ōmaxlu, New York: Gochnag, 1930. Kapigian, Garabed, Ełeŗnapatum Pok’un Hayoc’ ew norin meci mayrak’ałak’in Sebastioy (Story of the Yeghern of Lesser Armenia and Its Great Capital Sebastia), Boston: Hairenik, 1924.

Bibliography

249

Kefelian, Harutiun, Ašxarhadašt (Ełeŗni druagner Andrēasi ew šrjanneru) (World Field: Episodes of the Yeghern in Antreas and Surroundings), Paris: Araz, 1937. Morgenthau, Henry, Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page and Co., 1919. Morgenthau, Henry, Amerikean despan Mr. Mōrgant’aui yišataknerě ew haykakan ełeŗnin gałtnik’nerě (The Memoirs of American Ambassador Mr. Morgenthau and the Secrets of the Armenian Yeghern), translated by Yenovk Armen, Constantinople: O. Arzuman, 1919. Mouchegh, Mgr., Les Vêpres ciliciennes: Les Responsabilités. Faits et documents, Alexandria: I. Della Rocca, 1909. Mushegh, Bishop, Atanayi ĵardě ew patasxanatunerě (The Massacre of Adana and the Responsible Ones), second edition, Boston: Azk, 1910. Piranian, Nazaret, Xarberdi Ełeŗně (The Yeghern of Kharpert), Boston: Baikar Press, 1937. Power, Samantha, The Education of an Idealist: A Memoir, New York: Dey St., 2019. Rhodes, Ben, The World as It Is: A Memoir of the Obama White House, New York: Random House, 2018. Sarajian, Haig, The Silent Generation, n. p.: n. p., 2009. Shamdanjian, Mikayel, Hay mtk’in harkě Ełeŗnin. Ak’sorakani mtacumner ew zgac’ołut’iwnner (The Tribute of the Armenian Intellect to the Yeghern: Thoughts and Feelings of an Exile), Constantinople: O. Arzuman, 1919. Shamtanchian, Mikayel, The Fatal Night: An Eyewitness Account of the Extermination of Armenian Intellectuals in 1915, translated by Ishkhan Jinbashian, Studio City, CA: H. and K. Manjikian Publications, 2007. Sheets, Lawrence Scott, Eight Pieces of Empire: A 20-Year Journey through the Soviet Collapse, New York: Crown Publishers, 2011. Tehlirian, Soghomon, Veryišumner (Recollections), Cairo: Houssaper, 1953. Teotig, Arshaguhi, Amis mě i Kilikia (A Month in Cilicia), Constantinople: V. and H. Nersesian, 1910. Teotig, “Azgě č’ē meŗatz, ew anhnar ē or meŗni … ”. Banti ew ak’sori tariner (“The Nation Has Not Died, and It Is Impossible that It Dies … ”: Years of Prison and Exile), Antelias: Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia, 1985. Torlakian, Misak, Orerus het (With My Days), Los Angeles: Horizon, 1953. Totally Unofficial: The Autobiography of Raphael Lemkin, edited by Donna-Lee Frieze, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2013. Toumani, Meline, There Was and There Was Not: A Journey through Hate and Possibility in Turkey, Armenia and Beyond, New York: Metropolitan Books, 2014.

Literary works Aharonian, Avetis, Hayrenik’is hamar (For My Homeland), Boston: Hairenik, 1920. Bloody News from My Friend: Poems by Siamanto, translated by Peter Balakian and Nevart Yaghlian, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1996. Bohjalian, Chris, The Sandcastle Girls, New York: Doubleday, 2012. Bosco, Ronald A. and Myerson, Joel (eds.), The Later Lectures of Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1843–71, vol. 2: 1855–71, Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2001. Charents, Eghishe, Land of Fire: Selected Poems, edited and translated by Diana Der Hovanessian and Marzbed Margossian, Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1986.

250

Bibliography

Charents, Yeghishe, Girk’ čanaparhi (Book of the Road), Yerevan: Pethrat, 1933. Cicero, Cato the Elder on the Old Age, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1923. Florian, Numa Pompilius, Second King of Rome, translated by J. A. Ferris, Boston: Ticknor, Reed, and Fields, 1850. Janigian, Aris, Riverbig, Berkeley: Heyday Books, 2009. Macaulay, Thomas, Lord Clive, London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1851. Macaulay, Thomas, Patmut’iwn kenac’ Klayvay, translated by Khachig Abraham Thomas, Venice: St. Lazarus, 1887. Markarian, Herand M., The Martyred Armenian Writers, 1915–1922: An Anthology, Congers, NY: Libra-6 Productions, 2015. Mirecourt, Eugène de, Mariōn Dělōrmi xostovanank’ě kam patmakan tarp’ank’ (The Confession of Marion Delorme or Historical Luxury), translated by K. Chilingirian, Smyrna: Dedeyan, 1877. Mirecourt, Eugène de, Confessions de Marion Delorme, vol. 3, Paris: Collection de Chefsd’Oeuvre de France, 1903. Nar-Dos, Mahě (Death), Tiflis: N. Aghanian, 1912. Oshagan, Hagop, Hamapatker arewmtahay grakanut’ean (Panorama of Western Armenian Literature), vol. 9, Antelias: Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia, 1980. Raffi, Xent’ě. Ĵalalēddin (The Fool. Jalaleddin), second edition, Moscow: Mkrtich Barkhudarian, 1880. Raffi, The Fool, translated by Jane S. Wingate, Boston: Baikar Press, 1950. Raffi, The Fool, translated by Donald Abcarian, London: Taderon Press, 2006. Raffi, Jalaleddin, translated by Donald Abcarian, London and Reading: Taderon Press, 2006. Sarafian, Nigoghos, The Bois de Vincennes, translated by Christopher Atamian, Dearborn, MI: The Armenian Research Center, University of Michigan-Dearborn, 2011. Seneca, Lucius Anneus, Moral Essays, vol. 3, Loeb Classical Library, translated by John Basore, London: W. Heinemann, 1935. Shakespeare, Hamlet Daněmark’i išxan (Hamlet Prince of Denmark), translated by Hovhannes Masehian, Tiflis: M. Sharadze, 1894. Sheckley, Robert, The People Trap, New York: Dell Books, 1968. Shekli, Robert, Mtk’i burmunkě (The Odor of Thought), Yerevan: Sovetakan Grogh, 1984. Siamanto, Hayordinerě (The Sons of Armenia), Geneva: Armenian Revolutionary Federation, 1906. Siamanto, Hogevark’i ew yuysi ĵaher (Torches of Agony and Hope), Paris: Hamazkayin Press, 1907. Siamanto, Karmir lurer barekamēs (Bloody News from My Friend), Constantinople: Ardziv, 1909. Sue, Eugene, The Wandering Jew, London: E. Appleyard, 1845. Sue, Eugene, T’ap’aŗakan hreay (Wandering Jew), translated by Garabed S. Utudjian, vol. 3, Constantinople: Masis, 1867. Tacitus, The Annals, translated by A. J. Woodman, Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Co., 2004. Varuzhan, Taniel, C’ełin sirtě (The Heart of the Race), Constantinople: Ardziv, 1909. Varuzhan, Taniel, Erkeri liakatar žołovacu (Complete Collected Works), vol. 1, Yerevan: Armenian SSR Academy of Sciences, 1986.

Bibliography

251

Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis episcopi Chronicon bipartitum, part 1, edited and translated by J.-B.Aucher, Venice: San Lazarus Press, 1818. Łukiosi Annēosi Senekay Čaŗk’ imastasirakank’ (Philosophical Essays by Lucius Anneus Seneca), translated by Mgrdich Avkerian, Venice: S. Lazarus Press, 1849. M. T. Kikeroneay Katon Erēc’ kam t’ē vasn cerut’ean (Cato the Elder or On the Old Age), Vienna: Monastery of the Holy Virgin, 1843. Numa Pompilios erkrord ark’ay Hŗomay, vipasanut’iwn i Florianē (Numa Pompilius, Second King of Rome, Novel by Florian), translated by Eduard Hurmuzian, Venice: St. Lazarus, 1853. The Works of William Shakspere, London: H. G. Bohn, 1859.

Religious works Bossuet, James Benigne, An Introduction to, or a Short Discourse Concerning Universal History, Belfast: Samuel Wilson and James Magee, 1743. Der Sarkisian, Sahag, K’nnakan krōnagitut’iwn (Critical Cathecism), Constantinople: Sariyan, 1897. Frayssinous, D., A Defence of Christianity, or Conferences on Religion, translated by John Benjamin Jones, vol. 1, London: Gilbert and Rivington, 1836. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Dublin: Veritas, 2005. Vida, Marcus Hieronymus, The Christiad, A Poem in Six Books, translated by J. Cranwell, Cambridge: J. Archdeacon, 1768. Astuacašunč’ matean Hin ew Nor Ktakaranac’ (Holy Bible of the Old and New Testaments), edited by Hovhannes Zohrabian, vol. 2 and 3, Venice: S. Lazarus Press, 1805. A Treatise on God Written in Armenian by Eznik of Kołb (floruit c. 430–450), translated by Monica J. Blanchard and Robin Darling Young, Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Bosuetay Mełtac’ episkoposi xōsk’ vasn tiezerakan patmut’ean [Discourse on Universal History by Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux], Vienna: Monastery of the Holy Virgin, 1841. Eranelwoyn Yovhannu Oskeberani Meknut’iwn Esayeay Margarēi (Blessed John Chrysostom’s Commentary of Prophet Isaiah), Venice: St. Lazarus, 1880. Eznkay Kołbac’woy Bagrewanday episkoposi Ełc ałandoc’ (Refutation of the Sects by Yeznik Koghbatsi, Bishop of Bagrevand), Venice: St. Lazarus, 1926. Hazarameayi aršaluysě (The Dawn of the Millennium), vol. 1, Brooklyn, NY: International Bible Students Association, 1916. Insegnamento di Benedetto XVI, vol. 2, Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2007. Millennial Dawn, vol. 1, Allegheny, PA: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1902. Paştpanut’iwn k’ristonēakan hawatoy Teaŗn Dionisesi Frēsinu (Defense of Christian faith by Monsignor Dionysus Frayssinous), vol. 1, translated by Rev.Auxendios Kurkenian, Venice: St. Lazarus, 1866. The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1851. The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Epistle of S. Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, Oxford: James Parker and Rivingtons, 1877. Vitayi Kristosakan (Vita’s The Christiad), translated by Yeghia Tomajan, Venice: St. Lazarus, 1832.

252

Bibliography

2. Secondary Sources Aghayan, Eduard, Baŗak’nnakan ev stugabanakan hetazotut’yunner (Lexicological and Etymological Researches), Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR, 1974. Aharonian, Kersam, Mec Erazi čambun vray (On the Great Dream Road), Beirut: Atlas, 1964. Aharonian, Kersam (ed.), Yušamatean Mec Ełeŗni (Memorial Book of the Medz Yeghern), Beirut: Zartonk, 1965. Aharonian, Kersam, Xoher yisnameaki awartin (Thoughts at the End of the Fiftieth Anniversary), Beirut: Atlas, 1966. Aharonian, Kersam, A Historical Survey of the Armenian Case, translated by Krikor Maksoudian, Watertown, MA: Baikar, 1989. Akçam, Taner, A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility, translated by Paul Bessemer, New York: Henry Holt, 2006. Akçam, Taner, The Young Turks’ Crime against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2012. Akçam, Taner, Killing Orders: Talat Pasha’s Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. Arendt, Hannah, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, second edition, New York: Viking, 1965. Armen, Garbis, Historical Atlas of Armenia, New York: Armenian National Education Committee, 1987. Atamian, Sarkis, The Armenian Community: The Historical Development of a Social and Ideological Conflict, New York: Philosophical Library, 1955. Attarian, Varoujan, Le génocide des Arméniens devant l’ONU, Brussels: Complexe, 1997. Balakian, Peter, The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response, New York: HarperCollins, 2003. Barney Buel, Elizabeth C., Jeramatean Miac’eal Nahangac’ (Manual of the United States), Washington, DC: National Association of the Daughters of the American Revolution, 1926. Becker, Annette, Messagers du désastre: Raphael Lemkin, Jan Karski et les genocides, Fayard: Paris, 2018. Beledian Krikor, Cinquante ans de littérature arménienne en France. Du même à l’autre, Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2001. Bloxham, Donald, The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism, and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians, New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Bobelian, Michael, Children of Armenia: A Forgotten Genocide and the Century-Long Struggle for Justice, New York: Simon and Schuster, 2009. Boghossian, Roupen, Le conflit turco-arménien, Beirut: Altapress, 1987. Carzou, Jean-Marie, Un génocide exemplaire: Arménie 1915, Paris: Flammarion, 1975. Çelebyan, Antranik, Antranik Paşa, translated by Mariam Arpi and Nairi Arek, Istanbul: Pêrî Yayinları, 2003. Chakmakjian, Hagop A., Armenian Christology and Evangelization of Islam, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965. Chalabian, Antranig, General Andranik and the Armenian Revolutionary Movement, [Southfield, MI]: n. p., 1988. Cholakian, Dimitrios, Ōrinagirk’ amusnut’ean kam ěndanekan irawunk’ (Law Code of Marriage or Family Law), Constantinople: K. Baghdadlian, 1893.

Bibliography

253

Churchill, Winston, The World Crisis, vol. 4: Aftermath, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1929. Cohen, Stanley, States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001. Cole, Tim, Images of the Holocaust: The Myth of the “Shoah Business,” London: Duckworth, 1999. Coquio, Catherine, Des crimes contre l’humanité en République française (1990–2002), Paris: L’Harmattan, 2006. Dadoyan, Seta B., 2015—The Armenian Condition in Hindsight and Foresight: A Discourse, Ottawa: Printbridge, 2015. Dadrian, Vahakn, The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus, Providence and Oxford: Berghahn Books, 1995. Dadrian, Vahakn, Warrant for Genocide: Key Elements of Turko-Armenian Conflict, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 1999. Dasnabedian, Hratch, History of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation Dashnaktsutiun 1890/1924, translated by Bryan Fleming and Vahe Habeshian, Milan: Oemme Edizioni, 1990. Derogy, Jacques, Resistance and Revenge: The Armenian Assassination of the Turkish Leaders Responsible for the 1915 Massacres and Deportations, translated by A. M. Berrett, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 1990. Donikian, Denis and Festa, Georges (eds.), Arménie: de l’abîme aux constructions d’identité, Paris: L’Harmattan, 2009. Dündar, Fuat, Modern Türkiye’nin şifresi: İttihat ve Terakki’nin etnisite mühendisliği, 1913–1918, Istanbul: Iletişim, 2008. Dundar, Fuad, Crime of Numbers: The Role of Statistics in the Armenian Question (1878– 1918), New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2010. Ekmekcioĝlu, Lerna, Recovering Armenia: The Limits of Belonging in Post-Genocide Turkey, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2016. Elanchenny, Susae and Maraşliyan, Narod, Breaking the Ice: The Role of Civil Society and Media in Turkey-Armenia Relations, Istanbul: Istanbul Kültür University, 2012. Evans, Gareth, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2008. Evans, John M., Truth Held Hostage: America and the Armenian Genocide–What Then? What Now?, London: Gomidas Institute, 2016. Ferrari, Aldo, L’Ararat e la gru: Studi sulla storia e la cultura degli armeni, Milan: Mimesis, 2003. Gelzer, Henrikos, Hetazōtut’iwn hay dic’abanut’ean (Study of Armenian Mythology), translated by Hovhannes Torosian, Venice: St. Lazarus, 1897. Ghazarian, Haigazn K. (ed.), Patmut’iwn Čmškacagi (History of Chemeshgadzak), Beirut: Compatriotic Union of Chemeshgadzak, 1971. Girardin, Émile du, Du droit du punir, Paris: Plon, 1871. Göktan, Deniz Ünan, Hate Crime in Turkey: Implications of Collective Action, Media Representations and Policy Making, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017. Gordon, Philip H. and Taspinar, Omer, Winning Turkey: How America, Europe, and Turkey Can Revive a Fading Partnership, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2008. Gordon, Robert S. C., The Holocaust in Italian Culture, 1944–2010, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2012.

254

Bibliography

Günel, Gülçiçek, İttihat Terakki’den günümüze yek tarz-ı siyaset: Türkleştirme, Istanbul: Belge Yayınları, 2006. Gunner, Göran, Genocide of Armenians through Swedish Eyes, Yerevan: Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute, 2013. Gunter, Michael M., Armenian History and the Question of Genocide, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Gürün, Kamuran, The Armenian File: The Myth of Innocence Exposed, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985. Hakobyan, Tatul, Armenians and Turks: From War to Cold War to Diplomacy, translated by Heghinar Melkom Melkomian and Hrant Gadarigian, Yerevan: Lusakn, 2013. Hatsuni, Vartan, Erdumě hayoc’ mēĵ (The Oath among Armenians), Venice: St. Lazarus, 1910. Horowitz, Irving Louis, Genocide: State Power and Mass Murder, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1977. Hovannisian, Richard G., Armenia on the Road to Independence 1918, Berkeley and London: University of California Press, 1967. Hovannisian, Richard G., The Republic of Armenia, vol. 1, Los Angeles and Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971; vol. 2, Los Angeles, Berkeley, and London: University of California Press, 1982. Hovannisian, Richard G. (ed.), The Armenian People: From Ancient to Modern Times, vol. 2, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997. Hovhannisyan, Nikolay, The Armenian Genocide: Armenocide. Causes, Commission, Consequences, translated by Svetlana Margaryan, Yerevan: Zangak-97, 2002. Ignace Pierre XVI Batanian, Une page de la tragédie arménienne [Beirut: n. p., 1965]. İnsel, Ahmet and Marian, Michel, Dialogue sur le tabou arménien, Paris: Liana Levi, 2009. Jebejian, Robert (ed.), A Pictorial Record of Routes and Centers of Annihilation of Armenian Deportees in 1915 within the Boundaries of Syria, Aleppo: Library Violet Jébéjian, 1994. Jonassohn, Kurt and Björnson, Karin Solveig, Genocide and Gross Human Rights Violations in Comparative Perspective, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1998. Kalaydjian, Tigran, Sentinel of Truth: Gourgen Yanikian and the Struggle against the Denial of the Armenian Genocide, second edition, Houston: Strategic Book Publishing and Rights, 2013. Kaputikian, Silva, Ēĵer p’ak gzroc’neric’ (Pages from Closed Drawers), Yerevan: Apolon, 1997. Karakashian, Meliné, Komitas: Victim of the Great Crime, Morganville, NJ: n. p., 2014. Kehetian, Mitch, Giants of the Earth, Baltimore: PublishAmerica, 2009. Kherlopian, Gevorg, C’ełaspanagitut’iwn (Genocide Study), Beirut: n. p., 2006. Lemkin, Raphael, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress, Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944. Levene, Mark, Genocide in the Age of the Nation-State, vol. 1: The Meaning of Genocide, New York and London: I.B. Tauris, 2005. Lewis, Bernard, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, London: Oxford University Press, 1961. Leo, Hayoc’ patmut’iwn (History of the Armenians), vol. 1, Tiflis: Slovo, 1917. Lewy, Guenter, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, Salt Lake City: Utah University Press, 2005.

Bibliography

255

Libaridian, Gerard J., Modern Armenia: People, Nation, State, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2004. Lieberman, Benjamin, The Holocaust and Genocides in Europe, London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Markosyan-Käsper, Gohar, Penelopa puskaetsya v put’, Tallinn: K & G, 2007. Marutyan, Harutyun, Iconography of Armenian Identity, vol. 1: The Memory of Genocide and the Karabagh Movement, translated by Nune Torosyan, Yerevan: Gitutyun, 2009. Matiossian, Vartan (ed.), Historical Atlas of Armenia, New York: Armenian National Education Committee, 2012. Matossian, Mary Kilbourne, The Impact of Soviet Policies in Armenia, Leiden: E. L. Brill, 1962. McCarthy, Justin and McCarthy, Carolyn, Turks and Armenians: A Manual on the Armenian Question, Washington, DC: Assembly of Turkish American Associations, 1989. Messerlian, Zaven, Before and after the Armenian Genocide, translated by Maral O. Sarkissian-Kaloustian, Beirut: Chemaly and Chemaly, 2015. Minas, Setrak Benjamin, April 24 Armenian Memorial Day: Why Armenians Commemorate This Day, Boston: Commemorative Committee on the 50th Anniversary of the Turkish Massacres of Armenians, 1965. Minassian, Gaïdz, Geopolitique de l’Arménie, Paris: Ellipses, 2005. Morgenthau, Henry, The Tragedy of Armenia, London: Spottiswoode, Ballantyne, and Co., 1918. Moskwa, Jacek, Droga Karola Wojtyły do domu Ojca: ostatnia dekada, vol. 4, Warsaw: Świat Książki, 2011. Mouradian, Claire, De Staline a Gorbatchev. Histoire d’une république soviétique, l’Arménie, Paris: Ramsey, 1990. Mutafian, Claude, Metz Yeghérn. Breve storia del genocidio degli armeni, translated by Antonia Arslan, Milan: Guerini e Associati, 1995. Nalbandian, Hovsep, Amerikahay girk’i patmut’iwn 1858–2011 (History of the ArmenianAmerican Book 1858–2011), Los Angeles: Yerevan, 2011. Napoleon III, History of Julius Caesar, vol. 1, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1865. Nash-Marshall, Siobhan, The Sins of the Fathers: Turkish Denialism and the Armenian Genocide, New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2017. Nassibian, Akaby, Britain and the Armenian Question, 1915–1923, London and Sydney: Croom Helm, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1984. Nersisian, M. and Parsamian, V., Hay žołovrdi patmut’yun (History of the Armenian People), Yerevan: Haypetusmankhrat, 1957. Nichanian, Marc, Writers of Disaster, vol. 1: The National Revolution, Princeton and London: Gomidas Institute, 2002. Nichanian, Marc, Entre l’art et le témoignage: Littératures arméniens au XXe siècle, vol. 3: Le roman de la Catastrophe, Geneva: MetisPresses, 2008. Nichanian, Marc, The Historiographic Perversion, translated by Gil Anidjar, New York: Columbia University Press, 2009. Ohanian, Pascual C., La Cuestión Armenia y las relaciones internacionales, vol. 6, Buenos Aires: Academia de Ciencias de la República de Armenia, 2010. Pacifici, Giorgio, Le maschere del male. Una sociologia, Milan: Franco Angeli, 2015. Papazian, Bertha S., The Tragedy of Armenia: A Brief Study and Interpretation, Boston and Chicago: The Pilgrim Press, 1918.

256

Bibliography

Park, Bill, Modern Turkey: People, State and Foreign Policy in a Globalised World, New York: Routledge, 2012. Payaslian, Simon, United States Policy toward the Armenian Question and the Armenian Genocide, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Peroomian, Rubina, Literary Responses to Catastrophe: A Comparison of the Armenian and Jewish Experience, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Peroomian, Rubina, The Armenian Genocide in Literature: Perceptions of Those Who Lived through the Years of Calamity, Yerevan: Armenian Genocide MuseumInstitute, 2012. Phelps, Amos A., Lectures on Slavery and Its Remedy, Boston: New England Anti-Slavery Society, 1834. Prince, Moussa, Un génocide impuni: l’arménocide (Dans le cadre des crimes contre l’humanité). Introduction, Beirut: Heidelberg Press, 1967. Quigley, John, The Genocide Convention: An International Law Analysis, London and New York: Routledge, 2016. Rapet, M. J. J., Manuel de morale et d’économie politique à l’usage des classes ouvrières, Paris: Guillaumin, 1858. Rapet, M. J. J., Arjeŗn baroyakan ew k’ałak’akan tntesut’iwn (Manual of Moral and Political Economy), Venice: St. Lazarus, 1879. Robertson, Geoffrey, An Inconvenient Genocide: Who Remembers the Armenians?, London: Biteback, 2014. Sahakian, R. G. and Sargsyan, Y. Gh., Hay žołovrdi nor šrĵani patmut’yan nengap’oxumě t’urk’ patmagrut’yan meĵ (Distortion of the Armenian People’s Modern History in Turkish Historiography), Yerevan: Haypethrat, 1963. Sarkisian, E. K. and Sahakian, R. G., Vital Issues in Modern Armenian History: A Documented Exposé of Misrepresentations in Turkish Historiography, translated and edited by Elisha B. Chrakian, Watertown: Library of Armenian Studies, 1965. Sasuni, Garo, Aprilean Ełeŗně k’nnakan aknoc’ov (The April Yeghern Seen through Critical Lenses), Paris: Imprimerie de Navarre, 1931. Schabas, William A., Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes, second edition, Cambridge University Press, 2009. Schrodt, Nikolaus, Modern Turkey and the Armenian Genocide: An Argument about the Meaning of the Past, Heidelberg and New York: Springer, 2014. Sevag, Manase G., Haykakan Mec Ełeŗně ew menk’ (t’rk’akan hayaspanut’iwn) (Turkish Armenocide) (The Armenian Medz Yeghern and Us: Turkish Armenocide), New York: n. p., 1964. Shaw, Stanford J. and Ezel Kural, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. 2, second printing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Shaw, Stanford J., Turkey and the Holocaust: Turkey’s Role in Rescuing Turkish and European Jewry from Nazi Persecution, 1933–1945, New York: New York University Press, 1993. Simonyan, Hrachik, The Destruction of Armenians in Cilicia, April 1909, translated by Melissa Brown and Alexander Arzoumanian, London: Gomidas Institute, 2012. Solakhian, Garabed, Ułecoyc vačaŗakani ew amēn anhati (Guide for the Merchant and Every Individual), Constantinople: V. Minasian, 1904. Suciyan, Talin, The Armenians in Modern Turkey: Post-Genocide Society, Politics and History, London: I.B. Tauris, 2015. Suny, Ronald G., “They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else”: A History of the Armenian Genocide, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015.

Bibliography

257

Svajian, Stephen G., A Trip to Historic Armenia, New York: GreenHill Publishing, 1977. Svazlian, Verjiné, The Armenian Genocide: Testimonies of the Eyewitness Survivors, translated by Tigran Tsulikyan and Anahid Boghikian-Tarpinian, Yerevan: Gitoutyoun, 2011. Svazlyan, Verzhine, The Armenian Genocide and Historical Memory, translated by Tigran Tsulikyan, Yerevan: Gitutyun, 2004. Tcharian, Papken, The Great Loss of the Armenian Clergy during the Armenian Genocide, translated by Tamar Topjian Der-Ohannessian, n. p., 2009. Teotig, Gołgot’a hay hogeworakanut’ean ew ir hōtin ałētali 1915 tariin (Golgotha of the Armenian Clergy and Its Flock in the Catastrophic Year 1915), edited by Ara Kalaydjian, New York: St. Vartan Press, 1985. Ternon, Yves, The Armenians: History of a Genocide, translated by Rouben C. Cholakian, Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1981. Ternon, Yves, The Armenian Cause, translated by Anahid Apelian Mangouni, Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1985. Ternon, Yves, Génocide. Anatomie d’un crime, Paris: Armand Colin, 2016. Thomas, Lewis V. and Frye, Richard N., The United States and Turkey and Iran, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951. Thorossian, H., Histoire de la littérature arménienne des origines jusqu’à nos jours, Paris: Araxes, 1951. Toynbee, Arnold, Atrocities in Armenia: The Murder of a Nation, London, New York, and Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915. Turian, Ghevont, Patmut’ean hamar (For History), New York: Archbishop Leon Tourian Committee, 1934. Ulubabian, Bagrat, Arc’axyan goyapayk’ari taregrutyun (Annals of the Life Struggle for Artsakh), Yerevan: n. p., 1997. Ulubeyan, Gary, Arménie 2012–2013, sixth edition, Paris: Petit Futé, 2012. United Nations War Crimes Commission, History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and the Development of the Laws of War, London: His Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1948. Upham, Thomas C., Mental Philosophy, vol. 2, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1869. Upham, Thomas C., Kamk’, kam kamakan hangamank’ mtac’ (Will, or Voluntary Circumstances of the Mind), translated by Ghazaros Boghosian, Constantinople: Aramian, 1870. Uras, Esat, The Armenians in History and the Armenian Question, translated by Süheyla Artemel, Istanbul: Documentary Publications, 1988. Waal, Thomas de, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, New York: New York University Press, 2003. Waal, Thomas de, The Caucasus: An Introduction, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Waal, Thomas de, Armenia and Turkey: Bridging the Gap, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Policy Brief 87, October 2010. Waal, Thomas de, Great Catastrophe: Armenians and Turks in the Shadow of Genocide, New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. Willmore, J. Selden, The Great Crime and Its Moral, London, New York, and Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1917. Winter, Jay, War beyond Words: Language of Remembrance from the Great War to the Present, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Yegavian, Tigrane, Arménie: À l’ombre de la montagne sacrée, Paris: Nevicata, 2015.

258

Bibliography

Zekiyan, Boghos Levon, The Armenian Way to Modernity: Armenian Identity between Tradition and Innovation, Specificity and Universality, Venice: Supernova, 1997. Zekiyan, Boghos Levon, L’Armenia e gli armeni. Polis lacerata e patria spirituale: la sfida di una sopravvivenza, Milan: Guerini e Associati, 2000. Zekiyan, Boğos Levon, Ermeniler ve Modernite: Gelenek ve Yenileşme/Őzgüllük ve Evrensellik Arasında Ermeni Kimliği, translated by Altuğ Yilmaz, Istanbul: Aras Yayıncılık, 2001. 99: All You Should Know about the Genocide, translated by Nazareth Seferian, Yerevan: Pan-Media LLC, 2014. A Question of Responsibility: The Genocide of the Armenians 1914–1922, New York: n. p., 1980. Aquel a quien la fama quiere dalle el nombre que se tiene merescido. 105 versions et 16 illustrations d’un fragment de Miguel de Cervantes, selected by Carlos Alvar and Jenaro Talens, Geneva: El Dragon de Gales, 2004. C’ełaspanut’iwně Xorhrdayin Miut’enēn ners. Usumnasirut’iwn` zanguacayin spanut’eanc’ (The Genocide in the Soviet Union: Study of Mass Killings), translated by Yeghishe Manukian, Beirut: Institute for the Research of the Soviet Union, 1959. Haykakan jartarapetut’ean yušarčanner (Monuments of Armenian Architecture), Beirut: Hamazkaine, 1972. Monuments of Armenian Architecture, Beirut: Hamazkaine, 1972. Patmut’iwn Yulios Kesaru (History of Julius Caesar), translated by Abraham Jarian, Venice: St. Lazarus Press, 1867. The Reagan Diaries, edited by Douglas Brinkley, New York: HarperCollins, 2009.

Ph.D. Dissertations Bilal, Melissa, Thou Needs’t Not Weep, for I Have Wept Full Sore: An Affective Genealogy of the Armenian Lullaby in Turkey, University of Chicago, 2013. Chahinian, Talar, The Paris Attempt: Rearticulation of (National) Belonging and the Inscription of Aftermath Experience in French Armenian Literature Between the Wars, University of California at Los Angeles, 2008. Cook, Ralph Elliott, The United States and the Armenian Question, 1894–1924, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, 1957. Dudwick, Nora C., Memory, Identity and Politics in Armenia, University of Pennsylvania, 1994. Harutyunyan, Arus, Contesting National Identities in an Ethnically Homogeneous State: The Case of Armenian Democratization, Western Michigan University, 2009. King, Melissa Ruth, Survivors: An Ethnographic Study of Armenian American Activism and Expression, University of California at Riverside, 2013.

Articles Adalian, Rouben Paul, “The Ramifications in the United States of the French Court Decision on the Denial of the Armenian Genocide and Princeton University,” Revue du monde arménien moderne et contemporaine, 3, 1997, p. 99–122.

Bibliography

259

Aharon, Eldad Ben, “Recognition of the Armenian Genocide after Its Centenary: A Comparative Analysis of Changing Parliamentary Positions,” Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, 3, 2019, p. 339–52. Akçam, Taner, “The Relationship between Historians and Archival Records: A Critique of Single Source Scholarship on the Armenian Genocide,” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, 19:2, 2010, p. 43–92. Aktar, Ayhan, “Debating the Armenian Massacres in the Last Ottoman Parliament, November–December 1918,” History Workshop Journal, 64, 2007, p. 240–70. Altinay, Ayse Gul, “In Search of Silenced Grandparents: Ottoman Armenian Survivors and Their (Muslim) Grandchildren,” in Hans-Lukas Kieser and Elmar Plozza (eds.), Der Völkermord an den Armeniern, die Türkei und Europa/The Armenian Genocide, Turkey, and Europe, Zurich: Chronos, 2006, p. 117–32. Ambroise-Rendu, Anne-Claude, “La découverte du génocide au prisme de la presse,” Le temps des médias, 5, 2005/2, p. 265–70. Andriewsky, Olga, “Towards a Decentred History: The Study of the Holodomor and Ukrainian Historiography,” East/West: Journal of Ukrainian Studies, 1, 2015, p. 17–52. Arkun, Aram, “Les relations arméno-turques et les massacres de Cilicie de 1909,” translated by Catherine Ter-Sarkissian, in L’actualité du génocide des Arméniens, Creteil: Edipol, 1999, p. 57–74. Arslan, Antonia, “Metz Yeghern (il grande male): il genocidio degli Armeni. Storia e attualità del primo genocidio del ventesimo secolo (Anatolia, 1915,” in Boghos Levon Zekiyan, Antonia Arslan, and Aldo Ferrari (eds.), Del Caucaso al Veneto: Gli Armeni tra storia e memoria, Padova: ADLE Edizioni, 2003, p. 37–58. Astourian, Stephan, “The Armenian Genocide: An Interpretation,” The History Teacher, 2, 1990, p. 111–60. Astourian, Stephan H., “Genocidal Process: Reflections on the Armeno-Turkish Polarization,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian Genocide: History, Politics, Ethics, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992, p. 53–79. Avetisyan, Zarine, “Persuasion and Suggestion as Priorities in Psycholinguistic Survey of Political Discourse,” in CLEaR 2015: Conference Proceedings, Prague: SlovakEdu, 2015, p. 52–7. Aznavurian, G., “Anhayt ēĵer Daniel Varužani žaŗangut’yunic’” (Unknown Pages of Taniel Varuzhan’s Legacy), Banber Yerevani hamalsarani, 3, 1969, p. 145–63. Bachoian, Mykil, “The Cost of Denial: ‘Meds Yeghern’ and the Quest for Restorative Justice for Descendants of Armenian Genocide Victims,” Law Journal of Social Justice, 2, 2011, p. 118–36. Balakian, Peter, “Raphael Lemkin, Cultural Destruction, and the Armenian Genocide,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 1, 2013, p. 57–89. Bardakdjian, Mireille, “Le genocide dans la mémoire arménienne,” in L’actualité du génocide des Arméniens, Creteil: Edipol, 1999, p. 315–37. Barrett, John Q., “Raphael Lemkin and ‘Genocide’ at Nuremberg, 1945–1946,” in Christoph Safferling and Eckart Conze (eds.), The Genocide Convention Sixty Years after Its Adoption, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2010, p. 35–54. Bayraktar, Seyhan, “Remembering the Armenian Genocide in Contemporary Turkey,” Testimony between History and Memory, April 2015, p. 61–9. Bazyler, Michael J., “From ‘Lamentation to Liturgy to Litigation’: The Holocaust-Era Restitution Movement as a Model for Bringing Armenian Genocide-Era Restitution Suits in American Courts,” Marquette Law Review, 249, 2011, p. 245–303.

260

Bibliography

Bechky, Perry S., “Lemkin’s Situation: Toward a Rhetorical Understanding of Genocide,” Brooklyn Law Review, 2, 2012, p. 551–624. Beledian, Krikor, “L’expérience de la catastrophe dans la littérature arménienne,” Revue d’histoire arménienne contemporaine, 1, 1995, p. 127–97. Beledian, Krikor, “From Image to Loss: The Writers of Kharpert and Provincial Literature,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian Tsopk/Kharpert, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2002, p. 239–73. Beledian, Krikor, “Spuren, Themen und Allegorien der Katastrophe in der modernen armenischen Literatur,” Zeitschrift für Genozidforschung, 5 (2004), 1, p. 66–99. Beledian, Krikor, “Introduction,” in Yervant Odian, Accursed Years: My Exile and Return from Der-Zor, 1914–1919, translated by Ara Stepan Melkonian, London: Gomidas Institute, 2009, p. IX–XXIII. Beledian, Krikor, “Traduire un témoignage écrite dans la langue de l’autre,” in Janine and Vahram Altounian, Mémoires du génocide arménien: heritage traumatique et travail analitique, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2009, p. 97–112. Bilal, Melissa, “Longing for Home at Home: Armenians in Istanbul,” in Marie-Aude Baronian, Stephane Besser and Yolande Janssen (eds.), Diaspora and Memory. Figures of Displacement in Contemporary Literature, Arts and Politics, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007, p. 55–65. Bjørnlund, Matthias, “’The Big Death’: Finding Precise Terminology for the Murder of the Armenian People,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, April 23, 2015. Bloxham, Donald, “Determinants of the Armenian Genocide,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Looking Backward, Moving Forward: Confronting the Armenian Genocide, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 2003, p. 23–50. Bohjalian, Chris, “The Kernel that Led to the ‘Sandcastle Girls,’” The Armenian Weekly, special issue, April 2012, p. 9–10. Boulgourdjian-Toufeksian, Nélida, “La recordación del Genocidio Armenio en la etapa de entreguerras,” in Nélida Boulgourdjian-Toufeksian, Juan Carlos Toufeksian and Carlos Alemian (eds.), Los derechos humanos y la vida histórica, Buenos Aires: Centro Armenio, 2002, p. 39–54. Calzolari, Valentina, “1915 dans la littérature arménienne: Le Golgotha arménien de Grigoris Balakian,” in Hans-Lukas Kieser and Elmar Plozza (eds.), Der Völkermord an den Armeniern, die Türkei und Europa/The Armenian Genocide, Turkey, and Europe, Zurich: Chronos, 2006, p. 91–107. Calzolari, Valentina, “L’American Committee for Armenian and Syrian Relief et l’instrumentalisation du témoignage d’Aurora Mardiganian (1918–1919),” Relations internationales, 3, 2017, p. 17–30. Celikpala, Mitat, “Turkish Foreign Policy and Cross-Border Cooperation in the Southern Caucasus,” in Ayca Ergun and H. Isaxanli (eds.), Security and Cross-Border Cooperation in the EU, the Black Sea and the Southern Caucasus, Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2013, p. 119–36. Charny, Israel W., ‘“Holocaust’: The Word and Its Usage,” in Israel W. Charny (ed.), Encyclopedia of Genocide, vol. 1, Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, 1999, p. 40–6. “Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law,” The American Journal of International Law, 2, 2011, p. 333–76. Coquio, Catherine, “La littérature arménienne et la Catastrophe: actualité critique,” Revue d’Histoire de la Shoah, 177–8, 2003, p. 397–424. Corsun, Andrew, “Armenian Terrorism: A Profile,” Department of State Bulletin, August 1982, p. 31–5.

Bibliography

261

Dabag, Mihran, “Traditionelles Erinnern und historische Verantwortung,” in Kristin Platt and Mihran Dabag (eds.), Generation und Gedächtnis: Erinnerungen und kollektive Identitaten, Opladen: Leske and Budrich Opladen, 1995, p. 76–114. Dabag, Mihran, “Katastrophe und Identität: Verfolgung und Erinnerung in der armenischen Gemeinschaft,” in Hanno Loewy and Bernhard Moltmann (eds.), Erlebnis-Gedächtnis-Sinn: Autentische und konstruierte Erinnerung, Frankfurt and New York: Campus Verlag, 1996, p. 177–235. Dabag, Mihran, “Feiern des Gedenkens,” in Bernhard Scheneider and Richard Jochum (eds.), Erinnerungen an das Töten: Genozid reflexiv, Vienna, Cologne and Weimar: Böhlau, 1999, p. 41–52. Dabag, Mihran, “Der Genozid an den Armeniern im Osmanischen Reich,” in Volkhard Knigge and Norbert Frei (eds.), Verbrechen erinnern. Die Auseinandersetzung mit Holocaust und Völkermord, Munich: C. H. Beck, 2002, p. 33–56. Dabag, Mihran and Platt, Kristin, “Diaspora und die Kollektive Gedächtnis. Zur konstruktion kollektiver Identität in der Diaspora,” in Mihran Dabag and Kristin Platt (eds.), Identität in der Fremde, Bochum: Brockmeyer, 1993, p. 117–45. Dadrian, Vahakn N., “The Naim-Andonian Documents on the World War I Destruction of Ottoman Armenians: The Anatomy of a Genocide,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, August 1986, p. 311–60. Dadrian, Vahakn N., “The Circumstances Surrounding the 1909 Adana Holocaust,” Armenian Review, Winter 1988, p. 1–16. Dadrian, Vahakn N., “The Convergent Aspects of the Armenian and Jewish Cases of Genocide. A Reinterpretation of the Concept of Holocaust,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 2, 1988, p. 151–69. Dadrian, Vahakn N., “Genocide as a Problem of National and International Law: The World War I Armenian Case and Its Contemporary Legal Ramifications,” Yale Journal of International Law, 2, 1989, p. 221–334. Dadrian, Vahakn N., “The Role of the Special Organisation in the Armenian Genocide during the First World War,” in Panikos Panayi (ed.), Minorities in Wartime: National and Racial Groupings in Europe, North America and Australia during the Two World Wars, London: Berg, 1993, p. 50–82. Dadrian, Vahakn N., “The Secret Young-Turk Ittihadist Conference and the Decision for the World War I Genocide of the Armenians,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 2, 1993, p. 173–204. Dadrian, Vahakn N., “The Armenian Genocide: An Interpretation,” in Jay Winter (ed.), America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 52–100. Darieva, Tsypylma, “Bringing the Soil Back to the Homeland. Reconfigurations of Representation of Loss in Armenia,” Comparativ, 16, 2006, p. 87–101. Darieva, Tsypylma, ‘“The Road to Golgotha’: Representing Loss in Postsocialist Armenia,” Focaal-European Journal of Anthropology, 52, 2008, p. 92–108. Davutoğlu, Ahmet, “Turkish-Armenian Relations in the Process of De-Ottomanization or ‘Dehistoricization’: Is a ‘Just Memory’ Possible?,” translated by Robert Johnson, in Turkish Policy Quarterly, Spring 2014, p. 21–30. Deker, Nikolai K., “Genocide,” in Nikolai K. Deker and Andrei Lebed (eds.), Genocide in the USSR: Studies in Group Destruction, New York: Scarecrow Press, 1958, p. 1–2.

262

Bibliography

Der Matossian, Bedross, “Historiography of the Armenian Genocide: Developments, Impediments and Suggestions for the Future,” The Armenian Weekly/Aztag Daily, special issue, April 24, 2005, p. 29–30. Der Matossian, Bedross, “Looming Dangers. Turkey and Armenia: Opening Minds, Opening Borders: A Perilous Blueprint,” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, 18:1, 2009, p. 5–8. Der Matossian, Bedross, “Explaining the Unexplainable: Recent Trends in the Armenian Genocide Historiography,” Journal of Levantine Studies, Winter 2015, p. 143–66. De Waal, Thomas, “The G-Word: The Armenian Massacre and the Politics of Genocide,” Foreign Affairs, January–February 2015, p. 136–48. Dieng, Adama and Welsh, Jennifer, “Assessing the Risk of Atrocity Crimes,” Genocide Studies and Prevention, 3, 2016, p. 4–12. Doose, Katja, “Green Nationalism? The Transformation of Environmentalism in Soviet Armenia, 1969–1991,” Ab Imperio, 1, 2019, p. 181–205. Dudwick, Nora, “The Karabagh Movement: An Old Scenario Gets Rewritten,” Armenian Review, Autumn 1989, p. 63–70. Dudwick, Nora, “Armenia: Paradise Regained or Lost?,” in Ian Bremmer and Ray Taras (eds.), New States, New Policies: Building the Post-Soviet Nations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 471–504. Ekmekcioğlu, Lerna, “A Climate for Abduction, a Climate for Redemption: The Politics of Inclusion during and after the Armenian Genocide,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 3, 2013, p. 522–53. Encel, Frédéric, “Retour d’Arménie, retour de mémoire,” L’Arche, September 2004, p. 130–7. Engert, Stefan, “Turkey—Armenia: From Denial to Excuse?,” in Christopher Daase, Stefan Engert, Michel-André Horelt, Judith Renner and Renate Strasser (eds.), Apology and Reconciliation in International Relations: The Importance of Being Sorry, New York: Routledge, 2016, p. 218–36. Erbal, Ayda, “Mea Culpas, Negotiations, Apologias: Revisiting the ‘Apology’ of Turkish Intellectuals,” in Birgit Schwelling (ed.), Reconciliation, Civil Society, and the Politics of Memory: Transnational Initiatives in the 20th Century, Bielefeld: Transcript, 2012, p. 51–94. Erbal, Ayda, “Lost in Translation: The Monument’s Deconstruction,” in Alexis Demirdjian (ed.), The Armenian Genocide Legacy, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016, p. 212–26. Galshoyan, Mushegh, “Ayspes koč’vac nac’ionalizmi masin” (About So-Called Nationalism), Garun, 8, 1988, p. 41–7. Gelzer, H., “Zur armenischen Götterlehre,” Berichte der königlichen sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 48, 1896, p. 99–148. Giordano, Ralph, “Kleines Volk mit großem Erbe. Zur Geschichte der Armenier,” in Wilm Sanders (ed.), Armenien: Kleines Volk mit grossem Erbe, Hamburg: Katholische Akademie Hamburg, 1989, p. 9–38. Goekjian, Gregory F., “Diaspora and Denial: The Holocaust and the ‘Question’ of the Armenian Genocide,” Diaspora, 1, 1998, p. 3–24. Guroian, Vigen, “Armenian Genocide and Christian Existence,” Cross Currents, Fall 1991, p. 321–42. Hakobian, G., “Ałeti ev dimakayut’yan andradarjnerě arevmtahay noravipagrut’yan mej” (The Reflections of Catastrophe and Confrontation in Western Armenian Short Novel), Lraber hasarakakan gitutiunneri, 1, 1995, p. 148–57.

Bibliography

263

Hakobian, M., “Mayr Hayastani gałap’arě hay azatasirakan mtk’i olordnerum” (The Idea of Mother Armenia in the Realms of Armenian Freedom-Loving Thought), Echmiadzin, April 1985, p. 71–6. Hambardzumian, Viktor, “Ełeŗn ev veracnund” (Yeghern and Rebirth), Patma-banasirakan handes, 2, 1965, p. 41–54. Hambardzumian, Viktor, “Ełeŗn ev veracnund” (Yeghern and Rebirth), Teghekagir Haykakan SSR Gitutyunneri Akademiayi. Hasarakakan gitutyunner, 4, 1965, p. 23–36. Himka, John-Paul, “Encumbered Memory: The Ukrainian Famine of 1932–33,” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 2, 2013, p. 411–36. Hofmann, Tessa, “Մեծ եղեռն: Das ultimate Verbrechen,” Pogrom, 6, 2014, p. 46–51. Hovannisian, Richard G., “The Armenian Question, 1878–1923,” in Gerald J. Libaridian (ed.), The Crime of Silence, London: Zed Books, 1985, p. 11–36. Hovannisian, Richard G., “The Historical Dimensions of the Armenian Question, 1878–1923,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian Genocide in Perspective, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 1986, p. 19–42. Hovannisian, Richard G., “The Armenian Genocide: Wartime Radicalization or Premeditated Continuum?,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 2007, p. 3–17. Hovannisian, Richard G., “Denial of the Armenian Genocide 100 Years Later: The New Practitioners and Their Trade,” Genocide Studies International, Spring 2015, p. 228–47. Hur, Ayse, “I Apologize for Not Apologizing,” The Armenian Weekly, special issue, April 2009, p. 15–18. Iskahadian, Haroutune, “Testimonials from the Armenian Genocide,” Zartonk, April Special, 2013, p. 71–4. Kaiser, Hilmar, “The Baghdad Railway and the Armenian Genocide, 1915–1916: A Case Study in German Resistance and Complicity,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999, p. 67–112. Kalisky, Aurelia, “D’une catastrophe épistemologique ou la catastrophe genocidaire comme négation de la mémoire,” in Thomas Kinkert and Günther Oesterle (eds.), Katastrophe und Gedächtnis, Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2014, p. 19–74. Kazanjian, David, “(Re)flexion: Genocide in Ruins,” Discourse, Fall 2011, p. 367–89. Koçak, Konur Alp, “Superior President vs. Submissive Congress: Relations between Executive and Legislative in the US and Its Reflection on the ‘Armenian Genocide’ Bills,” Review of Armenian Studies, 27, 2013, p. 131–90. Kunth, Anouche, “La diaspora arménienne,” Études, 3, 2007, p. 321–33. Lemkin, Raphael, “Genocide—A Modern Crime,” Free World, April 1945, p. 39–43. Lemkin, Raphael, “Genocide,” American Scholar, April 1946, p. 227–30. Lemkin, Raphael, “Genocide as a Crime under International Law,” UN Bulletin, January 15, 1948, p. 70–1. Levene, Mark, “Genocidal Legacies of the Great War,” Current History, November 2014, p. 318–23. Levene, Mark, “From Armenian Red Sunday to Irish Easter Rising: Incorporating Insurrectionary Politics into the History of the Great War’s Genocidal Turn, 1915– 1916,” Studi irlandesi. A Journal of Irish Studies, n. 8, 2018, p. 109–34. Löwenheim, Nava, “Turkey’s Dual Problem: Between Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora,” in Dan Miodownik and Oren Barak (eds.), Nonstate Actors in Intrastate Conflicts, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014, p. 106–39.

264

Bibliography

Lütem, Ömer Engin, “Facts and Comments,” Review of Armenian Studies, 7–8, 2005, p. 5–49. Lütem, Ömer Engin, “Facts and Comments,” Review of Armenian Studies, 10, 2006, p. 7–48. Maksudyan, Nazan, “Walls of Silence: Translating the Armenian Genocide into Turkish and Self-Censorship,” Critique, November 2009, p. 635–49. Mamigonian, Marc, “A Commentary on the Turkish ‘I Apologize’ Campaign,” The Armenian Weekly, special issue, April 25, 2009, p. 19–24. Mamigonian, Marc A., “Academic Denial of the Armenian Genocide in American Scholarship: Denialism as Manufactured Controversy,” Genocide Studies International, Spring 2015, p. 61–82. Mandalian, James G., “The Armenian Side (An Answer to Miss Temel),” The Armenian Review, Spring 1949, p. 51–61. Marutyan, Harutyun, “Iconography of the Gharabagh Movement: An Index of the Transformation of Armenian Identity,” Armenian Forum, 4, 2003, p. 39–56. Marutyan, Harutyun, “C’ełaspanut’yan hišołut’yuně orpes nor ink’nut’yan jevavorič’ (1980 t’vakanneri verĵ—1990 t’vakanneri skizb)” (The Memory of the Genocide as Former of New Identity: Late 1980s—Early 1990s), Patma-banasirakan handes, 1, 2005, p. 55–66. Marutyan, Harutyun, “Trauma and Identity: On Structural Particularities of Armenian Genocide and Jewish Holocaust,” International Journal of Armenian Genocide Studies, 1, 2015, p. 53–69. Matosyan, Tigran, “Comparative Aspects of the Armenian and Jewish Cases of Genocide,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 2007, p. 291–302. Mazower, Mark, “The G-Word,” London Review of Books, February 8, 2001, p. 19–21. Meneshian, Murad A., “Rural Sebastia: The Village of Govdun,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian Sebastia/Sivas and Lesser Armenia, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2004, p. 329–56. Mildonian, Paola, “Autori e traduttori e Mechitaristi,” in Boghos Levon Zekiyan and Aldo Ferrari (eds.), Gli Armeni e Venezia. Dagli Sceriman a Mechitar: il momento culminante di una consuetudine millenaria, Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2004, p. 239–68. Minassian, Gaïdz F., “Les relations entre le Comité Union et Progrès et la Fédération Révolutionnaire Arménienne à la veille de la Première Guerre Mondiale d’après les sources arméniennes,” Revue d’histoire arménienne contemporaine, vol. 1, 1995, p. 45–99. Minassian, Gaïdz, “Le dialogue arméno-turc,” Revue internationale et stratégique, 3, 2009, p. 47–58. Mkhitarian, M. H., “Č’ex žołovrdi azatagrakan payk’ari artac’olumě hay mamuli ēĵerum” (The Reflection of the Liberation Struggle of the Czech People in the Pages of the Armenian Press), Lraber hasarakakan gitutyunneri, 9, 1966, p. 99–103. Moses, A. Dirk, “Empire, Colony, Genocide: Keywords and the Philosophy of History,” in A. Dirk Moses (ed.), Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History, Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2008, p. 3–54. Mouradian, Claire, “Problèmes linguistiques et culturels en Arménie depuis Stalin: resistance nationale ou intégration soviétique?,” Slovo, 5, 1983, p. 111–38. Mouradian, Claire, “La mémoire en République d’Arménie: Les contraintes de la politique,” in L’actualité du génocide des Arméniens, Creteil: Edipol, 1999, p. 269–305.

Bibliography

265

Mouradian, Khatchig, “Explaining the Unexplainable: The Terminology Employed by the Armenian Media when Referring to 1915,” The Armenian Weekly, September 23, 2006. Mouradian, Khatchig, “From Yeghern to Genocide: Armenian Newspapers, Raphael Lemkin, and the Road to the UN Genocide Convention,” Haigazian Armenological Review, 29, 2009, p. 127–37. Mouradian, Khatchig, “The Meskeneh Concentration Camp, 1915–1917: A Case Study of Power, Collaboration, and Humanitarian Resistance during the Armenian Genocide,” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, 24, 2015, p. 37–47. Muradian, Marlena, “Baŗeri kaŗuc’vack’ayin tarrerě patmakan k’erakanut’yan hayec’aketic’” (The Structural Elements of Words from the Point of View of Historical Grammar), Lraber hasarakakan gitutyunneri, 2, 1973, p. 33–42. Nash-Marshall, Siobhan F., “Genocide,” in Robert L. Fastiggi (ed.), New Catholic Encyclopedia, supplement 2009, Detroit: Gale/Cengage Learning, 2010, p. 351–5. Nash-Marshall, Siobhan and Mahdessian, Rita, “Lies, Damned Lies, and Genocide,” Metaphilosophy, 1–2, 2013, p. 116–44. Nersisian, M., “Hay žołovrdi patmut’yun (1900-1917)” (History of the Armenian People: 1900–1917), Teghekagir Haykakan SSR Gitutyunneri Akademiayi. Hasarakakan gitutyunner, 5, 1955, p. 3–64. Neyzi, Leyla, “’Wish They Hadn’t Left’: The Burden of Armenian Memory in Turkey,” in Leyla Neyzi and Hranush Kharatyan-Araqelyan, Speaking to One Another: Personal Memories of the Past in Armenia and Turkey, Bonn: DVV International, 2010, p. 13–74. Nichanian, Marc, “Hagop Ochagan tel qu’en lui-même,” in Agopik Manoukian (ed.), Dissonanze, 1, 1984, p. 67–88. Nichanian, Marc, “The Style of Violence,” translated by Garth Cavanaugh, Armenian Review, Spring 1985, p. 1–26. Nichanian, Marc, “Identität und Katastrophe in der Sprache,” in Mihran Dabag and Kristin Platt (eds.), Identität in der Fremde, Bochum: Brockmeyer, 1993, p. 184–91. Nichanian, Marc, “The Truth of the Facts: About the New Revisionism,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999, p. 249–70. Nichanian, Marc, “Testimony: From Document to Monument,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 2007, p. 41–64. Nixey, James, “The South Caucasus: Drama on Three Stages,” in Robin Niblett (ed.), America and a Changed World: A Question of Leadership, London: Wiley, 2010, p. 126–42. Oshagan, Vahé, “The Self-Image of Western Armenians in Modern Literature,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian Image in History and Literature, Malibu, CA: Undena Publications, 1982, p. 201–20. Oshagan, Vahé, “The Theme of the Armenian Genocide in Diaspora Prose,” Armenian Review, Spring 1985, p. 51–60. Oshagan, Vahé, “The Image of the Turk in Modern Armenian Literature,” in Genocide and Human Rights, Belmont: Armenian Heritage Press, 1992, p. 199–210. Papazian, Dennis R., “Misplaced Credulity: Contemporary Turkish Attempts to Refute the Armenian Genocide,” Armenian Review, 1–2, 1992, p. 185–213. Payaslian, Simon, “The Death of Armenian Karin/Erzerum,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian Karin/Erzerum, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2003, p. 339–64.

266

Bibliography

Payaslian, Simon, “The United States Response to the Armenian Genocide,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Looking Backward, Moving Forward: Confronting the Armenian Genocide, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 2003, p. 51–80. Payaslian, Simon, “The Armenian Resistance at Shabin-Karahisar, 1915,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian Sebastia/Sivas and Lesser Armenia, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2004, p. 399–426. Payaslian, Simon, “The Fate of the Armenians in Trebizonda, 1915,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian Pontus, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2009, p. 271–302. Payaslian, Simon, “The End of the Armenian Communities of Asia Minor,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian Communities of Asia Minor, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2014, p. 271–310. Peroomian, Rubina, “New Directions in Literary Responses to the Armenian Genocide,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Looking Backwards, Moving Forward: Confronting the Armenian Genocide, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2003, p. 157–80. Peroomian, Rubina, “Historical Memory: Threading the Contemporary Literature of Armenia,” Armenian Weekly and Aztag Daily, special issue, April 24, 2005, p. 38–40. Peroomian, Rubina, “Historical Memory: Threading the Contemporary Literature of Armenia,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 2007, p. 97–120. Peroomian, Rubina, “The Tears and Laughters of Cilician Armenia: Literary Representations of Destruction and Revival, 1909–1918,” in Richard G. Hovannisian and Simon Payaslian (eds.), Armenian Cilicia, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2008, p. 391–417. Peroomian, Rubina, “The Memory of Genocide in Soviet Armenian Literature,” Banber Matenadarani, 21, 2015, p. 233–47. “Remnants of the Turkish Genocide,” The Armenian Review, Winter 1949–50, p. 49–52. Russell, James R., “The Bells: From Poe to Sardarapat,” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, 21, 2012, p. 127–68. Sassounian, Harut, “Genocide Recognition and a Quest for Justice,” Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 115, 2010, p. 115–22. Sassounian, Harut, “Genocide Recognition and Quest for Justice,” The Armenian Weekly/ Hairenik Weekly, special issue, April 2011, p. 37–8. Schabas, William A., “‘These New Crimes of Turkey against Humanity and Civilization …,’” in Aram Harutyunyan (ed.), The Crime of Genocide: Prevention, Condemnation and Elimination of Consequences, Yerevan: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia, 2011, p. 41–50. Schaefgen, Annette, “Von der treuen millet zum Sündenbock oder Die Legende vom armenische Dolschtoß,” in Wolfgang Benz (ed.), Vorurteil und Genozid: Ideologische Prämische der Völkermords, Vienna, Cologne and Weimar: Böhlau, 2010, p. 36–59. Schwelb, Egon, “Crimes against Humanity,” British Yearbook of International Law, 23, 1946, p. 178–226. Shalunts, R. N., “Verĵin tarineri hasarakakan-k’ałak’akan verap’oxumnerě ev norabanut’yunnerě grakan hayerenum” (The Socio-Political Transformations and the Neologisms of Last Years in Literary Armenian), Lraber hasarakakan gitutyunneri, 2, 1993, p. 76–83. Somel, Selçuk Akşin, Neumann, Christoph K., and Singer, Amy, “Introduction: ReSounding Silent Voices,” in Amy Singer, Christoph K. Neumann, and Selçuk Akşin Somel (eds.), Untold Histories of the Middle East: Recovering Voices from the 19th and 20th Centuries, Oxford and New York: Routledge, 2011, p. 1–22.

Bibliography

267

Suvari, Çakir Ceyhan, “The Effect of Religious Identity on the Construction of Otherness: Perception of Armenian Identity in the Turkish Education System,” in History Lessons of the 20th Century: “Our Neighbours” and “Us” (Turkey and the South Caucasus), Tbilisi: Heinrich Boell Foundation, 2011, p. 94–117. Svazlyan, Verginé, “The Adana Massacre and the People’s Historical Memory,” Journal of Genocide Studies, 1, 2014, p. 148–54. Tachjian, Vahé, “Building the ‘Model Ottoman Citizen’: Life and Death in the Region of Mamüretülaziz (1908–1915),” in Hans-Lukas Kieser, Kerem Öktem, and Maurus Reinkowski (eds.), World War I and the End of the Ottomans: From the Balkan Wars to the Turkish Republic, London: I.B. Tauris, 2015, p. 214–42. Tashian, Peniamin, “Mayrineru şuk’in tak (grakan zruyc’ Y. Oşakani het)” (Under the Shade of Cedars: Literary Conversation with H. Oshagan), Hairenik monthly, March 1932, p. 125–39. Ter-Grigorian, M. G., “AMN-i hay hamaynk’ě erkri k’ałak’akan kyank’um (1980-akan t’vakanner)” (The Armenian Community of the U.S.A. in the Political Life of the Country in the 1980s), Lraber hasarakakan gitutiunneri, 3, 1990, p. 16–23. Ter Minassian, Anahïde, “Histoire contemporaine et mémoire du peuple arménien: leur rôle dans la formation de la conscience nationale et des options politiques de la Diaspora,” in Marc Nichanian and Remo Pomponio (eds.), La struttura negata: cultura armena nella Diaspora, Milano: ICOM, 1979, p. 37–41. Ter Minassian, Anahide, “La diaspora arménienne,” Espace géographique, 2, 1994, p. 115–28. Ter Minassian, Anahide, “Mouch 1915 selon Alma Johansson,” Haigazian Armenological Review, 15, 1995, p. 57–86. Ter Minassian, Anahide, “Une example, Mouch 1915,” in L’actualité du génocide des Arméniens, Creteil: Edipol, 1999, p. 231–52. Ter Minassian, Anahide, “Les arméniens au 20e siècle,” Vingtième Siècle, July–September 2000, p. 135–50. Ternon, Yves, “Arméniens et Juifs: pour le dialogue et la reconnaissance mutuelle,” L’Arche, August–September 2003, p. 64–74. Terzian, Aram, “1915: The Darkest Year,” Armenian Review, Summer 1975, p. 158–65. Torossian, Sarkis V., “The Armenian Gregorian Church,” in Nikolai K. Deker and Andrei Lebed (eds.), Genocide in the USSR: Studies in Group Destruction, New York: Scarecrow Press, 1958, p. 155–9. Troebst, Stefan, “Europäisierung der Vertreibungserinnerung? Eine deutsch-polnische Chronique scandaleuse 2002–2008,” in Martin Aust, Krzysztof Ruchnewicz, and Stefan Troebst (eds.), Verflochtene Erinnerungen: Polen und seine Nachbarn im 19. und 20. Jahrundert, Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 2009, p. 245–74. Vardanian, H. G., “Mec Ełeŗni patmut’yan ēĵeric’” (From the Pages of the History of the Medz Yeghern), Teghekagir Haykakan SSR Gitutyunneri Akademiayi. Hasarakakan gitutyunner, 4, 1965, p. 51–60. Varjabedian, Hrag, “Historicization of the Armenian Catastrophe: From the Genocide to the Mythical,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies, New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 2007, p. 143–76. Walker, Christopher, “The End of Armenian Taron and Baghesh, 1914–1916,” in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian Baghesh/Bitlis and Taron/Mush, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2001, p. 191–206. Wasserstein, Bernard, “Their Own Fault—Attempts to Shift the Blame for the Holocaust,” Times Literary Supplement, January 7, 1994, p. 4–5.

268

Bibliography

Zekiyan, Boghos Levon, “Reflections on Genocide. The Armenian Case: Radical Negativity and Polivalent [sic] Dynamics,” Annali di Ca’ Foscari, 3, 1998, p. 223–42. Zekiyan, Boghos Levon, “La formazione e gli sviluppi tra gli armeni di correnti ecclesiali simpatizzanti per la comunione romana: Spunti per una rilettura delle dinamiche storiche,” in Vincenzo Ruggieri and Luca Pieralli (eds.), Eukosmia: studi miscellanei per il 75o di Vincenzo Poggi S.J., Catanzaro: Rubbettino, 2003, p. 643–64. Zekiyan, Boğos Levon, “Tehcir ve soykırım: Bağdaşmaz görünümden tamamlayıcı işleve. Büyük Ermeni Felâketi, ‘Medz Yeğern’ üzerine antropoljik ve felsefi-hukuki görüş açısından düşünceler,” in Şafak Ural and Feridun Emecan (eds.), Türk-Ermeni ilişkilerinde yeni yaklaşımlar. The New Approaches to Turkish-Armenian Relations, Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Basım ve Yayincilik, 2008, p. 807–39. Zekiyan, Boghos Levon, “Armenian-Turkish Relations in the Framework of Armenian and Turkish Scholarships,” Iran and the Caucasus, 14, 2010, p. 367–85. Zekiyan, Boghos Levon, “Expulsion (tehcir) and Genocide (soykırım): From Ostensible Irreconcilability to Complementarity. Thoughts on Metz Yegheŗn, the Great Armenian Catastrophe,” Annali di Ca’Foscari, 50, supplemento, 2014, p. 259–301.

Index Abdul Hamid II 3, 10, 30, 31, 32, 35, 82, 189–90 act of God 12, 99, 120 Adana, 13, 36–8, 178, 189 — massacres, 3, 13, 35–6, 39, 48, 82 agency 6, 11, 13–14, 16, 20, 97, 99–101, 137 Aghed, Medz Aghed 2, 11–12, 85, 136, 168 Great Catastrophe (Catastrophe) 2, 9, 41, 168 Aharonian, Avetis 43 Aintablian, Piuzant 66 aksor 10 Alderman, Sidney 58 Ananikian, Mardiros 56 Anholm, Maria 189 Antreasian, Kalusd 35 apology campaign 15–6, 97, 103, 114, 117, 137, 228 Aktar, Cengiz 98–9, 103, 211 Bayramoglu, Ali 98 İnsel, Ahmet 98, 211 Oran, Baskın 97–9 Arendt, Hannah 48, 123–4 Argentina 65, 93, 154, 156 Armenakan Organization 31 Armenia 1–2, 10, 28, 42, 51, 63, 66, 124, 153, 155 Eastern — 43 first independence of— 5–6, 43, 63 Mother — 15, 170 Republic of — 8, 15, 49, 82–4, 90–4, 96, 98–9, 101–2, 111, 114, 118–19, 127–9, 132, 147, 149, 153–4, 156–60, 212 Soviet — 11, 49, 62–4, 67–8, 70–1, 77, 79–82, 168, 196 Western — 5, 43, 67, 69, 153, 158–9 Armenian-Americans 33, 53, 92, 99, 105, 108, 110, 118–19, 123, 133–4, 185

Armenian Assembly of America 106, 109–10, 121, 132 Ardouny, Brian 132 Hovnanian, Hirair 110, 116 Krikorian, Van 223 Armenian Democratic Constitutional Party 41, 44 Tchobanian, Archag 42 Tekeyan, Vahan 34 Armenian Democratic League (ADL) 49, 53–54, 59, 61, 64–5, 73 Aharonian, Kersam 73 Azadian, Edmond 93, 132, 143, 219 Armenian genocide (genocide of the Armenians) 9, 12, 61, 67, 71, 76–80, 82–5, 89–90, 105, 107, 112, 114, 121, 125, 129, 134, 136–7, 147–8, 151, 153–60, 168, 184, 191 Armenian Genocide 2, 11, 14, 16, 72, 76, 78, 82–3, 85, 92, 94, 99, 105–6, 108, 110–13, 115–16, 118–21, 123, 125, 127–9, 131–5, 137, 142, 143–4, 148, 151–60, 167, 199, 201, 205, 222, 227–8 Armenian Holocaust (holocaust) 75 Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute (AGMI) 83, 119, 199 Demoyan, Hayk 83 Marutyan, Harutyun 81, 143, 145 Armenian language 10–1, 16, 34, 52, 78, 81, 95, 97, 116–17, 120–1, 128–9, 130, 133, 135 Classical — 10, 19–23, 25–8, 51–2, 59, 146, 148, 170, 173 Modern — 10, 12, 21, 23, 26–8, 52, 59, 170 Armenian National Committee 112–3, 125, 218 Ehramdjian, Vagharch 113 Sanikian, Richard 218

270 Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) 92, 107, 110–11, 116–17, 121, 222 Boyadjian, Seto 110 Hachikian, Ken 116, 120–1, 222 Hamparian, Aram 92, 102 Armenian National Congress 129 Karapetian, Vladimir 129 Armenian National Council 59, 61–2 Armenian National Institute (ANI) 92, 236 Armenian presidents 83–4 Kocharian, Robert 83, 204 Sargsyan, Serzh 84, 93–4, 102, 105, 125, 129, 204 Armenian Progressive League 53, 59, 64 Armenian Question 6, 32 Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF, Dashnaktsutiun) 1, 3, 7, 11, 31–2, 38, 41, 44, 47, 53–4, 56–61, 63, 65–7, 75, 83, 113, 120, 147, 189 Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) 77 Armenian tragedy 44, 144, 183, 199 Armenocide 56, 76 Arslanian, Kevork 37 Asia Minor (Anatolia) 38, 48–9, 102, 107, 138, 157 Astourian, Stephan 168 Atamian, Sarkis 67 atrocity crime (mass atrocity, mass atrocity crime, atrocity) 130–2 Australia 14, 148, 152–4, 160 Wilson, Tim 14 Austria-Hungary 3, 42 Ayaş 41, 48 Ayvazian, Antranig 94 Azerbaijan 48, 80–1, 83, 114 azkasbanutiun 64, 65, 72, 136, 150, 193–5 Babikian, Hagop 37–9, 48 Baku, 80 — pogrom 82 Balfour, Arthur 42 Baronian, Hagop 28 Bartevian, Suren 36, 144 Bedrosian, Peniamin 46 Beirut 15, 54, 60, 71–3, 147 Belgium 42, 47, 152–3

Index Berberian, Reteos 26 bilingual and multilingual dictionaries 23, 29–30, 55–6, 100, 126–7, 137, 148 Apigian, Mihran 30 Aramian, Djanik 25 Avkerian, Harutiun 23–5 Awde, Nicholas 127 Baghdasarian, Louisa 126 Baratyan, N. 127 Barlezizian, Aram 127 Basmadjian, Karapet 29, 175 Bozajian, Hagopos 25 Chahinian, Krikor 126 Chakejian, Yeprem 25 Chakhchakhian, Manuel 23, 25 Chakmakjian, Hovhannes 51, 56, 126 Chamchian, Pilibbos 24–5 Chilingaryan, D. 127 Daghbashian, Harutiun 30 Davidian, Vazken-Khatchig 127 Değirmenciyan, Mayranuş 127 Demirjibashian, Yeghia 29 Eminian, Srabion 24 Froundjian, Dirair 56 Garabedian, Bedros Zeki 30 Gasparian, Samvel 127 Ghazarian, R. S. 100 Goilaw, Avedik 30 Grigoryan, Kh. 127 Hovhannesian, Mihran 29 Kaciuni, Manuel 29 Karaça, Birsen 100 Khantrouni, Dicran 126 Kogian, S.L. 126 Kondakjian, Katarine 100 Koushakdjian, Mardiros 126 Kouyoumdjian, Mesrob 56, 62, 126 Lusignan, Guy de 24, 29, 175 Mesrob, Philip 127 Néandre de Byzance 25 Nubarian, M. 29 Ohanian, Vahan 127 Papazian, Z.D.S. 30 Samuelian, Thomas 126 Seferian, Sona 127 Somalian, Sukias 23–5 Tekeyan, Pascual 126 Villotte, Jacques 21–2 Voskian, Gomidas 29

Index Yaghubian (Yacoubian), Adour 56, 100, 126 Yeran, I.A. 30 Yerznkyan, Y. 127 Zorc, David 126 Borel, Robert 58 Borovik, Henrikh 81 Bossuet 26 Bulgaria 127, 147, 151, 153–4, 156, 160 calamity 2, 12–3, 16, 19–20, 52, 55, 74, 98, 100, 118–19, 126–7, 136, 148, 160, 170 Canada 112, 151, 153–6, 158–9 Ford, Doug 113 Harper, Stephen 97, 112–13 Scheer, Andrew 113 Uppal, Tim 113 Çankırı 41, 43, 181 Cardashian, Vahan 52 Carthage 19, 57, 59–60 Carzou, Jean–Marie 8 catastrophe 2, 3, 16, 20, 25–7, 29, 38–9, 52, 55, 74, 81, 83, 94–5, 99–100, 114, 126, 135–6, 160 Catholicos of All Armenians 3, 53, 72, 89 Gevorg V 3–4, 163 Karekin I 89 Karekin II 89, 91, 93–4, 96 Khoren I 53 Vazken I 72–3, 80, 89 Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia 72, 77, 89 Aram I 89, 93 Karekin II 77 Khoren I 72–3, 105 cause and consequence 12, 52, 99, 119, 144 cause and effect 12–3 Cecil, Robert 42 chart 10, 41, 55, 74, 99 Charte 167 jermag — 81 Cholakides, Dimitrios 34 Churchill, Winston 124, 178 Cicero, Marcus 23 Cilicia 11, 13, 35–7, 178, 187 collective memory 6, 101, 135, 157 commentators 9, 45, 49, 53–4, 56, 62, 66, 75, 97, 99, 102, 111, 120, 125, 132, 148, 154, 185, 193, 220

271

Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) 2–3, 5–6, 8, 35–8, 39–42, 44–5, 48, 57 Cemal, Ahmed 38, 40, 47, 184 Enver, Ismail 3–4, 40, 46–7, 184 Fikri, Ihsan 36 Halim, Said 4, 27 Kut, Halil 5, 164 Nazım 184 Şakir, Behaeddin 184 Şukri Bey 43 Talat, Mehmet 3–4, 11, 27, 40–2, 45, 47–8, 62, 147–8, 184, 189 Tanrıöver, Hamdullah Suphi 59–60 Constantinople (Istanbul) 1, 5, 31–2, 36, 40–1, 43–4, 46, 48–9, 53, 56, 65, 67, 78, 116, 138, 148, 187 contemporary scholars on genocide and Medz Yeghern 16, 83, 91, 141, 144–5 Akcam, Taner 141 Arkun, Aram 141–2 Arslan, Antonia 91 Bardakdjian, Mireille 143 Beledian, Krikor 141–2, 144 Boghossian, Roupen 144 Calzolari, Valentina 146 Chahinian, Talar 143 Chakmakjian, Hagop 142 Chalabian, Antranig 141–4 Chrakian, Elisha 144 Coquio, Catherine 141 Dabag, Mihran 144–5 Dadoyan, Seta 184 Dadrian, Vahakn 141–3 Der Matossian, Bedross 141–2 Donabedian, Anaid 144 Dudwick, Nora 81, 228 Ferrari, Aldo 145 Gregorian, Vartan 132 Harutyunyan, Arus 142 Hovannisian, Richard 9, 75, 141–2, 145 Jebejian, Robert 143 Kaiser, Hilmar 142 Karakashian, Meline 145 Kévorkian, Raymond 141–2 Krikorian, Mesrob 141–2 Kuyumjian, Rita Sulahian 142 Mahé, Jean-Pierre 234 Matosyan, Tigran 141 Meneshian, Murad 141

272 Messerlian, Zaven 142–3 Minassian, Gaïdz 142, 145 Mouradian, Claire 145 Mouradian, Khatchig 98, 143, 145 Mutafian, Claude 91, 128 Nash-Marshall, Siobhan 145 Nassibian, Akaby 142 Nichanian, Marc 2, 12, 135, 143–4, 228, 236 Ohanian, Pascual 142 Oshagan, Vahe 141–2, 144 Papazian, Dennis 119, 127–8 Payaslian, Simon 142–3 Peroomian, Rubina 83, 141, 143, 145 Robertson, Geoffrey 145 Svajian, Stephen 142 Svazlian, Verzhine (Svazlyan) 141–3 Tachjian, Vahé 142 Ter Minassian, Anahide 143–4 Ternon, Yves 142, 145 Thorossian, H. 141 Üngor, Umit 141 Varjabedian, Hrag 145 Vartan, Levon 143 Walker, Christopher 142 Zekiyan, Boghos Levon 91, 96–7, 145 Cossi, Paolo 138 Council of the Armenian Community of Rome 93, 128 Attarian, Robert 93 crime 1–2, 4, 5–7, 9–12, 16, 19–49, 51–7, 59–62, 64–70, 72–5, 78, 82, 89, 91–2, 99, 101–2, 110, 119–120, 126, 130, 135–6, 139, 141–9, 155, 161, 164, 173, 175–6, 178, 180, 182, 185–7, 193, 226 — against humanity 2, 16, 60, 82, 92, 101, 109–10, 112, 123, 131, 211 foundational — 6 genocidal — 71, 73, 142 heinous — 11, 28, 33–4, 37–8, 41–6, 49, 52–3, 64, 101, 127, 136, 138, 175–6, 182, 229 neologisms 187 — site 40–1, 47, 180; criminal court 11, 32, 35, 41 Cushing, Richard 74 Cyprus 148, 151, 154

Index Damadian, Mihran 42 Davidson, Randall 42 Delcassé, Théophile 3–4 denial 2, 7, 9, 14–5, 82, 95, 97–8, 102–3, 106, 110–11, 119, 129, 136, 138, 161, 165, 214, 228–9 interpretive — 12, 14–5, 137 literal — 6 denialism 9, 103, 165 Der Sarkisian, Sahag 34 Der Yeghiayan, Zaven 5 Derbabian, Kevork 65 Derounian, Avedis 142 Dersim massacre 213 Diaspora 7, 11, 49, 51, 62, 68, 72, 77, 80–1, 84–5, 96, 98–9, 102, 115, 119, 128, 197, 212 Dictionaries 21–6, 28–30, 47, 51–2, 55–6, 62, 66, 74–5, 91, 100, 126–7, 129, 132, 137, 148, 175–6, 187, 193 Dictionary of Classical Armenian Language (Haigazian) 21, 24–5 New Dictionary of Classical Armenian Language (New Haigazian) 22, 24–5, 136, 234 Portable Dictionary of Classical Armenian 23–4 Disaster 2, 12, 13, 16, 19, 25, 42, 80, 91, 95–6, 97, 99–100, 141, 144–5, 170, 181 Dunn, William 42 Egypt 147, 149, 153 Eichmann, Adolf 72, 123–4 Erznkian, Aramayis 68 European Court of Human Rights 129–30 Albuquerque, Paulo Pinto de 129 Raimondi, Guido 129 Sajo, Andras 129 Vučinić, Nebojša 129 evil 1, 8, 10, 12–3, 19–27, 29, 32, 38, 52, 55, 91, 93, 100, 126, 136, 145–6, 148, 170–1, 173, 211 Florian, Jean Pierre Claris de 26 force majeure See act of God France 3, 14, 42, 49, 57–8, 65, 78, 84, 149–51, 153–7, 159–60

Index Frayssinous, Dionysius 26 Freedom and Accord Party 39 Ferid, Damad 5 Kemal, Ali 47 Galstanian, Bagrat 112 Gamsaragan, Dikran 41 Garabed, C. K. 120, 123 Gelzer, Heinrich 28 Genocide Convention 15, 56, 60–2, 64, 67–8, 117, 123, 125, 131, 164 genocide memorials 15–6, 69, 71, 79, 81–2, 90, 93, 95, 105, 137–8, 147–9, 151–4, 158–60, 197–8, 203; list of —, 149–153, 155–160; Aix-en-Provence 150 Albuquerque (New Mexico) 150 Aleppo 44, 46–47, 57, 66, 148, 152 Alexandria 147, 149 Alfortville 150 Antelias 147 Antoura 157 Arles 157 Arnouville-les-Gonesse 155 Arnouville-sur-Gonesse 150 Avignon 151 Azatavan 156 Bayside (Maine) 155 Berlin 48, 152 Bikfaya 149, 155 Binghamton (New York) 155 Boise (Idaho) 156 Boston (Massachusetts) 33, 59, 61, 74, 107, 157 Bremen 154, 156 Brunswick 154, 156 Brussels 152 Bucharest 155 Budapest 153 Buenos Aires 15, 123, 147–9 Burgas 157 Cannes 151 Caracas 155 Cardiff 156 Charenton-le-Pont, 153 Charvieu 151 Cologne 159 Damascus 152

273 Darpas (Lori) 154, 159 Ddmashen (Gegharkunik) 154, 159 Décines 149 Denver (Colorado) 150 Detroit (Michigan) 150 Dikran Varjabedian on — 147 Dublin 158 Emerson (New Jersey) 149 Évreux 160 Fort Lauderdale (Florida) 156 Fresno (California) 137, 147, 158, 218, 236 Gardanne 156 Ghukasavan 159 Glendale (California) 153 Grenoble 153 Hackensack (New Jersey) 152 Halle 154, 159 Holy Echmiadzin 147, 149 Isfahan 149 Kashatagh 159 Kolkata 51, 149 La Tour d’Aigues 157 Larnaca 154, 157 Las Vegas (Nevada) 158 Laval 158 Leer 159 London 149 Lowell (Massachusetts) 157 Lusignan 158 Marseilles 74, 84, 149–150, 158, 195 Martigues 159 Mechelen 159 Meyzieu 153 Mission Hills (California) 154 Montebello (California) 149, 237 Montevideo 150 Montpellier 151 Montreal 156 Nicosia 147–8, 151 North Andover (Massachusetts) 152, 236 Ottawa 155 Padua 156–7 Paris 158 Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) 63, 152 Phoenix (Arizona) 150 Piteşti 154, 158

274

Index

Plovdiv 147 Providence (Rhode Island) 153 Rasht 159 Ridgefield (New Jersey) 152 Rome 156 Rosario 156 Ruse 151 Saint Etienne 151 San Francisco (California) 153 Santa Ana (California) 152 Sarcelles 156 Sevran 153 Shnogh 157 Southfield (Michigan) 151 Springfield 155 St. Catherines 159 St. Martin d’Hérès 156 St. Maurice-des-Beynost 160 Stuttgart 54, 95, 151 Sydney 148, 152, 160 Tehran 149 Toronto 151 Toulon 150 Troy (New York) 158 Troyes 159 Twin Falls (Idaho) 158 Valence 151 Vanadzor 157 Varna 31, 156 Verin Karmiraghbiur 158 Vienne 150 Vitrolles 151 Watertown (Massachusetts) 150 Watervliet (New York) 153 Yerevan 5, 15, 47, 68, 71, 80–1, 83, 94, 125, 147, 149, 155, 160, 184 Germany 3, 42, 61, 65–6, 72, 75, 89, 94, 151, 153–4, 156, 159–60 Gauck, Joachim 130 Giordano, Ralph 95 Girardin, Émile du 27 godoradz (kodoradz) 10, 38, 41, 55, 65, 69, 74 Grey, Edward 3–4 Guizot, M. F. 34 Guttman, Josef 61 Hakobian, Grigor 83 Hambardzumian, Victor 198 Hatsuni, Vartan 35

hayasbanutiun 56, 76, 131 Hayots/Haygagan Tseghasbanutiun 11, 128–9, 137, 202, 206 Hilberg, Raul 72 Hollande, François 103 Holocaust See Shoah Holodomor 137–8, 168 Hungary 153, 160 Ignatius Bedros XVI Batanian 89, 206 International Court of Justice 62, 106, 112 Iran 67, 85, 114, 154, 159 Iraq 60, 62, 114 Ireland 154, 158 Israel 72, 123 Italy 3, 92–3, 127, 156–7 John Chrysostom 21 just memory 16, 100–2 Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide 77 Kaempffert, Waldemar 59 Kalashian, Sashur 198 Kalemkearian, Knel 40 Kaloosdian, Robert 92 Kamshalov, Alexander 71 Karabagh (Gharabagh) 68, 81, 84–5, 114 — movement 79–80, 85, 136, 203 Kazakhstan 62 Kemal, Mehmet 46 Kevorkian, Garo 73 Khachadourian, Hrant 51 Khachatourian, Ara 129 Khalatyan, Gegham 128 Khosrovian, Hemayak 48 Kloian, Richard D. 76 Knights and Daughters of Vartan 128 Koçak, Konur Alp 117 Koptaş, Robert 100 Kyprianou, Spyros 7 Lafaye, Pierre Benjamin de 34 Lebanon 11–12, 14, 66, 77–9, 85, 147, 149, 153–5, 157 Leo 1 Lemkin, Raphael 15, 57–63, 75, 82, 97, 110, 117, 119, 131–3, 138, 149, 190–3, 227

Index lexicographer 21, 23, 28, 51–2, 62 Littré, Émile 34 Lossow, Otto von 5 Macaulay, Thomas 51 Malezian, Vahan 34 Mamigonian, Marc 93 Mandalian, James G. 61 Manoogian, Torkom 202 Margarian, Tatoul 84 Medz Yeghern (Yeghern, Abrilean Yeghern), 1–2, 9–12, 15–6, 19, 27, 35, 38, 40, 43, 45–7, 53–5, 64–5, 67, 69–79, 81–5, 90–1, 95–6, 101–3, 125–6, 128–9, 134–8, 144, 147, 168, 179, 181, 185, 199, 203–6, 214, 221–2, 226, 229, 233–4; memorial of the—, 71, 90 Aprilian Massacres 147 Büyük Felâket 16, 95–103, 137, 202 crime of crimes 138 Genocide, 235 Grand Forfait 144 Great Atrocity 72, 105, 129, 142–3, 184 Great Calamity, 16, 95, 97, 126, 132–3, 137, 142, 144–5, 179, 208, 212–3, 217–8, 221–2, 227–28, 235 Great Carnage 145 Great Cataclysm 97, 221, 225 Great Catastrophe (Catastrophe, great catastrophe) 9, 16, 91, 94–5, 97–100, 116–8, 135, 137, 145, 168, 203, 205, 209, 213, 221, 228, 233, 235 Great Crime (Crime, Heinous Crime, Great Heinous Crime, Big Crime), 1, 9–11, 16, 34, 38, 41, 43, 45–6, 64, 128–9, 132–3, 136, 138, 145–6, 168, 185–6, 209, 221, 234–5 Great Disaster (Disaster, Big Disaster), 181, 214 Great Event, 235 Great Evil, 15, 91, 93–4, 96, 105, 145–6, 209 Great Genocide, 80, 136, 138, 142–3 Great Massacre (Massacre, Massacres), 54, 235 Great Slaughter, 213 Great Tragedy (Tragedy), 39, 67, 72–3, 91, 102, 117–18, 142, 144–5, 185, 199

275

Masehian, Hovhannes 28 mass murder 31, 41, 69, 110, 125, 141 medieval writers: Eusebius of Caesarea 23 Koghbatsi, Yeznik 21 Mashtots, Mesrop 19 Narekatsi, Grigor (Gregory of Narek) 23, 234 Medzarents, Misak 68 Mekhitarist fathers 21, 23–6, 35 Keshishian, Levon 63 Larison, Daniel 125 Manoyan, Giro 120 memorial inscription 12, 147–9 Mesiayan, Yervant 54 Mesrob II 96 Metjian, Charles 74 Minas, Setrak 75 Mirecourt, Eugene de 28 monolingual dictionaries 55, 62, 74, 126, 137, 148 Adjarian, Hrachia 52, 148 Aghayan, Eduard 74 Avedikian, Gabriel 22 Avkerian, Megerdich 22–3, 172 Bohjalian, Aristakes 74, 100 Der Khachadurian, Ardashes 55, 74 Doniguian, Paramaz 55, 74 Granian, Antranig 74 Jelalian, Krikor 25, 172 Jerejian, Knel 74 Jizmejian, Bedros 55 Kankruni, Hrant 55 Kapamajian, Simon 28, 46 Kayayan, H.T. 55 Kerovpyan, Kegham 55, 100 Kevorkian, Vartan 55 Malkhasiants, Stepanos 52, 55 Meghretsi, Yeremia 21–2 Sebastatsi, Mekhitar 21–2 Simonian, Simon 72, 74 Sukiasian, Ashot 55, 127 Surmelian, Khachadur 22 Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung 120–121 Muhtar, Ahmed 52 murder 27–8, 33–4, 48, 53, 56, 58, 80, 83, 120, 126, 131 Archbishop Ghevont Tourian’s — 53

276 Arpiar Arpiarian’s — 33–4 Bishop Kevork Nalbandian’s — 170 Bishop Sahag Odabashian’s — 40 Hovhannes Tavshanjian’s — 33 Rev. Caspar Vartanian’s — 33 murder site 40 Naim Bey 47 Nakhichevan 68, 81 Nalbandian, Eduard 101, 125, 128 Namibia 14, 106 Nar-Dos 180 nation murder 136, 195 Navasardian, Vahan 55 Nazis 57, 59–61, 63, 66, 69, 72, 75, 123 Nedim, Mustafa 144 Netherlands 154, 159 Nevzat 46 New York City 4, 15, 33, 53, 63–4, 76–8 Nikoghosyan, Hovhannes 128 Nuremberg 14, 58–9, 72, 123 Nurigian, Peniamin 61 Operation Nemesis 48, 135, 185 Shiragian, Arshavir 135 Tehlirian, Soghomon 48, 55, 137, 147; Jacob Blaustein on —, 62 Torlakian, Misak 48, 186 Oskanian, Vartan 125 Ottoman Empire 1, 2, 8, 43, 47, 58, 60, 79, 89, 96–7, 109, 115, 128, 130–1, 134, 154–7, 159, 168, 210 Ozanian, Meroujan 142 Özdal, Bariş 117 Papazian, Bertha Sullivan 2 Papian, Ara 129 Pasadena 97, 117 people murder 56–7, 136 Prince, Moussa 201 principle of causation 13 race murder 56–7, 136, 190 recognition of the genocide 2, 9, 15, 16, 68, 76, 78, 82, 84, 92–3, 102, 106–8, 110, 112–4, 116–7, 120, 123, 125, 129–30, 132, 135–7, 148, 166, 209

Index indirect — 92, 106, 125 — of the Medz Yeghern, 84, 112 Reformed Hunchakian Party 33 Romania 60, 154–5, 158, 160 Rome Statute 131 Ruhashyankiko, Nicodème 8 Russia 4, 43, 59–60, 63, 66, 68, 100, 128 Sahag II 36, 39 Sarajian, Ken 111 Sargsyan, Sos 81 Sarkissian, Leo 9 Sassounian, Harut 97, 105, 108, 110–12, 117–18, 121, 129, 132–4, 222 Sasuni, Garo 9, 144 Sazonov, Sergei 3 Schott, Ben 120 Schultz, Martin 131 Ségur, Louis Gaston de 27 semantic relativism 136 Seneca, Lucius 23 Seropian, Mushegh 37, 178 Şevket, Mahmut 39 Shahriman, Vahan 45 shared pain 16, 100–3, 226 Sheckley, Robert 79 Shoah 1, 8, 12, 57, 69, 72, 91–3, 105–7, 111, 117, 124, 126, 129, 132, 135, 137–8, 160, 226 Sislian, Karekin 65 Social-Democrat Hunchakian Party 31, 33, 41, 53, 59, 64, 73 Sirvart, Yeghia, 64 Sohigian, Jason, 110 Solakhian, Garabed 34–5 Sonentz-Papazian, Tatul 1 Soviet Armenian historians 69, 144 Aghayan, Tzatur 69 Injikian, Hovhannes 69 Kirakosian, John 69 Nersisian, Mkrtich 69–71 Sahakian, Ruben 144 Sarkisian, Yervand 144 Ter Grigorian, Mariam 82 Soviet Armenian writers 68–71 Charents, Yeghishe 68 Galshoyan, Mushegh 70 Isahakian, Avetik 69

Index Kaputikian, Silva 71 Khanzadian, Sero 68 Zeituntsian, Perch 68 Soviet scholars on genocide 68–9 Soviet Union 6, 63, 69, 80, 124, 138, 166, 178 Sue, Eugene 27 Sumgait pogrom 80–2 survivors, 2, 8–12, 14–5, 36, 38–40, 43, 45, 47, 53–4, 58, 61–2, 64–7, 73, 75–6, 78, 93, 99, 106–7, 109, 118, 135–7, 145, 155, 158, 159, 180, 202 Adiyamanian, Hagop 27 Ghazarian, Haigaz 53 Giragosian, Krikor 65 Harkan 65 Hartunian, Abraham 76 Hovhannesian, Vosgan 64 Ishkhan, Mushegh 67 Kaghtzrouni, A. B. 64 Kalfayan, Aris 53 Kosoyan, Haykak 67 Manoogian, Alex 109 Mardiganian, Aurora 15, 74, 170 Melidinetzi, Kevork 61–2 Meloyan, Ghevont 65 Missakian, Shavarsh 41, 58–60, 66 Piranian, Nazaret 54, 142, 144 Sarian (Sarıyan), Mardiros 56–7, 189 Sarkisian, Hagop 39 Sevag, Manasseh G. 76 Surmelian, Leon 135 Yanikian, Gourgen 107 Syria 65, 133, 152–3, 160 Tarkhanian, Artur 198, 203 Ter-Tadevosian, Arkady 84 Tevfik 46 Tevfik, Ahmet 44 Torossian, Sarkis 67 Tovmasian, Khachik 51 Toynbee, Arnold 40, 42, 56 tragedy 47, 49, 52, 64, 83, 91, 94, 98, 100, 102, 111–12, 126, 130, 136, 141–2, 145, 148, 159–60, 166, 183, 185, 196, 198 translation 23, 26–7, 29, 32, 35, 38–9, 44, 46–8, 51, 59–61, 67, 74, 76, 79–81,

277

82, 84, 91, 94, 96–101, 105, 111–12, 116, 118, 120, 126, 127, 129–30, 132–3, 135–7, 141–7, 154, 160, 170, 171, 173–7, 180, 182–3, 185–6, 198–9, 201, 204, 207, 210, 212–3, 218, 222, 224, 227 translators 1, 21, 28, 46, 79, 95, 141, 144, 146 Arpi, Mariam, and Arek, Nairi 141–3 Arzoumanian, Alexander 141–2 Beugekian, Simon 141 Der Ohannessian, Tamar 141–3 Gureghian, A. B. 141 Habeshian, Vahé 143 Sevag, Aris 141, 144 Toumayan, Haig 143 tseghasbanutiun 11, 56–62, 64–7, 71, 75–6, 78–9, 81, 83, 85, 117–19, 127, 130, 136–7, 148–9, 150–8, 191–3, 199, 204, 225 Turkey 4, 6–9, 13–6, 32, 37, 52, 54, 59–61, 63–75, 82–4, 91–2, 95–7, 101–3, 106, 108, 111, 114, 116–8, 121, 124, 128, 130, 133, 138, 150–3, 155–6, 191, 205, 211–2, 214, 223, 225 Arikan, Kemal 107 Atatürk, Mustafa Kemal 6–7, 52 Çavuşoğlu, Mevlüt 139 Davutoğlu, Ahmet 101–3, 131, 214 Dink, Hrant 98 Elekdağ, Mustafa Şükrü 8, 98, 102, 116, 130 Erdoğan, Recep Tayyip 9, 99–103 Esayan, Markar 99 Gündüz, Orhan 107 Gürsel, Cemal 7 Gürün, Rashit 95 Güzel, Hasan Celal 99, 116 Halaçoglu, Yusuf 115 Justice and Development Party (AKP) 9, 16, 101 Kiliç, Altemur 7 Kınıklıoğlu, Suat 101, 117 Kürkcü, Ertoğrul 100 Lütem, Ömer Engin 97 Nationalist Action Party (MHP) 9, 101 Olçay, Osman 8 Oymen, Önur Başaran 97, 116

278

Index

Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) 100 People’s Republican Party (CHP) 6, 97–98 Perinçek, Doğu 129 Turkeş, Alparslan 101 Ürguplü, Ali Suat Hayri 7 Yıldırım, Binali 9 Turkish commentators 99, 102, 116–17, 120, 131 Akyol, Mustafa 102, 116 Balci, Kerim 116 Baydar, Yavuz 99 Bekdil, Burak 117 Bulaç, Ali 120 Ekşi, Oktay 116 Ergil, Doğu 99 Gönen, Emre 131 Kenes, Bülent 117 Oğan, Sinan 117 Taşgetiren, Ahmet 116 Yilmaz, Mehmet 102 Zıbak, Fatma Dişli 117 Tzitzernakaberd 15, 69, 79, 81–2, 90, 154, 198, 203 United Nations (UN) 7–8, 15, 59, 77, 84, 117, 125, 131 United States (US) 3, 7–8, 12, 14–5, 38–9, 51–2, 62, 65, 77, 83–5, 107–9, 111–14, 118–19, 123–4, 127–8, 130–1, 138, 148, 153–4, 160, 170, 187, 223, 228 Allen, Richard 106 Barton, James L. 4 Davis, Leslie A. 4 Dukakis, Michael 82, 109 Huckabee-Sanders, Sarah 132 Khachigian, Kenneth L. 106 Knox, Philander 39 Lansing, Robert 4 Mankiewicz, Frank 8 Morgenthau, Henry 3–5, 130, 190 Nance, James 106 Ortagus, Morgan 132 Power, Samantha 114, 219 Rockhill, William 39 Schwarzenegger, Arnold 215 Shultz, George 109

Spicer, Sean 132 Weinberger, Caspar 109 United States ambassadors in Armenia 113, 132 Evans, John Marshall 113 Tracy, Lynne 132 Yovanovitch, Marie 113 United States presidents 82, 102, 107, 116 Biden, Joseph 16, 134–5, 139, 228 Bush, George H. W. 16, 82, 109–10, 112 Bush, George W. 15–16, 97, 110–15, 120, 137, 210–1, 217, 228 Carter, Jimmy 14 Clinton, Bill 110, 112, 120 Coolidge, Calvin 14, 184 Obama, Barack 15–16, 101, 125, 127–34, 137, 144, 213, 221–3, 228 letter to Condoleezza Rice 113, 115, 131 Reagan, Ronald 14, 16, 105–12, 117, 134 Trump, Donald 15–16, 132–4, 137, 227 Wilson, Woodrow 3, 42, 163 United States senators 63, 109, 113 Byrd, Robert 109 Coleman, Norm 113 Dole, Robert 109 Feingold, Russell 113 Kerry, John 113 Lehman, Herbert 63 Menendez, Robert 113 Mitchell, George 109 Upham, Thomas 27 Uruguay 16, 74, 123, 125, 150, 153, 224 Almagro, Luis 125 Batlle, Jorge 125 Beltrán, Washington 124 Cid, Alberto 125 Martínez Moreno, Enrique 124, 223 Novoa Nin, Rodolfo 125 Vatican 89–3, 134, 206 Benedict XV 89–90 Benedict XVI 15, 93, 220 Conti, Luigi 92 Pericle, Felici 89 Francis 15, 93–4, 105, 130, 209 John Paul II 15, 89–3, 96, 111, 219

Index Kasper, Walter 92 Lombardi, Federico 94 Paul VI 89 Pius XI 90 Venezuela 154–5 victimization 6, 15 Vida, Marco Girolamo 26 Wales 154, 157 Whitaker, Benjamin 8 Writers murdered in 1915 30 Aknuni, E. 30 Parseghian, Kegham 30 Sermakheshkhanlian, Yervant (Yerukhan) 30–4, 37 Sevag, Rupen 41 Siamanto 30, 32, 36 Varuzhan, Taniel 30, 32–3, 41 Terzian, Hagop 39 Tlgadintsi 46 Writers who survived after 1915 11, 12, 38, 40–1, 45, 144

279 Andonian, Aram 10, 47–8, 76, 168 Armen, Yenovk 45, 144 Balakian, Grigoris 40, 43, 48, 181, 186 Kapigian, Garabed 144, 180 Odian, Yervant 45–6 Oshagan, Hagop 12, 144, 168, 228, 236 Shamdanjian, Mikayel 41, 45, 144 Srents, Sarkis 40 Teotig 38, 46, 78

yeghern (medz yeghern) 1–2, 5, 10–13, 16, 19–49, 51–7, 64–5, 68, 70, 73–4, 75, 79–81, 83–5 Young Turks 31–2, 35, 39, 61, 64–5, 69–70, 82, 93, 153, 156–8, 184, 205 Zarobian, Yakob 69, 71 Zaven, Dikran 45 zhoghovrtasbanutiun 136, 193 Zoppellaro, Simone 94 Zurlinden, Samuel 189

280

281

282