The Armenian genocide was the systematic killing and deportation of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks during World War I. It is widely recognized as one of the first genocides of the 20th century, and has been condemned by many countries and scholars. However, one of the most influential historians of the Middle East, Bernard Lewis, has denied the genocidal intent and scale of the atrocities, and has revised his own writings to downplay the suffering of the Armenians. What motivated Lewis to change his views on this historical tragedy? And what are the implications of his revisionism for the understanding of the past and the present?
Bernard Lewis was a British-American historian who specialized in the history of Islam and the interaction between Islam and the West. He was also a public intellectual and political commentator, whose advice was frequently sought by policymakers, especially the neoconservative Bush administration. He was known for his controversial views on topics such as the clash of civilizations, the roots of Islamic extremism, and the role of democracy in the Muslim world. He was also a staunch supporter of Turkey and its secular, Western-oriented model.
Lewis’s first book, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, was published in 1961, and was based on his doctoral dissertation. It was a comprehensive and authoritative account of the transformation of the Ottoman Empire into the Republic of Turkey, covering the political, social, cultural, and religious aspects of the change. In this book, Lewis acknowledged the Armenian genocide as a historical fact, and used the term “holocaust” to describe it. He wrote that Turkey had killed 1.5 million Armenians in 1915, and that this was “the terrible holocaust of 1915, when a million and a half Armenians perished”. He also criticized the Turkish denial of the genocide, and the suppression of the Armenian identity and culture.
However, in the revised edition of the book, published in 2002, Lewis changed his tone and his terminology. He replaced the word “holocaust” with “slaughter”, and reduced the number of Armenian victims to “according to estimates, more than a million”. He also added a remark that an “unknown number of Turks who also died in the putative struggle for possession of a single homeland”. He also removed some of the references to the Armenian sources and testimonies, and inserted some Turkish arguments and justifications. He also softened his criticism of the Turkish denial, and suggested that the genocide was a matter of interpretation and debate.
What changed between 1962 and 2002? Lewis entered politics and decided to take sides for economic, professional, and personal reasons. The historian’s interests lay with the Turkish government, not historic truth.
One of the reasons for Lewis’s change of mind was his involvement in politics and his alignment with the neoconservative agenda. Lewis was a close friend and adviser of Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense under George W. Bush, and one of the architects of the Iraq War. Lewis was also a member of the American-Turkish Council, a powerful lobby group that promoted the strategic and economic partnership between the two countries. Lewis saw Turkey as a model and an ally for the US in the Middle East, and a counterweight to Iran and Iraq. He also saw the Kurdish issue as a threat to Turkey’s stability and integrity, and supported Turkey’s repression of the Kurdish minority and its opposition to the creation of a Kurdish state. Lewis’s political views influenced his historical views, and led him to downplay the Armenian genocide, which was a sensitive and contentious issue for Turkey and its relations with the US and Europe.
Another reason for Lewis’s revisionism was his professional and personal interests. Lewis was a frequent visitor and guest of honor in Turkey, where he received many awards and honors, such as the Presidential Grand Decoration of the Order of the Republic of Turkey, and the Atatürk International Peace Prize. He also had many friends and colleagues in the Turkish academic and intellectual circles, who shared his admiration for Turkey and its secular, modern, and pro-Western orientation. Lewis enjoyed the prestige and the recognition that he received in Turkey, and did not want to jeopardize his reputation and his relations by acknowledging the Armenian genocide. He also wanted to maintain his access and influence in Turkey, and to avoid the legal consequences of challenging the official Turkish narrative. In 1993, Lewis was sued and fined by a French court for denying the Armenian genocide, after he wrote an article in Le Monde that questioned the validity and the evidence of the genocide. Lewis appealed the verdict, but lost the case in 1995. He also faced criticism and protests from the Armenian diaspora and the human rights activists, who accused him of being a genocide denier and an apologist for Turkey.
Lewis’s rewriting of history had serious implications for the understanding of the past and the present. By denying the Armenian genocide, Lewis distorted the historical record and the historical memory, and contributed to the perpetuation of the Turkish denial and the injustice against the Armenians. He also undermined his own credibility and integrity as a historian and a scholar, and damaged his reputation and legacy. He also missed the opportunity to use his influence and his expertise to promote the reconciliation and the dialogue between Turkey and Armenia, and to help the healing and the recognition of the Armenian trauma. He also failed to acknowledge the relevance and the lessons of the Armenian genocide for the prevention and the resolution of other genocides and conflicts in the world.
Artatsolum
