Sarkis Torossian, an Ottoman Armenian, was an officer in the Ottoman army who fought on different fronts during the First World War. Because of his courage and success during the Gallipoli War, his military rank was raised and he was awarded a medal with an accompanying letter, signed by Enver Pasha himself. After learning that his family had been deported and exterminated during the genocide, Torossian switched sides and fought against the Turkish army. After 1920, he settled in the US where he published his memoirs in 1947. The translation of his memoirs into Turkish in 2012 has launched a heated debate. That an Armenian soldier was on active duty in Gallipoli, which has a crucial symbolic value for Turkish national identity, was unacceptable. His memoirs represent a total discrediting of the Turkish historical narrative on Armenians and the Armenian Genocide. Hence, some scholars have questioned its authenticity, denouncing him a charlatan and his memoirs as fiction. Others believe in the memoirs' authenticity despite the few errors and exaggerations, which are normal in such documents. This article argues that the debate is about the relationship between history, truth and memoirs.

It is difficult to give a single, accurate name to the debates and tensions between the Turkish and Armenian peoples. Calling it “The Armenian Question” is quite outdated; one might offer equal justification in calling it “The Turkish Question.” Simply pointing out where the issue lies and what is at stake can be problematic. Are there disputed territories under consideration? Is there control of natural resources to be fought over? Issues of money or property? Diplomatic rows? Commercial ties? Legal cases? Moral or ethical concerns? All of the above may or may not apply. Even the actors of this phenomenon are not always fully clear. Two states exist on the world map today—the Republic of Turkey and the Republic of Armenia. But this is not a classic inter-state disagreement. There are individual Armenians and groups outside of Armenia—the Armenian Diasporae—including an Armenian population within Turkey itself, all of which can claim a voice, to say nothing of other voices within broader Turkish society. There are also Turkish communities outside of Turkey (though not in Armenia). Sometimes the more classic dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh draws in another Armenian population as well as a third state, the Republic of Azerbaijan, into the mix. Regional powers and global hegemons are never far behind. This is a complex case. The present study aims at tackling the issue in a broad manner through the prism of narrative. (May, 2017)

This book represents a meticulous exploration of the ethno-religious, geo-strategic, social and economic dimensions of a tragic event in history, which is still little understood [1] 1and much misrepresented [2]. Güçlü studied the archives of five countries (the Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States), mostly primary and secondary sources, before masterfully piecing together this massive historical puzzle for the benefit of researchers and truth-seekers. Armenian sources are notably missing, but that is because, Güçlü explains here and elsewhere, access to Armenian state, lay, and religious archives are all still not possible, unless of course, one adheres the official Armenian narrative [3]. Güçlü enlightens the readers by delivering a comprehensive before-during-after look at the region and the event. Readers will be enriched by reading this book to realize that biased and furious descriptions of Adana events of 1909 [4], that are popularly accepted without much fact-checking or critical thinking, may be unfair, inaccurate, even unethical.

The debates and tensions that very often characterize the interactions between the Turkish and Armenian peoples do not easily fit into frameworks adopted by studies of international affairs. One problem is that of identifying specific actors: states, diasporas, community-level and international organizations, religious bodies, individuals, broader regional or global players and trends. A second problem is identifying what is at stake: moral, ethical, or religious principles, core hard power interests, legal disputes, economic calculations. The complexity of the case challenges any single approach to analysis but at the same time offers the opportunity for multiple points of view to bring forward meaningful insights. This study uses narratives as a source and as a method.