Manipulative tactics employed by azerbaijani authors in online media resources

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Manipulative tactics employed by Azerbaijani authors in online media resources

Seda Gasparyan, Zara Hayrapetyan; Yerevan State University

Recent investigations have established that manipulation is the abuse of language realized through various consciously employed linguistic means aimed to influence the listeners' or readers' social, interpersonal and mental states and behaviours, thus misdirecting their actions. Intentionality as one of the basic parameters of manipulation, no doubt, exercises a destructive effect on an individual, group or society at large. Depending on the range of their manipulative attitudes and intentions, often reaching beyond the bounds of morality, manipulators tend to bend reality, distort facts and through seemingly persuasive argumentation and proofs present their subjective reality as truth.

This presupposes the employment of certain manipulative tactics and techniques meant to guarantee the manipulator's success. The present case study attempts to expose the manipulative techniques and tactics deliberately employed by the Azerbaijani author of the article “Armenian So-Called Genocide”, published in the Azerbaijani online news medium “Azvision.az”. The object of the paper consists of a deep and thorough analysis of the manipulative intentions and interpretations worked into the mentioned article. On the basis of critical discourse-analysis, the application of the methods of argumentation, with references to empirical evidence, assists not only in observation of the mechanisms of manipulative techniques and tactics the author implements, but also reveals the persistence of Azerbaijani political circles toward the fulfilment of political goals through violations and falsifications of historical facts and distortions of reality.

Keywords: political discourse, manipulation, manipulative techniques and tactics, political manipulation, Genocide of Armenians.

Маніпулятивні тактики азербайджанських авторів в електронних засобах масової комунікації

С. Гаспарян, З. Айрапетян

У дослідженнях останніх років встановлено: маніпуляція - це зловживання мовою, виражене свідомим застосуванням різноманітних мовних засобів. Таке вживання мови цілеспрямовано впливає на соціальний, міжособистісний і ментальний стан і поведінку слухача / читача, направляючи його дії неправильним шляхом. Інтенціональність є одним з основних параметрів маніпуляції, що здійснює деструктивний ефект на індивіда, групу або громадськість у цілому. Залежно від обсягу та спрямованості маніпулятивних настроїв і інтенцій, маніпулятор, часто виходячи за межі моралі, намагається перевернути реальність, спотворити факти і помилковими аргументами й доказами, які лише здаються переконливими, подати свою суб'єктивну точку зору як істину.

Це передбачає застосування певних тактик, що забезпечують успіх маніпулятора. У цій статті робиться спроба розкрити маніпулятивні тактики, застосовані азербайджанським автором статті “Так званий геноцид вірмен” на сайті “Azvision.az”. Наша мета полягає у всебічному аналізі маніпулятивних інтенцій і інтерпретацій автора в зазначеній статті. На базі критичного дискурс-аналізу застосування методів аргументування і посилань на емпіричні докази дозволяє не тільки показати маніпулятивні тактики автора статті, але також виявити наполегливе прагнення азербайджанських політичних кіл будь-якими способами досягти здійснення своїх політичних цілей, фальсифікуючи факти і спотворюючи реальність.

Ключові слова: політичний дискурс, маніпуляція, маніпулятивні тактики, політична маніпуляція, геноцид вірмен.

Манипулятивные тактики азербайджанских авторов в электронных средствах массовой коммуникации

С. Гаспарян, З. Айрапетян

В исследованиях последних лет установлено: манипуляция - это злоупотребление языком, выраженное сознательным применением разнообразных языковых средств. Такое употребление языка целенаправленно воздействует на социальное, межличностное и ментальное состояние и поведение слушателя / читателя, направляя его действия неправильным путем. Интенциональность является одним из основных параметров манипуляции, осуществляющей деструктивный эффект на индивида, группу или общественность в целом. В зависимости от объема и направленности манипуляционных настроений и интенций, часто выходящих за пределы морали, манипулятор пытается перевернуть реальность, исказить факты и ошибочными аргументами и доказательствами, которые лишь кажутся убедительными, преподнести свою субъективную точку зрения как истину. Это предполагает применение определенных тактик, обеспечивающих успех манипулятора. В настоящей статье предпринимается попытка раскрыть манипулятивные тактики, примененные азербайджанским автором статьи “Так называемый геноцид армян” на сайте “Azvision.az”.

Цель настоящего исследования заключается во всестороннем анализе манипулятивных интенций и интерпретаций автора в указанной статье. На основе критичесого дискурс-анализа применение методов аргументирования и ссылок на эмпирические доказательства позволяет не только показать манипулятивные тактики автора статьи, но также выявить упорное стремление азербайджанских политических кругов любыми способами достичь осуществления своих политических целей, фальсифицируя факты и искажая реальность.

Ключевые слова: политический дискурс, манипуляция, манипулятивные тактики, политическая манипуляция, геноцид армян.

Introduction

Language is a code, whereby people convey information and share ideas, thoughts and emotions. When using language, people either speak directly--giving all of the information they want to convey to their listeners up front--or express themselves implicitly, even covertly, by communicating and exchanging ideas and thoughts indirectly, so as not to be either offensive or impolite. However, the intention to reveal less than the whole story to an audience can lead to misunderstandings and result in the spread of untrue information. By the intentional concealment of certain facts about reality, performing sleight-of-hand on people's minds, one can distort the truth, and, in the offer of promises, entice people to trust them, without planning for a fulfilment. This is a classic case of manipulation, achieved through the use of different techniques and tactics that manipulators employ to reach their goals. Manipulators, as a rule, tempt their target by describing a vague future so vividly and juicily that the target rises to the bait. Thus, misled, the targeted audience then places its trust in the manipulator without being able to rationalize and see the facts, right before them, now readily ignored by the audience.

As a rule, manipulators who tend to be on the more powerful side and who often reach high positions of authority, are very intelligent. They master the psychology of people's behaviour and the art of the rhetoric of persuasion, and are capable of influencing large audiences for their own good, particularly if they know the weak spots in their targets and use those weaknesses as tools to play on the strings of a person's emotions and feelings (Gasparyan, Paronyan, & Muradian, 2019, p. 45). They affect others' behaviour, emotions, and analytical processes, without taking into consideration that their objective may not correspond to the desire of the manipulated.

Manipulation is a wide-ranging phenomenon, present in almost every dimension of our social life. It can be defined as a means by which manipulators reach their own goals by deceiving others, making them believe things which may not really be true (Gasparyan, Paronyan, & Muradian, 2019). The Azerbaijani media article as an object of analysis A case in point is the discourse we have undertaken to analyse an article published on the above- mentioned Azerbaijani webpage. We use the methodology of critical discourse-analysis to reveal

The strategies of truth distortion in this article, which via the falsification of historical fact blurs the history of the heinous crime committed against Armenian population in 1915. In this article, the author manipulates facts about the Armenian Genocide, in the headline: “Armenian So-Called Genocide”, an immediate attempt to prove that, thus far, everyone has been misled by Armenians in blaming the Turks for such a horrible crime (Azvision.az, 2015). The article starts with the explicitly false notion that Armenians intended to exterminate Turks in eastern Anatolia:

When Armenian organizations instigated Armenians to revolt during World War I (19141918) against the Ottoman Government, their intention was to exterminate the Turks and to create an independent armenian state in eastern Anatolia where Armenians were only about 15% of the total population (Azvision.az, 2015).

The opening statement of the passage regarding the Armenian organizations' provocation of Armenians to revolt against the Ottoman government is obviously untrue, as, according to historical record (Morgenthau, 1974; Zulalian, 1995; Melkonian, 2001; Melkonian, 2011; etc.), Armenians who had lived in their homeland in Western Armenia (later captured by Turks and renamed Eastern Anatolia¹) for millennia (Kapantsian, 1947; Lang, 1970; Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, 1984; Jahukian, 1986; Sahakyan, 2011), outnumbered their Muslim neighbours in many towns and villages even after the revolution (Sahakyan, 2007), were harassed, repressed and humiliated, and eventually massacred. The roots of the discrimination went deeper into the differences of religion (Gasparyan, 2014, pp. 77-104), and the hostile attitude of the Turks towards Armenians was also conditioned by this. The factor of the Christian faith of Armenians was decisive, as the Turkish government considered every non-Muslim to be unbelievers and infidels (Gasparyan 2014, pp. 61-62)². This is testified to by the well-established fact that other Christian nations (not only Armenians but also Greeks, Assyrians, Bulgarians, Serbs) were also under constant suppression: their goods were also stolen, their women and children were raped. The Turkish desire was to oust them all from their domiciles and the country at large (History, 2010), expand the territories of the Empire, and fulfil the objective of creating a Turkic super state with a mono-religious society³. It is beneficial to the author to skip an important fact that would shed light on real facts, i.e. the official discussions on how to attain Muslim predominance in the country, discussions held in the Young Turks Party conferences in 1910 and 1911 in Salonika, in fact long before 1915, the peak of the Genocidal events instigated, organized and well supported by the government (Khurshudian, 2001).

Another obvious fact that serves as evidence of this is the persistent policy adopted by Turkish governmental authorities to convert the remaining Armenian population to Islam and to continue to practice the tendency of Turkifying even the Armenian toponyms in the mentioned territory (Sahakyan, 2011). All of these facts show that there can be no question of Armenian organizations instigating to revolt against the Ottoman government. Even the Turkish professor Halil Berktay, a historian from Sabanci University in Istanbul believes there was not even a hint of an Armenian revolt or any national uprising in 1914-15. He is sure that certain moves by individual members of Armenian organizations could by no means prompt the infamous policy of the Turkish government (Turkery turkeri masin, 2011, pp. 39-40). The author of the article manipulates the facts, turning the sinful to the innocent, placing the horrible and unforgivable obscenity on the shoulders of an innocent nation.

Particular attention should be paid in the article to the use of the adjective Armenian in a lowercase letter, which on the one hand is a straight violation of the rules of the English language, confirmed by similar cases in further paragraphs of the article. On the other hand, it is an explicit expression of disregard, contempt and hostility towards Armenians, inherited by the author from the Turkish discourse. To sound persuasive and make an impression on readers, the author introduces the strategy of false figures into the discourse (“only 15% of Armenians staying in eastern Anatolia”), thus, this discourse fragment unknowingly or for purely manipulative purposes ignores the historically recorded data (The Text of Poghos Nubar Pasha's Speech (n.d.); Marashlyan, 1991; Dadrian, 1992; etc.)⁴.

The arsenal of the author's manipulative tactics is rather rich: denial, falsifying by omission, accusing the opponent of doing what the Turks themselves are accused of. Employing these tactics, the author tries to omit or falsify obvious details, misrepresent the entirety of real facts and information, and deny all wrongdoing by Turks and Turkish authorities. Finding it hard to defend Turkish authorities, the author reverses the attack to achieve political ends⁵.

The next passage, extracted from the same article, is also representative, particularly in the sense that it actually presents the description of a variety of mechanisms and methods (though reversed) employed by the Turks as part of their Genocidal scheme.

Entire population of the region was subjected to violence beyond belief violence which was planned to exterminate the whole Turkish people of the region to the last man, woman and child. Armenian revolters tortured and massacred large numbers of defenceless civilians. To assemble innocent civilians in the mosques and burn them in the building was one of their methods. Even today the traveller in that region is seldom free from the evidence of these Armenian crimes (Azvision.az, 2015; emphasis added--S.G., Z.H.).

How to interpret this strategy of reversion? Is this ignorance incompatible with either journalistic or scholarly interpretation of long established facts on the Armenian Genocide, not only by Armenian but also foreign scholars (Wegner, 1919; Dadryan, 1994, 1995, 1999; Nersisian, 1998, Ayvazyan, 2004; Sassounian, 2005; Barseghov, 2002, 2003, 2005)? Rather it is an explicit example of the manipulative tactic of distortion of facts by reversion⁶, in fact, it is the insolence of the Azerbaijani servers tending to display their purpose of appealing to their Turkish supporters. Unlike the author's opinion, there exist the unequivocal condemnations expressed and published by the honest and sound academic minds of the world, statesmen, political figures⁷, the evidences of the survivors spoken out, written and fixed in many published volumes, archival documents, videos, films, pieces of literature (Vierbucher, 2005; Miller & Miller, 1993; Svaslyan, 2011; Jamalzadeh, 1963, 1972; Arslan, 2004; etc.)⁸? Eventually, the author of the media discourse believes that the more cynically one tries to turn the obvious historical facts and events upside down, the more persuasive the story will sound. Referring to the closing lines of the passage, one involuntarily remembers the great amount of travel books published by foreign missionaries, political figures and statesmen sharing their favourable impressions of Armenians living in Western Armenia, commenting on the civilized, honest, industrious and hospitable image of Armenians (Buxton & Buxton, 1914; Melville, 1919; Baum, 2005; etc.). The French journalist Rene Pinon was sure that the forced deportations and massacres of Armenians--intellectuals, political figures assassinated, innocent civilians sent into the deserts without food or water and prevailingly massacred on their way, women raped, enslaved and sent to harem, children converted to Islam and so on--were the Young Turks' pre-planned scheme (Pinon, 1916, pp. 20-27; History, 2010).

In the next passage, the author is worried about the increasing number of Armenian publications on the Armenian Genocide.

The Armenian historians and instigators exciting young people's minds publish much on the genocide. And with every decade a number of `the murdered' increases in the geometric progression. Manipulation of figures, rough misrepresentation of historical facts--it is a principal weapon of the Armenian falsificators whom as long ago as the beginning of the century unmasked above-mentioned Ilya Chavchavadze in his book “The Armenian scientists and screaming stones ” (Azvision.az, 2015).

The author believes that the figures concerning the mass murders of the period are exaggerated and manipulated. But here again the recorded facts (2.5 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire, of whom 1.5 million were massacred by Turks) are ignored, and the implementation of the manipulative tactic of lying by omission contradicts the author's initial idea of an Armenian mass murder of the Turks. When this fragment is compared with the opening passages of the article, the implicit shade of meaning here between the lines reveals the lack of conviction on the part of the author on an Armenian extermination of the Turks. The author is not convinced of the truth of his own words, but simply carries out a task forced upon them. The omission of recorded facts forces the Turkish ideology of denial into effect, advocates the delusive ideas of ersatz historians unable to resist Turkish temptations to falsehood. As far as the reference to Ilya Chavchavadze's book is concerned, it should be mentioned directly that it is not hard enough first of all because Chavchavadze's work is not a book but an article, later published as a tiny booklet, with absolutely no relevance to the Genocide and Genocidal events (it may become an object of a separate investigation⁹). Additionally, we believe that every historical fact should be discussed and commented in the context of the actual situational setting.

The unreasonable and vague claims of the author about the history of the Armenian Genocide are based on their evasive technique, combined with the tactic of accusing the opponent of what Turks themselves are accused of. The author puts the blame on the shoulders of the Armenian people to persuade the world that Turks are innocent, and they are the ones who were to have been massacred by Armenians:

The state is having an internecine battle with invaders but at this time in the rear there have been found people undermining the rear with armed uprising and favoring defeat of the country where they live. Any state is obliged to take safety measures. The measures are extreme but forced and justified for the future of their people. History will tell us more about this (Azvision.az, 2015).

In this part of the text, the author uses minimization¹⁰, and diversion techniques of manipulation. He/she denies the fact that Turks massacred Armenians, but at the same time the horrendous actions committed by the Turks (the measures are extreme) are justified through the introduction of the false idea that Armenians were traitors to the Turkish army. Coming up with “excuses” as to why such a crime happened, the author draws the readers' attention also to the fact that even though such crimes were committed, they were done for “safety reasons” as the Turks had to defend themselves. The basic idea which explicitly presents the consent of the author about the Turkish authorities having taken “extreme measures” to suppress the Armenian population obviously contradicts their belief about Armenians having attempted to exterminate the Turks. To be more specific and achieve the intended political ends, the author uses official or governmental sources by quoting the Turkish Minister. The article quotes Talaat's words from one of his instructions sent to Ottoman local authorities. Talaat advises the authorities responsible for the accomplishment of the Armenian deportations to take safety measures in the prevention of giving foreign travellers the chance of speaking about any events during the deportation marches, which would contradict the official information provided for foreign embassies, as these talks would surely discredit the Turkish government. Moreover, in order to keep their notorious Genocidal actions “behind the curtain”, the Minister “recommends” to arrest those who spread the information about the massacre of Armenians and to give them to the council of war.

As it is evident from the recent interference of the American, English, French and Russian embassies in Constantinople and in some places the consuls of these embassies in secret receive false information in spite of our answer that the Armenians ' deportation takes place in complete safety and quietness. It is not enough to persuade them. Take all safety measures and do your best that at the moment when the Armenians from cities, districts and centers are on their way the events would not take place about which the foreigners and Armenians themselves speak so much. It is very important from the point of view of our present-day policy the foreigners passing through these places to be convinced that the Armenians' deportation is really with the aim of transferal. As regards those who give information concerning this question I recommend you to arrest and give them to the council of war.

Ministry of Internal Affairs. TALAAT. November 18, 1915 (Azvision.az, 2015)

As Talaat's words show, it seemed important for the Turkish Minister of Internal Affairs (from the point of view of their present-day policy) to make foreign embassies and their consuls believe that the deportation of Armenians to the deserts of Deir ez Zor and elsewhere in reality contained the aim of transferring them to safer locations. However, the embassies in fact were quite well aware of what was going on. Henry Morgenthau, the US Ambassador to Turkey in 1913-1915, in his book “The Murder of a Nation” (1974, pp. 16-17) writes quite definitely about the fixed plan of the Turkish authorities to exterminate Armenians, who, in Morgenthau's words, were the most intelligent and industrious part of the population. He knew about the vicious intentions of the Turkish government directly from Talaat's words, spoken during his talks with him when Ambassador Morgenthau made all efforts to keep the Turkish authorities from enacting their heinous scheme (Morgenthau, 1974, pp. 58-59, 66-67, 71, 120-121). However, all was in vain, for the scheme had long been confirmed and its execution was irreversible “... our Armenian policy is absolutely fixed and ... nothing can change it” (Morgenthau, 1974, pp. 66-67).

German Ambassador Wangenheim's report to the head of his government, Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg, shows quite clearly that it was the Turkish side that put a mark of hostility between themselves and the “internal enemies” i.e. the local Christians:

... it becomes obvious that deportation of the Armenians arises not only from military necessity. The internal minister Talaat bey told about it honestly to doctor Mortsman, who is employed at the empire embassy now. Talaat said: The sublime Porte intends to make use of the world war for cleaning the whole country from internal enemies, the local Christians <....>. (June 17, 1915) (“The Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute” Foundation, n.d.)

Further, the anonymous author of the article refers to the events of 1893, describing them as “Armenian disorders in Turkey ”.

Armenian disorders in Turkey since 1893 to 1918 and in Azerbaijan (Karabakh, Goycha, Iravan, Nakhichevan, Zangezur) since 1905 up to present is a convincing illustration of one thing-territorial claim there and only there where they have been given shelter. (Azvision.az, 2015)

The author is aware of the fact that 1893 is considered to be the prelude to the barbaric actions of the Turks and the mass murders that began with the events of Sasoun and went on until the beginning of the 20^th century -- the peak of the Genocide of the Armenians. If one tries to follow the events of the present war provoked and unleashed by Azerbaijan with the support and actual presence of Turkey and physical participation of Islamic terrorists in the war, the picture will become quite clear. The style of discourse has slightly changed and become modernized, but the psychology is the same: the far-reaching plans of Turkey are unchanged, the prurient Pan-Turkic desires have not been abandoned. Their highly manipulative discourse is still used as a reliable resource for the fulfilment of these vicious plans. The author skips the most important and underlying fact that for the people of Artsakh (Karabakh) the claim has never been territorial, for their roots are very deep in the soil of their native land. They are fighting for their independence, their sovereignty and the defence of their human rights.

The fact that Hasan Cemal - the grandson of Cemal Pasha, one of the top three Turkish persecutors of the Armenian nation, apologized publicly for the dreadful crimes against Armenians, committed by Turks and his grandfather personally, is an undeniable evidence of the Genocide of Armenians by Turks. He said: “Turkey, as a state, should apologize before the Armenians” (Armenpress, 2013). There are also other Turkish intellectuals who started the “I apologize” campaign to Armenians in 2009 and signed the petition of the apology as follows (Ozyurek, 2009):

My conscience does not accept the insensitivity showed to and the denial of the Great Catastrophe that the Armenians were subjected to in 1915. <...> I reject this injustice andfor my share, I empathize with the feelings and pain of my Armenian brothers and sisters. I apologize to them.

Although this campaign did not come to any positive end, as the Turkish Prime Minister at the time mocked it and many people continue to be brought to trial and imprisonment under the infamous Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, it may hopefully be valuable for the development of democratic ideas in Turkey.

manipulative armenian genocide news medium

Conclusion

This article gives us a very good understanding of how people carry out their manipulative intentions, falsify historical facts, distort the truth and divert a reader's attention from reality. The author in the article under investigation tries very hard and does his/her best to put the blame of the horrendous crimes on the Armenians who were massacred, while presenting Turks, the executioners of these heinous crimes, as innocent. We can see from the article that the author condemns Armenia for the massacres of Turks. Contradictorily, the author says that Turkey had to stop Armenian uprisings and justifies the massacres. This false information testifies to the fact that Turks committed the most horrendous and unforgivable crimes against humanity. The author brings Taalat's statement about the deportation of Armenians as proof that no crimes were committed; meanwhile historical records testify against it.

The analysis of the discourse shows that the anonymous author employs certain manipulative tactics and techniques in the quest of achieving the joint political aims of Azerbaijan and Turkey. The author of this discourse employs a number of these techniques in the article not only to distort history, but also to insult the victims of the Genocide. Some of the tactics employed in this discourse are accusation by reversion, minimization, diversion, etc.

The manipulation implemented in this article is obvious. This strategy is explicit in every paragraph of this manipulative discourse, taking into consideration historical records, the testimonies of countless witnesses, historical books and travel writings. One can also understand this by seeing the present events taking place in the region of Artsakh, where Azerbaijan, together with Turkey, are launching Israeli rocket launchers and missiles on many cities and towns in Artsakh, including Stepanakert, Martuni, Hadrout, etc., destroying settlements and killing peaceful and innocent civilians. The discourse of Genocide is not likely to lose its power. This paper will hopefully open up perspectives for its further analyses.

The ideology of Pan-Turkism that occurred in the 19^th-20^th centuries advocates the unification of Turkic people on the basis of cultural, linguistic, academic, philosophical and, more importantly for Turks, territorial and military identity, and the creation of a superpower.

The details of the manipulative tactic of accusing the opponent of doing what he/she is accusing you of can be found in the work The Thinker's Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation by Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder (2004, p. 20). This tactic is sometimes called “pointing to another wrong”, as by employing it, the manipulator tries to put his/her opponent on the defensive and persuade his audience that the manipulated have even done worse.

The great German humanist Heinrich Vierb ucher, advocate of peace and interpreter of the German General Liman von Sanders, who was responsible for the efficiency of the Turkish army, shared his eyewitness impressions of the implementation of Turkey's pre-planned Genocidal scheme in his book Armenia 1915 (2003).

Travelling to Constantinople in 1917, the prominent 20^th century Persian writer Mohammad-Ali Jamalzadeh, encountered many corpses and brutal and shocking atrocities on his way, witnessed the deportations of Armenians and later published two books based on his horrible experiences--“Qatl o garat-e Armaneh dar Torkiya” (On the Massacres of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey) (1963) and “Qatl-e Amm-e Armanian” (Armenian Massacres) (1972) (cf. “The Armenian Genocide MuseumInstitute” Foundation, 2017). Dr. Verjine Svazlyan presented the testimonies of the Armenian Genocide survivors in her voluminous work On the Armenian Genocide: Testimonies of the Eyewitness Survivors (2011). The memoirs recorded by the author over the course of more than 55 years, are presented as original documents enhanced by the photographs and voiced recordings of the survivors. All this and many other publications certify the historical truth of the Genocide of Armenians schemed and employed by Turkey.

¹ In her book Turkification of the Toponyms in the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey, Lusine Sahakyan (2011, pp. 31, 46) explains the fake and fabricated nature of the term “Eastern Anatolia” which is nothing else but a forgery of two monosemantic words, both meaning “east.” Thus, the absurdity of the fabricated term is revealed in its translation--“Eastern East”.

^2. The word gavur--unbeliever that had entered into the Turkish language from Arabic since the second half of the 16^th century was used to refer to Armenians offensively.

References

1. Akcam T. (2006). A shameful act: the Armenian Genocide and the question of Turkish responsibility. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

2. Armenpress (2013). Turkey should apologize before Armenians: Hasan Cemal. Retrieved December 17, 2020,

3. Arslan A. (2004). LaMesseria Delle Allodole [The Lark Farm]. Rizzoli.

4. Ayvazyan A. (1998). Hayastani patmutyan lusabanumy amerikyan patmagrutyan mej (knnakan tesutyun) [The History of Armenia as presented in American historiography: a critical survey]. Yerevan: Artagers Publishers.

5. Azvision.az. (2015). Armenian so-called genocide. Retrieved December 17, 2020

6. Barseghov U.G. (Ed.). (2002, 2003, 2005). Genotsid armyan: otvetstvennost' Turtsii i obyazatel'stva mirovogo soobshchestva. Dokumenty i kommentarii [Armenian Genocide: Turkey's responsibility and the commitment of world community] (Vols. 1-3). Moscow: Gardariki Publishers.

7. Baum W. (2010). Die Tьrkei und Ihre Christlichen Minderheiten: Geschichte--Vцlkermord-- Gegenwart. Ein Beitrag zur EU-Erweiterungs-Debatte [Turkey and its Christian minorities: history--murder of the peoples--Today. On the discussion about the enlargement of the EU]. Klagenfurt: Kitab.

8. Buxton N., Buxton H. (1914). Travel and politics in Armenia. London: Smith, Elder and Co.

9. Dadrian V. (1992). Ottoman archives and denial of the Armenian Genocide. In The Armenian Genocide: history, politics, ethics (pp. 294, 308). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

10. Dadrian V. (1994). A review of the main features of the Genocide. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 22 (1), 1-28.

11. Dadrian V. (1995). The History of the Armenian Genocide: ethnic conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucausus. Providence & Oxford: Berghahn Books.

12. Dadrian V. (1999). The key elements in the Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide: a case study of distortion andfalsification. Canada: The Zoryan Institute.

13. Gamkrelidze T.V., Ivanov V.V. (1984). Indoevropeyskiy yazik i indoevropeytsy. Reconstructsiya i istoriko-tipologicheskiy analiz prayazyka i protokultury [Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: a reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and a protoculture]. Vol. 1-2. Tbilisi: Tbilisi Univ. Press.

14. Gasparyan S. (2014). The Armenian Genocide: a linguocognitive perspective. Yerevan: Yerevan State University Press.

15. Gasparyan S., Paronyan Sh., Muradyan G. (2019). The use and abuse of language in the legal domain. Yerevan: Yerevan State University, Montreal: Arod Publishers.

16. History. (2010). Armenian Genocide. Retrieved December 17, 2020

17. Jahukian G.B. (1987). Hayots patmutyan nakhagrayin shrjan [The preliterate period of the Armenian history]. Yerevan: AS Arm. SSR Publication.

18. Kapantsian G.A. (1947). Khayasa-kolybel' armyan. Etnogenez arm'an i ikh nachal'naya istoriya [Hayasa -- the cradle of Armenians. The ethnogenesis of Armenians and their prehistory]. Yerevan: Izdatel'stvo Akademii nauk Armjanskoj SSR.

19. Khurshudian L. (1995). Haykakan hartsy [The Armenian Cause]. Yerevan: YSU Press.

20. Lang D.M. (1970). Armenia. Cradle of civilization. London: George Allen and Unwin.

21. Marashlian L. (1991). Politics and demography: Armenians, Turks and Kurds in the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge, MA: Zorian Institute.

22. Melkonian A.A. (2001). Vorman akunknery: XV dari veij-1915 tvakan (Patmazhoghovrdagrakan aknark Erzrumi nahangi orinakov) [Sources of the Genocidal Policy from the End of the XV century to 1915: A Historical-Demographic Survey with Rreference to the Case of Erzrum] Hovhannisian, P., Khurshudian, L., Mkrtchian, L. In Hayots tseghaspanutyuny (usumnasirutyunner) [The Armenian Genocide (investigations)]. Yerevan: Hrazdan Publishers.

23. Melkonian R. (Ed.). (2011). Turkery turkeri masin [Turks about Turks]. (Vol. 3). Yerevan: YSU Press.

24. Melville Ch. (1919). The land of the stalking death. A journey through starving Armenia on an American relief train. The National Geographic Magazine, 36(5), 393-420. Retrieved September 10, 2020

25. Miller D.E., Miller L.T. (1993). Survivors: an oral history of the Armenian Genocide. Berkely: Berkely University of California Press.

26. Morgenthau H. (1974). The murder of a nation. New York: Armenian General Benevolent Union of America, INC Publishers.

27. Nersisian M.G. (1998). Patmutyan keghtsararnery: hodvatsner yev haghordumner [The falsifiers of history: articles and reports]. Yerevan: RAN AS Press.

28. Nersisyan M.G., Saakyan R.G. (n.d.). Massovaya reznya armyan mladoturkami, 1909-1918 [Massacres of Armenians by Young Turks, 1909-1918].

29. Фzyьrek E. (2009, January 5). A Turkish `I apologize' campaign to Armenians. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 5, 2020,

30. Pinon R. (1916). La suppression des Armйniens. Methode allemande--travail turc [The destruction of Armenians. German method--Turkish work]. Paris. Retrieved March 7, 2014,

31. Poghosyan S. (2011). Hayots tseghaspanutyan patmutyun [The History of the Armenian Genocide]. Vol. III, Yerevan: YSU Press.

32. Paul R., Elder L. (2004). The thinker's guide to fallacies: the art of mental trickery and manipulation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Retrieved April 20, 2020

33. Sahakyan L. (2007). Bardzr Hayki Baberd, Sper, Derjan gavarneri teghanunnern u zhoghovrdagrutyuny XVI dari osmanyan ashkharhagir matyannerum [The toponyms and demography of the provinces of Baberd, Sper, Derjan in Upper Armenia in the 16^th century Ottoman registers of general census]. Yerevan: Lusakn Publishers.

34. Sahakyan L. (2011). Turkification of the toponyms in the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey. Montreal: Arod Publishers.

35. Sassounian H. (2005). The Armenian Genocide. The world speaks out: 1915-2005. Glendale: Armenian Genocide Commemoratio.

36. Simon G.K. (1996). In sheep's clothing: understanding and dealing with manipulative people. Michigan: Parkhurst Brothers Publishers Inc.

37. Simonyan H. (2012). The destruction of Armenians in Cilicia, April 1909. London: Gomidas Institute.

38. Svazlyan V. (2011). The Armenian Genocide: testimonies of the eyewitness survivors. Yerevan, “Gitoutyoun” Publishing House of NAS RA.

39. “The Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute” Foundation. (2017). Mohammad Ali Jamalzadeh. Retrieved December 17, 2020,

40. “The Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute” Foundation. (2008). New revealed Italian documents on the Armenian Genocide. Retrieved March 4, 2014,

41. “The Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute” Foundation. (n.d.). Report of Wangenheim, German ambassador in the Ottoman Empire to the reichskanzler Behtmann-Hollwegrevealed._ Retrieved March 4, 2014,

42. The text of Poghos Nubar Pasha's speech (n.d.). Jerusalem Archive of the Armenian Genocide. Box 1, Bundle E, 487-504.

43. Turkish statesman denounces atrocities: Cherif Pasha says Young Turks long planned to exterminate the Armenians (1915, October 10). New York Times. Retrieved October 5, 2020,

44. Uras E. (1988). The Armenians in history and the Armenian question. Istanbul: Documentary Publication.

45. Vermishev, Kh. (1904). Materialy dlja istorii gruzino-armjanskih otnoshenij otvet na knizhku kn. I.G. Chavchavadze--Armjanskie uchjonye i “vopijushhie kamni” [Concerning the history of Georgian-Armenian relations; a respond to the booklet “Armenian scholars and the crying stones” by I.G. Chavchavadze]. Sankt Peterburg: Pushkinskaya Skoropechatiya.

46. Vierbьcher H. (2003). Armenien 1915 [Armenia 1915]. Bremen: Donat Verlag. Retrieved January 25, 2019,

47. Wegner A. (1919). Der Weg ohne Heimkehr [The road of no return]. Berlin: Fleischel.

48. Zulalian M. (1995). Hayots patmutyan kheghatyurumy ardi turk patmagrutyan mej (hin yev mijin darer) [The forgery of the history of Armenia in contemporary Turkish historiography: Old and Middle Ages]. Yerevan: RAN AS Press.

Размещено на Allbest.ru