SUMGAYIT

The Role of Church (HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT) •The Independence Activities of The Armenian Church •The proclamation of Constitutional Regime, the Collaboration of Tashnak – Hinchak •“The regulation on Armenian CATHOLICOS and Patriarchate” •The Activities of Patriarch Zaven Efendi The regulation called “Niz?mn?me-i Millet-i Ermeniy?n” (Regulation of the Armenian Nation), which reinforced the situation of the Armenian community in the Ottoman Empire on 29 March 1863, and which granted some additional privileges and autonomy concerning their self-governance, became effective. According to the Islahat Ferm?ni (Firman of the Reforms) this regulation, which included some new provisions, that were additional to the present rights, was a reward that was granted to the Armenians, who were considered as the most loyal citizens of the state. The Armenian Patriarchate Assemblies prepared this regulation taking the consent of the Ottoman Government. With this regulation, immense privileges were granted to the Armenians. This can be expressed as “a State in a state; governance in governance.” In a way, with this regulation, the Armenians wanted to eliminate the aristocratic dominance of the Armenian nobles. In this period, the Gregorian Armenians lived in 26 Episcopal branches under the administration of their patriarch in Istanbul; and the Catholic Armenians, whose majority was in the cities, constituted 13 Episcopal branches under the administration of a Patriarch (1). Kagik Ozanyan, the Armenian writer, expressed that this regulation incites the revolutionary spirit among the Armenians and “The Armenian Question” was put on the agenda (2).THE INDEPENDENCE ACTIVITIES OF THE ARMENIAN CHURCH After the declaration of “Regulation of the Armenian Nation” in 1863 the Patriarchs started to work in the national and political environments. This regulation was considered as a step for autonomy. They hoped that if the European intervention expanded because of the Lebanon incidents, this intervention would be very beneficial for them. The revolts (1780-1862) that were started for an independent Armenia in the Ottoman Empire, did not became succesful (3). The idea of creating an autonomous state in the Ottoman Empire belongs to Migirdi? Hirimyan (1869-1873). Migirdich Hirimyan, born in 1820 in Van, became Vartabed (4) to the Akdamar Church in 1854, at the age of 34; thus, he became the member of the church. He started to publish the newspapers: The “Eagle of Van”, aiming at Armenian independence, was printed in the printing house he established in the Varak Monastery in Van; and “Eagle of Mus” was printed in the St. Garabed Monastery in 1863 in Mus. Hirimyan, who attracted attention through his sermons, was elected as the Armenian Patriarch in Istanbul in 1869 (5). His election as the Patriarch resulted in an increase in the national Armenian interests. As soon as he started to work he began his new job on these two principles: a. To examine the “Regulation of the Armenian Nation” again and have it modified according to the demands and the needs of the provinces, b. To attract the attention of the Armenians in Istanbul, the Assembly and the Government to Armenia.(6) The bankers, moneychangers and the officials did not approve and opposed these ideas of Hirimyan, whose aim was to pull Armenians into dangerous adventures. They believed that their future was united with Turkey. Consequently, Hirimyan could not obtain his objective as a Patriarch, and he had to resign in August 1873. His predecessor Patriarch Nerses Varjabedyan (1874-1884) pursued the idea of Hirimyan. In 1876, Abdulhamid II ascended the throne and the First Constitutional Regime was declared. During the Istanbul Conference (12 December 1876- 20 January 1877), which was held to settle the Bulgarian issue, Nerses Varjabedyan submitted a report prepared by the ex-Patriarch Hirimyan to the British Ambassador Henry Elliot concerning the so-called pressures on the Ottoman Armenians. However, because it was not on the agenda of the conference, his initiative was successful (7). Reports and the applications of complaints by the Patriarchate which started in the Hirimyan era increased after the problems of Christians in Thrace. If we examine the reports of violence given by the Patriarchate to the Sublime Porte and the European countries, it is easy to notice that most of them were nothing but common police incidents. On one hand, the Patriarchate was exaggerating the most common incidents and informing the government about them, on the other hand, the Patriarchate transformed these incidents into serious political issues; and started to inform the European countries about them. Before 1877-1878 Ottoman-Russian War there were two alternatives for the Armenians: a. To remain loyal to the Ottoman State and the Turkish people, b. To follow the steps of the other Christian communities in the Empire and to provide the intervention of the European states. Patriarch Nerses sent a letter to the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lord Salisbury on 13 April 1878. The letter is as follows: “It is no longer possible for the Armenians and the Turks to live together. Only a Christian administration can provide the equality, justice and the freedom of conscience. A Christian administration should replace the Muslim administration. Armenia (Eastern Anatolia) and Kilikya (8), are the regions, where the Christian administration should be founded… The Turkish Armenians want this… That is, a Christian administration is demanded in Turkish Armenia, as in Lebanon.”(9) The Patriarch visited the British Ambassador to Istanbul, Layard on 17 March 1878 and told him that: “A year ago we did not have any problems with the Ottoman administration. However the Russian victory has changed the situation now. We want an independent Armenia in the East. If you can not help us, we will apply to the Russians.” When the ambassador asked him what he meant by “Armenia”, the Patriarch said, “Van, Sivas, Diyarbakir and Cilicia”. The ambassador said “Yes; but you do have not the majority in these places.” The Patriarch replied “We know this. Yet Russia is gaining lands now. The balance of powers between Russia and the Ottoman Empire changed. We have to take our future into account.” (10) Thus, he explained the objective of the Armenians. Upon the peace request of the Ottomans, 1877-1878 Ottoman- Russian War ended on 31 January 1878 through the armistice concluded in Edirne (11), the terms of the peace agreement were settled in Ayastefanos (Yesilk?y). During the peace negotiations in Ayastefanos (Yesilk?y), Nerses Varjabedyan, in person and the Armenian notables negotiated with the Grand Duke Nikola, the head of the Russian delegation, the brother of the Tsar and they maneged to add an article concerning the Armenians. On 3 March 1878, the Ottoman State and Russia signed the Ayastefanos Agreement, which included heavy provisions. By stating the word “Armenia” in the 16th article of the agreement, the Ottoman State was forced to accept the presence of a state. However this agreement was not put into force. When Patriarch Varjabedyan heard that the Ayastefanos Agreement would be modified in Berlin, he started to initiate the activities among the states that would participate in the congress. Within the context of this objective, the Archbishop of Besiktas Horen Nar Bey went to Russia (St. Petersburg) and was received by Tsar Alexander II. Horen Nar Bey requested him to continue protecting the Ottoman Armenians and to defend their struggle in the Berlin Congress. A delegation under the chairmanship of the ex- Patriarch Hirimyan visited the capitals of Europe (Rome, Vienna, Paris, London) and started to propagate in order to gain the politicians consent for the Armenian Struggle (Hai Tahd). The delegation had a project comprising of 7 articles, which stated the Armenian demands for the purpose of establishing Armenia in Turkey (12). In addition to those activities, patriarch Nerses Varjabedyan sent a letter to the president of the Manchester Armenian Committee, Karekin Papazyan (13), stating that they were grateful to Russia and thanks to Britain, they gained the hope and goals, which was to attain material and moral prosperity. He also visited the British Ambassador, Layard, in Istanbul on June 30. He reported that they had given the project to the congress and he requested that the British should support this project. (14) Additionally, Patriarch Nerses sent the falsified statistical figures of the church concerning the Armenian population in the big states. As a result, this artificial problem, the 16th article of the Ayastefanos Agreement, was accepted as the 61st article of the Ayastefanos Agreement without many modifications on July 13, 1878. In this way, the Armenian question was established as the “Issue of Reforms”, that would be implemented in the Ottoman State under the supervision of the big states. Nuryaz ?eraz participated in the Berlin Congress with ex-patriarch Hirimyan as an interpreter-secretary and published a brochure in 1879, which says that for the Armenians there was no need to sink into despair because of the results obtained in the Berlin Congress. Nuryaz ?eraz addressed them as follows (15): “The Berlin Congress laid down the foundations of the national structure (The Armenian State)…Europe gave us arms; we have to use them before they rust…We acquired a gold mine through the Berlin Congress. It is our duty to run it and mine the gold” As it is seen in the brochure, the Armenians were proposing the armed action and it was also stated that the European countries were supporting them. Patriarch Nerses Varjebedyan believed that the problem should be worked out by means of revolution and rebellion and he founded the “Reforms Commission” in the Patriarchate. Towards the mid 1879, the Commission sent a circular to the Episcopacies and invited the Armenians to the rebellion with one statement. This circular also included what the Armenian religious people in the provinces were supposed to do (16). Meanwhile, the Archbishop Mateos Izmirliyan, the Deputy Armenian Patriarch in Istanbul, dealt with sending letters to the episcopacies. When these letters are examined, it is easy to see that the Patriarchate was unfaithful and the aim of the action pursued was to demolish the government to provide foreign intervention, eventually to obtain autonomy (17). The Governor of Sivas province, Hakki Pasha attracted attention to the below mentioned issues in his article, published in 1881 and 1882, when the activities of the Patriarchate against the state were reported to the Ministry of Interior (18): 1. The Patriarchate started sending circulars which mention revolution and rebellion preparations, to the bishops. 2. The Patriarchate fired or killed some of the sensible old bishops, who did not obey the rules of the Patriarchate and who were of the opinion that it was in vain for the Armenians to revolt and rebel and that the Armenian people would experience harm. Young and revolutionist bishops and priests replaced them. 3. The Patriarchate was involved in the censure, which was the duty of the state, through sending secret circulars to the European states, in order to show that they had the majority in the “Six Provinces”. 4. The Patriarchate propagated against the Turks and in favour of the Armenians in the European press, by collecting taxes using different names such as Famine Relief for the Armenians, payment of debts of Kud?s-? ?erif and so forth. It tried to pretend to demonstrate the ordinary crimes as if they were the Armenian genocide. In short, it started a campaign based on the distorted incidents, fiction and slander. 5. The Patriarchate has hundreds of thousands liras (gold), which it collected from the Armenians under the pretence of “relief”. The armed gangs, which disseminated from Russia to Eastern Anatolia, with the help of local guards and using some of this money started to terrorise. 6. The priests demolished the respect for the rules of the government and obedience through posioning the minds of the Armenian people even the little children in the Armenian schools. 7. The Patriarchate is providing financial assistance to the committees it had helped to establish. It is useful to mention that the committees are under the administration of the Patriarchate. After the death of Nerses Varjabedyan in 1884, the Bishop of Erzurum, Haratyun Vehabedyan (1885-1888) was elected as Patriarch in 1885. Vehabedyan disapproved the policy pursued by Migirdi? Hirimyan and Nerses Varjabedyan and he believed that it was useless to hope for help from Europe for the reformation of the condition of Turkish Armenians. During the age of Haratyun Vehabedyan, who was the Patriarch for three years, the Armenian rebellion committees were expanded and opened branches in Europe and in America. The Armenian Revolutionist Parties adopted the Armenian nationalism ideal along with the church, in other words, the ideal revolutionary movement demanding autonomy. “Armenagan”, the first Armenian political party was founded in 1885 in Van. It was organised according to the model of its pioneers in Europe and had its own publication organ (19). In 1887, the Armenians founded their first Marxist party in Geneva. Later on they acquired the name “Hin?ak Revolutionist Party” in 1890(20). The Archbishop of Izmir Monastery, Horen Asikyan (1888-1894) replaced Haratyun Vehabedyan. During this period, the ordinary crimes in the provinces were exaggerated by the bishops and were reshaped and reflected to Europe as the “Turkish oppression and torture”(!).Their intervention was requested. However, the Armenian committee members attempted to assassinate of Patriarch Horen Asikyan believing that he was not active enough for their cause. The Patriarch was only wounded and he resigned (21). After Horen Asikyan, the Ex-Patriarch to Egypt, Mateos Izmirliyan was elected as the Armenian Patriarch to Istanbul (1894-1896). This boosted the morels of the Hinchaks. He employed officials and members, from the committees. Izmirliyan did not only disseminate the idea of revolution and rebellion but he also severely criticised the services provided by the government and he sent reports to the British Embassy and to the newspapers in London (22). The rebellions, which took place in the period of Mateos Izmirliyan, started to expand rapidly to almost all the provinces (23). Thanks to the dexterity of Abdulhamid II, these rebellions were suppressed in a very short time. Izmirliyan resigned and went to Jerusalem. When he came back to Istanbul he was elected as Patriarch for the second time (1908-1909)(24). The proclamation of Constitutional Regime, the Collaboration of Tashnak - Hinchak Following the proclamation of the Constitutional Regime on 23-24 July 1908, the Patriarchate became accomplice a full of the committees. Thus, the Armenian Church acquired its role in terror after the proclamation of the Constitutional Regime. The report No 602 on 3 December 1910 sent by the Russian Consul to Bitlis to the Russian Embassy to Istanbul (25), was clearly showed the relationship between the church and the Tasnak members. Following the “Incident of 31 March” in 1909, in Istanbul temporarily there was no government and this provided the opportunity, which the Armenians sought. With the encouragement of Armenian Archbishop to Adana, Museg, the Armenian rebellion took place on 14 April 1909, with the aim of obtaining the intervention of the European countries through attracting their attention to this and establishing the Armenian State in Adana, Maras, Mersin and Iskenderun with the assistance of the Hinchaks (26). During 13 days, approximately 20.000 Turks and Armenians died in Adana incidents. And the Bishop Museg escaped to Alexandria in the second day of the revolt. In the same period, on 29 May 1909, the Armenian Patriarch in Istanbul, Mateos Izmirliyan, left to Istanbul to replace the Catholicos Post, E?miyazin, Migirdi? Hirimyan, who died on October 1907. Yegice Turhan replaced Mateos Izmirliyan (1909-1911) as the Patriarch (27). After this, Hovannes Arsaruni was elected for the Post of Patriarch (1912-1913)(28). “The regulation on Armenian CATHOLICOS and Patriarchate” The activities of the Armenian Patriarchate to divide the country, necessitated the modification of the rights, that were stated in the “Regulation of the Armenian Nation”, granted by the Patriarchate and the State in 1863. With the “Regulation of Armenian Cathogicos and Patriarchate”, which became effective on 10 August 1916, the two separate posts like Cathogicos, which is spiritual and superior, and Patriarchate, which is semi spiritual, semi political and administrative, were put together and the single post, Cathogicos – Patriarchate Post emerged. The two Cathogicoses (Sis and Akdamar) in the Ottoman State and the two Patriarchates (Istanbul and Jerusalem) were abolished. The only post, Katogigos-Patriarchate replaced them. Its location was not Istanbul, the political center of the state; but the religious centre of Christianity, Jerusalem. The changes were materialized in the assemblies of the Patriarchate. The General Assembly (Mill? Meclis-i Umum?) comprised of 140 members was abrogated and the Religious Assembly (Meclis-i Ruhan?) comprised of 12 persons and the Joint Assembly replaced it. The Ottoman State aimed at disconnecting the relation between the Cathogicos of Echmiyazin and Russia. Therefore, the Ottoman State tried to free the Ottoman Armenians from moral protection of Russia. The Ottoman Empire was defeated in the World War I and the Entente Powers occupied its lands according to the provisions in the Armistice of Mondros, which was signed between the Entente Powers and the Ottoman Empire on 30 October 1918. Now, the time has come for the liberation of the country and the establishment of a new state, The Republic of Turkey. The Activities of Patriarch ZAven Efendi The Armistice of Mondros was an important step for the Armenians to establish Armenia. Zaven Efendi, the Armenian Patriarch, came to Istanbul on 6 December 1918 in accordance with the Regulations in 1918 (30). He established an organisation to found the independent Armenia (31). He collected aids like guns, bullets and money, tried to find the necessary equipment and got considerable assistance from the Greek Patriarchate (32). Bogos Nubar Pasha made an application to the Entente Powers on 30 November 1918, using the title of “the representative of Turkish Armenians” and he requested from the Entente Powers and the League of Nations to take Armenia under their protection (33). In the mean time, on 12 February 1919, the Patriarch Zaven Efendi went to Istanbul, Paris and then to London for the realisation of the same issue. First, he met Bogos Nubar Pasha and he enlightened him concerning issues; next Lord Cecil, Lord Curzon and his deputy Lord Harding. He also negotiated with French Chambon and the Greek Prime Minister Venizelos (34). He visited the British King George V to express the gratitude of the Armenians (35). While he was coming back from London to Paris he met with the French President and the Prime Minister and he came back with feelings of contentment and hope (36). After the foundation of the Turkish Republic and the Lausanne Conference, there was no Armenian Question. The Armenian Church in Turkey opposed the initiatives of the Armenian Diaspora that would put Turkey into difficulty let alone pose problems. The Armenian Patriarch continued to react against the so-called Armenian genocide. Therefore Dikran Kevorkan, the Chief of the Armenian Church in Kandilli said the following in the TV program, called Ceviz Kabugu on 7 October 2000 concerning the newly started propaganda within 6 months: “The genocide and relocation (Tehcir) (the act of moving someone from somewhere) mean different things. The intrigues of the imperialists, the Armenian leaders with apolitical visions (media, churches, and the religious people) caused all these incidents. The Patriarch is the spiritual leader. It is a mistake to ask him about his political views. What could have they done the imperialist powers if had not supported ASALA and PKK?” The idea of Kevorkan about the “assimilation” was as follows: “Turkey is the only country, where the Armenians can preserve their identity freely and strongly. The Armenians, in the Diaspora abroad, change their names before they start their struggles, because in those countries an assimilation policy. The Armenians in the Diaspora against Turkey, know very well that in some of the churches in America the sacrifice ceremonies are fulfilled in English. The Armenians are forgetting their own language. When you say this, you are criticised. Therefore, we, the Armenian citizens of the Republic of Turkey, are expressing our grief. Why? Because it is unfair to act towards the Kuvay-i Milliye (Power of Nation), commanded by Ataturk. All these are the intrigues of the outsiders, including PKK, ASALA, and this decree. Those are the ruse of the outsiders. We, the citizens in Turkey, are of the opinion that this is unfair. If the Armenians are wise they should not let themselves be used as a tool.” REFERENCES1. Ilber Ortayli, Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Yerel Y?netim Gelenegi, Istanbul 1985, pp. 73 2. Esat Uras,a.g.e.,pp.412 3. See Erdal Ilter, Ermeni Mes’elesinin Perspektifi ve Zeytun Isyanlari (1780-1880), Ankara 1988, pp.97-115 4. The spiritual ranks of the Armenian Church are as follows: Katogigos, Patriarch, Bishop, Vartabed, Priest. 5. Esat Uras, a.g.e., pp. 417; Louse Nalbandian, a.g.e., pp.53; Kamuran G?r?n, a.g.e., pp. 62,74- 6. The word, Armenian means the Eastern Anatolia. However the word Armenia is accepted as the geographical term, not as an ethnic term, in the geographical scientific milieus. As from the XIII. Century, the name Armenia, which means “High/ Upwards/ Mountainous Region”, did not occur by chance and until the second half of XIX. Century the region (Eastern Anatolia) was called “Turcoman Country”. For more information see H. Kemal T?rk?z?, T?rmen ?lkesi (Dogu Anadolu) Adi Emperyalizmin Etkileri, Ankara 1985, pp. 1-12; Kamuran G?r?n, a.g.e., pp. 1-9; Mehlika Aktok Kasgarli, a.g.e., pp.329; Tuncer Baykara, Anadolu’nun Tarih? Cografyasina Giris, Anadolu’nun Idar? Taksimati, 1, Ankara 1988, pp.24-25, 7. Esat Uras, a.g.e., pp.417; Salahi Ramsdan Sonyal, The Ottoman Armenians,pp.41 8. Kilikya is a region between Taurus Mountains, Amanos Mountains and the Mediterranean. In the administrative context, Adana province was called Kilikya in the Ottoman Empire. The borders of Kilikya has changed sometimes. 9. F.O. 424/70, No. 134/I zikr., Bilal N. ?imsir, British Documents On Ottoman Armenians 1856-1880), Vol. I, Ankara 19R2, pp.173. Document No. 69 10. Kamuran G?r?n, a.g.e., pp. 99. 11. Nihat Erim, Devletlerarasi Hukuk ve Siyasi Tarih Metinleri: Osmanli Imparatorlugu Andlasmalari, Vol.1, Ankara 1953, pp.381-385. 12. For the whole of the project, see Esat Uras, a.g.e., pp.459-485; Enver Ziya Karal. A.g.e., Vol. VIII, pp.132; L’ Angleterre et les Armeniens (18391904), pp.19-22. 13. For the text of the letter, see Esat Uras, a.g.e., pp.485-486. 14. Kamuran G?r?n, a.g.e., pp.104. 15. Turkey No.4(1880). No.118/I. Zikr., Bilal N. ?imsir, a.g.e., pp.602-606, Document No.309.. 16. Mehmed Hocacioglu, Tarihte Ermeni Mezalimi ve Ermeniler, Istanbul 1976, pp.181-182. 17. For the essence of the letter, see Aspirations et Agissement Revolutionaires des Comites Armeniens…, pp.308-310. 18. Mehmet Hocaoglu, a.g.e., pp.182-185. 19. Louise Nalbandian, a.g.e., pp.90. 20. Louise Nalbandian, a.g.e., pp104-117. 21. Esat Uras, a.g.e., pp.724-725. For the threatening letter to Horen Asikyan, sent by the Hin?ak Committee see Aspirations et Agissement Revolutionaires des Comites Armeniens…, pp.310-311 22. H?seyin Nazim Pasa. Ermeni Olaylari Tarihi, I. Ankara 1994, pp.66. 23. For the chronological order of the rebellions see Kamuran G?r?n, a.g.e., pp.139-159. 24. Esat Uras,a.g.e.,pp.833; Salahi Ramsdan Sonyel, a.g.e., pp.281. 25. Aspirations et Agissement Revolutionaires des Comites Armeniens…, pp.95-103. 26. For more information on 1909 Armenian incidents see Cemal Pasa Hatirat (1913-1922), Istanbul 1922, pp.249-256; Esat Uras a.g.e., pp.810-829; Mehmet Asaf, 1909 Adana Ermeni Olaylari ve Anilarim, yay. haz., Ismet Parmaksizoglu, Ankara 1982; Salahi R. Sonyal, “The Turco-Armenian Adana Incidents in the Light of Secret British Documents (July, 1908- December-, 1909), “Belleten, Number:20 i (Aralik 197), pp.1291-1338. 27. Jacques de Morgan, a.g.e.,pp. 369: Raymond H. Kevorkan-Paul B. Paboudjian, Les Armeniens dans L’Empire Ottoman, Paris 1992, pp.29. 28. Jacques de Morgan. A.g.e., pp.369. 29. BOA, DUIT, No. 67/1-I; for the French version of the Regulation see, Hrant Vartabed, L’Empire Ottoman et L’Independence de L’Eglise Armenienne, Publications de Dadjar, No. 2, Constantinople 1917, pp.80-94. 30. Zaven Efendi, who worked as bishop in Erzurum between 1898-1906, in 1910 in Van and between 1919-1913 in Diyarbakir, was elected the Armenian Patriarch to Istanbul. However because of his negative activities he was sent to Baghdad. Following the Mondros Armistice he came back to Istanbul. For more information see Christopher J. Walker, a.g.e., pp.426-427; and see Zeki Sarihan, Kurtulus Savasi G?nl?g?, I, Ankara 1993, pp.136-137. 31. M.Kemal Atat?rk, Nutuk, I, 1919-1920, Istanbul 1967, pp.2; Selahattin Tansel, Mondros’ tan Mudanya’ ya Kadar, I, Anakara 1973, pp.106 32. Erg?n?z Ak?ora, “Milli M?cadele Yillarinda Kurulmus Faydali ve Zararli Cemiyetler,” TDTD, Number: 4 (April 1987), pp.20. 33. For the reference text of Bogos Nubar Pasha see Esat Uras, a.g.e., pp. 923-924. 34. Esat Uras, a.g.e.,pp. 943-944. 35. Esat Uras, a.g.e., pp.943-944 36. Esat Uras, a.g.e., pp.943-947.

Missionary Activities (HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT) It is understood that the missionaries, who first came to Turkey, were the members of the “British and Foreign Bible Society”; and after the establishment of this organisation in 1804 it started to send the missionaries from Izmir to the inner parts of Anatolia. As from 1819 the American missionaries began to come.In 1896, differant missionaries, who were related to different Churches, 7 from America, 4 from Britain, dispersed to the Ottoman lands. 176 American missionaries and 869 local assistants worked together with them. The principal cities, where there was a mission were as follows: Bursa, Izmir, Merzifon, Kayseri, Sivas, Trabzon, Erzurum, Harput, Bitlis, Van, Mardin, Antep, Maras, Adana, Hacin, Ankara, Yozgat, Amasya, Tokat, Arapkir, Malatya, Palu, Diyarbekir, Urfa, Birecik, Elbistan, Tarsus. Although the missionary activities did not support the Armenian revolts, they played an important role within the context of preparing the ground for the rebellions. The reports received from the provinces recorded that the missionary activities increased in the periods just before and immediately after the rebellions. REFERENCE G?r?n, Kamuran, Ermeni Dosyasi, TTK Basimevi, Ankara,1983,pp.40-44

Propaganda (HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT) We can easily say that the weakest point of Turks is propaganda. The situation was the same in the Ottoman State, as well; and it has been the same in the Republic of Turkey. For Turks propaganda meant responding the articles and false claims. That is, nothing but a passive effort aiming at self-defence. This approach provided the comfort and freedom of activity for the other side to lay the blame on Turkey.The most intensive period, when the propaganda against Turkey and the Turks occurred in America, was the year 1923. Powell writes about its reasons as follows: “The reasons for the deep-rooted hostility against the Turks can be cited like that: The oppression policy against the Christian minority and especially the Armenians; secondly, religious prejudices and political propaganda. It is hard to say where the former ends and the latter one starts. Thirdly, the worry and the disappointment because of the re-emergence of a country, which we considered as defeated and disintegrated; and finally, the insistent rejection of the Turks to defend themselves.” Powell writes about the last reason in the page 32 of his book and in his article in 1922, he reports the conversation he had with Sultan Vahdettin, in Yildiz Palace and the statements of the Sultan as follows: “Your newspapers and the magazines would not publish it, if we sent an article written by a Turk. If it was published, your people would not read this; if they read it they would not believe in it. Even if we sent an expert, who can express the Turkish opinion in your own language to America, can this person find unbiased masses of listeners?” Perhaps the words of the Sultan are right. Therefore, again in page 10 of the same book, it is said that one of the esteemed religious people of New England, whose name is not stated, says as follows: “I do not want to hear the truth concerning Turks. I have already changed my opinion about them.” This is because Turks were silent all the time and its opponents propagated against them and the religious and political considerations made an impression. Besides this, the mentality like “somehow or other it would not be published; even if it was published people would not read; even if it was read people would not believe”, was an associate element which caused the development of an approach against Turkey and production of an easy and quick result of contrary propaganda. Generally, almost in every country there is tendency to believe that the article in a newspaper gives facts. It is obvious how the religion factor and political considerations have an associate role in the development and adoption of a disadvantageous ambience against Turkey. When the wise propaganda is involved the situation becomes worse. The reality in the reflected news diminishes or is totally lost, let alone reflect unilateral news. In the book the statements given prove this thesis: “Events of violence were greatly exaggerated. Some of the violence supposed to have happened recently did not even occur. One of the local press representatives (Istanbul) of the American relief organisation told his friends frankly that he could only send the news against the Turks; because it was what earned him money.” “The fact that they did not want to publish the report is not incomprehensible. Additionally, M. Venizelos laid all his weight. He objected to the publication of the incidents when the names of the witnesses were concealed and which were established without the presence of the Greek representative. It was rightful to behave like this not within the framework of the western commission but the local Greek authorities. The people, who unveiled the information against Greece lived in the regions under the Greek occupation and they could not be exposed to Greek retaliation. The same legal concerns were valid for the Bryce Report, which was about the treatment of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and the German brutality in Belgium. Despite the same reasons, the allied governments did not hesitate to publish the above mentioned reports.” The Bryce Report, that Toynbee mentioned, is the Blue Book of the British, of which he was the editor. However, the opposite occasions seldom occurred. The British had to evacuate Baku on 18 September 1918. When the newspapers published this news, they mentioned the disloyalty of the Armenians. The British propaganda services seriously became anxious about it and tried to remove the effect of the news. The below mentioned lines of a memorandum, which was prepared with this objective, are very important: “To discredit the Armenians means to weaken the struggle for Turkish hostility. It was difficult to eliminate the conviction that the Turkish people who were trying to with disasters continuously, are noble people. This news will revive this conviction and will harm the prestige of the Zionists and the prestige of Arabs. (…) The Turkish treatment towards the Armenians is the greatest leverage of the Government of the Majesty to provide the acceptance of the radical solution for the Turkish issue at home and abroad.” It is useful to have a look at what kind of organisation the British established in order to take measures for the propaganda: “The first thing that I heard concerning the propaganda department was that on August 1914 in Walton Health Golf Club, on Sunday, following a lunch, Mr. T.P. O’Connor told Lloyd George that it was necessary to respond to the propaganda, which was launched by the German in America by distributing brochures in the streets, and giving them to the passengers getting of the ships. Upon this, Lloyd George said, see this issue, what can Charlie do, consider this. Masterman accepted it.” Mr. Masterman was an old Member of Parliament, and a member of the House of Commons. After this date, Mr. Masterman established the propaganda bureau and became the head of it. The presence of the bureau was concealed. Mr. Masterman resigned his post in the National Health Insurance Commission and he transformed the working place of this Commission “Wellington House”, into the headquarters of the bureau and it was recorded as “Wellington House” in the documents. The activity domain of the “Wellington House” is described as follows: “To disseminate the incidents like the struggle of the Allies; the efforts of the British; the things done by the Navy, Army and the merchant Marine; the economic and military capacities of the Empire, the reasons and the goals of the war; the crimes and the brutality of Germany and its allies; the struggle of Belgium, the incidents which prove the non-humanistic side of the submarine war. The means, which are used are books, brochures, magazines, diagrams, maps, posters, postcards, pictures, photographs and exhibitions.” It was stated that only in Britain, the department published 17 million copies. At the end of the 3rd report of 118 pages concerning the activities of Masterman’s Bureau, there is the list of the published brochures and the books. At the end of the second half of 1916, the number of the published brochures and books is 182. We come across the names of writers like Max Aitken, William Archer, Balfour, James Bryce, E. T. Cook, Conan Doyle, Alexander Gray, Archibald Hurd, Rudyard Kipling, A. Lowenstein, C. F. G. Masterman, A. J. Toynbee, H. G. Wells. One of the three books of Toynbee is “ The Tyrannies on Armenians”. All the references in the “Blue Book”, which was published by the Masterman’s Bureau and re-published by an Armenian publishing house in America, are the Armenian newspapers like “Horizon” published in Tiblisi, “Armenia” published in Marseilles, “Ararat” published in London, “Gotchnag” published in New York, and the Committee of Armenian Tyranny in America, which reflected the information that was collected from the missionaries. It is evident what kind of book it would be, which was based on these sources. In the meantime, it is useful to note that although the Armenians in Istanbul and Izmir were not replaced, in the map given in this book it looks as if they have been replaced. After the explanation on how the Blue Book was written, it is necessary to quote from two writers who studied these issues and how the propaganda materials was collected. The first writer is Arthur Ponsoby and the name of his book is “The Lies In the War Time”. Ponsoby was a member of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons as from 1910 until 1918. Later on, he was joined to the Labour Party. He was a person, who was against war. He published his book in 1928. The interesting parts which tell about the methods of propaganda are as follows: “The War-Office issued a circular and invited the Officers to report on the war incidents about the enemy and had added that the incidents did no have to be real, a normal probability was enough.” (Page 20) “Lies about brutality are one the most satisfactory ones: Especially in this country (Britain) and America, no war can be without them. To discredit the enemy can be considered as patriotism.” (Page 22) “Even in ordinary incidents, of no importance, the witnessing of people would not create absolute confidence. At a moment when prejudices, enthusiasm, ambition and patriotism are mixed with sentiments, the statements made by a person has no value. It is impossible to block the dissemination of brutal stories. They were reiterated with brochures, posters, letters and speeches for many days. Popular figures, who would avoid to sentence their mortal enemies because of lack of evidence, did not hesitate be the leaders who accuse a nation of all kinds of brutalities and unnatural murders.”(Page 129) “A photograph, taken by a camera has a great effect on the people because it is reliable. There is nothing more authentic than an instantaneous photograph. Nobody would think of doubting the authenticity of a photograph. Because of this, if it is false, it takes time to reveal it. During the war, the photograph assemblage became an industry. All the states did this; but the experts were the French.” (Page 135) This expression may seem vague. Therefore it is appropriate to give some examples: “In Europe, soon after the news was realised about the storming of Ottoman Bank by Armenians and attacks on the Armenians, some of the artists from illustrated newspapers were sent to Istanbul to draw the pictures of brutal incidents. One of the well-known war correspondents, Mr. Melton Prior was among them. He was a man of energetic and determined nature. He had an independent character. He told me that he was in a very delicate position because of his special task. People in his country heard about brutal and violent incidents and were eager to see pictures about them. Since the deceased Armenians were buried, the women and children were not harmed and none of the Armenian churches were attacked, providing these pictures was a problem. Being an honest man who appreciated the Turks, he refused to contrive false pictures of scenes he had not witnessed. However, the others were not as honest as he was. Consequently, I saw, in an Italian illustrated newspaper, horrible pictures, which showed the massacred women and children.” “One of the up-front names, that was mentioned on the occasion of the so-called brutal correctional measures, was Musir Sakir Pasha, who was sent to Anatolia to make reforms. It was rumoured all over the world that while the Field Marshall was in Erzurum on October 1895 that is during Armenian Revolt, his chain watch in his hands, he was instructing the soldiers to kill the Armenians for one and a half hours more- two hours in some of the versions-… Taking into account the objective of our trip, we visited the British Consul, Mr. Graves; the Governor, Mehmet ?erif Rauf Pasha; The French Consul M. Roqueferrier and the Russian Consul, M. V. A. Maximov. We asked these people whether they believed the rumors about ?akir Pasha. M. Roqueferrier told us that these were ridiculous stories, that were made up for fun and he added some words of appreciation for Sakir Pasha.” “Russian Consul, M. Maximov said: It is not my responsibility to contradict these stories. What I can tell you about ?akir Pasha is that it is true that he is very brave and kindhearted. I have known him for long years. He is my friend. The British Consul, Mr. Graves said I was not there. I did not talk to him concerning this subject. However the Governor said that this is not true. This is sufficient for me because I believe what Rauf Pasha says without any hesitation.” “I asked Mr. Graves, “Do you suppose that any massacre would occur, if the Armenian rebels did not encourage the Armenian for the rebellion.” He replied, “certainly not. Not a single would have been killed.” Nevertheless, this information never published in the western press. As it is stated in these words: “At the end of October (1922), the representative of the Near East Relief Organisation, late Miss Annie T. Allen and Miss Florence Billings sent a report to the headquarters of the organisation in Istanbul. The report, consisted of the condition of the Turkish villages, which the Greeks set on fire while they were retreating. The organisation never published the report, as Lloyd George did not publish the Bristol Report concerning the catastrophe in Izmir caused by the Greeks.” Truly, Lloyd George did not publish the Bristol Report. “During the massacres in 1905, many photographs were taken in Russia. These photographs belonged to a group of corpses, surrounded by a crowd. One of these photographs was published in “Le Mirroir” on 14 June 1915 under the headline of “the murders in Poland by the German gangs”. Similar pictures, were published in many other newspapers.” (Page 136) The second writer is Allen Lane and the name of the book is “Evdeki Atesi Yanik Tutun” (Keep the Firs at Home on). The first page of the book gives, the speech given by the US. President Coolidge on the occasion of Journalists Association. The President says the following: “The propaganda tries to reflect some parts of the incidents; block the relations between one and another and come to conclusions, which are impossible to attain if the series of the incidents are examined thoroughly.” Some of the passages from the book are as follows: “The objective of the propaganda is to simplify. It creates a way of thinking, which will vindicate the fights, with the continuous reiterations for a long time. It does this through the methods which the organisations responsible for propaganda and the news agencies will accept. The propagandist will create simple and believable descriptions and fiction because these will fit the beliefs which the people are actually invited to believe. As Gobel said in the successive war, “propaganda is to submit evidences, which people cannot find and verify by themselves, to naive people the issues, they think over and have wished for. (Page 3) “In the time of war, this is, above all, to create the expected outlook and behaviour of the enemy in accordance with the prejudices about their behaviour. This necessitates concealing of the news that will make the enemy look and the submission of the news in a way, that will always arouse hatred for the enemy.”(Page 3) “The brutal stories appear in every war. The goal is to create an image which is inspired by war and which will arouse fear on it.”(Page 3) “War is presented to the people by means of universal and simple ideals on which nobody can oppose and which are known by everybody. These ideals are the symbols of the national virtues such as freedom, justice, democracy, and Christianity.” (Page 4) “Characteristic brutal stories have come from the correspondents, who are far from the operation area. Unchangeably, these are told by some of the refugees whose identities were concealed. More than after these stories give second-hand information” (Page 84). The subject of propaganda can be summarised by the words of C.F. Dixon Johnson: “The emergence of the stories concerning the massacre of the masses is disadvantageous for Turkey at the final vindication. We do not hesitate to reiterate that this is the evident objective of the direction of the British Government’s policy. The nation, with which we have close alliance ties and which is co-religionist of millions of our citizens, is accused of committing horrible crimes against humanity by relying on the evidences, which are exaggerated considerably and shamelessly. There is no need to apologise for trying to accuse it honourably.” REFERENCE: G?r?n, Kamuran, Ermeni Dosyasi, TTK Basimevi, Ankara, 1983, pp. 40-44

What is Outcome Research Conducted by Foreigners? Immediately after the World War I and following the occupation of Istanbul and several other regions of the country by the Allied armies, the British authorities had sent several hundred Ottoman political and military leaders as well as intellectuals, to Island of Malta under the accusation that they were criminals of war and imprisoned them there. The Sublime Porte had vehemently co-operated with the Allied Powers in all areas just in order to keep the sultanate and its very existence and to get rid of the Union and Progress Party that ruled the Empire for ten years and had a significant influence in the Government. A thoroughgoing examination was made on the Ottoman archives in order to find clues for indicting the Union and Progress Party as well as the detainees both in Malta and in Istanbul. All these efforts did not produce an iota of evidence that might be used to incriminate the Government of that time and the detainees. Despaired by this failure, the British Government screened its own archives and the documents held by the United States Government in Washington. The result was a blatant impasse. The United States archives contain an interesting document sent to Lord Curzon on 13 July 1921 by Mr. R.C. Craigie, the British Ambassador in Washington. The tenor of this message is as follows: “I regret to state that there is nothing that may be used as evidence against the Turkish detainees in Malta. There are no events that may constitute adequate proofs. The said reports do not appear to contain even circumstantial evidence that could be useful to reinforce the information held by His Majesty’s Government against the Turks.(1)” On 29 July 1921, the legal advisers in London decided that the intended indictments addressed against the persons on the the British Foreign Ministry’s list were semi-political in nature and therefore these individuals should be treated separately from the Turks detained as criminals of war. They also stated the following: “No statements were hitherto received from the witnesses to the effect that the indictments intended against the detainees are correct. Likewise it does not need to be restated that finding witnesses after so long a time is highly doubtful in a remote country like Armenia which is accessible only with great difficulties. (2)” This statement was also made by the legal advisers in London of His Majesty’s Government. In the end, the detainees in Malta were released in 1922 without trial and even indictment. Yet the efforts to smear image of Turks with the so-called genocide claims had not come to an end as the British press published certain documents attempting to prove the existence of a massacre claimed to have been perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire while efforts were on-stream to start a lawsuit in Malta. It was stated that these documents were unearthed by the British occupation forces in Syria led by General Allenby. The inquiries subsequently made by the British Foreign Office revealed, however, that these documents were fakes prepared by the Armenian Nationalist Delegation in Paris and distributed to the Allied representatives instead of having been discovered by the British army. REFERENCE: 1. PRO.FO. 13th July 1971, 371/6504/E8519. 2. Foreign Office, 29th July 1921, 371/6504/E8745

How do Scholars React to Allegations of Genocide? ATTENTION MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES The undersigned American academicians who specialize in Turkish, Ottoman and Middle Eastern Studies are concerned that the current language embodied in House Joint Resolution 192 is misleading and/or inaccurate in several respects. Specifically, while fully supporting the concept of a “National Day of Remembrance of Man’s Inhumanity to Man,” we respectfully take exception to that portion of the text, which singles out for special recognition: “. . . the one and one half million people of Armenian ancestry who were victims of genocide perpetrated in Turkey between 1915 and 1923 . . ..” Our reservations focus on the use of the words “Turkey” and “genocide” and may be summarized as follows: From the fourteenth century until 1922, the area currently known as Turkey, or more correctly, the Republic of Turkey, was part of the territory encompassing the multi-national, multi-religious state known as the Ottoman Empire. It is wrong to equate the Ottoman Empire with the Republic of Turkey in the same way that it is wrong to equate the Hapsburg Empire with the Republic of Austria. The Ottoman Empire, which was brought to an end in 1922, by the successful conclusion of the Turkish Revolution which established the present day Republic of Turkey in 1923, incorporated lands and people which today account for more than twenty-five distinct countries in Southeastern Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East, only one of which is the Republic of Turkey. The Republic of Turkey bears no responsibility for any events which occurred in Ottoman times, yet by naming Turkey’ in the Resolution, its authors have implicitly labeled it as guilty of “genocide” it charges transpired between 1915 and 1923; As for the charge of “genocide” no signatory of this statement wishes to minimize the scope of Armenian suffering. We are likewise cognizant that it cannot be viewed as separate from the suffering experienced by the Muslim inhabitants of the region. The weight of evidence so far uncovered points in the direct of serious inter communal warfare (perpetrated by Muslim and Christian irregular forces), complicated by disease, famine, suffering and massacres in Anatolia and adjoining areas during the First World War. Indeed, throughout the years in question, the region was the scene of more or less continuous warfare, not unlike the tragedy which has gone on in Lebanon for the past decade. The resulting death toll among both Muslim and Christian communities of the region was immense. But much more remains to be discovered before historians will be able to sort out precisely responsibility between warring and innocent, and to identify the causes for the events which resulted in the death or removal of large numbers of the eastern Anatolian population, Christian and Muslim alike. Statesmen and politicians make history, and scholars write it. For this process to work scholars must be given access to the written records of the statesmen and politicians of the past. To date, the relevant archives in the Soviet Union, Syria, Bulgaria and Turkey all remain, for the most part, closed to dispassionate historians. Until they become available, the history of the Ottoman Empire in the period encompassed by H.J. Res. 192 (1915-1923) cannot be adequately known. We believe that the proper position for the United States Congress to take on this and related issues is to encourage full and open access to all historical archives and not to make charges on historical events before they are fully understood. Such charges as those contained H.J. Res. 192 would inevitably reflect unjustly upon the people of Turkey and perhaps set back progress irreparably. Historians are just now beginning to achieve in understanding these tragic events. As the above comments illustrate, the history of the Ottoman-Armenians is much debated among scholars, many of whom do not agree with the historical assumptions embodied in the wording of H.J. Res. 192. By passing the resolution Congress will be attempting to determine by legislation which side of the historical question is correct. Such a resolution, based on historically questionable assumptions, can only damage the cause of honest historical inquiry, and damage the credibility of the American legislative process. SIGNATORIES TO THE STATEMENT ON H.J. RES. 192 ADDRESSED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RIFAAT ABOU-EL-HAJ Professor of History California State University at Long Beach SARAH MOMENT ATIS Professor of Turkish Language & Literature University of Wisconsin at Madison KARL BARBIR Associate Professor of History Siena College (New York) ILHAN BASGOZ Director of the Turkish Studies Program at the Department of Uralic & Altaic Studies Indiana University DANIEL G. BATES Professor of Anthropology Hunter College, City University of New York ULKU BATES Professor of Art History Hunter College City University of New York GUSTAV BAYERLE Professor of Uralic & Altaic Studies Indiana University ANDREAS G. E. BODROGLIGETTI Professor of Turkic & Iranian languages University of California at Los Angeles KATHLEEN BURRILL Associate Professor of Turkish Studies Columbia University RODERIC DAVISON Professor of History George Washington University WALTER DENNY Associate Professor of Art History & Near Eastern Studies University of Massachusetts DR. ALAN DUBEN Anthropologist, Researcher New York City ELLEN ERVIN Research Assistant Professor of Turkish New York University CAESAR FARAH Professor of Islamic & Middle Eastern History University of Minnesota CARTER FINDLEY Associate Professor of History The Ohio State University MICHAEL FINEFROCK, Professor of History College of Charleston ALAN FISHER Professor of History Michigan State University CORNELL FLEISCHER Assistant Professor of History Washington University (Missouri) TIMOTHY CHILDS Professorial Lecturer at SAIS, Johns Hopkins University SHAFIGA DAULET Associate Professor of Political Science University of Connecticut JUSTIN MCCARTHY Associate Professor of History University of Louisville JON MANDAVILLE Professor of the History of the Middle East Portland State University (Oregon) RHOADS MURPHEY Assistant Professor of Middle Eastern Languages & Cultures & History Columbia University PIERRE OBERLING Professor of History Hunter College of the City University of New York ROBERT OLSON Associate Professor of History University of Kentucky DONALD QUATAERT Associate Professor of History University of Houston WILLIAM GRISWOLD Professor of History Colorado State University WILLIAM HICKMAN Associate Professor of Turkish University of California, Berkeley JOHN HYMES Professor of History Glenville State College West Virginia RALPH JAECKEL Visiting Assistant Professor of Turkish University of California at Los Angeles JAMES KELLY Associate Professor of Turkish University of Utah PETER GOLDEN Professor of History Rutgers University, Newark TOM GOODRICH Professor of History Indiana University of Pennsylvania ANDREW COULD Ph.D. in Ottoman History Flagstaff, Arizona MICHAEL MEEKER Professor of Anthropology University of California at San Diego THOMAS NAFF Professor of History & Director, Middle East Research Institute University of Pennsylvania WILLIAM OCHSENWALD Associate Professor of History Virginia Polytechnic Institute WILLIAM PEACHY Assistant Professor of the Judaic & Near Eastern Languages & Literatures The Ohio State University HOWARD REED Professor of History University of Connecticut TIBOR HALASI-KUN Professor Emeritus of Turkish Studies Columbia University J. C. HUREWITZ Professor of Government Emeritus Former Director of the Middle East Institute (1971-1984) Columbia University HALIL INALCIK University Professor of Ottoman History & Member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences University of Chicago RONALD JENNINGS Associate Professor of History & Asian Studies University of Illinois KERIM KEY Adjunct Professor Southeastern University Washington, D.C. DANKWART RUSTOW Distinguished University Professor of Political Science City University Graduate School New York STANFORD SHAW Professor of History University of California at Los Angeles METIN KUNT Professor of Ottoman History New York City AVIGDOR LEVY Professor of History Brandeis University DR. HEATH W. LOWRY Institute of Turkish Studies Inc. Washington, D.C. JOHN MASSON SMITH, JR. Professor of History University of California at Berkeley ROBERT STAAB Assistant Director of the Middle East Center University of Utah JAMES STEWART-ROBINSON Professor of Turkish Studies University of Michigan FRANK TACHAU Professor of Political Science University of Illinois at Chicago DAVID THOMAS Associate Professor of History Rhode Island College WARREN S. WALKER Home Professor of English & Director of the Archive of Turkish Oral Narrative Texas Tech University WALTER WEIKER Professor of Political Science Rutgers University MADELINE ZILFI Associate Professor of History University of Maryland ELAINE SMITH Ph.D. in Turkish History Retired Foreign Service Officer Washington, D-C-EZEL KURAL SHAW Associate Professor of History California State University, Northridge FREDERICK LATIMER Associate Professor of History (Retired) University of Utah BERNARD LEWIS Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern History Princeton University

Is There Access to the Ottoman Arcihves? Are Documents Related Relocation Concealed? Documents on all matters dealing with the relocation are accessible to all. The Ottoman Archives in where these documents are kept are available for the examination of all researchers since 1925 at the Prime Ministry’s State Archives. From 1925 to date, a total of 3.817 scholars, broken down into 605 from the United States, 168 from Germany, 150 from France, 98 from Saudi Arabia, 84 from Iran, 74 from the United Kingdom, 70 from Israel, 63 from Libya, 58 from Hungary, 52 from Argentina, 47 from Bulgaria, 47 from Egypt, 39 from the Netherlands, 36 from Romania, 35 from Tunisia, 35 from Algeria and 28 from Canada, to whom should be added 190 Turkish citizens of Armenian origin, studied the existing documents and carried out scientific work. Aside from the free examination by thousands of foreigners, these documents were also published in Turkish and English and made available to the researchers. It should also be mentioned that the archives of the Turkish General Staff are being published in the Military history Documents Magazine in facsimile and modern Turkish, and being sold. Similarly, there is another publication prepared from which the Prime Ministry’s Yildiz Palace archives was published in three volumes in the Ottoman Turkish, English and modern Turkish. Despite all these facts, several Turkish and foreign organisations and nationals still claim, either intentionally or because for lack of information that the Republic of Turkey is being incriminated for “deliberately avoiding to make the archives available for examination”

Did Talat Pasha send Secret Telegrammes Ordering Genocide? Armenian propaganda claiming that so-called genocide was an Ottoman government policy requires proof that such a decision was in fact made. For this purpose the Armenians produced a number of telegrams attributed to Talat Pasha supposedly found by British forces commanded by General Allenby when they seized Aleppo in 1918. It was claimed that they were found in the office of an Ottoman official named Naim Bey, and that they could be destroyed only because the British occupation came with unexpected speed. Samples of these telegrams were published in Paris in 1920 by an Armenian author named Aram Andonian, (38) and they also were presented at the Berlin trial of the Armenian terrorist Tehlirian, who killed Talat Pasha. Nevertheless, the court neither considered these documents as “evidence” nor was involved in any decision claiming the authenticity of them. These documents were, however, entirely fabricated, and the claims deriving from them therefore cannot be sustained. They were in fact published by the Daily Telegraph of London in 1922, (39) which also attributed them to a discovery made by Allenby’s army. But when the British Foreign Office enquired about them at the War Office, and with Allenby himself, it was discovered that they had not been discovered by the British army but, rather, had been produced by an Armenian group in Paris. In addition, examination of the photographs provided in the Andonian volume shows clearly that neither in form, script or phraseology did they resemble normal Ottoman administrative documents, and that they were, therefore, rather crude forgeries. Following the Entente occupation of Istanbul, the British and the French arrested a number of Ottoman political and military figures and some intellectuals on charges of war crimes. In this they were given substantial assistance by the Ottoman Liberal Union Party, which had been placed in power by the Sultan after the war, and which was anxious to do anything it could to definitively destroy the Union and Progress Party and its leaders, who had long been political enemies. Most of the prisoners were sent off to imprisonment in Malta, but the four Union and Progress leaders who had fled from the country just before the occupation were tried and sentenced to death in absentia in Istanbul. Three other Government officials were sentenced to death and executed, but it was discovered later that the evidence on which the convictions had been based was false. In the meantime, the British looked everywhere to find evidence against those who had been sent to Malta. Despite the complete cooperation of wome enthusraztic supporters such as the Ottoman Liberal Union (38) ANDONIAN, Aram, Documents Qfficiels concernant les Massacres Armmiens, Paris, Armenian National Delegation, 1920. (39) Daily Telegraph, 29 May 1922. government, nothing incriminating could be found among the Ottoman government documents. Similar searches in the British archives were fruitless. Finally, in desperation, the British Foreign Office turned to the American archives in Washington, but in reply, one of their representatives, R. C. Craigie, wrote to Lord Curzon: “I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are at present being detained at Malta …no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence…. The reports in question do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks which would be useful even for the purpose of corroborating information already in the possession of His Majesty’s Government.”(40) Uncertain as to what should be done with prisoners, who already had been held for two years, without trial and without even any charges being filed or evidence produced, the Foreign Office applied for advice to the Law Officers of the Crown in London, who concluded on 29 July, 1921: “Up to the present no statements have been taken from witnesses who can depose to the truth of the charges made against the prisoners. It is indeed uncertain whether any witnesses can be found.” (41) At this time the “documents” produced by Andonian were available, but despite their desperate search for evidence, which could be presented in a court of law, the British, never used them because it was evident that they were forgeries. As a result, the prisoners were quietly released in 1921, without charges ever having been filed or evidence produced. It is useful to reiterate that the main elements in the chain of evidence constructed in proving that Andonian’s “documents” were all patent forgeries: 1. To show that his forgeries were in fact “authentic Ottoman documents” Andonian relied on the signature of the Governor of Aleppo, Mustafa Abdiilhalik Bey, which he claimed was appended to several of the “documents” in question. By examining several actual specimens of Mustafa Abd?lhalik Bey’s signature as preserved on contemporary official documents, it is established that the alleged signatures appended to Andonian’s “documents” were forgeries. 2. In one of his forged documents, Andonian dated the note and signature attributed to Mustafa Abd?lhalik Bey. Again, by a comparison with authentic correspondence between the Governor (40) 13 July 1921; British Foreign Office Archives 371/6504/8519 (41) British Foreign Office Archives 371/6504/E8745 Aleppo and the Ministry of the Interior in Istanbul, on the date in question, it is proven that the Governor of Aleppo on that date was Bekir Sami Bey, not Mustafa Abdulhalik Bey. 3. Consistently, Andonian’s forgeries attest to the fact that he was either totally unaware of, or carelessly neglected to account for, the differences between the Muslim Rumi and Christian calendars. The numerous errors he made as a result of this oversight are, in and of themselves, sufficient to prove the fabricated nature of his “documents”. Among other things, the errors Andonian made in this respect served to destroy the system of reference numbers and dates that he concocted for his “documents”. 4. By way of a detailed comparison of the entries made in the Ministry of the Interior’s Registers of outgoing Ciphers, wherein are recorded the date and reference number of every ciphered communication sent out by the Ministry, with the dates and reference numbers placed by Andonian on his forgeries, it is proven that his so-called “ciphered, telegrams” bear no relationship whatsoever to the actual ciphers sent by the Ministry to Aleppo in the period in question. 5. Again, by comparing the Turkish “originals” of Andonian’s ” ciphered telegrams” with actual examples of contemporary Ottoman ciphered messages, it is shown that the number groupings he employed bear no relationship to the actual ciphers the Ottomans were using in that period. Thus, in his attempt to make his forgeries appear credible, he created a whole series of unusable, non-existent ciphers. Further, from the dates he affixed to his forgeries in this category, the Ottomans would have had to use the same ciphers over a six-month period which was impossible. By publishing a series of documents instructing officials to change the ciphers they were using, it is shown that, in fact, the Ottomans were changing their cipher codes on average once every two months during the war years. 6. By comparing the manner in which the common Islamic injunction, Besmele, was written on Andonian’s two forged letters with numerous examples of the way in which it appears on authentic contemporary Ottoman documents, it is suggested that Andonian’s clumsy forgery of this term may well have stemmed from the fact that non-Muslims, even those who knew Ottoman Turkish, did not employ this injunction. 7. A number of examples from Andonian’s forgeries show that it is simply inconceivable that any Ottoman official could have used such sentence structures and make such grammatical errors. In the same vein, a host of expressions; allegedly uttered by prominent Ottoman officials are used, which no Ottoman Turk would ever have used. Andonian’s intention in these instances was clear: he wanted nothing less than the Turks themselves to be seeming to confess to crimes which he had manufactured for them. 8. The forged documents, with two exceptions, were written on plain paper with none of the usual signs found on the official paper used by the Ottoman bureaucracy in this period. The fact that one of the forged Turkish originals was written on a double-lined paper, which the Ottomans did not even use for private correspondence, constitutes an even more serious error on Andonian’s part. Even the two forgeries which appear at first glance to have been written on some kind of official Ottoman stationery are actually written on blank telegraph forms, which anyone wishing to send a telegram could pick up in any Ottoman post office. 9. At a time when the British were frantically searching the world’s archives for anything to be used as “evidence” against the group of Ottoman officials whom they were holding for trial as being “responsible for the Armenian incidents”, their failure to utilize Andonian’s “documents” which were readily available in their English edition, strongly suggests that the British Government was fully aware of the nature of these forgeries. 10. Had documents of the nature of those concocted by Andonian ever actually existed, their confidential nature would have dictated that they be sent by courier for security reasons; rather than through the easily breachable public telegraph system. Likewise, had such documents really ever been written; it is inconceivable that they could have lain around in a file for three years, instead of being destroyed as soon as they had been read. 11. There are also numerous differences between the French and English editions of Andonian’s book. Indeed, these variations are of such significance that it is absolutely impossible to ascribe them to printing errors, or errors in translation. 12. Finally, the fact that even some authors with close links to Armenian circles, who serve as spokesmen for Armenian causes, have indicated their own doubt as to the veracity of Andonian’s “documents” should not be overlooked. In short, from start to finish the so-called “Talat Pasha Telegrams” are nothing more than crude forgeries, concocted by Andonian and his associates. Moreover the Ottoman archives contain a number of orders; whose authenticity can definitely be substantiated, issued on the same dates, in which Talat Pasha ordered investigations to be made to find and punish those responsible for the attacks which were being made on the deportation caravans. It is hardly likely that he would have been ordering massacres on one hand and investigations and punishments for such crimes on the other. A letter forged by Aram Andonian with the date, February 18, 1331 (March 2,1916) opens with a “bismillah” (blessing), which would never have been written by a Moslem. The forger, Andonian, made his most fatal mistake with the date, however. He was obviously not well enough versed in the tricks of converting to the Rumi year of the Ottomans, where a difference of thirteen days between the Rumi and Gregorian calendars must be taken into account. The date he put on the letter was off by a full year. Instead of 1330 (1915), he wrote 1331 (1916). The contents of the letter are supposed to be evidence of the long advance planning of the resettlement operation of 1915.(42) (42) Feigl, Erich. A Myth of Terror, 1991, Edition zeitgeschichten-Freilassing- Salzburg, p. 85 An American aid organization called “the Near East Relief Society” was allowed by the Ottoman Government to stay and fulfill its functions in Anatolia during the deportations. Even following the entry of U.S.A. into war on the side of Entente powers against Ottoman Empire, the same organization was permitted to remain in Anatolia. This was dealt in the reports of the American Ambassador Elkus in Istanbul. In this case, if an order for “massacring Armenians” had been given, would the Ottoman Government have allowed to an American organization to be witness to the “massacres”. In other words, it is ridiculous to suppose that the Ottomans said to America: “We are massacring Armenians. Why don’t you have a look at it.” Such an allegation could never be a logical explanation of historic facts. Finally, and in the end most important, when the war came to an end, the Armenian population still was substantially in place in Western Anatolia, Thrace and Istanbul. Had the Ottoman government ordered massacres, evidently they too would have been killed. And for that matter, had the Ottoman government wanted to eliminate all the Armenians in the Empire, it could have done so far more easily by killing and disposing of them where they lived, rather than undertaking a large-scale deportation of those in the Eastern war zones under the eyes of foreign observers. The claim, thus, that the Ottoman government ordered and carried out a general massacre of Armenians in the Empire cannot be sustained and is disproved by the facts.

Did the Ottoman Government Refrain from an Investigation? The Ottoman Empire indicated its intent, by verbal notes addressed on 26th March 1916, to receive two jurists from each of Denmark, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland as countries not involved in the World War I. This initiative, of which the documents are reproduced in the last part of this document, was blocked by an intervention from the United Kingdom and as a result the formation of the committee of jurists and the investigation of the subject were blocked (1). This move is an indication of the fact that there was nothing against the international law in the acts and deeds of the Ottoman Empire and an expression of self-confidence. In fact, the prevention of this investigation seems to be motivated by the wish to conceal the actual criminals and descriptions. Had this committee been established, the arrows of accusation now aimed to Turkey would hit the real targets and the insubstantial claims would be burried. The initiatives launched by the Ottoman State did not come to an end with this move as the Sublime Port requested, by its cable dated 7th March 1920(2), the Allied Powers and Admiral Bristol to inquire into the matter, to elucidate the facts and to inform the Turkish and world public opinions of the outcome. This cable was a request “for an immediate in situ examination by an international committee of the purported massacre of Armenians and the acquittal of the Turkish nation from the propaganda with malice aforethought”. This plea was published also in all the dailies as an open letter. Similarly, a group of foreign reporters, led by Ahmet Refik, was dispatched to Eastern Anatolia for an in-depth survey(3). Would a State that had committed a crime against humanity risk the consequences of such initiatives? This example and several others to be described later will reveal beyond any shade of doubt how far the injustice made to the Turkish nation and history and how these indecent these insinuations were from a humane viewpoint.

What was the Demographic Data Before and After Relocation? The Armenian committee members always distort and exaggerate the facts about Armenian population before and after the Relocation Implementation. They try to create a basis for their false claims by using war records, official records, church statistics and, reports of foreign missionaries. Some of numbers that is given about the Armenian population in the Ottoman territories are sometimes exceed to the total Armenian population of the Diaspora. Armenian Population before the Relocation: There are many different claims about Armenian population in the Ottoman territories; some figures are as follow: 1.British Annual Register 1917 1.056.000 (1) 2.Patriarch Ormanyan 1.579.000 (2) 3.The Armenian historian Kevork Aslan 1.800.000 (3) (In “Armenia and Armenians”, Aslan states the Armenian population in Anatolia 920.000, in Clicia (Adana, Sis, Maras) 180.000, in the other Ottoman territories 700.000, total 1.800.000) 4.German Priest Johannes Lepsius 1.600.000 (4) 5.Cuinet 1.045.018 (5) 6.The French Yellow Book 1.475.011 (6) 7.The Armenian historian Basmajian 2.280.000 (7) 8.Patriarch Nerses Varjabedyan 1.150.000 (8) Official Ottoman census statistics are as follows: The Ottoman Directory of Statistics was founded in 1892 The first director of the branch was Nuri Bey. Between 1892-1897 a Jewish Ottoman, Fethi Franco was appointed for the duty. From 1897 until 1903, an Armenian director was in charge, called Migirdic Shabanyan. Later, Mr. Robert an American was appointed (1903-1908). Between, 1908-1914 Mehmet Behic was the general director. (9) As it is seen, in a very chaotic period when the Ottoman government was facing with the Armenian Issue on the international arena, the Ottoman Statistics were under the control of foreigners. At this point, the Ottoman statistics should be considered as the most objective documents about the Armenian population living in Ottoman territories. * Ottoman census statistics for 1893 1.001.465 * Ottoman census statistics for 1906 1.120.748 * Ottoman census statistics for 1914 1.221.850 (10) An evaluation of the three sources clarifies that, during the First World War, the Armenian population in the Ottoman territories was approximately 1.250.000. The numbers of the Armenians, subjected to relocation was controlled from their departure until their arrival, between June 9, 1915 and February 8, 1916. The figures below are taken from pertinent Ottoman documents (11): Adana (2) 14.000 15-16.000 Ankara (Central)(3) 21.236 733 Aydin(4) 250 - Birecik(5) 1.200 - Diyarbakir(6) 20.000 - D?rtyol(7) 9.000 - Erzurum(8) 5.500 - Eskisehir(9) 7.000 - Giresun(10) 328 - G?rele 250 - Aleppo(11) 26.064 - Haymana(12) 60 - Izmir(13) 256 - Izmit(14) 58.000 - Kal’acik(15) 257 - Karahisari sahib(16) 5.769 2nd 222 Kayseri(17) 45.036 4.911 Keskin 1.169 - Kirsehir(18) 747 - Konya(19) 1.900 - K?tahya(20) 1.400 - Mamuret?laziz(21) 51.000 4.000 Maras(22) - 8.845 Nallihan 479 - Ordu 36 - Persembe 390 - Sivas(23) 136.084 6.055 Sungurlu 576 . S?rmene 290 . Tirebolu 45 . Trabzon(24) 3.400 . Ulubey 30 . Yozgat(25) 10.916 . TOTAL 422.758 32.766 On the other hand, in the telegraph sent by the Director of Immigrants and Tribe Placement, ??kr? Bey on October 18, 1915 notified that “the number of the Armenians transported to Aleppo was about 100.000. (36) Meanwhile, it is understood from the records that an Armenian population of 120.000 people gathered in Diyarbakir as of September 18, 1915 and an Armenian population of 136.084 people gathered in Cizre as of September 28, 1915 to be sent to Musul and Zor region. (37) In a coded telegraph sent by ??kr? Bey from Nizip on November 3, 1915, it is expressed that transportation continued in a regular manner. (38) As it is from the figures given above, the Armenian population subjected to relocation was 438.758 and 382.148 of these safely reached their new destinations. (40) The number of casualties had occurred as follows: 500 people on the road between Erzurum and Erzincan; 2000 in Meskene, between Urfa and Aleppo and 2000 others on the outskirts of Mardin were massacred in attacks launched by bandits or nomadic Arabs. Another 5000 people were killed in attacks on convoys passing through Dersim. (41) It was understood from these documents that many people had also fallen victim to hunger while on the road. (42) Apart from these, some 25-30 thousand people had lost their lives when struck by fatal diseases such as typhoid and dysentery. (43) In all, an estimated 40 thousand casualties had been registered during relocation. The remaining 10-16 thousand people were made at stay in provinces they had reached, when the implementation of relocation was brought to an end. For instance, on April 26, 1916, orders were given to provide the return to and the settlement in the province of Konya of those Armenians setting out form the province to new destinations. (44) On the other hand, many other Armenians are believed to have fled to either Russia or to Western countries, including the Unites States. As a matter of fact, according to the pertinent documents, 50.000 of the Armenian soldiers serving in the Ottoman Army joined the Russian forces, and some other 50.000 Armenian soldiers went to America to be trained in the US Army to fight against the Turkish Army. In fact, the letter of an Armenian called Murad Muradyan- who was an advocate in Elazig later immigrated to America — shows such information. (45) In the concerned letter, Muradyan mentions that some Armenians were escaped to Russia and America and later 50.000 of those trained soldiers went to Caucassia. As it can be understood from all the concerned documents, many of Armenian subjects of the Ottoman State were scattered through various countries especially to U.S.A. and Russia, before and during the war. For example, Artin Hotomyan who was a tradesman in America sent a letter to the Chieftain of Security on January 19, 1915 and stated that thousands of Armenians migrated to U.S.A. and they were facing with hunger and hardships. (46) REFERENCE: Halacoglu, Prof. Dr. Yusuf-; Ermeni Tehcirine Dair Gercekler (1915), TTK Yayini, Ankara 2001. FOOTNOTES 1) Annual Record of Britannica, 1917 2) Uras, Esat, Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi, Istanbul 1987 3) Aslan, Kevork, Ermenistan ve Ermeniler, Istanbul 1914. 4) Uras, Esat, a.g.e. 5) Uras, Esat, a.g.e. 6) 1893-1897 Ermeni Isleri, Paris, 1897 Uras, Esat, a.g.e. 7) Uras, Esat, a.g.e. 8) Uras, Esat, a.g.e. 9) Mazici, Nursen, Belgelerle Uluslar arasi Rekabette Ermeni Sorunu, Istanbul 1987. 10) see. Karpat, Kemal, H. Ottoman Population 1830-1914 Demographic and Social Characteristic, The University Of Wisconsin Press, 1985 London. 11) Armenians of Kastamonu, Balikesir, Antalya, Istanbul, Urfa, Protestants and Catholics, the sick people, teachers, orphans and women with no guardian were not subjected to relocation. 12) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number 68/77 (appendix-XXII). 13) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number 68/77 (appendix -XXII). 14) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number 69/250. 15) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number 68/101. 16) The number of the immigrants from Diyarbakir is not determined. It is estimated that 20.000 Armenians were relocated from Diyarbakir. 17) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/89. 18) code. number54/162 19) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/72 20) Giresun, Per?embe, Ulubey, S?rmene, Tirebolu, Ordu and G?rele are given in the same document (see. DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/41). 21) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/76. 22) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/66. 23) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number69/260. 24) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/67 (Appendix-XXIV) 25) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/79 26) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/73. 27) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/75 (Appendix-XXV). 28) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/66. 29) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number69/34. 30) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/93. 31) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/70 (Appendix-XXVII). 32) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/41. 33) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/84 (Appendix-XXVII). 34) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/41. 35) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/66. 36) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/80 (Appendix-XXVIII). 37) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/71 (Appendix-XXIX); 2nd Branch, number68/84. 38) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/101. 39) The number of Armenians transferred from Aleppo is approximately 100.000 (see. DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/80). 40) The figures can slightly differ. 41) Coded telegraphs that were sent to the governors of Trabzon, Erzurum, Sivas, Diyarbakir, Elazig, Bitlis, Maras and Canik dated June 26, 1915. (code., number 54-A/112). 42) code., number 57/110. 43) see. DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number68/81; see. code., number 57/51. 44) code., number 63/119. 45) DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number2F/14. 46) see. DH. EUM. 2nd Branch, number2F/94.

What is Relocation? Does it mean Genocide? The Arabic originated word “tehcir” means “emigration / immigration”, it definitely not means “deportation” or “exile”. Hence the law commonly known as the “Tehcir Law” is the same as “Temporary Law On The Military Measures To Be Taken For Those Who Resist The Governmental Acts And Supplementation’s.” The word used to explain the implementation in line with this law is “tenkil” in the Ottoman language and means “transport- not the equivalent of “deportation”, “exile” or “proscription” in Latin originated languages. The relocation, which was started with the orders of Talaat Pasha, and approved by the Government and the Parliament as a measure against the Armenian riots and massacres, which had arisen in a number of places in the Country — pre — dominantly in Van province, was only implemented only in the regions in which such riots and massacres affected the security of the fronts directly. The first area was Erzurum, Van and Bitlis Vicinities which formed the rear part of the Caucasian — Iran Front; and the second was Mersin — Iskenderun Region which formed the rear part of the Sina Front. In both of these regions, Armenians had collaborated with the enemy and involved in activities to facilitate the enemy’s invasion. Later, the scope of the immigration was widened in order to include the Armenians in the other provinces, who rioted, collaborated with the enemy and screened the activities of Armenian Gangs. Although the Catholic and Protestant Armenians were excluded from immigration at the beginning, later those whose harmful activities were observed, were also relocated. Since 1915, numerous papers, reports, books, etc. were written and published about the immigration implementation. The Armenians, by using false documents have succeeded to deceit the World for a long time. The rumor about Armenian holocaust (!) which expressed at first as three hundred thousand and later increased to three million has no basis at all. In fact, although English and French authorities have extensively studied the Ottoman archives during their occupation in Istanbul have failed to find even a single document hinting about such holocaust. Had the Ottoman State intended to make genocide on Armenians; could not they realize such an act at the places where the Armenians live? Why would it be necessary “to immigrate” them for such an intention? Why did they undertake the significant fiscal and material costs of their security, safety, health and food of the immigrating Armenians? During this immigration and re-settlement process which lasted approximately 1,5 year from May 1915 until October 1916, why would the central and local administrations take measures to ensure the lives and properties of Armenians in spite of the difficult war circumstances? In addition, would it be necessary to accept great administrative, military and financial burden —as if opening a new front- to protect and secure these people? The answers to these questions shall be sufficient to understand the real intention of the Ottoman State. Also there is no logical explanation that why the Ottoman State suddenly changed its policy towards a community which had always been called as “millet-i sadika” (loyal people) due to their being really faithful to the Government. Hence the party whose attitude had changed was not the Ottoman Government, but the Armenians who were deceived by the independence promises of Russia and the Entente States. In conclusion, it can be said that the Armenian Immigration which was a necessary measure to ensure the State Security and Safety is among one of the most successful transportation and re-settlement processes; and has no intention whatsoever to annihilate Armenians. Reference: Halacoglu, Prof. Dr. Yusuf, Ermeni Tehcirine Dair Gerekceler (1915), TTK Yayini, Ankara, 2001.

April 24, 1915 The Ottoman government, against Armenian revolts starting from 1890’s and Armenian massacres which resulted with murders of tens of thousands of Turks, informed high members of Armenian congregation and the Armenian deputies that “Government will take necessary measures, if the Armenians continue to stab back the Ottoman State and to kill Turks”. The Ottoman government’s efforts to stop the events could be clarified with documents. However, it became a necessity to secure the behind lines as the army was in war more than one fronts, the events did not stop on the contrary they increased. The Armenian attacks on innocent and defenseless Turkish women and children became a vital problem. Under these circumstances, on April 24, 1915 Armenian Committees were closed by the Ottoman Government and 2345 leaders of these committees were arrested due to their antigovernmental activities. April 24, which is commemorated annually as “Anniversary of Armenian so-called Genocide” by Armenians abroad is this date when 2345 revolutionary committee members were arrested and this day is irrelevant with the Relocation Implementation. However, Armenian revolutionary committee members always used this a propaganda rule by distorting and exaggerating the facts. As a matter of fact, Ecmiyazin Catholicos Kevork sent a telegraph to the President of USA, stating: “Dear President, we have been informed that in Turkish Armenia, massacres began and the lives of the Armenians are in danger. At this delicate moment, I address to the noble feelings of Excellency and the great American Nation and in the name of humanity and Christianity, I invite you to interfere Turkey by your Great Republic’s diplomatic representatives and protect my people who were left to fanatic violence of the Turks. Kevork, Archbishop and Catholicos of all Armenians.” Russian Ambassador for Washington’s contacts with the US government followed Kevork’s telegraphs. Thus, 24 April, the day, which the Armenian committee members were arrested for their illegal activities was begun to be referred as “the day of so-called Armenian genocide by Turks”. REFERENCE: G?r?n, Kamuran, Ermeni Dosyasi, TTK Basimevi, Ankara, 1983, s.210-211

Important Questions and Answers (IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS) What does “Genocide”Mean? This term refers to a well defined crime, the definition of which has been given in an international convention made after the Second World War: the “Convention of Prevention and Repression of Crime of Genocide”, approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution of December 9, 1948 and which went into effect on January 11, 1951, convention Turkey has signed and ratified this agreement. In the convention the definition of the crime of genocide consists of three elements: for one thing, there has to be a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Then, this group has to be subjected to certain acts listed in the convention: the “murder of the members of the group, and forced transfer of the children of one group into another group and subjecting the members of a group to conditions which -will eventually bring about their physical destruction”. But the third element is the most important: there has to be “an intention of destroying”, in part or as a whole the said group. This key-description helps to differentiate between genocide and other forms of homicide, which are the consequences of other motives such as in the case of wars, uprisings etc. Homicide becomes genocide when the latent or apparent intention of physical destruction is directed at members of any national, ethnic, racial or religious groups simply because they happen to be members of that group. The concept of numbers only becomes significant when it can be taken as a sign of such an intention against the group. That is why, as Sartre said in speaking of genocide on the occasion of the Russell Tribunal on the Vietnam War, that one must study the facts objectively in order to prove if this intention exists, even in an implicit manner. (23) Prof. SOYSAL, Mumtaz, The Orly Trial, 19 February – 2 March 1985, Statement and Evidence Presented at the Trial, Ankara University, Faculty of Political Sciences, 1985

The Four “T” Plan (INTRODUCTION) The goal of Armenian terrorism that has never hesitated to go to such extremes as cold-blooded murder is to make the claims of genocide against Armenians heard and their demands known. The ultimate objective is a ?Great Armenia?, for which they designed the so called ? Four T plan? based on propaganda, recognition, indemnity and land. The intention here is to rehabilitate the world public opinion by making them to accept, through terrorism, the existence of genocide against them, to force Turkey into recognising it, to receive compensation in monetary terms and finally to seize from Turkey the land needed for realising a Great Armenia. The claims underlying ?the Four T Plan? are the following: The Turks invaded Armenia and seized its land. They applied a systematic massacre against Armenians since the 1877-1878 war. They resorted to a planned genocide against Armenians from 1915 onward. Talat Pasha issued secret orders to apply genocide on the Armenians. 1,5 million Armenians lost their lives through genocide. It is necessary to make a brief study on the claims and the historical developments of Turkish-Armenian relations so as to understand how preposterous the insinuations are and which clandestine interests underlie them

A Short Review Of Armenian History (INTRODUCTION) The racial origins of the Armenians and the geography in which they lived are still debated to- It is certain, however, that they have always been the subjects of other states throughout history. The encyclop?dias state that Yerevan, Lake Sevan, Nahkichevan, north of Rumiah Lake and Maku region were called ?Armenia? which meant ? upper lands? and the people living there were named Armenians. Some of the Armenian historians claim that they are descendants of the Hittites who lived in Cilicia and Northern Syria in the 6th century AD, while some others bring the genealogy to Haig, one of Noah?s sons. There is no certainty about exactly where the community referred today as Armenians settled and lived in the geographical region called Armenia. Their population and the percentage of their population to other groups that lived in the same area are still a mystery. Thus, even the Armenian historians are not unanimous as to their origin. It may therefore be stated that it is impossible for a community that has never had the privilege of being a nation and founding an independent state, to have claims on a certain geography as ?a homeland?. Consequently, the dream of Great Armenia is but the product of an expansionist ideology. As the history went, the Armenians lived under the Persian, Macedonian, Seleucide, Roman, Partian, Sasanite, Byzantine, Arabian and Turkish hegemonies. In fact, all of the Armenian principalities known to have existed in the region were established by the sovereigns that controlled the region in order to draw this community into their sphere of influence and employ them in a variety of tasks. The Selchuks saved the Armenians from the Byzantine persecution and offered them the opportunity of leading a decent life when they secured the control of Anatolia in 1071. Under the reign of Mehmed II, freedom of thought and belief was granted to the Armenians and the right to establish a patriarchate of their own for governing the community?s religious and social activities. The Armenian Patriarch had the power of appointing and dismissing clergy members, banning the religious rites, collecting dues from the community, concluding the marriage formalities and even pronouncing imprisonment decisions. Until the end of the 19th century, the Armenians lived their golden age under the Ottoman rule, also with the vast tolerance of the Turkish people. Having been exempted from military service and of most of the taxes, they excelled in trade, agriculture, artisanry and rose to major posts in the administration. For the services that they rendered to the Ottoman Empire, the Armenians were allowed to settle in the regions vacated after the Greek rebellion and were given the prestigious title of ?the faithful nation?. It ensues from the foregoing that there was not any Armenian issue until the end of the 19th century nor were any problems that the Armenian citizens could not solve with the assistance of Turkish administration.

How the armenian issue came about? (INTRODUCTION) When the Ottoman Empire began to decline and was exposed to European interventions in many fields, deterioration began in the Turkish-Armenian relations. The Western powers then started to sever the Armenian community from the Ottoman community for attaining their own regional interests. A number of European states that intervened in the Ottoman internal affairs under the guise of ensuring the introduction of reforms, organised the Armenians against the Empire. As a result of the provocations of the internal and external Armenian organisations as well as of the Armenian Church, this community gradually began to dissociate itself from the Turks. Starting to fight against Turks under alliance with the Western powers despite all the good intentions of Turks, the Armenians initiated a campaign to present themselves as a subjugated society and to accuse the Ottoman Empire of ?having annihilated? their sovereignty rights in Anatolia. As they lost their former privileges when the Moslems and non-Moslems were given equal rights under the Restoration Firman, the Armenians asked Russia not to withdraw from Eastern Anatolia that it had invaded during the 1977-1878 Ottoman-Russian war, to grant autonomy to these regions or to introduce reforms in their favour. This request of the Armenians were partially accepted by Russia and the Armenian issue was brought onto the international platform after Hagia Stephanos Treaty, signed at the end of the war; and also after the Berlin Treaty signed later. Thus, foreign countries that wanted to divide Turkey started to intervene in Turkish-Armenian relations. It is with these claims that the Armenian issue had begun to take shape and acquire an international character.

Armenian Revolts And Massacres (INTRODUCTION) In the period that followed the Berlin Treaty, the Armenian issue developed in two directions, The first is the interventions made by the Western powers in the affairs of the Ottoman Empire, and the second is the clandestine organisation and rearmament of Anatolian, Syrian and Thracian Armenians in various parts of Anatolia, particularly in Eastern Anatolia and Cilicia. The initial provocations started coming from Russia. This attitude induced the British and French Governments to display a greater interest toward Armenians. British Consulates mushroomed in Eastern Anatolia and large numbers of Protestant missionaries were dispatched to this region. As a result of these activities, several Armenian committees were formed in Eastern Anatolia from 1880 onward. These committees that remained at local level failed and withered away in time because the Armenians who lived in welfare and did not have any complaints against the Ottoman Empire were not interested in the committees. When the plans to make the Ottoman Armenians revolt against the State through the committees failed, the Russian Armenians were encouraged to set up such committees out of the Ottoman Empire. Hinchak was founded in Geneva in 1887, with socialist tendencies and moderately militant ideas and Tashnak was established in Tbilisi in 1887, with extremist, terrorist and revolutionary attitudes favouring armed struggle and full independence. The goal imposed on these committees were the ?salvation of Anatolian land and Ottoman Armenians?. The revolt attempts launched by the Hinchaks that extended its organisation into Istanbul and aimed at provoking the Ottoman Armenians by drawing the Western attentions on the issue, were followed by those of the Tashnaks. The common features of the both groups were the fact that they were planned and oriented by the committees that came to the Ottoman Empire from abroad and that they were largely supported by the missionaries spread all over Anatolia. The first revolt broke out in Erzurum in 1890, followed by the Kumkapi demonstration in the same year. These revolts were followed by 1892 and 1893 Kayseri, Yozgat, ?orum and Merzifon incidents, 1894 Sasun revolt, 1894 Sublime Porte demonstration and Zeytun mutiny, 1896 Van revolt and the occupation of Ottoman Bank the same year, the second Sasun Revolt in 1903, the 1905 attempt to kill Emperor Abdulhamid and the Adana revolt in 1909. By far the greatest damage given to Turks by the Armenians were the massacres perpetrated during World War I. During this period, the Armenians acted as spies for the Russians, evaded the mobilisation orders by hiding, and those that were in the Ottoman army collectively committed high treason by joining the Russian forces taking their arms with them.. The Armenian gangs that had already started attacks on the Turkish villages, with the start of the war massacred, among others, the entire women, children and the aged inhabitants of Zeve village of Van Province. The quelling of these revolts by the Ottoman army was presented to the world as a massacre of Armenians by the Moslems and thus the issue acquired a larger international dimension. In fact, the British and Russian diplomatic reports of the time state that the goals of Armenian revolutionists were to create social chaos against which the Ottoman army would react and to thereby ensure the intervention of Western powers in the situation. It seems that these goals were reached and the diplomatic and consular representations of the Western States, with the assistance of Christian missionaries spread all over Anatolia, played a major role in the transmission of the Armenian propaganda to the Western public opinion.

April 24, 1915 (INTRODUCTION) Regarding these revolts and massacres, the Ottoman Government merely declared to the Armenian Archbishop, deputies and community leaders that appropriate measures would be implemented if the Armenians did not stop massacring the Moslems. However, the intensification of the events, the increase of attacks against defenseless Turkish women and children and the war that waged on several battlefronts all at the same time necessitated to secure the rear lines. The first move adopted on April 24, 1915 was to ban all Armenian committees and to arrest 2.345 leaders for crimes against the State. The date of April 24, commemorated by the Armenians abroad as the anniversary of genocide against Armenians, is the date of these arrests and has nothing to do with the replacement. The Etchmiasin Patriarch, a priest named Kevork, sent the following cable to the United States President upon this move: Mr. President, according to the latest news received from the Turkish Armenia, a massacre started there and an organised terror has put the Armenian lives in danger. In this precarious moment, I am addressing to the noble sentiments of the great American nation and ask you to intervene immediately through your Great Republic?s diplomatic representation for protecting my people left to the mercy of the violence of Turkish fanaticism, on behalf of humanity and Christian belief. Kevorg, Ecumenic Patriarch of all Armenians. This cable was followed by the Washington contacts of the Russian Ambassador. The incident here was merely the banning of Armenian committees and the arrest of the culprits. Yet, the Armenians endeavoured to display it as a massacre and to rally the United States and Russia into their ranks.

Law On Relocation And Its Implementation (INTRODUCTION) Reasons for Relocation The Ottoman Government, in order to deal with the Armenian riots and massacres, primarily applied regional measures and preferred to maintain a position of defence to settle the events locally. Despite the great roles the religious leaders played in riots and the desertion of Armenians with their arms, the Government agreed to define these riots as individual attempts. At the same time, the Armenian Patriarch and Armenian parliamentarians, committees and leaders of the Armenian community were told that more severe measures would have to be taken in order to ensure the defence of the country in case of newly arising СПОРes. These endeavours of the Ottoman Government have been proven with documents. However, the Armenians that were well prepared for any riots before the occurrence of the war, didn?t revolt in masses as soon as the war broke out. While the Ottoman army was actively fighting on the fronts, the Armenian activities continued according plans prepared with ?the aim to serve the alliance ideal for the Armenian independence?. Nonetheless, the fact that the activities carried out by the Armenian gangs were considered as a betrayal regarding the international laws was ignored. The Armenian riots spread from Eastern Anatolia other towns. As the Russian occupation spread in and around Erzurum, Armenians considered that they could claim right on the blood of the dwellers and, as a German general cited, began to eradicate the Muslim population in this region. While these actions and brutalities of the Armenian gangs continued, numerous kinds of arms and guns were caught in the searches performed by security forces in regions where Armenians resided. This severe condition that endangered the existence of the state indicated that more problematic arouse as result of more tolerance compensation would be impossible. After the Ottoman State entered the war and especially after the defeat on the Caucasus front, occurrences such as Armenian oppression against the Muslim population, their desertion the military units, their attacks on the soldiers and security forces, their being capture with arms, the capturing of French, Russian and Armenian coding groups were the most significant proofs showing that they were about to start revolts within the country. Besides taking necessary security precautions against riots and massacres, the Ottoman Government, before the ?Law on Replacement and Settlement? was passed, had also settled the Armenians in some other regions when these precautions were not sufficient enough. However, the incident that strengthened the idea of the generalization of this practice that was the riots of the Armenians of Van. Official documents prove that the Armenians were gathering in Van and, took up armes, waiting for the Russians to get closer, when the Ottoman State entered the war. The riots that Armenians caused, excluding the massacres and destruction, resulted in the occupation of Russians of Van, Malazgirt and Bitlis within a month. The example of Van showed clearly that the Turkish army would always be betrayed. Under these circumstances, the government had to decide upon the relocation of Armenians residing in various regions of the country. The implementation of replacement became a necessity because Armenian dreaming over the foundation of an independent Armenia and thinking that they would be given the regions they occupied in the First World War. The practice of relocation of the Armenians living in the regions which formed a security line through the Caucasus, Iran and Sina, was not performed with the aim of eradicating the Armenians, but with the aim of ensuring security in the state and to protecting them. The replacement was the most successful one that ever been done in the history of world. However, the implementation of relocation is not considered from this point of view. Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora have been exercising propaganda full of lies and calumnies against the Ottoman State. Nonetheless, the historical fact is this: by the decision of relocation, Ottoman State saved the Armenians from becoming extinct and also protected them in a way never seen before. If there exists an Armenian nation and is vast in population, it stems from the good intentions and the success of the Ottomans. Armenia and the Armenians, instead of accusing them, have to be thankful to the Ottoman State for providing them with an independent church and protecting them, and they have to consider the faithful and sensible approaches Turkish Armenians, as a good example. As the riots and massacres made by the Armenians who joined in the activities of The Allied States and Russia reached to a point that would change the result of the war, the commander in chief Enver Pasha, sending a written notification to Talat Pasha, the Minister of Domestic Affairs, on 2nd May 1915, stated that it was necessary to disperse the Armenians that were ready and gathered to maintain their riots in the Van region so that they could not riot. Taking immediate action, Talat Pasha, through sending a coded message to the 4th Army Command on 23th May 1915, ordered that the Armenians who were moved from Erzurum, Van and Bitlis be replaced and settled in Urfa district, excluding the southern part of Musul province, Zor district, and the central district; the Armenians who were moved from Adana, Halep, Maras settled in the eastern part of Syria province and to the eastern and southeastern part of Halep province. The Civil Services Inspector Ali Seydi Bey was assigned to the post of inspecting the settlement and relocation procedures in Adana region, Hamid Bey in Aleppo and Maras region. Relocation Law The Ottoman government had founded the basis of the practice of relocation within the framework of a law already valid in those times. It was not an arbitrary practice. The law containing four articles comprises the measures to be taken by military units against the rebels that refused the authority of the state taking action in war. It is stated in the Article 1 of the Law on Relocation and Settlement that if there is opposition against the governmental powers and the established order, attacks and resistance, severe defence and elimination should be exercised, and in Article 2, it is stated that towns and villages that are proven to be betraying and engaging in espionage towards the armed forces be displaced to other regions, in Article 3 the validity of the law and in Article 4 the liability of the implementation of the law is stated. As seen from the law, it is exactly an authoritative law against violence, and ensuring the protection of the state and public order. The most significant feature of the law is that no specific ethnic group and community are implied or indicated. The Ottoman citizens of Muslim, Greek and Armenian origin covered by this law were subject to relocation. Thus regarding the Law on Relocation and Settlement also known as the ?Law on Migration? to be aiming at a specific nation either results from lack of information or is a deliberate attempt of propaganda. While the Ministry of Domestic Affairs were taking measures to arrest the Armenian rebels, Russian, French and English governments, who issued a joint statement on 24th May 1915 claimed that Armenians were continuously being killed in one month in Eastern and South-eastern Anatolia, which they named as ?Armenia? and declared that they agreed upon the fact that the Ottoman Government had to be charged for all these events. Upon the new international dimension the issue had gained, Talat Pasha delivered an official note on the practice of relocation to the Prime Minister on 26th May 1915. In the note, he stated that they decided on the settlement of Armenians living in regions of war in other regions, after it was proved that Armenians started rebellions and massacres. The note of the Ministry of Domestic Affairs together with another note by the Prime Ministry was immediately put on the agenda of the Parliament. In the note of the Prime Ministry, it was stated that the practice of relocation was necessary for the security of the state and that it was necessary to exercise it in association with a procedure and regulation. The Parliament took a decision that approved this practice on the same date. Thus, the law issued on 27th May 1915 in the Parliament was put into force by being published in Takvim-i Vekayi, the Official Gazette of those times, on 1st June 1915. In a written notification sent by the Prime Ministry to the Ministry of Domestic Affairs and Finance and the War Ministry on 30th of May 1915, it was explained in detail how the migration would be implemented and it was stated that the Armenians would be settled in the regions allocated for them, ensuring security for their lives and properties; their needs would be met through the subsidy of the immigrants? association until they completely settled in their new houses; they would be given real estate and lands in regard with their former financial conditions; the ones in need would be provided with housing constructed by the government; the farmers and those engaged in agriculture as a profession would be provided with seed beds, equipment and devices; the movable properties they left behind would be returned to them; the immovable property, after their values being determined, would be sold and the money to the owners would be handed over; places such as olive, mulberry and orange groves, vineyards, shops, factories and warehouses which yield revenues would be sold by auction or be rented and costs of the same be registered at the deposit so that they would be paid to their owners later; all these issues would be executed by special commissions and a detailed instructions guide would be prepared regarding this matter. The Telegraph Attributed To Talat Pasha That the measures taken regarding the Armenians were not aiming at their eradication was frequently repeated by Talat Pasha. Even, the tone of the language used in a coded telegraph sent to the governor and the administrative units of the relevant provinces on 29th of August 1915 is a clear evidence of this. The code is as follows: ?The objective carried out by the government by displacing the Armenians from where they live and settling them in assigned regions is to ensure that this nation does not take part in activities opposing the government and that they become unable to follow their national ideal on founding an Armenian Government. The case is not that these people be eradicated, yet, during relocation, the security of Armenian convoys shall be ensured and all necessary precautions shall be taken in order to meet their needs through the subsidy of the immigrants? association. Severe legal measures shall be taken against the attackers towards these convoys or the against gendarme and officials that take part in such attacks and they shall immediately be dismissed and delivered to the military courts.? As to the telegraph that the so-called Armenian genocide claim supporters: An Armenian called Aram Andonian mentioned this issue in his book ?Naim Bey?in Anilari / Ermenilerin Tehcir ve Katliamina Iliskin Resmi T?rk Belgeleri? (Memoirs of Naim Bey / Official Turkish Documents Related to the Armenian Migration and Genocide) he published in London, 1920. The telegraphs that are mentioned in the book and attributed to Talat Pasha are fake documents produced in order to create a criminal for the so-called genocide. As a result of the researches made by Sinasi Orel and Sureyya Yuca on these documents, numerous concrete evidences were found that they were fake. The Practices during Relocation Law on Relocation and Settlement provided how relocation would be made in detail. In these decisions and instructions, issues such as how movables and real estates were to be delivered of, condition of the lands and crop on them, their registration and even, giving hot food with meat to the immigrants were taken into consideration. The legislation clarifying how the law would be applied did not aim at destruction of any movables or real estate or killing of the people; on the contrary any mistakes in the execution of the regulation punished severely, including capital punishment. Fundamentals of how relocation would be made was resolved by the Board of Ministers as follows: The inhabitants shall be moved to the allocated regions in security, safety and comfortably. Their victuals shall be met by the subsidy of immigrants association until they become resident at their new homes. They shall be given lands and real estates taking into consideration their previous financial and economic conditions and the government shall construct houses for those in need and seeds and tools shall be supplied to the farmers and business experts. The movable properties they left behind shall be taken to them in a proper manner. Pursuant to fixing and evaluation of real estates in cities and villages evacuated by the Armenians, those shall be distributed to the migrants to be settled down in such villages. Places such as olive and mulberry groves, vineyards, shops, factories and warehouses which yield revenues shall be sold by auction or shall be rented and costs of the same shall be registered at the deposit for to be paid later to their owners. Such issues shall be pursued by a special commission and instructions shall be issued on this subject. As may be understood from the text, displaced persons would take their movable assets with them or they shall be taken to them afterwards, their real assets were to be sold by auction, prices to be paid to them. In accordance with the Law on Relocation and Settlement dated 27 May 1915 and the decrees setting forth the forms of application of this law; the Armenian convoys were gathered in some certain centers such as Konya, Diyarbekir, Cizre, Birecik and Halep, on the crossroads to their destinations. The routes on which the convoys were to be displaced were selected among the nearest roads due to security reasons and prevention of difficulties the migrants may suffer. Maximum attention was paid for orderly sending and protection from any dangers or loss of the convoys despite the war conditions. As a matter of fact, Mersin Consul of America, Edward Natan, in the report he sent to Ambassador Morgenthau on 30 August 1915 depicted, ?All routes from Tarsus to Adana were full of Armenians; despite some troubles that may take place due to the crowd, the government managed the situation well; it did not allow violence and irregularity; the migrants were provided necessary number of tickets; and those in need were provided assistance?. If Ottoman government initiated a practice of intentionally killing a group of people, it would not implement decisions such as conditions to be provided for the migrants on their way, protection of the convoys against attacks by the bandits, medical aid, protection of children, registration of movables and real assets they left behind, giving food with meat at certain intervals. Therefore, relocation of the Armenians was not slaughtering of the Armenians, but was aimed at ensuring the security of the state and is the most successful relocation and settlement movement in history. Expenses incurred during the Relocation General Administrate for Migrants was established in order to meet the needs arising in relation with displaced Muslims, Greeks and Armenians and the migration movements toward Anatolia which attempted to solve the settlement, means of living and other problems of the migrants. Documents pertaining to the practice give detailed information on in which provinces and districts hospitals were established, and which buildings were allotted for the orphaned Armenian children. The documents show that the amount spent for relocation, settlement and ensuring the living of the migrants subject to relocation was 25 million kurus in 1915, and 230 million kurus in 1916. The convoys established during the migration were provided with means of transport or saddle beasts special care was given to women, elderly and children. Article 2 and Article 3 of the regulations issued by the term Ministry of the Interior, explained respectively that ?the displaced Armenians could take all their goods and animals together with them? and ?protecting the lives of the Armenians on the journey to the places they were to be settled during their travel and supplying their food and rest were the duties of the administrative authorities of the regions they pass; any slackness or carelessness that might take place with regard to this issue would be responsibility of all of the officers?. Quinine was distributed to those migrating via sea in order to make sure that they protect themselves from malaria, which was an epidemic of the day and for the patients, the possibility of benefiting from military hospitals in addition to the civil hospitals was given. Ottoman Government, while spending so much money for this replacement implementation, either delayed or cancelled the public and private debts of the Armenians subject to immigration. At the same time, an amount of money sent from America to be given to the Armenian immigrants was distributed to the Armenians by the American missionaries and consuls with the consent of the. Armenian Population before the Relocation The most abused and distorted issue, which the Armenian revolutionary committee members and their supporters of today use, is the Armenian population before and after the migration process. The records of war period, official figures, church logs, information on population in the reports of foreign missionaries are being constantly distorted to make the real population of those days look much more despite those documents the figures are unreasonably exaggerated so as to find support to their so-called genocide allegations. Some of these figures even exceed the total Armenian population of today?s world. In some foreign resources the Armenian population living in the Ottoman Empire is: 2.5 million as per Armenian Patriarchate 2.2 million as per the Armenian Committee of Lausanne 1.5 million as per the French Yellow Book 1.5 million as per Britannica 1 million as per the English yearbook. Armenian population as to Ottoman official documents is as follows: 1.001.465 as per 1893 Census 1.120.748 as per 1906 Census 1.221.850 as per Population Statistics of 1914 Taking into consideration the statistics pertaining either to the Ottomans and foreigners, it is evident that the population of the Armenians living in the Ottoman territories during World War I was about 1.250.000 at most. It is certain that the most reliable numbers with regard to Armenian population of Ottoman State is in official documents. General Directorate of Statistics was established in 1892 in the Ottoman State. The general director was Nuri Bey in 1892, a Jew called Fethi Franco between 1892 and 1897, an Armenian called Migirdi? Sinabyan between 1897 and 1903, an American named Robert between 1903 and 1908 and Mehmet Behi? Bey between 1908 and 1914. As it is seen, non-Muslims were in control of the information about population in the Ottoman Empire in a period during which important events were taking Armenian issue to the political arena. Therefore, the information on population given by Ottoman sources should be relied on since no documents and opinions showing the contrary have been found until now. The Regions where the Armenians were Settled Within the framework of relocation implementaitons, it was decided that the Armenians from Erzurum, Van and Bitlis were to be sent to south of Musul, and to Zor and Urfa Districts; and Armenians from Adana, Halep, Maras to be sent to eastern Syria and east and southeast of Halep. However, a note to Adana, Erzurum, Bitlis, Halep, Diyarbekir, Syria, Sivas, Trabzon, Elazig (Mamuret?laziz) and Musul provinces and Adana Abandoned Property Commission Chairmanship, Zor, Maras, Canik, Kayseri and Izmit Administrates upon continuing revolutions and slaughters of Armenians, on 5 July 1915, set forth that the regions allotted for Armenian settlement was widened. At the same time, special attention was paid to establish the residential areas of the Armenians 25 km far from the Baghdad railway at most, to make sure that the Armenian population does not exceed 10 percent of the Muslim population of the region and to ensure that every village has maximum 50 houses. The Population of the Armenians Subjected to the Relocation The number of Armenians subjected to the relocation regarding their arrival and departure points was under control and registered at all times. It is quite obvious that 438.758 people were displaced from various regions of Anatolia and 382.148 of these people were safely replaced in new settlements between 9 June 1915 and 8 February 1916. As seen, there is a difference of 56.000 people between the evacuees and the arrives. All the figures regarding the relocation of the Armenians were registered. The pertinent Ottoman documents explain this difference as follows: 500 people on the road between Erzurum and Erzincan; 2000 in Meskene, between Urfa and Aleppo and 2000 others on the outskirts of Mardin were massacred in attacks launched by bandits or nomadic Arabs. Another 5000 people were killed in attacks on convoys passing through Dersim. These figures prove that no massacre had been occurred against the Armenians and it is impossible to mention a genocide. It was understood from these documents that many people had also fallen victim to hunger while on the road. Apart from these, some 25-30 thousand people had lost their lives when struck by fatal diseases such as typhoid and dysentery. In all, an estimated 40 thousand casualties had been registered during relocation. The remaining 10-16 thousand people were made at stay in provinces they had reached, when the implementation of relocation was brought to an end. For instance, on April 26, 1916, orders were given to provide the return to and the settlement in the province of Konya of those Armenians setting out form the province to new destinations. On the other hand, many other Armenians are believed to have fled to either Russia or to Western countries, including the Unites States. Apart from this, many Armenians went to several countries prior to the war and after the war mainly to United States of America and Russia. It was set forth with certain documents that 50.000 Armenians were trained in the region where they joined the Russian army and that 50.000 Armenians were receiving training in the American army for fighting with the Turks. In fact, the letter of an Armenian who was living in America to Murad Muradyan an advocate in Elezig shows such information. In the concerned letter, Muradyan mentions that some Armenians were escaped to Russia and America and later 50.000 of those trained soldiers went to Caucassia. As it can be understood from all the concerned documents, many of Armenian subjects of the Ottoman State were scattered through various countries especially to U.S.A. and Russia, before and during the war. For example, Artin Hotomyan who was a tradesman in America sent a letter to the Chieftain of Security on January 19, 1915 and stated that thousands of Armenians migrated to U.S.A. and they were facing with hunger and hardships. According to the report presented by Noradungian Gabrial to the Lausanne Conference Evacuation Commission, it was observed that 345.000 people went to the Caucasus, 140.000 people went to Syria, 120.000 to Greece and to the Aegean islands, 40.000 to Bulgaria, 50.000 to Iran; 695.000 in total. In a message sent to H?seyin Rauf by Hatisov who participated in the Trabzon Conference (14 March – 14 April 1918) and who was one of the eminent figures of the Armenians (he became the President of Armenia afterwards), it was said that the number of Armenians who left the Ottoman territories and went to the Caucasus was 400.000. Another Armenian Richard Hovannisian states that 50.000 Armenians went to Lebanon, 10.000 to Jordan, 40.000 to Egypt, 25.000 to Iraq, and 35.000 to France and USA from the Arabian countries except for Syria . In the light of the figures given by Armenians and foreigners, it is clear that 345.000 Armenians went to the Caucasus, 140.000 to Syria, 120.000 to Greece and to the Aegean islands, 40.000 to Bulgaria, 50.000 to Iran, 50.000 to Lebanon, 10.000 to Jordan, 40.000 to Egypt, 25.000 to Iraq, and 35.000 to France, USA, Austria etc. in the application of evacuation and placement; 855.000 Armenians in total. It is impossible that 2-3 millions of Armenians could have been killed as claimed by Armenians. This slander may be the biggest lie on the earth as the number of the Armenians living in the territories of the Ottoman State had been around 1.250.000. Moreover, if the Ottoman State had wanted to get rid of its Armenians subjects, this could have been handled by assimilation or by presenting the war as a reason. However, as it is known, Armenians led a more comfortable life than that of the Turks in the Ottoman Empire. As stated, when the Armenians, who were deceived by the dream that the territories occupied by Armenians would be given to them and that an independent Armenia could be established, began to fight with the Ottomans, in betrayal, the application of relocation became a must. Execution of relocation did not aim at the destroying Armenians, on the contrary, it was aimed at protecting them and providing security of the state, and it is the most successful relocation application of the world. Attacks on the Armenian Convoys and the Measures Taken by the Government Certain convoys were attacked by the tribes located between Aleppo and Zor, and by Arab bandits during the journey of Armenians to the placement areas. According to a deciphered telegram of 8 January 1916, it was reported that many Armenians had been killed by the attacks of Arab bandits whose intentions were robbery, in the area between Aleppo and Meskene, that 2.000 Armenians were robbed and attacked by the Arab tribes on their way to Aleppo through Saru? and Menbi?. It was also reported that around 2.000 people had been killed regardless of their religion including Muslims and non-Muslims in Diyarbekir by certain bandits and tribes, and that another convoy of 500 people travelling on Erzurum-Erzincan way was killed due to the attacks of Kurds. The Ottoman Government spent great efforts in order to provide the safety of the convoys while it was also fighting with the enemy on battle fronts. Certain inspection delegations were established and sent to replacement areas in order to investigate the officials who failed to settlement areas. These delegations dispatched those people found guilty to Martial Court. Some authorities were dismissed from service and some others were given heavy punishments. Those Armenians who were not Relocated According to the telegrams of 2nd and 15th August 1915, sent to the Governor Offices of relevant provinces it was reported that those Armenians of Catholic and Protestant sects, Armenians serving in the Ottoman Army officers and in medical troops, Armenians working in the branches of the Ottoman Bank, Armenians in the Reggie administration and in certain consular offices were excluded from relocation as long as they remained loyal to the state. In addition, the sick, the disabled, the old, and the women and children were excluded from relocation, they were taken care of in orphanages and villages and their needs were met by the state. In a circular of 30th April 1916, on Armenian families who need shelter, it was stated that those families whose fathers had been replaced or were serving the military or had nobody to look after them would be settled in villages and towns where there were no foreigners other then Armenians and that their needs would be met by the immigrant budget. Property of the Armenians who were Relocated According to the instruction published on 10th June 1915, properties of Armenians who were subjected to immigration were protected. Those properties that could not be protected, such as animals and workshops that needed to be operated were sold by certain committees established for the care purpose by public auction and the income earned was sent to their owners. Returning of Armenians who were Relocated The placement of Armenians in new settlements was stopped on 25 November 1915 due to winter. In a general instruction sent to the provinces and sanjaks, it was stated that the relocation of Armenians was stopped totally, and that no relocation would be performed for any reason. After the end of the World War I, a circular was issued in order to provide the return of Armenians who had been subjected to the relocation to their homes if they wished. In a document issued by the Interior Minister Mustafa Pasha and sent to the Prime Ministry on 4th January 1919, it was set forth that certain instructions had been issued in order to provide the return of Armenians who were subjected to relocation to their homes if they wished and it was stated in detail that required precautions were taken. The Reflections concerning Relocation in the World Although the foreign observers located in the areas where relocation operations were being executed reported that even though the Ottomans Government fought in several fronts in the World War I, it executed relocation operations successfully and with great care, the western press gave misinformation about the issue and distorted the facts. For example, although the Consular of the United States of America in Mersin, Edward Natan, stated in his report that the relocation implementations were carried out in an order, the Ambassador in Istanbul distorted the facts in Natan?s report and when his report reached America, the American press used this information against the Turks. Within the framework of the reports of the British consulars in Iran, the claims that 1.000.000 Armenians were killed were taken into consideration in the English Parliament and the decision to protest the Turkish Government was taken. Moreover, the Mavi Kitap (the Blue Book) published in Britain on the Armenian events, claimed that in the Ottoman Empire one third of the total Armenian population, which was 1.800.000 was killed. Inspection by Foreigners After the World War I, following the occupation of Istanbul and other provinces by the Central European Powers, 143 Ottoman political and military leaders and intellectuals were arrested and sent to the Malta island by the British and to be tried. A comprehensive investigation was carried out in the Ottoman archives in order to find out the proof of guilt regarding these imprisoned people, but no proof showing that they were guilty could be presented to the court. The British Government studied on certain reports in its archives and the archives of the USA in Washington thoroughly, but no evidence was found. In a message sent by the British Ambassador in Washington R. C. Craigie to Lord Curzon on 13 July 1921, it was stated that ?I am sorry to say that nothing to be used against the Turks persecuted in Malta as proof could be found… No problem is available at the moment to present as a qualified evidence. The relevant reports, in no way, seem to be including any proofs to support the information available in the Government of Her Majesty?s regarding the Turks?. The Law Advisers in London stated on 29th July 1921 that the accusations on the persons included in the list of the British Foreign Office included semi-political judgement, and therefore a new operation has to be performed for those Turks who were arrested for accusations of war crimes. ?No statement was received from any witnesses proving that the accusations against the arrested persons are right. Indeed, it is not clear that any witness can be found as it is unnecessary to state that it is highly difficult to find any witness in a country which is far and hard to reach such as Armenia, particularly after such a long time?. This statement was made by the Law Advisers of the British Government in London. In conclusion, those arrested people in Malta were released in 1922 without any hearing and any accusation directed to them. During this period, certain documents were published in the British press accusing the Ottoman Government and trying to prove these accusations. It was claimed that these documents were found in the Ottoman State offices in Syria by the British Occupation Forces under the command of General Allenby. However, the investigations carried out by the British Foreign Office afterwards found out that these documents given to the British press were not the documents received by the British Army, but they were fake documents sent to the allied delegations by the Nationalist Armenian Delegation in Paris. Replies of the Scientists for the Claims Scientists considering the history according the sizes and principles of history, received the original information and documents regarding the issue since 1925 and listened to the witnesses, and made certain observations in the areas that the events took place. These scientists knew that the Ottoman Archives were open to foreign researchers to personal applications. Therefore, comments or contrary beliefs on their convictions can only be made by the people who know in detail as much as these scientists. Another significant document regarding the issue is the report presented by the 69 American scientists to the Parliament of Representatives on 19 May 1985. ?The area called Turkey, in fact ?Republic of Turkey?, was a part of the Ottoman Empire which was a multi-religious, multi-national state from the 14th century to 1922. It is incorrect to consider the Ottoman Empire as equal to the Republic of Turkey just as in the case of Habsburg Empire and Republic of Austria?. Those American academicians whose signatures are present below and who are experts on Turks and Ottoman researches, are of the opinion that the language used in the resolution of the American Parliament of Representatives was distorted and incorrect. Our concerns focus on the use of the ?Turkey? and ?genocide? and can be summarised as follows: The Ottoman Empire which was brought down in 1922 by the Turkish Revolution, which led to the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 192, was a state that had the territories of more than 25 states currently located in the Southeast Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East, one of which is the Republic of Turkey. The Republic of Turkey cannot be held responsible for any event that took place during the Ottomans. As for the ?genocide? accusation, those signing this report do not have any intention to look down on the dimensions of the pains that Armenians had suffered. Likewise, we are of the opinion that the suffering of the Muslim people in the concerned area cannot be treated in a different way either. (…) However, there are several documents and findings to be reached by the historians in order to differ the belligerent and innocent from the to find out the reasons for the events. The accusations, such as those in the Resolution of the Parliament of Representatives No 192 shall lead to the unjust statements regarding the Turkish people and maybe will damage the improvements obtained by the historians in understanding these tragic events. If the Congress approves this Resolution, it shall try to decide on what part of the historical problem is correct via laws. Such a decision based on suspicious assumptions shall damage historical research and shall damage the reliability of the American legislative process.?

What is genocide? (INTRODUCTION) The replacement was presented by the Armenians and hostile states as a massacre and genocide against Armenians, and a massive propaganda campaign was launched against the Ottomans. Genocide is the crime of annihilation of human groups because of racial, national, ethnic and religious differences. It can be perpetrated only directly by a Government or under its consent. In order to prevent the crime of genocide in the world, the United Nations General Assembly voted in 1948 the Genocide Convention, to which Turkey adhered in 1950. The mention of genocide reminds the massive massacres perpetrated by Nazis against Jews and other ethnic groups In World War II. In this period lasting from 1939 to 1945 six million Jews, more than three millions of Soviet prisoners of war, more than one million Polish and Yugoslav civilians, about 200.000 Gypsies and 70.000 disabled persons were murdered. This is genocide in the true sense of the word. Similarly, an imposing number of genocides have been committed in the recent years despite the United Nations Convention. For example, the confessions of two retired French generals published in the daily Le Monde show that the French army murdered at least one million Algerians between 1954 and 1962, while the Indonesian army massacred a full one million communists and their family members in 1965 and 1966, the Red Khmer killed 1,7 million Cambodians between 1975 and 1979, 500.000 Tutsis were beheaded by Huttus of Ruanda in 1994 and thousands of Moslems were exposed to Serbian atrocities in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. The crime of genocide was committed in the above cases in its most blatant form. Contrary to the Armenian pretensions, the measures adopted regarding the Armenians in Eastern Anatolia was merely a replacement in another region within the Empire for security reasons and had nothing to do with genocide. It is true that there were Armenian losses during the war and the replacement operation but they were actually due to the failure of establishment of order because of the war and the revolts in Eastern Anatolia., together with hunger, lack of food and fuel, adverse climatic conditions and epidemics such as typhus. There was no genocide or a planned massacre whatsoever. It is a fact that the Armenians were subjected to many similar replacements in the past for treason against the states under whose hegemonies they were living. the Sasanites moved 70.000 Armenians to Iran in 379 AD, the Byzantines relocated 40.000 East Anatolian Armenians in Sivas and Kayseri in 1025, the Mameluks sent 10.000 to Egypt, the Iranians dispersed 24.000 into the country and the Russians invading Crimea sent thousands of Armenians into the Siberian steppes. Without mentioning any of these preceding replacements and exiles, the Armenians strive to make a genocide issue out of their replacement undertaken in 1915 for undeniably sound reasons by the Ottoman State. This attitude is the product of policies designed to break apart the integrity of Turkey. The most obvious evidence of this phenomenon lies in the fact that the Western powers, oblivious to the true genocide events in Africa, the Balkans and several other parts of the world, lend support to the claims of genocide against Armenians.

The Armenian Terrorism (INTRODUCTION) Another significant dimension of the Armenian issue from Turkey?s point of view is the start of the use of armed terror methods by the Armenians against the Turks. This aggressive strategy which was aimed directly at Turkish statesmen, started with the bombed attack launched in 1905 against Emperor Abdulhamid II. After the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923, there was a peaceful period until 1965. In 1965 the terrorist movements suddenly rekindled with the support of the Armenian lobby. Turkish diplomats were killed, nearly 20 monuments were erected until the end of 1972 and a systematic press and publication activity was launched. During the Armenian terror period, it was the traditional Tashnak and Hinchak organisations that designed, developed and implemented the attacks, diversified the targets, provided manpower for the terrorist teams, gave them moral and psychological support and found the necessary contacts for them.. The organisation that made itself known most frequently in this process was the ASALA, the acronym of the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia. The creators of the new terror age were the traditional terrorist organisations through the teams and groups that they trained, and the ASALA with the most merciless and inhuman practices under an independence mask. ASALA received its moral and psychological support, and the medium for contacts and relations from Hinchak. It may be stated on the basis of the foregoing that the traditional terror continued without respite, benefited from the occasions offered in the ?60s and, making use of the of the opportunities launched a manhunt against Turks. The Armenian terrorist organisations showed a rapid ascent within a relatively short time by armed assaults against the Turkish officials, representations and organisations abroad. During this period, the Armenians who secured themselves bases in Central and Eastern European Countries, and Syria and Lebanon also received help from the Cypriot Greeks and Greece. The Armenian terror organisations, upon adverse reactions from the world opinion, have changed have their tactics and entered into co-operation with the terrorist group PKK in the ?80s. PKK was pushed into the scene with the attacks directed against Eruh and ?emdinli in 1984 and the Armenian terrorist group ASALA withdrew to the background. The facts evidencing the connection between the Armenians and PKK are the following: The terrorist group PKK announced the dates between 21 and 28 April 1980 as the Red Week and commemorated the 24th April as the day of genocide committed against Armenians. On 8th April 1980, PKK and ASALA organised a joint press conference in the City of Sidon in Lebanon and issued a declaration at the end of this conference. Because of the reactions against this event, however, they decided to maintain their relations illegally on a secret basis. PKK and ASALA declared joint responsibility for the attacks made on the Turkish Consulate General in Strasbourg on 9th November 1980 and on the Turkish Airlines bureau in Rome on 9th November the same year. Abdullah ?calan, the separatist terrorist and the leader of PKK, was elected to honorary membership of ?the Association of Armenian Authors? for ?his intellectual contributions to the idea of Great Armenia.? A Kurdistan Committee within the Armenian Popular Movement was formed as in many European countries. On 4th June 1993, the Armenian Hinchak Party held a meeting at the PKK headquarters in Western Beyrouth with the participation of several members of PKK and ASALA. Another striking example of the Armenian-PKK relations is the following group of decisions taken in the meetings held at two separate churches in Beyrouth from 5th to 9th January 1993, with the participation of the Armenian Orthodox Archbishop, officials of the Armenian Party and about 150 youth representatives: A somewhat sedate attitude should be reserved toward Turkey for the time being. The Armenian community is on the way to growth and better economic conditions. The propaganda activities have started to make the genocide claims better understood in the rest of the world. The recently-founded Armenian State, with a constantly growing territory, will definitely avenge the ancestors of its citizens. The Western powers and particularly the United States side with and favour the Armenians in the combat for Karabakh. This opportunity should be well exploited as more and more Armenian young men join the ranks in this fight. The civil war in Turkey ( referring to the war against PKK terrorism) will continue and eventually collapse the country?s economy, leading to an uprising by the entire population. Turkey will be separated and a Kurdish State will be formed. Armenians will hold good relations with the Kurds and support their fight. Territories presently held by the Turks will become Armenian tomorrow. It may be stated briefly that the common goal of the Armenian terrorist organisations is to destabilise Turkey using all available opportunities, to save the so-called Armenian land under occupation, and to create an independent Great Armenia. These expectations appear to be nurtured also by the new state of Armenia under different forms and guises.

http://translate.google.az/#en|az|

http://translate.google.az/#en|ru|

Current Situation (INTRODUCTION) The Republic of Armenia that declared its independence on 23rd September 1991 following the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has made the genocide claims against Turkey a state policy. Trying to create the image of a nation under oppression and persecution, it strives to secure the sympathies of Western powers and particularly the United States and France and international organisations. Their objective is the recognition and registering of the genocide claims, securing a sizeable indemnity from Turkey, the returning of the territories ?seized from Armenians? and the establishment of Great Armenia. In fact, the declaration adopted on 23rd August 1990 by the Armenian Parliament states, in no uncertain terms, that ?The Armenian Republic supports the efforts for the international recognition of the 1915 genocide in Western Armenia by the Ottoman Turkey?. The initiatives intended for the recognition of the so called genocide have been concentrated on in a number of countries where commemorative monuments were erected and the claims of genocide were formally included in school curricula . A relatively mild atmosphere prevailed in the Turkish-Armenian relations under the term in office of Ter Petrossian. With the election, however, of Kocharian to the Presidency in April 1998, the extreme nationalist activities were let loose and Armenia began to pursue a toughness policy in its relations with Turkey. Kocharian stated in an official declaration that ?The Armenians will never forget the genocide and always try to remind the rest of the world of this tragedy? and added that ?The Genocide remains unpunished and the international recognition and reproach are inadequate and insufficient?. He repeated this statement also in the 53rd General Assembly Meeting of the United Nations and said that Armenia was under the blockade grip of Turkey and Azerbaijan. The best reply to people like Kocharian has been given by the Armenian community living in Turkey. Regarding the genocide and the replacement claims, Dikran Kevorkian, Kandilli Armenian Church Pastor, said the following on 7th October 2000 in a television programme named ? Nutshell?: Genocide and replacement denote two different concepts. The imperialist schemes and the Armenian apolitical dream leaders (media, churches and the clergy) are the causes of this situation. The Patriarch is a spiritual leader and a blunder is committed when his opinions are sought about political matters. What could ASALA and PKK do if there were no political support behind them? There was a German pressure on the Sublime Porte for the replacement, in an attempt to shake the existing order and to secure itself economic benefits through the Berlin-Baghdad railroad. For the assimilation claims, Kevorkian stated the following words: Today, it is only in Turkey among all countries of the world that the Armenians manage to maintain their own identity. The Armenians in the Diaspora abroad continue their struggle for existence by changing their names because there are efforts there to assimilate the Armenians. The Diaspora knows very well that the Sunday rites in all major American churches are in English and the Armenians are gradually forgetting their own language. When we say these we are criticised. It is for these reasons that we, as the Armenians living in Turkey declare our regrets against these efforts, because an injustice is being committed to the concept of ?National Forces? entrusted to us by Atat?rk. All this is a stratagem conducted from abroad, including the ASALA, PKK and Kocharian?s declaration. We, as the citizens of Turkey believe that an injustice is perpetrated here. If Armenians are intelligent enough, they should not allow themselves to be used for the interests of others. In a reception held at Hilton Hotel on 22nd May 1999, the Armenian Patriarch Mesrob II gave the following messages refuting most of the Armenian claims: The establishment of the Istanbul Armenian Patriarchate is an event unprecedented in the history. In 1481, only eight years after the conquest of Istanbul,. the firman issued by Mohammed the Conqueror for the conversion of the West Anatolian Armenian Episcopate into the Istanbul Patriarchate, is a clear evidence of his vision and the tolerance displayed by the subsequent sultans, toward other religions. The establishment of a spiritual leadership office for a religion other than that of the ruler is unprecedented in the history before and after Mohammed the Conqueror. We will better understand the value of this event that occurred some 538 years ago and the importance of the tolerance between religions and cultures when we consider the clashes prevailing in the world and the wars being fought around us, at the threshold of a new millenium . On this occasion, we recall with affection and gratitude Mohammed the Conqueror, all the statesmen that served the country along the lines that he had drawn and our eighty-three Patriarchs who faithfully served this office, beginning with the first Istanbul Armenian Patriarch Hovaghim from Bursa. We, the Turkish Armenians as the largest Christian community living in this country sincerely believe in the bright future of the Republic of Turkey, we joyfully celebrate its seventy-fifth anniversary and we maintain great hopes for the future.

Conclusion (INTRODUCTION) As in the past, there are still some states that are trying to obtain political and economic benefits through the Armenian community. In some countries monuments have been erected to accuse Turks and Turkey of committing a genocide; in others, decisions with the purpose of the recognition of the so called genocide are included on the parliamentary agendas; and even in some other countries these decisions have been approved by the parliaments. These issues, which should have been left to historians are becoming a means of self interest in the hands of ambitious politicians. Ever since the emergence of the Armenian problem, Armenian terrorists have never hesitated to kill and massacre. The aim of these terrorists, who insist on ignoring all the historical facts, is to publicise their claims for the so called Armenian genocide and the demands of Armenians, all over the world. The ultimate goal is ?Great Armenia?. In order to realise their ?Great Armenia? dream, Armenians and their supporters have put their ?Four T? plan into operation, which exploits the replacement of Armenians and presents it as a genocide to the whole world. The objective of this plan is to make propaganda about the so called genocide, to have it recognised, to obtain indemnity and to acquire land from Turkey. The Armenian problem was created by the states that wanted to attain their own goals by separating the Ottoman Empire. Today, the Armenian problem is a baseless, artificial and designed problem, which is still kept on the agenda by the same states which have different names now, so as to realise their evil intentions on Turkey. Those, who hope to obtain benefits with these false claims and accusations are not the Turkish citizens of Armenian origin, who live in the borders of the Turkish Republi? and who are completely free to practice all their traditions and religious customs. They are the Diaspora Armenians who are physically and emotionally away from the Armenian lands where people are suffering from starvation; They are the opportunistic politicians who provoke their own citizens for dangerous and futile adventures so as to get more votes. The injustice done to Turkey by these opportunists who disregard all historical facts for gaining political and economic advantages must be stopped.

ARA (ARMENIAN TERRORISM) Ara was founded in France and it became famous with the assassination of Dursun Aksoy, the Administrative Attach? of Brussels Embassy of The Republic of Turkey. ARA was carried this action out together with ASALA and JCAG. ARA is a racist organization, is totally against the methods and ideas of ASALA. The organization is supported by all Armenian Terror Organisations except the Tashnak Party, which ideologically and practically supports Armenian Genocide Justice Commandos (JCAG) and ASALA. JCAG (ARMENIAN TERRORISM) Has been founded in Beirut in 1975 by Ta?nak Party and by Armenian Revolutionary Federation, which is its extension in the USA as a competitor to ASALA and H?n?ak Party. The organisation is operating as the Military Apparatus of the Ta?nak Party, and it has made its name known for the first time by the world public opinion by the event of the murdering of Dani? Tunal?gil, The Ambassador of Turkish Republic in Vienna on October 22, 1995. The purpose of the organisation has been disclosed to be the foundation of the independent Great Armenian State. The Asala Terrorist Organisation (ARMENIAN TERRORISM) During the new phase of Armenian terrorism from 1973 to 1985, the terrorist organization most frequently mentioned was ASALA (The Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia). No information has yet been published on its establishment, structure and activities. With regard to ASALA, various Armenian sources and publications provide information about certain individuals, and the results of terrorist activity, mostly obtained from publications issued by the organization or terrorist group. This is information, which the terrorist group wishes to publish or does not object to having published. With regard to the founding of ASALA, some publications link it with the events in Lebanon; they take the view that it was established under the inspiration of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, within which it had been active. Others claim that it was founded by a small group of Armenians, who, within a short time, carried out the most sensational and effective acts of terrorism of the period. All this is very far from providing a complete explanation of how ASALA was founded. Until the conditions under which ASALA first appeared as an organization are better known and the gap it filled is more satisfactorily elucidated, present doubts will continue for a long time to come. It is generally known that the first Armenian terrorist activities of the new period were in accordance with the policies and targets of the Dashnak terrorist organization. Throughout the course of history as well as in the period under discussion, the Dashnaks were completely pro-Western. They adopted a policy of limited terrorist activity, which was directed basically against Turkish targets, and, as revealed by various sources of evidence, they obtained help and support from the Western states; in fact, they collaborated with them. Basically, their principles and historical development did not allow them to adopt a different approach. In this situation, one sphere of activity still remained. Namely that relating to the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, which appealed to the younger Marxist Revolutionary generations and, particularly, to the “New Armenian Resistance Organizations”, in France. In fact, this area had long since been filled by the Hunchaks. Since 1960, they, with their various points of view, had also been preparing for a new period of terror. However, the Hunchaks were not in evidence, and a terrorist organization, wishing to be regarded as completely new, appeared on the scene in the guise of ASALA. When the factors leading to the new period of Armenian terrorism are taken into consideration and their aims and policies, especially as a Hunchak terrorist organization, are examined, the conclusion can be reached that ASALA is a terrorist offshoot of the Hunchaks. It was above all the conditions and new developments in Lebanon that lay behind the emergence of this group as a new terrorist organization, which because known for the various acts of terrorism for which it claimed responsibility. In fact, no significant change has taken place. The two Armenian terrorist organizations once again occupy the centre of the stage against the backdrop of history. The first is more in evidence, operating through its terrorist offshoots, whilst the second operates under cover, in the guise of a terrorist group to which it has given manpower and expertise, as well as moral support. This group in turn carries out terrorist activities through subsidiary groups and teams. 1. Foundation and Organizational Structure ASALA was founded in 1975. The leader of this terror organization is known to have been Agop Agopian, one of the two most active members of the six or seven founding members. The second was Agop Tarakdjian, who was personally involved in terrorism and other criminal activity and who ensured the continued existence of the organization in the absence of Agop Agopian. The second of these two men died in 1981, whilst the first continued as leader throughout the whole of this period, apart from the time spent under treatment for wound received. He was well known as a mucahid and a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization. The organization was structured in accordance with the general practice of the Armenian terrorist groups. The Lebanon Central Committee was the supreme executive body. In 1980 this committee took on a very important form in the Lebanon and assumed the nature of a “bureau”. Subordinate to the Central Committee were bodies such as the Political Committee, the Finance Committee, the Propaganda and Information Committee, the Intelligence Committee and the Military Committee. Subordinate to the Military Committee were a number of operational teams. 2. Aims and Objectives ASALA revealed to the world its aims and objectives in a “political programme” published in the end of 1981. According to this, the aim of ASALA was “the foundation of a united Armenia under the leadership of a democratic, socialist, revolutionary government”. The identity of the government in question is quite clear from the definition. All aid was welcome from the USSR and other socialist countries, while at the same time Soviet Armenia was accepted as a base in “the long struggle of the Armenian people”. In this political programme their enemies were divided into two groups. The first of these was the Dashnak Armenian terrorist group, and all the “regional reactionaries” who opposed, or at least failed to support ASALA. The second was “Turkish imperialism, aided and abetted by international imperialism”. ASALA believed that “the only way of liberating Armenian territory was through the use of violence”, and issued public announcements to this effect. According to their programme, ASALA was to support all those who rejected the domination of the ruling classes and who were willing to work towards the foundation and strengthening of coalitions within the international revolutionary movement. Violence and terror formed an essential element in this programme. In order to realise ASALA’s aims and objectives it was not essential that terrorist activities should be directed solely against Turks and the friends of Turkey, or against people in positions of power or authority. “Terror is a phenomenon” and the important point is its scope and dimension. The actual targets may be of secondary importance. Greatest stress it to be laid on murders and massacres that will arouse violent public reaction. Whether the targets are men, women or children, Turks or non-Turks, is of little significance. Nevertheless, first importance was to be given to attacks on Turkey and the Turks. The importance of the attacks and massacres carried out in the airports of Paris and Istanbul, in the Istanbul Covered Market and the airport of Orly, lay entirely in the nature and violence of the reaction these were aimed at arousing. 3. Strategy, Attitudes and Behaviour The essential aim of ASALA was to make the Lebanon the centre for all progressive Armenian movements throughout the world and the point from which all operations would be directed. In short, all progressive Armenian groups were to unite in the Lebanon and for the basis for an “ASALA Popular Movement”. In this way, all progressive Armenians could enter into an official organization in which their individual strengths could be united. An attempt was made in the summer of 1981 to put this section of ASALA strategy into effect by calling all progressive Armenians to a meeting in the Lebanon. By “progressive” was meant “Marxist-Leninist”. The second stage of this strategy began with the terrorist activities and open war undertaken by the organization thus founded with the help of certain socialist states. Armenian terror formed an integral part of the struggle for independence in the Middle East, uniting with other movements directed against the integrity of Turkish territory. This led inevitably to the union of ASALA and PKK. ASALA was clearly a terrorist organization in attitude and behaviour. In all ranks of the administration terror and the implementation of terror was regarded as an essential feature of the organization. The leaders murdered one another, liquidated those of whom they disapproved or had them done away with. Apart from this, each terrorist team was presented to world opinion as if it were a separate Armenian organization and all types of propaganda were carried on by this means. Responsibility for the crimes committed were assumed by various organizations whose names had never before been heard of. A list is to be found in an appendix at the end of this Introduction showing how in 1981 and 1982 the murders, crimes, bombings and raids were carried out by a single organization but attributed to groups with a variety of different names. By examining this list the reader will find a number of operations claimed to have been carried out by a great many different Armenian groups but which actually all bear the mark of a single team and a single organization. All these so-called independent groups remained subordinate to and directed by ASALA itself. 4. Political developments The first stage in the political development of ASALA, which is generally agreed to have been founded in 1975, was highly effective, and the organization was strengthened by new forces recruited during the Armenian Congress in Paris in 1979. It gained further strength in 1981. In 1983 it split into two factions. The first operation carried out by ASALA was the assassination by Agop Tarakdjian, one of the founders of the organization, of Oktay Cerit, First Secretary in the Turkish Embassy in Beirut, on 16 February 1976. The period up to 1979 was marked by ASALA’s involvement in the conflicts between the various Palestinian groups, in the course of which Agopian, one of the leaders, was wounded. Links with the Armenian terrorists in France were established during the Armenian Congress meeting in Paris in 1979, which saw the organization strengthened by the addition of new elements and fresh blood. The most famous of the new members were Alex Yenikomshian and Monte Melkian. In 1981 a number of terrorist attacks carried out by ASALA on innocent groups or individuals having severely shaken its standing in world public opinion. Following the Israeli occupation of the Lebanon the ASALA leaders were forced to leave the Lebanon along with the Palestinians. A split in the organization took place in 1983. • The Agop Agopian Group – This was centred in Greece and the Middle East. Its terror was directed indiscriminately against Turks and non-Turks, as well as against innocent women and children. It was this group that was responsible for the attack at Orly. • In Western Europe the movement operated under the name of the “Asala Revolutionary Movement”. This followed a more moderate course of action and directed its terror solely against Turks. The leaders of this group were Monte Melkonian and Ara Toranian. Toranian was the leader of a group centred in Paris known as the “Armenian National Movement” which described the Orly attack as a purely Fascist operation. Melkonian, who had been born in Iran, declared his intention of setting the Armenian struggle on a sound political footing. According to this the movement had two aims; to rouse the Armenians to action, and to make common cause with other groups in their struggle against Turkey. In this second stage, Melkonian was involved in establishing alliances with other groups while Agopian continued with his own type of activity. 5. Support and Alliances ASALA received support from three main sources: 1.The Soviet Union, the Eastern block and other socialist countries. 2.Countries such as Greece and Syria whose geopolitical expectations depended on the destabilisation of Turkey from within and without. 3.Various communist parties, indirectly from the Hunchak Armenian terrorist organization and its sympathisers, and also from the Armenian church, in spite of its difference in outlook. In ASALA’s links with other groups first priority was given to relations with non-Armenian terror groups which threatened Turkey directly or indirectly, and whose activities ran parallel to the strategy implemented by ASALA itself. In the period between 1976 and 1980 these consisted of groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization, activist members of the various communist parties and the secret services belonging to certain states. In 1980 ASALA widened the scope of its activities following the agreement reached with PICK at a meeting in Sidon in the Lebanon, thus establishing unity of outlook and action between ASALA and PKK. As a matter of fact, these two organizations had already displayed a marked affinity in aims, structure and beliefs. From 1983 onwards ASALA relations began to develop along the lines of the strategy laid down by Monte Melkonian. First priority was given to terrorist activity within Turkey, and links were established with any group capable of furthering this strategy by either direct or indirect means. These groups were headed by PKK, the Turkish CommunistParty and other communist organizations. 6. Publications and information media ASALA’s most important, official organ is Haiastan Other important publications include the periodicals Hai-Baikar, Armenia and Kaytzer, published in London. ASALA’s first radio broadcasts began in 1981 in Beyrut with a daily one-hour programme “The Voice of the Armenians in the Lebanon”. Apart from these, facilities are provided by the public radio corporations and mass communication media belonging to countries with which it has established contacts. ASALA — MR Monta Melkonian (Meykonyan) who left ASALA and passed to France in September 1983 has disclosed that he has founded the ASALA — The Military Apparatus Of People’ s Movement, ASALA — Revolutionary Movement (ASALA — MR). The recovering of the relations with the French Government, which deteriorated has been their most important goal. While it was being thought that these would do their actions in Turkey, they have taken the North American and Western European wings totally under their own control and attracted the militants in these regions to their line. Melkonian, was killed in 1993 in Nagorno Karabakh while he was fighting against Azerbaijanis.