The other side of the falsified genocide

[SUMGAYIT]

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

[SUMGAYIT]

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

[SUMGAYIT]

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

[SUMGAYIT]

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.

[SUMGAYIT]

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.

[SUMGAYIT]

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.

[SUMGAYIT]

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.

[SUMGAYIT]

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”

[SUMGAYIT]

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

[SUMGAYIT]

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

[SUMGAYIT]

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

[SUMGAYIT]

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

[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.

[SUMGAYIT]

HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT

ARMENIAN REVOLTS

THE ERZURUM INCIDENT

The Erzurum revolt occurred on 20 June 1890. Samih Pasha, the Governor of the time, and the other relevant persons were informed that the Armenians brought weapons and ammunition and they hid those in Sansaryan school and churches. In that year, during July the gendarme and the police wanted to search the church thoroughly; but since the Armenians were informed of this attempt in advance they made the necessary arrangements and prepared to resist. Upon the first command the Armenian committee members shot on the soldiers and killed one officer and two soldiers, who came to the incident area. The Church could be searched at the end of the operation, in which a policeman was killed.

An Armenian, who witnessed the incident in person explains to a newspaper published in America, called Hayrenik in Armenian in 1927 on of the anniversary of the Erzurum incident:

“The founder of the Sanasaryan School died in 1890. In order that this person might rest in peace the ceremony was made and we mourned. The government was informed that there was an arm atelier in the school. The Armenian Catholic priests were thought to be the informers. Before the search a man called "K?pek Bogos" (Dog Bogos), who was the member of “defender citizens” informed that the school would be searched in two hours. The national history books and registers and the things that could attract attention at first sight were removed immediately. At the end of the search nothing could be found. The Armenians were crying out that “the entrance of the Turks into the church is filthy and dirty.” Later on, the men of Gergesyan, who was one of the founding members of “Defender Citizens Association” and who was killed by the decision of the Tashnak Committee Erzurum headquarter, started provoking the people. The shops were closed. The ceremonies were forbidden and the bells were not allowed to ring. The Armenians were dominating the situation. In this occasion, the rebels were yelling “the Armenians are free for three days, we will protect this freedom with arms.” They wanted the government to decrease the taxes, abolish the military cost, burn the churches, the holiness of which was violated and to reconstruct them and materialise the article 61.

They stayed in the cemetery, the church and the court of the school for three-four days. The Armenian notables, who were the dispersion of the Armenians were beaten. The order of the Government, which said that people should be interested in their own matters only, was not obeyed. The committee members were going to some regions and were encouraging the people. Meanwhile, the brother of Gergesyan shot and killed two soldiers. A short fight between the two sides took place for two hours. In the following day, the consuls visited the city. More than 100 people died and about 200-300 people were injured. Aslanyan, the physician, who gave reports to the consuls on behalf of the Armenians, escaped from the city because he was wanted by the government.

While these incidents were taking place, a foreign wind, the wind of north was blowing. As a consequence of the protest by the Armenians, the Russian consul, Tevet, visited the Governor and he said, “If such rebellious people were in Russia, they would be smoothed” and to the Armenians, he said “To live under such a barabarian rule like Turkey is not worthy.”

REFERENCE:

Uras, Esat, Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi, Istanbul, 1987, pp. 458-459

[SUMGAYIT]

HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT

ARMENIAN REVOLTS

THE KUMKAPI DEMONSTRATION (July 1890)

One of the most important incidents, which the Armenian committees used as a propaganda was the Kumkapi Demonstration. H. Cang?lyan, who administered this protest, about which the Armenians claimed that they had protested without a weapon, is explaining it as follows:

“Because of the Musa Bey Question in Istanbul and Erzurum Incident, if a contrary move was not made, the Armenians would have thought that they were forgotten. That’s why a reprisal was required. The murders, which would be committed in Anatolia, would not concern even Europe. Because of that reason in order to arouse the interest of Europe a complaint should be made in front of the ambassadors.

If the Armenian enthusiasm were solely and completely dependent upon the Armenians, this would attract the attention of Russia. Russia would be suspicious this and conquer Armenia one - If the action were in the other provinces and in the center, this would attract the attention of the other states as well. In this case, since we found Britain closer to us than Russia, it would be more beneficial to shape the Armenian question within the framework of our national interests.

The situation, which was that the people were living with the other races in a dispersed and mixed way in the motherland, would cause the future actions fail only in the motherland. Because of this, the Armenian operations should be fulfilled outside the Armenian borders. For this reason, it would be impossible not to consider Istanbul as a convenient action centre. Including the bachelors and the other people who come from other cities, there were 200.000 Armenians in Istanbul.

The source of evil was in Istanbul. Consequently, it would be appropriate to fulfil the action very near the Palace.

When a revolution and rebellion spirit was aroused among a people, who lived under slavery for five-six centuries, it was necessary that the rebels should benefit from this, and should make this emotion much stronger, concrete and widespread. To disseminate the revolution among the people and to transform it to a much more fruitful way were among the objectives of their revolutionary activities.

The Turkish government and Turkish people believed that the sprit of unity among the Armenians, and a blow to Armenia atempted by these people by them would have negative effects in the other parts especially in Istanbul, where the international interests gathered. And if they see this, they will pursue a cautious policy. They will not dare to organise a new massacre.”

Before the Kumkapi incident, the notables of the committee met at the home of a Russian citizen, Megavoryan, who was living at the house of a foreigner, in the back streets of Beyoglu. Two persons were elected to administer the protest, which would be materialized in Kumkapi on 15 July. Cang?lyan assumed the responsibility to bring the Party to the palace and Murad to read the declaration.

On the day when the incident occurred, the telegram lines were cut and the Hin?aks gathered in the church. The declaration was copied in handwriting and distributed to people. During the ceremony Cang?lyan attacked the dais air and read the declaration. The patriarch Asikyan, who was presiding the ceremony, escaped and took shelter in the patriarchate. He did not consent to go to the Palace together with the committee members. The Hin?ak committee members occupied the patriarchate and guns were shot. All the windows and the ceiling of the building were broken to pieces.

At last the patriarch Ashikyan was persuaded by force and was put in a carriage to go to the Palace. The people and the member of the committee, who gathered were crying, “God save the Hin?ak Committee, God save the Armenian nation, God save Armenia, God save Liberty”. However since Dacad and Mampra Vartabets informed the government, the carriage, which the patriarch Asikyan was in, was stopped by the military forces. Upon this, the members of committee opened fire on the soldiers. Cangulyan was told this scene as follows:

“Our men were shooting at the soldiers continously and violently. The soldiers were trying to arrest those who were shooting. 6-7 soldiers were seriously wounded. 10 of them were slightly wounded. Two of us died.”

The Kumkapi incident, which was alleged to be the “protest with no arms” by the Hinchaks, ended by this way.

REFERENCE:

Uras, Esat, Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi, Istanbul, 1987,pp.461-463

[SUMGAYIT]

HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT

ARMENIAN REVOLTS

THE FIRST SASUN REVOLT

Sasun was a famous town its revolts. Sasun is a district of City of Siirt administratively and it is about 14 hours far from Mus. It is nearby Mutki and Garzan districts. Since its land is mountainous and steep, it is far from the government influence. The habitants including the Armenians spoke Zaza and Kurdish. A census was not fulfilled at that time; nevertheless, it was estimated that one fifth of the inhabitants were Armenian and the rest of it were Kurdish people.

In these regions in 1890’s, an Armenian called Mahran Damadyan travelled around for three years and tried to make the Armenians revolt, by propagating and provoking. Upon the information given by the Sasun Armenians Damadyan was caught and brought to Istanbul to be tried and then he was set free.

The Sasun revolt was arranged by the Hin?ak Committee solely to invite the intervention of the foreign countries and was fulfilled through the mediation of Murad (Kamparsun Boyaciyan).

Murad was supported and aided by the Tashnak Committee to go to Sasun by passing through Caucasus. As soon as he arrived in Sasun, he gathered some of the Armenians and started to prepare the revolt plans.

In fact, this revolt, which was fulfilled for the attraction of the foreign intervention by the Armenian committees and the patriarchate as being bloody and violent was announced in various capitals of Europe, the meetings, the declarations in the parliaments. The responsibility, which was assumed by Britain through the Cyprus agreement, was mentioned everywhere.

English Consul to Van City, Holward wanted to go to Sasun for investigation; but since the government considered him as the provocative of the revolt, he was not allowed to. After very long correspondences. The Ottoman Goverment accepted the request that the consuls situated in Erzurum, namely France, Britain and Russia participated to the Ottoman research commission. The commission made investigation for six months, from 4 January to 21 July 1895, and held 108 meetings, and listened to more than 190 witnesses. Omer Bey from the committee was appointed for the post of Vice Governor of Bitlis. So he had to leave the commission on 29 January. On 23 August Murad, the leader of the revolt, was arrested.

The Armenians had a lot of hopes concerning the Sasun revolt. They thought that, in case of a revolt in Sasun, Europe would intervene immediately, the demands of the Armenians would be supplied and considerable benefits would be obtained.

In order to continue the revolt, Hinchaks collected a great amount of money in Istanbul and in the provinces through the tickets, which bore the seal of the committee.

It would be sufficient to read the article published in the American newspaper, New York Herald, which can not be accused of not being neutral concerning how the incident took place.

“The European investigation showed that the Armenians revolted with the assistance of the provocateurs who came from foreign countries. The rebels did everything with the modern weapons. In addition to arson, murder and the pillage, they revolted against the regular soldiers and resisted them and than they retreated to the mountains. The interrogation committee established that by sending soldiers against the rebels, the Ottoman government used its most legal right. These soldiers were able to defeat these rebels only after bloody fights. About 3 thousand fully armed rebels, who sheltered in the mountains, could not be defeated by convincing words, and articles in the newspapers.

3000 Armenians gathered in Mount Anduk. 500-600 of them wanted to besiege Mus district. With this objective, they attacked the Delican tribe in the south of Mus. They killed some of them and pillaged their properties. The belief of the Muslims, whom they caught, was despised and the Muslims were killed violently. These rebels attacked at the regular soldiers near Mus, too. However, because of the great number of the soldiers there, they could not occupy Mus district.

The rebels organized the gangs with the ones in Mount Anduk. These gangs committed awful murders and plundered. They burned the nephew of ?mer Agha alive. They raped the Muslim women in the region, which was three-four hours far from to Gulli Guzat village and strangled.

They picked out the eyes and cut the ears of most of the Muslims. The Muslims were insulted severely and shamefully and were forced to be converted to Christianity and to kiss the Cross.

Towards the end of August, the Armenians attacked the Kurdish people near Mus and burnt the G?lli G?zat village. As to the 3000 Armenian rebels in Talori, after terrorising and making the Muslims and the Christians mourn, they refused to abandon their weapons and continued to pillage and murder. Then army soldiers were sent to these places to prevent these atrocities.

Hamparsun, who was one of the rebels, escaped to the high mountains with eleven accomplices. He was caught alive. Nevertheless two men of his men were killed and six of them were wounded. At the end of August all of the rebellion gangs were dispersed.

The Turks treated the women, children, old people, the disabled in accordance with the Islamic and humanistic norms. The rebels, who died, were the ones who refused to surrender and preferred to fight against the legal sovereignty.

REFERENCE:

Uras, Esat, Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi, Istanbul, 1987,pp.471-477

[SUMGAYIT]

HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT

ARMENIAN REVOLTS

THE ZEYTUN REVOLT

The most important revolt of the Hinchaks took place in Zeytun in 1895. It was informed that some of the foreign Armenians were active in the Arekin village and the government persecuted these people. It was understood that the activists, who were sent by the Hinchak Committee, were called Agasi, Hra?ya, Abah, Nisan, Melek, Garbet; and they were the Hin?ak propagandists. At that time centre of the committee was in London and the leader was Nazarbeg. The activists told the Zeytun inhabitants to arm and attack the Turkish people, the military forces around and the important towns; and that the necessary arms and money were being sent by the committee, adding that, the British fleet would arrive in Mersin and Iskenderun, as soon as the operation begins.

On 16 September, 1895 an Armenian committee, which comprised of 100 persons, including the rebels of Zeytun, Partogomios, Vartabet and the representatives of the village, met in Karanlik Dere (Dark Stream) and arrived at a decision concerning how to start the rebellion.

Upon these decisions revolts started everywhere, telegraph wires were cut, two thousand armed and four thousand unarmed inhabitants of Zeytun started the attacks. The rebels, who surrounded the barracks and the government office, took prisoner the district Governor, 50 officers, 600 soldiers and commanders. Later, the women from Zeytun killed the prisoners. The commander Remzi Pasha demanded to get reinforcement. Ethem Pasha came instead; but he had to demand for new reinforcement.

The rebels were equipped with modern weapons. The soldiers situated in Goksun attacked the rebels and they forced them to take shelter in Zeytun. The soldiers surrounded Zeytun; and just as they were wining the fight, the consuls in Istanbul proposed the government to be the act as mediator for the Armenians in Zeytun. The palace accepted this proposal and stopped the operations. The ambassadors appointed their consuls to Aleppo for the negotiations. On 1 January 1896, six official consuls entered Zeytun and they concluded peace with rebels of Zeytun on 28 January (1).

The rebels surrendered with the peace conditions, which were the submission of the weapons, that they fought with; amnesty general; the expropriation of the five members of the committee; and the exemption from the past taxes, reduction of the public tax; and the revolt ended.

The Hinchak gangs, who initiated the revolt, left Zeytun under the protection of the British Embassy and they departed from Mersin to Marseilles on 12 March.

With the Zeytun revolt the activity of the Hinchak Party in Turkey came to an end. The party was of the opinion that due to the activities it would attract the attention of Europe and would provide the independence for the Armenians. Because of that reason it murdered a great number of Armenians. But it could not obtain any result.(2)

REFERENCE

1. Uras, Esat, Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi, Istanbul, 1987,pp.491-496

2. G?r?n, Kamuran, Ermeni Dosyasi, TTK Basimevi, Ankara,1983,pp.160-161)

[SUMGAYIT]

HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT

ARMENIAN REVOLTS

THE VAN REVOLT

Although rebellion of Van started in the night between 14 and 15 June 1895, the preparations of this rebellion extends to very early days. General Mayewski, who was the Russian Ambassador for City of Van, for 6 years, and later appointed for Erzurum, explains as follows:

“In 1895, the rebels of Van exerted great efforts in order to attract the great attention of Europe to the Armenian question. Through the death threats, they sent letters to the rich Armenians for the pecuniary support. During this time, by the decision of Van revolution committee, some political murders were committed. One of the most important murders, took place on 6 January 1895, the most important Armenian Feast day; the murder of the Priest Bogos, who was going to the church for the sacred rite. (...) As from the spring the revolutionary preparations started. The people were talking about the corpses, which were cut in to pieces nearby the province. As the revolutionists saw that no prosecution took place, they became more and more encouraged. Besides this, as the Armenians were encouraged, the Muslims were expiring their patience.”

The British Ambassador Williams were foresighted as well and he writes the following:

“There are 400 members of Tashnaks in Van. They are terrorising their own co-religionists and they are provoking Muslim people by committing violent and bloody crimes acts together with the Hinchaks, whom I suppose not more than 50. They do not allow the reforms to be realised. I am sure that if those can be suppressed, the obstacle, hindering the security of the region will be eliminated.”

Military Commander of Van, Saadettin Pasha, also perceived the same situation. As from October 1895 there was already individual incidents in Van and therefore it became necessary to be on the alert to any incident. The official provincial reports show that until the beginning of the rebellion, 23 incidents were recorded. Saadettin Pasha, in his big report he sent after the revolt, mentioned these issues and summarised how the events developed.

The rebellion in Van continued between 15-24 June 1895. During the revolt 418 Muslims and 1715 Armenians deceased, and 363 Muslims and 71 Armenians were wounded.

After that date, in Van, individual incidents continued, concerning the gangs that kept coming by passing through Iran. However, those did not turn into revolts.

REFERENCE

G?r?n, Kamuran, Ermeni Dosyasi, TTK Basimevi, Ankara, 1983,pp.161-163)

[SUMGAYIT]

HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT

ARMENIAN REVOLTS

THE STORMING OF THE OTTOMAN BANK

The last incident of the year 1896 was the storming of the Ottoman Bank that occurred on 26 August. This incident was the initiative of the Tashnak Committee completely. Those, directing the operation were three Armenians, Varto, Mar and Boris. Akrein Pastirmaciyan, who was using the nickname Armen Garo, was elected as deputy from Erzurum. He came from Athens to fight on the Caucasian front with his gang against Turkey during the World War I., and joined them.

Esat Uras is telling how the raid developed on 26 August from Varantyan’s “Tasnaks?tyun History” in Armenian:

“On 26 August, 6.30 in the morning. 6 persons were enough for the raid. The bomb sack on our shoulders, the arms in our hand, we started out. When we approached the bank we heard the noise of the bombs used by our leaders. We attacked the bank. They thought we were robbers. I told them not to be scared. The bombs had shocking results. The people, who were wounded by the bombs, did not die immediately. The bombs were tearing their hands into pieces and they were suffering with awful pain. Together with Garo we went to the office of the Director and had our conditions written. We wanted our demands to be fulfilled and wanted the rebels, who were involved in the fight, to be set free. Otherwise, we would explode the bank and kill ourselves too. 17 of us were left alive after the fight. 3 of us died and 6 of our friends were wounded. The casualty of our enemies was so great.”

The conditions of the members of the gang were as follows:

- A European High Commissioner shall be elected by 6 states.

- Governors, Governors of the provinces and Governors of districts shall be appointed by the High Commissioner and approved by the Sultan.

- Legal reform in conformity with the European system

- An absolute freedom of religion, education and press

- To spend ? of the country revenue for the local requirements

- To abolish the accumulated tax due

- Tax exemption for 5 years, allocation of the tax that shall be paid in the following 5 years to the losses caused by the recent chaos.

- The return of the property, which were seized

- The return of the immigrants freely

- The amnesty to the Armenians who were sentenced for political offences

- Founding of a provisional commission comprising of the representatives from the European countries and the provision of their control over the above mentioned issues

As a result, the General Director of the Bank Sir Edgar Vincent went to the Palace with Maximoff, the Chief Interpreter of the Russian Embassy and they were authorized to solve the problem. Their right to leave Turkey freely was guaranteed. 17 gangsters with Maximoff left the bank and went to the office of Sir Edgar and than they departed to go to Marseilles with the French Ship Gironde.

Thus, the raid of the bank ended, but the bombs and bullet casting of the Armenians to the soldiers, police and the people made the Muslim inhabitants of Istanbul very angry. The chaos in Istanbul continued for a few days. This is not an assault by the Muslims against the Armenians. The Armenians also continued to attack.

According to western sources, the number of the Armenians who lost their lives in this incident is 4.000-6.000. In the scanned Ottoman documents no information about this incident has been found yet. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the figure, 6.000 is exaggerated. At the end of the Sublime Porte protest, the chaos continued for a few days; but the number of dead people remained 172. In order to reach the figure of 4.000-6.000, the incident should have continued for weeks. Furthermore, since all the sources recorded that the Muslims struggled with sticks and knives, it is impossible such a number of people could be killed by these means. No record could be found concerning the number of the Muslim inhabitants who died. On the other hand, it was understood from the British sources that 120 soldiers of the Grand Vizier died and 25 of them were wounded. Again this year, in the same sources, it was registered that about 300 Muslims were arrested because of this incident and that the measures taken by the government were good.

Concerning this incident a special law court was established and this court tried the arrested Muslims and the Armenians.

REFERENCE:

G?r?n, Kamuran, Ermeni Dosyasi, TTK Basimevi, Ankara, 1983,pp.163-166)

[SUMGAYIT]

HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT

ARMENIAN REVOLTS

THE SECOND SASUN REVOLT

As the first attack on 8 August 1895, in Sasun, could not obtain any result, the Tasnaks wanted to make the second attack on July1897. Generally, the Tashnak bands were came Turkey by passing through Iran and Van route. But the Mazrik tribe was irritating them on their road. In order to eradicate this tribe the committee members assaulted the tribe’s tents in Honasor with a gang of 250 people on July 1897, at dawn. But they could not get the result that they expected and they retreated when they had the risk of being besieged.

After that date, the Tasnaks moved their activities to Sasun and Mus region. At that time Antranik took up the gang acts. Antranik, born in 1866 in ?arki Karahisar, entered the Committee at a very young age, and he was imprisoned for killing a Turk. He was smuggled from the jail by the Committee and was sent to Batum. In the World War he became famous for gang fights and he was promoted to Regiment Commandership. Towards the end of 1890s his name became known in the region.

In 1901 the Ottoman government decided to establish barracks at the Taluri and Shenik hills in order to bring order to the Sasun administration; the Armenians opposed this project. The fight with the gangs under the leadership of Antranik actually started on this date. But towards the end of 1903 the real revolt started to disseminate in this region to everywhere. On 13 April 1904 the troopss were sent against the rebels and, the rebels could not resist. Nevertheless, the fights of the bands continued until August and Antranik had to escape to the Caucuses.

According to the book, “Antranik Wars” written by K. K?d?lyan in Armenian and published in Beirut in 1929, during the fights on 14, 16, 22 April; 2 May; 17 July, in total 932-1132 Turks but only 19 Armenians were killed. Those are the figures announced and written by the Armenians. Sasun Revolt II resulted in the re-emergence of the so-called massacre issue on the international agenda once again. But it did not attract as much attention as in the past. As a matter of fact, a new period, when the attention of the countries was drawn on other issues was about to start.

REFERENCE

G?r?n, Kamuran, Ermeni Dosyasi, TTK Basimevi, Ankara,1983,pp.166-167

[SUMGAYIT]

HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT

ARMENIAN REVOLTS

THE YILDIZ ASSASSINATION

The last initiative of the Tashnaks is the assassination of Abd?lhamid. Papazian confirms this accordingly:“The assault against Sultan Abd?lhamid’s life was the last try of the Tashnaks for the revolution on behalf of the Turkish Armenians. That was one of the splendid but useless initiative of Tashnaksutyun. Its success would not have contributed to the Armenian problem. Its failure saved our people from a great catastrophe.”

Together with Krisdapor Mikaelyan, Vram ?abuh Kendiryan from Arnavutk?y, Belgian Joris and his semi-Greek wife Silvio Ris?i, Lipa-Rips born in Germany, Torkom (Ardas Ha?ik Kaptanyan), Safo (Konstantin Kabulyan), Mari Zayn, Garo (Hamparsun Agacanyan), Kris Fenerciyan, Asod (Karlo Yovanoi?) and some adventurous people coming from different parts of the Caucuses and Europe gathered in Istanbul and started to make plans for the assassination. First of all, they went to the Polonezk?y (Polish village) with 12 bombs and made some bombing experiments in Ibrahim Pasha forest.

Because of his Russian Jewish merchant passport, Krisdapor went to the Sultan’s public procession ceremony with the advise received from the Russian Embassy and he made the investigation freely. He thought that it was easy to throw the bomb on the Sultan when he was passing. Yet, since the roads were covered with sand, it was possible that the bomb would not explode.

Later on the plan was discussed. On fifteenth day of Ramadan during the ceremony, two men with guns would attack the Sultan, Joris proposed to rent a house on the road, from Yildiz to Dolmabahce. The men appointed to fulfil this mission were present with the guns. Yet, that day, the Sultan went to Ciragan Palace through the Yildiz Garden and the assassination attempt of the committee failed.

Finally, it was planned to bomb the premises, where foreign guests were frequenting, and at the same time to explode a great bomb in a carriage. Careful studies and calculations were made and it was decided that the bombs would be prepared in foreign countries; the tests would be materialized there and the assassination would be realised with a time bomb put in a special carriage.

Krisdapor continued his investigations. He went to Yildiz every week. He recorded the time when the Sultan arrived at and departed from the mosque; he measured the distance between the carriage and the mosque, the steps and the time. Finally, they decided to explode a timed-bomb in a carriage which would wait among the carriages of foreign guests. The carriage would be placed as close as possible to the Sultan and the Sultan would be killed together with the people around him .

A metal chest, to be placed in the coachman’s seat was made and it would include 120 kilos of explosives. In order to inflame the explosives a clock face, a circuit of 42 seconds was prepared. It was decided that Zare Ha?ikyan, 45 years old, veteran murderer, Armenian committee member, would ride the carriage.

On 18 July, in the morning the explosive material and 500 capsules were loaded in an iron chest under the driver’s seat. Having made all the preparations, on Friday, 21 July 1905, following the public procession ceremony while Sultan Hamid was going back to the Palace the bomb exploded in front of the mosque. Although everything was calculated with precision, the Sultan met Sheikh-ul-Islam after he left the mosque and talked to him. Because he was late for a few minutes the assassination failed.

At the end of the investigations concerning the incident, Edouard Joris, Austrian citizen, was sentenced to death. After some time, Joris was brought to the Palace. He was appointed as an agent to work against the Armenians with the Sultan’s gift of 500 liras and was sent to Europe. (2)

REFERENCE:

(1) G?r?n, Kamuran, Ermeni Dosyasi, TTK Basimevi, Ankara,1983,pp.167

(2) Uras, Esat, Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi, Istanbul, 1987,pp.524-531

[SUMGAYIT]

HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT

ARMENIAN REVOLTS

THE ADANA INCIDENT

Following the Armenian provocation, which lasted for days, the Armenians killed two young Muslims and when they insisted not to surrender the murderer, the demonstrations took a serious turn and extended to streets. The Muslims and the Armenians fought in the streets for 3 days.

The government sent troops from Dedeagach to Adana immediately. Upon their arrival the incidents tented worsen; but they were suppressed easily. In his memoirs, Cemal Pasha said that during the Adana incident 17.000 Armenians and 1.850 Muslims died. If the Armenians had had the majority of population, in the province, these figures would have been differred. During the bloodshed, the behaviour of the parties was not different from each other.

According to the research made by the Patriarchate 21.300 people died. Babikyan Efendi, the deputy of Edirne province prepared a report to be presented to the parliament, but he died shortly after the report, which stated that the number of dead was 21.001, could not be discussed in the Assembly. By taking into consideration that there was the possibility was that there might be some people, who escaped from the scene and came back later; and since the figure established by Cemal Pasha belonged to a period after the trial, it was accepted that the mu?ber of the Armenians, who died was nearly 17.000, not 21.000.

After the incident, Adana was put under martial law. The Muslim and Armenians who committed crimes were sent to Court Martial.

REFERENCE:

G?r?n, Kamuran, Ermeni Dosyasi, TTK Basimevi, Ankara,1983,pp.175-76

[SUMGAYIT]

HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT

ARMENIAN REVOLTS

THE BURSA INCIDENT

Upon the increase of the Armenian rebellions and incidents, the Armenians gangs, who heard that at the end of the searches in Adapazari and Izmit many weapons were obtained; and who had been preparing in Chengiler, Soloz, Orhangazi, Bilecik regions for a long time, started to attack the Turkish people. Their aim was to make the government forces the gendermerie and the military units to pursue Armenians themselves. Thus forces who were fighting against the enemy on the front would be weakened and demoralised.

The Armenian bands that had modern weapons and even medical equipment, started assaults everywhere in groups 60-70, by uniting with the bandits who had escaped from Izmit and Adapazari. It was established that the leaders of the Armenian gangs were the Chief Priest Vekil Barkef and his secretary Sokpas, the Principal of Bursa Armenian School, porter of the church and the religious people.

REFERENCE:

Sakarya, Em. T?mg. Ihsan, Belgelerle Ermeni Sorunu, Gnkur. Basimevi, Ankara 1984 pp.239

[SUMGAYIT]

HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT

ARMENIAN REVOLTS

THE FINDIKCIK INCIDENT

While the Armenians in Zeytun region, who revolted against the Ottoman government from time to time, were being replaced in the other regions, the Armenians, who spread out to the land, in the north of the Nur Mountains, attacked the Turkish villages, the military units and the gendarme detachments and set fire, destroyed and killed.

After a period of time, in Spring 1915, 600 bandits, who were Armenians from Zeytun, Saimbeyli and Maras, gathered and revolted between Maras and the Bah?e Town; and Findik?ik village, which was 30 kilometres distant from Ayvalik Subdistrict. They burned four Turkish villages nearby this village. The Armenians in Maras region also started to get together in Findik?ik, the center of the rebellion. The village was prepared for the defense.

Meanwhile, although a gendarme detachment was sent to the rebellion region, no positive results were achieved. Upon this, 312th Infantry Regiment from Islahiye and infantry battalion from Belen and a mountain cannon team were sent to the Findik?ik region and the revolt was suppressed. More than 10 Turkish villages were set on fire and about 2.000 Turkish people were killed violently in this incident.

REFERENCE:

Sakarya, Em. T?mg. Ihsan, Belgelerle Ermeni Sorunu, Gnkur. Basimevi, Ankara 1984 pp.243-244

[SUMGAYIT]

HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT

ARMENIAN REVOLTS

MOUNT MUSA INCIDENT

Mount Musa is at the foot of the Nur Mountains. It is 1.000 meters high. It is covered with huge rocks and bushes and looks like a single block of rock. The book “40 Days at Mount Musa”, by a Jew, called Werfel, was made a film, in order to propagate the said oppression by the Armenians in America. The Governor of Aleppo of the time, General Fahrettin T?rkkan describes the incident that broke out in the World War I as follows:

“During the World War I, it was rumoured that the Entente Powers would land on the shores of the Iskenderun Region. So the habitants of seven Armenian villages connected to Samandag subdistrict, did not pay their tax due. They refused to support Turkish Armed Forces. They revolted and escaped to Mount Musa.

Upon this development, although the government sent some officials to talk to them and to persuade them to obey the government orders, the Armenians did not pay attention to this and defended themselves with weapons. Colonel Galip, the commander of the region could not find any other solution therefore he took the roads under the control, that were extending from Mount Musa. Although he wanted to talk to the rebellions individually for the last time, he saw that nobody was left on the mountain. At the end of the search, it was found out that the Armenians came down to the Mediterranean by the slope of a hill that was stretched out to the sea. Following the tracks, Colonel Galip climbed down to the shore and came across 20-30 animal corpses.

The search unveiled that a French war ship, which was observing the shores of Iskenderun, sent a boat to the shore upon the signal given from Mount Musa. This boat carried the Armenian gang leaders and the other rebels to the ships. This information can be obtained from the official channels of the French Government. The searches made the Mount Musa revealed that there were no human corpses on the shore or , even wounded or diseased people. Within this respect, it was concluded to a conclusion that the aim of the book written by Werfel, a Jewish origin, was likely to propagate in order to create a public opinion against the Turkish people. It was translated into all languages; and was made a film.”

This is the Mount Musa Incident. Its objective was to discredit and condemn the Turks. During World War I the French considered Aleppo and Hatay provinces as a significant entrance and exit to the Mediterranean and attached great importance to the Samandag region. Moreover they searched the possibility to land on this region. Because of this reason, they bombarded Iskenderun Province six times. Although they wanted make trouble for the Ottoman government by provoking the Christians, they could not find the opportunity and courage to materialise this initiative.

REFERENCE:

Sakarya, Em. T?mg. Ihsan, Belgelerle Ermeni Sorunu, Gnkur. Basimevi, Ankara 1984 pp.245-246

[SUMGAYIT]

HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT

ARMENIAN REVOLTS

THE SEBINKARAHISAR INCIDENT

Besides the Armenian incidents, many rebellions occurred in Anatolia. One of them is ?ebinkarahisar incident on 5 June 1915.

Murat (Hamparsun Boyaciyan), born in Sivas, was an Armenian band leader who attacked Shebinkarahisar with about 500 men. Since the road to transport reinforcements to the Turkish Eastern Front passed through the region, it had strategic importance. In case of an Armenian seizure of the region, the reinforcement and the back-up services of the TSK (Turkish Armed Forces) would be delayed and the front operations of the Russian army would become easier. The bandits set fire to the Muslim quarters. They started to kill the Turkish people, they tortured them, first. They attacked the army and gendarmerie detachments.

Reconsidering these conditions, the forces were brought from other fronts and they were sent to Shebinkarahisar. They besieged the Armenian rebels.

The message that was sent to the High Command of the 10th Army Corps Headquarters in Sivas on 15 June 1915 included the statements below:

“It is informed that about 500 Armenian bandits, who were collected from different places, sheltered in the old castle in ?ebinkarahisar and revolted. The Sivas Governor informed that the fights took place between the security forces and the bandits.”

The message sent by the Sivas Governor to the 3rd Army Corps Headquarters on 18-19 June 1915 included the following:

“It is reported that the Shebinkarahisar rebellion was suppressed; about 800 Armenian women, men and children took shelter in the castle; about 200 of the rebels were armed.”

REFERENCE:

Sakarya, Em. T?mg. Ihsan, Belgelerle Ermeni Sorunu, Gnkur. Basimevi, Ankara 1984 pp.227-228

[SUMGAYIT]

HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT

ARMENIAN REVOLTS

THE URFA INCIDENTS

Following the declaration of the Constitutional Regime, the Armenian committees also established an organisation in Urfa, composed of volunteers. The Armenians who were replaced in this region, were also deceived. Meanwhile, a man, who was found guilty in the Urfa revolt in 1895, was exiled to Tripoli. This man, who was discharged after the declaration of the Constitutional Regime, came back to Turkey and introduced himself as a priest. The Armenian Patriachate to Istanbul sent him to Urfa. He prepared the Armenian revolt and instilled Turkish hostility within the region. He explained to them the importance of weapons and armament.

The Russians attached great importance to the Armenian preparations in Urfa; because Urfa is in a location on the main road that stretches out from Eastern Anatolia to Iskenderun. Food, which would be sufficient for the rebellions for thirty years was stored. The occupation of Van province by the Russians speeded up the provocation and the propaganda of the Armenian rebels. By putting forward that the Russians would come to Urfa by passing through Diyarbakir, and Siverek, they called Armenians for revolt.

One of the most significant features of the revolt preparations was carrying water to the rebels who kept them coming from Maras and Diyarbakir, grinding the wheat to make flour, cooking bread, taking care of the patients, cleaning up the guns, receiving orders, making bullets, making speeches and forming the teams. These would be realized with an armed force, which was comprised of local volunteers and the deserters, and which would be used under the order of the commanders for Zeytun, Sason, Bitlis, Antep regions. They succeeded in materialising these preparations.

While waiting for the appropriate time to start the revolt, during the collection of the weapons and the recruitment of the ones, born in 1894, the Armenian soldiers, who escaped from Zeytun, Sason, Ha?in, Diyarbakir provinces joined the rebels. The first revolts started in Germis village, 7.5 kilometers away from Urfa and on Thursday, 19 August 1915 in the center of Urfa.

On the following day of the Urfa incident the Armenian soldiers of the service battalion, who were working at the Tell?llebyaz-Urfa-Siverek road attempted to kill the officers and the Turkish workers, as they had planned before. However they could not achieve this. Later on, the Armenian soldiers, who were working at the Tell?lebyaz-Urfa section, martyred Reserve Officer Ibrahim Hilmi through the pickaxes, shovels and the guns they obtained from the guard gendarmes; and they wounded four gendarmes and the alderman.

After this incident on 28 August 1915, the order prevailed until 29 September 1915. Nevertheless, on 29 September 1915, 40 gunshots were made. On the following day, the police and the gendarme, who went to the Armenian quarter to investigate the incident, met the fire and one gendarme had died and two were wounded. The rebels attacked the houses of the Turks and they captured the ones, who were suitable for defence and attack; and martyred 10 women, young and old, from the Muslim families.

The revolt in Urfa was planned and directed by the Armenian committees perfectly. It was established that foreign countries were involved in this incident and that they received help from them.

Following the rebellion, the leaders of the Armenian gangs managed to escape to other regions. The 4th Army Commander informed the Supreme Military Command about the fight through the code number 7664 on the day it ended, 16 October 1915.

REFERENCE:

Sakarya, Em. T?mg. Ihsan, Belgelerle Ermeni Sorunu, Gnkur. Basimevi, Ankara 1984 pp.240-243

[SUMGAYIT]

HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT

ARMENIAN REVOLTS

IZMIT AND ADAPAZARI INCIDENTS

When the Russian navy was bombarding Eregli in the Black Sea Region, it was found out that the Armenians in the region spied for the Russians. Especially, the Armenians in Adapazari started telling and propagating clearly that “The Russians will land on the Black Sea coast in a few days; they will come here. When they come there will be no Turks left in our region.” Upon this, the government had a search made in the region. At the end of the search a great number of explosive materials guns, pistols, soldier and gendarme uniforms, a great amount of ammunition and dynamite fuses were found. Only few of them were enough to destroy Adapazari. Another search was made in Izmit and similar things the same things were found.

According to the evidence given by the revolutionists who were arrested both in Adapazari and Izmit, if the Russian occupation had taken place, in the estuary of the Sakarya River these explosives would have been used against the Turkish army and Turkish people. Therefore, a plan for massacre and total destruction was going to be put in practise. Some of the Armenians would wear uniforms of the Turkish Army and destroy the Turkish Army from within. When this plan of the Armenians was unveiled, the gang leaders escaped to Yalova and Bursa regions and they robbed and killed the Turkish people they came across.

In spite of all these, the Armenians started to disseminate news and rumours, about Armenians being killed and tortured everywhere. In the end, the government had to take the fundamental measures. Some of the Armenian gangs were arrested and some of them escaped to different regions.

REFERENCE:

Sakarya, Em. T?mg. Ihsan, Belgelerle Ermeni Sorunu, Gnkur. Basimevi, Ankara 1984 pp.238

[SUMGAYIT]

HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT

ARMENIAN REVOLTS

THE GENERAL LIST OF REVOLTS

The Armenian revolts started with the Erzurum incident in 1890 and ended with Van rebellion in 1896. This period of Armenian massacres to Turks was referred as a so-called “genocide” by the Western world.

Nalbadian says, ”in this period, 50.000-300.000 Armenian were killed.”

David Marshall Lang writes that 200.000 Armenians were killed between 1894-96.

According to Pastirmaciyan there were 100.000-110.000 dead people.

Misasskian writes “At least 300.000 Armenians died.”

Hepsius’s number for Armenian casualties is 88.243.

However, there are some doubts about all these figures. For instance, in 1896 it is said that 20.000 people were killed in Van. But most of the bands activated in Van province came from Iran. Saadettin Pasha says that 6.000 people died in Zeytun. According to Agasi 125 people lost their lives. The British documents state that after the end of the rebellion the people, who died because of the diseases, were 3.000. Yet these deaths are not related to the rebellion.

Bliss’s figure belonging to 1895 is 35.032.

It is evident that the Armenian bandits and rebels killed thousands of Turks in 1890’s and the Armenian casualties during their own revolts would not be more than 20.000.

Agasi’s words “We killed 20.000 Turks in Zeytun” clarify the facts. With no doubt, Muslim casualties are much more than the Armenian casualties.

REFERENCE:

G?r?n, Kamuran, Ermeni Dosyasi, TTK Basimevi, Ankara,1983,pp.167-68

[SUMGAYIT]

The Tashnak Terrorist Organization

(HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT)

The “Armenian Revolutionary Federation” or “Tashnak Organization” is also known as the “Tashnak Party.” In fact, after the communist takeover of the Armenian Republic, the Tashnak organization continued its existence as a party in exile, mainly in Lebanon, Iran, France, Greece and the United States. This organization has remained active up to the present day and has performed a significant role in planning and promoting the new era of Armenian terrorism, as well as forming teams and groups for carrying out terrorist operations. A move was made, later in its career, to have its name changed from the Armenian Revolutionary Federation to the Armenian National Committee. The intention behind this was to achieve greater effectiveness in its propagandist activities by the removal of a name that could offend Western sensibility.The Structure of the Organization

a. “Bureau”: This is the highest organ of the organization and takes the decisions that determine its administrative policies. In appearance the bureau represents collective leadership. It consists of eight members, one each from California, France and Iran and five from Lebanon. The members elect a chairman. The bureau, which was based in Lebanon until the outbreak of the Civil War, was moved from there to the United States and then to Greece and France. The regulations of the bureau and its decisions are kept secret .It is known that a person named Hrair Marukian, Persian by birth and domiciled in France, was its chairman until 1985.

b. “The Central Committee”: It is the highest-level executive organ. It establishes the link between the bureau and the local groups and organizations. It is established in places where there is a sizeable Armenian population. Lebanon and France have one central committee each, whilst the United States has two, one on the eastern and’ the other one on western coasts. Under the pyramid shaped structure there are local organizations and their organs. These have different names which usually refer to various “Armenian Themes” The most important ones are: the Federation of Armenian Youth, the Youth Organization, the Armenian Boy and Girl Scouts Club, organizations for sport and cultural activities.

c. There are also various offices operating under the central committees, such as those in charge of propagandist activities and publicity, as well as legal, financial, military and educational matters. These offices offer purely technical service or advice. As an example of an office rendering a specific service, we can mention the Committee for Supervising Armenian Immigration.

Aims

The Tashnak terrorist organization defines the meaning of the Armenian cause or “the Hay Taht” as the establishment of an independent and non-communist Armenia within the boundaries designated by the abrogated S?vres Treaty and the enforcement of payment of compensation by Turkey in return for the crimes said to have been committed against the Armenians. Tashnak publications express to this objective in the following words, “We will continue to insist on the implementation of the S?vres Treaty, as being one of the milestones in the pursuit of our cause.”

In another publication, the aims of the Tashnaks are summarised as the recognition of the right of the Armenians to live in their own lands and to govern themselves. More commonly, the final aims of the Tashnaks can be summarised as “Four T Plan”: a) propaganda the recognition of the Armenian claim that genocide was committed, c) the payment of a compensation by Turkey, d) resettlement in the Armenian homelands.

Strategies and Policies

Although the Tashnakshave publicly declared that their strategies are directed towards the realization of their aims through “peaceful means”, neither the events of the past nor their activities in the new era of Armenian terrorism have proved this to be true. This ‘party’ which has all the characteristics of a terrorist organization, can assume, when needed, a peaceful guise and mislead the public by using propagandist tactics perfected through long years of experience. In fact, as has been said above, it was the Tashnaks who were responsible for the establishment of the “Justice Commandos for Armenian Genocide”, whose name was later changed to “the Armenian Revolutionary Army”. It is, indeed, the Tashnaks who decided upon and planned the assassinations and bomb assaults carried out by this group. These activities suffice to show that the Tashnak organization never abandoned the terrorist tendencies it possessed at its inception. Nonetheless, there is a significant difference between the strategies employed by the Tashnaksand those by ASALA. ASALA makes no distinction between the Turks and other nationalities, all of whom can figure indiscriminately as their targets, whereas the Tashnak organization and its affiliates take Turkish citizens or official representatives of Turkey as the sole targets of their deadly operations.

After the killing of the Turkish Consul General in Los Angeles in 1972, the Justice Commandos announced that their targets were “only Turkish diplomats and Turkish institutions.” The same declaration of intention was made in connection with the assault carried out by the Armenian Revolutionary Army against the Turkish Embassy in Lisbon in 1983.

The difference that exists between the strategies of the Tashnaksand ASALA may be explained by observing the historical development of the two organizations. As we have seen, the Tashnakstook a pro-Western stance in the 19th Century and the first two decades of the 20th Century and aimed at influencing public opinion in the West, whereas the Hinchaks turned towards Russia for protection and support. It is significant that, during the years 1973-1985, terrorism made use of both camps.

The strategy adopted by the Tashnaksfinds its clearest expression in the announcement made in the wake of the Lisbon attack. According to this, “a national liberation movement has to go through two phases in order to attain its end: firstly, the phase of internal propaganda, when bases of support are secured; secondly, the phase of external publicity directed towards gaining the sympathy of the world and attracting attention for the cause: hence the necessity for organizing activities that serve as demonstrations…”

For the Dashnaks, Armenian terrorism was but a form of demonstration conducted as part of their strategy. In other words, the assaults, bombings and raids that were carried out and the people who were injured, killed or trampled to death in the course of these incidents, were all considered to be the necessary elements of a scenario that made up the ‘demonstration’.

The Tashnakhistorian Varandjian described the characteristics of the Tashnakterrorist organization in the words: “Perhaps no other revolutionary party, not even the Russian Narodovoletz (Narodnaya Volya) or the Charbonari of the Italians, adepts though they were at terrorism and undaunted by anything that came in their way, could breed terrorists as reckless and impassioned as the Dashnaks. Hundreds of men carrying guns, daggers and bombs are up in arms.” It is sobering to reflect that during the period we have studied the mission of these “reckless and impassioned” terrorists was to attack Turkish institutions and the Turks.

The Congresses of Vienna and Munich

On December 27, 1981 the following resolutions were taken in the twenty-second TashnakCongress held in Vienna:

a) The Party’s goal is to secure the establishment of a united and independent Armenia. Pressure should be exerted on other Armenian organizations by the political committees to induce them to join the ranks of the Dashnaks.

c) Complete agreement with the West must be secured.

d) Close relations have to be established with the Soviet Union, and Armenian immigration must be stopped.

In the Munich Congress held at the end of 1984 with the participation of representatives for fifteen countries, the following resolutions were passed:

a) New campaigns must be launched to publicise the Armenian cause. An attempt must be made to resolve the ‘Armenian question’ through legal and other peaceful measures, for example, a campaign must be conducted to bring the issue of genocide before the United States Congress and the United Nations Committee for Human Rights so as to secure its recognition.

In the declaration made at the end of the Congress, the delegates made the following announcement: “We are to continue our struggle for the recognition of the legal rights of the Armenian people and of the genocide committed by the Turks; as well as the payment of a compensation for the human, cultural and economic losses endured by our nation and the restitution of the Armenian national home which has belonged to us for thousands of years.”The resolutions taken at both Congresses are of interest in facilitating the identification of the themes that were to be used as means of propaganda by the Tashnak terrorist organization.

Support and Connections

The Tashnakterrorist organization derived its support largely from the United States and Europe. It operated on the basic principle of avoiding, as far as possible, contact with the other terrorist organizations. Instead, it had links with various organizations in the states mentioned, its primary source of support being the Church and the Union of Churches, as well as the Armenian lobbies and research centres.

Political Developments

Up to the 1970?s the “liberation and independence of Soviet Armenia” formed the basis of the policies determined and implemented by the Tashnakterrorist organization. For this reason, the Tashnaksgave priority to hostilities against the U.S.S.R. and engaged in a merciless struggle against those who supported and controlled Soviet Armenia. During Christmas worship, the Archbishop of the Holy Cross Armenian Church in New York was assassinated by a Tashnaksuicide-killer. The reason given was the Archbishop’s approval of the situation in Soviet Armenia.

After the 1970?s, the break-up, due to death and other factors, of the ruling party in the Armenian Republic and the comparisons being drawn between the Third World liberation movements and the Tashnak terrorist movements led to significant changes in the Tashnak policies. Their hostility was now directed against Turkey and the Turks. “Fascist Turkey” had become the real enemy; Turkey’s ally, the United States, was also counted among their enemies. The “Justice Commandos for Armenian Genocide” (JCAG), a terrorist group established in 1972 and organized by the Tashnaks, were put into action as a result of the policy changes mentioned above. The Aztag Shapatoriag, the propaganda organ of the Tashnak sand especially of the JCAG, issued a warning of ‘terror’ when they announced that “terrorism is the last hope and the only path to follow in the liberation struggles of to-”

Despite all the propaganda efforts by the Tashnak terrorist organization, the Lisbon operation was seen as a complete failure. The attempts to present the attack on the Turkish Embassy in Lisbon, as a turning point in terror did not win general acceptance. Following this, they were obliged to change the name of the JCAG to “Armenian Revolutionary Army”; even so, this did not produce the desired results. In particular, the arrest and conviction in 1984 of Sasunian, one of the Tashnak murderers, proved a great setback to Tashnak policies. The Tashnaks lost the support of American-born Armenians. According to the Armenian Reporter, the Tashnak Party had been taken over by Lebanese Armenians from abroad, and was powerless in the face of a large majority who did not support terrorism. The weakening of the- terrorist wing of the party led to increasing clashes of opinion at the highest level of the Executive Council and Central Committees. The highest officials in the party were split into two groups. Powerful members of the Executive Council, representatives of the Lebanese Central Committee and leading members of the party administration, were murdered in Beirut or disappeared without trace. By the end of 1985, it was impossible to speak of a united Tashnak Party. Two important external factors helped to create this situation within the Tashnakterrorist organization. The first was the revelation that the Tashnak leaders had had connections with secret service organizations in certain countries and that these were trying to establish control over the Armenian churches. The second was the struggle between ASALA and the Dashnaks. ASALA described the Tashnak leaders as “parasites who were sucking the blood of Armenians dry.” As a matter of fact, these developments within the Tashnak terrorist organization were not new. Whenever such conflicts and divisions arose in the past, the Tashnaks always re-emerged sometime later. In the World Armenian Congresses, the Tashnaks have always been, and will continue to be, a force to reckon with. As for the policy changes, they may be construed as being to temporary conflicts in leaderships.

The Media

Within the Armenian terrorist organizations, the Tashnak terrorist organization was experimenting in the field of propaganda and was giving support to that extent. They had acquired the means of constantly informing world opinion of their goals, their activities and their policy through the press and broadcasting media; for example, through various serials and feature films, through radio programmes, which they had purchased, thorough private radios, television and video films. Quite a few countries showed interest and provided the Tashnaks with special support in this area. Among the most important Tashnak publications were Hairenik and Asbarez, both published in Armenian in the United States, together with the Armenian Weekly, which was published in English.

The Tashnaks also organized twenty-two world conferences in places such as Paris, Bucharest, Erevan and Munich, although the number of participants was limited. This was a tremendous propaganda and publicity effort on their part.

[SUMGAYIT]

HINCHAK

(HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT)

The Hinchak (Ring of Bell) Committee was established in 1886 in Switzerland by Avedis Nazarbelg, a Caucasian Armenian and a citizen of Russia, his wife Maro and other Caucasian students. In order to disseminate the idea of the committee, a newspaper called Hinchak was published. The heads and most of the members of this committee were Russian Armenians. This committee chose Eastern Anatolia as the area of operation. After some period of time, the headquarters of the committee was moved from Switzerland to London.The program of the Hinchak Committee was Socialist, Marxist and Centralist. The principles of Karl Marx were adopted as fundamental. Although the members of this committee were called themselves as social democrats their political program totally had the nature of the communist manifesto. The Committee had its headquarters primarily in Istanbul and opened branches in some states of the Ottoman country. In this way, it started its organised activities. The main political objective of this committee was to save the Armenians in Turkey from the Turks, Iranian Armenians from the Iranians and Russian Armenians from the Russians and after that, getting rid of the capitalists in these countries.

PROGRAM

“Labourers and productive class comprise great majority of humanity. This class shall be free from the exploitation of the wealthy, sovereign minority, which has the capital, thereby having all the power and means of production, land, plants, mines and means of transportation. The independence of the productive class means the freedom of humanity as a whole, general economic prosperity.

In order to attain this objective and put this into practice actually, the productive classes in all civilised countries ought to organise in ways peculiar to themselves and materialise the communist revolution in all countries through activating the general political opportunities under their rule. Therefore, the other classes will disappear and the productive class will establish a socialist order. In this establishment, people will enact their own laws and show their power.

(…)

Now, the Armenians are under the rule of the classes which are dependent on autocratic regimes. Their administration, taxation and financial systems are destructive for them. One hand capitalist production methods are applied in these countries and on the other hand the old economic and management methods are being annihilated continuously.”

Considering all these conditions, the provision of a general and comprising socialist rule for the Armenian social democrats and all the Armenians was accepted as a long-term objective and because of that reason all the tendencies and struggles required a short-term objective. This short-term objective was the basis for the social democrat Armenian Revolutionary Hinchak Party. These objectives were as follows:

a. To revoltb. To annihilate the sovereign classes of the autocratic regimes

c. To save the Armenians from the slavery

d. To support the Armenians for their intervention to the political affairs

e. To remove the obstacles that affect economic and cultural developments

f. To prepare an environment where the working class can voice its wishes and tendencies openly

g. To rearrange the heavy working conditions

h. To provide information for the class so that they can organise themselves as a political unit peculiar to them

i. To facilitate the activities of the people and assist them to attain the long-term objectives

In accordance with this idea, the short-term objective of the Hinchak Committee was to struggle for the removal of autocratic regimes and its classes; and to replace them with constitutional regimes. Its main conditions were as follows:

a. For the representation of the people, a legislative assembly ought to be established through elections, in which all the sections can vote directly. This assembly ought to have the right to examine decide on all the political and economic affairs of the country. b. Broad autonomy ought to be granted to the states

c. Complete freedom ought to be provided for the people

d. People ought to be able to select the government officials, all the people in public services security officials and the officials in the fields of education and justice

e. Without taking nationality and class differences into consideration, all major citizens ought to have the capacity to be elected both for states and autonomous administrations

f. All the citizens ought to be equal in the presence of law without taking nationality and religious differences into account

g. Complete freedom ought to be granted to press, expression, conscience, organisation, establishment of association and election procedures

h. All the citizens themselves and their homes ought to be protected against attacks

i. The churches ought to be separated from the government; all the religious organisations ought to survive with the help of the people themselves, who are frequenting these organisations

j. In peace, all the people ought to do its military service in militia forces

k. Secular and compulsory education system ought to be implemented; the government ought to aid poor people

Since the political rights mentioned above concern the improvement of the economic situation of the people, it is necessary to fulfil the conditions below:

a. The present tax system ought to be annulled and it ought to be replaced by a tax system, which is advanced and is in accordance with the power and the payment capacity of the people.b. Indirect taxes ought to be abolished totally

c. The peasants ought exempt from all kinds of debts

d. Agricultural machines ought to be provided with the help of the people and the government. People should be thought how to use these machines and these ought to be delivered to the people

e. Agricultural corporations among the people ought to be established. The goals of these corporation ought to be the sale of the agricultural products, purchasing and management of some products like seeds, cereals etc.

f. All kind of transportation and contact means ought to be supplied

g. In order to hinder the exploitation of the working people, the government ought to procure help in this respect and ought to pass laws to protect them

The Turkish Armenians are the majority of the Armenians and the regions where they live, are the largest territories of our country. Thanks to the 61st article of the Berlin Agreement and the other international conditions, the struggle of most Armenians became a matter of rights and is recognised by the big European countries.The political, economic and financial disorders, the decrease, the exhaustion, the interior chaos and the disturbances in the Ottoman Empire made the collapse of the Ottoman government necessary and definite. The other European states influenced this situation as well. Some parts of the Ottoman territories in Europe were separated in a systematic way and was owned by other states. Because of this reason, the procurement of the points below became a historical necessity and requirement:

a. The Armenian committee members shall exert their efforts for the defence and finalisation of the Armenian struggle in accordance with the short-term objective.b. In this context, the struggle area of the revolution shall be the region of Armenians, who are living in Turkey.

c. Since the future of the Armenians shall necessitate the separation from the Ottoman State, the primary condition of short-term objective is the Armenian independence.

The solutions to attain the short-term objective is to mess up and create chaos in the Armenian regions in Turkey by revolution namely by force; and to declare war against the Turkish government with a general revolt. The means of these activities are as follows:

a. To make propaganda through the press, books and speeches among the people, especially the workers, to disseminate the revolution idea of the Hinchak Party, to establish some revolutionary organisations among the people and to rebelb. To punish Turkish autocrats, detectives, informers, traitors; to use terrorism as the means for the defence of the revolutionary organisations and as a shiled against the infamous and those, who oppress the people.

c. To posses an active armed force for the purpose of protecting the people against the attacks of the government soldiers or tribes, to form raider troops. These troops shall play a leading role in a general revolution in the future.

d. A general revolutionary organisation, which will comprise many regular interconnected groups ought to be established. This organisation will work for the common goal with unity and will apply same tactics given and directed from a single centre.

e. To prepare the incidents for the implementation of an organised rebellion

f. The most appropriate instant for the success of a general revolt is the time when a country has declared war against Turkey.

g. To make the other minorities, which shared same destiny with the Armenians, side with us in order to make war against the Turkish Government, our joint enemy. The most important objective of the Hinchak Committee is to be free of the slavery of the Ottoman State and to establish a federation as in Switzerland.

The Hinchak Committee worked according to a political program and made the Marxism propaganda, which was very attractive especially for the working class. The young people, religious leaders, adventurers and the unemployed were very eager to be a member of the committee and work with us to create chaos and revolt. The Committee executives wanted to create an Armenian Proletariat by working on the class concept. Within the context of the living standards in Turkey, these activities of the Committee could not go beyond the propaganda of socialism. A lot of people from many foreign countries especially Russia and who were familiar with these matters participated in many of the revolts organised by the Hinchak Committee.The start of the Armenian activities caused many tragic and bloody incidents, which could not be compensated for. For the foundation of the organizations of the Hinchak Committee, ?imavonfrom Tblisi, S. Danielyan, Russian citizen Rupen Hanazat and H. Megavoryan came from Geneva, Iran, Trabzon and Batum respectively. After very long discussions, the Istanbul Hinchak Committee Center was established. The other revolutionary organisations, which were established before 1890 in Istanbul, joined it as well.

As we can see, the destiny of the Armenians in Turkey was left to the hands of many Russian Armenians. In the way, those, who did not enter the committee and who did not help financially were put under pressure or killed. The organisations also extended to many states in Anatolia in a rapidly.

ACTIVITIES

The rules and regulations, and the program of the Hinchak Association were published in 1909, in Istanbul. These rules and regulations were delivered to the Ministry of Interior in accordance with the law concerning the associations; and obtained the certificate no. 90, of February 8, 1909, of the Governor of Istanbul. The rules and regulations were composed of 5 sections.

Concerning the activities of the Armenian Hinchak Committee, it was written as follows in the decision books of the years 1910,1911,1912 and 1913:

a. To work for supply of arms, ammunition and explosivesb. Military Training of the arms (by Marufyan, Yavruyan, Candan)

c. To speed up propaganda

d. To establish contact with the Tashnak Committee

e. To establish contact with the unionists

f. Formation and the management of guerrillas in Van (These guerrillas are; Orsfan, Cang, Go?nak,Jura?ak, Pencak, Badami, Tejohenk, Maro and Paros)

On 24 July 1914, Hinchak Committee held its Third Congress in Turkey. This congress was opened under the chairmanship of Cang?lyan and under the Secretaryship of Tancutyan with 28 delegates from 51 divisions and these decisions were adopted:“Taking the serious responsibility, that is required by our activities and objectives and the danger emanating from them into account, we have to avoid adventures and irresponsible behaviour in order to prove, that we are civilised people. The balanced influences and means, which are planned meticulously, are the only solutions to achieve our goals and our operations”

Upon this, the Hinchak committee members started to leave Turkey in 1896. Disagreement occurred among the members of this committee and they were divided into two sections. Some of them were called the original Hinchaks (the supporters of Nazarbeg) and the others were called Reformed Hinchaks (Veragazmiyal Hinchak). A man, called Arpiyaryan started to lead this second group.

Both committees acted in accordance with the opinions and attitude of the directors, not according to their principles and program. They gave top priority to their personal interests and they defended this point of view. This disagreement among them turned into street fights and some of them were beaten and some were killed.

The Armenian people, who understood that Hinchak members were Marxist, refused the views of the members of bands. The struggles increased in 1902 and many members of the committees from both sides were killed in streets fights in Britain, Russia, Egypt, Bulgaria, the Caucasus and Iran. Although some small guerrillas were renamed as Hinchaks after the Revolt in Van, they were deprived as sufficient power. Some of the Hinchak leaders understood the disguised goal of the Russians and they derailed the way that they pursued and this played a major role in the dissolution of the Hinchak Committee.

REFERENCE:

Sakarya, Emg. T?mg. Ihsan, Belgelerle Ermeni Sorunu, Genelkurmay Askeri Tarih ve Stratejik Et?t Baskanligi Askeri Tarih Yayinlari, Genelkurmay Basimevi, Ankara, 1984, 2. Edition, pp. 76-87

[SUMGAYIT]

Factors Leading to The Creation of The Issue

(HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT)

Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, with the encouragement of Russia, Britain, France and the Empire of Austria-Hungary, the nations which constituted the empire started struggling for liberation and they were successful. These developments set examples for the Armenians, as well. With financial and moral help of the countries, which wanted to dissolve the Ottoman Empire, they started rebellions in some regions. In this way, in the second half of the 19^th century, an “Armenian question” came into being.During this period, the former Empire of Russia, which emerged gradually as an important state, accepted the Ottoman territories as a natural area of expansion through Ottoman territories and it possessed the goal of opening out to warm seas. In order to achieve this goal, its primary means was to make war. Beside this, it played the role of being the protector of the Christian communities under the Ottoman rule. On the other hand, the main powers of the period, Britain and France also aimed at securing the Armenians for Protestantism and Catholicism. In the framework of these goals, they established the Armenian Catholic Church in 1830, and the Armenian Protestant Church in 1847 in Istanbul. The real intention of this interest for the Ottoman Armenians and other Christian communities shown by Britain and France and Russia was to intervene in the interior affairs of the Ottoman State and dissolve the empire.These powers promised Armenians the establishment of the Armenian State in Eastern Anatolia. However, in the period in question the Armenian population in the region constituted only 15% of the general population. For instance, in Bitlis, where they populated mostly, they were not even 1/3 of the population of the province. The starting point for the “Armenian question” is Hagia Stephanos Agreement and Berlin Conference, signed at the end of the 1877-78 Ottoman-Russian war. The 16^th article of Hagia StephanosAgreement, which the Ottoman State had to accept is as follows:

“Because the evacuation of the regions in Armenia, which are under the occupation of the Russian Forces and ought to be rendered to Ottoman State, this might cause detrimental chaos in the friendly relations of the two states in these regions. The Ottoman State guarantees, without losing time, the redressing and arrangements required for the local interests in these provinces, where the Armenians live, and providing the security of the Armenians towards Kurds and Circassians.”

Although in principle this provision of the agreement did not exactly satisfy the Armenians, who wished to gain their independence, it is important to note that the “Armenian question” was recorded in an international document and the region called “Armenia” was mentioned for the first time in history. Also, in 1878, the 61^st article of the Berlin Agreement, which was signed at the end of the Berlin Congress, replaced the 16^th article of the Hagia Stephanos Agreement and it is as follows:

“The Ottoman State guarantees, without losing time, the redressing and arrangement that are required by the local interests in the provinces, where the Armenians live, and providing peace and security of the Armenians towards Kurds and Circassians. And since it shall notify the concerned states about these precautions, these states shall monitor the implementation of these precautions.”

With this provision of the Berlin Agreement, the foreign powers were recognised the right of intervention to the Turco-Armenian relations.

Изменено 30 ноября, 2010 пользователем SUMGAYIT

[SUMGAYIT]

HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT

A drastic change was witnessed in Turco-Armenian relations with the decline of the Ottoman Empire towards the end of the 19^th century. As a result of activities carried out by instigators infiltrating the Ottoman territories from the West, mostly under a clerical guise, Armenians began to pull themselves away from the Turkish community in the religious, cultural, commercial, political and social fields. Armenians who used Turkish as their language, who conducted their religious sermons in Turkish and even those who had attained high positions within the Empire, such as cabinet ministers, undersecretaries and the like, collaborated with the enemy forces in a bid to attain the downfall of the Ottoman State.It is during this period that the Armenians began to present themselves as an ‘oppressed community’ and claimed that their sovereignty rights over Anatolia had been seized by the Turks, this with the aim of securing the backing of the West. States aspiring to attain their goals by exploiting the Armenians, did in fact encourage such propaganda and helped to create public opinion in a drive to have a say in the sanctions to be imposed on Turkey, and to be able to intervene when necessary. Thus, all initiatives with the pretext of supporting the Armenians and safeguarding their rights found serious backing within their own public opinion.

Once they lost their privileged status, with the Reformation Bill granting equal status to muslims and non-muslims alike, the Armenians asked Russia not to withdraw from Eastern Anatolia, which she had invaded during the 1877-1878 Ottoman-Russian war; that autonomy be granted to these territories, or that reformation be conducted in line with their interests. These stipulations found the partial backing of Russia, and henceforward the Armenian issue began to assume an international dimension with the Yesilkoy Agreement, formerly known as the Hagia Stephanos Agreement, signed at the end of the Ottoman-Russian war and the subsequent Berlin Agreement. Thus, foreign powers aspiring o divide the country, started intervening in Turco-Armenian relations.

Once, efforts to organize Ottoman Armenians to take action against the State, by means of committees set up in Anatolia as a result of activities carried out by missionaries proved futile, it was then decided that Russian Armenians set up such committees in regions outside the boundaries of the Ottoman State. Thus, the moderately militant Hinchak, with socialist tendencies, was set up in Geneva in 1887, followed by the extremist and pro-independence Tashnak Committee set up in Tbilisi in 1890, favouring terror, rebellions and struggle to achieve its goals. These committees had been targeted at ‘ liberating Anatolian territory and the Ottoman Armenians’. Attempts to launch a revolt, instigated by the Istanbul-based Hinchaks and aimed at provoking the Ottoman Armenians by drawing the attention of European nations to the Armenian issue, were followed by acts carried out by Tashnaks who had launched a political struggle. These attempts, masterminded by committees outside the Ottoman lands were supported by missionaries positioned in Anatolia.

[SUMGAYIT]

http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/Tashji.htm

http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/tashji-friend-turks.htm

http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/tashji-euphemism-hate.htm

[SUMGAYIT]

http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/tashji-april24.htm

http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/tashji-testify.htm