Prof. Dr. Justin McCARTHY
Throughout the recent debate on the Armenian genocide question, one statement has characterized those who object to politicians' attempts to write history, "Let the Historians decide." Few of us have specified who we are referring to in that statement. It is now time to do so.There is a vast difference between history written to defend one-sided nationalist convictions and real accounts of history. History intends to find that the truth is illusive. Historians know they have prejudices that can affect their judgment. They know they never have all the facts. Yet they always try to find the truth, whatever that may be.Nationalists who use history have a different set of goals. They use events from the past as weapons in their own nation's battles. They have a purpose -- the triumph of their cause -- and they will use anything to succeed in this goal. While a historian tries to collect all the relevant facts and put them together as a coherent picture, the nationalist selects those pieces of history that fit his purpose' ignoring the others.Like other men and women, historians have political goals and ideologies, but a true historian acknowledges his errors when the facts do not support his belief. The nationalist apologist never does so. If the facts do not fit his theories the nationalist ignores those facts and looks for other ways to make his case. True historians can make intellectual mistakes. Nationalist apologists commit intellectual crimes.The Armenian issue has long been plagued with nationalist studies. This has led to an inconsistent history that ignores the time-tested principles of historical research. Yet when the histories of Turks and Armenians are approached with the normal tools of history a logical and consistent account results. "Let the historians decide" is a call for historical study like any other historical study, one that looks at all the facts, studies all the opinions, applies historical principles and comes to logical conclusions.Historians first ask the most basic question. "Was there an Armenia?" Was there a region within the Ottoman Empire where Armenians were a compact majority that might rightfully demand their own state?To find the answer, historians look to government statistics for population figures, especially to archival statistics, because governments seldom deliberately lie to themselves. They want to know their populations so they can understand them, watch them, conscript them, and, most importantly to a government, tax them. The Ottomans were no different than any other government in this situation. Like other governments they made mistakes, particularly in under-counting women and children. However, this can be corrected using statistical methods. What results is the most accurate possible picture of the number of Ottoman Armenians. By the beginning of World War I Armenians made up only 17 percent of the area they claimed as " Ottoman Armenia," the so called "Six Vilayets." Judging by population figures, there was no Ottoman Armenia. In fact if all the Armenians in the world had come to Eastern Anatolia, they still would not have been a majority there.Two inferences can be drawn from the relatively small number of Armenians in the Ottoman East: The first is that by themselves, the Armenians of Anatolia would have been no great threat to the Ottoman Empire. Armenian rebels might have disputed civil order but there were too few of them to endanger Ottoman authority. Armenian rebels needed help from outside forces, help that could only be provided by Russia. The second inference is that Armenian nationalists could have created a state that was truly theirs only if they first evicted the Muslims who lived there.To understand the history of the development of Muslim-Armenian antagonism one must apply historical principles. In applying those principles one can see that the history of Armenians was a history like other histories. Some of that history was naturally unique because of its environment but much of it was strikingly similar to what was seen in other places and times.1. Most ethnic conflicts develop over a long period. Germans and Poles, Finns and Russians, Hindus and Muslims in the Indian subcontinent, Irish and English, Europeans and Native Americans in North America -- all of these ethnic conflicts unfolded over generations, often over centuries.2. Until very modern times most mass mortality of ethnic groups was the result of warfare in which there were at least two warring sides.3. When conflict erupted between nationalist revolutionaries and states it was the revolutionaries who began confrontations. Internal peace was in the interest of settled states. Looked at charitably, states often wished for tranquility for the benefits it gave their citizens. With less charity it can be seen that peace made it easier to collect taxes and use armies to fight foreign enemies, not internal foes. World history demonstrates this too well for examples from other regions to be needed here. In the Ottoman Empire, the examples of the rebellions in Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria demonstrate the truth of this.On these principles, the histories of Turks and Armenians are no different from other histories. Historical principles applied.The conflict between Turks and Armenians did indeed develop over a long time. The primary impetus for what was to become the Armenian-Muslim conflict lay in Russian imperial expansion. At the time of Ivan the Terrible, circa the sixteenth century, Russians began a policy of expelling Muslims from lands they had conquered. Over the next three hundred years, Muslims, many of them Turks, were killed or driven out of what today is Ukraine, Crimea and the Caucasus. From the 1770s to the 1850s Russian attacks and Russian laws forced more than 400,000 Crimean Tatars to flee their land. In the Caucasus region, 1.2 million Circassians and Abazians were either expelled or killed by Russians. Of that number, one third died as victims of the mass murder of Muslims that has been mostly ignored. The Tatars, Circassians and Abazians came to the Ottoman Empire. Their presence taught Ottoman Muslims what they could expect from a Russian conquest.Members of the Armenian minority in the Caucasus began to rebel against Muslim rule and to ally themselves with Russian invaders in the 1790s: Armenian armed units joined the Russians, Armenian spies delivered plans to the Russians. In these wars, Muslims were massacred and forced into exile. Armenians in turn migrated into areas previously held by Muslims, such as Karabakh. This was the beginning of the division of the peoples of the southern Caucasus and eastern Anatolia into two conflicting sides -- the Russian Empire and Armenians on one side, the Muslim Ottoman Empire on the other. Most Armenians and Muslims undoubtedly wanted nothing to do with this conflict, but the events were to force them to take sides.The 1827 to 1829 wars between Russians, Persians and Ottomans saw the beginning of a great population exchange in the East that was to last until 1920. When the Russians conquered the Erivan Khanete, today the Armenian Republic, the majority of its population was Muslim. Approximately two thirds, 60,000 of these Muslims were forced out of Erivan by Russians. The Russians went on to invade Anatolia, where large numbers of Armenians took up the Russian cause. At the war's end, when the Russians left eastern Anatolia 50 to 90,000 Armenians joined them. They took the place of the exiled Muslims in Erivan and else where, joined by 40,000 Armenians from Iran.The great population exchange had begun, and mutual distrust between Anatolia's Muslims and the Armenians was the result. The Russians were to invade Anatolia twice more in the nineteenth century, during the Crimean War and the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War. In both wars significant numbers of Armenians joined the Russians acting as spies and even occupation police.In Erzurum, for example, British consular officials reported that the Armenian police chief appointed by the Russians and his Armenian force "molested, illtreated, and insulted the Mohammadan population," and that 6,000 Muslim families had been forced to flee the city. When the Russians left part of their conquest at least 25,000 Armenians joined them, fearing the vengeance of the Muslims. The largest migration though was the forced flight of 70,000 Muslims, mainly Turks, from the lands conquered by the Russians and the exodus of Laz in 1882.By 1900, approximately 1,400,000 Turkish and Caucasian Muslims had been forced out by Russians. One third of those had died, either murdered or victims of starvation and disease. Between 125,000 and 150,000 Armenians emigrated from Ottoman Anatolia to Erivan and other parts of the Russian southern Caucasus.This was the toll of Russian imperialism. Not only had one-and-a-half million people been exiled or killed, but ethnic peace had been destroyed.The Muslims had been taught that their neighbors, the Armenians, with whom they had lived for more than 700 years, might once again become their enemies when the Russians next advanced. The Russians had created the two sides that history teaches were to be expected in conflict and mass murder.The actions of Armenian rebels exacerbated the growing division and mutual fear between Muslims and Armenians of the Ottoman East.The main Armenian revolutionary organizations were founded in the 1880s and 1890s in the Russian Empire. They were socialist and nationalist in ideology. Terrorism was their weapon of choice. Revolutionaries openly stated that their plan was the same as that which had worked well against the Ottoman Empire in Bulgaria. In Bulgaria rebels had first massacred innocent Muslim villagers. The Ottoman government, occupied with a war against Serbs in Bosnia, depended on the local Turks to defeat the rebels, which they did, but with great losses of life. European newspapers reported Bulgarians deaths, but never Muslim deaths. Europeans did not consider that the deaths were a result of the rebellion, nor the Turk's intention. The Russians invaded ostensibly to save the Christians. The result was the death of 260,000 Turks, 17 percent of the Muslim population of Bulgaria, and the expulsion of a further 34 percent of Turks. The Armenian rebels expected to follow the same plan.The Armenian rebellion began with the organization of guerilla bands made up of Armenians from both the Russian and Ottoman lands. Arms were smuggled in. Guerillas assassinated Ottoman officials, attacked Muslim villages, and used bombs, the nineteenth century's terrorist's standard weapon. By 1894 the rebels were ready for open revolution. Revolts broke out in Samsun, Zeytun, Van and elsewhere in 1894 and 1895. As in Bulgaria they began with the murder of innocent civilians. The leader of the Zeytun rebellion said his forces had killed 20,000 Muslims. As in Bulgaria the Muslims retaliated. In Van for example 400 Muslims and 1,700 Armenians died. Further rebellions followed. In Adana in 1909 the Armenian revolt turned out very badly for both the rebels and the innocent when the government lost control and 17,000 to 20,000 died, mostly Armenians. Throughout the revolts and especially in 1894 and 1897 the Armenians deliberately attacked Kurdish tribesmen, knowing that it was from them that great vengeance was not that likely to be expected. Pitched battles between Kurds and Armenians resulted.But it all went wrong for the Armenian rebels. They had followed the Bulgarian plan, killing Muslims and initiating revenge attacks on Armenians. Their own people had suffered most. Yet the Russians and Europeans they depended upon did not intervene. European politics and internal problems stayed the Russian hand.What were the Armenian rebels trying to create? When Serbs and Bulgarians rebelled against the Ottoman Empire they claimed lands where the majorities were Serbs or Bulgarians. They expelled Turks and other Muslims from their lands, but these Muslims had not been a majority. This was not true for the Armenians.The lands they covered were overwhelmingly Muslim in population.The only way they could create an Armenia was to expel the Muslims. Knowing this history is essential to understanding what was to come during World War I. There had been a long historical period in which two conflicting sides developed.Russian imperialists and Armenian revolutionaries had begun a struggle that was in no way wanted by the Ottomans. Yet the Ottomans were forced to oppose the plans of both Russians and Armenians, if only to defend the majority of their subjects. History taught the Ottomans that if the Armenians triumphed not only would territory be lost, but mass expulsions and deaths would be the fate of the Muslim majority. This was the one absolutely necessary goal of the Armenian rebellion.The preview to what was to come in the Great War came in the Russian Revolution of 1905. Harried all over the Empire, the Russians encouraged ethnic conflict in Azerbaijan, fomenting an inter-communal war. Azeri Turks and Armenians battled each other when they should have attacked the Empire that ruled over both. Both Turks and Armenians learned the bitter lesson that the other was the enemy, even though most of them wanted nothing of war and bloodshed. The sides were drawn.In late 1914, inter-communal conflict began in the Ottoman East with the Armenian rebellion. Anatolian Armenians went to the Russian South Caucasus for training, approximately 8,000 in Kagizman, 6,000 in Igdir and others elsewhere. They returned to join local rebels and revolts erupted all over the East. The Ottoman Government estimated 30,000 rebels in Sivas Vilayeti alone, probably an exaggeration but indicative of the scope of the rebellion. Military objectives were the first to be attacked.Telegraph lines were cut. Roads through strategic mountain passes were seized. The rebels attacked Ottoman officials, particularly recruiting officers, throughout the East. Outlying Muslim villages were assaulted and the first massacring of Muslims began. The rebels attempted to take cities such as Zeytun, Mus, Sebin Karahisar and Urfa. Ottoman armed forces which were needed at the front were instead forced to defend the interior.The most successful rebel action was in the city of Van. In March 1915 they seized the city from a weak Ottoman garrison and proceeded to kill all the Muslims who could not escape. Some 3,000 Kurdish villagers from the surrounding region were herded together into the great natural bowl of Zeve, outside the city of Van, and slaughtered. Kurdish tribes in turn took their revenge on any Armenian villagers they found.Popular opinion today knows of only one set of deportations, more properly called forced migrations, in Anatolia, the deportation of the Armenians. There were in fact many forced migrations. For the Armenians, the worst forced migrations came when they accompanied their own armies in retreat. Starvation and disease killed great numbers of both, far more than fell to enemies' bullets.It is true that the Ottomans had obvious reason to fear Armenians, and that forced migration was an age-old tool in Middle Eastern and Balkan conflicts. It is also true that while its troops were fighting the Russians and Armenians, the Ottoman Government could not and did not properly protect the Armenian migrants. Nevertheless, more than 200,000 of the deported Armenians reached Greater Syria and survived Those who see the evil of genocide in the forced migrations of Armenians ignore the survival of so many of those who were deported. They also ignore the fact that the Armenians who were most under Ottoman control, those in Western cities such as Izmir, Istanbul, and Edirne, were neither deported nor molested, presumably because they were not a threat If genocide is to be considered, however, then the murders of Turks and Kurds in 1915 and 1916 must be included in the calculation of blame. The Armenian molestations and massacres in Cilicia, deplored even by their French and British allies, must be judged. And the exile or death of two-thirds of the Turks of Erivan Province, the Armenian Republic, during the war must be remembered.Historical principles were once again at work. Rebels had begun the action and the result was the creation of two warring sides. After the Armenian deeds in Van and elsewhere, Muslims could only have expected that Armenians were enemies who could kill them. Armenians could only have feared Muslim revenge. Most of these people had no wish for war, but they had been driven to it. It was to be a merciless conflict.For the next five years, total war raged in the Ottoman East. When the Russians attacked and occupied the East, more than a million Muslims fled as refugees, itself an indication that they expected to die if they remained. They were attacked on the roads by Armenian bands as they fled. When the Russians retreated it was the turn of the Armenians to flee. The Russians attacked and retreated, then attacked again, then finally retreated for good. With each advance came the flight of hundreds of thousands. Two wars were fought in Eastern Anatolia, a war between the armies of Russia and the Ottomans and a war between local Muslims and Armenians. In the war between the armies, civilians and enemy soldiers were sometimes treated with humanity, sometimes not. Little quarter was given in the war between the Armenians and the Muslims, however. That war was fought with all the ferocity of men who fought to defend their families.Popular opinion today knows of only one set of deportations, more properly called forced migrations, in Anatolia, the deportation of the Armenians. There were in fact many forced migrations. For the Armenians, the worst forced migrations came when they accompanied their own armies in retreat. Starvation and disease killed great numbers of both, far more than fell to enemies' bullets. This is as should be expected from historical principles; starvation and disease are always the worst killers. It is also a historical principle that refugees suffer most of all.One of-the many forced migration was the organized expulsion of Armenians from much of Anatolia by the Ottoman government. In light of the history and the events of this war, it is true that the Ottomans had obvious reason to fear the Armenians, and that forced migration was an age-old tool in Middle Eastern and Balkan conflicts. It is also true that while its troops were fighting the Russians and Armenians, the Ottoman Government could not and did not properly protect the Armenian migrants. Nevertheless, more than 200,000 of the deported Armenians reached Greater Syria and survived. (Some estimate that as many as two-thirds of the deportees survived.)Those who see the evil of genocide in the forced migrations of Armenians ignore the survival of so many of those who were deported. They also ignore the fact that the Armenians who were most under Ottoman control, those in Western cities such as Izmir, Istanbul, and Edirne, were neither deported nor molested, presumably because they were not a threat.No claim of genocide can rationally stand in the light of these facts. If genocide is to be considered, however, then the murders of Turks and Kurds in 1915 and 1916 must be included in the calculation of blame. The Armenian murder of the innocent civilians of Erzincan, Bayburt, Tercan, Erzurum, and all the villages on the route of the Armenian retreat in 1918 must be taken into account. The Armenian molestations and massacres in Cilicia, deplored even by their French and British allies, must be judged. And the exile or death of two-thirds of the Turks of Erivan Province, the Armenian Republic, during the war must be remembered.That is the history of the Conflict between the Turks and the Armenians. Only when that history is known can the assertions of those who accuse the Turks be understood.In examining the claims of Armenian nationalists, first to be considered should be outright lies.The most well-known of many fabrications on the Armenian Question are the famous "Talat Pasa Telegrams," in which the Ottoman interior minister and other officials supposedly telegraphed instructions to murder the Armenians. These conclusively have been proven to be forgeries by Sinasi Orel and Sureyya Yuca. However, one can only wonder why they would ever have been taken seriously. A whole people cannot be convicted of genocide on the basis of penciled scribblings on a telegraph pad.These were not the only examples of words put in Talat Pasa's mouth. During World War I, the British Propaganda Office and American missionaries published a number of scurrilous works in which Ottoman officials were falsely quoted as ordering hideous deeds.One of the best examples of invented Ottoman admissions of guilt may be that concocted by the American ambassador Morgenthau. Morgenthau asked his readers to believe that Talat Pasa offhandedly told the ambassador of his plans to eradicate the Armenians. Applying common sense and some knowledge of diplomatic practice helps to evaluate these supposed indiscretions. Can anyone believe that the Ottoman interior minister would actually have done such a thing? He knew that America invariably supported the Armenians, and had always done so. If he felt the need to unburden his soul, who would be the last person to whom he would talk? The American ambassador. Yet to whom does he tell all? The American Ambassador! Talat Pasa was a practical politician. Like all politicians, he undoubtedly violated rules and made errors. But no one has ever alleged that Talat Pasa was an idiot. Perhaps Ambassador Morgenthau knew that the U.S. State Department would never believe his story, because he never reported it at the time to his masters, only writing it later in a popular book.The use of quotes from Americans is selective. One American ambassador, Morgenthau, is quoted by the Armenian apologists, but another American ambassador, Bristol, is ignored. Why? Because Bristol gave a balanced account and accused Armenians as well as Muslims of crimes.The most often seen fabrication may be the famous "Hitler Quote." Hitler supposedly stated, "Who after all is today speaking of the destruction of the Armenians?" to justify his Holocaust. The quote now appears every year in school books, speeches in the American Congress and the French Parliament and most writings in which the Turks are attacked. Professor Heath Lowry has cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the quote. It is likely that Hitler never said it. But there is a more serious question: How can Adolf Hitler be taken as a serious source on Armenian history? Were his other historical pronouncements so reliable that his opinions can be trusted?Politically, "Hitler" is a magic word that conjures up an all too true image of undisputed evil. He is quoted on the Armenian Question for polemic and political purpose, to tie the Turks to Hitler's evil. In the modern world nothing defames so well as associating your enemies with Hitler. This is all absurdity, but it is potent absurdity that convinces those who know nothing of the facts. It is also a deliberate distortion of history.Population has also been a popular field for fabrication. Armenian nationalists had a particular difficulty -- they were only a small part of the population of the land they planned to carve from the Ottoman Empire. The answer was false statistics. Figures appeared that claimed that Armenians were the largest group in Eastern Anatolia. These population statistics were supposedly the work of the Armenian Patriarch, but they were actually the work of an Armenian who assumed a French name, Marcel Leart, published them in Paris and pretended they were the Patriarch's work. Naturally, he greatly exaggerated the number of Armenians and diminished the number of Turks. Once again, the amazing thing is that these were ever taken seriously. Yet they were used after World War I to justify granting Eastern Anatolia to the Armenians and are still routinely quoted today.The Armenian apologists quote American missionaries as if missionaries would never lie, omitting the numerous proofs that missionaries did indeed lie and avoided mentioning anything that would show Armenians to be less than innocent. The missionaries in Van, for example, reported the deaths of Armenians, but not the fact that those same Armenians had killed all the Muslims they caught in that city.The main falsification of history by the Armenian apologists lies not in what they say, but in what they do not say. They do not admit that much of the evidence they rely on is tainted because it was produced by the British Propaganda Office in World War I. For example, the Bryce Report, "The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire," has recently been reproduced by an Armenian organization, with a long introduction that praises its supposed veracity. Nowhere does the reprint state that the report was produced and paid for by British Propaganda as a way to attack its wartime enemies, the Ottomans. Nor does the reprint state that the other Bryce Report, this one on alleged German atrocities, has long been known by historians to be a collection of lies. Nor does the reprint consider that the sources in the report, such as the Dashnak Party, had a tradition of not telling the truth.The basic historical omission is never citing, never even looking at evidence that might contradict one's theories. Nationalist apologists refer to English propaganda, missionary reports, statements by Armenian revolutionaries, and the like. They seldom refer to Ottoman documents, hundreds of which have been published in recent years, except perhaps to claim that nothing written by the Ottomans can be trusted although they trust completely the writings of Armenian partisans. These documents indicate that the Ottomans planned no genocide and were at least officially solicitous of the Armenians' welfare. The fact that these contradict the Armenian sources is all the more reason that they should be consulted. Good history can only be written then both sides of historical arguments are considered.Worst of all is the most basic omission -- the Armenian apologists do not mention the Muslim dead. Any civil war will appear to be a genocide if only the dead of one side are counted. Their writings would be far more accurate, and would tell a very different story, if they included facts such as the deaths of nearly two-thirds of the Muslims of Van Vilayeti, deaths caused by the Russians and Armenians. Histories that strive for accuracy must include all the facts, and the deaths of millions of Muslims is surely a fact that deserves mention.Those of us who have studied this question for years have seen many approaches come and go. The old assertions, based on the Talat Pasa telegrams and missionary reports, were obviously insufficient, and new ones have appeared.For a while, Pan-Turanism was advanced as the cause for Turkish actions. It was said that the Turks wished to be rid of the Armenians because the Armenian population blocked the transportation routes to Central Asia. This foundered on the rocks of geography and population. The Anatolian Armenian population was not concentrated on those routes. The Armenian Republic's Armenians, those in Erivan Province, were on some of those routes. However, when at the end of the war the Ottomans had the chance to occupy Erivan they did not do so, but went immediately on to Baku to protect Azeri Turks from attacks by enough to believe that their chief concern was advancing to Uzbekistan.Much was made of post-war-courts martial that accused members of the Committee of Union and Progress Government of crimes against the Armenians.The accusations did not state that the courts were convened by the unelected quisling government of Ferid Pasa who created the courts to curry favor with the allies. The courts returned verdicts of guilty for all sorts of improbable offenses, of which killing Armenians was only one. The courts chose anything, true of false, that would cast aspersion on Ferid's enemies. The accused could not represent themselves. Can the verdicts of such courts be trusted? Conveniently overlooked were the investigations of the British, who held Istanbul and were in charge of the Ottoman Archives, but who were forced to admit that they could find no evidence of massacres.A German scholar has decided that the Ottomans reported and killed Armenians so that they would have space in which to settle the Turkish refugees from the Balkan Wars. Those with some knowledge of Ottoman history know that the Balkan refugees were almost all settled in Western Anatolia and Ottoman Europe, not in the East, and that the refugees were all settled before the World War I Armenian troubles began Nationalist apologists first decide that the Turks are guilty, then look for evidence that will show they are correct ... The enemy of the nationalist apologists is the truth. They have thrown false telegrams, spurious statistics, sham courts and anything else they could find, but the truth has advanced Campaigns were organized to silence historians. One professor was mercilessly attacked in the press because he advised the Turkish ambassador on responding to questions about the Ottoman Armenians. No one questioned the probity of the American Armenian scholar who became the chief advisor of the president of the Armenian Republic or doubted the veracity of the American Armenian professor whose son became the Armenian Foreign Minister Fewer and fewer historians are willing to write on this history. A very senior and respected scholar of Ottoman history, Bernard Lewis, was brought to court in France for his denial of the Armenian genocide. After a long and successful career, Professor Lewis could afford to confront those who accused him. Could a junior scholar afford to do the same? Applying the principles of history, we can see that what occurred was, in fact a long history of imperialism, nationalist revolt, and ethnic conflict. The result was horrible mortality on all sides. There is an explainable, understandable history of a two-sided conflict. It was not genocide.A recent find of the nationalist is the Teskilat-ı Mahsusa, the secret organization that operated under orders of the Committee of Union and Progress. We are told that the Teskilat must have organized Armenian massacres. The justification for this would astonish any logician:It is alleged that because a secret organization existed it must have been intended to do evil, including the genocide of the Armenians. As further "proof," it is noted that officers of the Teskilat were present in areas where Armenians died. Since Teskilat officers were all over Anatolia, this should surprise no one. By this dubious logic Teskilat members must also have been responsible for the deaths of Muslims because they were also present in areas where Muslims died. Does this prove that no Teskilat members killed or even massacred Armenians? It does not. It would be odd if during wartime no members of a large organization had not committed such actions, and they undoubtedly did so. What it in no way proves is that the Teskilat was ordered to commit genocide.A German scholar has decided that the Ottomans reported and killed Armenians so that they would have space in which to settle the Turkish refugees from the Balkan Wars. For those who do not know Ottoman history, this might seem like a reasonable explanation. Those with some knowledge of Ottoman history know that the Balkan refugees were almost all settled in Western Anatolia and Ottoman Europe, not in the East, and that the refugees were all settled before the World War I Armenian troubles began.Such assertions are the result of the methods used. Nationalist apologists first decide that the Turks are guilty, then look for evidence that will show they are correct. They are like a man in a closed room fighting against a stronger enemy. As the enemy advances the man picks up a book, a lamp, an ashtray, a chair -- whatever he can find -- and throws it in the vain hope of stopping the enemy's advance. But the enemy continues on. Eventually the man runs out of things to throw, and he is beaten. The enemy of the nationalist apologists is the truth. They have thrown false telegrams, spurious statistics, sham courts, and anything else they could find, but the truth has advanced.Some tactics have been all too successful in reducing the number of scholars who study the Armenian Question. When the fabrications and distortions failed, there were outright threats. When the historians could not be convinced, the next best thing was to silence them. One professor's house was bombed.Others were threatened with similar violence. Campaigns were organized to silence historians. One professor was mercilessly attacked in the press because he advised the Turkish ambassador on responding to questions about the Ottoman Armenians. It is worth noting that no one questioned the probity of the American Armenian scholar who became the chief advisor of the president of the Armenian Republic or doubted the veracity of the American Armenian professor whose son became the Armenian foreign minister. No one questioned the objectivity of these scholars or attacked them, nor should they. The only proper question is, "What is the truth!" No matter who pays the bills, no matter the nationality of the author, no matter if he writes to ambassadors, no matter his religion, his voting record, his credit status, or his personal life, his views on history should be closely analyzed and, if true, accepted.The only question is the truth.Such attacks have had their intended effect. Fewer and fewer historians are willing to write on this history. A very senior and respected scholar of Ottoman history, Bernard Lewis, was brought to court in France for his denial of the Armenian genocide. After a long and successful career, Professor Lewis could afford to confront those who accused him. He also could afford to hire the lawyers who defended him. Could a junior scholar afford to do the same? Could someone who depended on university rectors, who worry about funding, afford to take up such a dangerous topic? Could someone without Professor Lewis's financial resources afford the lawyers who defended both his free speech and his good name?I myself was the target of a campaign, instigated by an Armenian newspaper, that attempted to have me fired from my university. Letters and telephone calls from all over the United States came to the president of my university, demanding my dismissal because I denied the "Armenian Genocide." We have the tenure system in the United States, a system that guarantees that senior professors cannot be fired for what they teach and write, and my university president defended my rights. But a younger professor might understandably be afraid to write on the Armenians if he knew he faced the sort of ordeal that has been faced by others.To me, the worst of all is being accused of being the kind of politicized nationalist scholar I so detest. False reasons are invented to explain why I say this -- my mother is a Turk, my wife is a Turk, I am paid large sums by the Turkish government. None of these things is true, but it would not affect my writings one bit if they were. The way to challenge a scholar's work is to read his writings and respond to them with your own scholarship, not to attack his character.When, despite the best efforts of the nationalist apologists, some still speak out against the distortion of history, the final answer is political: Politicians are enlisted to rewrite history. Parliaments are enlisted to convince their people that there was a genocide. In America, the Armenian nationalists lobby a Congress which refuses to even consider an apology for slavery to demand an apology from Turks for something the Turks did not do.In France, the Armenia nationalists lobby a Parliament which will not address the horrors perpetrated by the French in Algeria, which they know well took place, to declare there were horrors in Turkey, about which they know almost nothing. The people of many nations are then told that the genocide must have taken place because their representatives have recognized it.The Turks are accused of "genocide," but what does that appalling word mean? The most quoted definition is that of the United Nations: actions "committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, radical, or religious group as such." Raphael Lemkin who invented the word genocide, included cultural, social, economic, and political destruction of groups as genocide. Leo Kuper included as genocide attacks on subgroups that are not ethnic, such as economic classes, collective groups and various social categories. By these standards Turks were indeed guilty of genocide. So were Armenians, Russians, Greeks, Americans, British and almost every people that has ever existed. In World War I in Anatolia there were many such "genocides." So many groups attacked other groups that the use of the word genocide is meaningless.Why, then, is such a hollow term used against the Turks? It is used because those who hear the term do not think of the academic definitions. They think of Hitler and of what he did to the Jews. The intent behind the use of the word genocide is not to foster understanding. The intent is to foster a negative image of the Turks by associating them with great evil. The intent is political.What must be considered by the serious historian is a simple question, "Did the Ottoman Government carry out a plan to exterminate the Armenians?" In answering this question it is important not to copy the Armenian apologists. When they declare that Armenians did no wrong, the answer is not to reply that the Turks did no wrong. The answer must be honest history. What cannot and should not be denied is that many Anatolian Muslims did commit crimes against Armenians. Some of those who committed crimes were Ottoman officials. Actions were taken in revenge, out of hatred or for political reasons. In total war men do evil acts. This again is a sad but real historical principle. The Ottoman government recognized this and tried more than 1,000 Muslims for war crimes, including crimes against Armenians, hanging some criminals.Applying the principles of history, we can see that what occurred was in fact a long history of imperialism, nationalist revolt and ethnic conflict.The result was horrible mortality on all sides. There is an explainable, understandable history of a two-sided conflict. It was not genocide. Throughout that history, both sides killed and were killed. It was not genocide.Much archival evidence shows Ottoman government concern that Armenians survive. Also, it must be said that much evidence shows poor planning, government weakness and in some places criminal acts and negligence. Some officials were murderous, but a sincere effort was made to punish them. It was not genocide.The majority of those who were deported survived, even though those Armenians were completely at the mercy of the Ottomans. It was not genocide.The Armenians most under Ottoman control, the Armenian residents of Istanbul, Izmir, Edirne and other regions of greatest governmental power were neither deported not attacked. It was not genocide.Why are the Turks accused of a hideous crime they did not commit? The answer is both emotional and political. Many Armenians feel in their hearts that Turks were guilty. They have only heard of the deaths of their ancestors, not the deaths of the Turks. They have been told only a small part of a complicated story for so long that they believe it to be unquestionable truth. Their anger is understandable. The beliefs of those in Europe and America who have never heard the truth, which sadly is the majority, are also understandable. It is the actions of those who use the claim of genocide for nationalist political motives that are inexcusable.Does any rational analyst deny that the ultimate intent of the Armenian nationalists is to first gain "reparations," then claim Eastern Anatolia as their own?Finally, what is to be done? As might be expected from all I have said here today, I believe the only answer to false allegations of genocide is to study and proclaim the truths of history. Political actions such as the resolution recently passed by the French Parliament naturally and properly draw corresponding political actions from Turks, but political actions will never convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide. What is needed to convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide? What is needed to convince the world is a great increase in scholarship. Archives must remain open and be easy to use for both Turks and foreigners. Graduate students should be encouraged to study the Armenian question. No student's advisers should tell him to avoid this subject because it is "too political," something I have heard in America and, unfortunately, in Turkey as well.I suggest, as I have suggested before, that the Turkish Republic propose to the Armenian Republic that a joint commission be established, its members selected by scholarly academies in both countries. All archives should be opened to the commission -- not only the Ottoman Archives, but the archives of Armenia and of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. (The call is often made for the Turkish Archives to be opened completely. It is time to demand that Armenians do likewise.) I have been told that the Armenians will never agree to this, but how can anyone know unless they try? In any case, refusal to fairly and honestly consider this question would in itself be evidence that the accusations against the Turks are political, not scholarly.Whether or not such a commission is ever named, the study of the Armenian question must be continued. This is true not only because it is always right to discover accurate history. It is true because honor demands it. Honor is a word that is not often heard today, but a concept of honor is nonetheless sorely needed. I have been told by many that the Turks should adopt a political strategy to deal with the Armenian problem. This strategy would have the Turkish government lie about the past for present political gain.The government would state that the Ottomans committed genocide, but that modern Turkey cannot be blamed because it is a different government. This, I have been told, would cause the world to think more kindly of the Turks. I do not believe this ultimately would satisfy anyone. I believe that calls for reparations and land would quickly follow such a statement. But that is not the reason to reject such easy political lies. They should be rejected purely because they are wrong. Even if the lies would bring great gains, they should be rejected because they are wrong. I believe the Turks are still men and women of honor. They know that it can never be honorable to accept lies told of their ancestors, no matter the benefits. I also believe that someday, perhaps soon, perhaps far in the future, the truth will be recognized by the world. I believe that the accurate study of history and the honor of the Turks will bring this to pass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------* Professor Justin McCarthy teaches at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Book Review
Book Review: The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, A Disputed Genocide
Fatih BALCI and Arif AKGUL
Friday , 03 March 2006
There could be some mistakes in the history, but it should be more objective to enlighten those mistaken events with the helping of the historians. Guenter Lewy’s book, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, A Disputed Genocide, mainly focuses on the massacres in Ottoman Turkey, and he strongly stands on the way of the truths which he finds from the historical documents. After all, he mentions that trustfully the deaths of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey can not be called “genocide”. There were some deaths but they can not be called as genocide. For calling genocide, it is needed to have a look at the definition of genocide which is mostly accepted to intention to annihilation of one group. To use or say genocide for an event it has to involve an intention of annihilation. In the Armenian case the main aim was not based on the intention of Armenian annihilation. The only thing was deporting· the Armenians from some places only for security purposes, because the Armenians became a big problem for the Turks during World War I with the rebellions and armed guerillas inside the country.
It is seen to the massacres as the only culpability was the Turks, but with Lewy’s book, it is understood clearly that the Armenians had many problems for the Turks at their worse situation during the wartime. At the war time, Turks had in troubles in different reasons, and at that position the Armenians also had problem to Turks. The Armenians wanted to establish their independent state and they wanted to get some more help from the Christian world with using their Christian identity. They gave ways to the Turks to make some plans against the Armenian problem, and the Turks found the best way to deport them, but they did not foresee some problems such as the geographic conditions and some other issues that caused mass killing while making their decisions. These kinds of unintended things caused the deaths of the Armenians. Lewy’s argument about the massacres of the Ottoman Turks against the Armenians can be clarified with one of the Turkish proverbs: “Okay, the burglar has culpability but does not have any culpability of the house holder?”
Guenter Lewy, in his book, approaches Turk-Armenian conflict from the historical perspective. He shows the events that happened in the late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century in the Ottoman Empire between the Turks and the Armenians. He gives information from the sources and explains that it was not genocide, it was only massacres.
The book, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, includes four main parts with fourteen chapters. In the first part, with its four chapters, the author mostly looks at the Turk-Armenian problem from its beginning with historical events. His main argument in this part is that the characteristics of the conflict were based on religious background. The Armenians have approximately two thousand years history and they were the first Christian state in the world history, whereas the Turks are one of the major states among the Islamic world. The author argues that the Armenians tried to get attendance of the Christian world with provoking the Turks to attack themselves. Different courtiers with different purposes tried to help Armenians (For example, Russia helped to reach the south which had been its main desire for years, while Great Britain did not want that Russia to reach its desire), and the Armenians wanted to get their independence after political events. On the other hand, all the responsibilities were given by the Armenians to the Ottoman Sultan, Abdul Hamid II, because, for the Armenians, he was preventing the aims of the Armenian committees. Only because of this, the Armenians tried to kill him on Friday, July 21, 1905 with planting dynamite in his carriage, but Abdul Hamid II delayed his departure only a few minutes which saved his life; however, twenty six people died while fifty eight were wounded (p.32). The other events, which caused the Armenian massacres, were seizing the Imperial Ottoman Bank by Armenian revolutionaries on August 26, 1896 (p.24) and a shot assumed by an Armenian outside a mosque in Bitlis on a Friday while the Muslims were in the mosque for their ritual Friday praying (p.23). From the resources the author collected, the range of death of Armenians only of the 1895-1896 events is between twenty thousand and three hundred thousand (p.26).
In the first part of the book, Lewy generally explains the causes of the differences, occurred between these two nations which had been living together for centuries. He focuses on the causes, which started after the Russian war, and the Armenians intended to establish their own states at the region, and they wanted to use their Christian identity to get supported by the Christian world. The best way of doing this was also provoking the Ottoman Turks, which they did well at the end of the nineteenth century. The best way to get support from the Christian world is to provoke and cause the Ottomans to attack the Armenians.
In part two, the author mostly focuses on the Armenians’ genocide plans and the Turks positions against them. Ziya Gokalp, a Turkish sociologist and educator, is shown to be the responsible person of the massacres because of his argument of Turkification, which is based on blood and race for some scholars. From an Armenian perspective, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) premeditated the massacres of Armenians, and they played their role in this plan. “The Ten Commandments” (p.48) was the Armenians’ main argument to express the CUP’s main aim on the Armenians. For Armenians those Ten Commandments show the CUP’s plan clearly. Another source to make stronger this thesis about Armenians is Armenian author Aram Andonian’s book named The Memoirs of Naim Bey. This book is about one of the Ottoman chief’s secretaries telling during the deportation of the Armenians. However, there could not be found any documents about Naim Bey to be hired in the Ottoman army. The other important point also the real document that Andonian argues about the book (Naim Bey’s telling) does not exist in any archives. Andonian says that he sent all the original documents to the Armenian patriarch and later he never learned anything about what happened to them. (p.67) He also says that in a different time about his book that he wrote that book for doing Armenian propaganda (p.70). The sources of Armenian sides have not any real genuineness as the author explains in this part of the book.
From the Turkish perspective, even the Turkish sources are biased; their main argument is that the relocation of the Armenians from many main places was necessary, because Armenians were getting armed with the help of Russia. During the wartime, the Armenians were a big problem to the Turkish military and the Muslim people in the region. According to the information supplied by the Ministry of Interior, thirty thousand armed Armenians were at the east region of the country (p.92). Fifteen thousand of them joined the Russian army, while the other fifteen thousand were helping the Russian army behind the Turkish army. The enemies were inside according to the Turks and it was needed to find any solutions. The revolts also were major problems for the Turkish army during the wartime.
On the other hand, the Turks also had real economic, military, and social problems at that period. The refugees from the other provinces where the places conquered by the winner countries at the war were coming to the country, and they needed places to live. There was a civil war within a global war for the Turks. Under these conditions, the Turks decided to relocate the Armenians to different provinces for both to make safe its back yard and to open new provinces to the Muslim refugees.
Another important issue to make a decision of relocation was the Armenians’ brutality against the Muslim people of some cities and towns in the region. The Armenians were attacking the Turkish people with Russian support, because they knew that Russia was at their side. It also was known that they got their weapons from Russia. For example, the Russians took Diyarbakir, led by advance guards of Armenian volunteers in January 1916. The Muslims who were not able to escape were put the death. When the Turkish forces entered the city of Erzincan in February 1918, they found a destroyed city, fell upon the Turkish homes and committed extraordinary acts (p.118-119).
In some places in the Ottoman Empire, Armenians rebelled against to the Turks while the war was ongoing and especially near the end of the war. For example, the Armenian volunteers joined the fighting against the Turks in Palestine and Syria (p.108). Because of all these reasons, from the Turkish perspective, the deportation was needed to secure the east part of the Empire. Turks had to make a secure place in the east cost of the country and the best way to do this is to relocate the Armenians to different places. The main purpose did not punish the Armenians. Relocation was the prevention of Armenian activities against the government which had some troubles at this time also. The decision was not intended to destroy innocent people.
The third part of the book is mostly focuses on the sources to light the history, because the author’s main argument is to bring up the events is mostly the duty of the historians. Historical memories can enlighten history better according to Lewy. From this perspective, Lewy explains the events with the sources from every side, which begins with the Turkish archives and goes on the way of who did a small part from the puzzle of this unclear event in the history. The missionary reports, the foreign countries official and unofficial reports and even eyewitnesses’ statements are seen in Lewy’s book. He shows the ways which and what conditions happened from these sources and he writes some of his critiques with historical explanations. He gives a major importance to the Turkish archives but he has some problems about the opening of the archives; only 9%, but now all the Turkish archives are open to the research. He compares his findings and he shows so many different explanations of the same events. For example, Lewy mentions that one of the German missionaries, Johannes Lepsius’s, book involves a collection of 444 documents, but Wolfgang Gust argues that only a few of these 444 documents corresponded fully to the originals (p.134). One of the British sources, a parliamentary Blue Book shows the massacre story, but it also involves a lot of narratives by eyewitnesses, which are mostly based on hearsay (p.138).
Lewy expresses an important result from the sources that he follows to understand that historical event between the Turks and the Armenians that “when Armenians used guns it was always strictly for self-defense, while Turkish troops using force were usually described as engaged in murderous activities” (p.144). He also does not give more reliability to the survivors’ testimony. His main argument on this issue is that the survivor’s testimony is mostly under the pressure of the historical events and their personality, perceptions and experiences.
Lewy’s main concern about the historical document is there are not many Turkish scholars who are specialists of the Armenian events. He gives more spaces to the Turkish archives than the scholarly resources. On the other hand, he does not give more reliability to the Armenian scholars who have scholarly sources about the issue, because he sees that most of them are not truly explaining the events. To answer the question of why there are not any Turkish scholars, while there are many more Armenian scholars in this issue, it could be said that Diaspora Armenians are mostly studied on this issue, so it is easy to find some sources from different languages. He can reach more Armenian sources than Turkish because Diaspora Armenians have more interest on this issue and they wrote books in different languages, whereas the Turks have not this chance.
After giving the historical perspective which shows the positions of the Empire especially during the war time, he expresses the specific events during the cities and towns in which deportation happened. He shows the readers that the main purpose was not based on the intention of annihilation of the Armenians. But he gives some responsibility to the governmental authority not to predict what should have-happened during the deportation. For him, the government had to make some prevention activities for the possibilities, however, one of the important points also needed to be on our eyes is that the government had little authority at that time period, even to help its soldiers, because so many soldiers died at that period without any war. From this perspective, more things were not wanted from the government, but it also does not throw its responsibilities from its shoulders.
Lewy separates the causes of the massacres of the Armenians during the deportation of 1915-1916, and he gives the most important clue to the geographic situations. Later he focuses on the Kurds, Circassians, brigands (cetes), irregulars, and the gendarmes as the causes of the mass killing. The Turks tried to protect the deportees from these unexpected causes, but most times and most places they could not achieve success. Lewy asks this question: Who killed the Armenians? He could not find the exact answer, because several culpabilities shared the massacres.
Nobody can say anything about the number of the victims during that period, because each side mentions the amount from their perspectives. The main problem is that the exact populations of the Armenians are not known. The estimated amounts also do not give any clue about the amount of the killed people, because some Armenians lost their lives as the result of the guerilla wars, some lost at the rebellions and some joined the Russian army. Lewy gives the amounts from the sources he investigated, and he gives a number as an average of the Armenians in the Empire in 1914 as 1,750,000. For the amount of the survivors after the events, he again gives an estimated number which is 1,108,000. So, for Lewy, 642,000 were killed, which is about 37% during the World War period.
In the last part of his book, Lewy explains the controversy of the massacres of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. While he gives the examples of the Armenian side, who mostly argue that it is premeditation, the Armenians try to take a picture of Turkish responsibility with the Turkish national character, which is called barbaric for by them. On the other hand, the Turkish view focuses on the necessity of the deportation and actually both sides had many deaths which should be accepted; the events were not genocide, it was a war between the Turks and the Armenians (p.248).
Lewy’s strongest argument is that the central government of Turkey has not more culpability because there no authentic documentary evidence exists (p.250). He says that the deaths were an intended outcome of the deportations. Lewy’s main concern is based on shaping this world on the events that happened in the first quarter of the last century. He says that the massacres began to play a role on the politics, which was seen at some countries’ parliaments. But Lewy advises that which is the most important issue to lighten the historical events, is not the job of the politicians, but the historians. The politicians should give up these kinds of historical events to the historians to get more reliable results.
The main argument about the Armenian problem in the Ottoman Empire was that they wanted to establish their own independent state and so they became more nationalist as they saw from some other nations into the Empire. On the other hand, they mostly sought to get support from the Christian world as being the first Christian state. They wanted to get a reputation for themselves. If they rebel against the governmental authority, it can be thought that they could have thought what could have happened to them if they could not achieve success.
Geunter Lewy denies genocide and claims that the Armenian deaths in the Ottoman Turkey at the end of the nineteenth century and the first quarter of the twentieth century were massacres. He wrote his book to enlighten one of the biggest problems for the last one hundred years. His approach is mostly based on the memory of the historical events. He investigates the literatures from each side and he concludes his research with saying that the historical events should be given to the historians to enlighten them. If those events go to the politicians, the problems could not be solved easily.
While the Turks and the Armenians were living together on the same lands for centuries, after the Ottoman Empires were getting weaker and losing the war against Russia, the Armenians got more wishes to establish their own independent states at the east provinces of the Ottoman Empire. They better knew that they needed to get some foreign help to achieve their ambitions. They used their Christian identity versus Muslim Identity to get more support from the Christian world. But they needed something to pull the Turks towards them, so they used some important activities in both Istanbul and Anatolia like the bombing events and rebellions. They achieved their aims of getting the Turks against them, and they did not see these specific events enough, so they got armed during the wartime. The Turkish government had to do something immediately, and decided to relocate the Armenians from their provinces to be less threatened by the government.
The deaths of most Armenians happened during these relocations, but the conditions, both geographic and other causes like Kurdish groups or the Circassians or the chettes, were not predicted by the Turkish government. Most of the Armenians died because of several reasons like starvation, illness and also with some other groups mentioned above. So, Lewy argues that it is not genocide that happened by the Turks, because there were not any intentions to annihilate the Armenians. The Turks’ main concern was to make the country safer. The sources also show this truth according to Lewy, even though there were many sources in which people complained about the Turks, but Lewy does not find these reliable.
Lewy uses deportation, but may be it could be used relocation, because deportation is used for taking out of the frontiers, whereas relocation means mostly changing places into the frontiers. The places of Armenians changed their residential were still in the Ottoman frontier.
Fatih BALCI, University of Utah
Arif AKGUL, Washington State University
Fatih BALCI and Arif AKGUL
Friday , 03 March 2006
There could be some mistakes in the history, but it should be more objective to enlighten those mistaken events with the helping of the historians. Guenter Lewy’s book, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, A Disputed Genocide, mainly focuses on the massacres in Ottoman Turkey, and he strongly stands on the way of the truths which he finds from the historical documents. After all, he mentions that trustfully the deaths of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey can not be called “genocide”. There were some deaths but they can not be called as genocide. For calling genocide, it is needed to have a look at the definition of genocide which is mostly accepted to intention to annihilation of one group. To use or say genocide for an event it has to involve an intention of annihilation. In the Armenian case the main aim was not based on the intention of Armenian annihilation. The only thing was deporting· the Armenians from some places only for security purposes, because the Armenians became a big problem for the Turks during World War I with the rebellions and armed guerillas inside the country.
It is seen to the massacres as the only culpability was the Turks, but with Lewy’s book, it is understood clearly that the Armenians had many problems for the Turks at their worse situation during the wartime. At the war time, Turks had in troubles in different reasons, and at that position the Armenians also had problem to Turks. The Armenians wanted to establish their independent state and they wanted to get some more help from the Christian world with using their Christian identity. They gave ways to the Turks to make some plans against the Armenian problem, and the Turks found the best way to deport them, but they did not foresee some problems such as the geographic conditions and some other issues that caused mass killing while making their decisions. These kinds of unintended things caused the deaths of the Armenians. Lewy’s argument about the massacres of the Ottoman Turks against the Armenians can be clarified with one of the Turkish proverbs: “Okay, the burglar has culpability but does not have any culpability of the house holder?”
Guenter Lewy, in his book, approaches Turk-Armenian conflict from the historical perspective. He shows the events that happened in the late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century in the Ottoman Empire between the Turks and the Armenians. He gives information from the sources and explains that it was not genocide, it was only massacres.
The book, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, includes four main parts with fourteen chapters. In the first part, with its four chapters, the author mostly looks at the Turk-Armenian problem from its beginning with historical events. His main argument in this part is that the characteristics of the conflict were based on religious background. The Armenians have approximately two thousand years history and they were the first Christian state in the world history, whereas the Turks are one of the major states among the Islamic world. The author argues that the Armenians tried to get attendance of the Christian world with provoking the Turks to attack themselves. Different courtiers with different purposes tried to help Armenians (For example, Russia helped to reach the south which had been its main desire for years, while Great Britain did not want that Russia to reach its desire), and the Armenians wanted to get their independence after political events. On the other hand, all the responsibilities were given by the Armenians to the Ottoman Sultan, Abdul Hamid II, because, for the Armenians, he was preventing the aims of the Armenian committees. Only because of this, the Armenians tried to kill him on Friday, July 21, 1905 with planting dynamite in his carriage, but Abdul Hamid II delayed his departure only a few minutes which saved his life; however, twenty six people died while fifty eight were wounded (p.32). The other events, which caused the Armenian massacres, were seizing the Imperial Ottoman Bank by Armenian revolutionaries on August 26, 1896 (p.24) and a shot assumed by an Armenian outside a mosque in Bitlis on a Friday while the Muslims were in the mosque for their ritual Friday praying (p.23). From the resources the author collected, the range of death of Armenians only of the 1895-1896 events is between twenty thousand and three hundred thousand (p.26).
In the first part of the book, Lewy generally explains the causes of the differences, occurred between these two nations which had been living together for centuries. He focuses on the causes, which started after the Russian war, and the Armenians intended to establish their own states at the region, and they wanted to use their Christian identity to get supported by the Christian world. The best way of doing this was also provoking the Ottoman Turks, which they did well at the end of the nineteenth century. The best way to get support from the Christian world is to provoke and cause the Ottomans to attack the Armenians.
In part two, the author mostly focuses on the Armenians’ genocide plans and the Turks positions against them. Ziya Gokalp, a Turkish sociologist and educator, is shown to be the responsible person of the massacres because of his argument of Turkification, which is based on blood and race for some scholars. From an Armenian perspective, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) premeditated the massacres of Armenians, and they played their role in this plan. “The Ten Commandments” (p.48) was the Armenians’ main argument to express the CUP’s main aim on the Armenians. For Armenians those Ten Commandments show the CUP’s plan clearly. Another source to make stronger this thesis about Armenians is Armenian author Aram Andonian’s book named The Memoirs of Naim Bey. This book is about one of the Ottoman chief’s secretaries telling during the deportation of the Armenians. However, there could not be found any documents about Naim Bey to be hired in the Ottoman army. The other important point also the real document that Andonian argues about the book (Naim Bey’s telling) does not exist in any archives. Andonian says that he sent all the original documents to the Armenian patriarch and later he never learned anything about what happened to them. (p.67) He also says that in a different time about his book that he wrote that book for doing Armenian propaganda (p.70). The sources of Armenian sides have not any real genuineness as the author explains in this part of the book.
From the Turkish perspective, even the Turkish sources are biased; their main argument is that the relocation of the Armenians from many main places was necessary, because Armenians were getting armed with the help of Russia. During the wartime, the Armenians were a big problem to the Turkish military and the Muslim people in the region. According to the information supplied by the Ministry of Interior, thirty thousand armed Armenians were at the east region of the country (p.92). Fifteen thousand of them joined the Russian army, while the other fifteen thousand were helping the Russian army behind the Turkish army. The enemies were inside according to the Turks and it was needed to find any solutions. The revolts also were major problems for the Turkish army during the wartime.
On the other hand, the Turks also had real economic, military, and social problems at that period. The refugees from the other provinces where the places conquered by the winner countries at the war were coming to the country, and they needed places to live. There was a civil war within a global war for the Turks. Under these conditions, the Turks decided to relocate the Armenians to different provinces for both to make safe its back yard and to open new provinces to the Muslim refugees.
Another important issue to make a decision of relocation was the Armenians’ brutality against the Muslim people of some cities and towns in the region. The Armenians were attacking the Turkish people with Russian support, because they knew that Russia was at their side. It also was known that they got their weapons from Russia. For example, the Russians took Diyarbakir, led by advance guards of Armenian volunteers in January 1916. The Muslims who were not able to escape were put the death. When the Turkish forces entered the city of Erzincan in February 1918, they found a destroyed city, fell upon the Turkish homes and committed extraordinary acts (p.118-119).
In some places in the Ottoman Empire, Armenians rebelled against to the Turks while the war was ongoing and especially near the end of the war. For example, the Armenian volunteers joined the fighting against the Turks in Palestine and Syria (p.108). Because of all these reasons, from the Turkish perspective, the deportation was needed to secure the east part of the Empire. Turks had to make a secure place in the east cost of the country and the best way to do this is to relocate the Armenians to different places. The main purpose did not punish the Armenians. Relocation was the prevention of Armenian activities against the government which had some troubles at this time also. The decision was not intended to destroy innocent people.
The third part of the book is mostly focuses on the sources to light the history, because the author’s main argument is to bring up the events is mostly the duty of the historians. Historical memories can enlighten history better according to Lewy. From this perspective, Lewy explains the events with the sources from every side, which begins with the Turkish archives and goes on the way of who did a small part from the puzzle of this unclear event in the history. The missionary reports, the foreign countries official and unofficial reports and even eyewitnesses’ statements are seen in Lewy’s book. He shows the ways which and what conditions happened from these sources and he writes some of his critiques with historical explanations. He gives a major importance to the Turkish archives but he has some problems about the opening of the archives; only 9%, but now all the Turkish archives are open to the research. He compares his findings and he shows so many different explanations of the same events. For example, Lewy mentions that one of the German missionaries, Johannes Lepsius’s, book involves a collection of 444 documents, but Wolfgang Gust argues that only a few of these 444 documents corresponded fully to the originals (p.134). One of the British sources, a parliamentary Blue Book shows the massacre story, but it also involves a lot of narratives by eyewitnesses, which are mostly based on hearsay (p.138).
Lewy expresses an important result from the sources that he follows to understand that historical event between the Turks and the Armenians that “when Armenians used guns it was always strictly for self-defense, while Turkish troops using force were usually described as engaged in murderous activities” (p.144). He also does not give more reliability to the survivors’ testimony. His main argument on this issue is that the survivor’s testimony is mostly under the pressure of the historical events and their personality, perceptions and experiences.
Lewy’s main concern about the historical document is there are not many Turkish scholars who are specialists of the Armenian events. He gives more spaces to the Turkish archives than the scholarly resources. On the other hand, he does not give more reliability to the Armenian scholars who have scholarly sources about the issue, because he sees that most of them are not truly explaining the events. To answer the question of why there are not any Turkish scholars, while there are many more Armenian scholars in this issue, it could be said that Diaspora Armenians are mostly studied on this issue, so it is easy to find some sources from different languages. He can reach more Armenian sources than Turkish because Diaspora Armenians have more interest on this issue and they wrote books in different languages, whereas the Turks have not this chance.
After giving the historical perspective which shows the positions of the Empire especially during the war time, he expresses the specific events during the cities and towns in which deportation happened. He shows the readers that the main purpose was not based on the intention of annihilation of the Armenians. But he gives some responsibility to the governmental authority not to predict what should have-happened during the deportation. For him, the government had to make some prevention activities for the possibilities, however, one of the important points also needed to be on our eyes is that the government had little authority at that time period, even to help its soldiers, because so many soldiers died at that period without any war. From this perspective, more things were not wanted from the government, but it also does not throw its responsibilities from its shoulders.
Lewy separates the causes of the massacres of the Armenians during the deportation of 1915-1916, and he gives the most important clue to the geographic situations. Later he focuses on the Kurds, Circassians, brigands (cetes), irregulars, and the gendarmes as the causes of the mass killing. The Turks tried to protect the deportees from these unexpected causes, but most times and most places they could not achieve success. Lewy asks this question: Who killed the Armenians? He could not find the exact answer, because several culpabilities shared the massacres.
Nobody can say anything about the number of the victims during that period, because each side mentions the amount from their perspectives. The main problem is that the exact populations of the Armenians are not known. The estimated amounts also do not give any clue about the amount of the killed people, because some Armenians lost their lives as the result of the guerilla wars, some lost at the rebellions and some joined the Russian army. Lewy gives the amounts from the sources he investigated, and he gives a number as an average of the Armenians in the Empire in 1914 as 1,750,000. For the amount of the survivors after the events, he again gives an estimated number which is 1,108,000. So, for Lewy, 642,000 were killed, which is about 37% during the World War period.
In the last part of his book, Lewy explains the controversy of the massacres of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. While he gives the examples of the Armenian side, who mostly argue that it is premeditation, the Armenians try to take a picture of Turkish responsibility with the Turkish national character, which is called barbaric for by them. On the other hand, the Turkish view focuses on the necessity of the deportation and actually both sides had many deaths which should be accepted; the events were not genocide, it was a war between the Turks and the Armenians (p.248).
Lewy’s strongest argument is that the central government of Turkey has not more culpability because there no authentic documentary evidence exists (p.250). He says that the deaths were an intended outcome of the deportations. Lewy’s main concern is based on shaping this world on the events that happened in the first quarter of the last century. He says that the massacres began to play a role on the politics, which was seen at some countries’ parliaments. But Lewy advises that which is the most important issue to lighten the historical events, is not the job of the politicians, but the historians. The politicians should give up these kinds of historical events to the historians to get more reliable results.
The main argument about the Armenian problem in the Ottoman Empire was that they wanted to establish their own independent state and so they became more nationalist as they saw from some other nations into the Empire. On the other hand, they mostly sought to get support from the Christian world as being the first Christian state. They wanted to get a reputation for themselves. If they rebel against the governmental authority, it can be thought that they could have thought what could have happened to them if they could not achieve success.
Geunter Lewy denies genocide and claims that the Armenian deaths in the Ottoman Turkey at the end of the nineteenth century and the first quarter of the twentieth century were massacres. He wrote his book to enlighten one of the biggest problems for the last one hundred years. His approach is mostly based on the memory of the historical events. He investigates the literatures from each side and he concludes his research with saying that the historical events should be given to the historians to enlighten them. If those events go to the politicians, the problems could not be solved easily.
While the Turks and the Armenians were living together on the same lands for centuries, after the Ottoman Empires were getting weaker and losing the war against Russia, the Armenians got more wishes to establish their own independent states at the east provinces of the Ottoman Empire. They better knew that they needed to get some foreign help to achieve their ambitions. They used their Christian identity versus Muslim Identity to get more support from the Christian world. But they needed something to pull the Turks towards them, so they used some important activities in both Istanbul and Anatolia like the bombing events and rebellions. They achieved their aims of getting the Turks against them, and they did not see these specific events enough, so they got armed during the wartime. The Turkish government had to do something immediately, and decided to relocate the Armenians from their provinces to be less threatened by the government.
The deaths of most Armenians happened during these relocations, but the conditions, both geographic and other causes like Kurdish groups or the Circassians or the chettes, were not predicted by the Turkish government. Most of the Armenians died because of several reasons like starvation, illness and also with some other groups mentioned above. So, Lewy argues that it is not genocide that happened by the Turks, because there were not any intentions to annihilate the Armenians. The Turks’ main concern was to make the country safer. The sources also show this truth according to Lewy, even though there were many sources in which people complained about the Turks, but Lewy does not find these reliable.
Lewy uses deportation, but may be it could be used relocation, because deportation is used for taking out of the frontiers, whereas relocation means mostly changing places into the frontiers. The places of Armenians changed their residential were still in the Ottoman frontier.
Fatih BALCI, University of Utah
Arif AKGUL, Washington State University
Friday, March 02, 2007
Sworn Statement of Albert J. Amateau
Sworn Statement of Albert J. Amateau on the allegations that Armenians suffered "genocide" by the government of the Ottoman Empire
On this eleventh day of October in the year of 1989, there appeared before me, a notary public duly commissioned by the State of California, Albert J. Amateau, known to me. In my presence the said Albert J. Amateau duly took the required oath and affixed his signature to this instrument as well as to every page of the attached Statement of Facts (nine pages), declaring it to be an integral part of his sworn statement.
Wendy O'Steen, Notary Public - California, Principal Office in Sonoma County,My Commission Expires December 1, 1992, Signed and Sealed1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6- 7 - 8 - 9 - 10
Albert J. Amateau, residing at #413 Oak Vista Drive, in the village of Oakmont, City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma in the State of California, being duly sworn, deposes that he has prepared and hereby submits the attached statement containing (a) facts, (b) extracts from published and/or uttered communications which disprove the allegations of Armenians that their ethnic brethren suffered genocide by the government of the Ottoman Empire in 1915-1923.
These facts are submitted to oppose approval of resolution S.J.212, introduced by the Honorable Robert Dole, Senator and Republican leader of the United States Senate, at the first session of the 101st Congress of the United States. The said resolution seeks to designate April 24, 1990, as the "National Day of Remembrance" of the 75th anniversary of the alleged Armenian genocide of 1915-1923 perpetrated by the government of the Ottoman Empire.
I was born in Milas, Turkey, on April 20, 1889. In 1905 I was a student at the American Internatioal College in Izmir (Smyrna), Turkey. At the time, The Reverend John McGlaglan was President and I attended classes in English conducted by Professors Lawrence and Evan-Jones. These details to make it possible to ascertain the truth of my statements.
There, I became acquainted and friendly with many Turkish born Armenian students, most of whom were my seniors. Because my Grandfather, whose name I bear, had been the French Consul in Izmir, I was mistakenly considered a Christian and a Frenchman. The Armenian students felt that they could freely discuss their membership in Armenian secret societies, i.e., Huntchak and Tashnak Zutiun, and their active participation in secret military exercises to prepare themselves for military duty in their planned subversive war against the Ottoman Empire and nation. In alliance and collaboration with Tsarist Russia.
In 1906 a number of wealthy Armenians in Izmir were assessinated. Mr. Hayik Balgosian and his friend, Mr. Artin Balokian, had been shot by two men in front of the Balgosian mansion in Karatash, an affluent section of Izmir. Days later, the large establishment in the center of the Izmir Bazaar, the SIVRI-SSARIAN, wholesale dry goods warehouse and store, was bombed. Mr. Agop Sivri-Ssarian and a number of his Armenian employees were killed. The perpetrators then sent secret messages, in Armenian printed lettering, threatening a number of Armenian merchants, doctors, lawyers and architects - unless they "contributed" the sums the leaders of the secret societies had assessed, the recepients would suffer the same fate as Balgosian and Sivri-Ssarian.
A majority of these addresses must have "contributed". A few, who evidently were satisfied with their economic, social and political status, did not approve of the plans for subversion and rebellion. They informed the Izmir Police of their suspicion of the identity of the leaders of the secret societies and that the Apostoloc Armenian church on ERMENI MAHALLESI, the main Armenian quarters in Izmir, was possibly the repository of arms and ammunition for the planned rebellion.
I witnessed the police raid on that church; and the truck loads of arms and ammunition which were taken out. Also the arrest of five priests and a number of other Armenians who were in the church at the time of the raid, including a few of my fellow students of the American College. Evidently I had not taken the disclosures of my fellow students seriously enough. Also, I could not understand the Armenian logic for rebellion against a country that had given its ethnic minorities the right to observe and practise their religion, conduct schools for the instruction of their young in their ethnic language and favored many of them with positions of trust. I knew of many Armenians in important positions in the Ottoman Treasury, Foreign Affairs, and as functionaries as consuls,.
I knew of many affluent Armenian doctors, attorneys and even a couple of bankers and architects. It was well known that the Armenians were the merchant princes of the Empire and that the Sultan favored them, especially because, of all the ethnic communities, they were the only ones who spoke the difficult Turkish language as a second language to their own Armenian.
Armenian terrorists in the United States and their duped friends have made it a career to assassinate Turkish consular officilas, supposedly in revenge for the alleged Armenian massacre in 1915. Their prelates, leaders, and even our own California governor, Mr. Deukmejian, have not seen fit to express their disapproval, and by their silence have tacitly approved of the assassinations. The leaders of the secret Armenian societies, Huntchak and Tashnak Zutiun, have continued their nefarious activities by agitating for the introduction of their alleged genocide into the instruction program of the public schools of the State of California.
They have also been able, through their boast of one million Armenian votes, to influence State representatives in passing laws to place their Armenian program for a motion picture into operation.
Now they are trying to have the Congress of the United States pass a resolution to designate April 24, 1990, as the 75th anniversary of their alleged genocide of 1.5 million Armenians by the "Ottoman Turks in 1915". I am amazed that intelligent and politically astute gentlemen, such as Senator Robert Dole, the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, and others, his colleagues, have been importuned to sponsor that resolution without any proof of the veracity of the Armenian claims. There is no doubt in my mind that Senator Dole and his colleagues are honest and honorable men. They have been duped to believe the Armenian allegations as true.
To establish the truth to the satisfaction of the Senators, I am submitting extracts from statements - in fact, avowais - by Armenian leaders in their addresses and/or communications with their adherents. These extracts, and the entire statements, are unimpeachable, and the veracity of my quotes can be easily ascertained. I am also submitting statements of others, but especially of Professor John Dewey, of Columbia University, who investigated the Armenian claims of genocide.
a) EXTRACTS from the November 1914 issue of the OFFICIAL ARMENIAN GAZETTE HUNTCHAK, published in Paris, France, by the Armenian Revolutionary Committee of the ARMENIAN NATION. This was a CALL TO ARMS! "...The entire ARMENIAN NATION will join forces - moral and material, and waving the sword of REVOLUTION, will enter this World conflict.... as comrades in arms of the Triple Entente, and particularly RUSSIA. They will cooperate with the ALLIES, making full use of all political and revolutionary means for the final victory of Armenia, Cilicia, Caucasus, Azerbayjan.... heroes who will sacrifice their lives for the great cause of Armenia....Armenians proud to shed their blood for the cause of Armenia...." -Please note the date. It was even before the declaration of war.
b) EXTRACTS from a letter dated JANUARY 27, 1918, and published in the LONDON TIMES on JANUARY 30, 1918, signed by BOGHOS NUBAR, the recognized leader of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, TASHNAK ZUTIUN. This was a complaint that the Allies had refused to invite the ARMENIAN REVOLUTIONARY COMMITTEE HUNTCHAK to the PEACE CONFERENCE at which the treaty between Turkey and the Allies was signed in Lauzanne, Switzerland.
"...The unspeakable sufferings and the dreadful losses that have befallen the Armenian Nation by reason of their faithfulness to the Allies.... The fact well known only to a few that ever since the beginning of the war, Armenians fought by the side of the Allies on all fronts... Armenians have been belligerents 'de facto' since their indignant refusal to side with the Turks... our volunteers fought in Syria and Palestine (at the time part of the Ottoman Empire) in the decisive victory of General Allenby.... After the breakdown of Russia, the Armenian legions were the only forces to resist the advances of the Turks whom they held in check until the armistice was signed. Thus they helped the British forces in Mesopotamia (at the time also part of the Ottoman Empire) by hindering the German/Turkish forces from sending troops elsewhere."
----Please note the reference to refusal to side with the Turks, the nation where they were born and of which they were a part. There is no claim of genocide.
c) EXTRACTS from the MANIFESTO, delivered by His Excellency, HOVHANES KATCHAZOUNI, PRIME MINISTER of the ARMENIAN REPUBLIC (established after the First World War) at the CONVENTION of the ARMENIAN REVOLUTIONARY FEDERATION, in Bucharest, Romania, JULY 1923. This was in the nature of a report. "...In the fall of 1914, when Turkey had not yet entered the war but was already making preparations, Armenian revolutionary bands began to form with great enthusiasm...
The ARMENIAN REVOLUTIONARY FEDERATION had active participation in the formation of these bands and the military action against TURKEY... In the fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer bands fought against TURKEY... This was an inevitable result of the psychology on which the Armenian Nation had been nourished during an entire generation... the winter of 1914 and the spring of 1915 were periods of great activity, greatest enthusiasm and hopes... We had no doubt that the war would end with complete victory for the Allies and Turkey would be defeated and dismembered, and its Armenian population would at least be liberated... We had embraced Russia wholeheartedly without any compun(...)... we believed that the Tsarist government would grant us self government in the Caucasus and in the Armenian vilayets (Turkish provinces where many Armenians resided), liberated from Turkey, as a reward for our loyalty, our efforts and our assistance. Unfortunately Russia did not keep its word..."
One and a half million Armenians are claimed to have been massacred. The avowals of their leaders prior to and after the First World War prove that there had been no massacre - their leaders would have referred to it or claimed it as their calamity, or at least as their contribution to the Allied cause. The allegations of massacre and/or genocide are a later invention to compel the new Turkish Republic to cede to them the five vilayets where they had installed the Armenian Republic, which they later had to give up to the Turkish Republic after a brief war. The Armenians have ever since been trying to obtain either the territory to add to the Russian Armenian Republic, or a large sum of money as the price for stopping the terrorism.
The Armenian people must blame their own leaders and their secret revolutionary societies for the subversive actions which led to their participation in the war with the Allies. They can blame Russia for reneging on its promise, and the Allies for not giving them due credit for their help, but they certainly have no reason to blame the Turkish Republic and/or even the now defunct Ottoman Empire, as their own leaders confessed. Let us now see what Professor John Dewey, of Columbia University, has to say -a broad minded Christian gentleman who went to the Middle East in 1928 to investigate the Armenian claims of genocide. This is extracted from his report published in THE NEW REPUBLIC, vol. 40, November 12, 1928:
"Few Americans who mourn, and justly, the miseries of the Armenians, are aware that till the rise of the nationalistic ambitions, beginning with the 70s, the Armenians were the favored portion of the population of Turkey; or that in the Great War, they treacherously turned Turkish cities over to the Russian invaders; that they have boasted og having raised a hundred and fifty thousand (150,000) men to fight a civil war, that they burned at least one hundred (100) Turkish villages and exterminated their populations. I do not mention these things by way of appraising or extenuating blame, because the story of provocations and reprisals is as futile as it is endless. Finally, one recalls that the Jews took their abode in "fanatic" Turkey when they were expelled from Europe, especially Spain, by "Saintly" Christians, and they have lived in Turkey for some centuries, at least in as much tranquility and liberty as their fellow Muslim Turks, all being exposed alike to the rapacity of their common rulers. To one brought up, as most Armenians have been, in the Gladstonian and foreign missionary traditions, the condition of the Jews of Turkey is almost a mathematical demonstration that religious differences had no influence in the tragedy of Turkey, only as they were combined with the aspirations for political separation, which every nation in the world would have treated as treasonable..."
Professor Dewey had evidently not been told of the rejection by the Jewish Communities of Turkey of the appeals by the European Zionists for political and financial assistance. Insofar as the Jews of Turkey were concerned, the Zionist proposals were "subversive", unless and until the Ottoman government agreed to them. At no time did the Jews of Turkey nurse aspirations for political separation from their Ottoman saviors, who had received them when no other country allowed their either entry or residence. In 1922 in Izmir, Kemal Ataturk, when he captured 100,000 Greek soldiers who had been allowed by the Allied governments to invade and occupy Turkey in Asia, said: "OF ALL THE ETHNIC MILLETS (Communities) THE JEWS ELECTED TO REMAIN LOYAL TO THEIR MOTHERLAND." Now for a brief view of Armenian atrocities against Muslim and Jews - EXTRACTS from a letter dated December 11, 1983, published in the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, as an answer to a letter that had been published in the same journal under the signature of one B. AMARIAN, claiming 1.5 million victims of genocide by the Ottoman Turks:
"..We have first hand information and evidence of Armenian atrocities against our people (Jews) which preceded the so-called massacre of Armenians which you allege in 1915. Members of our family witnessed the murder of 148 members of our family near Erzurum, Turkey, by Armenian neighbors, bent on destroying anything and anybody remotely Jewish and/or Muslim. Armenians should look to their own history and see the havoc they and their ancestors perpetrated upon their neighbors... Armenians were in league with HITLER in the last war, on his promise to grant them self government if, in return, the Armenians would help exterminate Jews... Armenians were also hearty proponents of the anti-semitic acts in league with the Russian Communists. Mr Amarian! Prove that, as you say, a large scale massacre of Armenians occured. I don't need your bias." Signed ELIHU BEN LEVI, Vacaville, California. Attached as the last page of this statement is proof of Armenian collaboration with Hitler.
My friend, Franz Werfel, of Vienna, Austria, a writer, wrote a book entitled THE 40 DAYS AT MUSSA DAGH, a history of the massacre of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks. The story was told him by his friend, the Armenian Bishop of Vienna and Werfel never doubted the Bishop's account. He did not investigate what he wrote. Years later, when the true facts about Mussa Dagh were established by the research of neutral investigators - which was never denied by the Armenians - Werfel discovered that he had been duped by his friend, the Bishop, with a concocted story. Werfel confessed to me his shame and remorse for hav
THE TRUTH
Fifty thousand Armenians, residents of villages in and around Erzurum in Turkey surreptiously ascended a mountain called Mussa Dagh (dagh is Turkish for mountain) with arms, ammunition, victuals and water, sufficient to withstand a siege of many days. Before ascending that mountain, they had captured hundreds of Muslim Turks and Jews, their fellow citizens and neighbors, with whom they were supposedly on good terms. They murdered them all in cold blood, for no other reason than they were Muslims and Jews. Thereafter, every night armed Armenian bands came down from that mountain and attacked the rear of the Ottoman and German armies fighting the Russian invaders. This was at the very beginning of the First World War, and part of the secret plans made by the Russians and assigned to the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. ing written that story, in which he had blamed the Ottomans as the aggressors and terrorists.
The Turks were mystified. The Armenian attackers would disappear. Try as they did, at first the Ottomans were unable to trace the disappearing Armenians, but finally they discovered that Mussa Dagh was the hiding place. The Ottomans found the mountain fortress unassailable. They laid siege and waited 40 days before the Armenian rear guard conceded defeat and laid down their arms. But the Ottoman forces found the mountain empty. The large army had disappeared down the other side of the mountain where they had found an exit to the Mediterranean. French and British men-of-war had been signalled and they picked up the main army, transporting the soldiers to Alexandria, Egypt, then under the control of the British. Less than 500, the rear guard who gave themselves up, were zaptured by the Ottomans.
Yet, in telling the story to Werfel to write, the Bishop had claimed 50,000 victims captured and put to death - an invented story, just as is the story of 1.5 million massacred in 1915. If 1.5 million Armenian lost their lives during that war, they died as soldiers, fighting a war of their own choosing against the Ottoman Empire which had treated them decently and benignly. They were the duped victims of the Russians, of the Allies, and of their own Armenian leaders. A few thousand Armenians may have lost their lives during their relocation, caused by their own subversion.
In making this expose of the truth and disclosing my home address, I know that I risk Armenian harrassment. I have already been subjected to telephone and written threaths! However, the truth must be told. As one born in the Ottoman Empire, from which I emigrated in 1910 and have never returned to live, I must declare:
1) I am not and never have been employed or paid by any government in Turkey.
2) I am not now and never have been financially interested in any business in Turkey.
3) My parents died before the Second World War. My sister and brother-in-law, residents of the Island of Rhodes, were captured and murdered by Hitler's Nazis. I have no relatives or friends in Turkey. It should be evident that I have no motive in taking the risk, other than my conscientious duty to tell the truth out of my love for my native land. I beg the Honorable Senators and other government officials to demand from the Armenians proof of their claims and explanation of the statement of avowals made by their own leaders. Under the circumstances and in view of the above proof, I cannot conceive that the Senators can in good conscience pass that resolution.
It is not enough to say that they do not mean to hurt the Turks or Turkish/American relations. By entertaining that resolution without proof, they are actually going against the interests of Turkey and the safety of the United States and of NATO.
Albert J. Amateau
Original: http://www.sephardicstudies.org/aa3.html
On this eleventh day of October in the year of 1989, there appeared before me, a notary public duly commissioned by the State of California, Albert J. Amateau, known to me. In my presence the said Albert J. Amateau duly took the required oath and affixed his signature to this instrument as well as to every page of the attached Statement of Facts (nine pages), declaring it to be an integral part of his sworn statement.
Wendy O'Steen, Notary Public - California, Principal Office in Sonoma County,My Commission Expires December 1, 1992, Signed and Sealed1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6- 7 - 8 - 9 - 10
Albert J. Amateau, residing at #413 Oak Vista Drive, in the village of Oakmont, City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma in the State of California, being duly sworn, deposes that he has prepared and hereby submits the attached statement containing (a) facts, (b) extracts from published and/or uttered communications which disprove the allegations of Armenians that their ethnic brethren suffered genocide by the government of the Ottoman Empire in 1915-1923.
These facts are submitted to oppose approval of resolution S.J.212, introduced by the Honorable Robert Dole, Senator and Republican leader of the United States Senate, at the first session of the 101st Congress of the United States. The said resolution seeks to designate April 24, 1990, as the "National Day of Remembrance" of the 75th anniversary of the alleged Armenian genocide of 1915-1923 perpetrated by the government of the Ottoman Empire.
I was born in Milas, Turkey, on April 20, 1889. In 1905 I was a student at the American Internatioal College in Izmir (Smyrna), Turkey. At the time, The Reverend John McGlaglan was President and I attended classes in English conducted by Professors Lawrence and Evan-Jones. These details to make it possible to ascertain the truth of my statements.
There, I became acquainted and friendly with many Turkish born Armenian students, most of whom were my seniors. Because my Grandfather, whose name I bear, had been the French Consul in Izmir, I was mistakenly considered a Christian and a Frenchman. The Armenian students felt that they could freely discuss their membership in Armenian secret societies, i.e., Huntchak and Tashnak Zutiun, and their active participation in secret military exercises to prepare themselves for military duty in their planned subversive war against the Ottoman Empire and nation. In alliance and collaboration with Tsarist Russia.
In 1906 a number of wealthy Armenians in Izmir were assessinated. Mr. Hayik Balgosian and his friend, Mr. Artin Balokian, had been shot by two men in front of the Balgosian mansion in Karatash, an affluent section of Izmir. Days later, the large establishment in the center of the Izmir Bazaar, the SIVRI-SSARIAN, wholesale dry goods warehouse and store, was bombed. Mr. Agop Sivri-Ssarian and a number of his Armenian employees were killed. The perpetrators then sent secret messages, in Armenian printed lettering, threatening a number of Armenian merchants, doctors, lawyers and architects - unless they "contributed" the sums the leaders of the secret societies had assessed, the recepients would suffer the same fate as Balgosian and Sivri-Ssarian.
A majority of these addresses must have "contributed". A few, who evidently were satisfied with their economic, social and political status, did not approve of the plans for subversion and rebellion. They informed the Izmir Police of their suspicion of the identity of the leaders of the secret societies and that the Apostoloc Armenian church on ERMENI MAHALLESI, the main Armenian quarters in Izmir, was possibly the repository of arms and ammunition for the planned rebellion.
I witnessed the police raid on that church; and the truck loads of arms and ammunition which were taken out. Also the arrest of five priests and a number of other Armenians who were in the church at the time of the raid, including a few of my fellow students of the American College. Evidently I had not taken the disclosures of my fellow students seriously enough. Also, I could not understand the Armenian logic for rebellion against a country that had given its ethnic minorities the right to observe and practise their religion, conduct schools for the instruction of their young in their ethnic language and favored many of them with positions of trust. I knew of many Armenians in important positions in the Ottoman Treasury, Foreign Affairs, and as functionaries as consuls,.
I knew of many affluent Armenian doctors, attorneys and even a couple of bankers and architects. It was well known that the Armenians were the merchant princes of the Empire and that the Sultan favored them, especially because, of all the ethnic communities, they were the only ones who spoke the difficult Turkish language as a second language to their own Armenian.
Armenian terrorists in the United States and their duped friends have made it a career to assassinate Turkish consular officilas, supposedly in revenge for the alleged Armenian massacre in 1915. Their prelates, leaders, and even our own California governor, Mr. Deukmejian, have not seen fit to express their disapproval, and by their silence have tacitly approved of the assassinations. The leaders of the secret Armenian societies, Huntchak and Tashnak Zutiun, have continued their nefarious activities by agitating for the introduction of their alleged genocide into the instruction program of the public schools of the State of California.
They have also been able, through their boast of one million Armenian votes, to influence State representatives in passing laws to place their Armenian program for a motion picture into operation.
Now they are trying to have the Congress of the United States pass a resolution to designate April 24, 1990, as the 75th anniversary of their alleged genocide of 1.5 million Armenians by the "Ottoman Turks in 1915". I am amazed that intelligent and politically astute gentlemen, such as Senator Robert Dole, the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, and others, his colleagues, have been importuned to sponsor that resolution without any proof of the veracity of the Armenian claims. There is no doubt in my mind that Senator Dole and his colleagues are honest and honorable men. They have been duped to believe the Armenian allegations as true.
To establish the truth to the satisfaction of the Senators, I am submitting extracts from statements - in fact, avowais - by Armenian leaders in their addresses and/or communications with their adherents. These extracts, and the entire statements, are unimpeachable, and the veracity of my quotes can be easily ascertained. I am also submitting statements of others, but especially of Professor John Dewey, of Columbia University, who investigated the Armenian claims of genocide.
a) EXTRACTS from the November 1914 issue of the OFFICIAL ARMENIAN GAZETTE HUNTCHAK, published in Paris, France, by the Armenian Revolutionary Committee of the ARMENIAN NATION. This was a CALL TO ARMS! "...The entire ARMENIAN NATION will join forces - moral and material, and waving the sword of REVOLUTION, will enter this World conflict.... as comrades in arms of the Triple Entente, and particularly RUSSIA. They will cooperate with the ALLIES, making full use of all political and revolutionary means for the final victory of Armenia, Cilicia, Caucasus, Azerbayjan.... heroes who will sacrifice their lives for the great cause of Armenia....Armenians proud to shed their blood for the cause of Armenia...." -Please note the date. It was even before the declaration of war.
b) EXTRACTS from a letter dated JANUARY 27, 1918, and published in the LONDON TIMES on JANUARY 30, 1918, signed by BOGHOS NUBAR, the recognized leader of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, TASHNAK ZUTIUN. This was a complaint that the Allies had refused to invite the ARMENIAN REVOLUTIONARY COMMITTEE HUNTCHAK to the PEACE CONFERENCE at which the treaty between Turkey and the Allies was signed in Lauzanne, Switzerland.
"...The unspeakable sufferings and the dreadful losses that have befallen the Armenian Nation by reason of their faithfulness to the Allies.... The fact well known only to a few that ever since the beginning of the war, Armenians fought by the side of the Allies on all fronts... Armenians have been belligerents 'de facto' since their indignant refusal to side with the Turks... our volunteers fought in Syria and Palestine (at the time part of the Ottoman Empire) in the decisive victory of General Allenby.... After the breakdown of Russia, the Armenian legions were the only forces to resist the advances of the Turks whom they held in check until the armistice was signed. Thus they helped the British forces in Mesopotamia (at the time also part of the Ottoman Empire) by hindering the German/Turkish forces from sending troops elsewhere."
----Please note the reference to refusal to side with the Turks, the nation where they were born and of which they were a part. There is no claim of genocide.
c) EXTRACTS from the MANIFESTO, delivered by His Excellency, HOVHANES KATCHAZOUNI, PRIME MINISTER of the ARMENIAN REPUBLIC (established after the First World War) at the CONVENTION of the ARMENIAN REVOLUTIONARY FEDERATION, in Bucharest, Romania, JULY 1923. This was in the nature of a report. "...In the fall of 1914, when Turkey had not yet entered the war but was already making preparations, Armenian revolutionary bands began to form with great enthusiasm...
The ARMENIAN REVOLUTIONARY FEDERATION had active participation in the formation of these bands and the military action against TURKEY... In the fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer bands fought against TURKEY... This was an inevitable result of the psychology on which the Armenian Nation had been nourished during an entire generation... the winter of 1914 and the spring of 1915 were periods of great activity, greatest enthusiasm and hopes... We had no doubt that the war would end with complete victory for the Allies and Turkey would be defeated and dismembered, and its Armenian population would at least be liberated... We had embraced Russia wholeheartedly without any compun(...)... we believed that the Tsarist government would grant us self government in the Caucasus and in the Armenian vilayets (Turkish provinces where many Armenians resided), liberated from Turkey, as a reward for our loyalty, our efforts and our assistance. Unfortunately Russia did not keep its word..."
One and a half million Armenians are claimed to have been massacred. The avowals of their leaders prior to and after the First World War prove that there had been no massacre - their leaders would have referred to it or claimed it as their calamity, or at least as their contribution to the Allied cause. The allegations of massacre and/or genocide are a later invention to compel the new Turkish Republic to cede to them the five vilayets where they had installed the Armenian Republic, which they later had to give up to the Turkish Republic after a brief war. The Armenians have ever since been trying to obtain either the territory to add to the Russian Armenian Republic, or a large sum of money as the price for stopping the terrorism.
The Armenian people must blame their own leaders and their secret revolutionary societies for the subversive actions which led to their participation in the war with the Allies. They can blame Russia for reneging on its promise, and the Allies for not giving them due credit for their help, but they certainly have no reason to blame the Turkish Republic and/or even the now defunct Ottoman Empire, as their own leaders confessed. Let us now see what Professor John Dewey, of Columbia University, has to say -a broad minded Christian gentleman who went to the Middle East in 1928 to investigate the Armenian claims of genocide. This is extracted from his report published in THE NEW REPUBLIC, vol. 40, November 12, 1928:
"Few Americans who mourn, and justly, the miseries of the Armenians, are aware that till the rise of the nationalistic ambitions, beginning with the 70s, the Armenians were the favored portion of the population of Turkey; or that in the Great War, they treacherously turned Turkish cities over to the Russian invaders; that they have boasted og having raised a hundred and fifty thousand (150,000) men to fight a civil war, that they burned at least one hundred (100) Turkish villages and exterminated their populations. I do not mention these things by way of appraising or extenuating blame, because the story of provocations and reprisals is as futile as it is endless. Finally, one recalls that the Jews took their abode in "fanatic" Turkey when they were expelled from Europe, especially Spain, by "Saintly" Christians, and they have lived in Turkey for some centuries, at least in as much tranquility and liberty as their fellow Muslim Turks, all being exposed alike to the rapacity of their common rulers. To one brought up, as most Armenians have been, in the Gladstonian and foreign missionary traditions, the condition of the Jews of Turkey is almost a mathematical demonstration that religious differences had no influence in the tragedy of Turkey, only as they were combined with the aspirations for political separation, which every nation in the world would have treated as treasonable..."
Professor Dewey had evidently not been told of the rejection by the Jewish Communities of Turkey of the appeals by the European Zionists for political and financial assistance. Insofar as the Jews of Turkey were concerned, the Zionist proposals were "subversive", unless and until the Ottoman government agreed to them. At no time did the Jews of Turkey nurse aspirations for political separation from their Ottoman saviors, who had received them when no other country allowed their either entry or residence. In 1922 in Izmir, Kemal Ataturk, when he captured 100,000 Greek soldiers who had been allowed by the Allied governments to invade and occupy Turkey in Asia, said: "OF ALL THE ETHNIC MILLETS (Communities) THE JEWS ELECTED TO REMAIN LOYAL TO THEIR MOTHERLAND." Now for a brief view of Armenian atrocities against Muslim and Jews - EXTRACTS from a letter dated December 11, 1983, published in the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, as an answer to a letter that had been published in the same journal under the signature of one B. AMARIAN, claiming 1.5 million victims of genocide by the Ottoman Turks:
"..We have first hand information and evidence of Armenian atrocities against our people (Jews) which preceded the so-called massacre of Armenians which you allege in 1915. Members of our family witnessed the murder of 148 members of our family near Erzurum, Turkey, by Armenian neighbors, bent on destroying anything and anybody remotely Jewish and/or Muslim. Armenians should look to their own history and see the havoc they and their ancestors perpetrated upon their neighbors... Armenians were in league with HITLER in the last war, on his promise to grant them self government if, in return, the Armenians would help exterminate Jews... Armenians were also hearty proponents of the anti-semitic acts in league with the Russian Communists. Mr Amarian! Prove that, as you say, a large scale massacre of Armenians occured. I don't need your bias." Signed ELIHU BEN LEVI, Vacaville, California. Attached as the last page of this statement is proof of Armenian collaboration with Hitler.
My friend, Franz Werfel, of Vienna, Austria, a writer, wrote a book entitled THE 40 DAYS AT MUSSA DAGH, a history of the massacre of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks. The story was told him by his friend, the Armenian Bishop of Vienna and Werfel never doubted the Bishop's account. He did not investigate what he wrote. Years later, when the true facts about Mussa Dagh were established by the research of neutral investigators - which was never denied by the Armenians - Werfel discovered that he had been duped by his friend, the Bishop, with a concocted story. Werfel confessed to me his shame and remorse for hav
THE TRUTH
Fifty thousand Armenians, residents of villages in and around Erzurum in Turkey surreptiously ascended a mountain called Mussa Dagh (dagh is Turkish for mountain) with arms, ammunition, victuals and water, sufficient to withstand a siege of many days. Before ascending that mountain, they had captured hundreds of Muslim Turks and Jews, their fellow citizens and neighbors, with whom they were supposedly on good terms. They murdered them all in cold blood, for no other reason than they were Muslims and Jews. Thereafter, every night armed Armenian bands came down from that mountain and attacked the rear of the Ottoman and German armies fighting the Russian invaders. This was at the very beginning of the First World War, and part of the secret plans made by the Russians and assigned to the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. ing written that story, in which he had blamed the Ottomans as the aggressors and terrorists.
The Turks were mystified. The Armenian attackers would disappear. Try as they did, at first the Ottomans were unable to trace the disappearing Armenians, but finally they discovered that Mussa Dagh was the hiding place. The Ottomans found the mountain fortress unassailable. They laid siege and waited 40 days before the Armenian rear guard conceded defeat and laid down their arms. But the Ottoman forces found the mountain empty. The large army had disappeared down the other side of the mountain where they had found an exit to the Mediterranean. French and British men-of-war had been signalled and they picked up the main army, transporting the soldiers to Alexandria, Egypt, then under the control of the British. Less than 500, the rear guard who gave themselves up, were zaptured by the Ottomans.
Yet, in telling the story to Werfel to write, the Bishop had claimed 50,000 victims captured and put to death - an invented story, just as is the story of 1.5 million massacred in 1915. If 1.5 million Armenian lost their lives during that war, they died as soldiers, fighting a war of their own choosing against the Ottoman Empire which had treated them decently and benignly. They were the duped victims of the Russians, of the Allies, and of their own Armenian leaders. A few thousand Armenians may have lost their lives during their relocation, caused by their own subversion.
In making this expose of the truth and disclosing my home address, I know that I risk Armenian harrassment. I have already been subjected to telephone and written threaths! However, the truth must be told. As one born in the Ottoman Empire, from which I emigrated in 1910 and have never returned to live, I must declare:
1) I am not and never have been employed or paid by any government in Turkey.
2) I am not now and never have been financially interested in any business in Turkey.
3) My parents died before the Second World War. My sister and brother-in-law, residents of the Island of Rhodes, were captured and murdered by Hitler's Nazis. I have no relatives or friends in Turkey. It should be evident that I have no motive in taking the risk, other than my conscientious duty to tell the truth out of my love for my native land. I beg the Honorable Senators and other government officials to demand from the Armenians proof of their claims and explanation of the statement of avowals made by their own leaders. Under the circumstances and in view of the above proof, I cannot conceive that the Senators can in good conscience pass that resolution.
It is not enough to say that they do not mean to hurt the Turks or Turkish/American relations. By entertaining that resolution without proof, they are actually going against the interests of Turkey and the safety of the United States and of NATO.
Albert J. Amateau
Original: http://www.sephardicstudies.org/aa3.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
