Case Study On The Circular Of 24 Apr 1915 & Arrest Of The Armenian Committee Members In Istanbul
Introduction
This article, after a short introduction, shall try to examine the arrest of Armenian committee members in Istanbul in accordance with the 24 April 1915 circular and the prosecutions about them, with reference to the Ottoman archives. .
Although the most powerful and influential Armenian political organization, the socialist Tasnaksutyun, which had also nationalist tendencies, officially took in its last congress in 1914 the decision to remain neutral during the war, a significant number of the Committee members, including certain influential Armenian MPs, left the Ottoman lands when the war broke out to join the voluntary troops formed by the Armenians in Russian territories. As expressed in the Ottoman official document (see Appendix I), the “Armenian committees have been working to accomplish autonomy for the Armenians by means of political and revolutionary societies” and they saw the War as an opportunity to materialise their goal; this eventually led them to cooperate with the Allied powers, primarily the Russians, against the Ottoman government.
At the outset of the War, the Ottoman government preferred to warn the leading Armenians with a view to appease them. For example, Talat Pasha warned Vartkes Efendi, the Erzurum representative, and prominent members of the Dashnak (Dashnaksutyun, Tashnak, Tashnag) committee while Enver Pasha talked to the Armenian Patriarch, both pointing out that the Ottoman government would have to take severe measures if the Armenians inclined towards revolutionary activities. Despite these warnings, Armenian representatives Vahan Papazyan and Karakin Pastırmacıyan moved to the Caucasus and fought against the Ottoman army, as did a number of Armenian volunteers. Like the two, many Armenian soldiers within the Ottoman army fled to join the volunteer Armenian troops in the Caucasia. The reports by German consulate include armed threat by the Armenian soldiers within the Ottoman army during the Caucasian campaign. Equally important, the Hunchak (Hinchak) chief Sabah Gulyan organized an assassination attempt against Talat Pasha that was prevented by the arrest of the conspirators in Istanbul in October 1914.
The Circular of April 24, 1915 and the Arrests
In spite of all the precautions, however, discovery of a number of bombs and weapons as a result of security searches carried out on several provinces, the government convicted that the Armenian organizations were in preparation for an all-out rebellion. Thus, the Ottoman Army Supreme Military Command delivered an instruction on 27 February 1915, stating that the capture of weapons, bombs and ciphered documents demonstrated the preparations for a revolt and ordering that the Armenian soldiers in the army must be kept away from armed duties and the necessary precautions must be taken everywhere, but also adding that loyal Armenians would not be harmed. Following the Ottoman defeat by the Russians in Eastern Anatolia and at a time when the war on the Dardanelles intensified from 18 March 1915 and Istanbul was under serious threat, the armed Armenian groups expanded their activities as well. This period witnessed the Van revolt after those of the Zeytun, Bitlis, Muş and Erzurum, and the increase of the massacres aimed at the Turkish-Muslim population in these areas. Some writers like Dadrian and Akçam, insisting on pre-mediation as a key element, have evaluated the events above as counter-movements against the relocation to be implemented in the near future.
The Ottoman government, subsequent to mentioned developments, had recourse to some measures to prevent the activities of the Armenian committees by taking them under control. Following the disarmament of the Armenian privates, the Ministry of Interior sent out an order that asked for the dismissal of the disloyal or unreliable Armenian policemen and officials from the office or their exile to the provinces without Armenian populations. However, since these measures did not produce the consequences desired, the government decided to close down the committees that had armed the Armenians and incited them to revolt, and to arrest their leaders. For this purpose, on 24 April 1915, the Ministry of Interior sent the famous circular to 14 vilayets or provinces and 10 mutasarrıfliks or counties. This circular ordered the closing of the Armenian committees, namely, Hınchak, Dashnak and the like, the seizure of their documents, the arrest of the chiefs of the committees and the Armenians notorious for their dissident activities, and the gathering in appropriate places of those whose existence in their present places were regarded dangerous.
The circular emphasized strongly that the authorities should keep a close eye on their areas not to allow any kind of internal strife between the Muslims and the Armenians in the provinces such as Bitlis, Erzurum, Sivas, Adana, Maraş. 24 April 1915, the date the Armenian diasporas in many countries commemorate every year as the Genocide Day, is the date this circular letter was sent out by the Ministry of Interior. On April 26, 1915, Ottoman Supreme Military Command sent a similar circular to the Ministry of War and army commanderships, asking them to meet any kind of demands of aid by government officials.
After the above-mentioned circular of the Ministry of Interior, some of those identified as members of the Dashnak, Hınchak and Ramgavar were placed under arrest in Istanbul. British intelligence reports confirm that the arrested Armenians were not ordinary citizens but all of them were committee members. According to the information received by the British Military Office in Egypt from Dedeağaç; on the night of April 24, 1915, 1.800 Armenians, including three Armenian men of religion and the patron of the Puzantion, the Armenian newspaper, would be sent to Ankara after their arrest. It was stated that 500 of them were Dashnak, another 500 Hınchak and the rest being Ramgavar partisans. In addition, in the ciphered telegrams sent on May 20 and 21, 1919 to Admiral Caltrophe, British High Commissioner to Istanbul, it was noted that the Armenians arrested on April 24, 1915 were the volunteers who either had served for the Allied armies or had been responsible for “the massacre of Muslims”. Likewise, Wangenheim, the then German Ambassador to Istanbul, says in the report he submitted to the German Chancellor on 30 April 1915 that there had been explosive materials, bombs and weapons in many Armenian houses and churches, and that the Armenians would carry out bomb attacks on the Sublime Port and several official buildings on 27 April 1915, during the anniversarial ceremony of Sultan Mehmed V’s accession to the throne. For this reason, Wangenheim reports, “approximately 500 Armenians, among them were doctors, journalists, men of religion, writers and representatives, had been arrested on the night of 24/25 April and sent to Anatolia.” While an American document gives the number of arrests on this day as 100 , a telegram sent from Thessalonica to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France on 8 May 1915 states that 2.500 leading Armenians were arrested in Istanbul and a number of bombs and documents were captured as a result of police search in their houses, adding that the aim of the Armenian revolutionary societies was to kill Enver and Talat Pashas with the support of the Allied powers and to cause a panic among the Muslim people through assassinations by using dynamites. According to Esat Uras, of 77.735 Armenian settled in Istanbul only 2.345 were arrested for their participation in revolutionary movements, while the rest were occupied with their business in peace. Kamuran Gürün notes that upon the directive of the 24 April circular letter of the Ministry of Interior, 2.345 Armenian were arrested in Istanbul. However, in the English publication of the book, the number is given as 235. To Taner Akçam, 235 important personages of the Armenian community were arrested on 24 April 1915. This was followed by 600 further arrests. Akçam says that the Ottoman Government announced the arrest of 2.345 Armenians in Istanbul on 24 May. Similarly, Guenter Lewy talks about arrest of several hundreds Armenian committee leaders in Istanbul comprising deputies, politicians, ministers, journalists, physicians etc. Though the above-mentioned sources agreed on the point that those arrested in Istanbul were not ordinary Armenians but were committee members, they give very different figures regarding the arrests.
It is also noted that during the police searches carried out the aftermath of the 24 April circular the following arms were found in İstanbul: 19 Mauser guns, 74 Martini rifles, 111 Winchester guns, 96 maniher, 78 gıra, 358 filovir, 3.591 pistols and 45.221 pistol bullets. All these weapons were delivered to military warehouses in case that the army needed them.
Armenians Subjected to Compulsory Residence in Çankırı
Ottoman documents show that the number of the arrests increased from 180 to 235 between the dates 24 April 1915 and 24 May 1916. The ciphered message sent by the Ministry of Interior to the governorship of Ankara province on 25 April 1915 states that in the train numbered 164 to Ankara, about 180 Armenians, who were committee chiefs and whose stay in İstanbul was considered dangerous, would be consigned to Ankara that day accompanied by a task force of 75 men, including 15 policemen, 2 officers, 1 police superintendent and one 1 official. Some 60-70 of these Armenians would be imprisoned in the Ayaş military warehouse and about 100 of the rest would be sent to Çankırı via Ankara for compulsory residence. The dispatch of the Armenians subjected to compulsory residence in Çankırı continued at intervals at the end of April and during the first week of May. For instance, according to a document sent from Çankırı governorship to the General Directorate of Security on 30 June 1915, the number of the Armenians in Çankırı is given as 140. The same document also notes that the new-comers wandered about the town freely, that they were scattered into the houses as groups of three to five men, and that even some of them were residing in the summerhouses around the town which took half an hour walk from the town. The only thing that they did was to show up in the police station every twenty-four hours. The same document states further that the needy among the exiles in Çankırı were provided with daily payments from the funds allocated by the Ministry of Interior. To give an example, a document sent from the Kastamonu province to the Ministry of Interior, it was stated Arşak son of Mardiros applied for daily payment; if his request were to be accepted an investigation should be made about whether he was needy or not. Similarly, in yet another document, Arşak Diradoryan, an exile in Çankırı, asks for daily payment explaining that he was in need.
The Armenian subjected to compulsory residence as committee members in Çankırı themselves or their relatives petitioned to the Ottoman government claiming their innocence and asking for their release. Having examined these petitions carefully Ottoman central government set free those found innocent, the foreign nationals and the ill. For instance, upon the order of the Ministry of Interior, Vahram Torkumyan, Agop Nargileciyan, Karabet Keropoyan, Zare Bardizbanyan, Pozant Keçiyan, Pervant Tolayan, Rafael Karagözyan and Vartabet Gomidas were released and were granted permission to return to Istanbul. A monument was built in Paris in memory of Vartabet Gomidas, one of those in the first group set free. Gomidas’ compulsory dwelling in Çankırı was for 13 days. He became ill after his return to Istanbul and applied to the Ministry of Interior on 30 August 1917 to travel to Vienna for treatment. He was duly given the permission and went to Vienna in September 1917.
In another case, Diran Dilakyan, one of those exiled to Çankırı, was released on the condition that he would live with his family somewhere outside of Istanbul. Again, on 29 May Hayık Hocasaryan , on 27 June Agop Begleryan and Vartanes Papasyan were set free , while, released by the order of the Ministry of Interior, Serkis Cevahiryan, Kirkor Celalyan, Bağban Bardiz and 14 other prisoners returned to Istanbul. Furthermore, on 18 July three prisoners and on 10 August 1915 Apik Canbaz was granted permission for their return to Istanbul. In the same way, Vahan Altunyan and Ohannes Terlemezyan, exiled to Kayseri from Çankırı, were released and allowed to return to Istanbul.
Apart from those allowed to return to Istanbul, a Bulgarian subject, Bedros Manukyan, an Iranian subject Mıgırdıç Istepnıyan and a Russian subject Leon Kigorkyan were set free to to be expelled from the Ottoman lands. Besides, some Armenians such as Serkis Şahinyan, Ohannes Hanisyan, Artin Boğasyan and Zara Mumcuyan were pardoned on the condition that they would leave Istanbul for good. A member of Dashnak committee, Serkis Kılınçyan, having been pardoned and given permission to go to Eskişehir, first escaped to Istanbul; then, with the help of a German firm Grupi, he fled to Bulgaria, where he went on carrying out his activities. Some of the Armenians in Çankırı were sent to prison in Ayaş while some others were exiled to different places like Ankara, İzmit, Bursa, Eskişehir and Kütahya. The rest were dispatched to the relocation center of Zor.
On 31 August 1915, the governorship of Kastamonu sent a detailed report to the Ministry of Interior, including the list of the names of the Armenians exiled to Çankırı and the procedures regarding them. In this list, the total number of the Armenians subjected to compulsory residence in Çankırı between 24 April and 31 August 1915 is given as 155. Of these, thirty-five Armenians were decided to be innocent and, after having been set free they returned to Istanbul. On the other hand, twenty-five of the Armenians in Çankırı were found guilty and imprisoned in Ankara and Ayaş whereas fifty-seven Armenians were exiled to the Zor region. As for the seven foreign nationals, some were released to be deported from the Ottoman lands while others were kept under arrest. Most of the rest were pardoned and consigned to places like Izmit, Izmir, Eskişehir, Kütahya and Bursa.
The Armenians Imprisoned in Ayaş
As already touched upon, approximately 70 of the Armenians arrested as committee members in Istanbul were sent to the Ayaş military warehouse. Unfortunately, no document giving a complete list of them exists. However, the petition for pardon forwarded by Kris Fenerciyan, an Armenian prisoner in Ayaş, addressed to Ismail Canpolat Bey, the General Director of Security, shows that the number of the Armenian prisoners in Ayaş as 70. On the other hand, an examination of the petitions for pardon and giving power of attorney by the Armenian prisoners in Ayaş reveals their number as 60, while a different source, a list prepared by Istanbul General Directorate of Security, gives the names of 71 Armenian prisoners in Ayaş.
The inconsistencies regarding the numbers in these sources stems from the fact that some of the Armenians in question were sent to different provinces for trial while some were released. Also there were those dispatched from İstanbul, Çankırı and Ankara to be imprisoned in Ayaş. For example, in an official document written by the Ministry of Interior, the Bureau of Accounting was asked to transfer 2.897 kurush to the Governorship of Ankara to meet the transport expenses of the committee members to Ayaş and Çankırı. If we look at the details regarding these men we see that the Ministry sent Hamparsum Boyacıyan, the Kozan representative, to Kayseri , Marzaros Gazaryan, the director of the Yenikapı Armenian School, to Develi , A. Dağavaryan, the Sivas representative to Diyarbakır to be tried in the Court Martial , Haçik Boğusyan to Ankara for trial and Hırant Ağacanyan to Istanbul. Two of them, viz. Teodor Manzikyan and Akrik Keresteciyan were sent to Zor, while Şahbaz Parsih was exiled to Elazığ to be imprisoned there. Leon Şirinyan, a US citizen, was deported. In a rather different case, Viram Şabuh Samuelof and Rotsum Rostusyon were first released but later prosecuted. A certain Hayik Tiryakyan was arrested as he was taken for the owner of the Azadamard newspaper, his namesake, but when this was discovered he was released. In a similar case, Doctor Allahverdiyan, arrested mistakenly instead of his son, was also set free. In yet another case, Akrik Keresteciyan was sent to Zor where he was released soon.
It appears that, the Armenians dispatched to Ayaş were kept under arrest throughout the WWI for they all were members of the executive board of the Hınchak and Dashnak parties. Thus, Dikran son of Serkis Bağdıkyan, a Dashnak member, died on 9 March 1918 in Ayaş while Andon Ponasyan, a Dashnak propagandist, submitted a petition for pardon on April 8, 1918 asking for his return to Istanbul but not accepted. Only after the signing of the Mudros Armistice did Karnik Madukyan, Kirkor Hamparsumyan and Pantuvan Parzisyan have the chance to be discharged on 10 November 1918. The rest would be freed after the Allied Powers took control of the Ottoman Empire following the armistice.
Number of the Armenian Committee Members in Istanbul and Prosecutions About Them
It is clear that from the beginning of the WWI the Ottoman Internal Security Organization closely watched the activities of the Armenian committees and their members in Istanbul and prepared a very detailed list of them. Completed probably by August 1916 the list contained the names of some leading Armenians as committee members in Istanbul, their occupations and duties in their respective committees, and inquiries and/or prosecutions about them. According to the list, out of 610 Armenian committee members centered in Istanbul ; 356 were members of the Dashnak Party while the rest were members of the Hınchak (173 persons), the Ramgavar (72 persons) and other (9 persons) Armenian committees and communities.
As already mentioned, about 235 Armenias, whose names and addresses were listed as committee members beforehand, were dispatched in accordance with the 24 April 1915 circular to Çankırı and Ayaş following their arrest. Because most of the Armenians subjected to compulsory residence in Çankırı were released during the preparation of the list of the year 1916, only 60 of them were recorded to be in Çankırı and 71 in Ayaş. Most of those mentioned in the above-mentioned list could not be found in their addresses and it was established that some others had fled abroad. The number of those who had fled abroad appears to have been 44, and 14 foreign subjects were exiled from the country on the condition of no return. Of those arrested, 53 Armenians, most of them were in obligatory residence in Çankırı and Ayaş, and suspected of having ties with İzmit events, were sent to İzmit for interrogation and trial. Some of the rest were subjected to compulsory residence in Zor, Konya, Elazığ, Diyarbakır, Kayseri etc or would face trial at military tribunal.
For the first phase of the 24 April 1915 circular, 235 Armenian committee members were sent to Çankırı and Ayaş. The answering letter submitted by the Ottoman government on May 24 to the Allied powers as a response to the diplomatic note sent by them questioning the Armenian massacres states that 235 of the 77.735 Armenians living in Istanbul had been arrested for their participation in revolutionary movements while the rest were occupied with their business in peace. Therefore, the number of the arrests till 24 May 1915 must be accepted as 235. However, if the Armenians exiled out of Istanbul in the course of relocation (for example, the Ottoman Representatives Krikor Zohrab and Seringulian Vartkes were exiled to Diyarbakır) are also considered it is acceptable to claim that, between the dates 24 April 1915 – August 1916, approximately 290 Armenians were arrested as committee members and prosecutions carried out on them.
An elaboration of the sources shows that Esat Uras is the first one to suggest the number 2.345 for the arrests in Istanbul following the 24 April circular. Uras, however, do not give any reference to a source, but, the expressions he used seem to be quoted from Ermeni Komitecilerinin Amâl ve Harekât-İhtilâliyesi, İlân-ı Meşrutiyetten Evvel ve Sonra, (Istanbul, 1916, p. 242).
It is known that, similar with Istanbul, on several provinces and sub-provinces some Armenians were also arrested as in accordance with the 24 April circular , however, their ezamination remains outside the scope pf the present study which focuses only on the arrests in Istanbul.
Concluding Remarks
For the Armenians arrested on 24 April 1915 in Istanbul, Lewy says that end of those Armenians are not clear, that is, most of them seem to be massacred or exiled. Similarly, Akçam argues that some of them were died under police supervision because of torture, and most of the rest were hanged on places open to public to intimidate people. Nikolay Hovhannisyan also talks about arrest of 800 Armenians without an official accusation on April 24 and massacre of them all on the road of relocation or on their destination, without providing any evidence.
According to the Ottoman archival documents examined above, 38 of the Armenians arrested in Istanbul (35 in Çankırı 3 in Ayaş), were found innocent and set free. Some 300 others so released from trial because they could not be found at their addresses. Most of the Armenians under arrest were relocated on the centers like Zor, Konya, Elazığ, Bursa and Diyarbakır. Until the end of the WWI, 71 Armenians were kept under arrest as committee members in Ayaş; one of them, Serkis Bağdıkyan, died on 9 May 1918 in Ayaş prison.
The Ottoman government sent out commissions of inquiry to examine the improper treatments against the Armenians being relocated. For example, Military Court of Syria charged Sirozlu (Çerkez) Ahmed and his friend (Galatalı) Halil, for killing the Armenian deputies Krikor Zohrab and Seringulan Vartkes, who had been sent to Diyarbakır by the order of the Ministry of Interior, and subjected them to death penalty that were executed in Damascus. Charges during the relocation were not limited these. In the years 1915-1916 1673 individuals were trailed by court-martials for abuses against Armenians. Among them 528 were soldiers and policemen, 170 were official and the rest 975 were bandits. 67 of them were subjected to death penalty –two of them were executed, 524 were sentenced to prison, and 68 were subjected to several punishments like condemnation to galleys, fine and exile.
Military Court of Istanbul trailed a group of Armenians on June 5, 1915 for crimes of carrying out assassinations for their goals, an autonomous Armenia, and making attempts to dissociate some part of the Empire, among whom 20 Armenians - 2 of them by name only- were subjected to death penalty according to the 54th article of the Ottoman Criminal Code. These 18 Armenians who were hanged following the Sultan’s approval on June 15 consisted of not only the members of committees in Istanbul, but also ones in Tekirdağ, Samsun, Giresun, Bitlis, Kayseri, Kilis and Bilecik. For the other charges: Hamparsum Boyacıyan was subjected to death penalty, Sevariş Misakyan and Arakil Mike was sentenced to prison for 5 years, Ağnadyos Andonyan for 4 years and Samoil Tarpanyan for 3 years. Moreover, Leon Ersabanyan was sentenced to prison for five years, and Emirza Toros Ketenciyan and Aşud Tataryan were exiled to Bursa, Aranis (Agopof) to Zor and Istepan Asadoryan to Dimyat. Some other committee members, among them were Haçik Boğusyan, Hrant Ağacanyan, Armenak Leonyan, Parsih Şahbazyan, Nerses Zakaryan and Vavader Mikailyan, were also sent to the military courts to be charged, but there exist no decisive documents regarding the decisions relating to these charges.
To conclude, although the Ottoman government closed down the Armenian committees in question and arrested some of their members, the Armenian revolutionary activities and cooperation with the Allied powers continued during the war in different forms both in and outside of the Ottoman territories. Ottoman government’s decision to relocate entire Armenian population, who were living primarily within the war zone, to distant provinces was gradually expanded towards the Armenians of other provinces of Anatolia and Rumelia, the results of which are still a subject of heated debates among historians.
APPENDIX I
(Translation)
Bâb-ıÂlî
Dâhiliye Nezâreti
Emniyyet-i Umûmiyye Müdîriyeti
Kalemi:
Umûmî:
Husûsî:
(Şifre)
Müsta`cel, mahrem, bi`z-zât halli
Edirne Vilâyetine Urfa Mutasarrıflığına
Erzurum " İzmit “
Adana " Bolu “
Ankara " Canik “
Aydın " Karesi “
Bitlis " Kayseri “
Halep " Niğde “
Hüdâvendigar " Eskişehir “
Diyarbekir " Karahisar-ı sahip
Sivas " Maraş “
Trabzon "
Konya "
Ma`muratülaziz
Van
Ermeni komitelerinin Memâlik-i Osmaniye`deki teşkîlât-ı ihtilâliye ve siyâsiyeleriyle öteden beri kendilerine muhtâriyet-i idare te`minine ma`tûf olan teşebbüsleri ve i`lân-ı harbi müte`âkib Taşnak Komitesi`nin Rusya`da bulunan Ermenilerin derhâl aleyhimize harekete ve Memâlik-i Osmaniye`deki Ermenilerin dahi ordunun duçâr-ı za`fiyet olmasına intizâr ederek o zaman bütün kuvvetleriyle ihtilâl eylemelerine dâ`ir ittihâz ettikleri mukarrerâtları ve her fırsatdan istifâde etmek suretiyle memleketin hayât ve istikbâline te`sîr edecek hareket-i hâ`inâneye cür`etleri bi`1-hassa devletin hâl-i harbde bulunduğu şu sırada Zeytun ile Bitlis, Sivas ve Van`da vuku` bulan hâdisât-ı ahire-i ısyâniye ile bir kere daha te`yîd etmiş ve esasen merkezleri memâlik-i ecnebiyede bulunan ve el-yevm unvanlarında bile ihtilâlcilik sıfatını muhafaza eden bütün bu komiteler mesâ`isinin hükümet aleyhine olarak her türlü esbâb ü vesâ`ita mürâca`at suretiyle netice-i amalleri olan muhtariyeti istihsâl maksadı etrafında toplandığı ve Kayseri ve Sivas ile mahâl-i sâ`irede meydâna çıkarılan bombalarla ve Rus Ordusu`ndan gönüllü alayları teşkil ederek Ruslarla birlikte memlekete saldıran ve an-asl Osmanlı memleketi ahâlisinden olan Ermeni komite rü`esâsının harekâtı ve Ordu-yı Osmâni`yi arkadan tehdîd etmek suretiyle ve pek büyük bir mikyâsda alınan tertibat ve neşriyatları ile tahakkuk eylemişdir. Bi`t-tabi` hükümet kendisi içün bir mes`ele-i hayatiyet teşkil eden bu kâbil tertibat ve teşebbüsâtın temâdisine hiçbir zaman nazar-ı ağmaz ve müsâmaha ile bakamayacağı, menba`-ı mefsedet olan komitelerin hâlâ mevcudiyetini meşru` telakki edemiyeceği cihetle, bi`1-umûm teşkîlât-ı siyâsiyenin ilgâsına lüzûm-ı `âcil hissetmiştir. Binâ`en aleyh Hınçak, Taşnak ve emsali komitelerin vilâyet dahilindeki şu`âbâtının derhâl sedleri ile şu`be merkezlerinde bulunacak evrak ve vesâ`ikın kat`iyyen zıya` ve imhasına imkân bırakılmayarak müsaderesi ve komiteler rü`esâ ve erkânından müteşebbis eşhas ile hükümetçe tanılan mühim ve muzır Ermenilerin hemân tevkîfi ve bulundukları mahallerde devâm-ı ikâmetlerinde mahzûr görülenlerin vilâyet sancak dâhilinde münâsib görülecek mevâkı`da toplatdırılarak firarlarına imkân bırakılmaması ve icâb eden mahallerde silâh taharrisine başlanılarak her türlü hâl ve ihtimâle karşı kumandanlarla bi`1-muhâbere kuvvetli bulunulması ve icrâ`âtın hüsn-i tatbîki esbâbının te`mîn ve istikmâliyle zuhûr edecek evrâk ve vesâ`ikin tedkîki neticesinde tevkîf olunan eşhâsın divân-ı harblere tevdî`î Ordu-yı Hümâyûn Başkumandanlığı vekâletiyle bi`1-müzâkere tekarrür etmiş olmağla îcâb eden tedâbirin bi`l-etrâf istikmâliyle derhâl tatbiki ve tevkîf olunan eşhas adediyle icrâ`âtdan peyderpey ma`lûmât i`tâsı *(ve şu icrâ`ât sırf komitelerin teşebbüsâtına karşı bir hareket mâhiyetini hâ`iz olmasına binâ`en buna ahâlî-i- İslâmiye ile Ermeni unsuru arasında mukâteleyi intâc edeceği bir şekil verilmemesi) kemâl-i ehemmiyetle tavsiye olunur.
Fî 11 Nisan 1331
Nâzır
Yazıldı
Keşidesi
İsmail
*İçinde bulunan ve üstleri çizilen cümle yalnız, Bitlis, Erzurum, Sivas, Adana, Maraş içün yazılacaktır
APPENDIX I
The Ottoman Government
General Directorate of Security
Urgent, secret
The Ciphered Letter to Edirne, Erzurum, Adana, Ankara, Aydin, Bitlis, Halep, Bursa, Sivas, Trabzon, Konya, Elazig and Van (Province) governorships, Urfa, Izmit, Bolu, Samsun, Balikesir, Kayseri, Nigde, Eskisehir, Afyon and Maras (Sub-province)governorships.
It is known that the Armenian committees have been working to accomplish political autonomy for the Armenians by means of several political and revolutionary societies. Immediately after the beginning of the War, the Dashnak committee got the Armenians living in Russia into action against the Ottoman Empire. Similarly, the Armenians within the Empire were waiting for the weakening of the Ottoman army to attack with all their might to raise a rebellion. They were making use of any opportunity and were so courageous for the treacherous activities against the existence and future of the country. Particularly, the last rebellious events that occurred in Zeytun, Bitlis, Sivas and Van at a time when the Empire is in war once again confirmed this attitude of Armenian. These Armenian communities, whose administrative centers are abroad and whose names conserve their revolutionary characters, acted in accordance with the target of obtaining the autonomy, their final aim, by causing whatever means at their disposal against the Ottoman government. Moreover, plans of the Armenians became clear with the help of several occurrences such as the bombs discovered in Kayseri, Sivas and some other provinces; the activities of the Armenian committee chiefs, who are Ottoman citizens in origin and attacked the country with the Russians by organizing volunteer regiments; threatening the Ottoman army from the back as well as a great deal of preparation and publication directed towards the above-mentioned target. Naturally, the government felt the urgent need of abolishing all these communities since it could no longer ignore such preparations and attempts against the existence of the Empire and that it could not recognize these sources of defeatism, namely the Armenian committees. Because of this reason, it is attentively recommended that the following measures determined in consultation with the Chief Command of the Imperial Army should be taken:
-Closure of the branches of the Hunchak, Dashnak and other committees in the provincial centers,
-Capture and confiscation of the documents found in the provincial branches of these committees without giving any opportunity for their loss and destruction,
-Immediate capture and arrest of the leading committee chiefs and the Armenians considered by the government as mischievous,
-Gathering of the Armenians whose existence in their present places is regarded dangerous in secure places of provinces and sub-provinces without leaving any room for them to escape,
-To search weapons in the places that seemed necessary and to be in a strong position by communicating with the commanders against any contingency,
-To provide the required conditions for the good management of the measures,
-To transfer the Armenians arrested as a consequence of the investigation through the captured documents to the courts-martial for trial.
These must be implemented immediately and reports regarding the number of the prisoners and the operations must be sent to the Ministry. Finally, because these measures are only taken against the attempts of the Armenian committees, they must not be applied in a way to cause mutual killings between the Muslim people and the Armenian community.*
April 24,1915
Written
APPENDIX II (*)
Kastamonu Province
Chief Secretary
Number
481
Summary:
About the Armanians in Çankırı
To the Ministry of Interior
Secret
His Excellency
This is the enclosure of the ciphered telegram dated August 6, 1915 with the number 443.
The record that was sent from Çankırı having the names of the Armenians in Çankırı and the procedure regarding them is given. And the command belongs unto him to whom all commanding belongs.
August 31, 1915 The Governor of Kastamonu
Signet
1. Puzant Keçyan Excused on May 8, 1915 and went to Istanbul
2. Yervant Tolayan “
3. Karabet Girobyan “
4. Zara Badizbanyan “
5. Agop Nargileciyan “
6. Vahran Torkomyan “
7. Komitas Vartabet “
8. Rafael Karagözyan “
9. Zara Mumcuyan Went to Istanbul under protection on May 27, 1915
10. Karabet Sarrafyan Went to Ankara under protection on May 27, 1915
11. Leon Badizbanyan Went to Ankara under protection on May 30, 1915 to be sent to Ayaş
12. Haçik Hocasaryan Went to Istanbul freely on 31 May 1915
13. Agop Topcıyan “
14. Hayk Tirakyan? Went to Ankara under protection on 8 May 1915 to be sent to Ayaş
15. Doktor Haçik Bogosyan Went to Ankara under protection on 22 June 1915
16. Agop Beğleryan Went to Istanbul freely on 29 June 1915
17. Vartanes Papasyan “
18. İstepan Tataryan Went to Ankara under protection on July 1, 1915 to be sent to Kayseri
19. Nişan Kalfayan Went to Istanbul freely on July 11, 1915 with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated June 29, 1915
20. Armenak Kantarcıyan “
21. Meklit Bükciyan “
22. Misak Serkis Cevahirciyan “
23. Armenak Topcıyan “
24. Bağnak Badizbanyan “
25. Aram Kalender “
26. Hayk Zabcıyan? “
27. Manuk Basmacıyan “
28. Bedros Yovanyan “
29. Karnik İnciciyan “
30. Avanis Zarifyan “
31. Avanis Barsamyan “
32. Doktor Kirkor Celalyan “
33. Asador Manyasyan veledi Haçik “
34. Karabet Beğleryan “
35. Parsih Dinamyan “
36. Bedros veledi Manuk “
37. Ohannes Mardiros Arslanyan Went to Ankara under protection on July 11, 1915 to be sent to Zor with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated June 29, 1915
38. Yervant veledi Ohan Sürenyan “
39. Agop Ohannes Asadoryan “
40. Arsak veledi Mardiros Muradyan “
41. Parnak veledi Kigork Marhanyan “
42. Mardiros veledi Ohannes Yazıcıyan “
43. Afrik Serkis Keresteciyan “
44. Ovakim veledi Harutyun veledi Agabeğyan “
45. Dikran Hamparsum Bogobelyan “
46. Arşen Agop Sadefciyan “
47. Dikrayel veledi İsrail “
48. Kirkor Mardiros Taşcıyan “
49. Haçik veledi Agop “
50. Berdoven veledi Agya? “
51. Hırant veledi Mıkır “
52. Arsak Mıgırdıç Hoşuryan “
53. Arsak Karabet Arakilyan “
54. Mihran veledi Agop Keçeciyan “
55. Vahan Arsak Çarıkcıyan “
56. Serab veledi Margos Tunyan “
57. Leon veledi Agya “
58. Frangül veledi Artin “
59. Aram Karabet Gedikyan “
60. Zenop Karabet Avakyan “
61. Artin (Namı diğer Koçu) veledi Haçator Arzumyan “
62. Kunduracı Manuk Mikayil Buracyan “
63. Ohannes Bedros Hacı Hamparsumyan “
64. Manuk veledi Kirkor “
65. Sehak veledi Karakin “
66. Ohannes Dertavidyan “
67. Manuel Karakeşişyan “
68. Ohannes Artin Hanisyan “
69. Serkis Keçeciyan “
70. Kurukahveci Kirkor Hazar Celalyan “
71. Serope Semerciyan “
72. Mıgırdıç Avadis “
73. Agyos Taşcıyan “
74. Leon Rakıcıyan “
75. Parsih Deveciyan “
76. Serkis Bağdasar “
77. Mikail Şerbetciyan namı diğeri Mike Kigork “
78. Karabet veledi Takover Hırabetyan Went to Ankara under protection on July 11, 1915 with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated June 29, 1915
79. Armenak veledi Bogos Sıvacıyan “
80. Kirkor veledi Ohannes Agobof “
81. Samuel Tohumcıyan “
82. Ermanak Parsihyan “
83. Leonik Serkis Daranbanyan “
84. Beznik veledi Artin “
85. Asator Serkis Arsenyan “
86. Serkis Kirkor Şahinyan “
87. Milkon Gülbenanyan Went to Istanbul freely on July 15, 1915
88. Mosis Bedrosyan Went to Ankara under protection on July 31, 1915
89. Apik Canbaz Went to Istanbul freely on August 12, 1915
90. Agop Bogos veledi Koryan Went to Istanbul freely on August 12, 1915
91. Ohannes Terlemezyan “
92. Vahan Altunyan veledi Agop “
93. Tatyus Köseyan “
94. Arastakiz İsrailyan Went to Ankara on August 19, 1915 to go to Bursa, with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated August 4, 1915
95. Mıkırdıç Basmacıyan veledi Mihran Went to Ankara on August 19, 1915 to be sent to Izmit
96. Leon Kigorkyan (Rus tebası) Sent to Ankara under protection on August 19, 1915 with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated August 4, 1915 as being a foreign citizen
97. Kigork Kigorkyan (Rus tebası) “
98. Mihran Kigorkyan “
99. Artin Kalfayan (İran tebası) “
100. Bedros Balyan “
101. Sehak Mosisyan “
102. Mıgırdıç İstepanyan “
103. Leon Agababyan Went to Ankara under protection on August 19, 1915 to be sent to Zor with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated August 4, 1915
104. Mihran Haçik Debbağyan “
105. Doktor İstepan Miskciyan “
106. Eczacı Agop Terziyan “
107. Eczacı Kirkor Miskciyan “
108. Nerses Aşafsor? “
109. Haçator Nacaryan “
110. Mihran Pastırmacıyan “
111. Aram Andonyan “
112. Vahram Altunyan “
113. Barob Arzumyan “
114. Kozmoz Beğlikciyan “
115. Nersis Derkigorkyan “
116. Aram Kirkoryan “
117. Bedros Beğleryan “
118. Kirkor Eseyan “
119. Diran Kelekyan Excused by the order of the Ministry of Interior dated August 4, 1915 and will go to the center of Izmir
120. Rahib Vahan Karabetyan “
121. Aram Papazbanyan “
122. Mikail Şamdancıyan “
123. Kasbar Hirant? “
124. İstepan veledi Ohannes Babinyan Will go to Bandırma with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated August 4, 1915
125. Yervant Çavuşyan Will go to Izmit with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated August 4, 1915 in the context of general amnesty
126. Vartas Atanasyan “
127. Rahib Kirkor Balakyan Will go to Ermişe Monestry through Izmit with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated August 4, 1915 in the context of general amnesty
128. Serkis Kılınccıyan Will go to Eskişehir through Ankara in the context of general amnesty
129. Doktor Emrize Ketenciyan “
130. Nişan veledi Agop Nehabedyan Will go to Izmit through Ankara in the context of general amnesty
131. Kigork Goncagülyan Will go to Eskişehir through Ankara in the context of general amnesty
132. Ohannes Güleyan? “
133. Kirkor Ohangiyan “
134. Aram Ohangiyan “
135. Leon Ohangiyan “
136. Karakin Ohangiyan “
137. Papaz Vartan Karagözyan Will go to Izmit through Ankara in the context of general amnesty
138. Azarik veledi Ohannes Bülbülciyan Will go to Eskişehir through Ankara in the context of general amnesty
139. Simon Milkonyan “
140. Haçik Haçatoryan “
141. Bedros veledi Andon Manuelyan Will go to Ankara in the context of general amnesty
142. Yervant Basmacıyan Will go to Kastamonu in the context of general amnesty
143. Nişan Gülistanyan “
144. Bogos veledi Agop Taniyelyan Will go to Izmit through Ankara in the context of general amnesty
145. Doktor Arsak Kızasyan “
146. Vahram Asatoryan “
147. Kirkor Saçyan Will go to Geyve in the context of general amnesty
148. Aram Saçyan Will go to Kütahya in the context of general amnesty
149. Papas Osik Kaçuni “
150. İstepan Pulcıyan Will go to Eskişehir through Ankara in the context of general amnesty
151. Rupen Çilingiryan Will go to Ayaş under protection with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated August 4, 1915
152. Vahan Kahyayan veledi Antaş? “
153. Onnik Mağazacıyan “
154. Danyel Çubukkıryan “
155. Artin Bogosyan “
APPENDIX III(*)
LIST OF THE PRISONERS IN AYAŞ
No: Name, title and name of the father Connected Committee
1 Onnik Veled-i Sahak Mağazacıyan [Zirayir] Dashnaksutyun
2 Artin Hasakoryan Dashnaksutyun
3 Agop Küfeciyan Dashnaksutyun
4 Avram Bazcanyan Dashnaksutyun
5 A. Marzabet (the other name: Hazarosyan)
veled-i Manuk, Osmanlı Dashnaksutyun
6 Abraham Harikyan Dashnaksutyun
7 Artin Kondilyan veled-i Ohannes Dashnaksutyun
8 Ohannes Toryan Hunchak
9 Agop Avedisyan [Arzeroni] Dashnaksutyun
10 Ardaşes Ferahyan Dashnaksutyun
11 Ohannes Kılcıyan veled-i Tavid Hunchak
12 Aristaki Kasparyan Dashnaksutyun
13 Avram (the other name:Agop) Şahinyan veled-i Karabet Hunchak
14 İstepan Kürekçiyan Dashnaksutyun
15 Onnik Serabyan veled-i Kirkor Dashnaksutyun
16 Aram Hacıyan veled-i Mıgırdıç Hunchak
17 İskender Karaağaçlıyan veled-i Karnik Aleksadr Hunchak
18 Armenak veled-i Kigork Arakelyan Dashnaksutyun
19 Artin Kalenderyan veled-i Avadis Dashnaksutyun
20 Aram Hamparsumyan Dashnaksutyun
21 Bogosyan Haçik veled-i Karabet Hunchak
22 Bedros Bedrosyan [Safo] Hunchak
23 Bedros Kalfayan Dashnaksutyun
24 Yervant Palasyan (the other name: Emirza Malik Muradyan) Dashnaksutyun
25 Parsih Şahbazyan Dashnaksutyun
26 Partoh Çopukyan [Jirayir] Dashnaksutyun
27 Palancıyan H. Hunchak
28 Teodor Menzikyan Dashnaksutyun
29 Haçator Malimyan (Agatoni) Dashnaksutyun
30 Hayik Tiryakyan veled-i İstepan [Avram Şahin] Dashnaksutyun
31 Hamparsum Hamparsumyan Dashnaksutyun
32 Hamarasp Panosyan Dashnaksutyun
33 Harenet Gürciyan veled-i Melkon Dashnaksutyun
34 Haçik İdareciyan veled-i Avadis Dashnaksutyun
35 Dikran Çukuryan Dashnaksutyun
36 Dikran veled-i Ohannes Sıvacıyan Dashnaksutyun
37 Dağdaryan Nazret veled-i Nehabet Hunchak
38 Dinanyan Parsih veled-i Mosis Dashnaksutyun
39 Rupen Zartaryan Dashnaksutyun
40 Rostom Rostomyan Dashnaksutyun
41 Jak Saybalyan Dashnaksutyun
42 Serkis Minasyan [Emadoni] Dashnaksutyun
43 Serkisof veled-i Mosis Dashnaksutyun
44 Seçad Poradder Gazar Dashnaksutyun
45 Serupe Nevradonkyan Dashnaksutyun
46 Serkis Parsihyan Dashnaksutyun
47 Serkis veled-i Manuk Keçiyan Dashnaksutyun
48 Şavaraş Hrisyan Dashnaksutyun
49 Karakin Kayacıyan [Mıgırdıc] Hajak Dashnaksutyun
50 Karabet Paşayan Dashnaksutyun
51 Hosyan Karakin Veled-i Serkis Hunchak
52 Kris Fenerciyan Dashnaksutyun
53 Kigam Parsihyan Dashnaksutyun
54 Kigork Tercümanyan Dashnaksutyun
55 Leon Bardizbanyan Dashnaksutyun
56 Leon Larinç Veregozimal (Deregazima) Hunchak
57 Mühürtad Haykozon Dashnaksutyun
58 Mihran Artinyan Dashnaksutyun
59 Mosis Sahakyan Dashnaksutyun
60 Manuk Hanikyan veled-i Barnak Dashnaksutyun
61 Mıgırdıç Ohannes Şahinyan Hunchak
62 Mıgırdıç Karabet Karabetyan Hunchak
63 Nersis Papazyan Dashnaksutyun
64 Nersis Zakaryan Hunchak
65 Nişan Oryan veled-i Agop Hunchak
66 Nişan Padikyan Dashnaksutyun
67 Nişan Kalcıyan Dashnaksutyun
68 Viram Şabuh Samoilof Dashnaksutyun
69 Viram Şabuh Arabyan Dashnaksutyun
70 Harotyan Şahrikyan [Avram Şahin] Dashnaksutyun
71 Penodo Şahin Veled-i Aranos Dashnaksutyun
Assoc. Prof. Yusuf SARINAY
by Assoc. Prof. Yusuf SARINAY*
GenocideReality.com
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
So-called Armenian Genocide
An Armenian and Muslim Tragedy? Yes! Genocide? No!
By Bruce Fein*
I. Both Armenians and Muslims in Eastern Anatolia under the Ottoman Empire experienced harrowing casualties and gripping privations during World War I.
Hundreds of thousands perished. Most were innocent. All deserve pity and respect. Their known and unknown graves testify to President John F. Kennedy's lament that "Life is unfair." An Armenian tombstone is worth a Muslim tombstone, and vice versa. No race, religious, or ethnic group stands above or below another in the cathedral of humanity. To paraphrase Shakespeare in "The Merchant of Venice," Hath not everyone eyes? hath not everyone hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer...If you prick anyone, does he not bleed? if you tickle him, does he not laugh? if you poison him, does he not die?
These sentiments must be emphasized before entering into the longstanding dispute over allegations of Armenian genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Turks during World War I and its aftermath. Genocide is a word bristling with passion and moral depravity. It typically evokes images of Jews dying like cattle in Nazi cyanide chambers in Auschwitz, Bergen-Belson, Dacau, and other extermination camps. It is customarily confined in national laws and international covenants to the mass killing or repression of a racial, religious, or ethnic group with the intent of partial or total extermination. Thus, to accuse Turks of Armenian genocide is grave business, and should thus be appraised with scrupulous care for historical accuracy. To do less would not only be unjust to the accused, but to vitiate the arresting meaning that genocide should enjoy in the tale of unspeakable human horrors.
It cannot be repeated enough that to discredit the Armenian genocide allegation is not to deny that Armenian deaths and suffering during the war should evoke tears in all but the stone-hearted. The same is true for the even greater number of contemporaneous Turkish deaths and privations. No effort should be spared to avoid transforming an impartial inquest into the genocide allegations to poisonous recriminations over whether Armenians or Turks as a group were more or less culpable or victimized. Healing and reconciliation is made of more magnanimous and compassionate stuff.
In sum, disprove Armenian genocide is not to belittle the atrocities and brutalities that World War I inflicted on the Armenian people of Eastern Anatolia.
I. Sympathy for All, Malice Towards None "War is hell," lamented steely Union General William Tecumseh Sherman during the American Civil War. The frightful carnage of World War I confirmed and fortified that vivid definition.
The deep pain that wrenches any group victimized by massacres and unforgiving privation in wartime, however, frequently distorts or imbalances recollections. That phenomenon found epigrammatic expression in United States Senator Hiram Johnson's World War I quip that truth is the first casualty of war. It is customary among nations at war to manipulate the reporting of events to blacken the enemy and to valorize their own and allied forces. In other words, World War I was no exception, about which more anon.
II. The Armenian Genocide Accusation
The Ottoman Turks are accused of planning and executing a scheme to exterminate its Armenian population in Eastern Anatolia beginning on or about April 24, 1915 by relocating them hundreds of miles to the Southwest and away from the Russian war front and massacring those who resisted. The mass relocation (often mischaracterized as "deportation") exposed the Armenians to mass killings by marauding Kurds and other Muslims and deaths from malnutrition, starvation, and disease. After World War I concluded, the Ottoman Turks are said to have continued their Armenian genocide during the Turkish War of Independence concluded in 1922.
The number of alleged Armenian casualties began at approximately 600,000, but soon inflated to 2 million. The entire pre-war Armenian population in Eastern Anatolia is best estimated at 1.3 to 1.5 million.
A. Was there an intent to exterminate Ottoman Armenians in whole or in part?
The evidence seems exceptionally thin. The Government's relocation decree was a wartime measure inspired by national self-preservation, neither aimed at Armenians generally (those outside sensitive war territory were left undisturbed) nor with the goal of death by relocation hardships and hazards. The Ottoman government issued unambiguous orders to protect and feed Armenians during their relocation ordeal, but were unable because of war emergencies on three fronts and war shortages affecting the entire population to insure their proper execution. The key decree provided:
"When those of Armenians resident in the aforementioned towns and villages who have to be moved are transferred to their places of settlement and are on the road, their comfort must be assured and their lives and property protected; after their arrival their food should be paid for out of Refugees' Appropriations until they are definitively settled in their new homes. Property and land should be distributed to them in accordance with their previous financial situation as well as current needs; and for those among them needing further help, the government should build houses, provide cultivators and artisans with seed, tools, and equipment."
"This order is entirely intended against the extension of the Armenian Revolutionary Committees; therefore do not execute it in such a manner that might cause the mutual massacre of Muslims and Armenians."
(Do you believe that anything comparable has been issued by Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to his troops in Kosovo?)
The Ottoman government prosecuted more than one thousand soldiers and civilians for disobedience. Further, approximately 200,000 Ottoman Armenians who were relocated to Syria lived without menace through the remainder of the war.
Relocation of populations suspected of disloyalty was a customary war measure both at the time of World War I and through at least World War II. Czarist Russia had employed it against Crimean Tatars and other ethnic Turks even in peacetime and without evidence of treasonous plotting. The United States relocated 120,000 citizens and resident aliens of Japanese ancestry during the Second World War despite the glaring absence of sabotage or anti-patriotic sentiments or designs. Indeed, the Congress of the United States acknowledged the injustice in the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which awarded the victims or their survivors $20,000 each.
In sum, the mass wartime relocation of Ottoman Armenians from the Eastern front was no pretext for genocide. That conclusion is fortified by the mountains of evidence showing that an alarming percentage of Armenians were treasonous and allied with the Triple Entente, especially Russia. Tens of thousands defected from the Ottoman army or evaded conscription to serve with Russia. Countless more remained in Eastern Anatolia to conduct sabotage behind Ottoman lines and to massacre Turks, including civilians. Their leaders openly called for revolt, and boasted at post-World War I peace conferences that Ottoman Armenians had fought shoulder-to-shoulder with the victorious powers. Exemplary was a proclamation issued by an Armenian representative in the Ottoman parliament for Van, Papazyan. He trumpeted: "The volunteer Armenian regiments in the Caucasus should prepare themselves for battle, serve as advance units for the Russian armies to help them capture the key positions in the districts where the Armenians live, and advance into Anatolia, joining the Armenian units already there."
The Big Five victors -Great Britain, France, the United States, Italy, and Japan acknowledged the enormous wartime service of Ottoman Armenians, and Armenia was recognized as a victor nation at the Paris Peace Conference and sister conclaves charring the post-war map. Armenians were rewarded for their treason against the Ottoman Empire in the short-lived Treaty of Sevres of 1920 (soon superceded by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne). It created an independent Armenian state carved from large swaths of Ottoman territory although they were a distinct population minority and had always been so throughout the centuries of Ottoman rule. The Treaty thus turned President Woodrow Wilson's self-determination gospel in his Fourteen Points on its head.
The Ottoman government thus had overwhelming evidence to suspect the loyalty of its Armenian population. And its relocation orders responded to a dire, not a contrived, war emergency. It was fighting on three fronts. The capital, Istanbul, was threatened by the Gallipoli campaign. Russia was occupying portions of Eastern Anatolia, encouraging Armenian defections, and aiding Armenian sabotage. In sum, the mass relocation of Armenians was clearly an imperative war measure; it did not pivot on imaginary dangers contrived by Ottoman rulers to exterminate Armenians.
The genocide allegation is further discredited by Great Britain's unavailing attempt to prove Ottoman officials of war crimes. It occupied Ottoman territory, including Istanbul, under the 1918 Mudros Armistice. Under section 230 of the Treaty of Sevres, Ottoman officials were subject to prosecution for war crimes like genocide. Great Britain had access to Ottoman archives, but found no evidence of Armenian genocide. Scores of Ottoman Turks were detained on Malta, nonetheless, under suspicion of complicity in Armenian massacres or worse. But all were released in 1922 for want of evidence. The British spent endless months searching hither and yon for evidence of international criminality- even enlisting the assistance of the United State yet came up with nothing that could withstand the test of truth. Rumor, hearsay, and polemics from anti-Turk sources was the most that could be assembled, none of which would be admissible in any fair-minded enterprise to discover facts and to assign legal responsibility.
None of this is to deny that approximately 600,000 Ottoman Armenians perished during World War I and its aftermath. But Muslims died in even greater numbers (approximately 2.5 million in Eastern Anatolia) from Armenian and Russian massacres and wartime privations as severe as that experienced by relocated Armenians. When Armenians held the opportunity, they massacred Turks without mercy, as in Van, Erzurum, and Adana. The war ignited a cycle of violence between both groups, one fighting for revolutionary objectives and the other to retain their homeland intact. Both were spurred to implacability by the gruesome experience that the loser could expect no clemency.
The horrifying scale of the violence and retaliatory violence, however, were acts of private individuals or official wrongdoers. The Ottoman government discouraged and punished the crimes within the limits of its shrinking capacity. Fighting for its life on three fronts, it devoted the lion's share of its resources and manpower to staving off death, not to local law enforcement.
The emptiness of the Armenian genocide case is further demonstrated by the resort of proponents to reliance on incontestable falsehoods or forged documents. The Talat Pasha fabrications are emblematic.
According to Armenians, he sent telegrams expounding an Ottoman policy to massacre its Armenian population that were discovered by British forces commanded by General Allenby when they captured Aleppo in 1918. Samples were published in Paris in 1920 by an Armenian author, Aram Andonian. They were also introduced at the Berlin trial of the assassin of Talat Pasha, and then accepted as authentic.
The British Foreign Office then conducted an official investigation that showed that the telegrams had not been discovered by the army but had been produced by an Armenian group based in Paris. A meticulous examination of the documents revealed glaring discrepancies with the customary form, script, and phraseology of Ottoman administrative decrees, and pronounced as bogus as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Donation of Constantine.
Ditto for a quote attributed to Adolph Hitler calculated to liken the Armenians in World War I to the Holocaust victims and to arouse anger towards the Republic of Turkey. Purportedly delivered on August 22, 1939, while the Nazi invasion of Poland impended, Hitler allegedly declared: "Thus for the time being I have sent to the East only my Death Head units, with the order to kill without mercy all men, women, and children of the Polish race or language. Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians."
Armenian genocide exponents point to the statement as evidence that it served as the model for Hitler's sister plan to exterminate Poles, Jews, and others. Twenty-two Members of Congress on or about April 24, 1984 in the Congressional Record enlisted Hitler's hideous reference to Armenian extermination as justification for supporting Armenian Martyrs' Day remembrances. As Princeton Professor Heath W. Lowry elaborates in a booklet, "The U.S. Congress and Adolph Hitler on the Armenians," it seems virtually certain that the statement was never made. The Nuremburg tribunal refused to accept it as evidence because of flimsy proof of authenticity.
The gospel for many Armenian genocide enthusiasts is Ambassador Henry Morgenthau's 1918 book, Ambassador's Morgenthau's Story. It brims with assertions that incriminate the Ottoman Turks in genocide. Professor Lowry, however, convincingly demonstrates in his monograph, "The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story," that his book is more propaganda, invention, exaggeration, and hyperbole than a reliable portrait of motivations and events.
According to some Armenian circles, celebrated founder of the Republic of Turkey, Atatürk, confessed "Ottoman state responsibility for the Armenian genocide." That attribution is flatly false, as proven in an extended essay, "A 'Statement' Wrongly Attributed to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk," by Türkkaya Ataöv.
Why would Armenian genocide theorists repeatedly uncurtain demonstrative falsehoods as evidence if the truth would prove their case? Does proof of the Holocaust rest on such imaginary inventiveness? A long array of individuals have been found guilty of participation in Hitler's genocide in courts of law hedged by rules to insure the reliability of verdicts. Adolph Eichmann's trial and conviction in an Israeli court and the Nuremburg trials before an international body of jurists are illustrative. Not a single Ottoman Turk, in contrast, has every been found guilty of Armenian genocide or its equivalent in a genuine court of law, although the victorious powers in World War I enjoyed both the incentive and opportunity to do so if incriminating evidence existed.
The United Nations Economic and Social Council Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities examined the truthfulness of an Armenian genocide charge leveled by Special Rapporteur, Mr. Benjamin Whitaker, in his submission, "Study of Genocide," during its thirty-eighth session at the U.N. Office in Geneva from August 5-30, 1985. The Sub-Commission after meticulous debate refused to endorse the indictment for lack of convincing evidence, as amplified by attendee and Professor Dr. Ataöv of Ankara University in his publication, "WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN GENEVA: The Truth About the 'Whitaker Report'."
B. If the evidence is so demonstratively faulty, what explains a widespread credence given to the Armenian genocide allegation in the United States?
As Napoleon once derisively observed, history is a fable mutually agreed upon. It is not Euclidean geometry. Some bias invariably is smuggled in by the most objective historians; others view history as a manipulable weapon either to fight an adversary, or to gain a political, economic, or sister material advantage, or to satisfy a psychological or emotional need.
History most resembles truth when competing versions of events do battle in the marketplace of ideas with equally talented contestants and before an impartial audience with no personal or vested interest in the outcome. That is why the adversarial system of justice in the United States is the hallmark of its legal system and a beacon to the world.
The Armenian genocide allegation for long decades was earmarked by an absence of both historical rigor and scrupulous regard for reliable evidence and truth. The Ottoman Empire generally received bad reviews in the West for centuries, in part because of its predominant Muslim creed and military conquests in Europe. It was a declared enemy of Britain, France, and Russia during World War I, and a de facto enemy of the United States. Thus, when the Armenian genocide allegation initially surfaced, the West was predisposed towards acceptance that would reinforce their stereotypical and pejorative view of Turks that had been inculcated for centuries. The reliability of obviously biased sources was generally ignored. Further, the Republic of Turkey created in 1923 was not anxious to defend its Ottoman predecessor which it had opposed for humiliating capitulations to World War I victors and its palsied government. Atatürk was seeking a new, secular, and democratic dispensation and distance from the Ottoman legacy.
Armenians in the United States were also more vocal, politically active and sophisticated, numerous, and wealthy than Turks. The Armenian lobby has skillfully and forcefully marketed the Armenian genocide allegation in the corridors of power, in the media, and in public school curricula. They had been relatively unchallenged until some opposing giants in the field of Turkish studies appeared on the scene to discredit and deflate the charge by fastidious research and a richer understanding of the circumstances of frightful Armenian World War I casualties. Professor of History at the University of Louisville, Justin McCarthy, and Princeton Professor Heath Lowry stand at the top of the list. Professor McCarthy's 1995 book, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922, is a landmark. Turkish Americans have also organized to present facts and views about the Armenian genocide allegation and other issues central to United States-Turkish relations. But the intellectual playing field remains sharply tilted in favor of the Armenians. Since public officials with no foreign policy responsibilities confront no electoral or other penalty for echoing the Armenian story, they generally acquiesce to gain or to solidify their standing among them.
The consequence has been not only bad and biased history unbecoming an evenhanded search for truth, but a gratuitous irritant in the relations between Turkey and the United States. The former was a steadfast ally throughout the Cold War, and Turkey remains a cornerstone of NATO and Middle East peace. It is also a strong barrier against religious fundamentalism, and an unflagging partner in fighting international terrorism and drug trafficking. Turkey is also geostrategically indispensable to exporting oil and gas from Central Asia to the West through pipelines without reliance on the Russian Federation, Iran, Afghanistan or other dicey economic partners.
Finally, endorsing the false Armenian genocide indictment may embolden Armenian terrorist organizations (for example, the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia) to kill and mutilate Turks, as they did a few decades ago in assassinating scores of Turkish diplomats and bombing buildings both in the United States and elsewhere. They have been relatively dormant in recent years, but to risk a resurgence from intoxication with a fortified Armenian genocide brew would be reckless.
III. Conclusion
The Armenian genocide accusation fails for want of proof. It attempts to paint the deaths and privations of World War I in prime colors, when the authentic article is chiaroscuro. Both Muslims and Armenians suffered horribly and neither displayed a morality superior to the other. Continuing to hurl the incendiary charge of genocide on the Turkish doorstep obstructs the quest for amity between Armenia and the Republic of Turkey and warmer relations between Armenians and Turks generally.
Isn't it time to let the genocide allegation fade away and to join hands in commemorating the losses of both communities during World War I and its aftermath?
Letter from Mr. E. Vartanian, an Armenian-American Volunteer in the Russian Service, to His Brother-in-law in Egypt; Dated 9th /22nd July,1915, and Published in the Armenian Journal "Houssaper," of Cairo.
" We have been here three days. Some of us are going to be sent to Erivan; the rest of us are starting in two days for Van.
The enthusiasm here is very great. There are already 20,000 volunteers at the front, and they are trying to increase the number to 30,000. Each district we occupy is placed under Armenian administration, and an Armenian post is running from Igdir to Van. The Russian Government is showing great goodwill towards the Armenians and doing everything in its power for the liberation of Turkish Armenia.
When we disembarked at Archangel the Government gave us every possible assistance. It even undertook the transport of our baggage, and gave us free passes, second class, to Petrograd.
At Petrograd we received an equally hearty welcome, and the Governor of the city presented each of us with a medal in token of his sympathy. The Armenian colony put us up in the best hotels, entertained us at the best restaurants, and could not make enough of us. This lasted for five days, and then we continued our journey, again at the Government's expense, to Tiflis.
Everywhere on the way the population received us with cheers and offerings of flowers. Just as we were leaving Archa gel, a young Russian lady came with flowers and offered one to eaeh of us. I also saw a quite poor man who was so moved by the speech in Russian that one of our comrades had made, that he came and put his tobacco into the pipe of a comrade standing next to me, and kept nothing for himself but a bare half-pipeful. A third, an old man, was so moved by the speech that he began to cry and nearly made off, but a little while after I saw him standing in front of the carriage window and, with a shaking hand, holding out a hard-boiled egg to our comrade the chemist Roupen Stepanian. Probably it was his one meal for the day.
And so at every step we found ourselves in the midst of affecting scenes. At Petrograd Railway Station the crowd was enormous. There was an Armenian lady there who offered each of us a rose. There were boys and young men who wept because they could not come with us. At Rostov a young Russian joined our ranks. He was caught more than once by his parents at the stations further down the line, but he always succeeded in escaping them and reioining us. We have christened him Stepan.
When we arrived at Tiflis, we marched singing to the offices of the Central Armenian Bureau, with our flag unfurled in front of us, and the people marched on either side of us in such a crowd that the trams were forced to stop running.
That is enough for to-day. My next letter shall be written from Armenia itself..
Please say nothing to my sister about this resolution that I have taken. I hope, of course, that she would know how to sacrifice her affection for her brother to her love for the nation and for liberty.. I should curse any of my relations who lament my resolution; they would have committed treason against the nation. There are five of us brothers; was it not imperative that at least one of us should devote himself to the cause of a national emancipation ? Let us keep up our courage, realise the urgency of the moment and do our duty. "
By Bruce Fein*
I. Both Armenians and Muslims in Eastern Anatolia under the Ottoman Empire experienced harrowing casualties and gripping privations during World War I.
Hundreds of thousands perished. Most were innocent. All deserve pity and respect. Their known and unknown graves testify to President John F. Kennedy's lament that "Life is unfair." An Armenian tombstone is worth a Muslim tombstone, and vice versa. No race, religious, or ethnic group stands above or below another in the cathedral of humanity. To paraphrase Shakespeare in "The Merchant of Venice," Hath not everyone eyes? hath not everyone hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer...If you prick anyone, does he not bleed? if you tickle him, does he not laugh? if you poison him, does he not die?
These sentiments must be emphasized before entering into the longstanding dispute over allegations of Armenian genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Turks during World War I and its aftermath. Genocide is a word bristling with passion and moral depravity. It typically evokes images of Jews dying like cattle in Nazi cyanide chambers in Auschwitz, Bergen-Belson, Dacau, and other extermination camps. It is customarily confined in national laws and international covenants to the mass killing or repression of a racial, religious, or ethnic group with the intent of partial or total extermination. Thus, to accuse Turks of Armenian genocide is grave business, and should thus be appraised with scrupulous care for historical accuracy. To do less would not only be unjust to the accused, but to vitiate the arresting meaning that genocide should enjoy in the tale of unspeakable human horrors.
It cannot be repeated enough that to discredit the Armenian genocide allegation is not to deny that Armenian deaths and suffering during the war should evoke tears in all but the stone-hearted. The same is true for the even greater number of contemporaneous Turkish deaths and privations. No effort should be spared to avoid transforming an impartial inquest into the genocide allegations to poisonous recriminations over whether Armenians or Turks as a group were more or less culpable or victimized. Healing and reconciliation is made of more magnanimous and compassionate stuff.
In sum, disprove Armenian genocide is not to belittle the atrocities and brutalities that World War I inflicted on the Armenian people of Eastern Anatolia.
I. Sympathy for All, Malice Towards None "War is hell," lamented steely Union General William Tecumseh Sherman during the American Civil War. The frightful carnage of World War I confirmed and fortified that vivid definition.
The deep pain that wrenches any group victimized by massacres and unforgiving privation in wartime, however, frequently distorts or imbalances recollections. That phenomenon found epigrammatic expression in United States Senator Hiram Johnson's World War I quip that truth is the first casualty of war. It is customary among nations at war to manipulate the reporting of events to blacken the enemy and to valorize their own and allied forces. In other words, World War I was no exception, about which more anon.
II. The Armenian Genocide Accusation
The Ottoman Turks are accused of planning and executing a scheme to exterminate its Armenian population in Eastern Anatolia beginning on or about April 24, 1915 by relocating them hundreds of miles to the Southwest and away from the Russian war front and massacring those who resisted. The mass relocation (often mischaracterized as "deportation") exposed the Armenians to mass killings by marauding Kurds and other Muslims and deaths from malnutrition, starvation, and disease. After World War I concluded, the Ottoman Turks are said to have continued their Armenian genocide during the Turkish War of Independence concluded in 1922.
The number of alleged Armenian casualties began at approximately 600,000, but soon inflated to 2 million. The entire pre-war Armenian population in Eastern Anatolia is best estimated at 1.3 to 1.5 million.
A. Was there an intent to exterminate Ottoman Armenians in whole or in part?
The evidence seems exceptionally thin. The Government's relocation decree was a wartime measure inspired by national self-preservation, neither aimed at Armenians generally (those outside sensitive war territory were left undisturbed) nor with the goal of death by relocation hardships and hazards. The Ottoman government issued unambiguous orders to protect and feed Armenians during their relocation ordeal, but were unable because of war emergencies on three fronts and war shortages affecting the entire population to insure their proper execution. The key decree provided:
"When those of Armenians resident in the aforementioned towns and villages who have to be moved are transferred to their places of settlement and are on the road, their comfort must be assured and their lives and property protected; after their arrival their food should be paid for out of Refugees' Appropriations until they are definitively settled in their new homes. Property and land should be distributed to them in accordance with their previous financial situation as well as current needs; and for those among them needing further help, the government should build houses, provide cultivators and artisans with seed, tools, and equipment."
"This order is entirely intended against the extension of the Armenian Revolutionary Committees; therefore do not execute it in such a manner that might cause the mutual massacre of Muslims and Armenians."
(Do you believe that anything comparable has been issued by Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to his troops in Kosovo?)
The Ottoman government prosecuted more than one thousand soldiers and civilians for disobedience. Further, approximately 200,000 Ottoman Armenians who were relocated to Syria lived without menace through the remainder of the war.
Relocation of populations suspected of disloyalty was a customary war measure both at the time of World War I and through at least World War II. Czarist Russia had employed it against Crimean Tatars and other ethnic Turks even in peacetime and without evidence of treasonous plotting. The United States relocated 120,000 citizens and resident aliens of Japanese ancestry during the Second World War despite the glaring absence of sabotage or anti-patriotic sentiments or designs. Indeed, the Congress of the United States acknowledged the injustice in the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which awarded the victims or their survivors $20,000 each.
In sum, the mass wartime relocation of Ottoman Armenians from the Eastern front was no pretext for genocide. That conclusion is fortified by the mountains of evidence showing that an alarming percentage of Armenians were treasonous and allied with the Triple Entente, especially Russia. Tens of thousands defected from the Ottoman army or evaded conscription to serve with Russia. Countless more remained in Eastern Anatolia to conduct sabotage behind Ottoman lines and to massacre Turks, including civilians. Their leaders openly called for revolt, and boasted at post-World War I peace conferences that Ottoman Armenians had fought shoulder-to-shoulder with the victorious powers. Exemplary was a proclamation issued by an Armenian representative in the Ottoman parliament for Van, Papazyan. He trumpeted: "The volunteer Armenian regiments in the Caucasus should prepare themselves for battle, serve as advance units for the Russian armies to help them capture the key positions in the districts where the Armenians live, and advance into Anatolia, joining the Armenian units already there."
The Big Five victors -Great Britain, France, the United States, Italy, and Japan acknowledged the enormous wartime service of Ottoman Armenians, and Armenia was recognized as a victor nation at the Paris Peace Conference and sister conclaves charring the post-war map. Armenians were rewarded for their treason against the Ottoman Empire in the short-lived Treaty of Sevres of 1920 (soon superceded by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne). It created an independent Armenian state carved from large swaths of Ottoman territory although they were a distinct population minority and had always been so throughout the centuries of Ottoman rule. The Treaty thus turned President Woodrow Wilson's self-determination gospel in his Fourteen Points on its head.
The Ottoman government thus had overwhelming evidence to suspect the loyalty of its Armenian population. And its relocation orders responded to a dire, not a contrived, war emergency. It was fighting on three fronts. The capital, Istanbul, was threatened by the Gallipoli campaign. Russia was occupying portions of Eastern Anatolia, encouraging Armenian defections, and aiding Armenian sabotage. In sum, the mass relocation of Armenians was clearly an imperative war measure; it did not pivot on imaginary dangers contrived by Ottoman rulers to exterminate Armenians.
The genocide allegation is further discredited by Great Britain's unavailing attempt to prove Ottoman officials of war crimes. It occupied Ottoman territory, including Istanbul, under the 1918 Mudros Armistice. Under section 230 of the Treaty of Sevres, Ottoman officials were subject to prosecution for war crimes like genocide. Great Britain had access to Ottoman archives, but found no evidence of Armenian genocide. Scores of Ottoman Turks were detained on Malta, nonetheless, under suspicion of complicity in Armenian massacres or worse. But all were released in 1922 for want of evidence. The British spent endless months searching hither and yon for evidence of international criminality- even enlisting the assistance of the United State yet came up with nothing that could withstand the test of truth. Rumor, hearsay, and polemics from anti-Turk sources was the most that could be assembled, none of which would be admissible in any fair-minded enterprise to discover facts and to assign legal responsibility.
None of this is to deny that approximately 600,000 Ottoman Armenians perished during World War I and its aftermath. But Muslims died in even greater numbers (approximately 2.5 million in Eastern Anatolia) from Armenian and Russian massacres and wartime privations as severe as that experienced by relocated Armenians. When Armenians held the opportunity, they massacred Turks without mercy, as in Van, Erzurum, and Adana. The war ignited a cycle of violence between both groups, one fighting for revolutionary objectives and the other to retain their homeland intact. Both were spurred to implacability by the gruesome experience that the loser could expect no clemency.
The horrifying scale of the violence and retaliatory violence, however, were acts of private individuals or official wrongdoers. The Ottoman government discouraged and punished the crimes within the limits of its shrinking capacity. Fighting for its life on three fronts, it devoted the lion's share of its resources and manpower to staving off death, not to local law enforcement.
The emptiness of the Armenian genocide case is further demonstrated by the resort of proponents to reliance on incontestable falsehoods or forged documents. The Talat Pasha fabrications are emblematic.
According to Armenians, he sent telegrams expounding an Ottoman policy to massacre its Armenian population that were discovered by British forces commanded by General Allenby when they captured Aleppo in 1918. Samples were published in Paris in 1920 by an Armenian author, Aram Andonian. They were also introduced at the Berlin trial of the assassin of Talat Pasha, and then accepted as authentic.
The British Foreign Office then conducted an official investigation that showed that the telegrams had not been discovered by the army but had been produced by an Armenian group based in Paris. A meticulous examination of the documents revealed glaring discrepancies with the customary form, script, and phraseology of Ottoman administrative decrees, and pronounced as bogus as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Donation of Constantine.
Ditto for a quote attributed to Adolph Hitler calculated to liken the Armenians in World War I to the Holocaust victims and to arouse anger towards the Republic of Turkey. Purportedly delivered on August 22, 1939, while the Nazi invasion of Poland impended, Hitler allegedly declared: "Thus for the time being I have sent to the East only my Death Head units, with the order to kill without mercy all men, women, and children of the Polish race or language. Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians."
Armenian genocide exponents point to the statement as evidence that it served as the model for Hitler's sister plan to exterminate Poles, Jews, and others. Twenty-two Members of Congress on or about April 24, 1984 in the Congressional Record enlisted Hitler's hideous reference to Armenian extermination as justification for supporting Armenian Martyrs' Day remembrances. As Princeton Professor Heath W. Lowry elaborates in a booklet, "The U.S. Congress and Adolph Hitler on the Armenians," it seems virtually certain that the statement was never made. The Nuremburg tribunal refused to accept it as evidence because of flimsy proof of authenticity.
The gospel for many Armenian genocide enthusiasts is Ambassador Henry Morgenthau's 1918 book, Ambassador's Morgenthau's Story. It brims with assertions that incriminate the Ottoman Turks in genocide. Professor Lowry, however, convincingly demonstrates in his monograph, "The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story," that his book is more propaganda, invention, exaggeration, and hyperbole than a reliable portrait of motivations and events.
According to some Armenian circles, celebrated founder of the Republic of Turkey, Atatürk, confessed "Ottoman state responsibility for the Armenian genocide." That attribution is flatly false, as proven in an extended essay, "A 'Statement' Wrongly Attributed to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk," by Türkkaya Ataöv.
Why would Armenian genocide theorists repeatedly uncurtain demonstrative falsehoods as evidence if the truth would prove their case? Does proof of the Holocaust rest on such imaginary inventiveness? A long array of individuals have been found guilty of participation in Hitler's genocide in courts of law hedged by rules to insure the reliability of verdicts. Adolph Eichmann's trial and conviction in an Israeli court and the Nuremburg trials before an international body of jurists are illustrative. Not a single Ottoman Turk, in contrast, has every been found guilty of Armenian genocide or its equivalent in a genuine court of law, although the victorious powers in World War I enjoyed both the incentive and opportunity to do so if incriminating evidence existed.
The United Nations Economic and Social Council Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities examined the truthfulness of an Armenian genocide charge leveled by Special Rapporteur, Mr. Benjamin Whitaker, in his submission, "Study of Genocide," during its thirty-eighth session at the U.N. Office in Geneva from August 5-30, 1985. The Sub-Commission after meticulous debate refused to endorse the indictment for lack of convincing evidence, as amplified by attendee and Professor Dr. Ataöv of Ankara University in his publication, "WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN GENEVA: The Truth About the 'Whitaker Report'."
B. If the evidence is so demonstratively faulty, what explains a widespread credence given to the Armenian genocide allegation in the United States?
As Napoleon once derisively observed, history is a fable mutually agreed upon. It is not Euclidean geometry. Some bias invariably is smuggled in by the most objective historians; others view history as a manipulable weapon either to fight an adversary, or to gain a political, economic, or sister material advantage, or to satisfy a psychological or emotional need.
History most resembles truth when competing versions of events do battle in the marketplace of ideas with equally talented contestants and before an impartial audience with no personal or vested interest in the outcome. That is why the adversarial system of justice in the United States is the hallmark of its legal system and a beacon to the world.
The Armenian genocide allegation for long decades was earmarked by an absence of both historical rigor and scrupulous regard for reliable evidence and truth. The Ottoman Empire generally received bad reviews in the West for centuries, in part because of its predominant Muslim creed and military conquests in Europe. It was a declared enemy of Britain, France, and Russia during World War I, and a de facto enemy of the United States. Thus, when the Armenian genocide allegation initially surfaced, the West was predisposed towards acceptance that would reinforce their stereotypical and pejorative view of Turks that had been inculcated for centuries. The reliability of obviously biased sources was generally ignored. Further, the Republic of Turkey created in 1923 was not anxious to defend its Ottoman predecessor which it had opposed for humiliating capitulations to World War I victors and its palsied government. Atatürk was seeking a new, secular, and democratic dispensation and distance from the Ottoman legacy.
Armenians in the United States were also more vocal, politically active and sophisticated, numerous, and wealthy than Turks. The Armenian lobby has skillfully and forcefully marketed the Armenian genocide allegation in the corridors of power, in the media, and in public school curricula. They had been relatively unchallenged until some opposing giants in the field of Turkish studies appeared on the scene to discredit and deflate the charge by fastidious research and a richer understanding of the circumstances of frightful Armenian World War I casualties. Professor of History at the University of Louisville, Justin McCarthy, and Princeton Professor Heath Lowry stand at the top of the list. Professor McCarthy's 1995 book, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922, is a landmark. Turkish Americans have also organized to present facts and views about the Armenian genocide allegation and other issues central to United States-Turkish relations. But the intellectual playing field remains sharply tilted in favor of the Armenians. Since public officials with no foreign policy responsibilities confront no electoral or other penalty for echoing the Armenian story, they generally acquiesce to gain or to solidify their standing among them.
The consequence has been not only bad and biased history unbecoming an evenhanded search for truth, but a gratuitous irritant in the relations between Turkey and the United States. The former was a steadfast ally throughout the Cold War, and Turkey remains a cornerstone of NATO and Middle East peace. It is also a strong barrier against religious fundamentalism, and an unflagging partner in fighting international terrorism and drug trafficking. Turkey is also geostrategically indispensable to exporting oil and gas from Central Asia to the West through pipelines without reliance on the Russian Federation, Iran, Afghanistan or other dicey economic partners.
Finally, endorsing the false Armenian genocide indictment may embolden Armenian terrorist organizations (for example, the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia) to kill and mutilate Turks, as they did a few decades ago in assassinating scores of Turkish diplomats and bombing buildings both in the United States and elsewhere. They have been relatively dormant in recent years, but to risk a resurgence from intoxication with a fortified Armenian genocide brew would be reckless.
III. Conclusion
The Armenian genocide accusation fails for want of proof. It attempts to paint the deaths and privations of World War I in prime colors, when the authentic article is chiaroscuro. Both Muslims and Armenians suffered horribly and neither displayed a morality superior to the other. Continuing to hurl the incendiary charge of genocide on the Turkish doorstep obstructs the quest for amity between Armenia and the Republic of Turkey and warmer relations between Armenians and Turks generally.
Isn't it time to let the genocide allegation fade away and to join hands in commemorating the losses of both communities during World War I and its aftermath?
Letter from Mr. E. Vartanian, an Armenian-American Volunteer in the Russian Service, to His Brother-in-law in Egypt; Dated 9th /22nd July,1915, and Published in the Armenian Journal "Houssaper," of Cairo.
" We have been here three days. Some of us are going to be sent to Erivan; the rest of us are starting in two days for Van.
The enthusiasm here is very great. There are already 20,000 volunteers at the front, and they are trying to increase the number to 30,000. Each district we occupy is placed under Armenian administration, and an Armenian post is running from Igdir to Van. The Russian Government is showing great goodwill towards the Armenians and doing everything in its power for the liberation of Turkish Armenia.
When we disembarked at Archangel the Government gave us every possible assistance. It even undertook the transport of our baggage, and gave us free passes, second class, to Petrograd.
At Petrograd we received an equally hearty welcome, and the Governor of the city presented each of us with a medal in token of his sympathy. The Armenian colony put us up in the best hotels, entertained us at the best restaurants, and could not make enough of us. This lasted for five days, and then we continued our journey, again at the Government's expense, to Tiflis.
Everywhere on the way the population received us with cheers and offerings of flowers. Just as we were leaving Archa gel, a young Russian lady came with flowers and offered one to eaeh of us. I also saw a quite poor man who was so moved by the speech in Russian that one of our comrades had made, that he came and put his tobacco into the pipe of a comrade standing next to me, and kept nothing for himself but a bare half-pipeful. A third, an old man, was so moved by the speech that he began to cry and nearly made off, but a little while after I saw him standing in front of the carriage window and, with a shaking hand, holding out a hard-boiled egg to our comrade the chemist Roupen Stepanian. Probably it was his one meal for the day.
And so at every step we found ourselves in the midst of affecting scenes. At Petrograd Railway Station the crowd was enormous. There was an Armenian lady there who offered each of us a rose. There were boys and young men who wept because they could not come with us. At Rostov a young Russian joined our ranks. He was caught more than once by his parents at the stations further down the line, but he always succeeded in escaping them and reioining us. We have christened him Stepan.
When we arrived at Tiflis, we marched singing to the offices of the Central Armenian Bureau, with our flag unfurled in front of us, and the people marched on either side of us in such a crowd that the trams were forced to stop running.
That is enough for to-day. My next letter shall be written from Armenia itself..
Please say nothing to my sister about this resolution that I have taken. I hope, of course, that she would know how to sacrifice her affection for her brother to her love for the nation and for liberty.. I should curse any of my relations who lament my resolution; they would have committed treason against the nation. There are five of us brothers; was it not imperative that at least one of us should devote himself to the cause of a national emancipation ? Let us keep up our courage, realise the urgency of the moment and do our duty. "
The Armenian Question Answered
At PoliGazette we like to offer readers a chance to actively participate in the debate. We do that by allowing you all to comment, but we also encourage you to send us guest posts, which we will then publish. If you’ve got something to say, and want to do so by writing an article for PoliGazette contact me at michaelATpoligazetteDOTcom. Today’s guest post is written by Turkish American reader Kemal. The title is “The Armenian Question Answered.”
THE ARMENIAN QUESTION ANSWERED
An Overview
WWI hostilities involving the Ottoman Empire ended with the Armistice of Mudros, signed Oct. 30, 1918. The Armistice guaranteed the Ottoman Empire all lands it possessed when the Armistice was signed. The Armistice also required the Ottoman military and citizens to disarm immediately. As Ottomans disarmed, in breach of the Armistice, British military forces pushed north and conquered Mosul and Kirkuk, lands the Ottomans possessed when the Armistice was signed. Why? Oil.
British forces also occupied Istanbul, the Ottoman capitol. Italian forces landed in the southwest and moved north. To ensure the Italians did not take more than their “fair share”, Greece invaded Turkey with Britain’s support, landing in Izmir on May 15, 1919 and began moving east. Meanwhile, France and the “French” Armenian Legion invaded southeast Anatolia to “liberate” it from its majority Ottoman Muslim citizens and committed countless massacres of the civilian population along the way.
The Entente Powers planned to divide Ottoman lands among themselves and push the millions of indigenous Muslim Ottoman citizens into a small piece of land in the middle of Anatolia. The Picot-Sykes agreement evidences that the Entente Powers planned as early as 1916 to occupy and divide Anatolia among themselves.
Turkish Nationalist forces were formed under former Ottoman military leaders, like Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Ismet Inonu, and Kazim Karabekir, in reaction to, and to counter, the invading foreign armies.
Anatolia was invaded and occupied after WWI with the intent to partition it as the spoils of war among the Entente Powers, Greece and Armenians. This is a very important piece of history in relation to Armenian genocide claims because the effort to arm Armenians and use them to obtain control over southeastern Anatolia started long before WWI, and was funded and supported by England, France, Russia and the U.S.
The Armenians lost that war. Now, they call it genocide in an effort to obtain through political pressure and “moral” opprobrium lands they could not obtain by force and in which they were never the majority.
A Step Back In Time
Even as it lost its former power and ability to expand, European countries and Russia saw the Ottoman Empire as a continuing threat and, of course, each country had its own expansionist aims. Rather than exercise physical dominion over other lands, European countries wanted to exercise “influence” over areas that would benefit their trade with the far east. The Ottomans were seen as a potential barrier should they ever become “unfriendly.” And, of course, xenophobia and prejudice played their respective roles.
The Ottoman Empire had always been a multi-ethnic and multi-religious regime. When Ottomans conquered lands during their expansionist phase through the 1600s, they left the indigenous people to continue on with their own culture, language, religion and left them answerable and subject to the rule of their own religious leaders in communal affairs. The Ottomans added a layer of “federal” rule on top of that. Rather than imposing the adoption of an “Ottoman Muslim” identity, they left the ethnic, social and cultural identities of people intact. In the end, this practice, which had allowed the Empire to flourish as the most tolerant multi-ethnic and multi-religious Empire of its time, became its Achilles heel of vulnerability.
The Demise of the Empire—First, Divide the People
Starting in the 1800s European powers, influenced by the French revolution, began to exploit ethnic identity in the Ottoman Empire to divide its people and bring down its rule.
This occurred first in the Balkans where Ottoman Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians and others began revolting against the Ottoman regime with the support of England, France and Russia. The Ottoman Empire lost almost all of its Balkan territories due to those ethnic and religious based nationalist movements.
Before the various Balkan nationalist movements began, millions of Ottoman Muslims lived in those lands. However, during those nationalist movements Ottoman Muslims were ethnically cleansed from the Balkans to form ethnically homogeneous nations unified by religion. Thus, Slavic people (Bulgarian, Romanian, Serb, Croat) and Greeks who had converted to Islam for whatever reason during the past 300 years were forced to flee or were massacred. One demographer’s research revealed that Anatolia absorbed over 7 million such refugees from 1820-1923. That is why the people of Turkey today are comprised of a broad mosaic of ethnicities and today the label “Turkish”, like the label “American”, refers to a nationality, not an ethnicity.
After the Ottomans lost the Balkans, the next ethnic group Europe and Russia chose to exploit for the same purpose were Ottoman Armenians. Europe and Russia began helping Ottoman Armenians to organize the same type of nationalist movement against the Ottoman regime in earnest in the 1890s. The Armenian movement came to a head during WWI. Having already relived the same experience in the Balkans, during WWI, the Ottoman regime sought to move Armenians away from the Russian front where Armenian revolutionaries were effectively impeding Ottoman military efforts to defend southeastern Ottoman territory from Russian invasion.
WWI and the Armenian Relocations
While the Ottoman regime could have engaged in all-out war against their Armenian population, they did not. They instead chose to relocate them to another part of the Empire. There were two reasons for this.
First, Armenian revolutionaries were fighting a guerrilla war and thus, hiding among the civilian population so that Ottoman military forces could not effectively distinguish between who was a militant and who was not because not all Ottoman Armenians had joined “the cause.” Second, Armenian revolutionaries were committing massacres among the civilian Ottoman Muslim and Jewish population, which caused those civilians to retaliate against Ottoman Armenians in their midst. Armenian revolutionaries were also killing Ottoman Armenians who refused to assist Armenian revolutionaries. Thus began a continuous cycle of “vigilante justice” in which it was mostly the innocent— Muslim, Jewish and Armenian— who suffered. The Ottoman regime also wanted to end this cycle of civilian massacres. The least restrictive national security measure available then was to relocate Ottoman Armenians in eastern Anatolia until WWI ended, which is what they did.
The conditions under which the relocations were undertaken were difficult. The Entente Powers had blockaded the Ottoman Empire and WWI had disrupted all agriculture. There were widespread famines throughout the Empire. Everyone, including Ottoman soldiers, was subject to starvation. There were also widespread epidemics of typhoid and other fatal diseases which caused death indiscriminately among Ottomans of every ethnicity and religion.
In addition, during the relocations, the Ottoman military was engaged on multiple fronts, defending its borders at Gallipoli, in the Holy Lands and the East. The WWI front effectively encircled the entire Empire. Thus, there were few military and security forces available to protect caravans of relocating Armenians from attacks by tribal Kurds, with whom Ottoman Armenians in southeast Anatolia had a troubled history. Security forces that did not defend or allowed such raids to occur were prosecuted by the Ottoman regime, but during WWI, the Ottoman regime’s ability to maintain law and order to protect its citizens, regardless of ethnicity or religion, was greatly diminished.
It is under these circumstances that Ottoman Armenians, Muslims and Jews in southeastern Anatolia died in large numbers. No one has yet provided an accurate count of all the Ottoman Muslim and Jewish dead due to mass migrations and massacres resulting from Russian invasions into southeastern Anatolia supported by Armenian militants during WWI. Nor has anyone counted the number of dead Ottoman Muslims and Jews due to starvation and raging epidemics. Nor is the number of Ottoman Armenian dead certain, as evidenced by the continually changing numbers put forth since WWI by the Armenian Diaspora without regard to cause of death. Initially, it was 600,000 dead, then 800,000, next 1 million, and now it ranges from 1.5 to 2 million.
So why then has the Armenian genocide questions raged for as long as it has? For a number of reasons.
Forged Documents
As noted above, Anatolia was occupied after WWI.
When the British took control of Istanbul, they were eager to discredit the Ottoman regime and support their efforts to justify division of Ottoman lands as spoils of war. The British thus offered rewards for evidence of war crimes against the Ottoman regime.
In response, a burgeoning trade in forged documents developed and a false history began to be written. The most notorious of these forgeries are the “Andonian” documents or “Talaat Pasha Telegrams.” Andonian, an Armenian, produced what he claimed were telegrams in which Talaat Pasha, one of the three military officers running the Ottoman Empire during WWI, ordered the extermination of the entire Ottoman Armenian population. Although they are proven forgeries, the Armenian Diaspora still relies on these documents and promotes them as proof of their claims.
False Quotes
There are also false quotes attributed to Hitler and Atatürk that Armenians insist are proof of a genocide during WWI. Although the Atatürk and Hitler quotes have been proven false, even by Armenian historians, the Armenian Diaspora continues to rely upon these quotes.
Silence
Silence from the Turks and the government of Turkey has also allowed genocide claims to flourish at will.
As Turkish nationalist forces expelled foreign armies from Anatolia, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk tasked members of the Turkish nationalist forces, including Halide Edip, with documenting atrocities foreign forces occupying Anatolia committed by interviewing survivors. In her memoirs, The Turkish Ordeal, Edip reveals that among the atrocities committed were incidents of massacres, intentional destruction of all agricultural efforts and infrastructure, and mass rape of local women by invading militias.
Edip notes in her book, that as she interviewed peasants to document atrocities, survivors told her they did not care to revisit the past, but wanted instead to tell their new leaders what they needed to rebuild their lives. They needed seed to plant, equipment to farm and to rebuild their homes before winter snows. They saw no benefit in her assigned task of revisiting and reliving recent horrors. They wanted to move forward and reclaim their lives, not live in the past and languish in misery.
Rebuilding the Future
There is another reason Turks did not want to remain buried in the past that no one discusses. Mass rapes have a predictable end result: children. Many of the women who suffered the unimaginable atrocity of mass rape later gave birth to children that they and their villages raised without revealing the truth about how they were conceived. To dwell on such atrocities would not remove the trauma or result in the conviction of the perpetrators. It would only stain and stigmatize the women and their children—victims victimized again. Just as there is silence today concerning the mass rapes and the children born of that heinous crime during the break up of the former Yugoslavia, the people of Anatolia chose to pursue their future, rather than vengeance for the past.
In light of the spurious genocide claims against Turkey which seem to be all the rage today, was that the right thing to do? Without a doubt, yes.
After the foreign occupying forces had their way with her, Anatolia was almost uniformly left in ruins. The Nationalists that formed the Republic of Turkey were left to build a country and society from scratch, which they did. Only 85 years later, the Republic of Turkey today is an applicant for EU membership, is participating in all sectors of the global economy and flourishing. In contrast, Armenia, which has chosen to pursue vengeance for a history of its own distortion, has not done as well. The innate desire of Anatolians to focus on the future and their resilience enabled them to successfully raise the modern, independent and free Republic of Turkey out of the ruins of a fallen empire.
It is clear that the citizens of the Republic of Turkey chose the most productive path for themselves and, most importantly, for the welfare of their children.
Self-Defense is not Genocide
As for genocide claims, the truth is slowly coming out. As Turks now turn their attention to the global political arena and their image abroad, people will learn and know that Turks will never concede that defending one’s land from foreign invasion is genocide.
If anyone is to blame or should apologize for what happened to Ottoman Armenians, it is England, France, Russia and the U.S. They encouraged, supported and armed Ottoman Armenian militants, and then abandoned them when it became clear Armenian militias could not defeat Turkish Nationalist forces who were defending their lands, and fighting for their lives, their independence and freedom from occupation.
REFERENCES
Ghazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, The Great Speech (Atatürk Research Center 2005).
Hratch Dasnabedian, History of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation: Dashnaktsutiun 1890-1924 (Grafiche Editoriali Ambrosiane/Milan 1990).
Halide Edib, The Turkish Ordeal: Being the Further Memoirs of Halide Edib (The Century Co. 1928).
Hovhannes Katchaznouni, Dashnagtzoutium Has Nothing to do Anymore: The Manifesto of Hovhannes Katchaznouni, First Prime Minister of the Independent Armenian Republic (Armenian Information Services 1955).
Kemal H. Karpat, Ottoman Population 1830-1914: Demographic and Social Characteristics (Univ. of Wisconsin Press 1985).
Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide (University of Utah Press 1995).
Heath W. Lowry, “The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians”, Political Communication and Persuasion, New York, III/2 (1985), pp. 111-140.
Andrew Mango, Atatürk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey (Overlook Press 1999).
Justin McCarthy, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922 (Darwin Press 1995).
Louise Nalbandian, The Armenian Revolutionary Movement (University of California Press 1963).
Garegin Pasdermadjian, Why Armenia Should be Free: Armenia’s Role in the Present War (Hairenik Publishing Co. 1918).
Stanford J. Shaw & Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Volume II: Reform, Revolution and Republic; The Rise of Modern Turkey 1808-1975 (Cambridge University Press 1977).
Salahi Ramsdam Sonyel, The Ottoman Armenians: Victims of Great Power Diplomacy (K. Rustem & Brother 1987).
James H. Tashjian, “On a ‘Statement’ Condemning the Armenian Genocide of 1915-18 Attributed in Error to Mustafa Kemal, Later ‘The Atatürk’”, Armenian Review, Vol. 35 (3), 1982, pp. 227-244.
http://poligazette.com/2008/04/07/the-armenian-question-answered/
THE ARMENIAN QUESTION ANSWERED
An Overview
WWI hostilities involving the Ottoman Empire ended with the Armistice of Mudros, signed Oct. 30, 1918. The Armistice guaranteed the Ottoman Empire all lands it possessed when the Armistice was signed. The Armistice also required the Ottoman military and citizens to disarm immediately. As Ottomans disarmed, in breach of the Armistice, British military forces pushed north and conquered Mosul and Kirkuk, lands the Ottomans possessed when the Armistice was signed. Why? Oil.
British forces also occupied Istanbul, the Ottoman capitol. Italian forces landed in the southwest and moved north. To ensure the Italians did not take more than their “fair share”, Greece invaded Turkey with Britain’s support, landing in Izmir on May 15, 1919 and began moving east. Meanwhile, France and the “French” Armenian Legion invaded southeast Anatolia to “liberate” it from its majority Ottoman Muslim citizens and committed countless massacres of the civilian population along the way.
The Entente Powers planned to divide Ottoman lands among themselves and push the millions of indigenous Muslim Ottoman citizens into a small piece of land in the middle of Anatolia. The Picot-Sykes agreement evidences that the Entente Powers planned as early as 1916 to occupy and divide Anatolia among themselves.
Turkish Nationalist forces were formed under former Ottoman military leaders, like Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Ismet Inonu, and Kazim Karabekir, in reaction to, and to counter, the invading foreign armies.
Anatolia was invaded and occupied after WWI with the intent to partition it as the spoils of war among the Entente Powers, Greece and Armenians. This is a very important piece of history in relation to Armenian genocide claims because the effort to arm Armenians and use them to obtain control over southeastern Anatolia started long before WWI, and was funded and supported by England, France, Russia and the U.S.
The Armenians lost that war. Now, they call it genocide in an effort to obtain through political pressure and “moral” opprobrium lands they could not obtain by force and in which they were never the majority.
A Step Back In Time
Even as it lost its former power and ability to expand, European countries and Russia saw the Ottoman Empire as a continuing threat and, of course, each country had its own expansionist aims. Rather than exercise physical dominion over other lands, European countries wanted to exercise “influence” over areas that would benefit their trade with the far east. The Ottomans were seen as a potential barrier should they ever become “unfriendly.” And, of course, xenophobia and prejudice played their respective roles.
The Ottoman Empire had always been a multi-ethnic and multi-religious regime. When Ottomans conquered lands during their expansionist phase through the 1600s, they left the indigenous people to continue on with their own culture, language, religion and left them answerable and subject to the rule of their own religious leaders in communal affairs. The Ottomans added a layer of “federal” rule on top of that. Rather than imposing the adoption of an “Ottoman Muslim” identity, they left the ethnic, social and cultural identities of people intact. In the end, this practice, which had allowed the Empire to flourish as the most tolerant multi-ethnic and multi-religious Empire of its time, became its Achilles heel of vulnerability.
The Demise of the Empire—First, Divide the People
Starting in the 1800s European powers, influenced by the French revolution, began to exploit ethnic identity in the Ottoman Empire to divide its people and bring down its rule.
This occurred first in the Balkans where Ottoman Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians and others began revolting against the Ottoman regime with the support of England, France and Russia. The Ottoman Empire lost almost all of its Balkan territories due to those ethnic and religious based nationalist movements.
Before the various Balkan nationalist movements began, millions of Ottoman Muslims lived in those lands. However, during those nationalist movements Ottoman Muslims were ethnically cleansed from the Balkans to form ethnically homogeneous nations unified by religion. Thus, Slavic people (Bulgarian, Romanian, Serb, Croat) and Greeks who had converted to Islam for whatever reason during the past 300 years were forced to flee or were massacred. One demographer’s research revealed that Anatolia absorbed over 7 million such refugees from 1820-1923. That is why the people of Turkey today are comprised of a broad mosaic of ethnicities and today the label “Turkish”, like the label “American”, refers to a nationality, not an ethnicity.
After the Ottomans lost the Balkans, the next ethnic group Europe and Russia chose to exploit for the same purpose were Ottoman Armenians. Europe and Russia began helping Ottoman Armenians to organize the same type of nationalist movement against the Ottoman regime in earnest in the 1890s. The Armenian movement came to a head during WWI. Having already relived the same experience in the Balkans, during WWI, the Ottoman regime sought to move Armenians away from the Russian front where Armenian revolutionaries were effectively impeding Ottoman military efforts to defend southeastern Ottoman territory from Russian invasion.
WWI and the Armenian Relocations
While the Ottoman regime could have engaged in all-out war against their Armenian population, they did not. They instead chose to relocate them to another part of the Empire. There were two reasons for this.
First, Armenian revolutionaries were fighting a guerrilla war and thus, hiding among the civilian population so that Ottoman military forces could not effectively distinguish between who was a militant and who was not because not all Ottoman Armenians had joined “the cause.” Second, Armenian revolutionaries were committing massacres among the civilian Ottoman Muslim and Jewish population, which caused those civilians to retaliate against Ottoman Armenians in their midst. Armenian revolutionaries were also killing Ottoman Armenians who refused to assist Armenian revolutionaries. Thus began a continuous cycle of “vigilante justice” in which it was mostly the innocent— Muslim, Jewish and Armenian— who suffered. The Ottoman regime also wanted to end this cycle of civilian massacres. The least restrictive national security measure available then was to relocate Ottoman Armenians in eastern Anatolia until WWI ended, which is what they did.
The conditions under which the relocations were undertaken were difficult. The Entente Powers had blockaded the Ottoman Empire and WWI had disrupted all agriculture. There were widespread famines throughout the Empire. Everyone, including Ottoman soldiers, was subject to starvation. There were also widespread epidemics of typhoid and other fatal diseases which caused death indiscriminately among Ottomans of every ethnicity and religion.
In addition, during the relocations, the Ottoman military was engaged on multiple fronts, defending its borders at Gallipoli, in the Holy Lands and the East. The WWI front effectively encircled the entire Empire. Thus, there were few military and security forces available to protect caravans of relocating Armenians from attacks by tribal Kurds, with whom Ottoman Armenians in southeast Anatolia had a troubled history. Security forces that did not defend or allowed such raids to occur were prosecuted by the Ottoman regime, but during WWI, the Ottoman regime’s ability to maintain law and order to protect its citizens, regardless of ethnicity or religion, was greatly diminished.
It is under these circumstances that Ottoman Armenians, Muslims and Jews in southeastern Anatolia died in large numbers. No one has yet provided an accurate count of all the Ottoman Muslim and Jewish dead due to mass migrations and massacres resulting from Russian invasions into southeastern Anatolia supported by Armenian militants during WWI. Nor has anyone counted the number of dead Ottoman Muslims and Jews due to starvation and raging epidemics. Nor is the number of Ottoman Armenian dead certain, as evidenced by the continually changing numbers put forth since WWI by the Armenian Diaspora without regard to cause of death. Initially, it was 600,000 dead, then 800,000, next 1 million, and now it ranges from 1.5 to 2 million.
So why then has the Armenian genocide questions raged for as long as it has? For a number of reasons.
Forged Documents
As noted above, Anatolia was occupied after WWI.
When the British took control of Istanbul, they were eager to discredit the Ottoman regime and support their efforts to justify division of Ottoman lands as spoils of war. The British thus offered rewards for evidence of war crimes against the Ottoman regime.
In response, a burgeoning trade in forged documents developed and a false history began to be written. The most notorious of these forgeries are the “Andonian” documents or “Talaat Pasha Telegrams.” Andonian, an Armenian, produced what he claimed were telegrams in which Talaat Pasha, one of the three military officers running the Ottoman Empire during WWI, ordered the extermination of the entire Ottoman Armenian population. Although they are proven forgeries, the Armenian Diaspora still relies on these documents and promotes them as proof of their claims.
False Quotes
There are also false quotes attributed to Hitler and Atatürk that Armenians insist are proof of a genocide during WWI. Although the Atatürk and Hitler quotes have been proven false, even by Armenian historians, the Armenian Diaspora continues to rely upon these quotes.
Silence
Silence from the Turks and the government of Turkey has also allowed genocide claims to flourish at will.
As Turkish nationalist forces expelled foreign armies from Anatolia, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk tasked members of the Turkish nationalist forces, including Halide Edip, with documenting atrocities foreign forces occupying Anatolia committed by interviewing survivors. In her memoirs, The Turkish Ordeal, Edip reveals that among the atrocities committed were incidents of massacres, intentional destruction of all agricultural efforts and infrastructure, and mass rape of local women by invading militias.
Edip notes in her book, that as she interviewed peasants to document atrocities, survivors told her they did not care to revisit the past, but wanted instead to tell their new leaders what they needed to rebuild their lives. They needed seed to plant, equipment to farm and to rebuild their homes before winter snows. They saw no benefit in her assigned task of revisiting and reliving recent horrors. They wanted to move forward and reclaim their lives, not live in the past and languish in misery.
Rebuilding the Future
There is another reason Turks did not want to remain buried in the past that no one discusses. Mass rapes have a predictable end result: children. Many of the women who suffered the unimaginable atrocity of mass rape later gave birth to children that they and their villages raised without revealing the truth about how they were conceived. To dwell on such atrocities would not remove the trauma or result in the conviction of the perpetrators. It would only stain and stigmatize the women and their children—victims victimized again. Just as there is silence today concerning the mass rapes and the children born of that heinous crime during the break up of the former Yugoslavia, the people of Anatolia chose to pursue their future, rather than vengeance for the past.
In light of the spurious genocide claims against Turkey which seem to be all the rage today, was that the right thing to do? Without a doubt, yes.
After the foreign occupying forces had their way with her, Anatolia was almost uniformly left in ruins. The Nationalists that formed the Republic of Turkey were left to build a country and society from scratch, which they did. Only 85 years later, the Republic of Turkey today is an applicant for EU membership, is participating in all sectors of the global economy and flourishing. In contrast, Armenia, which has chosen to pursue vengeance for a history of its own distortion, has not done as well. The innate desire of Anatolians to focus on the future and their resilience enabled them to successfully raise the modern, independent and free Republic of Turkey out of the ruins of a fallen empire.
It is clear that the citizens of the Republic of Turkey chose the most productive path for themselves and, most importantly, for the welfare of their children.
Self-Defense is not Genocide
As for genocide claims, the truth is slowly coming out. As Turks now turn their attention to the global political arena and their image abroad, people will learn and know that Turks will never concede that defending one’s land from foreign invasion is genocide.
If anyone is to blame or should apologize for what happened to Ottoman Armenians, it is England, France, Russia and the U.S. They encouraged, supported and armed Ottoman Armenian militants, and then abandoned them when it became clear Armenian militias could not defeat Turkish Nationalist forces who were defending their lands, and fighting for their lives, their independence and freedom from occupation.
REFERENCES
Ghazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, The Great Speech (Atatürk Research Center 2005).
Hratch Dasnabedian, History of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation: Dashnaktsutiun 1890-1924 (Grafiche Editoriali Ambrosiane/Milan 1990).
Halide Edib, The Turkish Ordeal: Being the Further Memoirs of Halide Edib (The Century Co. 1928).
Hovhannes Katchaznouni, Dashnagtzoutium Has Nothing to do Anymore: The Manifesto of Hovhannes Katchaznouni, First Prime Minister of the Independent Armenian Republic (Armenian Information Services 1955).
Kemal H. Karpat, Ottoman Population 1830-1914: Demographic and Social Characteristics (Univ. of Wisconsin Press 1985).
Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide (University of Utah Press 1995).
Heath W. Lowry, “The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians”, Political Communication and Persuasion, New York, III/2 (1985), pp. 111-140.
Andrew Mango, Atatürk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey (Overlook Press 1999).
Justin McCarthy, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922 (Darwin Press 1995).
Louise Nalbandian, The Armenian Revolutionary Movement (University of California Press 1963).
Garegin Pasdermadjian, Why Armenia Should be Free: Armenia’s Role in the Present War (Hairenik Publishing Co. 1918).
Stanford J. Shaw & Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Volume II: Reform, Revolution and Republic; The Rise of Modern Turkey 1808-1975 (Cambridge University Press 1977).
Salahi Ramsdam Sonyel, The Ottoman Armenians: Victims of Great Power Diplomacy (K. Rustem & Brother 1987).
James H. Tashjian, “On a ‘Statement’ Condemning the Armenian Genocide of 1915-18 Attributed in Error to Mustafa Kemal, Later ‘The Atatürk’”, Armenian Review, Vol. 35 (3), 1982, pp. 227-244.
http://poligazette.com/2008/04/07/the-armenian-question-answered/
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-turkey2apr02,0,1996113.story
April 2, 2008
Leaders of an umbrella group for Turkish-American groups stopped by The Times recently to discuss the debate over the Armenian genocide, Turkey's membership in the European Union and quashing Kurdish separatism in northern Iraq. Below are highlights from that meeting.
Armenian genocide
Tim Cavanaugh: The L.A. Times is on record as supporting the term genocide to describe whatever it is that happened in the early part of the 20th century. We'd be interested in hearing your views on that.
Nurten Ural, president, Assembly of Turkish American Associations: Sure. Well, as far as the events of 1915, of course we do not like to call it a genocide because it was not a genocide. We do agree that many Armenians died at that time; we feel very bad about that, but many if not more Turks and Muslims died at the time. It was a time of war, and in war, people die. But we really think Turkey's position on this is — Turkey has opened its archives, and they say, let's get all the historians, open up all the archives, let them dive into the archives, research what really happened, and everybody will accept whatever happened.
What we don't like is having the politicians make history or set history when they're not that knowledgeable about history. If the historian part doesn't work, let's take it to court — have the international court get historians or whatever to see what happened in those days. As Turkish Americans, we're very strong on this, that, you know, as far as the fact, let's find out what the real facts are instead of what we want them to be or what others want them to be …
Cavanaugh: What kind of discussions do you have with Armenian groups, Armenian-American groups in particular?
Ural: Well, we try to have discussions … We invite them always to debates; in fact, some of my best friends are Armenians. Secretly, they come to us; openly, publicly, they refuse to come to us … To us, we have the same culture as the Armenians: We have the same music, we have the same foods — we should get along … We need to get this out into the open, we need to get past it, we need to go on.
The thing that personally … upsets me about this whole thing is teaching children hatred. In this time in the world, we don't need that. We need to teach them peace and to get along with each other.
Cavanaugh: They can come in and make their own case … but just as a question: What you hear from Armenian groups is, you know, when you say debate, the response to that is, "Well, we don't ask Jewish groups to come in and debate German groups about whether the Holocaust happened. And why should we be subject to that … sort of self justification?"
Ural: It has been proven that the Holocaust happened; it has not been proven that the genocide has happened …
Ahmet Atahan, president , Association of Turkish Americans of Southern California: If you're talking in the streets [to] an Anatolian-born Armenian or American-born Armenian, their views reflect, I think, a little bit different than the political side of the whole issue. So when you say Armenians, yes, we do talk with Armenians. Yes, we do work with them, we live with them, we entertain ourselves with them. But when it comes to the political angle, some sectors [are] driving the whole issue. It's different than the common Armenian that's really thinking in a different wavelength …
Cavanaugh: We had the Armenian prime minister in a few months back, and he suggested … we're talking about Armenian Americans, right? Because … the prime minister's discussed the idea that this is something that gets people exercised more in the diaspora than it does in Armenia itself …
Allison Block, advocacy director, ATAA: There's no question about that. In fact, there are more [Armenians] living outside of Armenia than in Armenia proper. In fact, Armenia proper is suffering incredibly because of this. As you are aware, the border between Turkey and Armenia is closed right now. It was closed for obviously a different issue, but such political tension has caused Turkey to keep the border shut … Should this issue be brought to Congress and decided upon in Congress, that indeed the United States recognizes this is genocide, I think you'll find that the border will stay shut and Armenia itself as a country will suffer even more. Turkish businesspeople and Armenian businesspeople are already trying to find ways to cooperate because … there is no question that this is a diaspora issue …
Cavanaugh: How does this impact you guys as Turkish Americans? These are international issues that are for other people to settle, so where do you come into this?
Ural: Personally, my niece came from school crying — well, my brother had to go get her from school — when an eight-year-old girl tells my niece, "Your grandfather killed by grandfather," and my niece has no idea what they're talking about … That is what we don't like to see, when our children [are] attacked in school for no reason whatsoever, for a reason that they're not even aware of … That should not be encourage by parents; that should not be taught by parents …
Cavanaugh: Is this formed to some degree by the fact that the United States at the time was among the few patrons the Armenians had? … Is that something that sort of structurally works against you guys, that there is this long history of sympathy?
Block: I wouldn't necessarily say that's a factor.
Atahan: There's a couple details there … Don't label the whole thing 1915 events, because when you look at history, you have to look at … a much wider time period to see the real reasons and kind of why things happened … because there are events after 1915 that Armenians don't talk about that [are] actually against them …
You cannot just look at a narrow timeframe. When you look at … the end of the 18th century, you'll also see that there are a lot of religious missions and activities. So when you look at the American point of view, there [are] some religious-influenced events that show sympathy …
Ural: Also, events such as the Armenians taking and being allies with the Russians fighting against the Turks. Like I said, it's a time of war; that's why many of them died, just as well as Turks did. There's a lot of complications … It's not just a thing saying, you know, Turks killed Armenians and it's a genocide.
Atahan: Forget old times, come to today. When you look at Iraq today, there are a number of deaths, a number of people dislocated and everything. When you look at it, so does that mean, a few years down the road people can easily say, "Americans caused the big loss in Iraq, so that was a genocide"? Or, you look at it in a more logical way … and you look at the reasons and say … "This is a war time, this is what happened …" But if you put the emotions on the table, and don't look at the realistic end of it, of course the picture's going to be totally different …
Cavanaugh: Why would [Armenian Americans] push the issue?
Ural: Land. Money.
Atahan: Not just land … but also, if you're able to get an 18-year-old kid today have certain feelings because he's an Armenian. So you lose that hatred as a tool to keep an identity, you use it for other purposes, and you need to keep on going for financial gain [and] for other purposes. But is that the reality? Who knows — that's a different issue. With Turks, it was overcome. We had losses; bury it, get over it …
I had my relatives die. My grandparents and family, the whole village vanished. But I don't feel hatred for anybody because of it. It was a war time, it happened, period. My life is different …
From the Los Angeles Times
PRIMARY SOURCE
Genocide, diplomacy and terrorism
A partial transcript the Assembly of Turkish American Associations’ meeting with The Times editorial board.
April 2, 2008
Leaders of an umbrella group for Turkish-American groups stopped by The Times recently to discuss the debate over the Armenian genocide, Turkey's membership in the European Union and quashing Kurdish separatism in northern Iraq. Below are highlights from that meeting.
Armenian genocide
Tim Cavanaugh: The L.A. Times is on record as supporting the term genocide to describe whatever it is that happened in the early part of the 20th century. We'd be interested in hearing your views on that.
Nurten Ural, president, Assembly of Turkish American Associations: Sure. Well, as far as the events of 1915, of course we do not like to call it a genocide because it was not a genocide. We do agree that many Armenians died at that time; we feel very bad about that, but many if not more Turks and Muslims died at the time. It was a time of war, and in war, people die. But we really think Turkey's position on this is — Turkey has opened its archives, and they say, let's get all the historians, open up all the archives, let them dive into the archives, research what really happened, and everybody will accept whatever happened.
What we don't like is having the politicians make history or set history when they're not that knowledgeable about history. If the historian part doesn't work, let's take it to court — have the international court get historians or whatever to see what happened in those days. As Turkish Americans, we're very strong on this, that, you know, as far as the fact, let's find out what the real facts are instead of what we want them to be or what others want them to be …
Cavanaugh: What kind of discussions do you have with Armenian groups, Armenian-American groups in particular?
Ural: Well, we try to have discussions … We invite them always to debates; in fact, some of my best friends are Armenians. Secretly, they come to us; openly, publicly, they refuse to come to us … To us, we have the same culture as the Armenians: We have the same music, we have the same foods — we should get along … We need to get this out into the open, we need to get past it, we need to go on.
The thing that personally … upsets me about this whole thing is teaching children hatred. In this time in the world, we don't need that. We need to teach them peace and to get along with each other.
Cavanaugh: They can come in and make their own case … but just as a question: What you hear from Armenian groups is, you know, when you say debate, the response to that is, "Well, we don't ask Jewish groups to come in and debate German groups about whether the Holocaust happened. And why should we be subject to that … sort of self justification?"
Ural: It has been proven that the Holocaust happened; it has not been proven that the genocide has happened …
Ahmet Atahan, president , Association of Turkish Americans of Southern California: If you're talking in the streets [to] an Anatolian-born Armenian or American-born Armenian, their views reflect, I think, a little bit different than the political side of the whole issue. So when you say Armenians, yes, we do talk with Armenians. Yes, we do work with them, we live with them, we entertain ourselves with them. But when it comes to the political angle, some sectors [are] driving the whole issue. It's different than the common Armenian that's really thinking in a different wavelength …
Cavanaugh: We had the Armenian prime minister in a few months back, and he suggested … we're talking about Armenian Americans, right? Because … the prime minister's discussed the idea that this is something that gets people exercised more in the diaspora than it does in Armenia itself …
Allison Block, advocacy director, ATAA: There's no question about that. In fact, there are more [Armenians] living outside of Armenia than in Armenia proper. In fact, Armenia proper is suffering incredibly because of this. As you are aware, the border between Turkey and Armenia is closed right now. It was closed for obviously a different issue, but such political tension has caused Turkey to keep the border shut … Should this issue be brought to Congress and decided upon in Congress, that indeed the United States recognizes this is genocide, I think you'll find that the border will stay shut and Armenia itself as a country will suffer even more. Turkish businesspeople and Armenian businesspeople are already trying to find ways to cooperate because … there is no question that this is a diaspora issue …
Cavanaugh: How does this impact you guys as Turkish Americans? These are international issues that are for other people to settle, so where do you come into this?
Ural: Personally, my niece came from school crying — well, my brother had to go get her from school — when an eight-year-old girl tells my niece, "Your grandfather killed by grandfather," and my niece has no idea what they're talking about … That is what we don't like to see, when our children [are] attacked in school for no reason whatsoever, for a reason that they're not even aware of … That should not be encourage by parents; that should not be taught by parents …
Cavanaugh: Is this formed to some degree by the fact that the United States at the time was among the few patrons the Armenians had? … Is that something that sort of structurally works against you guys, that there is this long history of sympathy?
Block: I wouldn't necessarily say that's a factor.
Atahan: There's a couple details there … Don't label the whole thing 1915 events, because when you look at history, you have to look at … a much wider time period to see the real reasons and kind of why things happened … because there are events after 1915 that Armenians don't talk about that [are] actually against them …
You cannot just look at a narrow timeframe. When you look at … the end of the 18th century, you'll also see that there are a lot of religious missions and activities. So when you look at the American point of view, there [are] some religious-influenced events that show sympathy …
Ural: Also, events such as the Armenians taking and being allies with the Russians fighting against the Turks. Like I said, it's a time of war; that's why many of them died, just as well as Turks did. There's a lot of complications … It's not just a thing saying, you know, Turks killed Armenians and it's a genocide.
Atahan: Forget old times, come to today. When you look at Iraq today, there are a number of deaths, a number of people dislocated and everything. When you look at it, so does that mean, a few years down the road people can easily say, "Americans caused the big loss in Iraq, so that was a genocide"? Or, you look at it in a more logical way … and you look at the reasons and say … "This is a war time, this is what happened …" But if you put the emotions on the table, and don't look at the realistic end of it, of course the picture's going to be totally different …
Cavanaugh: Why would [Armenian Americans] push the issue?
Ural: Land. Money.
Atahan: Not just land … but also, if you're able to get an 18-year-old kid today have certain feelings because he's an Armenian. So you lose that hatred as a tool to keep an identity, you use it for other purposes, and you need to keep on going for financial gain [and] for other purposes. But is that the reality? Who knows — that's a different issue. With Turks, it was overcome. We had losses; bury it, get over it …
I had my relatives die. My grandparents and family, the whole village vanished. But I don't feel hatred for anybody because of it. It was a war time, it happened, period. My life is different …
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
