Armenian Genocide Allegation

2010-07-11T10:39:00.000-05:00

Halacoglu Is Responding to Taner Akcam

TARAF 29th of May,2008
[Click for Turkish]

Yusuf Halacoglu Responding

Dikran M. KHALIGIAN from Armenian National Committee indicated in a documentary filmed in 2003 that the archives of Dashnak Sutyun were being prepared to be opened and that Dashnak Sutyun was in the process of presenting the archives to 3rd parties. He also indicated that the access to the archives was limited up until that time and permits were required to have access to them. He explained the reason for this limited access by indicating that the documents were very old and valuable and that some precautions had to be taken to preserve them before they were public use.

‘I am sending this response in relation to the accusations and claims directed against me as well as the questions asked in the article printed in Taraf newspaper on 25.05.2008 under the name of ‘Forget about the Armenian Archives, look at your own Ottoman Archives’. I would like the response to be printed with the same page and font formats if possible.’

I have been receiving positive feedback from different regions about my offer of giving USD 20 million to Armenians in return for access to their archives. This offer was published in Hürriyet newspaper on 20th of May, 2008 as a headline news. If we are to investigate events of 1915 on a proper basis, then Dashnak and Armenia archives as well as other Armenian archives in Jerusalem should be opened and investigated. Third party archives are as important as these aforementioned archives with regards to this matter though. Up until now we have seen pressure only on Ottoman Archives to be opened but not on any other archives. Then why has noone spoken of also opening Armenian archives as they represent the other side of the story? In a historical investigation, anyone very well knows that all related documents should be checked and analyzed in order to investigate objectively all sides of the story. At this stage, Ms. Hür questions what use Dashnak archives are to me. Whatever you are hoping to find from Ottoman archives yourself is applicable to the same extent to Dashnak archives, I am hopeful that I can reach very valuable information in these archives and Dashnak papers and documents in Russian archives presently support my position. Meanwhile, Ms. Hür is talking about the inappropriateness of my offer. I had difficulty in understanding why my offer was inappropriate. Why is offering financial support for the classification of these archives inappropriate? I think she has her own reasons for not supporting the idea of opening of these archives. I do not know about that, however if we are to contact with our Armenian colleagues and other Armenians on the subject matter, it is vital for all archives to be opened without hesitation to the service of all researchers from all around the world. Anyone should be able to confront history without fear. On the other hand, despite the disclaimer of Diaspora indicating that the archives in Boston are open to everyone, many people and foremost Ara Sarafyan indicate that the archives are open only for limited use by specific people.

Also in a documentary filmed by TRT in 2003, consulted by Prof. Dr. Kemal Çiçek from our institution, Dikran M. KHALIGIAN himself from Armenian National Committee indicated that the archives of Dashnak Sutyun were being prepared to be opened and that Dashnak Sutyun was in the process of presenting the archives to 3rd parties. He also indicated that the access to the archives was limited up until that time and permits were required to have access to them. He explained the reason for this limited access by indicating that the documents were very old and valuable and that some precautions had to be taken to preserve them before they were public use. So he gave the signal of the archives to be opened in a very short period of time. In the same documentary Mr. KHALIGIAN also indicated that there was need of a considerable amount of financial support for the classification of the archives. As you can see from this, noone other than Armenians or a few people supporting their thesis could make any research on the archives. You can not conclude that the archives are open by just the investigation and analysis of five researchers on the archives. Also in order for us to talk about archives being open for public use, it means that all papers and documents of the archives should be open. However it was announced that only four volumes of these archives were open. Let alone these volumes not having been presented to the whole science world, we do not know whether they include selective documentation. Despite all this, Ms. Hür supports Taner Akçam passionately by claiming that Ottoman Archives are closed or selectively presented and meanwhile she can not help but admit that she also benefited from Ottoman archives.

The claim of the Ottoman archives being sorted out and selectively presented creates a funny and ridiculous position today. If so, why did not the British claim such a thing during occupation of İstanbul, especially in a time when they were desperately after finding evidence to trial Malta deportees? Can these claims be just second guesses or predictions? We should not rule out other reasons if we consider that the newspapers back then had got financial support from various countries. Also Ottoman correspondence language and bureaucracy should be very well known in order to be able to understand whether Ottoman archives were sorted out . To know these things very well requires a considerable amount of time being devoted for investigation of Ottoman archives. People devoting such time to investigate Ottoman archives very well know that letters sent from central administration had been sent to many places and even if the ones kept by the central administration had been destroyed, this case is not applicable to the ones kept by local authorities. As a matter of fact, Prof. Dr. Selim Deringil indicated in a dialogue with Mr. Safa Kaplan which was printed in Hürriyet newspaper on 25th of April, 2005 that the Ottoman archives could not have been possibly sorted out. Same thing was indicated by Prof. Dr. Şükrü Hanioğlu. It is also quite a show of prejudice to indicate that it is almost impossible to investigate ATASE Archive. I suggest she makes a formal application to request such investigation.

Ms. Hür is claiming that even after the Ottoman archives were sorted out(!), what is left in the archives are alone enough proof for the so called genocide by basing her claims on Taner Akçam’s book called ‘Armenian Issue is Resolved’. However when the documents used in the book are compared with the originals of those documents, it will be clearly seen that the claims of Mr. Akçam are baseless. The two examples that I will be giving are perfect proof of how these documents had been distorted. The first example is related to a telegraph registered under DH. ŞFR. # 55/290 and where Mr. Akçam took the name of his book from. Mr. Akçam is trying to condition the reader that all Armenians had been killed by selectively referring to a sentence in the telegraph. The sentence in the telegraph is as follows: ‘The Armenian issue in the eastern provinces has been resolved’ (p. 182). However Mr. Akçam is just taking some part of the sentence and he is stating that ‘Armenian issue is resolved’. The reason why he is cherry picking some part of the sentence is because he is trying to prove that all Armenians in the country at the time had been attacked and had been victims of a genocide. Also he did not make any reference to other parts of the telegraph in his book where indeed the real striking sentences were included and he did not mention in his book why this telegraph had been written in the first place. When we investigate the telegraph with the dignity of a scholar, we see that some Armenians around Ankara were raped by some officers in charge of the relocation, gendarme or by public and rapers were also committing theft to satisfy their lower selves. The telegraph continues to indicate the sorrow the Ottoman Ministry was feeling because of these incidents. This means that let alone murdering or massacring Armenians, Ottoman authorities were very upset because of these incidents and orders were issued indicating that necessary precautions should be taken to prevent these types of incidents in the future. As a matter of fact, 146 people who were said to get involved in these incidents were instigated to military court.

The second example is the reference made to the key telegraph dated 29th of June, 1331 (12th of July, 1915 according to gregorian calender) which was sent by Talat Pasha to the province of Diyarbakır (DH., ŞFR. Nr.54/406). The specific reference was made to the 185th page of the telegraph, where the issue in relation to Diyarbakır and Dr. Reşid was mentioned. Mr. Akçam here again fails to include the most important parts of the telegraph. He interpretes some sentences on the aforementioned page of the telegraph as some Armenians in the province as well as some other Christians from differing sects were being murdered lately and that some people sent from Diyarbakır butchered a total of 700 Christians, Armenians and other including reverends, in the city of Mardin by taking them out of the city. However he fails to include the said sentences in full in his book where he leaves certain parts out which results in misinterpretation of the meanings of the sentences. I included the full version of these sentences in my book called ‘Facts on the Relocation of Armenians’ ( I also included a copy of the telegraph in question at the end of my book). Mr. Akçam, when making reference to the said sentences in Ottoman Turkish on page 185 of the telegraph, fails to include two words (‘ez-cümle ahiren’ / ‘according to this sentence afterwards’) that are indeed on the original sentence, thereby changing the meaning of the sentences totally. He interprets that people sent from Diyarbakır were sent to butcher Armenians and other Christians, however when you continue to read the rest of the sentences you see that the people sent from Diyarbakır were sent to investigate the alleged murders of Armenians and other Christians in the province. Mr. Akçam also misspells the word ‘marhasa’ which means Armenian reverend in Ottoman Turkish by writing it as ‘murahhas’ which means officer or member in Ottoman Turkish. He does this with the intention of trying to get some government officers involved in the matter indeed when the matter did not have anything to do with government officers. In summary, people sent from Diyarbakır were sent to investigate the allegations by consulting Armenian reverends, Armenian public and other Christians in the city. A thorough critique of the book is being prepared by our institution.

Dikran M. KHALIGIAN from Armenian National Committee indicated in a documentary filmed in 2003 that the archives of Dashnak Sutyun were being prepared to be opened and that Dashnak Sutyun was in the process of presenting the archives to 3rd parties. He also indicated that the access to the archives was limited up until that time and permits were required to have access to them. He explained the reason for this limited access by indicating that the documents were very old and valuable and that some precautions had to be taken to preserve them before they were public use.

‘I am sending this response in relation to the accusations and claims directed against me as well as the questions asked in the article printed in Taraf newspaper on 25.05.2008 under the name of ‘Forget about the Armenian Archives, look at your own Ottoman Archives’. I would like the response to be printed with the same page and font formats if possible.’

I have been receiving positive feedback from different regions about my offer of giving USD 20 million to Armenians in return for access to their archives. This offer was published in Hürriyet newspaper on 20th of May, 2008 as a headline news. If we are to investigate events of 1915 on a proper basis, then Dashnak and Armenia archives as well as other Armenian archives in Jerusalem should be opened and investigated. Third party archives are as important as these aforementioned archives with regards to this matter though. Up until now we have seen pressure only on Ottoman Archives to be opened but not on any other archives. Then why has noone spoken of also opening Armenian archives as they represent the other side of the story? In a historical investigation, anyone very well knows that all related documents should be checked and analyzed in order to investigate objectively all sides of the story. At this stage, Ms. Hür questions what use Dashnak archives are to me. Whatever you are hoping to find from Ottoman archives yourself is applicable to the same extent to Dashnak archives, I am hopeful that I can reach very valuable information in these archives and Dashnak papers and documents in Russian archives presently support my position. Meanwhile, Ms. Hür is talking about the inappropriateness of my offer. I had difficulty in understanding why my offer was inappropriate. Why is offering financial support for the classification of these archives inappropriate? I think she has her own reasons for not supporting the idea of opening of these archives. I do not know about that, however if we are to contact with our Armenian colleagues and other Armenians on the subject matter, it is vital for all archives to be opened without hesitation to the service of all researchers from all around the world. Anyone should be able to confront history without fear. On the other hand, despite the disclaimer of Diaspora indicating that the archives in Boston are open to everyone, many people and foremost Ara Sarafyan indicate that the archives are open only for limited use by specific people.

Also in a documentary filmed by TRT in 2003, consulted by Prof. Dr. Kemal Çiçek from our institution, Dikran M. KHALIGIAN himself from Armenian National Committee indicated that the archives of Dashnak Sutyun were being prepared to be opened and that Dashnak Sutyun was in the process of presenting the archives to 3rd parties. He also indicated that the access to the archives was limited up until that time and permits were required to have access to them. He explained the reason for this limited access by indicating that the documents were very old and valuable and that some precautions had to be taken to preserve them before they were public use. So he gave the signal of the archives to be opened in a very short period of time. In the same documentary Mr. KHALIGIAN also indicated that there was need of a considerable amount of financial support for the classification of the archives. As you can see from this, noone other than Armenians or a few people supporting their thesis could make any research on the archives. You can not conclude that the archives are open by just the investigation and analysis of five researchers on the archives. Also in order for us to talk about archives being open for public use, it means that all papers and documents of the archives should be open. However it was announced that only four volumes of these archives were open. Let alone these volumes not having been presented to the whole science world, we do not know whether they include selective documentation. Despite all this, Ms. Hür supports Taner Akçam passionately by claiming that Ottoman Archives are closed or selectively presented and meanwhile she can not help but admit that she also benefited from Ottoman archives.

The claim of the Ottoman archives being sorted out and selectively presented creates a funny and ridiculous position today. If so, why did not the British claim such a thing during occupation of İstanbul, especially in a time when they were desperately after finding evidence to trial Malta deportees? Can these claims be just second guesses or predictions? We should not rule out other reasons if we consider that the newspapers back then had got financial support from various countries. Also Ottoman correspondence language and bureaucracy should be very well known in order to be able to understand whether Ottoman archives were sorted out . To know these things very well requires a considerable amount of time being devoted for investigation of Ottoman archives. People devoting such time to investigate Ottoman archives very well know that letters sent from central administration had been sent to many places and even if the ones kept by the central administration had been destroyed, this case is not applicable to the ones kept by local authorities. As a matter of fact, Prof. Dr. Selim Deringil indicated in a dialogue with Mr. Safa Kaplan which was printed in Hürriyet newspaper on 25th of April, 2005 that the Ottoman archives could not have been possibly sorted out. Same thing was indicated by Prof. Dr. Şükrü Hanioğlu. It is also quite a show of prejudice to indicate that it is almost impossible to investigate ATASE Archive. I suggest she makes a formal application to request such investigation.

Ms. Hür is claiming that even after the Ottoman archives were sorted out(!), what is left in the archives are alone enough proof for the so called genocide by basing her claims on Taner Akçam’s book called ‘Armenian Issue is Resolved’. However when the documents used in the book are compared with the originals of those documents, it will be clearly seen that the claims of Mr. Akçam are baseless. The two examples that I will be giving are perfect proof of how these documents had been distorted. The first example is related to a telegraph registered under DH. ŞFR. # 55/290 and where Mr. Akçam took the name of his book from. Mr. Akçam is trying to condition the reader that all Armenians had been killed by selectively referring to a sentence in the telegraph. The sentence in the telegraph is as follows: ‘The Armenian issue in the eastern provinces has been resolved’ (p. 182). However Mr. Akçam is just taking some part of the sentence and he is stating that ‘Armenian issue is resolved’. The reason why he is cherry picking some part of the sentence is because he is trying to prove that all Armenians in the country at the time had been attacked and had been victims of a genocide. Also he did not make any reference to other parts of the telegraph in his book where indeed the real striking sentences were included and he did not mention in his book why this telegraph had been written in the first place. When we investigate the telegraph with the dignity of a scholar, we see that some Armenians around Ankara were raped by some officers in charge of the relocation, gendarme or by public and rapers were also committing theft to satisfy their lower selves. The telegraph continues to indicate the sorrow the Ottoman Ministry was feeling because of these incidents. This means that let alone murdering or massacring Armenians, Ottoman authorities were very upset because of these incidents and orders were issued indicating that necessary precautions should be taken to prevent these types of incidents in the future. As a matter of fact, 146 people who were said to get involved in these incidents were instigated to martial court.

The second example is the reference made to the key telegraph dated 29th of June, 1331 (12th of July, 1915 according to gregorian calender) which was sent by Talat Pasha to the province of Diyarbakır (DH., ŞFR. Nr.54/406). The specific reference was made to the 185th page of the telegraph, where the issue in relation to Diyarbakır and Dr. Reşid was mentioned. Mr. Akçam here again fails to include the most important parts of the telegraph. He interpretes some sentences on the aforementioned page of the telegraph as some Armenians in the province as well as some other Christians from differing sects were being murdered lately and that some people sent from Diyarbakır butchered a total of 700 Christians, Armenians and other including reverends, in the city of Mardin by taking them out of the city. However he fails to include the said sentences in full in his book where he leaves certain parts out which results in misinterpretation of the meanings of the sentences. I included the full version of these sentences in my book called ‘Facts on the Relocation of Armenians’ ( I also included a copy of the telegraph in question at the end of my book). Mr. Akçam, when making reference to the said sentences in Ottoman Turkish on page 185 of the telegraph, fails to include two words (‘ez-cümle ahiren’ / ‘according to this sentence afterwards’) that are indeed on the original sentence, thereby changing the meaning of the sentences totally. He interprets that people sent from Diyarbakır were sent to butcher Armenians and other Christians, however when you continue to read the rest of the sentences you see that the people sent from Diyarbakır were sent to investigate the alleged murders of Armenians and other Christians in the province. Mr. Akçam also misspells the word ‘marhasa’ which means Armenian reverend in Ottoman Turkish by writing it as ‘murahhas’ which means officer or member in Ottoman Turkish. He does this with the intention of trying to get some government officers involved in the matter indeed when the matter did not have anything to do with government officers. In summary, people sent from Diyarbakır were sent to investigate the allegations by consulting Armenian reverends, Armenian public and other Christians in the city. A thorough critique of the book is being prepared by our institution.

Meanwhile, Andonian papers that were qouted as highly reliable evidences, were proven to be fake by the book called ‘The Real Story Behind the Telegraphs that were Attributed to Talat Pasha by Armenians’ written by Şinasi Orel and Süreyya Yüce (Ermenilerce Talat Paşa’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların Gerçek Yüzü – Ankara 1976). Andonian family immigrated to USA in 1923. You can find their ‘immigration document’ in Appendix 1. You can also find two examples of the telegraphs that are supposed to have been written by Talat Pasha in Appendix 2. However it can easily be understood with even simple eyes that these telegraphs have nothing to do with Ottoman telegraphs, that they are full of errors and that they had been written post events.

I would also like to comment on some of the criticisms of Taner Akçam in relation to some of the issues that were included in my book called ‘Facts on the Relocation of Armenians’. First of all, I published a book to respond to questions and criticims of Taner Akçam. If Ms. Hür reads my book called ‘From Exile to Genocide: A Turk examines the Armenian claims against his country’ (Babıali Kültür Publishing, İstanbul, 5th edition, February 2008, 1st edition by February 2006), she will see clearly that all points and questions of Taner Akçam were answered by related documents. As a matter of fact, it was included in the book that the villains attacking the Armenian convoys being transferred to Syria in 1915, killing people, seizuring their possessions and / or kidnapping women from the convoys were sent to martial court for trial by the order given by Talat Pasha’s himself. 67 of the judged were sentenced to death, 68 were punished by forced labor and / or confined to fortresses and 524 were sentenced to imprisonment for periods between 2 to 5 years with the rulings of the martial court given on 19th of Feb, 12th of March and 22nd of May, 1916. The death sentences were executed and the information and documents related to these were already included in the book. The book also includes a list of how many people from which cities were instigated to courts. To confirm all these, a page of the ruling of the martial court is included in Appendix 3. In this document, it is seen that let alone for killing Armenians, criminals had been sentenced to death for even seizuring Armenians’ possessions. I believe these documents are perfect answers to ‘Akçam is questioning, Halaçoğlu is remaining silent’. Indeed, we gave all necessary answers long before but I guess they did not have the time to read my book for that. The books includes information as to the sources sent from Eskişehir in relation to the ‘Abandoned Property Commissions’ of ‘200,000 kuruş’ and ‘600,000 kuruş’. It should be assessed cautiously why these people who considered the application of these abandoned property commissions not as a government in war trying to preserve the lives of its citizens at all costs but as the government taking possession of Armenian goods and property, were at the same totally ignoring the ‘68 million kuruş’ approved and sent from government budget to Ministry of Internal Affairs for the proper relocation and settlement of Armenians and ’13,467,400 kuruş’ which was sent to Ministry of Health for the same reasons. The cash sent to provinces during the same period totalled ‘3,166,900’. ‘800,000 kuruş’ out of this was from abandoned property commissions. Whom was this amount sent for? This question is answered by the report sent by the then Aleppo consul of US, J.B. Jackson on 8th of Feb, 1916 to Ambassador Henry Morgenthau stating that 500,000 Armenian immigrants had arrived at Aleppo and 486,000 out of this were provided ncecssary care and aid (a photocopy of the report is included in the book). Jackson also included the cities and villages where the immigrant Armenians had been located in his report. The book also includes documents and their numbers which pertain to permits given by Talat Pasha to foreign charities in relation to the aids to be provided to Armenians in need. They also ignore the fact that Ottoman government allocated daily wages to Armenian migrants of ‘3 kuruş’ for the adults and ’60 para’ for the children, just for the sake of trying to prove a so-called genocide. We see that this allocation was also mentioned in the letter sent to Ambassador Morgenthau by Dr. W. M. Post working in an American hospital in Konya, as ‘1 kuruş’ to adults and ’20 para’ to children.

Meanwhile people who are making such claims, first and foremost Ms. Hür, should be well aware of the meaning of the word ‘genocide’. They should be well aware that seizure of Armenian possessions or exiling Armenians do not constitute a genocide. They should be well aware that by claiming that Ottoman archives had been sorted out or cherry picked, they can not prove a genocide. And of course they should also be well aware that the mere fact of some Armenians losing their lives do not constitute a genocide. Can the documents in the ‘League of Nations’ archives in Geneva proving that 1,200,000 Armenians were living after WW1 (the ones living under different identities are excluded) or the letter sent by Boghos Nubar Pasha, the chairman of Armenian National Delegation, to French Minister of External Affairs stating that they fought alongside with Entente Powers and that they lost many Ottoman Armenian soldiers fighting in French, English and Russian armies be ignored? How are the riots and uprisings of Armenians back then that were also mentioned in French and Russian archives going to be explained? And unfortunately it should also be assessed carefully why these ‘informal’ historians are not responding positively to the request of us, we the ‘formal’ historians, whereby we request to be able to openly discuss the issues with all historians whether Turkish or not or we request to be able to make researches together. But most importantly, they need to be able to answer our questions as listed below:

1. Had Armenians rioted before and after WW1?
2. Had Armenians cooperated with western powers military and administrative wise?
3. Had they fought against Ottomans in Russian, English and French armies?
4. Do you know the activities of Nazarbekov and Andranik in 1914 & 1915?
5. How many Muslim civilians had been massacred by Armenian comittees until the period of ‘Relocation’ which is up to the date of 27th of May, 1915?
6. Who surrendered Van to Russians and who burnt down and destroyed the city?
7. How many Armenians had survived WW1?
8. How many Armenian riots and uprisings had taken place between November 1914 and May 1915 when Ottoman empire had been fighting in 4 different battles?
9. Which countries had provided arms to Armenian Committees?
10. Do you know anything about the Armenians who had sacrificed their lives for France?
11. What are the reasons for Ottoman administration and people to feel hatred and hositility against Armenians?

(29th of May,2008)

2010-07-11T10:29:00.002-05:00

IS UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA AWARE OF MATHEMATICS?

There is a comparative table published in the history section of University of Minnesota’s web portal in relation to the so called Armenian Genocide about the population of Ottoman Armenians between 1914 & 1922. This table compares Ottoman Armenians living in Ottoman Empire in 1914 and in 1922. The first conclusion a person can arrive at by looking at this table, assuming that he or she uses this table as a reference point, is that Ottoman Armenians around 1.750.000 had been kiled between the years of 1914 & 1922.

The first question that comes to mind is whether this table was prepared by an academical institution or not and if so how many official or unofficial annexes referring to those years were used in the preparation of the table since there are no references given for the table. However the prime question indeed is why 1922 is mentioned and not 1919

To answer this question I need to share with you some of the official documents from US, British, Armenian and League of Nations archives. First of all let’s look at the population of Ottoman Armenians in North Syria in year 1916, the place that forms the basis of the ‘genocide’ claims where
supposedly Ottoman Armenians had been killed after exiled to.

The number of Ottoman Armenians present in year 1916 in North Syria after the exile had been quoted as 486,000 in the official letter sent to American Ambassador of Istanbul, Henry Morgenthau by American Consul of Aleppo.
The letter also mentions that this number had been verified by the Armenian Patriarch Vahran Tahmizian. This number of 486.000 is qouted only for the Ottoman Armenians exiled to North Syria and the letter continues to mention about the aid and care provided by the American charities to the Armenians in the region
Click to Link for Document
(US Archives State Department Record Group 59, from 867.48/271, Ara Sarafyan, United States Official Documents on the Armenian Genocide, Vol II, s. 112-113).

The prime official document proving the number of Ottoman Armenians living in the Empire after WW1 is another one from US archives though. This official American document qoutes the number of Ottoman Armenians living in the Empire after WW1 as 624,000 which is also confirmed by Armenian Patriarch Vartan Amirhanian

(US. Archives Nara, T1192 R2. 860J.01/395).
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4

Please keep the numbers in mind (624.000). By the way, Ottoman Armenians started to emigrate to Caucasus with the inception of WW1 in 1914. Although Ottoman Empire decided to relocate Armenians in above mentioned locations, Batumi Ambassador of Britain P. Stevens indicated that many Armenians were not even subject to obligatory relocation and were taken away by Russians to Caucasus in the report he sent to London on 25th Feb, 1916.
[Halaçoğlu, Armenians: Exile and Migration,p.84-85]

This is also confirmed in the report of British Lord Major Found which he wrote about 1915. 250.000 Armenians moved to Caucasus Armenia from Anatolia fighting against illnesses and war conditions.
[U.K.FO 96/205]

250.000 figure was confirmed in the report sent by Armenian National Delegation Chairman Boghos Nubar to Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France in addition to the figure of 40.000 Ottoman Armenians being in Iran.

Archives des Afferes Etrangeres de France,
Serie Levant, Armenie, Vol. 2, folio 47-1918

According to an offical American document published in 1919, the number of Ottoman Armenians migrated to Caucasus had reached to 300,000.
[The Republic Of Armenia--A Memorandum , On The Recognition Of The Government Of The Republic Of Armenia, Submitted By The Special Mission Of The Republic Of Armenia To The United States-- Presented By Mr. Lodge,November 10,1919, Washington,Government Printing Office 1919]

The number of Ottoman Armenians migrated to South Russia is qouted as 70,000 within the same document.

The number of Ottoman Armenians migrated to Armenian of Caucasus had been indicated precisely as 400,000 by the Refugees High Commissioner Fridjof Nansen of League of Nations
(8th meeting of League of Nations 19th October, 1928).

November 1919 issue of National Geographic mentions of a 20,000 Ottoman Armenians residing in Tbilisi (Georgia).

Now let’s add all these number together.

624,000 in Ottoman Empire (American National Archives)
400,000 in Armenia of Caucasus (Fridjof Nansen-League of Nations)
70,000 in South Russia (Mr. Lodge Washington Government Printing Office)

40,000 in Iran (BoghosNubar-Archives des Afferes Etrangeres de France)

20,000 in Georgia (National Geographic 1919 Nov. Issue)
1,154,000 TOTAL

Without even questioning or examining the validity of the references of University of Minnesota, qouting the population of Ottoman Armenians as 2,133,190 in 1914, we conclude that 1,154,000 Ottoman Armenians were alive in 1921.

Anyone with a sane mind asks the same questions at this stage:

How come 1,500,000 Armenians had been killed in the so called genocide?
Does the University of Minnesota know mathematics?

I have two suggestions for the University of Minnesota:

1.They either prove the documents shown in this paper to be fake to avoid the powerless or weak position that many academical institutions have to go through because of their need for donations from different loby groups or,

2.They start taking calculus courses.

The mathematical conclusion we arrive at is that ‘History’ is not a discipline that can be used as a political exploitation tool as people see fit.

For more, click the link below:

http://www.turkishforum.com.tr/en/content/2010/07/11/armenian-genocide-ballyhoo/

House Speaker pledges to fight on for Genocide recognition

2010-04-22T17:55:00.001-05:00

House Speaker pledges to fight on for Genocide recognition

by Emil Sanamyan

Published: Wednesday April 21, 2010

Speaker Pelosi speaking at April 21 congressional commemoration. The Armenian Reporter

Washington – “Tonight we are all Armenians!” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared as she began her address at the annual congressional commemoration of the Armenian Genocide on April 21.

“We are tired of the story being told [about why Congress should not adopt an Armenian Genocide resolution] but we are not tired of fighting for the truth,” Pelosi insisted as she spoke in front of some 200 people, mostly Armenian Americans.

Speaker noted the importance of last month’s House Foreign Affairs Committee vote on the Armenian Genocide resolution that “insisted on the truth” and expressed hope that the vote was “of some comfort” to Armenian Americans.

Pelosi added that she and other supporters of affirmation would not rest until the federal government clearly recognizes the Armenian Genocide, but she made no commitments about bringing the House resolution to vote, a move that is opposed by the Obama Administration.

She also referred to last year’s court decision in California that used the U.S. government position as justification to deny Armenian Americans an opportunity to collect on WWI-era insurance policies of their ancestors.

The event organized by co-chairs of the Armenian caucus Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), included House Majority leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Howard Berman (D-Calif.) and more than a dozen other members of Congress, including two members of Armenian descents Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Jackie Speier (D-Calif.)

The event also featured remarks by Armenia’s Ambassador to U.S. Tatoul Markarian, Artsakh’s Representative Robert Avetisyan, and invocations by the Armenian Church clergy, including Archbishop Oshagan Choloyan who offered an opening prayer for the House of Representatives earlier in the day.

What Happened On April 24, 1915?

2008-09-27T07:32:00.000-05:00

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

So-called Armenian Genocide

2008-04-09T07:02:00.001-05:00

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. "

The Armenian Question Answered

2008-04-09T06:51:00.001-05:00

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/

2008-04-02T16:05:00.000-05:00

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-turkey2apr02,0,1996113.story

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 …

Open letter to honorable represantatives for H. Res. 106

2007-10-02T21:53:00.004-05:00

Dear Honorable Representatives,

I am writing in strong objection to H.Res. 106, a callously one-sided effort, spearheaded by some members of Congress with large Armenian communities in their district, to rewrite Turkish history and defame people of Turkish heritage as perpetrators of genocide and genocide deniers. H.Res. 106 reflects no more than the “buying power” of the Armenian lobby in the United States. It forces the sale of American principles of fairness and justice, for it is not the purview of the legislature to be fact finder and judge on what is in essence a criminal charge by the Armenian lobby. It forces the sale of American foreign policy which consistently supports greater research and dialogue on what it defines as a historical and legal controversy. It foresees the sale of American interests abroad by alienating a staunch ally who deserves nothing less than fairness and justice. It purchases a resolution replete with anti-Turkish and anti-Muslim hatred that reflect ultra-nationalist Armenian orthodoxies. H.Res. 106 damages the definition of the high crime of genocide. As Princeton University history professor, Bernard Lewis stated on April 14, 2002, at the National Press Club on C-Span 2: “[T]hat the massacre of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was the same as what happened to Jews in Nazi Germany is a downright falsehood. What happened to the Armenians was the result of a massive Armenian armed rebellion against the Turks, which began even before war broke out, and continued on a larger scale. But to make this a parallel with the holocaust in Germany you would have to assume the Jews of Germany had been engaged in an armed rebellion against the German state, collaborating with the allies against Germany. That in the deportation order the cities of Hamburg and Berlin were exempted, persons in the employment of the state were exempted, and the deportation only applied to the Jews of Germany proper, so that when they got to Poland they were welcomed and sheltered by the Polish Jews. This seems to me a rather absurd parallel.” The authors of H.Res. 106 claim that the charge of genocide fits the bill. But they ignore experts and scholars who disagree with the Armenian allegation of genocide. They conveniently ignore the war crimes of Armenian militias and Armenians fighting with the Russian Army against the Muslim and Jewish populations of the Ottoman Empire. In H.Res. 106, they have dangerously over billed America in their corrupted version of history and perverse understanding of the crime of genocide.

Fred Barensine

POCKET GUIDE

2007-07-12T06:04:00.000-05:00

Sources of information on alleged Armenian claims of Genocide Against The Turks.
In order to reach truth and to unwind racist bias, read below works and commentaries, including those by neutral scholars and directors,

Find out what Armenian Premier Senin Ovanes Kacaznuni said in 1923 Dashnak Party Conference in Bucharest-Romania, about Armenian treachery. Available from iletisim@kaynakyayinlari.com ISBN 975-343-438-3 or from TPK enquiries@tpk.org.uk
You may peruse http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/, by author Holdwater & http://www.eraren.org/bilgibankasi/en/index.htm The “Armenian Research” FoundationRead on internet www.tallarmeniantale.com/c-f-dixon-BOOK.htm, written by a British officer in 1916 – the portrayal of Anatolian Armenian character

Examine Guenter Lewy's "The Armenian Massacres in Turkey, A Disputed Genocide" ISBN-13:978-0-87480-849-0 available on Amazon.com (Jewish author from USA) Salahi Sonyel's "The Turco-Armenian Imbroglio" ISBN-0-9504886-6-6, available at Cyprus Turkish Association 0207 437 4940 kibristc@btconnect.com (Cypriot Turk author) films to watch are: "The Armenian Revolt 1894-1920" documentary DVD by Third Coast Films, P.O. Box 664, Clarion, PA 16214, USA, info@thirdcoastfilms.com (by an American Director) This is a MUST !! &"Sari Gelin' documentary DVD through http://www.sarigelinbelgeseli.com/ info@sarigelinbelgeseli.com (maybe available on eBay) (by a Turkish Director)have a look at http://www.armenians-1915.blogspot.com/ by Turkish Armenians (including free downloadable books and automatic translation of site text into several languages), Read Prof. Turkkaya Ataov's WHAT HAPPENED TO OTTOMAN ARMENIANS?
ISBN 1=4243=1004-0 (obtainable from ssaya@superonline.com), (Turkish author)"MYTH OF TERROR' by late Erich Feigl (1986) Zeitgeschichte/Bucherdienst Austria (Austrian Author) which contains the signatures of 63 foreign Academics refuting the Armenian claims

http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/terrorism-breakdown.htm
for Armenian terrorism against Turks.. why Armenians are not talking about their terrorists? an interesting read (in 3 languages) of memoirs of a Russian Officer on Armenians at http://www.tsk.mil.tr/ermeni_sorunu/kitap.htm (click on the book for downloading) or access it and others at http://www.tsk.mil.tr/eng/ermeni_sorunu_salonu/armenianissues_index.htm (from Turkish Military archives reputed to be richest on this issue)There are also several powerful books on this subject by the American author Justin McCarthy http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/Armenia/mccarthy.html

The TURKS ARE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO FACE THE ARMENIANS AT A PUBLIC INQUIRY FOR THE SAKE OF TRUTH. WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF?
The Turkish Government wants an independent International historical commission to thoroughly research the background but the Armenians are refusing to participate!. Do ask them why..! If truth scares them, then let it be.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Comments by neutral Scholars and Outcomes of Trials

The Middle East Journal 61.2 (Spring 2007): p348(2).

The Armenian Rebellion at Van, by Justin McCarthy, Esat Arslan, Cemalettin Takiran, and Omer Turan. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 2006. vii + 266 pages. 11 Maps. Notes. Appends. to p. 285. Bibl. to p. 291. Index to p. 296. $25.

Reviewed by Edward J. Erickson

This timely book follows and complements recent work by Donald Bloxham [The Great Game of Genocide, reviewed in The Middle East Journal (MEJ), Vol. 60, No. 1 (Winter 2006)] and Guenter Lewy [The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, reviewed in MEJ, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Spring 2006)]. Both Bloxham and Lewy contend that there was an actual Armenian rebellion in 1915, which was encouraged and aided by the Allies, and aimed at the establishment of an Armenian state. Moreover, Bloxham asserts that ill-timed active collaboration with the Allies by Armenian nationalist leaders led their people into a disastrous confrontation with the Ottomans. The Armenian Rebellion at Van supports these contentions by showcasing them with a fascinating case study of the well-known uprising in Van, the eastern Anatolian city and province, in the spring of 1915.

The authors begin with three chapters detailing the geographic, economic, and demographic setting of Van province, with attention to the origins and politics of the Armenian committees, especially those of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (the ARF or Dashnaks). Chapter four examines the rebellion of 1896. Chapter five, titled the "Development of the Revolution, 1897-1908," outlines the growth of an armed Armenian movement by examining its leadership, tactics, arms smuggling, and Russian connections. Chapter six, on the period 1908-1912, briefly covers the deteriorating relations between the Young Turks and the ARF, while chapter seven covers the events preceding the outbreak of war.

The heart of the book, chapter eight, is a detailed examination, at the tactical level, of what happened at Van in late March and April 1915. Using previously unavailable documents from the Ottoman military archives in Ankara, the authors offer a picture of a carefully planned and executed rebellion that was sponsored by and closely coordinated with the Russians, who launched an offensive aimed at seizing the city. The concluding two chapters explain the destruction of both the Armenian and Muslim communities in the province and present an analysis of why the Ottomans failed to suppress the rebels.
So why read another book about the Armenians'? This book represents a massive revision of what is known in the West about the Van uprising. Of particular importance is a well-developed exposition of Armenian leadership, organizational architecture, professionalism in military training, innovative tactics, and weaponry that is integrated into an explanation of how the battles were fought. The authors assert that the rebels were not simply city residents reacting in self-defense but were instead well led, tightly organized, and dangerous. They present a convincing argument based on new archival information. The maps are unusually clear and include (for the first time) small-scale municipal maps of the city of Van as it existed in 1915. The book is a gold mine of new and detailed information.

This reviewer found the overall tone of the book to be unusual in its fair treatment of the Armenians by Turkish scholars. Professor McCarthy and his Turkish co-authors present the Armenians as able practitioners of the art of insurgency and note that the Armenian leader "Aram Manukian must be counted as one of the geniuses of guerrilla warfare" (p. 258). Moreover, they conclude that the Armenian insurrections were instrumental in crippling the Ottoman strategic position in Anatolia, and they also reinforce Bloxham's assertion that the Armenians were badly let down by their Russian allies. Unfortunately, there are minor factual errors in the text. For example, Ottoman casualties at Sankaml are overstated by 100% (p. 179) while the cited Turkish source (Turk Harbi) actually gives much lower numbers. The authors erroneously give the date of a critical order from Enver Pasha on security precautions as September 25, 1914 (p. 190), when the correct date is February 25, 1915. Incorrect information is given on the composition of the First Expeditionary Force (p. 210) that includes flawed British estimates of non-existent bis divisions. There is also a lack of clarity and completeness in citing the Turkish archives; the authors rarely detail what the document is. Instead, they choose to list only its archival call number. However, these are small issues in what is otherwise a very valuable contribution to the field.
Specialists and interested readers alike will understand and appreciate this book. It is clearly written, and establishes an important corrective to the extant Western historiography. While it will certainly irritate the global Armenian lobby, this reviewer would encourage those seeking a balanced and informed understanding of these events to read The Armenian Rebellion at Van. It is well worth the price and highly recommended.

Lt. Col. Edward J. Erickson, USA (Retired), International Research Associates, LLC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following are excerpts from a review essay by Masaki Kakiszaki, University of Utah, on a newly released book by Guenter Lewy, titled “The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide” University of Florida Press, 2005. The full review is published in Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies, Spring 2007.
Ethnic Cleansing or Genocide?
by Masaki Kakiszaki, University of Utah,
The full review is published in Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies, Spring 2007.
Guenter Lewy’s The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide has unleashed debate in the United States as well as in different countries such as Canada, France, Germany, and Turkey. In the United States, Lewy’s articles expressing skepticism about historiographies constructed by both Armenian and Turkish historians about the Armenian genocide appeared in Middle East Quarterly and Commentary; in subsequent issues, these journals published several letters to the editors from readers, mostly Armenians, who objected to Lewy’s thesis. (…) It is important to examine Lewy’s argument in order to understand the reasons for Armenian scholastic anger against the book. The attacks on the book demonstrate how an inquiry into the tragic events of the First World War can be removed from historical context and elevated to mythological level, a process that, in turn, prevents any rational exchange between the two sides.
(…) Lewy’s purpose is to evaluate the consistency and validity of the ongoing debate over the evidence for the Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey. The literature that pertains to the fate of the Armenian population during the First World War involves two narratives. On the one hand, Armenian scholars present this tragedy as the first genocidal event of the twentieth century. They argue that the Armenian massacre was a product of the Ottoman government’s special intent to deport and exterminate the entire Armenian population in the empire. On the other hand, Turks contend that this event was an outcome of Armenian collaboration with the Russians, inter-communal warfare in eastern Turkey, and the harsh economic and social conditions of war (such as food shortages and the spread of diseases).
(…) This book tackles the question not of the scale of Armenian suffering but of ‘the premeditation thesis.’ Although there are wide discrepancies with regard to the total number of victims, at least both camps acknowledge that hundreds and thousands of Armenians lost their lives during the deportation. Thus, Lewy focuses on the dispute over the cause of Armenian massacres by inspecting the way in which Armenians and Turks have offered contradictory or competing accounts (…) He concludes that an Ottoman intent to organize the annihilation of Armenians cannot be determined with the evidence that so far has become available to scholars. Thus, he rejects the term ‘genocide’ to describe the mass killing of Armenians, while admitting the indirect responsibility of the Ottoman local government officials for the loss of life of a large number of Armenians.
(…) He criticizes the manner in which Armenian authors rely on the consequences of the Armenian deportation to prove that the Young Turk leaders had prior plans for total destruction of the Armenian population. He argues that ‘objective results are not the same as subjective intent’. Furthermore, Lewy claims that the Armenian side ignores the multiplicity of cases in the tragedy by playing down the roles of starvation and disease, which afflicted not only the Armenian deportees but also Muslim Turks. Lewy also finds problems in the Turkish version of the stories
(…) As Lewy points out, ‘Both Turks and Armenians have accused each other of horrible crimes while at the same time denying or minimizing the misdeeds committed by their own forces’. The Turkish side tends to dodge the responsibility of atrocities against Armenians by shifting the blame from the Ottoman government to ‘the civil war cause.’ On the other hand, Armenian authors ignore the Armenian revolutionary movements’ relationship with Russia and the threat this relationship posed to the Ottoman government.
(…) Lewy’s book aims to clarify the gap in our knowledge of the Armenian suffering. Lewy ‘reconstructs’ a history of this tragedy by strictly distinguishing the confirmed facts from the mere assertions of historians who fail to support their claims with substantive evidence. In this process he attempts to determine how the government decided on the deportation plan, how it was implemented in different regions and cities, who were responsible for the massacres, and how many people died. The chapters in this section reveal the diversity in the levels of Armenian suffering and the variation of the degree of implementing the deportation. This picture seems to imply that the deportation of the Armenian population was not carried out in a systematic or well-organized manner, which would be necessary for the purpose of total destruction of the Armenian community.
(…) In terms of the number of victims, different authors have generated different estimations. It is also difficult to determine the precise death toll because we have neither an exact figure for the prewar Armenian population nor an accurate count for the number of survivors. It also is impossible to distinguish the number killed by Turks and Kurds and those who perished due to starvation and disease. After a critical examination of the Armenian and Turkish historiographies, Lewy proposes an alternative explanation. He argues that ‘it was possible for the country to suffer an incredibly high death toll without a premeditated plan of annihilation’ for several reasons. First, the Ottoman government, despite its willingness, failed to arrange an orderly process of relocation of Armenians because of its institutional ineptness. The systematic and organized relocation of tens of thousands of Armenians proved beyond the ability of the Ottoman government. Food shortages and epidemic diseases which the authorities could not prevent or control exacerbated the environment for Armenians during the course of the deportation. Additionally, the government could not provide adequate protective measures for the Armenian deportees from hostile Kurds, Circassians and others. According to Lewy, these severe conditions and the inability of the Ottoman government to provide protection resulted in the high death toll of the Armenians. Thus, while he concedes that the government bears responsibility to a certain extent for the outcome, he emphasizes that it is the government’s ineptness rather than a premeditated plan to exterminate the Armenians that caused the Armenian tragedy.
One of the contributions of Lewy’s work is that he clarifies what we have learned as confirmed facts from both the Armenian and Turkish historians. Without leaning to either side, he accepts evidence and arguments that are substantiated by other sources. His neutrality becomes obvious in Part IV, which discusses the politicization of the controversy over the Armenian massacres. He argues that the Armenian side’s argument of the premeditation thesis lacks authentic documentary evidence and suffers from a logical fallacy. But he also criticizes the Turkish side for distorting the historical fact by translating the Armenian massacres into mere ‘excesses’ or ‘intercommunal warfare’.
(…) The personal memories of individual Turks and Armenians are not separable from the collective social memory of their communities because people can be confident about the accuracy of their remembrances only when their own memory is confirmed by others’ remembrances. The politicization of the Armenian massacres, then, facilitates the transmission of collective memories from generation to generation; Armenian campaigns for the recognition of the genocide and the airing of the Turkish government’s argument have functioned as mechanisms by which both Armenians and Turks are reminded of the past and their distinctive identities. The current rigid adherence of both sides to their historiographies thus is likely to lead to the deepening of the gap between them, not pave a way to closing this gap. For this reason, Lewy suggests that historians ought to keep the door of research open for further exploration of the Armenian massacres. Political confirmation of the Armenian massacres as historically established genocide, he argues, will deprive future historians of opportunities to start collaborative research for the advancement of common understanding grounded in historical facts rather than propaganda.
(…) Lewy knows that an attempt to put all the aspects of the Armenian massacres into a single picture as a whole ignores the variation of stories. In this tragedy, there is a diversity of experiences lived by each group of people. Therefore, Lewy adopts a method with which he constructs his own historiography by aggregating different local incidents and experiences. The Armenian and Turkish historians take the opposite approach. They look into the events from the pictures that they want to see. In this process, evidence and incidents that may disconfirm their theses are likely to be ignored in their analytic frameworks.
There is one point that I find unsatisfactory in Lewy’s book: he refrains from making his definition of genocide explicit while claiming that ‘the attempt to decide whether the Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey fit . . . definitions [of genocide] strikes me as of limited utility’ (…) However, this debate still is of substantive importance because parliaments in several countries have proclaimed this tragedy to be an instance of genocide. For example, in the fall of 2006 the French parliament adopted a bill that criminalizes the denial of the Armenian genocide. What is relevant to Lewy’s argument is that the politicians who vote on these resolutions are influenced exclusively by their ethnic Armenian constituents, and they rely only on an Armenian version of the history of 1915. The politicians are not without their own prejudices, and their determinations never can substitute for actual history. In the French parliament, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin argued that it is ‘not a good thing to legislate on issues of history and of memory,’ but his caution was ignored. These resolutions spotlight politics, not the truth, and are therefore debatable.
(…) The attack against Lewy’s book and the controversy created by Peter Balakian and others who share his views indicate the problem of academic freedom of speech with respect to events associated with the Turkish-Armenian conflicts. There are coordinated efforts by Armenian NGOs and scholars to silence and suppress different interpretations about the events of 1915. Simultaneously, free speech about the Armenian massacres also is denied in Turkey.
(…) In the final analysis, Lewy’s book indeed has become like dynamite to both sides by pointing out the shortcomings of both Turkish and Armenian scholarship and revealing the difficulty of objective debate on the Armenian tragedy. It is very unproductive for diaspora Armenians to turn the Armenian genocide thesis into a source of identity. The shift prevents contextualization of the events and turns them into mythological facts outside of any rational inquiry. Lewy tried to de-sacralize the Armenian thesis by subjecting it to rational inquiry. Lastly, it is also important to mention that Lewy’s book has been relatively favored in Turkey despite his criticism of Turkish historiography on the Armenian massacres and the failure of Turkish historians to challenge the official view endorsed by the state. Since its publication, the Turkish media has presented Lewy’s book as a new scholarly work that supports the Turkish explanation of the Armenian killings, but the media also has ignored Lewy’s disapproval of the Turkish historiography. It seems that the Turkish side is satisfied with Lewy’s conclusion that the Armenian killing cannot be confirmed as a genocide ‘as of now,’ even though he criticizes Turkish historiography. In other words, Lewy’ book once again has illuminated that both sides simply are concerned whether the Armenian massacre in 1915 was or was not a genocide, an issue which Lewy has problematized in his work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRITISH GOVERNMENT position vis-à-vis Armenian claims
“that the evidence is not sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorised as Genocide as defined by the 1948 UN Convention on genocide”
Foreign & Commonwealth Office, London - dated the 22nd February, 2006
To date, there exists NO legally binding United Nations resolution or International Court judgement to support the Armenian claims. There exist recognition claims, which are NOT tried and tested at any International Court of Law. So far, the The Armenians have refused invitation for a legal trial of their claim!

Malta Military trials, and subsequent acquittal of the 144 Ottoman Officers on alleged Armenian Genocide
Quoting from British Ambassador, Sir A Geddes in Washington to Lord Curzon in London.. upon searching for evidence against captive Ottoman officers in American Governmental and private archives – 13th July 1921
" I have the honour to inform Your Lordship that a member of my staff visited the State Department yesterday, the 12th instant, in regard to the Turks who are at present being detained at Malta with a view to a trial... He was permitted to see a selection of reports from United States Consuls on the subject of the atrocities committed in Armenia during the recent war, the reports judged by the State Department to be the most useful for the purposes of His Majesty's Government being chosen from among several hundreds. I regret to inform Your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial at Malta. The reports seems.. made mention of only two names of the Turkish officials in question... and in these cases were confined to personal opinions of those officials on the part of the writer, no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence. I have the honour to add that officials of the Department of State expressed the wish, in the course of conversation, that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed in the court of law. Having regard to this stipulation and the fact that the reports in the possession of the Department of State do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks which would be useful even for the purpose of corroborating information already in possession of His Majesty's Government, I fear that nothing is to be hoped from addressing any further enquiries to the United States Government in this matter." Nor did the British archives offer any tangible evidence, thus the acquittal of the wrongly accused.
2007 – Armenian claims still stand unproven at any International Court or at the United Nations, but machinations leading to unfair propaganda, racist denigration of Turks and backdoor recognition attempts are still alive. Furthermore, these unproven Armenian claims are currently used as a convenient leverage against Turkey by whomever and whenever opportune!
And these are for further thought and a public debate ! Contrary to their claims, 200,000 Armenian traitors of circa 1915 were well armed by outside powers and that’s how Armenians rebelled and murdered 524,000 innocent Turks circa 1915 .. ask them why, but if you feel they are rather economical with truth, let us tell you how!
The Azeri Jewish leaders cited research saying that some 3,000 Mountain Jews, along with tens of thousands of Azeris, were murdered in 1918 by the Armenian bandits and nationalists in the region of Guba .. how long is that soul destroying Armenian nationalist hatred against anything ‘Turk’ is going to last?

What would you have said if 200,000 traitors armed by Nazis in the middle of WW2 rebelled, committed high treason, razed British cities and towns and murdered 524,000 innocent British men, women and children in cold blood? How the British Government may have reacted to beginnings of an intended British Genocide?

By the way, there were the Armenian Nazi Brigade/s during WW2 numbering some 80,000+ armed men .. what do you think they did to the innocent peoples of Caucasuses?

Neither The UNITED NATIONS nor The INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE/HR accept Armenian claims. Why there has never been a trial of these claims?

SO, HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHAT REALLY LIES BEHIND THE ALLEGED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE CLAIMS?

Let the Historians decide on the so-called Armenian Genocide

2007-03-10T11:29:00.000-05:00

Prof. Dr. Justin McCARTHY

Throughout the recent debate on the Armenian genocide question, one statement has characterized those who object to politicians' attempts to write history, "Let the Historians decide." Few of us have specified who we are referring to in that statement. It is now time to do so.There is a vast difference between history written to defend one-sided nationalist convictions and real accounts of history. History intends to find that the truth is illusive. Historians know they have prejudices that can affect their judgment. They know they never have all the facts. Yet they always try to find the truth, whatever that may be.Nationalists who use history have a different set of goals. They use events from the past as weapons in their own nation's battles. They have a purpose -- the triumph of their cause -- and they will use anything to succeed in this goal. While a historian tries to collect all the relevant facts and put them together as a coherent picture, the nationalist selects those pieces of history that fit his purpose' ignoring the others.Like other men and women, historians have political goals and ideologies, but a true historian acknowledges his errors when the facts do not support his belief. The nationalist apologist never does so. If the facts do not fit his theories the nationalist ignores those facts and looks for other ways to make his case. True historians can make intellectual mistakes. Nationalist apologists commit intellectual crimes.The Armenian issue has long been plagued with nationalist studies. This has led to an inconsistent history that ignores the time-tested principles of historical research. Yet when the histories of Turks and Armenians are approached with the normal tools of history a logical and consistent account results. "Let the historians decide" is a call for historical study like any other historical study, one that looks at all the facts, studies all the opinions, applies historical principles and comes to logical conclusions.Historians first ask the most basic question. "Was there an Armenia?" Was there a region within the Ottoman Empire where Armenians were a compact majority that might rightfully demand their own state?To find the answer, historians look to government statistics for population figures, especially to archival statistics, because governments seldom deliberately lie to themselves. They want to know their populations so they can understand them, watch them, conscript them, and, most importantly to a government, tax them. The Ottomans were no different than any other government in this situation. Like other governments they made mistakes, particularly in under-counting women and children. However, this can be corrected using statistical methods. What results is the most accurate possible picture of the number of Ottoman Armenians. By the beginning of World War I Armenians made up only 17 percent of the area they claimed as " Ottoman Armenia," the so called "Six Vilayets." Judging by population figures, there was no Ottoman Armenia. In fact if all the Armenians in the world had come to Eastern Anatolia, they still would not have been a majority there.Two inferences can be drawn from the relatively small number of Armenians in the Ottoman East: The first is that by themselves, the Armenians of Anatolia would have been no great threat to the Ottoman Empire. Armenian rebels might have disputed civil order but there were too few of them to endanger Ottoman authority. Armenian rebels needed help from outside forces, help that could only be provided by Russia. The second inference is that Armenian nationalists could have created a state that was truly theirs only if they first evicted the Muslims who lived there.To understand the history of the development of Muslim-Armenian antagonism one must apply historical principles. In applying those principles one can see that the history of Armenians was a history like other histories. Some of that history was naturally unique because of its environment but much of it was strikingly similar to what was seen in other places and times.1. Most ethnic conflicts develop over a long period. Germans and Poles, Finns and Russians, Hindus and Muslims in the Indian subcontinent, Irish and English, Europeans and Native Americans in North America -- all of these ethnic conflicts unfolded over generations, often over centuries.2. Until very modern times most mass mortality of ethnic groups was the result of warfare in which there were at least two warring sides.3. When conflict erupted between nationalist revolutionaries and states it was the revolutionaries who began confrontations. Internal peace was in the interest of settled states. Looked at charitably, states often wished for tranquility for the benefits it gave their citizens. With less charity it can be seen that peace made it easier to collect taxes and use armies to fight foreign enemies, not internal foes. World history demonstrates this too well for examples from other regions to be needed here. In the Ottoman Empire, the examples of the rebellions in Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria demonstrate the truth of this.On these principles, the histories of Turks and Armenians are no different from other histories. Historical principles applied.The conflict between Turks and Armenians did indeed develop over a long time. The primary impetus for what was to become the Armenian-Muslim conflict lay in Russian imperial expansion. At the time of Ivan the Terrible, circa the sixteenth century, Russians began a policy of expelling Muslims from lands they had conquered. Over the next three hundred years, Muslims, many of them Turks, were killed or driven out of what today is Ukraine, Crimea and the Caucasus. From the 1770s to the 1850s Russian attacks and Russian laws forced more than 400,000 Crimean Tatars to flee their land. In the Caucasus region, 1.2 million Circassians and Abazians were either expelled or killed by Russians. Of that number, one third died as victims of the mass murder of Muslims that has been mostly ignored. The Tatars, Circassians and Abazians came to the Ottoman Empire. Their presence taught Ottoman Muslims what they could expect from a Russian conquest.Members of the Armenian minority in the Caucasus began to rebel against Muslim rule and to ally themselves with Russian invaders in the 1790s: Armenian armed units joined the Russians, Armenian spies delivered plans to the Russians. In these wars, Muslims were massacred and forced into exile. Armenians in turn migrated into areas previously held by Muslims, such as Karabakh. This was the beginning of the division of the peoples of the southern Caucasus and eastern Anatolia into two conflicting sides -- the Russian Empire and Armenians on one side, the Muslim Ottoman Empire on the other. Most Armenians and Muslims undoubtedly wanted nothing to do with this conflict, but the events were to force them to take sides.The 1827 to 1829 wars between Russians, Persians and Ottomans saw the beginning of a great population exchange in the East that was to last until 1920. When the Russians conquered the Erivan Khanete, today the Armenian Republic, the majority of its population was Muslim. Approximately two thirds, 60,000 of these Muslims were forced out of Erivan by Russians. The Russians went on to invade Anatolia, where large numbers of Armenians took up the Russian cause. At the war's end, when the Russians left eastern Anatolia 50 to 90,000 Armenians joined them. They took the place of the exiled Muslims in Erivan and else where, joined by 40,000 Armenians from Iran.The great population exchange had begun, and mutual distrust between Anatolia's Muslims and the Armenians was the result. The Russians were to invade Anatolia twice more in the nineteenth century, during the Crimean War and the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War. In both wars significant numbers of Armenians joined the Russians acting as spies and even occupation police.In Erzurum, for example, British consular officials reported that the Armenian police chief appointed by the Russians and his Armenian force "molested, illtreated, and insulted the Mohammadan population," and that 6,000 Muslim families had been forced to flee the city. When the Russians left part of their conquest at least 25,000 Armenians joined them, fearing the vengeance of the Muslims. The largest migration though was the forced flight of 70,000 Muslims, mainly Turks, from the lands conquered by the Russians and the exodus of Laz in 1882.By 1900, approximately 1,400,000 Turkish and Caucasian Muslims had been forced out by Russians. One third of those had died, either murdered or victims of starvation and disease. Between 125,000 and 150,000 Armenians emigrated from Ottoman Anatolia to Erivan and other parts of the Russian southern Caucasus.This was the toll of Russian imperialism. Not only had one-and-a-half million people been exiled or killed, but ethnic peace had been destroyed.The Muslims had been taught that their neighbors, the Armenians, with whom they had lived for more than 700 years, might once again become their enemies when the Russians next advanced. The Russians had created the two sides that history teaches were to be expected in conflict and mass murder.The actions of Armenian rebels exacerbated the growing division and mutual fear between Muslims and Armenians of the Ottoman East.The main Armenian revolutionary organizations were founded in the 1880s and 1890s in the Russian Empire. They were socialist and nationalist in ideology. Terrorism was their weapon of choice. Revolutionaries openly stated that their plan was the same as that which had worked well against the Ottoman Empire in Bulgaria. In Bulgaria rebels had first massacred innocent Muslim villagers. The Ottoman government, occupied with a war against Serbs in Bosnia, depended on the local Turks to defeat the rebels, which they did, but with great losses of life. European newspapers reported Bulgarians deaths, but never Muslim deaths. Europeans did not consider that the deaths were a result of the rebellion, nor the Turk's intention. The Russians invaded ostensibly to save the Christians. The result was the death of 260,000 Turks, 17 percent of the Muslim population of Bulgaria, and the expulsion of a further 34 percent of Turks. The Armenian rebels expected to follow the same plan.The Armenian rebellion began with the organization of guerilla bands made up of Armenians from both the Russian and Ottoman lands. Arms were smuggled in. Guerillas assassinated Ottoman officials, attacked Muslim villages, and used bombs, the nineteenth century's terrorist's standard weapon. By 1894 the rebels were ready for open revolution. Revolts broke out in Samsun, Zeytun, Van and elsewhere in 1894 and 1895. As in Bulgaria they began with the murder of innocent civilians. The leader of the Zeytun rebellion said his forces had killed 20,000 Muslims. As in Bulgaria the Muslims retaliated. In Van for example 400 Muslims and 1,700 Armenians died. Further rebellions followed. In Adana in 1909 the Armenian revolt turned out very badly for both the rebels and the innocent when the government lost control and 17,000 to 20,000 died, mostly Armenians. Throughout the revolts and especially in 1894 and 1897 the Armenians deliberately attacked Kurdish tribesmen, knowing that it was from them that great vengeance was not that likely to be expected. Pitched battles between Kurds and Armenians resulted.But it all went wrong for the Armenian rebels. They had followed the Bulgarian plan, killing Muslims and initiating revenge attacks on Armenians. Their own people had suffered most. Yet the Russians and Europeans they depended upon did not intervene. European politics and internal problems stayed the Russian hand.What were the Armenian rebels trying to create? When Serbs and Bulgarians rebelled against the Ottoman Empire they claimed lands where the majorities were Serbs or Bulgarians. They expelled Turks and other Muslims from their lands, but these Muslims had not been a majority. This was not true for the Armenians.The lands they covered were overwhelmingly Muslim in population.The only way they could create an Armenia was to expel the Muslims. Knowing this history is essential to understanding what was to come during World War I. There had been a long historical period in which two conflicting sides developed.Russian imperialists and Armenian revolutionaries had begun a struggle that was in no way wanted by the Ottomans. Yet the Ottomans were forced to oppose the plans of both Russians and Armenians, if only to defend the majority of their subjects. History taught the Ottomans that if the Armenians triumphed not only would territory be lost, but mass expulsions and deaths would be the fate of the Muslim majority. This was the one absolutely necessary goal of the Armenian rebellion.The preview to what was to come in the Great War came in the Russian Revolution of 1905. Harried all over the Empire, the Russians encouraged ethnic conflict in Azerbaijan, fomenting an inter-communal war. Azeri Turks and Armenians battled each other when they should have attacked the Empire that ruled over both. Both Turks and Armenians learned the bitter lesson that the other was the enemy, even though most of them wanted nothing of war and bloodshed. The sides were drawn.In late 1914, inter-communal conflict began in the Ottoman East with the Armenian rebellion. Anatolian Armenians went to the Russian South Caucasus for training, approximately 8,000 in Kagizman, 6,000 in Igdir and others elsewhere. They returned to join local rebels and revolts erupted all over the East. The Ottoman Government estimated 30,000 rebels in Sivas Vilayeti alone, probably an exaggeration but indicative of the scope of the rebellion. Military objectives were the first to be attacked.Telegraph lines were cut. Roads through strategic mountain passes were seized. The rebels attacked Ottoman officials, particularly recruiting officers, throughout the East. Outlying Muslim villages were assaulted and the first massacring of Muslims began. The rebels attempted to take cities such as Zeytun, Mus, Sebin Karahisar and Urfa. Ottoman armed forces which were needed at the front were instead forced to defend the interior.The most successful rebel action was in the city of Van. In March 1915 they seized the city from a weak Ottoman garrison and proceeded to kill all the Muslims who could not escape. Some 3,000 Kurdish villagers from the surrounding region were herded together into the great natural bowl of Zeve, outside the city of Van, and slaughtered. Kurdish tribes in turn took their revenge on any Armenian villagers they found.Popular opinion today knows of only one set of deportations, more properly called forced migrations, in Anatolia, the deportation of the Armenians. There were in fact many forced migrations. For the Armenians, the worst forced migrations came when they accompanied their own armies in retreat. Starvation and disease killed great numbers of both, far more than fell to enemies' bullets.It is true that the Ottomans had obvious reason to fear Armenians, and that forced migration was an age-old tool in Middle Eastern and Balkan conflicts. It is also true that while its troops were fighting the Russians and Armenians, the Ottoman Government could not and did not properly protect the Armenian migrants. Nevertheless, more than 200,000 of the deported Armenians reached Greater Syria and survived Those who see the evil of genocide in the forced migrations of Armenians ignore the survival of so many of those who were deported. They also ignore the fact that the Armenians who were most under Ottoman control, those in Western cities such as Izmir, Istanbul, and Edirne, were neither deported nor molested, presumably because they were not a threat If genocide is to be considered, however, then the murders of Turks and Kurds in 1915 and 1916 must be included in the calculation of blame. The Armenian molestations and massacres in Cilicia, deplored even by their French and British allies, must be judged. And the exile or death of two-thirds of the Turks of Erivan Province, the Armenian Republic, during the war must be remembered.Historical principles were once again at work. Rebels had begun the action and the result was the creation of two warring sides. After the Armenian deeds in Van and elsewhere, Muslims could only have expected that Armenians were enemies who could kill them. Armenians could only have feared Muslim revenge. Most of these people had no wish for war, but they had been driven to it. It was to be a merciless conflict.For the next five years, total war raged in the Ottoman East. When the Russians attacked and occupied the East, more than a million Muslims fled as refugees, itself an indication that they expected to die if they remained. They were attacked on the roads by Armenian bands as they fled. When the Russians retreated it was the turn of the Armenians to flee. The Russians attacked and retreated, then attacked again, then finally retreated for good. With each advance came the flight of hundreds of thousands. Two wars were fought in Eastern Anatolia, a war between the armies of Russia and the Ottomans and a war between local Muslims and Armenians. In the war between the armies, civilians and enemy soldiers were sometimes treated with humanity, sometimes not. Little quarter was given in the war between the Armenians and the Muslims, however. That war was fought with all the ferocity of men who fought to defend their families.Popular opinion today knows of only one set of deportations, more properly called forced migrations, in Anatolia, the deportation of the Armenians. There were in fact many forced migrations. For the Armenians, the worst forced migrations came when they accompanied their own armies in retreat. Starvation and disease killed great numbers of both, far more than fell to enemies' bullets. This is as should be expected from historical principles; starvation and disease are always the worst killers. It is also a historical principle that refugees suffer most of all.One of-the many forced migration was the organized expulsion of Armenians from much of Anatolia by the Ottoman government. In light of the history and the events of this war, it is true that the Ottomans had obvious reason to fear the Armenians, and that forced migration was an age-old tool in Middle Eastern and Balkan conflicts. It is also true that while its troops were fighting the Russians and Armenians, the Ottoman Government could not and did not properly protect the Armenian migrants. Nevertheless, more than 200,000 of the deported Armenians reached Greater Syria and survived. (Some estimate that as many as two-thirds of the deportees survived.)Those who see the evil of genocide in the forced migrations of Armenians ignore the survival of so many of those who were deported. They also ignore the fact that the Armenians who were most under Ottoman control, those in Western cities such as Izmir, Istanbul, and Edirne, were neither deported nor molested, presumably because they were not a threat.No claim of genocide can rationally stand in the light of these facts. If genocide is to be considered, however, then the murders of Turks and Kurds in 1915 and 1916 must be included in the calculation of blame. The Armenian murder of the innocent civilians of Erzincan, Bayburt, Tercan, Erzurum, and all the villages on the route of the Armenian retreat in 1918 must be taken into account. The Armenian molestations and massacres in Cilicia, deplored even by their French and British allies, must be judged. And the exile or death of two-thirds of the Turks of Erivan Province, the Armenian Republic, during the war must be remembered.That is the history of the Conflict between the Turks and the Armenians. Only when that history is known can the assertions of those who accuse the Turks be understood.In examining the claims of Armenian nationalists, first to be considered should be outright lies.The most well-known of many fabrications on the Armenian Question are the famous "Talat Pasa Telegrams," in which the Ottoman interior minister and other officials supposedly telegraphed instructions to murder the Armenians. These conclusively have been proven to be forgeries by Sinasi Orel and Sureyya Yuca. However, one can only wonder why they would ever have been taken seriously. A whole people cannot be convicted of genocide on the basis of penciled scribblings on a telegraph pad.These were not the only examples of words put in Talat Pasa's mouth. During World War I, the British Propaganda Office and American missionaries published a number of scurrilous works in which Ottoman officials were falsely quoted as ordering hideous deeds.One of the best examples of invented Ottoman admissions of guilt may be that concocted by the American ambassador Morgenthau. Morgenthau asked his readers to believe that Talat Pasa offhandedly told the ambassador of his plans to eradicate the Armenians. Applying common sense and some knowledge of diplomatic practice helps to evaluate these supposed indiscretions. Can anyone believe that the Ottoman interior minister would actually have done such a thing? He knew that America invariably supported the Armenians, and had always done so. If he felt the need to unburden his soul, who would be the last person to whom he would talk? The American ambassador. Yet to whom does he tell all? The American Ambassador! Talat Pasa was a practical politician. Like all politicians, he undoubtedly violated rules and made errors. But no one has ever alleged that Talat Pasa was an idiot. Perhaps Ambassador Morgenthau knew that the U.S. State Department would never believe his story, because he never reported it at the time to his masters, only writing it later in a popular book.The use of quotes from Americans is selective. One American ambassador, Morgenthau, is quoted by the Armenian apologists, but another American ambassador, Bristol, is ignored. Why? Because Bristol gave a balanced account and accused Armenians as well as Muslims of crimes.The most often seen fabrication may be the famous "Hitler Quote." Hitler supposedly stated, "Who after all is today speaking of the destruction of the Armenians?" to justify his Holocaust. The quote now appears every year in school books, speeches in the American Congress and the French Parliament and most writings in which the Turks are attacked. Professor Heath Lowry has cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the quote. It is likely that Hitler never said it. But there is a more serious question: How can Adolf Hitler be taken as a serious source on Armenian history? Were his other historical pronouncements so reliable that his opinions can be trusted?Politically, "Hitler" is a magic word that conjures up an all too true image of undisputed evil. He is quoted on the Armenian Question for polemic and political purpose, to tie the Turks to Hitler's evil. In the modern world nothing defames so well as associating your enemies with Hitler. This is all absurdity, but it is potent absurdity that convinces those who know nothing of the facts. It is also a deliberate distortion of history.Population has also been a popular field for fabrication. Armenian nationalists had a particular difficulty -- they were only a small part of the population of the land they planned to carve from the Ottoman Empire. The answer was false statistics. Figures appeared that claimed that Armenians were the largest group in Eastern Anatolia. These population statistics were supposedly the work of the Armenian Patriarch, but they were actually the work of an Armenian who assumed a French name, Marcel Leart, published them in Paris and pretended they were the Patriarch's work. Naturally, he greatly exaggerated the number of Armenians and diminished the number of Turks. Once again, the amazing thing is that these were ever taken seriously. Yet they were used after World War I to justify granting Eastern Anatolia to the Armenians and are still routinely quoted today.The Armenian apologists quote American missionaries as if missionaries would never lie, omitting the numerous proofs that missionaries did indeed lie and avoided mentioning anything that would show Armenians to be less than innocent. The missionaries in Van, for example, reported the deaths of Armenians, but not the fact that those same Armenians had killed all the Muslims they caught in that city.The main falsification of history by the Armenian apologists lies not in what they say, but in what they do not say. They do not admit that much of the evidence they rely on is tainted because it was produced by the British Propaganda Office in World War I. For example, the Bryce Report, "The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire," has recently been reproduced by an Armenian organization, with a long introduction that praises its supposed veracity. Nowhere does the reprint state that the report was produced and paid for by British Propaganda as a way to attack its wartime enemies, the Ottomans. Nor does the reprint state that the other Bryce Report, this one on alleged German atrocities, has long been known by historians to be a collection of lies. Nor does the reprint consider that the sources in the report, such as the Dashnak Party, had a tradition of not telling the truth.The basic historical omission is never citing, never even looking at evidence that might contradict one's theories. Nationalist apologists refer to English propaganda, missionary reports, statements by Armenian revolutionaries, and the like. They seldom refer to Ottoman documents, hundreds of which have been published in recent years, except perhaps to claim that nothing written by the Ottomans can be trusted although they trust completely the writings of Armenian partisans. These documents indicate that the Ottomans planned no genocide and were at least officially solicitous of the Armenians' welfare. The fact that these contradict the Armenian sources is all the more reason that they should be consulted. Good history can only be written then both sides of historical arguments are considered.Worst of all is the most basic omission -- the Armenian apologists do not mention the Muslim dead. Any civil war will appear to be a genocide if only the dead of one side are counted. Their writings would be far more accurate, and would tell a very different story, if they included facts such as the deaths of nearly two-thirds of the Muslims of Van Vilayeti, deaths caused by the Russians and Armenians. Histories that strive for accuracy must include all the facts, and the deaths of millions of Muslims is surely a fact that deserves mention.Those of us who have studied this question for years have seen many approaches come and go. The old assertions, based on the Talat Pasa telegrams and missionary reports, were obviously insufficient, and new ones have appeared.For a while, Pan-Turanism was advanced as the cause for Turkish actions. It was said that the Turks wished to be rid of the Armenians because the Armenian population blocked the transportation routes to Central Asia. This foundered on the rocks of geography and population. The Anatolian Armenian population was not concentrated on those routes. The Armenian Republic's Armenians, those in Erivan Province, were on some of those routes. However, when at the end of the war the Ottomans had the chance to occupy Erivan they did not do so, but went immediately on to Baku to protect Azeri Turks from attacks by enough to believe that their chief concern was advancing to Uzbekistan.Much was made of post-war-courts martial that accused members of the Committee of Union and Progress Government of crimes against the Armenians.The accusations did not state that the courts were convened by the unelected quisling government of Ferid Pasa who created the courts to curry favor with the allies. The courts returned verdicts of guilty for all sorts of improbable offenses, of which killing Armenians was only one. The courts chose anything, true of false, that would cast aspersion on Ferid's enemies. The accused could not represent themselves. Can the verdicts of such courts be trusted? Conveniently overlooked were the investigations of the British, who held Istanbul and were in charge of the Ottoman Archives, but who were forced to admit that they could find no evidence of massacres.A German scholar has decided that the Ottomans reported and killed Armenians so that they would have space in which to settle the Turkish refugees from the Balkan Wars. Those with some knowledge of Ottoman history know that the Balkan refugees were almost all settled in Western Anatolia and Ottoman Europe, not in the East, and that the refugees were all settled before the World War I Armenian troubles began Nationalist apologists first decide that the Turks are guilty, then look for evidence that will show they are correct ... The enemy of the nationalist apologists is the truth. They have thrown false telegrams, spurious statistics, sham courts and anything else they could find, but the truth has advanced Campaigns were organized to silence historians. One professor was mercilessly attacked in the press because he advised the Turkish ambassador on responding to questions about the Ottoman Armenians. No one questioned the probity of the American Armenian scholar who became the chief advisor of the president of the Armenian Republic or doubted the veracity of the American Armenian professor whose son became the Armenian Foreign Minister Fewer and fewer historians are willing to write on this history. A very senior and respected scholar of Ottoman history, Bernard Lewis, was brought to court in France for his denial of the Armenian genocide. After a long and successful career, Professor Lewis could afford to confront those who accused him. Could a junior scholar afford to do the same? Applying the principles of history, we can see that what occurred was, in fact a long history of imperialism, nationalist revolt, and ethnic conflict. The result was horrible mortality on all sides. There is an explainable, understandable history of a two-sided conflict. It was not genocide.A recent find of the nationalist is the Teskilat-ı Mahsusa, the secret organization that operated under orders of the Committee of Union and Progress. We are told that the Teskilat must have organized Armenian massacres. The justification for this would astonish any logician:It is alleged that because a secret organization existed it must have been intended to do evil, including the genocide of the Armenians. As further "proof," it is noted that officers of the Teskilat were present in areas where Armenians died. Since Teskilat officers were all over Anatolia, this should surprise no one. By this dubious logic Teskilat members must also have been responsible for the deaths of Muslims because they were also present in areas where Muslims died. Does this prove that no Teskilat members killed or even massacred Armenians? It does not. It would be odd if during wartime no members of a large organization had not committed such actions, and they undoubtedly did so. What it in no way proves is that the Teskilat was ordered to commit genocide.A German scholar has decided that the Ottomans reported and killed Armenians so that they would have space in which to settle the Turkish refugees from the Balkan Wars. For those who do not know Ottoman history, this might seem like a reasonable explanation. Those with some knowledge of Ottoman history know that the Balkan refugees were almost all settled in Western Anatolia and Ottoman Europe, not in the East, and that the refugees were all settled before the World War I Armenian troubles began.Such assertions are the result of the methods used. Nationalist apologists first decide that the Turks are guilty, then look for evidence that will show they are correct. They are like a man in a closed room fighting against a stronger enemy. As the enemy advances the man picks up a book, a lamp, an ashtray, a chair -- whatever he can find -- and throws it in the vain hope of stopping the enemy's advance. But the enemy continues on. Eventually the man runs out of things to throw, and he is beaten. The enemy of the nationalist apologists is the truth. They have thrown false telegrams, spurious statistics, sham courts, and anything else they could find, but the truth has advanced.Some tactics have been all too successful in reducing the number of scholars who study the Armenian Question. When the fabrications and distortions failed, there were outright threats. When the historians could not be convinced, the next best thing was to silence them. One professor's house was bombed.Others were threatened with similar violence. Campaigns were organized to silence historians. One professor was mercilessly attacked in the press because he advised the Turkish ambassador on responding to questions about the Ottoman Armenians. It is worth noting that no one questioned the probity of the American Armenian scholar who became the chief advisor of the president of the Armenian Republic or doubted the veracity of the American Armenian professor whose son became the Armenian foreign minister. No one questioned the objectivity of these scholars or attacked them, nor should they. The only proper question is, "What is the truth!" No matter who pays the bills, no matter the nationality of the author, no matter if he writes to ambassadors, no matter his religion, his voting record, his credit status, or his personal life, his views on history should be closely analyzed and, if true, accepted.The only question is the truth.Such attacks have had their intended effect. Fewer and fewer historians are willing to write on this history. A very senior and respected scholar of Ottoman history, Bernard Lewis, was brought to court in France for his denial of the Armenian genocide. After a long and successful career, Professor Lewis could afford to confront those who accused him. He also could afford to hire the lawyers who defended him. Could a junior scholar afford to do the same? Could someone who depended on university rectors, who worry about funding, afford to take up such a dangerous topic? Could someone without Professor Lewis's financial resources afford the lawyers who defended both his free speech and his good name?I myself was the target of a campaign, instigated by an Armenian newspaper, that attempted to have me fired from my university. Letters and telephone calls from all over the United States came to the president of my university, demanding my dismissal because I denied the "Armenian Genocide." We have the tenure system in the United States, a system that guarantees that senior professors cannot be fired for what they teach and write, and my university president defended my rights. But a younger professor might understandably be afraid to write on the Armenians if he knew he faced the sort of ordeal that has been faced by others.To me, the worst of all is being accused of being the kind of politicized nationalist scholar I so detest. False reasons are invented to explain why I say this -- my mother is a Turk, my wife is a Turk, I am paid large sums by the Turkish government. None of these things is true, but it would not affect my writings one bit if they were. The way to challenge a scholar's work is to read his writings and respond to them with your own scholarship, not to attack his character.When, despite the best efforts of the nationalist apologists, some still speak out against the distortion of history, the final answer is political: Politicians are enlisted to rewrite history. Parliaments are enlisted to convince their people that there was a genocide. In America, the Armenian nationalists lobby a Congress which refuses to even consider an apology for slavery to demand an apology from Turks for something the Turks did not do.In France, the Armenia nationalists lobby a Parliament which will not address the horrors perpetrated by the French in Algeria, which they know well took place, to declare there were horrors in Turkey, about which they know almost nothing. The people of many nations are then told that the genocide must have taken place because their representatives have recognized it.The Turks are accused of "genocide," but what does that appalling word mean? The most quoted definition is that of the United Nations: actions "committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, radical, or religious group as such." Raphael Lemkin who invented the word genocide, included cultural, social, economic, and political destruction of groups as genocide. Leo Kuper included as genocide attacks on subgroups that are not ethnic, such as economic classes, collective groups and various social categories. By these standards Turks were indeed guilty of genocide. So were Armenians, Russians, Greeks, Americans, British and almost every people that has ever existed. In World War I in Anatolia there were many such "genocides." So many groups attacked other groups that the use of the word genocide is meaningless.Why, then, is such a hollow term used against the Turks? It is used because those who hear the term do not think of the academic definitions. They think of Hitler and of what he did to the Jews. The intent behind the use of the word genocide is not to foster understanding. The intent is to foster a negative image of the Turks by associating them with great evil. The intent is political.What must be considered by the serious historian is a simple question, "Did the Ottoman Government carry out a plan to exterminate the Armenians?" In answering this question it is important not to copy the Armenian apologists. When they declare that Armenians did no wrong, the answer is not to reply that the Turks did no wrong. The answer must be honest history. What cannot and should not be denied is that many Anatolian Muslims did commit crimes against Armenians. Some of those who committed crimes were Ottoman officials. Actions were taken in revenge, out of hatred or for political reasons. In total war men do evil acts. This again is a sad but real historical principle. The Ottoman government recognized this and tried more than 1,000 Muslims for war crimes, including crimes against Armenians, hanging some criminals.Applying the principles of history, we can see that what occurred was in fact a long history of imperialism, nationalist revolt and ethnic conflict.The result was horrible mortality on all sides. There is an explainable, understandable history of a two-sided conflict. It was not genocide. Throughout that history, both sides killed and were killed. It was not genocide.Much archival evidence shows Ottoman government concern that Armenians survive. Also, it must be said that much evidence shows poor planning, government weakness and in some places criminal acts and negligence. Some officials were murderous, but a sincere effort was made to punish them. It was not genocide.The majority of those who were deported survived, even though those Armenians were completely at the mercy of the Ottomans. It was not genocide.The Armenians most under Ottoman control, the Armenian residents of Istanbul, Izmir, Edirne and other regions of greatest governmental power were neither deported not attacked. It was not genocide.Why are the Turks accused of a hideous crime they did not commit? The answer is both emotional and political. Many Armenians feel in their hearts that Turks were guilty. They have only heard of the deaths of their ancestors, not the deaths of the Turks. They have been told only a small part of a complicated story for so long that they believe it to be unquestionable truth. Their anger is understandable. The beliefs of those in Europe and America who have never heard the truth, which sadly is the majority, are also understandable. It is the actions of those who use the claim of genocide for nationalist political motives that are inexcusable.Does any rational analyst deny that the ultimate intent of the Armenian nationalists is to first gain "reparations," then claim Eastern Anatolia as their own?Finally, what is to be done? As might be expected from all I have said here today, I believe the only answer to false allegations of genocide is to study and proclaim the truths of history. Political actions such as the resolution recently passed by the French Parliament naturally and properly draw corresponding political actions from Turks, but political actions will never convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide. What is needed to convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide? What is needed to convince the world is a great increase in scholarship. Archives must remain open and be easy to use for both Turks and foreigners. Graduate students should be encouraged to study the Armenian question. No student's advisers should tell him to avoid this subject because it is "too political," something I have heard in America and, unfortunately, in Turkey as well.I suggest, as I have suggested before, that the Turkish Republic propose to the Armenian Republic that a joint commission be established, its members selected by scholarly academies in both countries. All archives should be opened to the commission -- not only the Ottoman Archives, but the archives of Armenia and of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. (The call is often made for the Turkish Archives to be opened completely. It is time to demand that Armenians do likewise.) I have been told that the Armenians will never agree to this, but how can anyone know unless they try? In any case, refusal to fairly and honestly consider this question would in itself be evidence that the accusations against the Turks are political, not scholarly.Whether or not such a commission is ever named, the study of the Armenian question must be continued. This is true not only because it is always right to discover accurate history. It is true because honor demands it. Honor is a word that is not often heard today, but a concept of honor is nonetheless sorely needed. I have been told by many that the Turks should adopt a political strategy to deal with the Armenian problem. This strategy would have the Turkish government lie about the past for present political gain.The government would state that the Ottomans committed genocide, but that modern Turkey cannot be blamed because it is a different government. This, I have been told, would cause the world to think more kindly of the Turks. I do not believe this ultimately would satisfy anyone. I believe that calls for reparations and land would quickly follow such a statement. But that is not the reason to reject such easy political lies. They should be rejected purely because they are wrong. Even if the lies would bring great gains, they should be rejected because they are wrong. I believe the Turks are still men and women of honor. They know that it can never be honorable to accept lies told of their ancestors, no matter the benefits. I also believe that someday, perhaps soon, perhaps far in the future, the truth will be recognized by the world. I believe that the accurate study of history and the honor of the Turks will bring this to pass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------* Professor Justin McCarthy teaches at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.

Book Review

2007-03-07T09:25:00.000-05:00

Book Review: The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, A Disputed Genocide
Fatih BALCI and Arif AKGUL
Friday , 03 March 2006

There could be some mistakes in the history, but it should be more objective to enlighten those mistaken events with the helping of the historians. Guenter Lewy’s book, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, A Disputed Genocide, mainly focuses on the massacres in Ottoman Turkey, and he strongly stands on the way of the truths which he finds from the historical documents. After all, he mentions that trustfully the deaths of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey can not be called “genocide”. There were some deaths but they can not be called as genocide. For calling genocide, it is needed to have a look at the definition of genocide which is mostly accepted to intention to annihilation of one group. To use or say genocide for an event it has to involve an intention of annihilation. In the Armenian case the main aim was not based on the intention of Armenian annihilation. The only thing was deporting· the Armenians from some places only for security purposes, because the Armenians became a big problem for the Turks during World War I with the rebellions and armed guerillas inside the country.
It is seen to the massacres as the only culpability was the Turks, but with Lewy’s book, it is understood clearly that the Armenians had many problems for the Turks at their worse situation during the wartime. At the war time, Turks had in troubles in different reasons, and at that position the Armenians also had problem to Turks. The Armenians wanted to establish their independent state and they wanted to get some more help from the Christian world with using their Christian identity. They gave ways to the Turks to make some plans against the Armenian problem, and the Turks found the best way to deport them, but they did not foresee some problems such as the geographic conditions and some other issues that caused mass killing while making their decisions. These kinds of unintended things caused the deaths of the Armenians. Lewy’s argument about the massacres of the Ottoman Turks against the Armenians can be clarified with one of the Turkish proverbs: “Okay, the burglar has culpability but does not have any culpability of the house holder?”
Guenter Lewy, in his book, approaches Turk-Armenian conflict from the historical perspective. He shows the events that happened in the late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century in the Ottoman Empire between the Turks and the Armenians. He gives information from the sources and explains that it was not genocide, it was only massacres.
The book, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, includes four main parts with fourteen chapters. In the first part, with its four chapters, the author mostly looks at the Turk-Armenian problem from its beginning with historical events. His main argument in this part is that the characteristics of the conflict were based on religious background. The Armenians have approximately two thousand years history and they were the first Christian state in the world history, whereas the Turks are one of the major states among the Islamic world. The author argues that the Armenians tried to get attendance of the Christian world with provoking the Turks to attack themselves. Different courtiers with different purposes tried to help Armenians (For example, Russia helped to reach the south which had been its main desire for years, while Great Britain did not want that Russia to reach its desire), and the Armenians wanted to get their independence after political events. On the other hand, all the responsibilities were given by the Armenians to the Ottoman Sultan, Abdul Hamid II, because, for the Armenians, he was preventing the aims of the Armenian committees. Only because of this, the Armenians tried to kill him on Friday, July 21, 1905 with planting dynamite in his carriage, but Abdul Hamid II delayed his departure only a few minutes which saved his life; however, twenty six people died while fifty eight were wounded (p.32). The other events, which caused the Armenian massacres, were seizing the Imperial Ottoman Bank by Armenian revolutionaries on August 26, 1896 (p.24) and a shot assumed by an Armenian outside a mosque in Bitlis on a Friday while the Muslims were in the mosque for their ritual Friday praying (p.23). From the resources the author collected, the range of death of Armenians only of the 1895-1896 events is between twenty thousand and three hundred thousand (p.26).
In the first part of the book, Lewy generally explains the causes of the differences, occurred between these two nations which had been living together for centuries. He focuses on the causes, which started after the Russian war, and the Armenians intended to establish their own states at the region, and they wanted to use their Christian identity to get supported by the Christian world. The best way of doing this was also provoking the Ottoman Turks, which they did well at the end of the nineteenth century. The best way to get support from the Christian world is to provoke and cause the Ottomans to attack the Armenians.
In part two, the author mostly focuses on the Armenians’ genocide plans and the Turks positions against them. Ziya Gokalp, a Turkish sociologist and educator, is shown to be the responsible person of the massacres because of his argument of Turkification, which is based on blood and race for some scholars. From an Armenian perspective, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) premeditated the massacres of Armenians, and they played their role in this plan. “The Ten Commandments” (p.48) was the Armenians’ main argument to express the CUP’s main aim on the Armenians. For Armenians those Ten Commandments show the CUP’s plan clearly. Another source to make stronger this thesis about Armenians is Armenian author Aram Andonian’s book named The Memoirs of Naim Bey. This book is about one of the Ottoman chief’s secretaries telling during the deportation of the Armenians. However, there could not be found any documents about Naim Bey to be hired in the Ottoman army. The other important point also the real document that Andonian argues about the book (Naim Bey’s telling) does not exist in any archives. Andonian says that he sent all the original documents to the Armenian patriarch and later he never learned anything about what happened to them. (p.67) He also says that in a different time about his book that he wrote that book for doing Armenian propaganda (p.70). The sources of Armenian sides have not any real genuineness as the author explains in this part of the book.
From the Turkish perspective, even the Turkish sources are biased; their main argument is that the relocation of the Armenians from many main places was necessary, because Armenians were getting armed with the help of Russia. During the wartime, the Armenians were a big problem to the Turkish military and the Muslim people in the region. According to the information supplied by the Ministry of Interior, thirty thousand armed Armenians were at the east region of the country (p.92). Fifteen thousand of them joined the Russian army, while the other fifteen thousand were helping the Russian army behind the Turkish army. The enemies were inside according to the Turks and it was needed to find any solutions. The revolts also were major problems for the Turkish army during the wartime.
On the other hand, the Turks also had real economic, military, and social problems at that period. The refugees from the other provinces where the places conquered by the winner countries at the war were coming to the country, and they needed places to live. There was a civil war within a global war for the Turks. Under these conditions, the Turks decided to relocate the Armenians to different provinces for both to make safe its back yard and to open new provinces to the Muslim refugees.
Another important issue to make a decision of relocation was the Armenians’ brutality against the Muslim people of some cities and towns in the region. The Armenians were attacking the Turkish people with Russian support, because they knew that Russia was at their side. It also was known that they got their weapons from Russia. For example, the Russians took Diyarbakir, led by advance guards of Armenian volunteers in January 1916. The Muslims who were not able to escape were put the death. When the Turkish forces entered the city of Erzincan in February 1918, they found a destroyed city, fell upon the Turkish homes and committed extraordinary acts (p.118-119).
In some places in the Ottoman Empire, Armenians rebelled against to the Turks while the war was ongoing and especially near the end of the war. For example, the Armenian volunteers joined the fighting against the Turks in Palestine and Syria (p.108). Because of all these reasons, from the Turkish perspective, the deportation was needed to secure the east part of the Empire. Turks had to make a secure place in the east cost of the country and the best way to do this is to relocate the Armenians to different places. The main purpose did not punish the Armenians. Relocation was the prevention of Armenian activities against the government which had some troubles at this time also. The decision was not intended to destroy innocent people.
The third part of the book is mostly focuses on the sources to light the history, because the author’s main argument is to bring up the events is mostly the duty of the historians. Historical memories can enlighten history better according to Lewy. From this perspective, Lewy explains the events with the sources from every side, which begins with the Turkish archives and goes on the way of who did a small part from the puzzle of this unclear event in the history. The missionary reports, the foreign countries official and unofficial reports and even eyewitnesses’ statements are seen in Lewy’s book. He shows the ways which and what conditions happened from these sources and he writes some of his critiques with historical explanations. He gives a major importance to the Turkish archives but he has some problems about the opening of the archives; only 9%, but now all the Turkish archives are open to the research. He compares his findings and he shows so many different explanations of the same events. For example, Lewy mentions that one of the German missionaries, Johannes Lepsius’s, book involves a collection of 444 documents, but Wolfgang Gust argues that only a few of these 444 documents corresponded fully to the originals (p.134). One of the British sources, a parliamentary Blue Book shows the massacre story, but it also involves a lot of narratives by eyewitnesses, which are mostly based on hearsay (p.138).
Lewy expresses an important result from the sources that he follows to understand that historical event between the Turks and the Armenians that “when Armenians used guns it was always strictly for self-defense, while Turkish troops using force were usually described as engaged in murderous activities” (p.144). He also does not give more reliability to the survivors’ testimony. His main argument on this issue is that the survivor’s testimony is mostly under the pressure of the historical events and their personality, perceptions and experiences.
Lewy’s main concern about the historical document is there are not many Turkish scholars who are specialists of the Armenian events. He gives more spaces to the Turkish archives than the scholarly resources. On the other hand, he does not give more reliability to the Armenian scholars who have scholarly sources about the issue, because he sees that most of them are not truly explaining the events. To answer the question of why there are not any Turkish scholars, while there are many more Armenian scholars in this issue, it could be said that Diaspora Armenians are mostly studied on this issue, so it is easy to find some sources from different languages. He can reach more Armenian sources than Turkish because Diaspora Armenians have more interest on this issue and they wrote books in different languages, whereas the Turks have not this chance.
After giving the historical perspective which shows the positions of the Empire especially during the war time, he expresses the specific events during the cities and towns in which deportation happened. He shows the readers that the main purpose was not based on the intention of annihilation of the Armenians. But he gives some responsibility to the governmental authority not to predict what should have-happened during the deportation. For him, the government had to make some prevention activities for the possibilities, however, one of the important points also needed to be on our eyes is that the government had little authority at that time period, even to help its soldiers, because so many soldiers died at that period without any war. From this perspective, more things were not wanted from the government, but it also does not throw its responsibilities from its shoulders.
Lewy separates the causes of the massacres of the Armenians during the deportation of 1915-1916, and he gives the most important clue to the geographic situations. Later he focuses on the Kurds, Circassians, brigands (cetes), irregulars, and the gendarmes as the causes of the mass killing. The Turks tried to protect the deportees from these unexpected causes, but most times and most places they could not achieve success. Lewy asks this question: Who killed the Armenians? He could not find the exact answer, because several culpabilities shared the massacres.
Nobody can say anything about the number of the victims during that period, because each side mentions the amount from their perspectives. The main problem is that the exact populations of the Armenians are not known. The estimated amounts also do not give any clue about the amount of the killed people, because some Armenians lost their lives as the result of the guerilla wars, some lost at the rebellions and some joined the Russian army. Lewy gives the amounts from the sources he investigated, and he gives a number as an average of the Armenians in the Empire in 1914 as 1,750,000. For the amount of the survivors after the events, he again gives an estimated number which is 1,108,000. So, for Lewy, 642,000 were killed, which is about 37% during the World War period.
In the last part of his book, Lewy explains the controversy of the massacres of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. While he gives the examples of the Armenian side, who mostly argue that it is premeditation, the Armenians try to take a picture of Turkish responsibility with the Turkish national character, which is called barbaric for by them. On the other hand, the Turkish view focuses on the necessity of the deportation and actually both sides had many deaths which should be accepted; the events were not genocide, it was a war between the Turks and the Armenians (p.248).
Lewy’s strongest argument is that the central government of Turkey has not more culpability because there no authentic documentary evidence exists (p.250). He says that the deaths were an intended outcome of the deportations. Lewy’s main concern is based on shaping this world on the events that happened in the first quarter of the last century. He says that the massacres began to play a role on the politics, which was seen at some countries’ parliaments. But Lewy advises that which is the most important issue to lighten the historical events, is not the job of the politicians, but the historians. The politicians should give up these kinds of historical events to the historians to get more reliable results.
The main argument about the Armenian problem in the Ottoman Empire was that they wanted to establish their own independent state and so they became more nationalist as they saw from some other nations into the Empire. On the other hand, they mostly sought to get support from the Christian world as being the first Christian state. They wanted to get a reputation for themselves. If they rebel against the governmental authority, it can be thought that they could have thought what could have happened to them if they could not achieve success.
Geunter Lewy denies genocide and claims that the Armenian deaths in the Ottoman Turkey at the end of the nineteenth century and the first quarter of the twentieth century were massacres. He wrote his book to enlighten one of the biggest problems for the last one hundred years. His approach is mostly based on the memory of the historical events. He investigates the literatures from each side and he concludes his research with saying that the historical events should be given to the historians to enlighten them. If those events go to the politicians, the problems could not be solved easily.
While the Turks and the Armenians were living together on the same lands for centuries, after the Ottoman Empires were getting weaker and losing the war against Russia, the Armenians got more wishes to establish their own independent states at the east provinces of the Ottoman Empire. They better knew that they needed to get some foreign help to achieve their ambitions. They used their Christian identity versus Muslim Identity to get more support from the Christian world. But they needed something to pull the Turks towards them, so they used some important activities in both Istanbul and Anatolia like the bombing events and rebellions. They achieved their aims of getting the Turks against them, and they did not see these specific events enough, so they got armed during the wartime. The Turkish government had to do something immediately, and decided to relocate the Armenians from their provinces to be less threatened by the government.
The deaths of most Armenians happened during these relocations, but the conditions, both geographic and other causes like Kurdish groups or the Circassians or the chettes, were not predicted by the Turkish government. Most of the Armenians died because of several reasons like starvation, illness and also with some other groups mentioned above. So, Lewy argues that it is not genocide that happened by the Turks, because there were not any intentions to annihilate the Armenians. The Turks’ main concern was to make the country safer. The sources also show this truth according to Lewy, even though there were many sources in which people complained about the Turks, but Lewy does not find these reliable.

Lewy uses deportation, but may be it could be used relocation, because deportation is used for taking out of the frontiers, whereas relocation means mostly changing places into the frontiers. The places of Armenians changed their residential were still in the Ottoman frontier.

Fatih BALCI, University of Utah
Arif AKGUL, Washington State University

Sworn Statement of Albert J. Amateau

2007-03-02T12:02:00.000-05:00

Sworn Statement of Albert J. Amateau on the allegations that Armenians suffered "genocide" by the government of the Ottoman Empire

On this eleventh day of October in the year of 1989, there appeared before me, a notary public duly commissioned by the State of California, Albert J. Amateau, known to me. In my presence the said Albert J. Amateau duly took the required oath and affixed his signature to this instrument as well as to every page of the attached Statement of Facts (nine pages), declaring it to be an integral part of his sworn statement.
Wendy O'Steen, Notary Public - California, Principal Office in Sonoma County,My Commission Expires December 1, 1992, Signed and Sealed1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6- 7 - 8 - 9 - 10
Albert J. Amateau, residing at #413 Oak Vista Drive, in the village of Oakmont, City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma in the State of California, being duly sworn, deposes that he has prepared and hereby submits the attached statement containing (a) facts, (b) extracts from published and/or uttered communications which disprove the allegations of Armenians that their ethnic brethren suffered genocide by the government of the Ottoman Empire in 1915-1923.
These facts are submitted to oppose approval of resolution S.J.212, introduced by the Honorable Robert Dole, Senator and Republican leader of the United States Senate, at the first session of the 101st Congress of the United States. The said resolution seeks to designate April 24, 1990, as the "National Day of Remembrance" of the 75th anniversary of the alleged Armenian genocide of 1915-1923 perpetrated by the government of the Ottoman Empire.
I was born in Milas, Turkey, on April 20, 1889. In 1905 I was a student at the American Internatioal College in Izmir (Smyrna), Turkey. At the time, The Reverend John McGlaglan was President and I attended classes in English conducted by Professors Lawrence and Evan-Jones. These details to make it possible to ascertain the truth of my statements.
There, I became acquainted and friendly with many Turkish born Armenian students, most of whom were my seniors. Because my Grandfather, whose name I bear, had been the French Consul in Izmir, I was mistakenly considered a Christian and a Frenchman. The Armenian students felt that they could freely discuss their membership in Armenian secret societies, i.e., Huntchak and Tashnak Zutiun, and their active participation in secret military exercises to prepare themselves for military duty in their planned subversive war against the Ottoman Empire and nation. In alliance and collaboration with Tsarist Russia.
In 1906 a number of wealthy Armenians in Izmir were assessinated. Mr. Hayik Balgosian and his friend, Mr. Artin Balokian, had been shot by two men in front of the Balgosian mansion in Karatash, an affluent section of Izmir. Days later, the large establishment in the center of the Izmir Bazaar, the SIVRI-SSARIAN, wholesale dry goods warehouse and store, was bombed. Mr. Agop Sivri-Ssarian and a number of his Armenian employees were killed. The perpetrators then sent secret messages, in Armenian printed lettering, threatening a number of Armenian merchants, doctors, lawyers and architects - unless they "contributed" the sums the leaders of the secret societies had assessed, the recepients would suffer the same fate as Balgosian and Sivri-Ssarian.
A majority of these addresses must have "contributed". A few, who evidently were satisfied with their economic, social and political status, did not approve of the plans for subversion and rebellion. They informed the Izmir Police of their suspicion of the identity of the leaders of the secret societies and that the Apostoloc Armenian church on ERMENI MAHALLESI, the main Armenian quarters in Izmir, was possibly the repository of arms and ammunition for the planned rebellion.
I witnessed the police raid on that church; and the truck loads of arms and ammunition which were taken out. Also the arrest of five priests and a number of other Armenians who were in the church at the time of the raid, including a few of my fellow students of the American College. Evidently I had not taken the disclosures of my fellow students seriously enough. Also, I could not understand the Armenian logic for rebellion against a country that had given its ethnic minorities the right to observe and practise their religion, conduct schools for the instruction of their young in their ethnic language and favored many of them with positions of trust. I knew of many Armenians in important positions in the Ottoman Treasury, Foreign Affairs, and as functionaries as consuls,.
I knew of many affluent Armenian doctors, attorneys and even a couple of bankers and architects. It was well known that the Armenians were the merchant princes of the Empire and that the Sultan favored them, especially because, of all the ethnic communities, they were the only ones who spoke the difficult Turkish language as a second language to their own Armenian.
Armenian terrorists in the United States and their duped friends have made it a career to assassinate Turkish consular officilas, supposedly in revenge for the alleged Armenian massacre in 1915. Their prelates, leaders, and even our own California governor, Mr. Deukmejian, have not seen fit to express their disapproval, and by their silence have tacitly approved of the assassinations. The leaders of the secret Armenian societies, Huntchak and Tashnak Zutiun, have continued their nefarious activities by agitating for the introduction of their alleged genocide into the instruction program of the public schools of the State of California.
They have also been able, through their boast of one million Armenian votes, to influence State representatives in passing laws to place their Armenian program for a motion picture into operation.
Now they are trying to have the Congress of the United States pass a resolution to designate April 24, 1990, as the 75th anniversary of their alleged genocide of 1.5 million Armenians by the "Ottoman Turks in 1915". I am amazed that intelligent and politically astute gentlemen, such as Senator Robert Dole, the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, and others, his colleagues, have been importuned to sponsor that resolution without any proof of the veracity of the Armenian claims. There is no doubt in my mind that Senator Dole and his colleagues are honest and honorable men. They have been duped to believe the Armenian allegations as true.
To establish the truth to the satisfaction of the Senators, I am submitting extracts from statements - in fact, avowais - by Armenian leaders in their addresses and/or communications with their adherents. These extracts, and the entire statements, are unimpeachable, and the veracity of my quotes can be easily ascertained. I am also submitting statements of others, but especially of Professor John Dewey, of Columbia University, who investigated the Armenian claims of genocide.
a) EXTRACTS from the November 1914 issue of the OFFICIAL ARMENIAN GAZETTE HUNTCHAK, published in Paris, France, by the Armenian Revolutionary Committee of the ARMENIAN NATION. This was a CALL TO ARMS! "...The entire ARMENIAN NATION will join forces - moral and material, and waving the sword of REVOLUTION, will enter this World conflict.... as comrades in arms of the Triple Entente, and particularly RUSSIA. They will cooperate with the ALLIES, making full use of all political and revolutionary means for the final victory of Armenia, Cilicia, Caucasus, Azerbayjan.... heroes who will sacrifice their lives for the great cause of Armenia....Armenians proud to shed their blood for the cause of Armenia...." -Please note the date. It was even before the declaration of war.
b) EXTRACTS from a letter dated JANUARY 27, 1918, and published in the LONDON TIMES on JANUARY 30, 1918, signed by BOGHOS NUBAR, the recognized leader of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, TASHNAK ZUTIUN. This was a complaint that the Allies had refused to invite the ARMENIAN REVOLUTIONARY COMMITTEE HUNTCHAK to the PEACE CONFERENCE at which the treaty between Turkey and the Allies was signed in Lauzanne, Switzerland.
"...The unspeakable sufferings and the dreadful losses that have befallen the Armenian Nation by reason of their faithfulness to the Allies.... The fact well known only to a few that ever since the beginning of the war, Armenians fought by the side of the Allies on all fronts... Armenians have been belligerents 'de facto' since their indignant refusal to side with the Turks... our volunteers fought in Syria and Palestine (at the time part of the Ottoman Empire) in the decisive victory of General Allenby.... After the breakdown of Russia, the Armenian legions were the only forces to resist the advances of the Turks whom they held in check until the armistice was signed. Thus they helped the British forces in Mesopotamia (at the time also part of the Ottoman Empire) by hindering the German/Turkish forces from sending troops elsewhere."
----Please note the reference to refusal to side with the Turks, the nation where they were born and of which they were a part. There is no claim of genocide.
c) EXTRACTS from the MANIFESTO, delivered by His Excellency, HOVHANES KATCHAZOUNI, PRIME MINISTER of the ARMENIAN REPUBLIC (established after the First World War) at the CONVENTION of the ARMENIAN REVOLUTIONARY FEDERATION, in Bucharest, Romania, JULY 1923. This was in the nature of a report. "...In the fall of 1914, when Turkey had not yet entered the war but was already making preparations, Armenian revolutionary bands began to form with great enthusiasm...
The ARMENIAN REVOLUTIONARY FEDERATION had active participation in the formation of these bands and the military action against TURKEY... In the fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer bands fought against TURKEY... This was an inevitable result of the psychology on which the Armenian Nation had been nourished during an entire generation... the winter of 1914 and the spring of 1915 were periods of great activity, greatest enthusiasm and hopes... We had no doubt that the war would end with complete victory for the Allies and Turkey would be defeated and dismembered, and its Armenian population would at least be liberated... We had embraced Russia wholeheartedly without any compun(...)... we believed that the Tsarist government would grant us self government in the Caucasus and in the Armenian vilayets (Turkish provinces where many Armenians resided), liberated from Turkey, as a reward for our loyalty, our efforts and our assistance. Unfortunately Russia did not keep its word..."
One and a half million Armenians are claimed to have been massacred. The avowals of their leaders prior to and after the First World War prove that there had been no massacre - their leaders would have referred to it or claimed it as their calamity, or at least as their contribution to the Allied cause. The allegations of massacre and/or genocide are a later invention to compel the new Turkish Republic to cede to them the five vilayets where they had installed the Armenian Republic, which they later had to give up to the Turkish Republic after a brief war. The Armenians have ever since been trying to obtain either the territory to add to the Russian Armenian Republic, or a large sum of money as the price for stopping the terrorism.
The Armenian people must blame their own leaders and their secret revolutionary societies for the subversive actions which led to their participation in the war with the Allies. They can blame Russia for reneging on its promise, and the Allies for not giving them due credit for their help, but they certainly have no reason to blame the Turkish Republic and/or even the now defunct Ottoman Empire, as their own leaders confessed. Let us now see what Professor John Dewey, of Columbia University, has to say -a broad minded Christian gentleman who went to the Middle East in 1928 to investigate the Armenian claims of genocide. This is extracted from his report published in THE NEW REPUBLIC, vol. 40, November 12, 1928:
"Few Americans who mourn, and justly, the miseries of the Armenians, are aware that till the rise of the nationalistic ambitions, beginning with the 70s, the Armenians were the favored portion of the population of Turkey; or that in the Great War, they treacherously turned Turkish cities over to the Russian invaders; that they have boasted og having raised a hundred and fifty thousand (150,000) men to fight a civil war, that they burned at least one hundred (100) Turkish villages and exterminated their populations. I do not mention these things by way of appraising or extenuating blame, because the story of provocations and reprisals is as futile as it is endless. Finally, one recalls that the Jews took their abode in "fanatic" Turkey when they were expelled from Europe, especially Spain, by "Saintly" Christians, and they have lived in Turkey for some centuries, at least in as much tranquility and liberty as their fellow Muslim Turks, all being exposed alike to the rapacity of their common rulers. To one brought up, as most Armenians have been, in the Gladstonian and foreign missionary traditions, the condition of the Jews of Turkey is almost a mathematical demonstration that religious differences had no influence in the tragedy of Turkey, only as they were combined with the aspirations for political separation, which every nation in the world would have treated as treasonable..."
Professor Dewey had evidently not been told of the rejection by the Jewish Communities of Turkey of the appeals by the European Zionists for political and financial assistance. Insofar as the Jews of Turkey were concerned, the Zionist proposals were "subversive", unless and until the Ottoman government agreed to them. At no time did the Jews of Turkey nurse aspirations for political separation from their Ottoman saviors, who had received them when no other country allowed their either entry or residence. In 1922 in Izmir, Kemal Ataturk, when he captured 100,000 Greek soldiers who had been allowed by the Allied governments to invade and occupy Turkey in Asia, said: "OF ALL THE ETHNIC MILLETS (Communities) THE JEWS ELECTED TO REMAIN LOYAL TO THEIR MOTHERLAND." Now for a brief view of Armenian atrocities against Muslim and Jews - EXTRACTS from a letter dated December 11, 1983, published in the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, as an answer to a letter that had been published in the same journal under the signature of one B. AMARIAN, claiming 1.5 million victims of genocide by the Ottoman Turks:
"..We have first hand information and evidence of Armenian atrocities against our people (Jews) which preceded the so-called massacre of Armenians which you allege in 1915. Members of our family witnessed the murder of 148 members of our family near Erzurum, Turkey, by Armenian neighbors, bent on destroying anything and anybody remotely Jewish and/or Muslim. Armenians should look to their own history and see the havoc they and their ancestors perpetrated upon their neighbors... Armenians were in league with HITLER in the last war, on his promise to grant them self government if, in return, the Armenians would help exterminate Jews... Armenians were also hearty proponents of the anti-semitic acts in league with the Russian Communists. Mr Amarian! Prove that, as you say, a large scale massacre of Armenians occured. I don't need your bias." Signed ELIHU BEN LEVI, Vacaville, California. Attached as the last page of this statement is proof of Armenian collaboration with Hitler.
My friend, Franz Werfel, of Vienna, Austria, a writer, wrote a book entitled THE 40 DAYS AT MUSSA DAGH, a history of the massacre of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks. The story was told him by his friend, the Armenian Bishop of Vienna and Werfel never doubted the Bishop's account. He did not investigate what he wrote. Years later, when the true facts about Mussa Dagh were established by the research of neutral investigators - which was never denied by the Armenians - Werfel discovered that he had been duped by his friend, the Bishop, with a concocted story. Werfel confessed to me his shame and remorse for hav
THE TRUTH
Fifty thousand Armenians, residents of villages in and around Erzurum in Turkey surreptiously ascended a mountain called Mussa Dagh (dagh is Turkish for mountain) with arms, ammunition, victuals and water, sufficient to withstand a siege of many days. Before ascending that mountain, they had captured hundreds of Muslim Turks and Jews, their fellow citizens and neighbors, with whom they were supposedly on good terms. They murdered them all in cold blood, for no other reason than they were Muslims and Jews. Thereafter, every night armed Armenian bands came down from that mountain and attacked the rear of the Ottoman and German armies fighting the Russian invaders. This was at the very beginning of the First World War, and part of the secret plans made by the Russians and assigned to the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. ing written that story, in which he had blamed the Ottomans as the aggressors and terrorists.
The Turks were mystified. The Armenian attackers would disappear. Try as they did, at first the Ottomans were unable to trace the disappearing Armenians, but finally they discovered that Mussa Dagh was the hiding place. The Ottomans found the mountain fortress unassailable. They laid siege and waited 40 days before the Armenian rear guard conceded defeat and laid down their arms. But the Ottoman forces found the mountain empty. The large army had disappeared down the other side of the mountain where they had found an exit to the Mediterranean. French and British men-of-war had been signalled and they picked up the main army, transporting the soldiers to Alexandria, Egypt, then under the control of the British. Less than 500, the rear guard who gave themselves up, were zaptured by the Ottomans.
Yet, in telling the story to Werfel to write, the Bishop had claimed 50,000 victims captured and put to death - an invented story, just as is the story of 1.5 million massacred in 1915. If 1.5 million Armenian lost their lives during that war, they died as soldiers, fighting a war of their own choosing against the Ottoman Empire which had treated them decently and benignly. They were the duped victims of the Russians, of the Allies, and of their own Armenian leaders. A few thousand Armenians may have lost their lives during their relocation, caused by their own subversion.
In making this expose of the truth and disclosing my home address, I know that I risk Armenian harrassment. I have already been subjected to telephone and written threaths! However, the truth must be told. As one born in the Ottoman Empire, from which I emigrated in 1910 and have never returned to live, I must declare:
1) I am not and never have been employed or paid by any government in Turkey.
2) I am not now and never have been financially interested in any business in Turkey.
3) My parents died before the Second World War. My sister and brother-in-law, residents of the Island of Rhodes, were captured and murdered by Hitler's Nazis. I have no relatives or friends in Turkey. It should be evident that I have no motive in taking the risk, other than my conscientious duty to tell the truth out of my love for my native land. I beg the Honorable Senators and other government officials to demand from the Armenians proof of their claims and explanation of the statement of avowals made by their own leaders. Under the circumstances and in view of the above proof, I cannot conceive that the Senators can in good conscience pass that resolution.
It is not enough to say that they do not mean to hurt the Turks or Turkish/American relations. By entertaining that resolution without proof, they are actually going against the interests of Turkey and the safety of the United States and of NATO.
Albert J. Amateau

Original: http://www.sephardicstudies.org/aa3.html

2007-02-24T08:16:00.000-05:00

This is the news taken from a French newspaper on 24 November 1895
Armenians attacking to a mosque in Istanbul

WP: Pelosi's pandering against Turkey

2007-02-24T07:56:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON POST / TODAY'S EDITORIAL
February 20, 2007

Not content with undermining the war effort in Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has apparently set her sights on Turkey, a NATO ally and one of the few Muslim-majority nations in the world that is a democracy. Mrs. Pelosi has scheduled a vote in April on a resolution (H. Res. 106) that accuses Turkey's Ottoman Empire of perpetrating "genocide" resulting in the death or displacement of nearly 2 million Armenians between 1915 and 1923. With the United States currently fighting a war for its very survival against radical Islamists, Congress should have much more important priorities than revisiting events that occurred more than 80 years ago -- particularly when doing so has the potential to do serious damage to U.S. relations with Turkey, whose cooperation will be critical to U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq.

But H. Res. 106 has far more to do with the power of ethnic lobbies in Washington than with larger U.S. foreign policy interests. The reality is that Armenian and Greek lobbying organizations hostile to Turkey command far more power in Washington than do pro-Turkish groups. And in their effort to settle old scores dating back to World War I, they have the potential to damage our current ability to maintain Turkey's cooperation in stabilizing Iraq, where upwards of 140,000 American troops are stationed, and to do grave damage to our relationship with an ally of long standing, a country that has long been a bulwark against regional rogue states like Syria. For many years, Turkey was the only Muslim nation in the Middle East to have trade and diplomatic relations with Israel.
But today Turkey has plenty of reasons to worry about current trends in Iraq. Were the United States to "redeploy" its forces out of Iraq or to dramatically scale back its military presence inside the country, it would result in a power vacuum that would be filled by al Qaeda in Iraq and like-minded Sunni jihadists on one side, and by the rogue regime in Iran and its Shi'ite allies on the other. If U.S. forces pull out or have their operational effectiveness crippled by harsh restrictions that Rep. John Murtha is pushing for with Mrs. Pelosi's consent, the country would be plunged into all-out civil war. One likely result would be the creation of millions of additional refugees; it is not difficult to imagine that at a minimum hundreds of thousands of these refugees would stream towards the Turkish border and that Ankara would come under intense international pressure to admit them as a sign of its goodwill.
One of the most underreported stories of the Iraq war has been the extraordinary restraint shown by Turkey in dealing with a volatile situation in northern Iraq -- particularly the advent of a quasi-independent Kurdish state there. Ankara's relations with the Kurds have been characterized by tension and violence. (Approximately 30,000 people have died in Turkey since the early 1980s as a result of a terror campaign launched by the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK). But even as it was coming under fire from Kurdish terrorists, Turkey beginning in 1991 assisted the United States in providing support for the establishment of an autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq which was protected from Saddam Hussein's military by the U.S.-instituted no-fly zone. Since the current Iraq war began in 2003, the PKK has had a resurgence in southeastern Turkey. The Ankara government complains that the dominant Iraqi Kurdish groups, the PUK and the KDP, have done little to stop the PKK from using Iraq as a base.
And in the coming months, the situation in northern Iraq is likely to become much more threatening to Turkish interests. Sunni and Shi'ite Arabs, Turkmen and Iraqi Christians are all upset about Kurdish plans to incorporate the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, which officially lies just outside the Kurdish-controlled region of northern Iraq, into a de facto Kurdish state. They accuse the Kurds of seeking to drive them out of Kirkuk in advance of a scheduled December referendum on the city's future to ensure that voters who will support the Kurdish groups' position. As Kurdish authorities come under fire for removing non-Kurds from Kirkuk in advance of the referendum, Shi'ite expellees are joining the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army militia, while Sunni Arabs are joining al Qaeda affiliates, who are blamed for a rash of suicide bombings in Kirkuk since last summer.
At such a dangerous time, the United States needs to be working more closely with both our Kurdish friends in Iraq and our Turkish allies. But Mrs. Pelosi seems more interested in playing ethnic politics in order to score some cheap political points and win additional votes.

Open letter to Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi

2007-01-06T08:57:00.000-05:00

November 17, 2006
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi
US Congress Speaker
2371 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Let there be peace on earth. Reject hatred and vengeance. Please improve USA image in the world and not create new enemies?

Your honor Pelosi,

I would like to congradulate your new post.

The most likely source of the story of the alleged Armenian genocide must have come to you from people who have been brought up to hate and seek vengeance from childhood by their parents. Hatred and vengeance are the instigators of wars. You are a person who would uphold the law, be unbiased in making laws and reject unfounded racist propaganda.
From 1890’s to 1920 the Armenian Hinchak and Dashnak terrorist organizations were responsible for ethnic cleansing and for massacring over 350 thousand Turks, Kurds and Jews living in Anatolia. They destroyed and burnt down 22 Moslem villages and massacred their residents. Excavations and documentations are being conducted at present. You could visit these sites.You cannot be impartial if you have not read the report of Hovannes Katchaznouni and compared the contents of that report with the misrepresentations and false facts presented by the Armenians of to-day. He was the first Prime Minister of the Armenian Republic before it was annexed by the communist Russian Republics. He was the head of the Armenian Dashnak Party and presented this report to the Dashnak Party conference in 1923 held in Brussels. At that time, the report was published in Armenian. The English translation was published in New York in 1955.

Katchaznouni essentially announced the following:
1. The Armenians tried their hands in uprising, terrorism, assaults, war, defense, organizing political parties, founding a State, etc. There is nothing else we could do but to make peace.
2. Creating the armed Armenian guerillas that came under Russian dominance was a mistake.
3. They had not counted on the segments of the Armenians who were siding with the Turks.
4. Turkey had acted in defense of its existence when it decided on the relocation.
5. Armenians had massacred the Moslem population.
6. There is no one guilty other than the Dashnak organization.
Do you believe in the American value of “Innocent until proven guilty”? This traditional American value is being trampled with in the accusations of the so called “Armenian Genocide”.

When the Ottoman Empire was defeated in WWI the Allies occupied its lands. They imprisoned more than 100 officials and took them to Malta for trial as perpetrators of war crimes. According to article 239 of the Sevr treaty signed by the Ottomans, the Occupying Nations were given complete access to all archives and documents of the Ottoman government. Archive specialists brought in by the Allies studied every document in the files of the Ottoman Government in order to find evidence of crimes committed against humanity. It took them 2 years, 4 months, and 27 days to come up empty handed. Since 1918 there still is no one that can produce a document that will hold up in a court of law. As a result, the High Court of the Allies which resembled somewhat the Nuremberg tribunals decided that there was not sufficient evidence to convict the Turks and released them. Attached are the documentations of these trials. Should you wish you could examine them.

Once proven innocent the retrying for the same crime is un-American when no additional documents of those times can be produced. The Armenians as well as the Russians refused to open their archives. Turkish archives were opened during the occupation and still is completely open and available to anyone. One can find many forged documents invented by Armenians of to-day. Most photos of alleged Armenian dead people could as well be the dead Turks of Erzurum. Museums in Erzurum and Van have the relics from the excavations of the mass graves. As a gesture of good will the Turks asked the Armenians to show where their dead were buried, but received no response.

Looking at the Armenian events from one side only means that you would legitimize the activities of the Hinchak, Dashnak and Asala terrorists whose methods were copied by the Al-Qaeda and you would find killing of Turks by Armenians very acceptable. Is it possible for you to review the works of historians who are not Armenian or Turkish nor employed by the Armenian Diaspora?

“The Diplomacy of Imperialism,” by William L. Langer, A. A. Knoff Publisher, NY, 1935.Mr. Langer received A.B., Ph.D. and honorary LLD degrees from Harvard. He has been awarded an honorary D. Phil. by the University of Hamburg. In July 1946, as a result of his outstanding wartime record, Mr. Langer was awarded the Medal of Merit by President Truman.

“The Armenians,” by C.F. Dixon-Johnson, G. Toulmin & Sons, Northgate, Blackburn, UK, 1916.Mr. Dixon-Johnson was an officer in the UK armed forces which were at war with Turkey. He was designated as a hero of the Boer War. He writes that the purpose of his book was to tell the truth. He adds: “Give a lie twenty-four hours’ start, and it will take a hundred years to overtake it.”

Sincerely,

Evidence for Talaat Pasha- Lt. Gen. D. Bronsart v. Schellendorf

2006-12-28T07:34:00.000-05:00

Evidence for Talaat Pasha from Lt. General a.D. Bronsart v. Schellendorf
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Nr. 342, 24.07.1921
Beiblatt, Morgen-Ausgabe (Morning Issue)

An evidence for Talaat PashaFrom Lt. General a.D. Bronsart v. SchellendorfEx-Chief of the General Staff of the Turkish Army, (Latest Commander of the Royal Prussian Infantry Division). . The witnesses heard in the lawsuit of Teilirian, were composed of persons either from people whose statements had no relevance with the process or those who had only "heard" about the events. Eyewitnesses, who had observed the reality themselves were not invited. Why were the German officers, who at the time of Armenian horror were serving at the scenes of the happenings, not interrogated? They were listed at the court, some had also received invitations stating that they should be ready for their witness, but finally none were called to court.I hereby am obliged for the sake of truth to add my witness account, the omission of which was not my fault. It took for me a long time to reach the documents, that caused the delay. In order to understand the role of Armenian horror in relation to the murdered prime minister, a short review is necessary. Armenian terror is very old! It always happened since the Armenians and Kurds lived near each other along the borders of Russia, Persia and Turkey. The Kurds are nomads and cattle owners, the Armenian deal with agriculture, are handworkers and merchants. The Kurd is uneducated, doesn't have a deep knowledge of money and its worth, and believes that interest is forbidden by the Koran. The Armenian as a merchant takes advantage of the unaware Kurds and exploits them unscrupulously. The Kurd feels that he is cheated and revenges the money-lender and thus the "Armenian horror" start. It must be stressed that conflicts of religion does not play a role. The old quarrel was fed again when the Armenians during the World War revolted dangerously in the eastern border provinces of Turkey. They had no reasonable excuses, because the reforms that were induced by the 'great powers"' had already started to show their effects. The Armenians had their seats and votes in the (Ottoman) Parliament; they even filled the post of Foreign Minister. They had social and political rights equal to those of the folks of the State. Peace in their lands was accomplished by the gendarmeries who were trained by the French General Baumann.The revolt had a long preparation period. Many findings, such as published appeals, agitating brochures, arms, ammunition, explosives found in the Armenian areas have proven that it was provoked, supported and paid by the Russians. A conspiracy planned against high bureaucrats and officers of the army in Constantinople was discovered on time. As all the Muslims, who were able to fight were in the Turkish army, it was easy for the Armenians to massacre the defenseless people, because they did not confine or limit themselves to a military flank attack from the back of the Turkish eastern army which had been engaged fighting the Russians in the front, but also exterminated the Muslim population in those areas. Their cruelty, I really testify as an eye witness, was far worse than later the Turks were blamed against the Armenian. To keep in contact with his hinterland, the east army attacked. However, since they required all their forces against the overwhelming Russians, the revolt's circle encompassed Turkey's most distant places. So, the gendarmes were drawn near to attenuate the fight. As in all states, the gendarme is under the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The Minister was Talat, and he had to take the necessary precautions. It was very urgent, because the army's sensitive ways of support were blocked and endangered, the Muslim populations were escaping in thousands in desperation from the Armenian cruelty. In this critical situation the Cabinet decided to proclaim the Armenians as dangerous for the state and started to evacuate them from the border territories. They had to be transported into a non crowded populated but fertile, warless territory such as Northern Mesopotamia. The Minister of Internal Affairs and his subordinates, such as the gendarmes, had strictly to obey this decision.Talat was not an unbalanced, revenging killer, but a statesman of comprehensive views. He generally believed that the Armenians, apart their temporarily agitation by the Russians and Russian-Armenians' religious faith comrades, would in peaceful times become serviceable citizens and hoped that they, without the Russian influences and Kurdish fights in their emigrated residences, would through their intelligence and diligence, put the land to flourish. Talat also had foreseen that the Allied press would take advantage of the emigration of the Armenians to present make a holy propaganda against the "Crushing of Christians" by the Turks, and had therefore tried to avoid harsh measures. He was right. The propaganda started right away and was successful. Every foreign circle believed in this incredulous silly reaction. Crushing of Christians, Moreover, In a land, which had alliance with the Christian countries, with a great number of Christian officers and soldiers in their army as co-fighters. I come now to the realization of the plan of the Armenian resettlement. The Turkish land with its wide spread out location, but with deficiencies in connections and correspondences, put the Armenians in a situation, with more or less independence from the central government. The governors (Valis) had more rights than our highest civil officials of provinces. Based on this situation, they take the final decisions or sentence themselves in their governing area. The orders of the Ministries would sometimes be carried out differently in a way not intended. This was carried out by the official directors in its sequence in their under officials, and the insight could be lost.The uncommon difficult task, to lead beside thousands of Muslims who took refuge by escaping and also the Armenians in the ordered marching ways, in addition to feeding and sheltering them, was under the powers of the few and untrained officials. Here took Talat over with all the means and great energy. His ordered appropriate directions to the Valis and to the gendarmes must still be available. Numerous written records of the Ministry of Internal Affairs sent to the Minister of war, which are known to me due to my position, demanded urgent help from the army, which was granted as far as the war situation allowed. Food and forwarding agents, shelter rooms, doctors and medicine were disposed, in spite of considerable deficit in the army itself. Despite all efforts to alleviate their fate, thousands of Muslim fugitives and Armenian refugees unfortunately could not keep up with the difficulties involved during their strenuous march and succumbed.At this point, one could raise the question as to whether the situation couldn't be foreseen and the resettlement be discontinued. Leaving aside that the Turkish fugitives, having reasonable fear from the Armenian violence and rape, would not allow to stay, one has also to consider the stately necessity of the migration of Armenians outside, of zones of revolt.Let us take for example the present situation in Germany. If a Minister had the power to order: "All Polish revolts will be evacuated from Oberschlesien and will be put into a prisoners camp" or: "All the terrorist communists will be deported and left, on the shores of Soviet Russia!", wouldn't this lead to an uproar of approval throughout Germany?. May be the Judges in the Teilirian process will later ask themselves such questions. They will then come to a new and less severe judgment over the deportation of the Armenians.Talat has rejected the Army's demand to deport all Greeks from the Mediterranean shores, because they were accused of espionage only. There was no revolt, as in the Armenian case. He was a statesman, not a murderer.Coming now to the horror that was premeditatedly committed against the Armenians. They have been numerously verified, that there is no doubt that it is a fact.I will begin with the Kurds. It is obvious that this race profited the rare and unique opportunity to plunder and kill the hated Armenians during their march, who in addition had committed horror against the Muslims. The painful trip of the Armenians crossed many days and weeks through Kurdistan. There was no other way to Mesopotamia.Judgments differ about the behavior of the Turkish Gendarmes who were accompanying the Armenian herds. In some places they have safeguarded their refugees very bravely against the Kurdish bandits. In other places, it is said that they have fled. They were also blamed to have robbed or killed the Armenians with the Kurds or alone by themselves. No proof is available that they have committed these crimes on orders of higher offices. Talat cannot be blamed for it. The events occurred 2000 km away from him, and the gendarmes as mentioned before, had been trained by the French until the outbreak of war. It can not be denied that Turkish officers had profited from the Armenians or have violated them. However, if such an action was noticed by their commanders, they were strictly punished.Wehib Pasha, the chief commander of the east army, let two Turkish officers shot to death by the military war tribunal..Enver Pasha punished the governor of Aleppo, a Turkish general, who became rich by exploiting Armenians, with discharge from all his posts and with penalty of long imprisonment.I think that these examples are enough to prove that there was no intension to abominate the Armenians. But it was wartime and the practice was wild. I remember the cruelties that the French have exerted to our wounded and imprisoned soldiers. Have the foreigners experienced such violence? As I have heard, beside the murdered minister Enver Pasha was also attacked in the German court. As I have witnessed him, Enver loves his country very much; he is a respected soldier with great talents and unreachable courage. The reform of the Turkish Army was accomplished thanks to his efforts of long duration and fights against the mighty countries and he still is fighting for his country. According to my observations as chief of general staff from 1914 to 1917, having very near relations to these two men, I say that no German officer can be nominated to sentence him and his friend Talat Pasha.Talat Pasha has become a victim of his love for his country. I hope that Enver Pasha will succeed, when his time comes, to improve his country to new peaks. The memories in most difficult times, of these two men with their full trust and friendship that they have bestowed upon me makes me proud.
__________________________________________________________________
Dear All,
Genl. Bronsart article Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung No.342, 24.07.1921

Above article in German and Turkish was kindly provided early this month, through TF and Sul hanim, and since then I have been begging (Dec.6th) for somebody proficient in both German and English to make the direct translation of this important document. Thanks again to my class mate Prof. Teoman Onat (retired surgeon) who had helped me in finding a friend of his in New York which did the translation of the Dutch paper into English,for providing attached translation from German into English. If you wish to thank him for his outside support you can send a hello to him at cc.."By the way Ataov, Onat and myself we are all from the same class RC 51, and over 75 yrs of age. Imagine how much better we would have acted, if we were to be as young as most of the rest."This is a very important document refuting all allegations of “intended annihilation”. (General Bronsart was next to Enver as his right hand at all times, and of course in front lines of the Sarikamish offensive. Another source explains how they barely they escaped from falling prisoners to the Russian Army – supported by Armenian volunteers. They were all the way up in snow with soldiers, and if it was not to be the Armenian resistance delaying the surprise attack, Russian reinforcements that came, and the blizzard that followed, they would have been the victorious side. They gambled and lost with 80.000 young soldiers frozen and starved to death)
Sukru Server Aya

Prof. Stanford Shaw dies

2006-12-17T07:14:00.000-05:00

American Historian, Known for his Work on Ottomans, Dies

Known for his works on the field of Ottoman history, Prof. Stanford Shaw died yesterday.A statement made by the Turkish Academy of Science said that Shaw, who was made an honorary member of the academy on Dec. 16, 2005, and who was granted the ‘Medal and Certificate of Service’ in September along with Prof. Halil Inalcik due to his contributions to Turkish history passed away at the age of 76. . . Shaw, the first historian to benefit from the Ottoman archives, demonstrated that the Ottoman state granted the Jews who had been oppressed in both Western and Eastern Europe the right to take refuge in the Ottoman lands. As a result, the Jews, who escaped the tyranny in Europe, helped the Ottoman economy to develop and made contributions to the diplomatic and cultural life of the Ottoman Empire. In his 2000-page work on the Turkish War of Independence, Shaw talked about how the Turks were able to get rid of the European exploitation and economic hegemony partly due to Ataturk’s charismatic leadership and partly because of the weakness of the Allies. Shaw also underlines in the work that the Ottoman administrative reforms of 1839 fell short of reaching success because it almost completely imitated the Western institutions and when the reforms were adapted to the Ottoman realities of the day, the modernization efforts turned out to have long-lasting effects. Professor Shaw, whose house was bombed in 1977 when he was working for the University of California, had also proved the Armenian claims of an alleged genocide wrong by presenting various documents from the period.
Anadolu News Agency (AA),
Ankara
December 16, 2006

A Mountain of Discrediting Facts

2006-11-24T09:08:00.000-05:00

Letters to the Editor
The Boston GlobeBoston,
Massachusetts
Re: Jackie Abramian April 23, 2002 Op-Ed, "Why is Armenian Genocide unrecognized?"

To the Editor:
Jackie Abramian's Armenian genocide polemic against Turkey neglects a mountain of discrediting facts. Even before World War I commenced, Ottoman Armenians became de facto belligerents against the Empire every bit as much as Al Qaeda is a belligerent against the United States. In a classic case of treason, hundreds of thousands of Armenians defected to fight, spy, and plunder for the enemies of the Ottomans, slaughtering civilians and soldiers indiscriminately in places such as Van and Bitlis. They boasted of their gruesome Muslim bucheries and wartime perfidy at the Paris Peace Conference in hopes of winning an independent state. For every Armenian tragedy during the Great War, Ottoman Muslims have two or three to match.Princeton Professor, Bernard Lewis, the gold standard for impartial Middle East studies, staunchly denies the genocide claim. He is joined by other acclaimed academics such as Stanford Shaw of U.C.L.A. and Justin McCarthy of the University of Louisville. And a human rights organ of the United Nations has twice refused to endorse the genocide story, most recently on October 5, 2000.Tens of thousands of Armenians were left undisturbed outside militarily sensitive zones, such as Istanbul and Izmir.Ambassador Henry Morgenthau's views were disputed by Secretary of State Robert Lansing and his successor as Ambassador to Turkey, Rear Admiral Mark Bristol.Ottoman officials prosecuted and punished more than 1,400 soldiers for maltreatment of Armenians (and 62 were executed).The highest legal authorities in Great Britain convincingly advised against any prosecution of Ottoman officials (more than 100 detained on Malta) for want of reliable evidence of complicity in Armenian massacres. The British meticulously investigated for more than two years, including a request for U.S. State Department records and reports and a reveiw of Ottoman archives, and turned up nothing incriminating that could withstand court scrutiny.
Sincerely,

Bruce Fein
General Counsel
Assembly of Turkish American Associations
Washington, D.C.

Armenian Terrorism

2006-11-23T08:34:00.000-05:00

January, 27, 1973.
THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA,

Santa Barbara, California: 78 years old Armenian immigrant Gurgen Janikjan assassinates Mehmet Baidar, Turkish general consul in Los Angeles and Bahadyr Demir Turkish consul in Los Angeles. The murders were accomplished in hotel "Belamor " in Santa Barbara California. These murders marked the opening of an era of Armenian terrorism, which has since fledged and claimed thousands more innocent lives.

April, 4, 1973. France, Paris. Two bombs were detonated on this date. The Turkish consulate and the Turkish air transport company were targeted. Although no one was seriously injured a the bombs caused significant destructions to both buildings. No one was arrested.

October, 26, 1973. THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA, New York, New York. A Turkish information services company receives a parcel containing a bomb and the letter. The letter is addressed to the Turkish General Consul from the group calling themselves "Group Janikjan", after Gurgen Janikjan the murderer of Turkish citizens in Santa Barbara California in January 1973.

January, 27, 1973 in Santa Barbara, staff (state) California. The bomb was neutralized by police.

January, 20, 1975. Lebanon, Beirut: During press conference of 1978 speaking on behalf Armenian Confidential the Armies and Clearing of Armenia (ASALA) has declared, The first operation of this group has taken place on the same date, January, 20, 1975. On this date Beirut establishments of the World Church Cathedral was blown up.

February, 7, 1975. Lebanon, Beirut. Bombs were planted in buildings of Turkish news agency and the Bureau on tourism. When attempting to neutralize the bombs the Lebanese policeman was wounded. ASALA and "The group of Gurgena Janikjana" took the responsibility for the explosions.

February, 20, 1975. Lebanon, Beirut: Before a building of the Turkish airtransport company in Beirut the kilogram bomb that has resulted in significant destructions has blown up. The responsibility for explosion was undertaken by group ASALA of the prisoner Gurgena Janikjana.

October, 22, 1975. Austria, Vienna: Three armed terrorists, rushed into Turkish embassy in Vienna, and killed the ambassador of Turkey Tunalidjil. The three managed to disappear after the shooting. They were armed with the automatic weapons made in Israel, the Great Britain and Hungary. The group called "Armenian Victorious Army" took the responsibility for the murde

October, 14, 1975. France, Paris: the Ambassador of Turkey in France Izmail Erez was assassinated in the automobile near the Turkish embassy. The attackers also killed the driver of the ambassador Talin Ener. First the responsibility on itself the group under the name " has taken Landing group of avengers for a genocide of Armenian people ". Subsequently somebody who have called in agency Frans Press, has declared, that murder - business of hands of the Armenian Confidential Army, for clearing of Armenia (ASALA).

October, 28, 1975. Lebanon, Beirut: Rocket was fired at the Turkish embassy in Beirut and has caused significant destructions. ASALA has claimed the responsibility for the attack.
February, 16, 1976. Lebanon, Beirut. The first secretary of the Turkish embassy in Beirut, Oktar Sirit was killed by the Terrorist while he was at the reception on Hamra street. The murderer has not been apprehended. ASALA has claimed the responsibility for the attack.

May, 17, 1976. Federal Republic of Germany, Frankfurt, Essen, Cologne: the Theme of discussion in turkish consulates of three German cities became the explosions which have entailed behind self significant destructions. In spite of the fact that any group has not accepted responsibility for, anonymous phone call has named criminals - Armenians.

May, 28, 1976. Switzerland, Zurich, The explosion of two bombs destroys the Swiss branch of Turkish bank "Garanti" and the building where the Turkish business attaché was housed. The third bomb the Turkish bureau on tourism was neutralized before explosion. Although no group claimed responsibility for the explosions, law enforcement officials believe that the Armenian terrorist organization called " Group of justice for a genocide of Armenian people " (further DjSAG) was responsible.

March, 2, 1977. Lebanon, Beirut: Owing to powerful explosion the automobiles belonging to the militarian the attache of Turkey (Nahit Karakay) and the attache of Turkey on administrative questions (Ilhan Ozbabakan) were put out of action. For explosion the responsibility on itself has taken ASALA.

May, 14, 1977. France, Paris: An explosion in a building of the Turkish bureau on tourism in Paris injures the doorman. Two groups claimed responsibility for the attack "New Armenian Resistance", "Group of performances (statements) of youth ".

May, 29, 1977. Turkey, Istanbul: A powerful explosion at Istanbul airport Eshilkej kills 5 and injures 42 people, among them a citizen of the USA. Same day a similar bomb exploded in Istanbul's Sirkeci station, killing one and injuring 10. An anonymous caller to France Press news-agency in Athens, Greece, indicated that the "Armenian organization in the name ofMay, 28 " accepts the responsibility for explosion.

June, 6, 1977. Switzerland, Zurich: As a result of powerful explosion the shop belonging to Huseyn Bulbul, a Turkish national was destroyed. No one took the responsibility for the explosion.

June, 9, 1977. Italy, Vatican: Taha Brown, the ambassador of Turkey in the Cathedral (where Daddy serves) was killed by two terrorists before an own residence. Called in news agency in Beirut, the Group of justice for a genocide of Armenian people (DjSAG) has accepted responsibility for an attack.

October, 4, 1977. United States of America, Los Angeles, California: there Was an explosion of a bomb before the house of professor Standorda of Show, the American professor - Jew engaged in a turkish history at the Californian university, Los Angeles. In spite of the fact that nobody has suffered, explosion has involved behind itself significant destructions. Anonymous phone call in News agency Junajted Press Interneshnl (UPI), has informed, that the responsibility and explosion are incured " by the Armenian group - 28 ".
January, 2, 1978. Belgium, Brussels: As a result of a bomb explosion the buildings of a Turkish bank was destroyed. Armenian terrorist group called " New Armenian Resistance" claimed the responsibility for the attack.
June, 2, 1978. Spain, Madrid: Three terrorists armed with the automatic weapon attacked the car of the Turkish ambassador Convicts Kjuneral'p when he was leaving the embassy. Terrorists also killed the wife of the ambassador Nekla Kjuneral'p and the former ambassador Beshir Balsoglu. Driver Antonio Torres a Spaniard citizen received multiple wounds and died shortly after the attack in the hospital. On June 3rd, an anonymous caller indicated that ASALA takes the responsibility for the attack.

December, 6, 1978. Switzerland, Geneva: An explosion causes a great damage to the building of the Turkish consulate. The responsibility is claimed by "Group of new Armenian resistance."

December, 17, 1978. Switzerland, Geneva: Has taken place having dug in a building of the turkish airtransport company in Geneva that has resulted in significant destructions. The responsibility on itself has taken ASALA.

July, 8, 1979. France, Paris: In capital of France 4 explosions of turkish establishments were made: 1. The first bomb has blown up in a building of the turkish airtransport company. 2. The second - in a building the attache on questions of work. 3. The third - in a building of a turkish bureau on tourism. 4. The fourth bomb incorporated in a building of a permanent representative of Turkey on affairs of the Organization of economic cooperation and development, was neutralized by police before explosion. The anonymous caller to France Press news agency has informed, that the terrorist organization DjSAG takes the responsibility for the explosions.

August, 22, 1979. Switzerland, Geneva: A bomb was placed under the car of the Turkish consul in Geneva Niyazi Adaly. Two passers buy were injured. ASALA took the responsibility for explosion.

August, 27, 1979. Federal Republic of Germany, Frankfurt: As a result of an explosion office of a Turkish transportation company in Frankfurt is destroyed. The passenger in a tram passing past has been injured. ASALA took the responsibility for the attack.

October, 4, 1979. Denmark, Copenhagen: As a result of an explosion of the bomb left in a waste basket near the Turkish airlines two people have been injured; explosion has also caused significant damages to the building. ASALA took the responsibility for the attack.

October, 12, 1979. Netherlands, Hague: Ahmet Banler, the 27-years son of the Turkish ambassador (Ozdemir Benler) was killed in his car on a crossroad. Murder Doctor Technical University in Delft has taken place on eyes at 10 eyewitnesses. The criminal has disappeared. The responsibility for an attack has undertaken two terrorist organizations - DjSAG and ASALA.

October, 30, 1979. Italy, Milan: A powerful explosion almost destroys the building of the Turkish airlines. ASALA took the responsibility for the attack.

November, 8, 1979. Italy, Rome: As a result of a powerful explosion the building of the Turkish tourism attaché was seriously damaged. ASALA took the responsibility for the attack.

November, 18, 1979. France, Paris: Three explosions shook the three buildings housing three airlines, Turkish airlines, "KLM", Danish airline company and "Lufthansa" the German airlines. Two French policemen were seriously injured during the attacks. ASALA took the responsibility for all three attacks.

November, 25, 1979. Spain, Madrid: there Were explosions before buildings of the Madrid branch of the American airtransport company and company " British airlines ". Organization ASALA which has accepted responsibility for these explosions has informed, that it was the prevention(warning) to Polu John Polju about that it(he) has cancelled the planned visit to Turkey.

December, 9, 1979. Italy, Rome: In the Centre of Rome there were two explosions as a result of which buildings of American airtransport company " Panama ", the company " WORLD AIR LINES ", companies " British airlines " and companies " Philippine airlines " were damaged(injured). In a result 9 person have received wounds. The responsibility for these explosions was recognized by the group calling " New Armenian Resistance ".
December, 17, 1979. The incorporated Kingdom Great Britain, London: As a result of explosion before the London branch of the turkish airtransport company significant damages were put. The responsibility on itself the group called " has taken Front for clearing of Armenia ".

December, 22, 1979. France, Paris: the Attache on tourism in turkish embassy Elmaz Sholpan, walking on street in people Chance Alice, was killed by the gangster. The responsibility for murder some groups, among them

ASALA, DjSAG and " have undertaken Group of the Armenian insurgents against a genocide ".
December, 22, 1979. Netherlands, Amsterdam: Significant destructions have taken place owing to explosion before a building of the turkish airtransport company. The responsibility for explosion has undertaken ASALA.

December, 23, 1979. Italy, Rome: there Was an explosion before a building of the Centre on questions of refugees at the World Advice(council) of Churches (a board the Dyne) in Rome. This centre was used in quality of "transshipment" item(point) for the Armenian refugees from Lebanon. The responsibility for explosion has undertaken ASALA, having warned the Italian authorities about the termination(discontinuance) of activity " Armenian Diaspora ".

December, 23, 1979. Italy, Rome: there Were 3 explosions before buildings of the Roman branch of the French airtransport company and the American airtransport company Trance WORLD AIR LINES owing to what the set of passing by people has received wounds. Having accepted responsibility for explosions, ASALA has declared, that bombs were enclosed(laid) " as a reciprocal measure on repressive attacks of the French authorities against the Armenians living in France ".

January, 10, 1980. Iran, Teheran: there Was an explosion before a building of the turkish airtransport company, entailed for itself significant destructions. The responsibility for explosion has undertaken ASALA.

January, 20, 1980. Spain, Madrid: the Series of the explosions which have entailed behind self set of wounds, has taken place before buildings of the American airtransport company " Trance WORLD AIR LINES ", companies " British airlines ", and also the companies " Swiss Air " and "Sabena". The responsibility for explosions was undertaken by the group calling " Group of justice for a genocide of Armenian people ".

February, 2, 1980. Belgium, Brussels: In the Centre of Brussels before buildings of the turkish airtransport company and Soviet Aeroflot two bombs (within 5 minutes) have blown up. In a communique " the group " has declared New Armenian resistance, that accepts responsibility for both explosions.

February, 6, 1980. Switzerland, Bern: Before a building of Turkish embassy in Bern the terrorist has opened fire on the ambassador of Turkey Dogan Turkmen sitting in the own automobile. The ambassador has received easy wounds. Assumed(prospective) the murderer, the Armenian by name Max Klindjyan, subsequently was arrested in Marseilles and returned to Switzerland for realization of consequence(investigation). The responsibility for an attack was undertaken with terrorist organization DjSAG.

February, 18, 1980. Italy, Rome: As a result of two explosions buildings of three airtransport companies (" Swiss Air ", " Ale Al " and "Lufthansa") were damaged(injured). The responsibility for explosions has undertaken ASALA. Anonymous phone call in the Roman News agency has informed, that three airlines became objects for an attack for the following reasons: a) " Swiss Air " - as the prevention(warning) to the Swiss government to not imprison innocent Armenians. b) "Lufthansa" - to punish the German government which promotes turkish fascism. c) " Ale Al " - in connection with zionist…

March, 10, 1980. Italy, Rome: Buildings of the turkish airtransport company and a turkish bureau on tourism in Rome on Piacjsa Della Republic became objects of two powerful explosions. As a result of a strong blast wave two Italians were lost and 14 have received wounds. The responsibility for explosions the Group has undertaken " new Armenian resistance ".

April, 17, 1980. Italy, Rome: Three Armenian terrorists shot at the ambassador of Turkey in the Cathedral where Daddy serves, Wesdy Turella. The ambassador came near to the residence in the own automobile, it(him) slightly has wounded. At attempt protection and driver Tahsyn Gjuvenchi also have received wounds. The responsibility for an attack has undertaken DjSAG.

May, 19, 1980. France, Marseilles: the rocket aimed at turkish consulate in Marseilles was found out and neutralized. The responsibility on itself has taken ASALA and the group calling " Black April ".

July, 31, 1980. Greece, Athenes: the Attache on questions of management in turkish embassy in Athenes Galib Ozman and his(its) family, being in the machine, have undergone to an attack of the Armenian terrorists. Galib and his(its) 14-years daughter Neslihan were lost. His(its) wife Sevil' and 16-years son Kaan have received wounds. The responsibility for two murders has undertaken ASALA.

August, 5, 1980. France, Lyons: Two terrorists have rushed into a building of turkish consulate in Lyons and have demanded from the door-keeper to show them a site of the consul. Then they have opened fire, therefore two eyewitnesses was lost and have a little received wounds. The responsibility for an attack has undertaken ASALA.

August, 11, 1980. United States of America, New York: " Two false bombs " were thrown before a building of turkish establishment (where the turkish delegation of the United Nations on rights of turkish consulate in New York has settled down). In the letter attached to one of "bombs", it was spoken that the purpose of the given action(share) - " to remind the imperialistic turkish government of the crimes accomplished by them against Armenian people ". The letter was signed: " the Armenian group ".

September, 26, 1980. France, Paris: Twice shot at the adviser of turkish embassy for questions of press in Paris Seljug Bakalbashi when that came to itself(himself) home. Bakalbashi has survived, but owing to wounds appeared paralysed. The responsibility for an attack have undertaken ASALA and the group called " Organization of the Armenian confidential army ".

October, 3, 1980. Switzerland, Geneva: As a result of explosion have received wounds of 2 Armenian terrorists which prepared for a bomb in hotel number in Geneva. The Swiss police has arrested both: Susy Makhseredjyan from Canosa Park, California and Alexander Enikomechijana. Their arrest became an occasion for formation(education) of new "branch" ASALA (groups to which they belonged), named " the Organization October, 3 " which subsequently made attacks on the Swiss establishments worldwide.

October, 3, 1980. Italy, Milan: Two Italians have received wounds as a result of explosion before a building of the turkish airtransport company. The responsibility for explosion has undertaken ASALA.

October, 5, 1980. Spain, Madrid: As a result of explosion buildings of the Italian airline " were destroyed Is scarlet Italy ". 12 person have received wounds. The responsibility for explosion was undertaken " by Confidential Army for Clearing of Armenia ".

October, 6, 1980. United States of America, Los Angeles, California: the House of the turkish general consul in Los Angeles mister Kemalja Arikana have thrown ignite mixes that has resulted in insignificant damages of this building. Anonymous phone call has informed, that explosion was accomplished in a name of Armenians.

October, 10, 1980. Lebanon, Beirut: In the Western Beirut before the Swiss establishments explosions were made. Some days after the group calling " the Organization October, 3 " has taken the responsibility for explosions that other groups making similar actions(shares) in the Swiss establishments of England have made also.

October, 12, 1980. United States of America, New York, staff(state) New York: the Bomb enclosed(laid) in stolen automobile, has blown up before turkish hotel in New York where this machine was parked. As a result of explosion have received wounds 4 Americans, significant damages were put to the next buildings. Group DJCAG, having called representatives of mass media, has accepted responsibility for explosion.

October, 12, 1980. United States of America, Los Angeles, California: As a result of explosion the building of Agency of travel in Hollywood, headed by turk the American origin was destroyed. Terrorist organization DjSAG has accepted responsibility for explosion.

October, 12, 1980. The incorporated Kingdom Great Britain, London: As a result of explosion buildings of a turkish bureau on tourism and information in London were damaged(injured). The responsibility for explosion has undertaken ASALA.

October, 12, 1980. The incorporated Kingdom Great Britain, London: As a result of explosion the Swiss trading complex in the centre of London was damaged(injured). From phone calls in cable agencies it was found out, that explosion - work " the Organization October, 3-rd ".

October, 13, 1980. France, Paris: As a result of explosion the building of the Swiss bureau on tourism in Paris was damaged(injured). The responsibility on itself was taken by group under the name " the Organization October, 3-rd ".

October, 21, 1980. Switzerland, Interlaken: In the Swiss train following from Paris in Interlaken, not blown up delayed-action bomb was found. Bodies of the law and order believe, that the bomb was enclosed(laid) " by the Organization October, 3-rd ".

November, 4, 1980. Switzerland, Geneva: the Building of the Swiss court in Geneva was strongly damaged(injured) as a result of explosion. The Swiss authorities have declared, that, in their opinion, the bomb is a business of hands of two terrorists from ASALA (Susy Makhseredjyan and Alexander Enikomechijana), prisoners

October, 3, 1980. Subsequently the responsibility for having dug was undertaken " with the Organization October, 3-rd ". November, 9, 1980. France, Strasbourg: As a result of explosion the building of Turkish consulate in Strasbourg was strongly damaged(injured). The responsibility for explosion has undertaken ASALA, working together with the group calling " Turko-kurdish working party(set) ".

November, 10, 1980. Italy, Rome: 5 person have received wounds as a result of explosions of buildings of the Swiss airtransport company in Rome and the Swiss bureau on tourism. The responsibility for explosions was undertaken at once " with the Organization October, 3-rd ". Subsequently the same have made ASALA and " Turko-kurdish working group ".

November, 19, 1980. Italy, Rome: As a result of explosion buildings in which representatives of a bureau on tourism of Turkish embassy and the turkish airtransport company settled down were damaged(injured). The responsibility for explosion has undertaken ASALA.

November, 25, 1980. Switzerland, Geneva: As a result of explosion damages were put to a building of Association of the Swiss banks in Geneva, thus one person has suffered. The responsibility for explosion was undertaken " with the Organization October, 3-rd ".

December, 5, 1980. France, Marseilles: In Marseilles the police expert has neutralized a bomb enclosed(laid) in the Swiss consulate. Bodies of the law and order believe, that the bomb was incorporated " by the Organization October, 3-rd ".

December, 25, 1980. Switzerland, Zurich: As a result of explosion the control device of radar-tracking installation at airport Kloten (Zurich) was put out of action. The second bomb incorporated on the main runway of the airport, was neutralized by special group of experts. The responsibility was undertaken " with the Organization October, 3-rd ".

December, 29, 1980. Spain, Madrid: the Spanish reporter, participated Has received serious wounds at investigation of the reasons of explosion in a building of the company " Swiss Air " in Madrid (when it(he) told by the phone of data in the newspaper, the second bomb has blown up, just near to that pay phone where it(he) was). The responsibility for two explosions was undertaken " with the Organization October, 3-rd ".

December, 30, 1980. Lebanon, Beirut: In Beirut buildings of company " credit - Suis " were blown up. The responsibility for explosion was undertaken " with the Organization October, 3-rd ".

January, 2, 1981. Lebanon, Beirut: In a communique in press ASALA has acted with threat " fulfilment of attacks on the Swiss diplomats worldwide ". This application was made in reply to ostensibly bad attitude(relation) to " Susy and Alex ", to two terrorists from ASALA, imprisoned in Switzerland. January, 4 ASALA has published the application that they are going to postpone all measures planned by them which do not answer interests Swisses, till

January, 15, 1981 January, 14, 1981. France, Paris: there Was an explosion in the machine of the adviser for the finance of Turkish embassy in Paris Ahmet Erbeyli. Itself Erbeyli has not suffered, but explosion has completely put out of action his(its) machine, and also serious damages were put to the next buildings. The group calling by "Group Aleksa Enikomechijana", has taken the responsibility for explosion.

January, 27, 1981. Italy, Milan: As a result of explosions buildings of the company " Swiss Air " and a bureau on tourism in Milan were damaged(injured). Two passing by Italians have received wounds. Having called to local representatives of mass media, " the Organization October, 3-rd " has accepted responsibility for explosion.

February, 3, 1981. United States of America, Los Angeles, California: the Special group of experts from Los Angeles neutralized a bomb enclosed(laid) under ladders at an input(entrance) in Swiss consulate. Anonymous phone call has let know, that it is work " the Organization October, 3-rd ", and also has promised, that similar actions(shares) will proceed up to those, yet will not release " our friend " (Susy Makhseredjyan).

February, 5, 1981. France, Paris: As a result of explosions of the bombs enclosed(laid) in buildings of the American airtransport company in Paris (" Grand World Air Lines ") and the French airline, one person has received wound, and also significant damages were put. The group naming " the Armenian National Movement

October, 3-rd ", has accepted responsibility for explosions.

March, 4, 1981. France, Paris: Two terrorists have opened fire on to Roshat Morals (the attache on questions of work in Turkish embassy in Paris), Tesell Ari (the responsible(crucial) person on affairs of religion in embassy) and Ilkay Karakosh (to the representative " Anadolu Bank " in Paris) when they left from Morals and sat in the machines. The first bullet has overtaken Teselli Ari. Morals and Karakosh have tried to be rescued by flight. Morals which wanted was to hide in cafe, was will push out on street the owner and it is shot by terrorists while Karakosh it was possible to be rescued. Terrorists who were seen with many passing by people, have disappeared. Teselli Ari which have seriously wounded right at the beginning of an attack, has died next day in the Parisian hospital. The group from ASALA " Shakhan Natali " has accepted responsibility for murder.

March, 12, 1981. Iran, Teheran: the Group of terrorists has attacked turkish embassy in Teheran; two escorts were killed. Two from criminals were caught by local authorities and later are executed. The responsibility for an attack has undertaken ASALA.

April, 3, 1981. Denmark, Copenhagen: the Attache on questions of work in turkish embassy in Copenhagen Kavit Demir, coming late at night to itself home, was executed by shooting the terrorist. After series of operations seriously wounded Demir has recovered. The responsibility for an attack was undertaken by the Armenian terrorists both from ASALA, and from DjSAG.

June, 3, 1981. United States of America, Los Angeles, California: Explosion of the bomb enclosed(laid) in " the Centre Anaheim konven " has suspended representation which the Turkish ensemble of national dance gave. The next days threat of similar explosions in San Francisco has made also impossible representation of group of Northern California.

June, 9, 1981. Switzerland, Geneva: the Secretary of Turkish consulate in Geneva Mehmet Savash Eryuz, leaving from consulate, was killed by the terrorist. The murderer, the Armenian by name Martit Djamgochyan, was arrested by authorities. The responsibility for an attack has undertaken ASALA. Arrest Djamgochyan has served as an occasion for formation(education) of the new group ASALA named " the Organization June, 9 " in which active subsequently there were some explosions of the Swiss establishments both in Switzerland, and in other European countries.

June, 11, 1981. France, Paris: the Group of the Armenian terrorists headed by Aroy Toranyan, has borrowed(occupied) a building of the Turkish airtransport company in Paris. If in the beginning authorities did not pay to them special attention then terrorists, supporters ASALA, were turned out from the places seized by them for what official protests from Turkish embassy have followed.

June, 19, 1981. Iran, Teheran: Explosion of a small bomb in a building of the Teheran branch of the company " Swiss Air " has caused easy damages. The responsibility for explosion was undertaken by group from ASALA " the Organization June, 9-th ".

June, 26, 1981. United States of America, Los Angeles, California: Before a building of the Swiss corporation of banks in Los Angeles there was an explosion of a small bomb. The responsibility for it was undertaken " with the Organization June, 9-th ".

July, 19, 1981. Switzerland, Bern: there Was an explosion of the bomb put in a garbage can in a building of the Swiss parliament in Bern. Subsequently the anonymous bell has informed, that it is work " the Organizations

June, 9-th ". July, 20, 1981. Switzerland, Zurich: there Was an explosion in the photoautomatic device at the International airport in Zurich. The responsibility was undertaken " with the Organization June, 9-th ".

July, 21, 1981. Switzerland, Lausanne: As a result of explosion in a department of lady's wear of department store of Lausanne of 20 customers have received wounds. The responsibility for explosion was undertaken by group ASALA " the Organization June, 9-th ".

July, 22, 1981. Switzerland, Geneva: 4 persons have received wounds as a result of explosion of the bomb enclosed(laid) in an automatic left-luggage office at station in Geneva. Bodies of the law and order make responsible for this action(share) on " the Organization June, 9-th ".

August, 11, 1981. Denmark, Copenhagen: As a result of explosion of two bombs the building of the company " Swiss Air " in Copenhagen was destroyed. One American tourist is wounded. The responsibility for explosion has undertaken " the Organization June, 9-th ".

August, 20, 1981. United States of America, Los Angeles, staff(state) California: there Was an explosion of a small explosive before a building of the Swiss corporations of exact devices in Los Angeles. The responsibility for explosion was undertaken by group from ASALA " the Organization June, 9-th ".

August, 20, 1981. France, Paris: Early in the morning there was an explosion which has resulted(brought) in damage of a building of the Parisian branch of the company " Is scarlet Italy " " Air Lines ". Anonymous phone call has informed, that the responsibility for explosion is incured " with the Organization of the Armenian movement October, 3-rd ".

August, 22, 1981. France, Paris: Early in the morning there was an explosion before a building of the Parisian branch of the company " Olimpic Air Lines, ". Anonymous phone call has informed, that the responsibility is incured " with the Armenian Organization October, 3-rd ".

September, 15, 1981. Denmark, Copenhagen: Two persons have received wounds (one of them - serious) as a result of explosion before a building of the turkish airtransport company in Copenhagen. The police managed to neutralize before explosion the second bomb. The responsibility was undertaken by group under the name " the Sixth Armenian liberation army ".

September, 17, 1981. Iran, Teheran: As a result of explosion the building of the Swiss embassy in Teheran was damaged(injured). The responsibility on itself was taken by group from ASALA " the Organization June, 9-th ".

September, 24, 1981. France, Paris: Four Armenian terrorists have borrowed(occupied) Turkish consulate in Paris. Entering in consulate, they have seriously wounded consul Kaja Inala and of the representative of security service Semalja Ozena. Terrorists have grasped 56 hostages. Two criminals thus have received easy wounds. In a result terrorists have allowed to send wounded Inal and Ozen in hospital where Ozen has died from wounds. When the requirement of terrorists to release(exempt) " the Armenian political prisoners in Turkey " was rejected, they have asked " the status of political prisoners " and have surrendered to the French authorities. All four terrorists appeared Armenians from Lebanon, members ASALA.

October, 3, 1981. Switzerland, Geneva: As a result of explosion buildings Post Office and City court of Geneva were destroyed. Appeared, that in this court litigation on business about the murder, accomplished(perfect) by one of members ASALA should be held. The responsibility for explosion at which one person has received easy wounds, the group from ASALA " the Organization June, 9-th " has undertaken.

October, 25, 1981. Italy, Rome: the Terrorist accomplished attempt at the second secretary of Turkish embassy in Rome Erberk Ergenekon. Wounded in hand Ergenekon has left the machine and has opened reciprocal fire on the terrorist. The terrorist, being wounded, has managed to disappear from a place of incident. ASALA has accepted responsibility for the attempt accomplished in honour " Group of condemned men September, 24-th ", that is in honour of terrorists ASALA which has borrowed(occupied) Turkish consulate in Paris.

October, 25, 1981. France, Paris: As a result of explosions at luxurious French restaurant " Fuks " on Shame Elize (Eliseyskie fields) have received wounds three workers. The responsibility for explosion was undertaken by group " September France ".

October, 26, 1981. France, Paris: there Was an explosion of a bomb in the machine specially enclosed(laid) by luxurious pharmaceutical shop on Shame Elize (Eliseyskie fields). The responsibility for explosion was undertaken by group " September France ".

October, 27, 1981. France, Paris: As a result of explosion on parking of automobiles at Parisian airport " Ruasi " the machine facing to a number(line) was put out of action. The responsibility for explosion was undertaken by group " September France ".

October, 27, 1981. France, Paris: the Second bomb has blown up in a urn about the escalator overflown with people at airport " Ruasi ". Victims as a result of explosion was not. The responsibility on itself was taken by group " September France ".

October, 28, 1981. France, Paris: Three persons have received wounds as a result of explosion at the Parisian cinema overflown with people. The responsibility on itself was taken by group " Sepmetber France ".

November, 3, 1981. Spain, Madrid: Three persons have received wounds as a result of explosion before a building of the company " Swiss Air " in Madrid. The responsibility for the explosion which has resulted(brought) in damage of the next buildings, has undertaken ASALA.

November, 5, 1981. France, Paris: At the Parisian station " Gar de Lyons " has taken place explosion as a result of which one person has received wounds; left-luggage offices of luggage were considerably damaged(injured). Subsequently the responsibility for explosion was taken with the Armenian terrorist organization calling " Organization Orli ".

November, 12, 1981. Lebanon, Beirut: bombs before three French establishments in Beirut Simultaneously have blown up: a) The French cultural centre; b) A building of the company " Air France "; c) The house of the French consul. Thus nobody has suffered, the significant material damage only was put. The responsibility on itself " Organization Orli " (named so in honour of the Armenian has taken, the prisoner at French airport Orli on accusation of use of false documents) and have demanded immediate clearing from under guards of Squanderer Melkonjana, of the Armenian of the American origin detained in France accused of diversions.

November, 14, 1981. France, Paris: As a result of explosion the machine facing about Tour d'Eiffel in Paris was damaged(injured). By the phone it was informed, that the responsibility for explosion lays on " Organization Orli ", and that it was " the first prevention(warning) ".

November, 14, 1981. France, Paris: the Group of tourists landed on a coast after travel on the river Hay, was met by squall a pomegranate. Nobody has suffered. The responsibility for an attack was undertaken with " Organization Orli ".

November, 15, 1981. France, Paris: " Organization Orli ", having acted in press, was threatened to blow up in air the plane, belonging company " Air France ".

November, 16, 1981. France, Paris: Two persons have received wounds as a result of explosion of the bomb enclosed(laid) in a left-luggage office of luggage in a building of the Parisian station " Gar de Lest ", that also has brought a material damage. The responsibility for explosion was undertaken with " Organization Orli ".

November, 18, 1981. France, Paris: " Organization Orli " has declared that in a building of the Parisian station " Gar du the North " the bomb is enclosed(laid). However any explosives there it was revealed not .

November, 20, 1981. United States of America, Los Angeles, staff(state) California: As a result of explosion the building of Turkish consulate in Beverli Hill was destroyed, that has put a significant material damage. The responsibility for explosion was undertaken with Armenian terrorist organization DjSAG.

January, 13, 1982. Canada, Toronto: As a result of explosion the building of Turkish consulate in Toronto was damaged(injured). The responsibility on themselves was taken by terrorists from ASALA.

January, 17, 1982. Switzerland, Geneva: In Geneva about parking motor vehicles two bombs have blown up. The responsibility for explosion was undertaken by group from ASALA " the Organization June, 3-rd ".

January, 17, 1982. France, Paris: In branch of Association of the Parisian banks there was an explosion: the second explosive was neutralized in branch " the Credit Lyons ". The responsibility was undertaken with " Organization Orli ".

January, 19, 1982. France, Paris: In Paris in a building of the company " Air France " in the Palace of the Congress there was an explosion, the responsibility for which was undertaken with " Organization Orli ".

January, 28, 1982. United States of America, Los Angeles, staff(state) California: On road for work the turkish General consul in Los Angeles Kemal Arikan was killed by two terrorists. One of murderers Hamtig Sasunjan (the 19-years immigrant from Lebanon), was arrested, is condemned and recognized guilty of a crime later. Now it(he) leaves life imprisonment in the Californian prison a dignity - Kventin. His(its) accomplice, under assumptions Krikor Saliba, has escaped to Lebanon. The responsibility for murder was undertaken with terrorist Armenian organization DjSAG.

March, 22, 1982. United States of America, Cambridge, staff(state) of Massachusettses. Was blown up gift shop Orana Gjundjuza, the honourable Turkish consul in Boston; as a result of explosion Gunduz was seriously wounded. The responsibility for explosion has undertaken DjSAG.

March, 26, 1982. Lebanon, Beirut: In the Armenian quarter as a result of powerful explosion the cinema (in which turkish films frequently were shown) was destroyed; two persons are killed and more than 16 have received wounds. The responsibility for explosion has undertaken ASALA.

April, 8, 1982. Canada, Ottawa: Kani Gungor, the trading attache in Turkish embassy in Ottawa, was seriously wounded by the Armenian terrorists who have attacked him(it) in garage at his(its) apartments. The responsibility for an attack has undertaken ASALA.

April, 24, 1982. Federal Republic of Germany, Dortmund: As a result of explosion significant damages have received buildings of several turkish business concerns. The responsibility for explosion was undertaken with " the Organization of new Armenian resistance ".

May, 4, 1982. United States of America, Cambridge, staff(state) of Massachusettses: Orhan Gunduz, the honourable turkish consul in Boston, was killed in the own machine by the Armenian terrorist. The responsibility for an attack was undertaken by group DzhSaG. In spite of the fact that the president of USA Ronald Rejgan has called for prosecution of all persons who have made murders, nevertheless, nobody was arrested.

May, 10, 1982. Switzerland, Geneva: there Were explosions in two Geneva banks. The responsibility for the explosions which have put a significant material damage, is recognized the Armenian group calling " Organization of general payment ".

May, 18, 1982. United States of America, Tampa, staff(state) Florida: Nesh Karahan, the honourable turkish consul in Tampa, has reflected attempt of two Armenian terrorists to penetrate into a building of consulate (having in stock the weapon).

May, 26, 1982. United States of America, Los Angeles, staff(state) California: As a result of explosion the building of the Swiss corporation of banks was damaged(injured). It is supposed, that 4 Armenians were involved in this action(share) from Southern California (Viken Charkatun, Khrach Kozibukyan, Stranich Kozibukyan and Vrant Chirinyan): all four were accused that were members ASALA.

May, 30, 1982. United States of America, Los Angeles, staff(state) California: Three Armenians of the American origin, members ASALA, were arrested in connection with put forward against them accusation that they enclosed(laid) an explosive before a building of cargo branch of the company " Air Canada " at the international airport of Los Angeles. Bombs the police of Los Angeles was neutralized by members of branch special group.

June, 7, 1982. Portugal, Lisbon: Before the own house the terrorist were killed the attache on administrative questions of Turkish embassy in Lisbon Erkut Akbay and his(its) wife Nadida Akbaj. The responsibility for an attack has undertaken DjSAG.

July, 1, 1982. Netherlands, Rotterdam: Four Armenian terrorists (one of which was detained by the Danish police) shot at the turkish general consul in Amsterdam Kemalettin Demirer, directed to the machine in consulate Demirer has not suffered. The responsibility for attempt was undertaken earlier by the unknown group calling " Armenian Red Army "

July, 21, 1982. France, Paris: 16 person have received wounds as a result of explosion about the Parisian cafe overflown with people on area Sent Sevrin. The responsibility for explosion was undertaken with " Organization Orli " which has declared, that it was payment that the French authorities have not constrained the " the promise to give a political asylum to four terrorists, grasping
September, 24, 1981 turkish consulate ".

July, 26, 1982. France, Paris: Two women have received wounds as a result of explosion in Parisian " Pub Saint German ". The responsibility was undertaken with " Organization Orli ".
August, 2, 1982. France, Paris: Pierre Gulumjan, under the assumption the Armenian terrorist, was lost in the Parisian apartment (probably, at explosion of a bomb which itself prepared).

August, 7, 1982. Turkey, Ankara: airport "Esenboga " in which two Armenian terrorists armed with a pistol and pomegranates, have opened fire in a waiting room of passengers where there was a weight to people Has undergone to attack Ankara. At restaurant of the airport one of terrorists has grasped more than 20 hostages, and another in the meantime was seized by police. During firing with the terrorist, grasping hostages, were killed 9 person (among their one American and the citizen of Germany). 82 persons have received wounds. The responsibility for an attack has undertaken ASALA. Detained terrorist Levon Ekmekdzhjan subsequently was involved in the judicial responsibility, recognized guilty and executed for participation in an attack.
August, 8, 1982. France, Paris: French group successfully neutralized a bomb found about the telephone centre in Parisian " the seventeenth area ". The responsibility was undertaken with " Organization Orli ".

August, 12, 1982. France, Paris: the Armenian terrorists have opened fire on a policeman, put to protect turkish the attache on tourism in Paris. However the policeman has not suffered. Any group on itself has not taken the responsibility for an attack.

August, 27, 1982. Canada, Ottawa: the Military attache in turkish embassy in Ottawa colonel Atilla Altikat was killed at bombardment of his(its) machine stopped at a traffic light in Ottawa. The responsibility for murder was undertaken with Armenian terrorist organization DjSAG.

September, 9, 1982. Bulgaria, Burgas: Pine forest Suelkan, the attache on administrative questions in turkish consulate in Burgas was killed by the terrorist before the own house. The murderer has disappeared, thus having left after themselves a sheet of a paper on which the following words were written: " the Turkish diplomat was killed by we: combat parts of justice against a genocide of Armenian people ". Anonymous phone call in news agency Assoshiejted Press in London has informed that murder was accomplished ASALA.

October, 26, 1982. United States of America, Los Angeles, staff(state) California: Five persons of the Armenian origin were brought to trial on accusation of preparation of explosion at consulate of Turkey in Philadelphia, staff(state) Pennsylvania. Into their plan entered to enclose(lay) an explosive in a study of consul Kanot Arbej. Five detained Armenians - natives of Los Angeles, earlier arested for an accessory(a belonging) to Armenian terrorist organization DjSAG.

December, 8, 1982. Greece, Athenes: Two Armenians on a motorcycle have thrown a bomb in branch of airlines of Saudi Arabia in Athenes. As a result of explosion of a bomb one of terrorists was lost. His(its) accomplice, the Armenian of the Iranian origin by name Vakhekh Kontaverdiyan, was arrested on accusation of the organization of explosion. However it(he) has refused to give the further indications.

January, 21, 1983. United States of America, Anaheim, staff(state) California: nine "self-made" ignite bombs it was confiscated from the pekarja-Armenian in Anaheim after one of detonators was spontaneously ignited, having caused a fire. The owner, the Armenian by name Khagop Andisyan, has declared, that it(he) was not frightened.

January, 22, 1983. France, Paris: the French police has found out 1 kg of explosive in cash department of turkish airlines at airport Orli in Paris. ASALA has accepted responsibility for this action(share).

January, 22, 1983. France, Paris: Two terrorists have thrown manual pomegranates branch of turkish airlines in Paris. As a result of explosions nobody has suffered, and one of terrorists was arrested. ASALA has taken the responsibility for this action(share) on itself.

February, 2, 1983. Belgium, Brussels: explosions in representations of turkish airlines in Brussels were made. " The New Armenian Organization of Resistance " is responsible(crucial) for this action(share).

February, 28, 1983. Luxembourg: the Explosive incorporated before embassy of Turkey, was revealed and is neutralized. The Armenian reporter in the Armenian newspaper in New York has informed, that the group known as " New Armenian Organization of Resistance ", in the the communique takes the responsibility for this action(share) on itself.

February, 28, 1983. France, Paris: the Bomb which has been blown up in branch of turkish firm " Marmara Travel Agency " in Paris has killed to Rhone Morina - the French secretary, and also has wounded other nine French. As a result of explosion the building has seriously suffered. In some minutes after explosion ASALA has taken the responsibility for the action(share) on itself.

March, 9, 1983. Yugoslavia, Belgrade: In the centre of Belgrade two Armenian terrorists have prepared an attack on the turkish ambassador as a result of whom was lost Galip Balkar - the ambassador of Turkey in Belgrade. His(its) driver Nekati Kejer was wounded in a stomach. At attempt to disappear, terrorists were detained by citizens of Yugoslavia. One of terrorists a shot has wounded the Yugoslavian colonel, in turn the terrorist too was wounded and detained by a policeman in civil clothes. The second terrorist, has opened fire on the citizens, trying to detain it(him), in result one student was lost and the girl is wounded. For this action(share) the responsibility has undertaken DjSAG. Both terrorists Krikor Levonjan and Rafi El'bekjan were brought to trial and condemned by the Yugoslavian authorities.

March, 31, 1983. Federal Republic Germany, Frankfurt: In the German branch of turkish newspaper "Tercuman?" in Frankfurt the anonymous bell from ASALA was distributed. Calling threatened to arrange explosion if not publications against " the Armenian affair " will be stopped.

May, 24, 1983. Belgium, Brussels: explosions before cultural - information centres of Turkish embassy, and also turkish travelling agency ("Marmara" in Brussels were carried out. The director of agencies of travel, the Italian on a nationality, was wounded as a result of explosion. ASALA it is responsible(crucial) for this action(share).

June, 16, 1983. Turkey, Istanbul: the Armenian terrorists have undertaken the action(share) on world famous " a covered Istanbul market ". They were armed with manual pomegranates and the automatic weapon. As a result of this action(share) were lost: two turk and one terrorist, and also twenty one person were wounded. ASALA has taken the responsibility for this action(share) on itself.

July, 8, 1983. France, Paris: the Armenian terrorists attacked a building of the British embassy (Official British cultural representation), made to the protest concerning court a hell the Armenian terrorists in London.

July, 14, 1983. Belgium, Brussels: the Attache at embassy of Turkey in Brussels Dursun Aksoy was shot in the machine. Three groups - ASALA, DjSAG and hitherto the unknown organization " the Armenian Revolutionary Army ", have accepted responsibility for this murder.

July, 15, 1983. France, Paris: At cash department of turkish airlines in Paris at airport Orli as a result of explosion was lost 8 person. Among them four French, two turks, one American, one Swede. Besides 60 person have received wounds. 29 old years the syrian Armenian by name Varodjan Garabedyan which is the chapter of French branch ASALA, has recognized the participation in the organization of explosion, and also that the bomb should be blown up onboard the plane.

July, 15, 1983. The incorporated Kingdom Great Britain, London: the Bomb, same, as well as that was blown up in Orli, is found out and neutralized before explosion. ASALA has declared the responsibility for this action(share).

July, 18, 1983. France, Lyons: threat from ASALA in which they warned of the organization of explosion by the Lyons railway Has acted(arrived).

uly, 20, 1983. France, Lyons: threat from the Armenian terrorists has acted(arrived) to blow up station Perash by the Lyons railway that has caused hasty evacuation. ASALA it is responsible(crucial) for these threats.

July, 22, 1983. Iran, Teheran: two explosions in the French embassy and in representation " Air France " in Teheran were made. ASALA has declared, that " Organization Orli " is responsible(crucial) for the action(share).
July, 27, 1983. Portugal, Lisbon: the Group of five Armenian terrorists has made attempt to take storm Turkish embassy in Lisbon. However having failed to break and having remained in desperate position, they have borrowed(occupied) an apartment of deputy head of mission, having taken in hostages his(its) wife and children. When the explosive was established, Kahid Mihcioglu (the wife of the assistant) was killed together with four terrorists. Assistant Jurtiv Mihchioglu and his(its) son Agasoj were wounded. The fifth terrorist was killed in firing with representatives of turkish forces of safety. One Portuguese policeman also was killed, and another is wounded. ARA it is responsible(crucial) for this action(share).

July, 28, 1983. France, Lyons: threat that at station Perrash of the Lyons railway the explosive is incorporated Once again has acted(arrived). It has resulted in evacuation of the population. Calling has specified, that for the action(share) it is responsible(crucial) ASALA. After a long search it was not possible to find any explosive.

July, 29, 1983. Iran, Teheran: threat to blow up embassy of France in Teheran rocket attack Has acted(arrived). The Teheran authorities had to strengthen protection. Threat has acted(arrived) from " Organization Orli " which demands clearing 21 Armenian prisoners in France.

July, 31, 1983. France, Lyons and Rhein: Threat about explosion of the bomb, acted(arrived) from the Armenian terrorists, has forced authorities in an extra hurry arrived two planes which are carrying out flight on internal airlines with 424 passengers onboard. Planes have landed in Lyons and Rhein. At a search of planes of explosives it was revealed not .

August, 10, 1983. Iran, Teheran: the machine Filled by an explosive was blown up at the French embassy in Teheran. ASALA it is responsible(crucial) for this action(share). August, 17, 1983. Iran, Teheran: the Representative " Air France " in Teheran was executed by shooting in the automobile from the automatic weapon. ASALA it is responsible(crucial) for this action(share).

August, 27, 1983. Federal Republic Germany: Branches of the French consulate have strongly suffered as a result of explosion of a bomb. By a blast wave it was killed two persons and twenty three were wounded. ASALA the responsibility for this explosion on itself is languid.

September, 9, 1983. Iran, Teheran: In Teheran two ambassadorial machines were blown up. As a result of this action(share) two employees of embassy have suffered. ASALA has taken the responsibility for this action(share) on itself.

October, 1, 1983. France, Marseilles: As a result of explosion of a bomb by a blast wave pavilions of the USSR, USA and Algeria on the International trade fair were damaged(injured). In result one person was lost and twenty six were wounded. " Organization Orli " has taken the responsibility on itself.

October, 6, 1983. Iran, Teheran: the Automobile of the French embassy was blown up in Teheran. Two passengers have received wounds as a result of explosion. " Organization Orli " has accepted responsibility for this action(share).

October, 29, 1983. Lebanon, Beirut: the automobile has approached(dropped in) On the French embassy in Beirut, he(it) was left by the person and has stopped manual to a pomegranate on a ladder platform at an input(entrance) of embassy. The terrorist was detained by representatives of security services, but his(its) accomplices managed to run. ASALA has taken the responsibility for this action(share) on itself.

February, 8, 1984. France, Paris: the prevention(warning) from the terrorist in whom it is spoken Has acted(arrived), that the explosive is incorporated in the plane " Air France ", taking off at 13 to New York. Flight were compelled to detain on one and a half. The careful search has not revealed an explosive.

March, 28, 1984. Iran, Teheran: a series of the planned attempts at diplomats of Turkey in the Iranian capital Teheran was undertaken. The following incidents took place: a) Two Armenian terrorists have fired and have hardly wounded Ismail Pamukchu. The senior sergeant was delivered in branch of the turkish militarian the attache in Teheran. ASALA has accepted responsibility for performance of this action(share); b) Hasan Servet Oktem, the first secretary of the ambassador of Turkey, was easily wounded as a result of the attempt of attempt undertaken by terrorists when it(he) left the house; c) Ibrahim Ozdemir - the administrative attache of embassy of Turkey has informed the Iranian policeman about two persons of a suspicious exterior worth opposite his(its) houses. They were detained by the Iranian authorities; d) At two o'clock in the afternoon by the Iranian police were detained three Armenian terrorists who are taking place before representation of Turkish embassy; e) The Armenian terrorist was lost as a result of premature explosion of a bomb which it(he) tried to build in in the automobile of the assistant to the adviser for financial questions at Turkish embassy. Adviser Ishil Unel' has not suffered. The lost terrorist was identified, as the Armenian by name Sultan Gregorjan Semaperdan.

March, 29, 1984. United States of America, Los Angeles, staff(state) California: In turkish consulate in Los Angeles the letter containing threat of punishment above turkish sportsmen in case of their participation in Los-Angeles to Olympiad was delivered. Threat is signedASALA.

April, 8, 1984. Lebanon, Beirut: In Beirut ASALA has let out the communique in which warns all international airlines having flights to Turkey that they will be regarded as military targets.

April, 26, 1984. Turkey, Ankara: it was declared, that the prime minister of Turkey Turgut Ozal has received the letter with threat. In the letter of it(him) warn that if it(he) will not refuse the planned visit to Teheran, ASALA will undertake a number(line) of acts of terrorism against his(its) country.
April, 28, 1984. Iran, Teheran: Two Armenian terrorists on a motorcycle have opened fire on the machine behind which rudder was Ishyk Yonder which carried wife Sadije Jonder in embassy where she(it) worked as the secretary. As a result of this attempt was lost Ishyk Yonder. The responsibility for murder has undertaken ASALA.

June, 20, 1984. Austria, Vienna: the Automobile belonging Erdogan Ozen, to the valid assistant to the adviser for social questions at turkish embassy in Vienna, was blown up. As a result of explosion was lost Ozen, and other five citizens (including two Austrian policemen) were seriously wounded. For this action(share) the responsibility was undertaken with terrorist organization ARA.

June, 25, 1984. United States of America: the Agency of news in Paris has received the letter signed ASALA in which she(it) threatens with strikes on all governmental organizations and the companies which somehow will promote participation of Turkey in Olympic games in Los Angeles.

August, 13, 1984. France, Lyons: At the Lyons railway station the explosion causing insignificant damage was made. ASALA has taken the responsibility for execution(performance) of this action(share) on itself.
September, 1984. Iran, Teheran: Some the turkish companies in Iran were subjected to attacks after they have received a number(line) of letters - threats in which them warned, that they are a target. First such action(share) was undertaken against the largest turkish building company " Sezai Turkish Fevzi Akkaya Company ". In branch of this company the explosive charge was thrown. The turkish worker has suffered during struggle against fire caused by a blast wave.

September, 1, 1984. Iran, Teheran: the Iranian authorities have declared, that they open the plan of attempt of the Armenian terrorists for the turkish ambassador in Iran Ismet Birsel.
September, 3, 1984. Turkey, Istanbul: Explosion of the machine parked near of a palace Trestle beds in Istanbul, has killed two Lebanese Armenians. The investigation carried out(spent) by authorities has shown, that they were killed as a result of premature explosion of a bomb which tried to put in pawn. Terrorist organization
ARA bears the responsibility for this explosion.

November, 19, 1984. Austria, Vienna: Turk on nationality Enver Ergun, working in the Viennese branch " the Centre on social and to humanitarian questions of the United Nations ", was killed in the automobile at a traffic light when it(he) waited green light. In the automobile the piece of a material with initials ARA which was thrown in the machine was found out.
December, 1984. Belgium, Brussels: the Belgian authorities are compelled to continue investigation of attempt of explosion of apartment Seljug Inchiu, the employee of turkish embassy in Brussels. The police has found out an explosive opposite to an apartment. Any group has not declared the responsibility for this action(share).

December, 25, 1984. Lebanon, Beirut: Two French buildings in east Beirut were undermined. ASALA has taken the responsibility for this action(share) on itself.

December, 29, 1984. France, Paris: After receipt from ASALA threats about explosion of the plane " Air France ", the police has strengthened protection of the airport " Charles De Gol " in Paris.

January, 3, 1985. Lebanon, Beirut: Branches of agency Frans-Press in the Western Beirut were seriously damaged(injured) as a result of explosion. ASALA has declared the responsibility for this action(share).

January, 3, 1985. Lebanon, Beirut: the Group of military sappers has found out and has neutralized 6 pounds of the explosive burried at an input(entrance) in " the ex - Lebanese bank " in area Ramlet of scarlet - Bajda Western Beirut. ASALA has declared the responsibility for this action(share).

March, 3, 1985. France, Paris: the Anonymous bell belonging to representative ASALA, threatens with prosecution of the French interests worldwide. The bell which was given out in Agency Frans-Press, is addressed to the French authorities in connection with adjudgment to three terrorists participating in actions(shares) in Orli.

March, 12, 1985. Canada, Ottawa: Three Armenian terrorists armed up to teeth stormed Turkish embassy in Ottawa, having killed the Canadian agents of security service of agency " Pinkerton " during firing. Then, having blown up a street door an explosive, armed people have rushed into a building. Ambassador Dzhoshkunu Kirsa managed to jump out of a window of the second floor. Having received a serious trauma at falling, it(he) has remained to lay on the ground within four hours surround. At last stay (among which there was a wife and the daughter of the ambassador), taking place in hostages, were released(exempted) safe. Terrorists were surrounded. ARA has declared the responsibility for this action(share). Three above mentioned terrorists expect court in Canada. March, 26, 1985. Canada, Toronto: Threat to blow up system of transportations in Toronto has acted(arrived) from the Armenian terrorist organization. It has resulted in mass amplification(strengthening) of security measures in Toronto. Movement of transport in rush hours during inspection by police of the underground in searches of an explosive. The responsibility for this threat lays on the organization calling " the Armenian Confidential Army for Clearing of the native Land ".

November, 1985. Belgium, Brussels: the Special group of the Belgian police on struggle against terrorism has arrested two suspicious Armenian terrorists (having the Portuguese passports) at an apartment of osmanli Turk Orkeja, of the representative of Turkey in the NATO in Brussels. Investigation proceeds.

November, 28, 1985. France, Paris: the French police has arrested the American Armenian, the leader of the terrorist organization known as " the Armenian Confidential Army for Clearing of Armenia - revolutionary movement " (ASALA - .) Monte Melkonyan. Melkonyan from area the Frino staff(state) California, in the past was aide-de-camp Hagol Hagopjana (founder ASALA), then, outlet from numbers(lines) ASALA it(he) has created ASALA - ., assisting ASALA in operation at airport Orli. With Arabian and middle East political prisoners (KSAMEPP) has lead(carried out) four explosions in various areas of the French capital. Demand clearing from the conclusion of terrorist ASALA Varodjan Garabedyan which the conclusion in France leaves. Most likely, is rather strong ally of the Armenian and Arabian terrorists.

March, 17, 1986. France, Lyons: In the express train Lyons - Paris, the bomb was blown up. KSAMEPP and ASALA have taken the responsibility for this action(share) on itself.

March, 20, 1986. France, Paris: the explosive incorporated in a building Parisian trading Centre Is blown up. Two was lost and about(near) 30 it is wounded. For this action(share) it is responsible(crucial) KSAMEPP, again repeated the requirement to let out Varodjan Garabedyan, condemned on business about explosion at cash department of turkish airlines at airport Orli.

September, 4, 1986. France, Paris: the Detonator of the explosive incorporated in the Parisian train, has not worked, and the explosive was neutralized, after all passengers were evacuated. KSAMEPP has declared the responsibility for this action(share), again having repeated the requirement to release(exempt) three terrorists ASALA, switching Varodjan Garabedyan.

September, 9, 1986. France, Paris: the Building " Paris City Hall " shivered from explosion. The worker of post service was killed, other 18 citizens are wounded. For this explosion the responsibility has undertaken KSAMEPP, again declared about the requirement to let out from under conclusion Varodjan Garabedyan and two other terrorists KSAMEPP.

September, 10-15, 1986. France, Paris: a Series of explosions of bombs in Paris has resulted in death of two and wound hundred person. KSAMEPP has taken the responsibility for these explosions on itself.
September, 16, 1986. France, Paris: Five person are killed and 52 are wounded as a result of explosion of the bomb incorporated by terrorists KSAMEPP in quarter Monparnass of the French capital. Terrorists have repeated the requirement to release(exempt) from the conclusion of terrorist ASALA Varodjan Garabedyan and two other terrorists from organization KSAMEPP.

October, 9, 1986. Lebanon, Beirut: the Armenian Confidential Army for Clearing of Armenia (ASALA) has delivered in the western agency of news in Beirut the handwritten application warning of toughening of measures, directed against France in case Varodjan Garabedya and other two middle East terrorists will not be released(exempted). In the document it is underlined, that ASALA will direct the impacts on the French planes, the airports, the ships, trains and diplomats in for police roads on apartments of Armenians in France. Further they foretell France shiver her(it) " the additional explosions cause some more the big damage and horrifying consequences " if Garabedyan it will not be issued on freedom. No, that threats ASALA could be executed, - it is not necessary to forget, that this Armenian terrorist organization has taken part in preparation of set of actions(shares), shivered Paris in September, lossed lifes tens people and wounded more than 160.

October, 15, 1986. Lebanon, Beirut: Three terrorists ASALA led by the representative of organization Mikhran Mikhranyan have met the French journalist in capital of Lebanon where they have repeated the threat that actions(shares) against France will continue in case their made comrades will not be released(exempted). They have declared negotiations with French to authorities and their representative Mihran Mihranjan has specified: " we wait for execution(performance) by the French authorities of the promise (to release(exempt) Garabedyan). Otherwise we shall continue our actions(shares) which, we can you to assure, will be even more severe. ASALA already has declared the French representatives in the world military enemies. We challenge Shirac and we promise Mitteran accidents, in a case not performance of the promise given to him(it), that political prisoners will be released(exempted) ".

November, 1986. France, Paris: the Wool of the Armenian terrorists from " the Armenian Revolutionary Army " (ARA) Canada " in Paris occupied a building " Air as a token of the protest against adjudgment to three Armenian terrorists in Canada. They barricaded in a building and only in one hour polices have surrendered.

November, 23 1986. Australia, Melbourne: the machine Filled by an explosive was blown up at Turkish consulate in this Australian city. As a result of explosion one person was lost and the significant damage is caused to a five-floor building. Subsequently the identified victim appeared a criminal of Armenian origin Kharop Levonyan His(its) accomplice Levon Demirjan from Victoria, was arrested on accusation of installation of a bomb later. For this act of terrorism the responsibility was undertaken by the group naming " Greko-Bolgaro-Armjansky front (GBAF) ". It was the first case of a mention of the Armenian terrorist organization under such name.

January, 19, 1987. Australia, Brisbane: In post sorting branch the package with a bomb therefore has suffered six person was blown up. The responsibility for this action(share) the group, called has undertaken "Greko-Bolgaro-Armjansky front".

January, 20, 1987. Greece, Athenes: On the occasion of twelfth anniversary ASALA addressed from the staff in Athenes the reference(manipulation) to Armenians. The message proceeding apparently from political management(manual) ASALA, located in Athenes of " Modern Armenian movement ", names names of enemies of Armenian people in the person " the Turkish fascist state and forces of the international imperialism supporting it(him) and zionism … ". Message ASALA has received a wide circulation in the Greek press, switching government the English-speaking daily newspaper of " Athenes News " which publishes fragments from communique ASALA.

February, 11, 1987. Lebanon, Beirut: the Communique, issued in capital of Lebanon, confirms responsibility ASALA for explosions in Paris in 1986. In the printed application delivered to address of the Western news agency, the Armenian terrorist organization has declared: " France should take steps and necessary procedures for clearing the Armenian and Arabian patriots. Cease-fire as between us and the French government, the public opinion should assure of our respect for interests of safety of France and its(her) people the period of calm. Renewal of a wave of explosions in streets of France, at the French factories, airlines, sea object will be regarded as sabotage. Further ASALA takes up the responsibility for explosions in Paris in 1986 and once again repeats the requirement about clearing Varodjan Garabedy

February, 26, 1992 Azerbaijan - Khojaly In February of 1992, exactly 10 years ago, the name of a little -known Azerbaijani town of Khojaly became a symbol of brutality and another name for a crime against humanity. On February 26, Armenian forces backed by the Russian military committed what the Human Rights Watch called the "largest massacre of the conflict to date." The New York Times wrote about "truckloads of bodies" and reported instances of "scalping." Murder of hundreds of innocent civilians in Khojaly, the unprecedented cruelty of the massacre made the revealed the true nature of Armenian chauvinism. Today, survivors of Khojaly are still scattered throughout Azerbaijan among the one million refugees, who fled Armenia's policy of occupation and ethnic cleansing. Thomas Goltz, an American writer and an acute observer of the region, was among the few, who witnessed first hand and told the world about the last days of Khojaly. He later wrote about it in his brilliant account of the first painful years of Azerbaijan's independence - the Azerbaijan Diary. Mr. Goltz has agreed to share his memories of Khojaly ten years later.

The Letter to The Edinburg City Council

2006-11-23T08:15:00.000-05:00

The Edinburgh City Council,
City Chambers,
Edinburgh,
EH1 1YJ

17th November 2006

Subject : The anniversary of ECC motion of shame

Dear Councillor,

Turks all around the world and the Turkish community in Scotland, remember the date of
17th November 2005 with great sadness and disappointment.

On that day, Edinburgh City Council (ECC) members passed a motion to recognise the so-called Armenian genocide. Unfortunately, all our efforts to inform you about ‘the events of 1915 Ottoman Turco – Armenian War Tragedy’ were ignored and the basic principles of law and respect for truth were brushed aside; instead animosity towards Turks was displayed by the majority of Labour and Liberal councillors who acted on hearsay instead of historical research.

We commend the Conservative Party group and those councillors who voted against the
said motion; for upholding a basic fundamental principle that local councils do not have the necessary resources, expertise or jurisdiction; therefore lack authority to pass judgement on
this highly disputed international historical and legal matter.

The Turkish community will remember how Lord Provost so unjustly forced the Turkish delegation to present its deputations first and then allowed the Armenians to have the last word at the Full Council Meeting, denying the Turkish delegation of the chance and the right to respond to their accusations. Such unfair treatment has left a black mark on the once untainted reputation of the ECC.

On that day, the ECC members passed, without any regard to truth, a motion that was not only unjust and contradictory but also contained material inaccuracies (such as the percentage of votes in the European parliament, a simple mathematical matter). This demonstrated to the Turkish community that the ECC does not care about the misrepresentation of facts and is poorly informed about the matters it passes judgement on.

We will always remember how the ECC leader Cllr. Donald Anderson reneged on his promises to the Turkish community and delayed the proposed amendments to the last minute denying Turkish representation the opportunity to address the revised motion. We were shocked at ECC members’ unwillingness to challenge Mr Anderson as to why he proposed so many amendments to the motion at the last minute despite being so sure of the facts it contained in the first place. This is further proof that the ECC is indifferent about the accuracy or consistency of the motions under its consideration.

On that day, the Turkish delegation witnessed how councillors preferred to focus on the daily politics of present day Turkey instead of on the historical events of 1915-18 during the Ottoman period, which was purportedly the subject of the motion. Furthermore, they made humiliating remarks about Turks and Turkey that had no bearing on the issue in question. We will always remember this discriminatory attitude as well as how readily some respected councillors exposed their own ethnic and religious prejudices while preaching to others about fairness and human rights.

The Turkish community in Scotland follows with great interest the candidacy of Mr. Anderson;
the architect of the said motion, for Edinburgh South and will inform the members of the Turkish community about his hostile manner towards Turks and Muslims. We will not forget how he took advantage of this motion, presenting it to the media as an international success and using it as a stepping-stone to launch his candidacy for Holyrood.

The 17th day of every November, will remind us of how the councillors preferred prejudice against and hatred towards us over truth and friendship and how they turned unsubstantiated historical accusations into public condemnation of Turks and Turkey, damaging the prestige of the city of Edinburgh in the eyes of the Turkish community. Until this appalling decision by the ECC is reversed and the truth brought to light at the Edinburgh City Council, the Turkish community will neither forget nor forgive.

Yours faithfully,

Şener Sağlam ( Mr )
President
FTA UK

PRESS RELEASE FOR THE ALLEGED GENOCIDE

2006-11-21T00:35:00.000-05:00

Yusuf Selcuk Ateskan
ateskan@yahoo.com
As Turkish students in southern California, we do mourn for both Armenian and Turkish people, who perished during continual warfare before, during and after World War I. However, we do not accept the distortion of the historical facts to promote hatred toward a nation. We believe that these allegations are unjust accusations to a nation represented by hundreds of millions of people in the world and particularly for the Turkish community in southern California. Armenian extremists use distortions to offer one-sided misrepresentations of the events that took place between the Turkish and Armenian citizens of the Ottoman Empire during and after World War I. They claim that the Ottoman Empire instigated a policy of genocide against its Armenian citizens, but scholars have proven that these allegations are not based on historical facts but on myths, fake documents and forgeries. Despite the heavy pressure, most American scholars refuse to regard the events as genocide. Sixty-nine American scholars specializing in Turkish, Ottoman and Middle Eastern studies published an open letter to Congress in the New York Times and Washington Post on May 19, 1985, disputing Armenian characterizations of the events of World War I. They concluded that what the Armenians claim to be genocide is in fact inter-communal warfare, perpetrated by Muslim and Christian irregular forces that victimized both sides. Focusing on Armenian suffering alone and dismissing Turkish suffering is simply unscholarly and incorrect. Armenian extremists, who were not capable of proving their case in legitimate ways, resorted to terrorist acts. Armenian terrorists assumed the responsibility of 70 bombings, 39 armed attacks and occupations in 21 countries, including the United States, between 1973 and 1995. Fifteen of the 110 terrorist acts took place in California, the second most Armenian-populated region in the world. Armenian terrorists bombed UCLA professor Stanford J. Shaw’s house in 1977. Professor Shaw had to go into hiding after other harassment and disruptions of his class at UCLA. Apparently, freedom of speech exists only if one agrees with the Armenians. Shaw was just one of the academicians who were threatened, harassed, assaulted or attacked by Armenians because of his views against the alleged Armenian genocide. Bernard Lewis, professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, agrees with Professor Shaw. He said, “There is no evidence of a decision (of Ottoman government) to massacre. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence of attempt to prevent it.” Since Armenian allegations lack the support of academic evidence, Armenian lobbies try to legislate their version of history by forcing the U.S. Congress to pass resolutions acknowledging their claims. We believe that the proper position for the Congress and other legislative branches to take on this and related issues is to encourage full and open access to all historical archives and not to make charges on historical events before they are fully understood.We expect that the debate should be continued by independent historians who specialize in the subject, not the politicians. Armenians and Turks are living together as one in Turkey. For instance Kirkor Ohanoglu, a student of Armenian descent, competed in a soccer match between elementary school students and the Turkish senators that commemorated Children’s day in Turkey and scored the goal of the Children’s team, which shows that both groups can get along. Armenians have their own schools, newspapers and churches in Turkey. We are concerned that the commemorations turn into demonstrations of hatred toward Turkey and Turkish people.We hope that the blind hate of extremist Armenians is not transferred to their next generation and that neither community lives through those horrible times again.
31/03/05 09:33

Allegations and supporting documents

2006-11-21T00:31:00.000-05:00

Allegations and supporting documents repudiated by some academicians
Yusuf Selcuk Ateskan

Armenian terrorists bombed UCLA professor Stanford J. Shaw’s house in 1977. Professor Shaw had to go into hiding after other harassment and disruptions of his class at UCLA. Apparently, freedom of speech exists only if one agrees with the Armenians. Shaw was just one of the academicians who were threatened, harassed, assaulted or attacked by Armenians because of his views against the alleged Armenian genocide. Armenian extremists use distortions to offer one-sided misrepresentations of the events that took place between the Turkish and Armenian citizens of the Ottoman Empire during and after World War I. They claim that the Ottoman Empire instigated a policy of genocide against its Armenian citizens, but scholars have proven that these allegations are not based on historical facts but on myths, fake documents and forgeries. Despite the heavy pressure, most American scholars refuse to regard the events as genocide. Sixty-nine American scholars specializing in Turkish, Ottoman and Middle Eastern studies published an open letter to Congress in the New York Times and Washington Post on May 19, 1985, disputing Armenian characterizations of the events of World War I. They concluded that what the Armenians claim to be genocide is in fact inter-communal warfare, perpetrated by Muslim and Christian irregular forces that victimized both sides. Focusing on Armenian suffering alone and dismissing Turkish suffering is simply unscholarly and incorrect. Armenian extremists, who were not capable of proving their case in legitimate ways, resorted to terrorist acts. Armenian terrorists assumed the responsibility of 70 bombings, 39 armed attacks and occupations in 21 countries, including the United States, between 1973 and 1995. Fifteen of the 110 terrorist acts took place in California, the second most Armenian-populated region in the world. The mastermind behind the initiation of these horrible attacks was a Santa Barbara resident of Armenian descent, Gourgen Yanikian. He killed Turkish Consul General Mehmet Baydar and Turkish Consul Bahadir Demir in Santa Barbara in January 1973. While some Armenians did not approve of the killings of Turkish officials, there were many Armenians who did not shy away from expressing their open support for the terrorists. During his trial in Santa Barbara in 1973, Yanikian was regarded as a “hero” by the crowd of Armenians in the courtroom, and funds were raised for his defense. Yanikian was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was released, however, on the order of the then-California governor, George Deukmejian, a few months before his death. Turkish Consul-General Kemal Arikan was shot to death by Armenian terrorists on Wilshire Boulevard when he stopped at a traffic light on Jan. 28, 1982. This was the third attack toward Arikan, whereby previously his house was bombed at two different occasions. Hampig Sassounian was found guilty of murdering Arikan. A campaign to provide funds for his defense raised $250,000 in donations from Armenians throughout the United States. After Sassounian’s prosecution in Los Angeles, some Armenians in Boston announced: “What occurred throughout Hampig’s trial was a mockery of justice, an attempt to stop the Armenian people from actively pursuing their cause.” Armenian terror organizations also committed more than 20 attacks toward many international airline offices, Swiss, French and Canadian companies, and diplomatic missions in several major cities. Armenian terrorists blamed these governments for prosecuting Armenian terrorists. Unfortunately, top Armenian community leaders are also linked with Armenian terrorist activities. According to federal authorities in Ohio, a prominent Armenian-American once used Camp Haiastan in Franklin, as a training ground for terrorism aimed at the Turkish government. Mourad Topalian, the chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America and the director of the youth camp “Haiastan,” was arrested on a five-count indictment charging him with conspiracy, concealing and storing stolen explosives and possession of machine guns and firearms with defaced serial numbers. He was accused of plotting attacks against Turkish targets in the United States and was suspected of links to two 1981 bombings in California and a car bombing that injured three people outside the Turkish mission to the United Nations in New York City in 1980. According to the indictment, Topalian had sent people to Massachusetts and Beirut, Lebanon, for weapons and bomb training. He was sentenced to 37 months in prison. The Topalian case shows how the hatred carried along with the “alleged genocide claims” could simply turn into terrorist activities. Today, the Armenians are counting on people’s scant sense of history. They rely on the wartime propaganda materials long refuted by the United States, the British and the French authorities; and on yellow journalism, fictions as well as add-on stories. They have romanticized their history and embellished the truth. The Armenians obstinately ignore or refuse to believe the preponderance of evidence that shatters their mythical convictions and use threats, harassment and even terrorist acts. They promote hatred toward a whole nation with false allegations. There is no need to go far away for examples of hatred. Outraged Armenian fanatics disrupted the annual Turkish nights at USC twice. For instance, in 2000, officers from the Department of Public Safety and LAPD were needed to ensure the safety of our guests. As Turkish students at USC, we do mourn for both Armenian and Turkish people, who perished during continual warfare before, during and after World War I. However, we do not accept the distortion of the historical facts to promote hatred toward a nation. We hope that the blind hate of extremist Armenians is not transferred to their next generation and that neither community lives through those horrible times again.
Daily Trojan,
22 April 2003

Scholars dispute genocide claims

2006-11-21T00:13:00.000-05:00

Yusuf Selcuk Ateskan
ateskan@yahoo.com
Armenian terrorists bombed UCLA professor Stanford Shaw’s house in 1977 when Shaw’s research revealed that Armenian allegations about the genocide could not be supported by historical evidence. Turkish diplomats were also victims of Armenian extremists; Gurgen Yanikian initiated a series of terrorist acts toward Turkish diplomats in southern California, assassinating Turkish Consul General Mehmet Baydar and Consul Bahadir Demir in Santa Barbara on Jan. 27, 1973. Kemal Arikan, Turkish Consul General at Los Angeles, was another victim of the terrorist attacks. Armenian militant Hampig Sasunian killed him on Wilshire Boulevard when he stopped at a traffic light on Jan. 28, 1982. Between 1973 and 1995, Armenian terrorists committed 110 acts of terror (70 bombings, 39 armed attacks and one occupation) in 38 cities in 21 countries, according to various newspaper reports. In these attacks, 42 Turkish diplomats and four foreign nationals were killed, while 15 Turks and 66 foreign nationals were wounded. These groups targeted Shaw with the intent of destroying his evidence and documents because he revealed the facts do not match Armenian horror tales. The terrorists killed Turk diplomats, including Baydar, Demir and Arikan, just because they represented the government that the groups blame for the alleged genocide between 1915 and 1923. Throughout the United States - including in front of Tommy Trojan - various Armenian groups will be gathering April 23 and 24 to commemorate the alleged genocide. Most of them will use distortions to offer one-sided misrepresentations of the events that took place between the Turkish and Armenian citizens of the Ottoman Empire during and after World War I. They will claim that the Ottoman Empire instigated a policy of genocide against its Armenian citizens. But scholars have proven that these allegations are not based on historical facts but on myths, fake documents and forgeries. Bernard Lewis, professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, said, “There is no evidence of a decision (of Ottoman government) to massacre. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence of attempt to prevent it.” For decades, Armenian groups perpetuated their childhood horror stories. Yet many incidents of fake documents that these groups use to support their claims - such as the infamous Talat Pasha telegrams ordering the murder of Armenians, or the quote from Hitler allegedly acknowledging the “extermination of the Armenians” - have been revealed as forgeries or debunked by history scholars. For instance, on Aug. 2, 1984, an article in America’s leading Armenian newspaper, “Reporter,” reported: “Historian of Armenian descent (Dr. Robert John) says (the) frequently used Hitler quote is nothing but a forgery” and therefore “should not be used” as the evidence of genocide. Despite the heavy pressure, most American scholars refuse to call the events a genocide. More than 70 American scholars who specialize in Turkish, Ottoman and Middle Eastern studies published an open letter to the U.S. Congress in the New York Times and Washington Post on May 19, 1985 disputing Armenian characterizations of the events of WWI. History professor Justin McCarthy summarized the findings of his research on the Armenian allegations in his testimony in front of the House International Committee: “Assuming one-sided evil has led to an unfortunate approach to the history of the Armenians and the Turks. Instead of investigating the history of the time without prejudice, all the guilt has been attached to one side. Once the Turks were assumed to be guilty, the search was on to find proof. The process has been one of assertion and refutation. “It was asserted that Talat Pasha, the Ottoman Interior Minister, had written telegrams ordering the murder of Armenians, but these proved to be forgeries. “It was asserted that letters published during WWI by the British Propaganda Office showed Turkish guilt, but these have proven to have been sent by missionaries and Armenian revolutionaries, both of whom were less than neutral sources. “It was asserted that courts martial by a post-war Turkish government proved that Turks had engaged in genocide, although careful examination of the records shows that the charges were included among long lists of crimes brought by a government under control of British occupiers lists that include all sorts of actions that are demonstrably false and include anything that would please the conquerors.” Since Armenian claims lack the support of academic research, they have developed a strategy to legislate their version of history by heavily lobbying the U.S. Congress to pass resolutions recognizing their allegations. Furthermore, scholars who attempt to independently and objectively research Armenian claims - such as UCLA’s Shaw - were subject to threats, harassment, intimidation and outright attacks. Turkish students and their guests at USC have also experienced these hostile manners. Outraged Armenian fanatics disrupted the annual Turkish nights twice, in April 1994 and 2000. Turkish night is intended to be merely a cultural event, with no political motivations, yet demonstrators appeared to protest the alleged genocide. Nobody was hurt physically, thanks to the prompt action of the Department of Public Safety and the Los Angeles Police Department, who escorted us to our residences. However, it is not possible to express the extent of our emotional distress due to these offensive acts. As Turkish students at USC, we do mourn for both Armenian and Turkish people who perished during continual warfare before, during and after WWI. However, we do not accept the distortion of the historical facts to promote hatred toward a nation. Let us overcome the prejudice and do our part to create a peaceful world.
USC Daily Trojan
April 23, 2002

ARMENIAN SCHOLAR AT EASE WITH CENSORSHIP

2006-11-20T22:27:00.000-05:00

SYNOPSIS: From Ergun KIRLIKOVALI to several African-American students who wanted more information about the Turkish views after the biased lecture by the Armenian professor : “Today, you witnessed with your own eyes how the views of a group of people party to a controversial issue were censored by the organizers and the lecturer. Ask yourselves: How can this happen in the 21st Century at an institute of higher learning in the most advanced and richest state in the Union, California? And next time someone gives you a lofty lecture about the freedom of speech in America, please remember today!”
******************
PART 1: THE MISLEADING INVITATION
It all started with an innocuous looking invitation to the faculty members at El Camino College in Torrance (near Los Angeles, California): “ The History Department invites you and your students to attend a free lecture: Dr. Levon Marashlian on the Armenian GenocideTuesday, May 9, at 1:00 in the Campus Theater “Shouldn’t that have read the “alleged” Armenian Genocide? Isn’t Genocide a special legal term with a very precise definition, arrived at after many years of diplomatic negotiations, until it was concluded in the 1948 convention in the United Nations? Isn’t it true that the genocide convention was one of the longest negotiated issues in the UN history? Doesn’t it require that a genocide charge must be proven at a “competent tribunal” after proper “due process” before the label of genocide can be used to characterize a certain tragic event after 1948? Isn’t it true that this law, like all proper laws, is not retroactive? For example, we know that the Holocaust is an incontrovertible fact, not because of those numerous Hollywood movies, but because the charges of crimes against humanity leveled against the German Nazis were subjected to a proper and rigorous “due process” at Nuremberg Tribunal after the World War II. The prosecutors introduced supporting evidence, facts, figures, eye witnesses and more and the defendants were allowed to cross examine them before the final verdict was reached: what Nazis did to Jews during WWII was a genocide ( as Rafael Lemkin, the creator of the term, intended the term to mean). This term now seems to be deliberately misused by partisans to misrepresent almost every human tragedy. Is every killing a genocide? Is every my-grandma-told-me-story, family photo, or crying eye witness account a genocide? Of course, not. There are other laws that deal with such crimes. Genocide is a very special concept where a government acts with “premeditation” to exterminate directly or indirectly part or whole of a group of people for national, ethnic, racial, and/or religious reasons. While individual can take part in a genocide, only governments can launch and conduct genocide. “Intent” is the key word here. Intent to exterminate must be proven at a “competent tribunal” before anyone can use the genocide label. Just because Armenian lobbyists shout the loudest doesn’t make a civil war a genocide. Where then was this “competent tribunal” for the Armenian allegations of genocide held? And when? Who held them? Was due process allowed to run its course? How come we didn’t hear about it? After all, Turks are a party to this issue and they must have been heard at such a tribunal, right? Turks should have cross-examined the Armenian evidence and present counter evidence, right? Isn’t this what “due process” is all about? Turks can easily prove that most of the Ottoman-Armenians were brutal insurgents, armed to the teeth by the Western allies during WWI, all of whom were intent on destroying the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman-Armenians did cause the deaths of 523,000 of their Muslim neighbors, mostly Turks, between 1914-1923. Those insurgents did not shy away from using their own wives, kids, elders as “human shields” after their bloody attacks on Turks to escape Turkish investigations or retaliations. As one can easily see, the baseless charges of genocide would be turned on its end and Armenians would be proven to be the bogus victims of a nonexistent genocide. Didn’t a human tragedy take place there? Of course it did, but that human tragedy victimized all peoples of the area, without discriminating them on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, language, or religion. Why cherry-pick the Armenian suffering and losses from the lot and totally ignore or dismiss the much larger Muslim suffering and losses? Is this what genocide meant to be? A selective morality? Applied only to the Christian dead by Christians? I think not. Could this Armenian lecturer perhaps mean the Ottoman courts martial of 1915-1916 as the “competent tribunal” that rendered a verdict of genocide? Nope, he couldn’t. Those trials prove exactly the opposite of genocide charges where the Ottoman government tried and convicted actually some of its own who did abuse the government’s temporary resettlement order. Most of the defendants in those trials did commit crimes ranging from theft to murder; they were tried, found guilty, and punished severely, some even with death. These court proceedings clearly show that the Ottoman government had no intention of systematically exterminating its Ottoman-Armenians as alleged. On the contrary, they genuinely wanted to temporarily re-settle those Ottoman-Armenian who took up arms against their own government, resorted to insurgency, terrorism, and treason at a time of war of survival. ( Can anyone remember the German-Nazi courts trying German-Nazi officers for mistreating, robbing, and/or killing Jews? Even the most biased Armenian can see how absurd it is for the Armenian lobbyists and their sympathizers to compare the factual Jewish Holocaust with the fictional Armenian genocide. ) Could this Armenian lecturer possibly mean the court proceedings of 1919-1920 as the “competent tribunal” that rendered a verdict of genocide, where the leaders of Union and Progress were all convicted and sentenced to death ? Nope, he couldn’t do that either, because those trials were held in occupied Istanbul, by partisans with an anti-Unionist agenda who happily accepted hearsay and questionable press reports as evidence, allowed no cross examination of such shaky evidence, and violated almost every aspect of the “due process”. These Kangaroo courts were so biased that the embarrassed occupiers, the British, asked the crown courts to step in and take over the prosecution. The Ottoman leaders were exiled to the Island of Malta awaiting trials there when the British desperately wanted to find the evidence which could stand the scrutiny of the crown courts to convict the Turks of the alleged war crimes. Result? No such evidence was found and the Turks were let go free after two years of incarceration without filing a single charge against any Turkish leader. Imagine this outcome, in spite of the following facts: 1-The director of the Ottoman archives was an Ottoman-Armenian who scanned the Ottoman archives with a fine tooth comb to fined at least one “smoking gun” among a body of some one million documents; 2- The British had access to all Armenian records, Ottoman or Russian, clergy or lay, all claims of smoking guns”, all “crying survivors” and “sobbing witnesses”, and more; 3- The British had the Blue Book (a major source still used by Armenians today to prove their genocide claims) at their disposal , having written the book themselves, which book is a compilation of wartime propaganda material and falsified and/or embellished accounts of wartime atrocities all of which were allegedly committed by the Ottoman-Turks; 4- The British had unfettered access to the U.S. ambassador Morgenthau’s and U.S. Consuls’ diplomatic reports and communications; 5- The British had unlimited access to the state archives of their wartime ally, France; 6- The British had easy access to the state archives of their wartime ally, Russia; 7- And more. Imagine all this enormous body of data, records, books, films, witnesses, diplomats, soldiers, politicians, produced nothing, not one shred of evidence. Malta, technically speaking, marks the end of all speculations about allegations of systematic extermination of Ottoman-Armenians by Ottoman-Turks. That’s why today, after 91 years, Britain still refuses to label the human tragedy that engulfed the Eastern Anatolia victimizing all of its inhabitants, Armenian, Turk, and others, despite Armenian political pressure, threats, and terrorism. That’s why today, after 91 years, only a handful of states recognize the “alleged” Armenian Genocide, as an unfortunate but clear extension of their anti-Turkish historical bias, more than anything. After all, how can politicians decide a controversial debate pitting historian against historian? Wouldn’t short sighted, fascist laws mandating a certain view and censoring all others stifle further research, free exchange of information and thought, and destroy freedom of speech? Didn’t Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Taliban try similar laws dictating their views to be taught all children to the exclusion of all other views, ideas, and teachings? Did legislating K-12 education along fascist lines in Massachusetts and California to teach Armenian “allegations” of genocide as “settled history”, after tremendous pressure from the Armenian lobby in the last two decades, work for America? Jury is out here. The former is being sued and latter may be next. And if some short-sighted and ignorant French parliamentarians don’t check their attempts to appease their arrogant Armenian constituents (and French bias and bigotry) and pass the anti-Turkish racist law banning freedom of speech on refuting Armenian claims, then France is in for a lot more than it bargained for. If it is not the courts martial of 1915-1916, or the Kangaroo courts of 1919-1920 in occupied Istanbul, or the 1919-1921 Malta Tribunal that never was, then what court verdict could this Armenian lecturer be basing his “genocide verdict” on? I decided to ask him this very question after his “presentation”. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, must be this: either the Armenian professor produces a court verdict given by a “competent tribunal” as specified by the 1948 U.N. convention, stating that Turkish-Armenian conflict during the World War I is genocide or he starts using the qualifier “alleged” before the term genocide in his writings and lectures until such a genocide verdict is at hand. Scholarly honesty demands this from him. Either show a court verdict or say “alleged genocide”. It is as simple as that! Let’s continue reading the invitation sent by The History Department of El Camino College: “…The Armenian genocide in 1915 was the first genocide of the twentieth century…”No, not really. The first genocide, or systematic and wholesale massacre (since the term genocide was not invented until 1943 by Rafael Lemkin and therefore can not be used retroactively) was the killing of the Herreros of Southwest Africa (Namibia) by the German colonialists in 1904. The second systematic and wholesale massacre was the killing of the Ottoman-Muslims, mostly Ottoman-Turks, by the Ottoman-Christians during the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, where my father’s entire village of Kirlikova was annihilated leaving my father, a one year old baby then, as the sole survivor (you can read more about this tragic story in the archives below.) So, the Armenian professor is wrong again. Where does the tragedy of the Ottoman-Armenians come on this list? No where. Civil wars do not qualify under systematic-and-wholesale-massacre category ( a precursor to post 1948 genocide category.) After all, deaths of 523,000 Ottoman-Muslims, mostly Ottoman-Turks, are directly attributable to wartime atrocities committed by the Armenian nationalists armed by France, Britain, and Russia. (Though the term “nationalist” is not always necessarily a negative one, the Armenian version of nationalism is, as it meant wholesale death and destruction to the Ottoman-Muslims in Eastern Anatolia between 1890-1920.) Back to the invitation by The History Department: “… and resulted in about one and a half million deaths; nevertheless, it is often called the Forgotten Genocide…”In my son’s history classroom during the last open day, I noticed a poster dated 1919 on the wall among many other historical artifacts from different years and subjects. This one solicited funds for the starving Armenians of the Middle East. What really attracted my attention was the number given as the total for the Ottoman-Armenian casualties: 600,000. Knowing full well that even this number is more than double the actual number of casualties ( as Kamuran Gurun gives the figure of 300,000 in his book “The Armenian File” and please compare this with Turkish casualties of 528,000 who met their end at the hands of Armenians, so that you can put this whole civil war reality in perspective), how did this Armenian professor and others like him manage to come up with this figure of 1.5 million? Do dead multiply? I guess Armenian dead do… Is there any other explanation? Then there is this: the entire Ottoman-Armenian population, according to the official Ottoman government sources, was 1,295,000. How can more people than the entire population die? Did some die twice? Even that doesn’t explain where the Armenian Diaspora today came from? If the entire population was killed (and some were killed twice) then where did the Armenians we see today in America, France, Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere come from? You see, the Armenian numbers don’t add up. They never did. Just like the non-existing court verdict of genocide, 1.5 million dead do not exist. The inaccuracies in the invitation continue: “… Not only is little known outside the Armenian community about the Turkish attempt to destroy the Armenian people, but today Turkey denies that it ever took place…”“Little known?” Honestly, can anyone watch on TV, hear on radio, read in the press anything other than bogus Armenian claims? What exactly is this professor’s concept of “little known?” Turkish attempt was not to destroy the Armenian people but to defend herself against the fifth column activities of the Eastern Anatolia Armenians at a time of war of survival. Turkey can not deny something that doesn’t exist. The invitation reads: “…This issue has become especially important as Turkey seeks entry into the European Union, since France and other nations have called for Turkey's recognition of the Armenian genocide…” France is one of the six parties that Turks expect to hear apologies from since the end of WWI. France was not invited to Anatolia and did not come bearing flowers or to have a peaceful picnic there. France, along with other allies, rained death and destruction on my people, Turks. Not content, France secretly divided up Ottoman Empire between France and Britain (Sykes-Picot agreement) and used Ottoman-Armenians to kill their Ottoman-Muslim neighbors. France donned French uniforms on Ottoman-Armenian citizens and watched as neighbor killed neighbor. Thus, France, along with her allies, ruthlessly destroyed a “millennium of harmonious co-habitation” between the Turks and Armenians in Anatolia. Such shameless and evil schemes staged in the name of advancing political French interests, fine tuned by the French colonialists in Africa and Oceania costing millions of innocent lives over several centuries, brought enormous pain and suffering to my Turkish predecessors. No less than 2.5 million Ottoman-Muslims, mostly Turks, died during the WWI (528,000 of them at the hands of Armenian nationalists; please don’t confuse these two figures.) This France is telling me what to do now? I think not! While I hold absolutely no grudge against French people today, I place the full blame on the French politicians for the bloodshed in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Americas, and elsewhere. France went to these places uninvited, used brutal military force to rain death and destruction on local people, and exploited their natural and cultural resources. France should learn to be big enough to face her history, before lecturing others on human rights. First France should apologize to Turkey and then I can forgive France. Until then, France has no credibility. The invitation ends with this: “… Please encourage your students to attend. Arrangements can be made for sign up sheets, etc. to be available…” Unsuspecting students, lured with the prospect of extra credits if they attended flocked to the theater where they would be subjected to the unadulterated Armenian propaganda. And here is the signature under the invitation for the record: “…
Best Regards,
Florence Baker, The History Department, El Camino College.”
Address: 16007 Crenshaw Blvd. Torrance, CA 90506
Phone: 310.532.3670 Toll Free:1.866.ELCAMINO 1.866.352.2646.

PART II: ATTEMPTS TO INCLUDE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY FAIL

Some college professors who were also bothered by this one-sided presentation contacted the organizer. They pointed out to her that the scholarly way to cover a controversial subject was to allow both sides of that issue to be heard by the students. Only lively, open, and free exchange of ideas in a thoughtful debate could enable the students to judge a controversy, not partisan monologues or biased choruses. In order to protect these courageous professors from possible violent acts of Armenian terrorists who already claimed the lives of three Turkish diplomats in California alone in the last three decades, countless bombings, assaults, and death threats, I shall refrain from giving their names here. Their reasonable, honest, and scholarly requests were turned down by the organizer with hollow excuses like lack of time to make last minute rearrangements. The stage was thus set for the Armenian professor and his one-sided presentation.

A HEALTY DOSE OF PROPAGANDA DURING THE “LECTURE”
The lecturer showed certain sections of two video films, stopping the films whenever he wished for additional comments. Never mind that the photos, films, and stories he showed were mostly out of context, sometimes even irrelevant, and their scrutiny was not encouraged or invited. The lecturer chose the “blood and gore” segments of those biased films for maximum impact, such as eyes being gouged and bodies hung upside down, etc. Imagine the effects of this on the young minds. That’s exactly what this lecturer wanted: to create a cult following among the youth bent one hate for all things Turkish. I could very well show similar movies where the victims are Ottoman-Turks and perpetrators are Otoman-Armenians. In fact, I can show more recent movies where victims are Turks of the Republic of Turkey and the perpetrators are Armenian-American terrorists. That would be arguing the Turkish-Armenian civil war on the basis of who spilled more blood of the other and would prove nothing, other than a bloody civil war which is what it was in the first place. I would like to call this the “Texas chainsaw massacre approach” to history. This lecture milked the fears and prejudices of unsuspecting young minds so much that Hitler’s propaganda ministers could probably not top it. After the propagandistic lecture ended – not a moment too soon-- the floor was opened to questions and I asked the first question to the organizer: “Being of Turkish-American heritage, and having read a lot about the subject, I am unable to agree with the misleading and distorted characterizations embodied in this lecture. Would you please allow me five minutes on stage to refute the lecturer’s allegations for the benefit of the students here? “ Organizer appeared a bit perplexed and before she could respond, I heard the lecturer say something along the lines of this is not a panel and ending with “ Mr. Kirlikovali, please so ask what you want to ask.” “I didn’t utter my name, how did you know?” He said he knew me through my work. I thanked him and commented: “I am afraid I find your lecture racist and dishonest.” The lecturer asked why. I said: “ You never mentioned the Turkish dead and suffering. You implied that Turkish dead do not matter, only Armenian dead do. That, to me, is racist. And you did not say a word about Armenian insurgency, terrorism, and treason that caused the civil war and the ensuing temporary resettlement order. You left half the story out. And that’s dishonest. “By this time the temper in the hall was rising because some Armenian students didn’t want to hear what I was saying. The lecturer argued that his case was accepted by many as the settled history and he spoke the truth. A few pro-Armenian questions were fielded with which the lecturer was quite happy. Those questions were something to the effect did Turkey recognize the genocide and why did Turkey not recognize the genocide to this date. The lecturer jumped at the opportunity to do more Turk-bashing. He said things like it is not easy to accept genocide for an honorable person because it is a terrible stain in one’s history. More and more Turks are beginning to see the truth about genocide and coming out to embrace it (You wish…)One innocent question by a student must have annoyed him a bit, though he seemed to keep his cool. He asked why did the Armenians not sue Turkey at an international court to which I added 127 Turkish NGOs recently suggested just that to the Republic of Armenia. Also recently, the Turkish government proposed to the Republic of Armenia establishing a joint committee of historians and opening all archives so that they can study this matter and report on their conclusions. Armenia avoided saying yes to either one of these proposals. What are the Armenians hiding? What are they afraid of? The lecturer said that something like the situation was clearly a genocide and there is no need to go to court. I asked “Is genocide proven?” This was a trick question and he heard it all right. If he said yes, then I would ask for what court, when, where, where is the supporting documents and sources, which he obviously could not produce. If he said no, then the effect of today’s lecture would be annulled. After all, if genocide was not proven, then why was he presenting it as settled history? After a brief pause, he motioned to the screen behind him implying the video films and said: “Of course it is, these films and materials prove it.” I responded “Those materials could not stand to scrutiny of a any court of law. You know it, I know it.” (I may have also added something like those films and materials “ a bunch of crap” proving nothing…But I can’t recall.) One professor asked how many Turks were killed in Erzurum. Instead of replying, the lecturer questioned back saying something like since you seem to know the answer, suppose you tell me. The professor said he though this was a question-and-answer session and not a question-and-question session. The lecturer then said what is your source? I waved the book Armenia: Secrets of a Christian Terrorist Nation” written by Sam Weems and I offered to give it to him as my gift to him. The lecturer said that he already had that book and that Sam Weems was not a historian. I waved four more books (by Guenter Lewy, Kamuran Gurun, Salahi Sonyel, Justin McCarthy, and Stanford Shaw) and asked “These are by historians, have you read them?” The lecturer chose to respond other questions ignoring mine. Another question was about how the Armenian churches cultivate hate for all things Turkish. She gave the example of an Asian woman who had known nothing about Turks until she attended an Armenian church and pretty soon thereafter she found herself hating all Turks everywhere. The question was didn’t today’s lecture also cause the same kind of negative effect on young minds. The lecturer responded by saying that he could vouch for other churches and that if she could identify that church he would be happy to talk to them (Right!). A student sitting in front of the questioner arose to disagree with the questioner saying that she was the daughter of an Armenian minister and she doesn’t hate the Turks. Another professor asked, after identifying herself as a member of the faculty, that she was brought up being taught to hate the Turks and she did. Until of course she met Turks and she was stunned to find out how pleasant and war Turks were, nothing like the image with which she grew. She felt that the lecturer was aiding the perpetuation of hate among our youth for all things Turkish. The lecturer objected to this by saying that he made it a point of saying that not all Turks were responsible for what happened to Armenians and that some gracious Turks, even some Ottoman officials, did help save Armenian lives. There are Turks today that he loves listing the names of Turkish scholars known for embracing the official Armenian propaganda line such as Halil Berktay, Elif Safak, Fatma Gocek, Zarakolu, and others (He left Taner Akcam out!). I didn’t have a chance to say with the exception of Berktay, none are historians and Berktay has a hidden agenda with the Turkish Republic going back to 1970s when berktay was a “wanted” terrorist, along with Taner Akcam. These people were Marxist-Leninist militants who tried by force of arms and explosive to change the regime in Turkey, from a Western democracy to Soviet style communism. You can see the nostalgic “wanted” poster with Berktay’s and Akcam’s mugshots at www.tallarmeniantale.com today. That is why these “scholars” embraced the Armenian propaganda at face value. Their motivation is not historical truth but spite for Turkey. CONCLUSION The session ended after a few more “soft” questions by some students who seemed to have swallowed the Armenian propaganda hook, line, and sinker. If it weren't for the vigilance of one professor, we would never hear about this event. And if it weren't for another professor, who together with the first one went to see the organizer to convince her to allow the other side of the story to also be heard., the Turkish views would not be noticed. Both professors asked the lecturer excellent questions... One professor’s courageous last minute stand criticizing anti-Turkish hate teachings in the Armenian community was truly spectacular. One engineer, taking time from work to attend this lecture, also made the point about teaching of anti-Turkish hate in Armenian churches... All three were brave, determined, well-informed, and peace-loving. As for me, I knew I would not get straight answers to my questions, but that is fine, because my questions are not designed to change the mind of an Armenian lecturer. They were designed to alert and inform the unsuspecting audience to the nature and depth of Armenian propaganda they would be subjected to by this event. My questions would serve to create a question mark in their minds so that they would not buy the distorted Armenian claims at face value. Dare I say that my questions seem to have worked because a few African-American students came to me after the lecture asking for more information an websites on the Turkish views. This is good enough for me. As the Turkish saying goes “Damlaya damlaya gol olur.” (Drop by drop, a lake forms.) I left those students with these final remarks: “Today, you witnessed with your own eyes how the views of a group of people party to a controversial issue were censored by the organizers and the lecturer. Ask yourselves: How can this happen in the 21st Century at an institute of higher learning in the most advanced and richest state in the Union, California? And next time someone gives you a lofty lecture about the freedom of speech in America, please remember today!”
THE QUESTIONS I WANTED TO ASK THE ARMENIAN LECTURER

Question 1 - Historian Guenter Lewy in his article titled “Revisiting the Armenian Genocide” published in Fall 2005 edition of Middle East Quarterly ( http://www.meforum.org/article/895 ) says this: “…Most of those who maintain that Armenian deaths were premeditated and so constitute genocide base their argument on three pillars: the actions of Turkish military courts of 1919-20,…, the role of the so-called "Special Organization" accused of carrying out the massacres, and the Memoirs of Naim Bey[3] which contain alleged telegrams of Interior Minister Talât Pasha…. Yet when these events and the sources describing them are subjected to careful examination, they provide at most a shaky foundation from which to claim, let alone conclude, that the deaths of Armenians were premeditated….” End of quote. Based on this, isn’t it a bit dishonest of you to present a complex, contested, and clearly unresolved historical event as “settled history” to unsuspecting listeners? Don’t you think you should qualify your views as those of the Armenian camp?

Question 2 - Same historian Guenter Lewy in his letter of response to his critics of his article titled “Revisiting the Armenian Genocide” published in Winter 2005 edition of Middle East Quarterly ( http://www.meforum.org/article/895 ) follows up with this: “… the tribulations of Turkish refugees from the Balkan wars and other armed conflicts of the pre-World War I era have not received the attention and condemnation they deserve. The West has been preoccupied with the horrors of the Armenian story, and the suffering of Turks has often been ignored. The same holds true for the wartime famines that took a heavy toll of life among both Turks and Armenians. This double standard in recognizing human misery must be repudiated for the sake of historical truth and to help descendants of these victims live with their pain…”Isn’t this double standard clearly displayed here again today by your embellishing and magnifying the suffering of Christian Armenians while ignoring, or worse yet, dismissing the more profound suffering of Muslim Turks? Do you think such selective morality is scholarly?

Question 3 - There are millions of Turks today who have similarly tragic stories of entire Turkish families and neighborhoods having been wiped out by Armenian nationalists armed by the Western allies. Some of the Muslim victims, mostly Turkish, were themselves refugees who survived terrible massacres in the Balkans, the Aegean Islands, the Crimea, the Caucasus, and elsewhere and who were resettled into Eastern Anatolia only to be met by yet another cycle of Christian violence at the hands of Armenian bands. Isn’t it true that their stories were never told, their pain and suffering were never noticed, and their tears never seen, due to the endless Armenian propaganda which has saturated the West since 1915?

Question 4 - More than 70 Western students of Ottoman history categorically rejected the appropriateness of the genocide label for the fate of the Armenian community in Ottoman Turkey in an statement published in 1985. Other prominent scholars and intellectuals, including distinguished scholars such as Roderic Davison, J.C. Hurewitz, Bernard Lewis, and Andrew Mango, joined their ranks since. Doesn’t dismissing such awe-inspiring array of learned opinion boil down to bigotry in academia ? Are you comfortable with the dogmatism that ignores the enormous body of evidence disputing Armenian claims of genocide?

Question 5 - Careful reading shows that the reports of British, French, American, German, and Austrian consular officials and Western missionaries, who were on the spot in Anatolia, confirm the occurrence of killings, though in a biased and sometimes even racist manner, but do not implicate the "Special Organization" or any other agency of the central government. Moreover, almost none of these mention the terrible massacres to which the Muslims were subjected and which are documented in the Ottoman archives. When the entire body of evidence put together, the picture emerging explains most non-partisan historians use the phrase “a civil war within a world war” to describe the Turkish-Armenian conflict. Why, for example, did you not dwell on the Muslims suffering at the hands of Armenians? After all, 523,000 Muslim victims, mostly Turkish, were documented in the Ottoman archives to have met their end at the hands of Armenians. Why this double standard on your part here today?

Question 6 - Isn’t your allegation of a systematic elimination of the Armenian population undercut by the exemption of the large Armenian communities of Istanbul, Izmir, Edirne, and Aleppo from deportation? Since Armenian activists like to compare the Turkish-Armenian conflict for World War One to the Holocaust, in an attempt to gain instant credibility by association, wouldn’t this be comparable to Hitler exempting the Jews of Berlin, Frankfurt, Munich, and Hamburg from the final solution? How can you, in all fairness and honesty, compare the civil war between the Turks and Armenians during WWI to the Jewish Holocaust of WWII?

Question 7 - The alleged telegrams of Talât Pasha contained in the Naim-Andonian book supposedly ordering the killing of all Armenians are exposed as crude forgeries not only by Turkish historians but also by almost all Western students of Ottoman history. Even a Hilmar Kaiser, an anti-Turkish biased scholar popularly cited by Armenian activists, concluded that "further research on the ‘Naim-Andonian' documents is necessary." How scholarly or honest is it to base the serious accusation of genocide on a proven forgery?

Question 8 - If Armenians wish to believe that the verdict of the Turkish courts-martial of occupied Istanbul during 1919-20 is proof of the guilt of the Young Turk regime in the premeditated murder of Ottoman Armenians, they are free to do so. Armenian sympathizers, however, should know that the evidence used by the military tribunals, including but not limited to witness and expert testimony, confessions, searches and seizure is hardly reliable. They were never cross-examined. What’s worse, this evidence simply does not exist and the original documentation of the trials is conveniently “lost” by the Armenians and their victorious “foreign” allies. What we have today are “copies” of some documents in the gazette of the Ottoman government and the press in occupied Istanbul. Could even a single person be convicted of murder based solely on hearsay and press reports? How can the Armenians convict a whole nation of the most serious crime? Isn’t all this a bit to too extreme?

Question 9 - I am deeply saddened and somewhat offended by your anti-Turkish biased presentation of this highly controversial subject. Isn’t presenting only one side of a controversial issue such as this one, while censoring the other side unscholarly, unfair, even unethical ? You would not think about covering controversial subjects, such as abortion, gun control, immigration, war in Iraq, or others with only one side of the story told, would you? Why then would you settle for one side of the story when it comes to the Turkish-Armenian conflict? All we heard is the Armenian views; where is the Turkish point of view here? Why this prejudice against the Turks and the Muslims?

Question 10 - According to the Armenians, Turkish pain does not exist. Turkish dead do not matter; only Armenian dead do. Turks do not deserve a chance to be heard. Do you subscribe to such a blatantly racist approach? And if you don’t, where is the Turkish speaker up there?

Question 11 - I don’t believe I heard much about the well-documented facts that the Ottoman-Armenians resorted to agitation, terrorism, armed revolts, and supreme treason (as in joining and invading enemy), in that order, from 1890 to 1915. Do you deny these facts to make your genocide allegations stick?

Question 12 - The Armenians activists label "deniers” all who rightfully challenge the baseless Armenian accounts of history. Those “deniers” are then harassed even terrorized-- as an unfortunate incident at UCI last week showed where a student was attacked by Armenians just for being Turkish. Some Armenian even go farther than that to categorically label all Turkish-Americans paid Turkish government agents. Do you think such intimidation and terror tactics by Armenians are justifiable?

Question 13 - I believe Armenian accounts boil down to dishonest history with racist interpretations and should have no place at an institute of higher learning such as this college. Wouldn’t it be fair to invite the representatives of the responsible opposing views to challenge the unfounded allegations of the Armenian camp for the benefit of your listeners? Isn’t a thoughtful and lively debate always better than a partisan monologue or a bigoted chorus?

Question 14 - Isn’t Genocide is a legal term precisely defined by the U.N., that can be used only after a verdict is reached by a competent tribunal (such as Nuremberg), after due process where both sides of the conflict are properly represented and heard and cross examined? Does such a court decision exist? Have Turks ever been heard? Shouldn’t this term , in all fairness, truth, and objectivity, be preceded by the qualifier "alleged" until a competent court decides that the term genocide applies to the Turkish-Armenian conflict?

Question 15 - As the table in McCarthy’s book clearly demonstrates, Turkish and Muslim losses are to enormous and spread over too long a period to “casually escape one’s attention” or to be considered an “honest oversight”. Can you appreciate how important it is for the Turkish Americans and Muslim Americans, that any balanced coverage of the Turkish-Armenian conflict during World War One (WWI) mention the truth about the more than 2.5 million Turks and Muslims killed by the allies and their Ottoman-Armenian cohorts? Especially when 523,000 of those victims met their end at the hands of Armenian nationalists between 1914-1918 alone?

Question 16 - Are the atrocities committed against Turks and Muslims not worth your time, attention, and/or respect? Are their lives less valuable than the lives of the Christian Armenians?

Question 17 - Here is what By Justin McCarthy says on page 309 of his book DEATH AND EXILE: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922 (Princeton: Darwin Press, 1995) : Total of 5,060,000 Muslim Deaths and 5,381,000 Muslim Refugees. Have you been just, fair, and honest in covering both sides of this issue for the benefit of your unsuspecting listeners? How can anyone, let alone any scholar, ignore such an enormous human suffering spread over such a long time? Isn’t this bias and bigotry at its worst?

Question 18 - I was deeply disappointed to see a one-sided presentation of a controversial subject here. The right thing would be to allow the “other side of the story”, namely the Turkish side, also be heard by the unsuspecting listeners. Failing that, as was the case, the teachers were exposed to biased Armenian allegations only. Is this fair or even?

Question 19 - Because of all this lopsided coverage of the Turkish-Armenian history in America, a Turkish-American had coined a new word back in 2003, his humble gift to the English language, which word now perfectly describes this lecture: Ethocide. Coined from the words "ethics" and "cide" (killing), ethocide means " extermination of ethics via systematic and malicious mass deception for political, social, cultural, economic, religious, and/or other gain". Isn’t it time that this ethocidal coverage of the Turkish-Armenian conflict riddled with anti-Turkish bias and bigotry gave way to sensible dialogue to properly evaluate a dark chapter in history where my Turkish predecessors paid the highest price in terms of loss of life and property, and 91 years later, it seems, dignity?

Question 20 - Don’t Armenian claims seem to find acceptance only in those platforms where Turkish views are censored? Isn’t it ironic that the truth is not in what the Armenians say , but ironically, in what they don’t say? Where is the Turkish suffering in your presentations? Where are the Armenian terrorism, armed uprisings, treason? Where is half the story?

Question 21 - Isn’t it a fact that most of the Armenian allegations were proven to be exaggerations, embellishments, distortions, fabrications and/or fraud? Aren’t some celebrated examples of bogus Armenian claims include the infamous Hitler quote, the skull-pyramid photo, the Talaat telegrams, the Andonian files, Musa Dagh episode, Morgenthau’s ghost writers, 1.5 million casualty figure, population statistics, causes, and more? Is it right to treat these unchallenged and baseless Armenian claims as “facts”?

Question 22 - Do you know the difference between “allegations” and “judgments”? Isn’t it true that while anyone can make any claim, only judgments are filtered through the “due process” by careful and orderly cross-examination of factual, relevant input? Have the Armenians ever won a court case authorizing them to use the term genocide? How can they endlessly benefit from a nonexistent “judgment” of genocide?

Question 23 - Are you aware that 127 leading non-governmental organizations in Turkey recently suggested to the Republic of Armenia to take the Republic of Turkey to the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands? I agree with those NGOs as it makes a lot of sense to me. Since Armenians seem to have many books, films, exhibitions, witnesses and more, they should have no problems having Turkey convicted. So, what are the Armenians waiting for? Is it because the Turkish archives would be opened for all to see in such a court and Turkish views would be heard perhaps for the first time for most?

Question 23 - Are you aware that the Republic of Turkey just recently made an official offer to the Republic of Armenia recently to establish a joint committee of historians and open all the archives, so that this matter can be studied based on facts and figures, not propaganda and hearsay? Do you know that Turkey’s archives are open, but Armenia’s, the Armenian churches’ and the Armenian Diaspora’s are not ? Do you know that Prime Minister Erdogan said the Turkish side would accept the outcome of such a competent research committee, regardless of which way the final verdict goes: genocide or civil war. So what are the Armenians waiting for? Since you are so convinced, why not say yes to this investigation committee? Question

24 - Are you aware that the British refused to use the Armenian sources in their Malta Trials (1919-1921)? Do you know that the Armenians filed all the documents you now speak of, although mostly hearsay and accusations, with the court clerk when the British imprisoned the Ottoman leadership to investigate the Armenian charges. Do you also know that the British had to let the Ottoman leaders go free, without filing a single charge? Shouldn’t this be the end of all Armenian allegations?

Question 25 - Don’t partisan presentations such as yours today deliberately distort the truth, deepen divisions and polarizations among the Americans of differing heritage (ie Turks, Azeris, Armenians, and others) and prevent peace?

Question 26 - Isn't it ironic, that we have bombed Yugoslavia punish the Serbians for ethnic cleansing; we have fought Saddam first for aggression and then for supporting international terrorism; but we rewarded with US help when Armenia, a Christian terrorist country, committed all three of these crimes? Didn’t Armenia conduct aggression and ethnic cleansing in Azerbaijan since 1994 causing 1 million Azeri refugees to leave their home at gun point? Didn’t Armenia support international terrorism from 197os to present killing, 70+ Turkish diplomats and bystanders worldwide? Isn’t this a double standard on the part of the successive U.S. governments?

Question 27 - Aren’t Armenian allegations of genocide dishonest and racist history? Racist because they imply that Turkish dead do not matter, but Armenian dead do? And dishonest because they deliberately misrepresent as genocide a civil war within a world war caused by Armenian greed, , terrorism , armed revolts, and treason?

Question 28 - Isn’t your presentations typical of the official Armenian propaganda line? Can it pass the "the Four T’s” test: tumult (as in armed revolts against their own government); terrorism (both domestic and international, then and now); treason (as in joining the invading enemy armies); and Turkish suffering they caused (2.5 million Turks lost their lives during WWI, 523,000 thousand of them at the hands of Armenian nationalists.) ?

Question 29 - Armenians keep saying that they believe genocide is settled history. Since when history has become a matter of “belief”? Isn’t history supposed to be a matter of “scholarship”, as in research, peer review, and debate? One would expect from the organizers to serve the American public by providing a free-speech-platform here where dialogue and thoughtful debate can help to illuminate issues. How does this partisan speech exposing the public only to the biased views of Armenian camp serve the public?

Question 30 - Why do Armenians keep invoking the Jewish Holocaust? Did Jews establish Jewish armies behind German lines? Did Jews kill Germans to terrorize the German population into fleeing? Did they join the invading enemy armies and commit terrorism and stage armed revolts and commit treason? And did they do all that for 25 years prior to 1940 to establish a Jewish state on German soil? Of course, not. But Armenian did all that and much worse between 1890-1915 in Anatolia, victimizing Ottoman-Muslims. How can the two vastly different histories be mentioned in the same breath? How can a civil war be equated to the Holocaust?

Question 31 - Was it genocide or wartime tragedy? If Armenian resorted to terrorism, armed uprisings, and outright treason, and Turks responded to the serious wartime security threats with a wartime measure of temporary resettlement, wouldn’t it make it a civil war?

Question 32 - If it was genocide, where is the court verdict? Where is the proof of intent? If there is no intent, how can there be genocide? Didn’t the Malta Tribunals of 1919-1921 by the British, abandoned due to lack of evidence, prove that today’s Armenian allegations of genocide are nothing more than an afterthought, a new spin on an old event, and a political maneuver?

Question 33 - How come we heard nothing about the Turkish suffering caused by the Armenian nationalists like the Dashnaks, the Hunchaks, the Ramgavar, and others? Weren’t the Turkish losses at least 4 times heavier than Armenian losses?

Question 34 - What about Armenian terrorism, rebellions, and treason? Why didn’t we hear anything about them?

Question 35 - As the prominent Turkish Historian Halacoglu recently said, crying makes poor history. Isn’t it a fact that my grandparents can’t cry on TV today, like those Armenian survivors, because the Armenians and Greeks killed them in Anatolia between 1911-1922 ?

Question 36 - It is well documented that until May 2, 1915, the date of the telegraph by Enver Pasha from the Russian front to Talaat Pasha in Istanbul, there was not even talk of temporary resettlement; so how can it be genocide if there is no intent of killing Armenians?

Question 37 - Where is the right of the Turkish-Americans’ to the freedom of speech with access to this panel denied? Question 38 - Isn’t New York Times guilty of censoring Turkish views? Didn’t NYT publish 145 anti-Turkish stories in 1915 with zero rebuttals, refutations, or challenges allowed for Turks? Is this the fair and balanced coverage the Armenians are basing their allegations on?

Question 39 - Aren’t Armenian allegations of genocide are dishonest history because they ignore Armenian terror, rebellions, and treason!

Question 40 - How come you always mention denial by the Turkish government when you know we are the Turkish-Americans, not the Turkish government and we also categorically reject the Armenian claims of genocide?

Question 41 - Do you know the first of the six apologies the Turks have been waiting for since the end of WWI which is for Britain to apologize for the wartime propaganda in the “Blue Book” on which today’s genocide claims are built and for raining death and destruction on our grandparents’ in Anatolia?

Question 42 - Did you know that Boghos Nubar Pasha, the Armenian leader, said in a published letter that “Armenians Were de-facto belligerents during WWI”? Doesn’t it prove that it was a civil war?

Question 43 - Do you know the second of apologies Turks have been waiting for since the end of WWI which is for France to apologize for the wartime propaganda in the “Yellow Books” and for raining death and destruction on our grandparents’ in Anatolia?

Question 44 - Do you know the third of six apologies Turks have been waiting for since the end of WWI which is for Russia to apologize for destroying 850 years of harmonious Turkish-Armenian co-habitation in Anatolia?

Question 45 - Do you know the fourth of six apologies Turks have been waiting for since the end of WWI which is for the Protestant Missionaries sent from Boston to apologize for dividing, polarizing, and destroying 850 years of harmonious Turkish-Armenian co-habitation in Anatolia ?

Question 46 - Do you know the fifth of six apologies Turks have been waiting for since the end of WWI which is for the New York Times to apologize for biased coverage of 1915? Did you know NYT published 145 partisan reports defaming Turks versus zero rebuttals by Turks allowed?

Question 47 - Do you know the sixth of six apologies Turks have been waiting for since the end of WWI which is for the Ottoman-Armenians to apologize for destroying 850 years of harmonious Turkish-Armenian co-habitation in Anatolia with their greed, agitation, terrorism, rebellions, and treason?

Question 48 - Did you know the Ottoman Empire loved and cherished the Armenians as “the most loyal nation” but the Armenians betrayed this respect by donning the French and Russian uniforms to kill their Ottoman-Muslim neighbors?

Question 49 - George M. Lamsa, a missionary well known for his research on Christianity, The Secret of the Near East, The Ideal Press, Philadelphia 1923, p 133 said and I quote: "…In some towns containing ten Armenian houses and thirty Turkish houses, it was reported that 40,000 people were killed, about 10,000 women were taken to the harem, and thousands of children left destitute; and the city university destroyed, and the bishop killed. It is a well- known fact that even in the last war the native Christians, despite the Turkish cautions, armed themselves and fought on the side of the Allies. In these conflicts, they were not idle, but they were well supplied with artillery, machine guns and inflicted heavy losses on their enemies…." Isn’t this proof enough of the Armenian fraud and Western complicity?

Question 50 - John Dewey, of the Library Dewey System fame, wrote in The New Republic on 12 November 1928 the following: “...Few Americans who mourn, and justly, the miseries of the Armenians, are aware that till the rise of nationalistic ambitions... the Armenians were the favored portion of the population of Turkey, or that in the Great War, they traitorously turned Turkish cities over to the Russian invader; that they boasted of having raised an Army of one hundred and fifty thousand men to fight a civil war, and that they burned at least a hundred Turkish villages and exterminated their population...” Isn’t this proof enough of the Armenian distortions?

Question 51 - Dr. Gwynne Dyer, a London-based independent journalist, wrote in 1976: “… The deafening drumbeat of the propaganda, and the sheer lack of sophistication in argument which comes from preaching decade after decade to a convinced and emotionally committed audience, are the major handicaps of Armenian historiography of the diaspora today…” Isn’t this a proper description of the Armenian fanaticism?

Question 52 - Georges de Maleville, lawyer and a specialist on the Armenian question, La Tragédie Arménienne de 1915, (The Armenian tragedy of 1915), Editions F. Sorlot-F. Lanore, Paris, 1988, p 61-63, said: “…In all the countries, under all the regimes, the staff of the armies in the field evacuate towards the back, the populations which live in the zone of fights and can bother the movement of the troops, especially if these populations are hostile. Public opinion does not find anything to criticize to these measures, obviously painful, but necessary. During winter of 1939-1940, the radical - socialist French government evacuated and transported in the Southwest of France, notably in the Dordogne, the entire population of the Alsatian villages situated in the valley of the Rhine, to the east of the Maginot line. This German-speaking population, and even sometimes germanophil, bothered the French army. It stayed in the South, far from the evacuated homes and sometimes destroyed until 1945….And nobody, in France, cried out for inhumanity…” Doesn’t this point poignantly to the hollowness of the Armenian claims?

Question 53 - How did “the most loyal nation” in the Ottoman Empire turn into “the most distrusted nation” ? Can Turks be blamed for losing their trust in Armenians after Armenian rebellions and treason? Question 54 - What about Armenia’s aggression in Karabagh-Azerbaijan since 1988? What about Armenia’s aggression in Azerbaijan since 1992? What about Armenia’s ethnic cleansing both in Karabagh and Azerbaijan since 1992? Why did you ignore one million Azeris expelled from their homes at gun point by Armenian thugs in 1994? Why is everyone so hush-hush about the tragedy of one million Azeri refugees who still brave the freezing Caucasus winters in leaky tents with little food or medicine for the 12th years in a row?

Reply to Mr. Mark Mardell for "Historical Guilt"

2006-11-20T07:23:00.000-05:00

Reply to Mr. Mark Mardell- BBC Editor for the editorial "Europe diary: Historical guilt"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6107360.stm

Mr Mark Mardell
Europe Editor
4 Millbank,
London SW 1

14th November 2006

Subject : Your article titled ‘Historical guilt’

Dear Mr Mark Mardell,

We are an umbrella organisation consisting of sixteen associations representing a large proportion of the British-Turkish community whose population is approximately over a quarter of a million. Our community is saddened by the fact that you have implied that the tragic events of 1915 was ‘genocide’ in your recent article, titled ‘Historical guilt’.

We are well aware that some Armenian lobbyists are carrying out a strong campaign for recognition of the so-called genocide but Turks believe the events that took place during World War I was a ‘War Tragedy’; the consequences of which were that both sides suffered immensely.

Over the last couple of decades, while the Armenian Diaspora attacked with contaminated claims, baseless accusations and falsified evidence against Turks that caused racial hatred in many countries, the Turks kept a dignified silence to prevent internal hatred against their Armenian neighbours. Unfortunately it is very clear that this dignified silence was misunderstood and they found themselves in a position of having to defend themselves for a crime they never committed.

In fact, what Turks and Armenians have gone through since 1828 has disturbed and victimized both sides of the community. It has been the result not of internal events, but of meddling, plotting and intrigues conducted from external forces.

From 1828 to 1915, with varied intensity, it was Russia who stirred up trouble between the “Loyal Armenian Community” and the Ottoman Empire in the six provinces of Eastern Turkey. Other imperialists, including the British and the French, had tried their luck following the 1878 Treaty of Berlin. The French plunged into South East Turkey, creating chaos, doing much harm to both the Armenian minorities and the local Muslims and resulting in the need for the relocation of the

Armenians in those areas. When things turned sour the Russians and the French simply pulled out, taking with them the Armenians whom they had stopped supporting in the field. The Armenians were as much victims as their Muslim neighbours had been.

Due to the events supported and nurtured by the Russians in the six provinces of Eastern Turkey and by France in Turkey’s southeast, no significant Armenian minorities are now to be found in those areas, although, there are still many Armenians living in Western Turkey today.

However the bitterness, anger and resentment caused by outside interferences has consolidated itself within the Armenian diaspora living abroad. Discreetly and occasionally openly, it has been encouraged by the existing Armenian Republic, which itself has achieved ethnic cleansing in the Azeri province of Nagorno-Karabakh.

At present, the Armenian diaspora in many countries has gained enough power to lobby all the leading countries of the world, including the USA and members of the EU, to demand they condemn Turkey for a “genocide” that it never contemplated.
The Turkish community accepts ‘genocide’ as the most vicious crime against humanity. In the same context, one should accept that accusing a nation with genocide is a very serious act as well. Any such act comes with a responsibility to prove such an accusation and rest it on historical facts and international legality.
Those who accept this claim without studying either history or their own records will have to face serious consequences both on the international scene and in their relations with Turkey. This would not do the Armenian Diaspora or the citizens of Turkey and the Armenian Republic any good whatsoever. Nor would it enhance the prestige, influence or economic interests of nations and international organizations to fall into the trap of condemning Turkey for a genocide it never committed.

Turkey’s defamers should now be made to realise they have a moral obligation to carry out systematic research, by impartial and scientific historians, to carry out proper, unprejudiced studies of the archives of all the countries directly or indirectly involved in this sad episode of history.

On the other hand, world public opinion must realise that unsubstantiated accusations cannot be converted into public condemnations demanded by pressure groups of the accusers. Such one-sided action is contrary to modern concepts of international justice.

Coming from a nation, who has lost 2.5 million of its people in that period, we are fully aware of the devastation that war can bring to people and humanity. Having suffered a great loss first hand, we believe that we should all be working towards peace and not generating hatred against any nation.

With that belief, we are sending you some information out of many that present the other side of the coin. We hope you will have time to read them and see the events from facts, not from hearsay stories and base your view accordingly.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need more information on the subject or any other matter relating to the Turks or the British - Turkish community, we will be more than happy to assist you.

Yours sincerely,

Levent Hassan ( Mr )
Advisor
The Federation of Turkish Associations in UK

Enclosed: The Armenian File by Kamuran Gürün
Death and Exile by Prof. Justin McCarthy
Dashnagtzountiun Has Nothing To Do Anymore by H. Katchaznouni
Armenian Claims and Historical Facts
The Exchange Between Admiral Bristol and Dr. Barton
Armenian – Nazi Collaboration
Revisiting the Armenian Genocide by Prof. Guenter Lewy
The Ottoman Holocaust by Prof. Stanford J. Shaw
The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story by Prof.H. W. Lowry
The Armenian Problem and International Law ‘Conclusion’ by G. Aktan
100 Books and Selected Magazines on the Armenian Issue
The Armenian Issue
‘Sarı Gelin’ DVD (A documentary film on the Armenian Issue)

YOUR COMMENTS

2006-11-11T17:36:00.000-05:00

i like to see something done about 72 turkish diplomats who were killed by terrorists.

The Other Side of the Story

2006-11-10T23:53:00.000-05:00

The Other Side of the Story: The Trurth behind the Armenian Crisis of 1915
by Rachel Salomon

Since 1915, Armenian activists have deceived many people into believing that there was unquestionably a genocide that occurred against them within the former Ottoman Empire. However, history demonstrates that there is another side to what happened in Anatolia during the First World War, a view that has been expounded upon by prominent historians such as Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton University and Professor Stanford Shaw of the University of California. According to the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide, there must be a clear intent to destroy an entire nation, race, ethnicity, or religion in order to be classified as genocide ("Convention on the Prevention"). Going by this internationally recognized definition, the Armenian case is not genocide, for there is no proof that the Ottoman Turks intended to annihilate the Armenian people.Genocide is not a word that should be tossed around lightly. It is true that there have been genocides, such as the Jewish Holocaust, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, Cambodia, and East Timor, which have occurred throughout the 20th century. Some cases of genocide, like that of the Sudan, are going on as we speak. In each of these cases, the goal of annihilation of an entire group of people has been on the agenda of the ruling government. For this reason, they are genocides and should be classified as such.However, other cases, such as that of the Armenians, are unfortunate tragedies that have taken place in times of extremely brutal wars, but they are not genocides because the intent of the annihilation of an entire people has been lacking from the situation. All suffering that occurred during the First World War should be recognized, but it would be criminal to belittle the suffering that occurs during actual genocides by equating the natural consequences from an exceedingly bloody war with the unique crime of genocide. As Professor Bernard Lewis once said, "My loyalties are to the truth." Throughout this entire essay, my goal is not to deny an indisputable genocide, but to demonstrate that an unfortunate incident has been labeled unjustly as genocide to the depreciation of incidents that the United Nations defines as actual genocides.Americans and Europeans have heard many lies about Turkey from powerful Armenian lobbyist organizations. For instance, some Armenians allege that over 1.5 million Armenians died in Eastern Anatolia. However, Turkish demographic statistics taken prior to World War One prove that fewer than1.5 million Armenians lived throughout the entire Ottoman Empire, which included all of Anatolia, significant parts of Europe, North Africa, the Caucasus, and the Middle East ("Turkey"). Even the Armenian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in 1920 noted the large portions of Armenians who survived the war. In sum, 280,000 Armenians remained in Anatolia, while 700,000 had immigrated to other countries. If 1.5 million Armenians had been slaughtered by Turks, given the demographics, there would not have been a single Armenian who survived the war.It is true that many Armenians were killed: "Historian and demographer, Dr.Justin McCarthy of the University of Louisville, calculates the actual losses as slightly less than 600,000. This figure agrees with those provided by the British historian Arnold Toynbee, by most early editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and approximates the number given by Monseigneur Touchet, a French missionary" ("Turkey"). All of these deaths are tragic and should be recognized in the history books. However, it is also important to remember that many Turkish, Russian, French, British, German, Canadian, and American citizens also died during the exact same time period. It was a brutal era in human history with many peoples from many nations dying.Armenians were not unique in this aspect.Nevertheless, in order to gain statehood from land carved out of the former Ottoman Empire, Armenian activists needed to prove that the crime of genocide had occurred so that they would have foreign support. Given their unfriendly relations with their neighbors, they needed powerful allies in order to become a state. Once Armenia became a state, they knew that they would need foreign aid to survive. Armenian activists knew that foreign powers would not support them unless they could provide evidence that a Christian people had been sought after for extermination. In order to prove an Armenian Genocide, they found it necessary to commit outright intellectual fraud. Without this fabricated support, there is no proof that such a genocide took place.The infamous Talat Pasha Telegrams, which have been used as pivotal supporting evidence for all Armenian arguments against Turks, were an invention. The originals of the papers copied by the Armenian author Aram Andonian were never seen by the British War Office. When the British Foreign Office enquired about them to General Allenby, it was discovered that these documents were not found by the British during their occupation of Istanbul, but were produced by an unidentified Armenian political organization in Paris (Delen). However, without the originals, it is still quite evident that the Talat Pasha documents were a scam. When Andonian dated a memo in his book, he claimed that Mustafa Abdulhalik Bey was the Governor of Aleppo, while the actual Governor of Aleppo on the date noted was Bekir Sami Bey.Andonian lacks the proper knowledge of the Rumi calendar (the lunar calendar of the Ottoman Empire) that would be necessary in order to create a believable forgery of an Ottoman document (Delen).The Armenian lobbyists often distribute a photograph of human skulls with their publications, claiming that this was an example of Turkish savagery.In reality, this supposed photograph was a painting entitled "The Apotheosis of War" that was created in 1872 by the Russian master Vassili Vereshchagin.

Armenian Question-Norman Stone.

2006-11-10T23:46:00.000-05:00

Armenian Question-Norman Stone.
An excellent article by a British historian which demolishes the recent law about genocide that cleared the French parliament)Armenian Question - commentary by Norman Stone"The Armenian 'genocide' is an imperialist plot." . . So said Dogu Perincek, in Marxist mode, and he chose to say it in Switzerland. Switzerland passed a law threatening prison for anyone 'denying' that there had been a genocide of the Ottoman Armenians in 1915, and Mr. Perincek was interrogated by the police. There have been similar events in other countries and now we have the French parliament passing a law that is harsher than the Swiss one a year's prison and a heavy fine. This is a ridiculous and contemptible business bad history and worse politics. It is also financially very grubby indeed. We all know how the American legal system can work: lawyers will agree to work for nothing, in return for a share of the profits at the end of a court case. Court cases are very expensive and it can simply be easier for banks or firms or hospitals to agree to make a payment without any confession of liability, just because fighting the case would be absurdly expensive, and the outcome given how the American jury system works unpredictable. A burglar, crawling over a householder' s glass roof, fell through it, was badly wounded, and took the householder to court: result, a million dollars in damages. Class actions by Armenian Diaspora descendants in California shook down the Deutsche Bank over claims dating back to 1915 and collected 17,000,000 dollars; then they attempted the same with a French insurance company. We can be entirely certain that if Turkey ever 'recognizes the genocide' then the financial claims will follow. But if Turkey refuses to admit it, she is in fact on perfectly good ground. The very first thing to be said is that the business of 'genocide' has never been proved. The evidence for it is at best indirect and when the British were in occupation of Istanbul they never found any direct evidence or proof at all. They kept some hundred or so prominent Turks in captivity on Malta, hoping to find some sort of evidence against them, and failed. They asked the Americans if they knew anything and were told, no. The result is that the alleged 'genocide' has never been subjected to a properly-constitute d court of law. The British released their Turks (meanly refusing to pay for their journeys back home from Malta). There is a counter-claim to the effect that this happened because the Nationalist Turks were holding British officers hostage but the fact is that the Law Officers simply said that they did not have the evidence to try their captives. Diaspora Armenians claim that 'historians' accept the genocide case. There is some preposterous organization called 'association of genocide scholars' which does indeed endorse the Diaspora line, but who are they and what qualifications do they have? Knowing about Rwanda or Bosnia or even Auschwitz does not qualify them to discuss Anatolia in 1915, and the Ottoman specialists are by no means convinced of the 'genocide'. There is in fact an 'A' team of distinguished historians who do not accept the Diaspora line at all. In France, Gilles Veinstein, historian of Salonica and a formidable scholar, reviewed the evidence in a famous article of 1993 in L'Histoire. Back then the Armenian Diaspora were also jumping up and down about something or other, and Veinstein summed up the arguments for and against, in an admirably fair-minded way. The fact is that there is no proof of 'genocide', in the sense that no document ever appeared, indicating that the Armenians were to be exterminated. There is forged evidence. In 1920 some documents were handed to the British by a journalist called Andonian. She claimed that he had been given them by an Ottoman official called Naim. The documents have been published as a book (in English and French) and if you take them at face value they are devastating: here is Talaat Pasha as minister of the Interior telling the governors to exterminate the Armenians, not to forget to exterminate the children in orphanages, but to keep it all secret. But the documents are very obviously a forgery elementary mistakes as regards dates and signatures. At the time, in 1920, the new Armenian Republic was collapsing. Kazim Karabekir was advancing on Kars (which fell almost without resistance) and the Turkish Nationalists were co-operating with Moscow (in effect there was a bargain: Turkey would abandon Azerbaijan and Russia would abandon Anatolian Armenia). The Armenians were desperate to get the British to intervene and save them, by landing troops at Trabzon. However, the British (and still more the French) had had enough of the problems of Asia Minor and were in the main content to settle with the new Turkey. Andonian's documents belong in that context. The chief Armenian 'genocidist, ' V.Dadrian, still passionately defends the authenticity of these documents but the attempt does not do much credit to his scholarship: for instance, to the claim that the paper on which these documents were written came from the French school in Aleppo, he answers that there was a paper shortage (leading the Ottoman governor to ask a French headmaster if he could use some of his school-paper? Not very likely). The Naim-Andonian documents have incidentally never been tested in a court. The British refused to use them and a German court subsequently waved them aside. They have since disappeared not what you would have expected had they been at all that is the sum total of the evidence as to 'genocide'. Otherwise you are left with what English courts call 'circumstantial evidence' i.e. a witness testifying that another witness said something to someone. Such evidence does not count. In the past three years Armenian historians have apparently been going round archives Ä±n two dozen countries to find out what they contain the Danish archives for instance. What they contain is what we knew already that an awful lot of Armenians were killed or died in the course of a wartime deportation from many parts of Anatolia. Did the Ottoman government intend to exterminate the race, or was it just a deportation that went horribly wrong? As to this, the experts are divided. A deportation gone wrong is the verdict of many of the best qualified historians Bernard Lewis, Heath Lowry, Justin McCarthy, Yusuf Halacoglu. Other historians who know the old script and the background believe that it was a premeditated campaign of extermination, and some of these historians are Turkish (Mete Tuncay and Selim Deringil, unless I am taking their names in vain). There is a Turkish historian, Taner Akcam, whose book, based on the war-crimes trials set up in the early period of the British occupation, is obviously scholarly and who accepts the genocide thesis (though he does stress that the process cannot be compared with what happened in Nazi Germany to the Jews). In view of these divisions among scholars it is simply scandalous that the French or any other parliament should decree what the answer is. But it is worse, because the Armenian Diaspora can be extremely vindictive. For instance, Gilles Veinstein, as a reward for his quite dispassionate article, faced a campaign of vilification. He had become a candidate for the College de France, which elects the very best scholars in the country to give seminars. The historians very much welcomed this: he is an extremely serious scholar. But the Armenian Diaspora organized a campaign against him, especially among the mathematicians for some reason. One of them, a Professor Thom, was told that, on the whole, the French historians supported Veinstein and did not like the genocide thesis. His answer: 'they are all Ottomanists, ' as if that somehow disqualified them. The fact is that the Armenian Diaspora have never taken this affair to a proper court of law. Instead, they try to silence men such as Veinstein. There was an extraordinary episode in American publishing two years ago. A very well-known historian, Gunther Lewy, who was a professor at the University of Massachusetts and author of several books still in print on modern German history, wrote a book on the Armenian massacres on the basis of German documents. The book is valuable because it shows how Dadrian twisted the German evidence. He offered it to his usual publisher, Oxford University Press (New York branch). A report was commissioned from one Papazian not exactly a celebrity who identified what he claimed were tremendous inaccuracies: they turn out either not to be inaccuracies, or just little slips of the kind anyone might make. On that basis Lewy's manuscript was refused on the grounds that he had taken up 'Turkish denialist discourse'. He found another publisher, the University of Utah Press. And lo and behold the senior Armenian historian in the USA, Richard Hovannisian (University of California) wrote in protest to the President of that University to complain about the publication. Be it said, incidentally, that the last two volumes of Hovannisian' s History of Independent Armenia are a well-written and fair-minded account in some ways, even a classic of historical writing (the earlier two volumes are not of the same class). Now, there is something very wrong here. If you believe that you are right, and then you will let evidence speak for itself, and if you face opposition you will simply expect to win the argument one way or the other. Attempts to silence opposition, to boycott lectures by, say, Justin McCarthy, to bully or manipulate foreign politicians all of that surely argues that the Armenians themselves know their case is very far from being overwhelming. In any case it does nothing whatsoever for Armenia. If you go to eastern Turkey and Kars, look across the border at Armenia. It is very poor, and will continue so if there is no commerce with Turkey. The only obvious industry is the issue of visas for Moscow or the USSR (or for that matter Turkey, where up to 100,000 ex-Soviet Armenians live). The place obviously lives off Diaspora money (and the spread of American fast-food places now means curiously enough that the inhabitants are becoming obese in the manner of some Americans). In Soviet times Armenia had a population approaching three million. Then came independence and the war over Karabagh. The population dwindles and declines every year and is now not much above 1,500,000 of all absurdities, in other words, independence has caused the Armenians to lose twice as many as vanished in the supposed 'genocide' of 1915. There is in other words a sickness at the heart of this whole frankly preposterous affair. What should Turkey do? If the French law does pass then Turks must be prepared to act, otherwise they risk being landed with enormous bills for compensation. It will take organization. I would volunteer, myself, to provoke some trouble in France: it would be very easy indeed for me to give a public lecture and just to point out what is wrong about the whole thesis of the 'Armenian genocide' I might even just read out Veinstein's article (or another important one by the then leading German general, Bronsart von Schellendorf) . The French government probably would be mad enough to put me in prison for a while (this was done to a well-respected French historian of slavery, whose crime had been to point out that many Africans were involved in the slave trade and that some slaves volunteered for transportation because it saved them from cannibalism) . But someone has to make a stand against the ridiculous misuse of parliamentary power and the instructing of historians what they must say about an event nearly a century old in a country two thousand kilometers away with a language that very few people can now read.

Genocide, and Legal Meaning - Servet Hasan

2006-11-10T23:43:00.000-05:00

Genocide, and its legal meaning by Servet Hasan
It is not possible to pass a day without coming across yet another article about Armenian 'genocide' claim these days. People who don't understand the legal meaning of 'genocide' and/or who will gain from it by not understanding the meaning of it use it freely. The fact is 'genocide' is a legal term and describes a terrible crime but it is not about a number of deaths involved therefore raising the number of deaths does not prove the events were genocide so I suggest them to stop playing the number game. Every person is unique and every death should be respected. It does not matter if 1000 or a million people died what matters is to define the events and if there is a crime than it should be punished accordingly. Genocide is an international crime and it is described in the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. When we talk about a crime there is obviously punishment. Who deals with the crime and punishments? The courts. In this case it should be international courts like the one in Nuremberg Tribunals. Is there any International court decision on this subject ? No. Claimants do not wish to take this matter to the courts because:1) The events were before 1948 UN Convention and crime of 'genocide' did not exist in the pre-Convention period.2) Still, the events of 1915 does not fit the criteria of 'genocide' as described in the 1948 UN Convention in many aspects but first of all and most importantly there is no intent to 'destroy' the Armenians.3) There is not a single piece of evidence to prove the events were constituted 'genocide'. So far all the evidence produced have been proven to be fake, all claims are contaminated, etc. But after Istanbul was occupied by the British at the end of the war, courts were set up to investigate the Armenian incidents. The British occupation forces transferred the 144 Ottoman officers to Malta to try them in a move that ran against the judicial rules of the time. What was the verdict? "There was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks..." and the officers were let free of the Malta Tribunal. Why don't the events of 1915 fit the criteria of 1948 UN Convention?a) The Armenians constituted a political group since they engaged in armed political activities, first to gain autonomy and then to found an independent state on the Ottoman lands. For this reason, they were not one of the four groups protected by Article 2 of the Convention.b} Since the Ottomans did not harbour towards the Armenians an ‘anti-Armenianism’, that is, a racial hatred akin to the anti-Semitism the Nazis displayed towards the Jews, the relocation was not carried out with a motive which could have led to the intent to destroy them as a group. The relocation decision was taken to prevent the military operations the Armenians had initiated together with the invading Russian armies to exterminate the Turks and Muslims that made up 84% of the population in the eastern Anatolian region through an ethnic cleansing of genocidal proportions, as had been done to the Turks during the Balkans Wars.c) The Ottoman Government did not have the intent to destroy the Armenians, a condition stated in Article 2 of the Convention. Not only are there no written documents, there are no oral accounts either attesting to the intention to destroy on the part of the administration. All the documents available envisage the protection of Armenian convoys in the course of relocation and their safe resettlement. The number of Armenian deaths, which is grossly exaggerated, is far from proving the presence of genocide. A significant part of the Armenian deaths resulted from reasons not related to the relocation. The Turkish civilian deaths occurring in the same region due to the similar reasons were more numerous than the Armenian loss of life. Therefore, in the context of Article 2c of the Genocide Convention, the relocation was neither a covert genocide nor an indirect one.4. The Catholic and Protestant Armenians all over the country as well as the Gregorian Armenians living in Istanbul , Aydin (including Izmir ), Edirne and Kütahya, that is, the western part of Anatolia , were not subjected to relocation. This partial relocation did not stem from the Ottoman administration’s weakness. The Gregorian Armenians in other areas were transferred, because they were situated on the path of the advancing Russian armies and, having the same religious faith as the Russians, they were collaborating with them against the Ottoman army and the Muslim population. This clearly shows the military rationale for the relocation.5. Under the circumstances, the relocation, not only did not constitute genocide according to the Convention, but also did not affect a crime against humanity, considering the military imperative that prompted it as a permissible ground in international law. On the other hand, the relocation does not meet the conditions cited in Article 7 of the Statute of Rome. This is not a case of “multiple commission of acts” as part of a "wide-spread and systematic attack" that constitute crimes against humanity in accordance with Article 7b of the said Statute. Moreover, the Armenians have never been subjected to persecution on religious or other grounds.6. Along with the “imperative military reasons”, the relocation was aimed at foiling the efforts of the Armenians in collaboration with the invading Russian armies to ethnically cleanse the Turks and Muslims who made up the large majority of the population in the region, as in the case of the Balkan Wars. The Ottomans, who were fighting on three fronts all at the same time, could not always protect all of the Armenians effectively with the limited number of troops available. The gangs in the region attacked the Armenian convoys, killing some of them and plundering their possessions for their private purposes. The civilian Turks who were forced to migrate under similar conditions of rough terrain, harsh climate, lack of adequate food and medicine in the face of epidemics, lost more people than the Armenians did. This clearly shows that the relocation was not the cause for all Armenian casualties.7. And, finally, those who ordered the relocation came to have feelings of regret due to undesirable incidents, feelings of sympathy for the Armenian victims and resentment towards the persons who had attacked them. The culprits of the robbery and murder cases, which came under the ordinary crimes category, were put on trial before the war ended, and most of them were executed. [ G.Aktan] Why if the events of 1915 cannot be proven because there is no evidence and does not fit the legal criteria of 1948 UN Convention is the term 'genocide' used to describe the tragic events of 1915 by some? Turkey as a civilised state denounces genocide and Turks understand Armenians' pains deeply as they suffered from the events as much as Armenians did. But they don't believe the events were 'genocide' and this is the only simple reason they refuse to accept it not because they are 'prickly nationalists'. What would you do if you are accused of a crime that you didn't commit. Would you accept it just to end the suffering of the victim? If you get involved in a chain traffic accident and many cars hit you from behind and as a result you hit someone in front of you, can we say this was 'homicide' just because the victim's family has so much pain and the verdict of 'accidental death' does not satisfy the family? Is it fair if they punish you for homicide? Claimants of the so-called Armenian 'genocide' are doing exactly the same thing for the last couple of decades. Perhaps they found out that 'genocide' is very lucrative business after compensation was paid to the Holocaust victims.
Servet Hassan, London

Historical Guilt - Mark Mardell

2006-11-10T23:31:00.000-05:00

Historical Guilt - Mark Mardell

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6107360.stm2 November 2006BBC Europe editor Mark Mardell talks to Armenians in Turkey and asks why a massacre that took place nearly a century ago, and the question whether it was genocide, is such a sensitive issue in Turkey today.

AWKWARD QUESTION
Luckily the last remaining Armenian village in Turkey does not rely on the mut berry for its living. It's plucked from the hedgerow and offered to me by two village women. It smells fantastic, a heady aroma a bit like rosemary. But it tastes of nothing and puckers the mouth. Instead it's the nectarine, turning from green to orange on the trees running down the hillside, that makes the village of Vakif its money. The mayor, Berc Kartun, is more interested in talking about how his village's unique status attracts tourists, and the economic benefit of going organic, than discussing how his parents and grandparents died. "We are all rather tired of this question. We should let the historians settle it once and for all so it comes to a stop and you won't be asking our children the same thing." My question of course is: "Was it genocide?"

NATIONAL LIBEL
Why is modern-day democratic Turkey so sensitive about something that happened nearly 100 years ago in the dying days of the Ottoman Empire? A BBC radio programme wants me to probe the delicate question of what the state's official attitude to the killings says about present-day Turkey. Dutch students of Turkish origin object to the dropping of election candidates who do not recognise the Armenian "genocide"

Q&A: Armenian 'genocide'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6045182.stm
Nobody seriously disputes that many thousands of Armenians died in what is now eastern Turkey between 1914 and 1918. Some Turkish historians say 200,000 died, some Armenian historians say it was two million. Turkish writers are still prosecuted for calling it "genocide". But the French parliament has caused outrage in Turkey by voting to make denial that these killings were genocide a crime on a par with holocaust denial. My first reaction to the programme's request was, "It's obvious". If Britain was asked to acknowledge guilt for something in the past, say the Irish potato famine, there would be fury in some quarters. If the government was pressed by its EU partners to officially label it "genocide" there might be an explosion of incandescent rage in certain papers. But the key is "some quarters" and "certain papers". There would be a lively debate, because many British liberals do feel guilt for the country's colonial past. Certainly Martin Amis and Iain Banks wouldn't find themselves on trial for agreeing with the foreigners. Yet in Turkey top novelists do find themselves on trial for libelling their country - although the actual law says "insulting the Turkish republic", so I don't quite see how insulting the Ottoman Empire qualifies.

YOUR HELP PLEASE
One of the things I value most about writing this diary is your comments. Even the rants, re-statements of obvious positions, and questioning of my intelligence, ability and motives interest me. But the majority of comments are both thoughtful and thought-provoking. They often give me a new perspective and a greater understanding of the stories I am covering. So help me now. I'm not asking for a rehash of the old arguments, but why it is such a sensitive subject for Turks 90 years after the killings took place?

MOUNT MOSES
The village of Vakif (also known as Vakifli Koyu) was once one of several Armenian Christian villages dotting the hillside leading up to Mount Moses (Musa Dagh in Turkish, Musa Ler in Armenian) very near the Syrian border. A French warship, the Guichen, came to the Armenians' rescueIn 1915, because of their ideal tactical position, the Christian villages were able to repulse the Ottoman attackers long enough to appeal to fellow Christians. They were rescued by a French warship and taken to safety, but later made their way home. The international boundary fluctuated over the years. When the area again became Turkish in 1939, many of the villagers decided to go to Lebanon or Syria, but those that remained grouped together in Vakif.

HEART AND SOUL
Inside the single-room cafe men play cards and drink small glasses of tea as the rain lashes the citrus trees outside. When I talk to the mayor of oranges and selling laurel berry soap to tourists they chat noisily among themselves in Armenian. But when I ask about the past, the room falls silent. They stare intently at the mayor as though willing him not to say the wrong thing. Admission of what happened is as important for some as the G-word It turns out that one of the men is just back to visit his father-in-law, the oldest man in the village. Canik Capar was once a villager, but he is now a tourist. He says he once had a good job in a bank but was sacked when they found he was an Armenian and a Christian. He re-trained as a teacher in the 1970s but says the government didn't want Armenian teachers in the region at the time. He told me the atmosphere was often tense, and knowing what had happened in the past, he was always worried that things might turn nasty again. So he left for Berlin, where he has lived ever since, and is now a German citizen. He tells us the obvious, that his friends have to be careful what they say. So, would he call what happened in 1915 genocide? "I don't care what they call it, the important thing is they admit what was done." And as an EU citizen now, does he think Turkey should be allowed to join? "Like my [Armenian] patriarch in Istanbul, my heart and soul say No, but with my head I say Yes, because if they don't, they will turn towards the Middle East and that could lead to something happening to our people again."

HISTORICAL GUILT
The whole question of historical guilt is an interesting one. Should I bear any guilt for the sins the British committed in Africa, if they were sins, any more than I do for the crimes of Jack the Ripper committed around the same time? Britons are learning about atrocities committed in colonial Kenya. And if I and my government do bear this burden, should we feel similar guilt for the evil committed by Elizabeth I against Catholics or Mary I against Protestants? Should we apologise to the French for the 100 Years War, and they to us for 1066? Thinking about it, weren't the "Normans" actually "Norsemen"? So should an apology be forthcoming from Denmark, Norway and Sweden?

PRICKLY NATIONALISM
I'm not going to speculate further about Turkey, but if it was Britain I suspect part of the problem would be a certain kind of nationalism. It seems to me that nationalism comes in two distinct types. One is fiercely proud of the achievements of the country, its history and language. The other is prickly, always looking out for insult and offence and its main motivation seems to be not pride, or even prejudice, but nursing old wounds. Let's call it stabinthebackism, in memory of the Weimar Republic. Any gentle poking of fun, questioning of values or tradition is seen as the latest sign that the barbarian hordes are already inside the gates. It was, I believe, Spike Milligan who used to say that he enjoyed kicking the backs of people's chairs when they didn't rise for the national anthem at the end of a theatre performance or film in the cinema (as was once routine). He said he did it not because he cared much about the national anthem but because it was a good excuse for kicking people. There are those still with us who have a similar motivation, without the irony. Please use the post form below to comment on any of the issues raised in the diary.