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)
Monday, November 20, 2006
Saturday, November 11, 2006
YOUR COMMENTS
i like to see something done about 72 turkish diplomats who were killed by terrorists.
Friday, November 10, 2006
The Other Side of the Story
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.
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.
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 ın 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.
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 ın 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
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
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
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.
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.
Your Comments on BBC
Your Comments on BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6107360.stm
Atrocities are a despicable part of the human condition. The fact that this becomes a dispute of countries is our desperate clinging to individual national identities, when in reality we are guilty of these dark tendencies as a race, regardless of perceived borders and nationalities. Politics and nationalism are an awful, fetid excuse for turning our backs on the plight of other human beings. Therein lies our shared eternal shame.
Michael Ringstrøm, Dane living in Helsinki, Finland
If one can feel pride in the actions of their ancestors, one can very well learn to feel shame of guilt for their doings. To be able to do both shows good character. Both Turkey and Armenia need to openly discuss what happened - let it be known widely what happened and how both nations were to blame, if that is the case. Only then can the truth come out. For reference, see (I think) John Stuart Mill's thoughts on free speech and the marketplace of ideas.
Abhi K. Jain, Washington, DC, USA
Let's not forget that this is yet another stage in the systematic campaign waged by Armenians in their efforts to carve territory from and have damages paid by Turkey: Armenian terrorists assassinated or maimed many Turkish diplomats in the '70s and '80s (taking the cue from the Palestinians) in an effort to raise awareness on their claims using terrorist tactics. Now they have carried their campaign to a political platform. They know very well that although it is true there were many deaths in those years from both sides, it was not a genocide or even an attempt at it. It was a relocation campaign which went awfully wrong and caused deaths of scores of thousands of people of both Turkish and Armenian origin.
Mustafa Eric, Toronto, Canada
Europe should accept responsibility for Kosovo and Rwanda before it inteferes with Turkish and Armenian history and also sort out the mess theyve created in Afghanistan and Iraq. Us Turks as a nation are muture enough to sort out our own problems within our own time.
Osman Celikden, Milton Keynes, UK
My grandfather lost his wife and children during genocide in 1915. He was a genocide survivor and he told us the horrors of that time. Armenian genocide is an undeniable fact of history and Turkey considering itself as a developed and democratic country has to admit it sooner or later. The documnted proofs are everywhere and most of all in Turkish archives. Unpunished crimes led to new ones as Hitler told comfortably in 1939, "After all, who remembers today the extermination of the Armenians?"
Ani Mouradian, Vancouver, Canada
I do not think that it is a good idea to make light of historical guilt because the present-day citizens of the guilty country did not take an active part in the genocide, oppression or subjagation of entire peoples. Should you feel bad about what the Britons did in Kenya? Yes! You should. Because you are reaping the economic and social benefits of colonization every day when you wake up and go to work. You have your job and your status because someone in your country 10, 20, 100, years ago destroyed an African's or Indian's ability to make a living independent from foreign taxes and regualations.
Jennifer Diaz, San Francisco, California, USA
History is what big powers made of. "The Armenian issue" was manipulated by France, Russia and Britain to serve their causes during WWI, and is still being manipulated for domestic or foreign ineterests. That is exactly what hinders the relations between Turkey and Armenia from growing. History should be investigated by historians and the result should be respected by all.
Raşit , Ankara, Turkey
Being a German born in the sixties I know what it is like being held responsible for the atrocities committed by my country under the NAZI-regime. In school we were taught, not to forget our past, which I absolutely agree with. What I do not agree with is, that this undoubted guilt is used by others to pressure Germany to "be silent" when breaches of human rights ("Guantanamo bay", "Palestine", ...) are commited now. Another point: Yes, I agree, Turkey has to admit the atrocities on Armenians, whether you call it genocide or not. Turkey has to become more democratic, but give them some good will as well. Don't push them in a corner. If the Allied had done that after WW2 Germany would probably not be the democratic state it is today.
Dieter Kybelksties, Milton Keynes, UK
The Turkish government needs to grow up, accept the criticism like most other western governments, and it will all go away except as an interesting academic problem.
Kenzo, Toronto, Canada
People can debate the particulars, but the pain of admitting to the dark side of humanity may be too much for some to bear. I do beleive though it is a positive step for healing and not just in this case, but in all conflicts, inner and outer.Alex Terzian, Ann Arbor, USAFor an excellent study of the reasons behind Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide see Turkish scholar Taner Akcam¿s new history, ¿A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility¿, reviewed in this week's The New Yorker magazine. Akcams shows that the founders of the modern Turkish Republic were so close to those that committed the acts that admitting to it would be admitting that modern Turkey country was founded by war criminals.
Richard Elliott, Montreal, Canada
I grew up listening to my grand-grandmother's horror stories fleeing from massacres committed by Armenian. She lost two sisters, two brothers, and her father when they were immigrating from Erzurum to Amasya during WWI. They lost all their belongings on the way, and arrived their final destination in starvation. This is all because Armenian militia (backed by the French and Russian Army) attacked women, children and elderly Turks that Turkish soldiers left at home when they went for war fronts in the East, West, North and South. Only a small fraction of Turkish National Archives are posted on the internet and I can trace the real stories of ancestors (via my surname), and the pain and suffering they've gone through under Armenian attacks. I am sorry for the losses that Armenian immigrants on their way to Syria, but otherwise we would be mourning of a wiped out Turkish population in the Eastern Anatolia today. And, it is not only the Armenian who lost thousands of people in this war, but also the Turks. Let the historians speak before using this as a political yoke on modern Turkey.
Koray, England
In my time living in Europe, The USA and parts or Asia, I noted that countries that were once "Great Powers" have a much more "Prickly" form of Nationalism and I think Turkey with it's Ottoman legacy fits into this camp. The roots of the Armenian question and how the Turkish State has dealt with it are complicated by Turkey's need to see it's self as living up to it's historical greatness. The "great power" legacy that Turkey sees itself as part of prohibits any real ability for the Turkey to climb down from it's moral high ground. Put another way, I can imagine the US at some point banning certain types of behavior for "insulting American values" ( think of the flag burning debate) but I have a very hard time imagining a Brazilian or a Canadian law that would prosecute people for offences to the National identity... after all what identity would you insult?... perhaps the character of the football or ice hockey teams? I think it would be invaluable for Mr Mardell to develop this concept of "Wounded National Identity" tied to "Great Power" status and it's role in perpetuating old conficts and creating new ones. Mike, Minneapolis, USA
It is about time Turkey faces her atrocities towards the Armenian people. I am not saying they should be put through the same insane guilt-trip the world (especially the State of Israel) and even worse German politicians put us Germans still through. But the Turkish government has to admit that the genocide against the Armenian people happened - even if this crime was committed by a predecessor regime - the Osman Empire.
Tom, Berlin, Germany
One distinction of the Armenian situation from other atrocities is that it clearly was a defensive measure gone awry. If the Armenians were not attacking Turks or consorting with Russia in their aspirations for an independent nation, there would have been no order to evacuate them. This is in sharp contrast to the holocaust. Western nations practice imperialism throughout their history with impunity. Turkey is not a Christian nation and politically weaker than the Europe or America; therefore it poses an easy target. Condemning this moderate Muslim country makes it vulnerable to exploitation by fanatical Islam or western hegemony and undermines the influence of the Turkish moderates who want to believe in Europe¿s progressive agenda. What is better for today¿s Armenians, allowing them to relish in their revenge, or helping Turkey develop into a modern country which gives them full protection and equal rights under the law?
Deniz Kiral, Chicago, USA
Why does Turkey doesn't want to recognize the Armenian Genocide? Because as part of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, they will also have to compensate Armenians with the return of the stolen lands, properties and money. The sum is so large that the Turkish economy may collapse and their federal buget will go bankrupt.
Grigor Hakobyan, Phoenix, Arizona (USA)
Oscar Wilde once wrote: "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." Just look around the world today and you will clearly see this in effect. You really don't need to look too far from Canada to see this happening. This is present in other Turkish laws, example "insult to Turkishness" meaning your not allowed to critize your own goverment or their handeling's of subjects/events. This is the goverments way of dealing with their peoples critics. Repress with fear of reprisal. No Goverment was ever perfect, and no goverment will be. To bring light to the past is the only way to understand history, and if you cannot learn from 200,000 - 2,000,000 murders, why proceed to the future as history has a tendency of repeating itself, Armenian or not! "Our true nationality is mankind."
H.G. Wells Casey Hendriks, Toronto Canada
David Whitman wrote: "Much of Turkish music, architecture, cuisine and art have Armenian roots. If the Turks admit to the Armenian Genocide, they fear to lose a large part of what they believe is Turkish identity" This comment is a perfect example of the condescending westerner attitude that drives Turks like myself into burning rage and prevents the Turkish-Armenian issue from being discussed in a healthy manner. This non-ending desire to degrade, insult and undermine the Turkish culture and history, and employing lies and exaggeration to do so must STOP! Saying that much of Turkish culture is rooted in Armenian culture and that our identity fear is the reason of denial is malicious! FYI Armenians still call many of their musical instruments and dishes by their original Turkish names. Now, how can anyone blame Turks for swaying into "prickly" nationalism?
Ceylan Yuksel, Istanbul, Turkey
When the term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1943, the purpose was to describe what had happened to the Armenians in Turkey. So please do not put the word genocide in quotation marks when you refer to the Armenian Genocide.
Alexander Nazarian, Indianapolis, USA
I feel that the main reason that Turkey is rejecting the word ''genocide'' is because of the fact that many sources show that similar number of Turks were slayn by Armenians and Russians in the region during the same period. I grew up in Turkey, and when the subject came up and there were elderly people from the south eastern parts of Turkey in the room; stories were told about the dozens of relatives that were killed and torched in front of their eyes and bodies piled up and and spat on by Armenian rebels used to be their friendly neihgbours not so long ago. The incidents in the period are furthermore not excepted as genocide because most Turks feel that they were stabbed in the back by the Armenians who turned to Russia and France as soon as they saw weakness. Afterall the two people lived side by side in harmony for hundreds of years and the ethnic Armenians had even better social and economic status in the old Ottoman empires eastern anatolia than the poor Turkish farmers. I am in no way denying the claim that a large number of Armenians were brutally slaughtered by the Ottomans but I find it peculiar that the Turkish request to let historians from both countries put their documents on the table and start a debate is firmly blocked by the Armenians.
Rauf Berent, Lund, Sweden
Turkey is proof positive of the George Santayana quote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."Heidi, Washington, DCAs an American, I would compare this to slavery or the treatment of American Indians. Those were certainly morally reproachable and reprehensible acts. But I had nothing to do with them. I like to think that if I had lived during those times that I would have been on the side of right, rallying against the oppressors. As such, I do not feel that expecting modern day people, so far removed from the events themselves, to feel guilt about something they had no part in and no control over is ridiculous. The world should always recognize! the atrocities of the past in an effort to move on to a time in which similar situations do not exist, but no one should be made to feel guilty for the sins of their ancestors.
Nick Hussong, Chicago, United States of America
Turkey should not be allowed to join the EU until it admits and apologizes it committed a genocide, and it pays restitution to the victims, just as Germany did to the Jews.S.Dastan, Tehran, IranI wonder whether acknowledging the wrongs done in the past opens up the question of the way Armenians are treated now. I also wonder if it calls into question a sense of Turkish identiy as a Moslem nation with a secular government. Where would the Armenians fit?
Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
I don't blame young generation of Turks not knowing the truth about that time. They surely have been raised with the propaganda that the massacre was all Armenians make. I myself was raised in the Soviet Union and up to the breack up of USSR strongly believed that it was the best system in the world. Yet, with all the abilities that Internet has to offer there are thousands ways to dig in to archives and find out the truth on what really happened in 1915. Unless the truth is revealed and accepted the dark past of that era will always hunt Turkey and won't let move on.
Laura Kirakosian, USA
To agree with many posters and with the author, I would also cite fierce, proud nationalism as the cause of Turkey's reluctance to admit to what happened between 1914 and 1918. Perhaps Turkey fears that admitting to this will reduce its chances of becoming an EU member. However, I see a much larger problem with admitting a country into the EU which denies key historical facts, detrimental or not to the social and opaque construct that is its nationalistic pride. The persecution of any people by any country should be admitted and researched, NOT to point a finger of blame, but to realize our mistakes, and work towards progress in the future.
Maria Stavropoulos, NYC, USA
I think most countries have something they would like to forget. There are too many to mention. So lets not be too hard on the Turks.ursula foster, gretna, va usaIt's probably best not to take the French position of somewhat needlessly antagonizing the Turkish on this issue. Certainly Turkey committed a campaign to drive out the Armenians in the first 20 years or so of the last century. However, there is plenty of blood to go around. Just before that same time, Belgium and France were killing millions of Central Africans in a quest for ivory and rubber. In some parts of the British Empire and Commonwealth there were bounties being paid for dead natives. Russia was committing pogroms against its Jewish population. The U.S. was crushing the last American Indian resistance to the colonization of the Wild West. Japan was ruthlessly expanding in China and Korea. And within countries that were the victims of Western colonization, there was a tolerance of local/tribal/clan depredations against other local groups. The truth that nobody wants to admit is that just about all the nations we live in were built and had their borders, religions and ethnicities built by conflict with other nations and peoples. Being an American I am surrounded by the ancestors of people who were forced out of their home countries and ended up coming here. I think that the best we can do is to try to accept that a lot of bad things happened in the past and try to be more civilized in the future.
Steven Kraft, San Jose, CA
The reason why Turkish people do not accept it is because they do not believe that it was genocide. If you know that you are not a thieve, would you accept being one? If there is compelling evidence that it happended, why is then international community (including Armenia)is so much against an international team of historians to investigate? After all, would you convict one party on the say so of the other only, without looking at all the evidence? What is that people supporting the Armenian view of point so afraid of?
Yusuf Kaya, Glasgow/UK
Europe's history as we know it is full of genocides. France, Germany, Britain, Serbia, etc. have all been involved in horrible crimes. Forcing Turkey to admit to something which is not yet proven will make Europeans feel better about themselves. Why not allow free debate and go to the Ottoman, Turkish, Armenian and Russian archives? Turkey opened its archives, but why Armenia or Russia haven't? Who is hiding what?Pelin Cos, EnglandHistorical guilt, whether acknowledged or not, is pretty much an irrelevance. What is important is whether we learn any lessons from the past and looking at world events during the past 100 years it would seem that we have not. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Rwanda, The Balkans Saddam Hussein and today's Iraq, Somalia, Indonesia, Palestine, the list of places where unjustified killings has been done as a result of differing ethnicity, differing views is endless. All it proves is that man is a violent, irrational and unfeeling species.Dave, London, OntarioThe historical record does not clean the hands of Turks, but it certainly dirties the hands of Armenians sufficiently as to scare them away from taking any part in actual scholarly examination. Turkey is being blackmailed with the denialist tag to accept a denialist claim. Turks and Kurds were massacred too. Will Armenia recognize this?Levent, Mersin TurkeyThe story shared about Canik Capur itself, once villager now tourist, suggests that the situation in Turkey goes beyond questions about historical guilt. Is it any surprise that Armenians want public acknowledgment of the wrongs done against them, when the moral and spiritual significance of the killings is exacerbated by modern day discrimination? What does Turkey have to lose by granting public aknowledgment? As the author indicates, it seems that nationalistic pride has clouded the vision of many countries in this position. A good dose of humility and compassion, from the leadership on down, would be refreshing.
Alec Smith, Wheaton, IL - USA
Well, before France goes pointing fingers at otehrs, it should apologize for colonialism, and algerian "massacres". That is not to say that turkey should not acknowledge whatever happened, but first we have to establish what happened and then have them acknowledge it. I think you will probably find that atrocities were committd on both sides. An objective look into the matter will perhaps yeild a solution that satisfies both parties and nobody should try to influence the proceedings with a stupid law like a France is trying to do. zafeerah, chicago, USAHow convenient that as Turkey gets closer to becoming a part of the EU, we remember what happened over a century ago. There are far more important issues at hand, in the world today, that are far more pressing than the admittance of guilt to something that happened nearly a century ago. Get over it. What's happened has happened. Every group of people has been persecuted, and all those same groups have done, or will do persecuting of their own. Historical-Guilt is a ridiculous notion, and a digusting one as it is conjured up for political reasons only!!
Ezra, Toronto, Canada
Once reconciliation between Armenians and Turks starts, we will hear more loudly about so many Turkish people who actually endangered their lives to save Armenians. Please understand, the wound for all Armenians is too deep to let it go - will you expect someone with broken legs to run? True reconciliation of two peoples is necessary to heal those wounds. And in this case that should start with honest facing of the past and not denying it.
Mike Arazyan, Toronto, Canada
Why is Europeans so concerned with events of 100 years ago that they legislate and enforce opinion yet are unable to reach any form of consensus on Rawanda/Kosovo/Darfur? Living in the past?
Mike, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Ottoman courts sentenced and punished some of Ottoman citizen by reason violence against some armenians during their leave of Anatolia.They were thinking revenge and this was unacceptable.Ottoman courts sentenced to some turkish people.Because some events was not undercontrol of Ottoman State after Armenian gangs massacres.Serhan, TurkeyCould we even imagine European integration with Germany if Germany refused to accept its responsability in the Shoa? Why should it be different with Turkey?
Pedro Bensaúde, Ponta Delgada, Azores, Portugal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6107360.stm
Atrocities are a despicable part of the human condition. The fact that this becomes a dispute of countries is our desperate clinging to individual national identities, when in reality we are guilty of these dark tendencies as a race, regardless of perceived borders and nationalities. Politics and nationalism are an awful, fetid excuse for turning our backs on the plight of other human beings. Therein lies our shared eternal shame.
Michael Ringstrøm, Dane living in Helsinki, Finland
If one can feel pride in the actions of their ancestors, one can very well learn to feel shame of guilt for their doings. To be able to do both shows good character. Both Turkey and Armenia need to openly discuss what happened - let it be known widely what happened and how both nations were to blame, if that is the case. Only then can the truth come out. For reference, see (I think) John Stuart Mill's thoughts on free speech and the marketplace of ideas.
Abhi K. Jain, Washington, DC, USA
Let's not forget that this is yet another stage in the systematic campaign waged by Armenians in their efforts to carve territory from and have damages paid by Turkey: Armenian terrorists assassinated or maimed many Turkish diplomats in the '70s and '80s (taking the cue from the Palestinians) in an effort to raise awareness on their claims using terrorist tactics. Now they have carried their campaign to a political platform. They know very well that although it is true there were many deaths in those years from both sides, it was not a genocide or even an attempt at it. It was a relocation campaign which went awfully wrong and caused deaths of scores of thousands of people of both Turkish and Armenian origin.
Mustafa Eric, Toronto, Canada
Europe should accept responsibility for Kosovo and Rwanda before it inteferes with Turkish and Armenian history and also sort out the mess theyve created in Afghanistan and Iraq. Us Turks as a nation are muture enough to sort out our own problems within our own time.
Osman Celikden, Milton Keynes, UK
My grandfather lost his wife and children during genocide in 1915. He was a genocide survivor and he told us the horrors of that time. Armenian genocide is an undeniable fact of history and Turkey considering itself as a developed and democratic country has to admit it sooner or later. The documnted proofs are everywhere and most of all in Turkish archives. Unpunished crimes led to new ones as Hitler told comfortably in 1939, "After all, who remembers today the extermination of the Armenians?"
Ani Mouradian, Vancouver, Canada
I do not think that it is a good idea to make light of historical guilt because the present-day citizens of the guilty country did not take an active part in the genocide, oppression or subjagation of entire peoples. Should you feel bad about what the Britons did in Kenya? Yes! You should. Because you are reaping the economic and social benefits of colonization every day when you wake up and go to work. You have your job and your status because someone in your country 10, 20, 100, years ago destroyed an African's or Indian's ability to make a living independent from foreign taxes and regualations.
Jennifer Diaz, San Francisco, California, USA
History is what big powers made of. "The Armenian issue" was manipulated by France, Russia and Britain to serve their causes during WWI, and is still being manipulated for domestic or foreign ineterests. That is exactly what hinders the relations between Turkey and Armenia from growing. History should be investigated by historians and the result should be respected by all.
Raşit , Ankara, Turkey
Being a German born in the sixties I know what it is like being held responsible for the atrocities committed by my country under the NAZI-regime. In school we were taught, not to forget our past, which I absolutely agree with. What I do not agree with is, that this undoubted guilt is used by others to pressure Germany to "be silent" when breaches of human rights ("Guantanamo bay", "Palestine", ...) are commited now. Another point: Yes, I agree, Turkey has to admit the atrocities on Armenians, whether you call it genocide or not. Turkey has to become more democratic, but give them some good will as well. Don't push them in a corner. If the Allied had done that after WW2 Germany would probably not be the democratic state it is today.
Dieter Kybelksties, Milton Keynes, UK
The Turkish government needs to grow up, accept the criticism like most other western governments, and it will all go away except as an interesting academic problem.
Kenzo, Toronto, Canada
People can debate the particulars, but the pain of admitting to the dark side of humanity may be too much for some to bear. I do beleive though it is a positive step for healing and not just in this case, but in all conflicts, inner and outer.Alex Terzian, Ann Arbor, USAFor an excellent study of the reasons behind Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide see Turkish scholar Taner Akcam¿s new history, ¿A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility¿, reviewed in this week's The New Yorker magazine. Akcams shows that the founders of the modern Turkish Republic were so close to those that committed the acts that admitting to it would be admitting that modern Turkey country was founded by war criminals.
Richard Elliott, Montreal, Canada
I grew up listening to my grand-grandmother's horror stories fleeing from massacres committed by Armenian. She lost two sisters, two brothers, and her father when they were immigrating from Erzurum to Amasya during WWI. They lost all their belongings on the way, and arrived their final destination in starvation. This is all because Armenian militia (backed by the French and Russian Army) attacked women, children and elderly Turks that Turkish soldiers left at home when they went for war fronts in the East, West, North and South. Only a small fraction of Turkish National Archives are posted on the internet and I can trace the real stories of ancestors (via my surname), and the pain and suffering they've gone through under Armenian attacks. I am sorry for the losses that Armenian immigrants on their way to Syria, but otherwise we would be mourning of a wiped out Turkish population in the Eastern Anatolia today. And, it is not only the Armenian who lost thousands of people in this war, but also the Turks. Let the historians speak before using this as a political yoke on modern Turkey.
Koray, England
In my time living in Europe, The USA and parts or Asia, I noted that countries that were once "Great Powers" have a much more "Prickly" form of Nationalism and I think Turkey with it's Ottoman legacy fits into this camp. The roots of the Armenian question and how the Turkish State has dealt with it are complicated by Turkey's need to see it's self as living up to it's historical greatness. The "great power" legacy that Turkey sees itself as part of prohibits any real ability for the Turkey to climb down from it's moral high ground. Put another way, I can imagine the US at some point banning certain types of behavior for "insulting American values" ( think of the flag burning debate) but I have a very hard time imagining a Brazilian or a Canadian law that would prosecute people for offences to the National identity... after all what identity would you insult?... perhaps the character of the football or ice hockey teams? I think it would be invaluable for Mr Mardell to develop this concept of "Wounded National Identity" tied to "Great Power" status and it's role in perpetuating old conficts and creating new ones. Mike, Minneapolis, USA
It is about time Turkey faces her atrocities towards the Armenian people. I am not saying they should be put through the same insane guilt-trip the world (especially the State of Israel) and even worse German politicians put us Germans still through. But the Turkish government has to admit that the genocide against the Armenian people happened - even if this crime was committed by a predecessor regime - the Osman Empire.
Tom, Berlin, Germany
One distinction of the Armenian situation from other atrocities is that it clearly was a defensive measure gone awry. If the Armenians were not attacking Turks or consorting with Russia in their aspirations for an independent nation, there would have been no order to evacuate them. This is in sharp contrast to the holocaust. Western nations practice imperialism throughout their history with impunity. Turkey is not a Christian nation and politically weaker than the Europe or America; therefore it poses an easy target. Condemning this moderate Muslim country makes it vulnerable to exploitation by fanatical Islam or western hegemony and undermines the influence of the Turkish moderates who want to believe in Europe¿s progressive agenda. What is better for today¿s Armenians, allowing them to relish in their revenge, or helping Turkey develop into a modern country which gives them full protection and equal rights under the law?
Deniz Kiral, Chicago, USA
Why does Turkey doesn't want to recognize the Armenian Genocide? Because as part of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, they will also have to compensate Armenians with the return of the stolen lands, properties and money. The sum is so large that the Turkish economy may collapse and their federal buget will go bankrupt.
Grigor Hakobyan, Phoenix, Arizona (USA)
Oscar Wilde once wrote: "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." Just look around the world today and you will clearly see this in effect. You really don't need to look too far from Canada to see this happening. This is present in other Turkish laws, example "insult to Turkishness" meaning your not allowed to critize your own goverment or their handeling's of subjects/events. This is the goverments way of dealing with their peoples critics. Repress with fear of reprisal. No Goverment was ever perfect, and no goverment will be. To bring light to the past is the only way to understand history, and if you cannot learn from 200,000 - 2,000,000 murders, why proceed to the future as history has a tendency of repeating itself, Armenian or not! "Our true nationality is mankind."
H.G. Wells Casey Hendriks, Toronto Canada
David Whitman wrote: "Much of Turkish music, architecture, cuisine and art have Armenian roots. If the Turks admit to the Armenian Genocide, they fear to lose a large part of what they believe is Turkish identity" This comment is a perfect example of the condescending westerner attitude that drives Turks like myself into burning rage and prevents the Turkish-Armenian issue from being discussed in a healthy manner. This non-ending desire to degrade, insult and undermine the Turkish culture and history, and employing lies and exaggeration to do so must STOP! Saying that much of Turkish culture is rooted in Armenian culture and that our identity fear is the reason of denial is malicious! FYI Armenians still call many of their musical instruments and dishes by their original Turkish names. Now, how can anyone blame Turks for swaying into "prickly" nationalism?
Ceylan Yuksel, Istanbul, Turkey
When the term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1943, the purpose was to describe what had happened to the Armenians in Turkey. So please do not put the word genocide in quotation marks when you refer to the Armenian Genocide.
Alexander Nazarian, Indianapolis, USA
I feel that the main reason that Turkey is rejecting the word ''genocide'' is because of the fact that many sources show that similar number of Turks were slayn by Armenians and Russians in the region during the same period. I grew up in Turkey, and when the subject came up and there were elderly people from the south eastern parts of Turkey in the room; stories were told about the dozens of relatives that were killed and torched in front of their eyes and bodies piled up and and spat on by Armenian rebels used to be their friendly neihgbours not so long ago. The incidents in the period are furthermore not excepted as genocide because most Turks feel that they were stabbed in the back by the Armenians who turned to Russia and France as soon as they saw weakness. Afterall the two people lived side by side in harmony for hundreds of years and the ethnic Armenians had even better social and economic status in the old Ottoman empires eastern anatolia than the poor Turkish farmers. I am in no way denying the claim that a large number of Armenians were brutally slaughtered by the Ottomans but I find it peculiar that the Turkish request to let historians from both countries put their documents on the table and start a debate is firmly blocked by the Armenians.
Rauf Berent, Lund, Sweden
Turkey is proof positive of the George Santayana quote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."Heidi, Washington, DCAs an American, I would compare this to slavery or the treatment of American Indians. Those were certainly morally reproachable and reprehensible acts. But I had nothing to do with them. I like to think that if I had lived during those times that I would have been on the side of right, rallying against the oppressors. As such, I do not feel that expecting modern day people, so far removed from the events themselves, to feel guilt about something they had no part in and no control over is ridiculous. The world should always recognize! the atrocities of the past in an effort to move on to a time in which similar situations do not exist, but no one should be made to feel guilty for the sins of their ancestors.
Nick Hussong, Chicago, United States of America
Turkey should not be allowed to join the EU until it admits and apologizes it committed a genocide, and it pays restitution to the victims, just as Germany did to the Jews.S.Dastan, Tehran, IranI wonder whether acknowledging the wrongs done in the past opens up the question of the way Armenians are treated now. I also wonder if it calls into question a sense of Turkish identiy as a Moslem nation with a secular government. Where would the Armenians fit?
Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
I don't blame young generation of Turks not knowing the truth about that time. They surely have been raised with the propaganda that the massacre was all Armenians make. I myself was raised in the Soviet Union and up to the breack up of USSR strongly believed that it was the best system in the world. Yet, with all the abilities that Internet has to offer there are thousands ways to dig in to archives and find out the truth on what really happened in 1915. Unless the truth is revealed and accepted the dark past of that era will always hunt Turkey and won't let move on.
Laura Kirakosian, USA
To agree with many posters and with the author, I would also cite fierce, proud nationalism as the cause of Turkey's reluctance to admit to what happened between 1914 and 1918. Perhaps Turkey fears that admitting to this will reduce its chances of becoming an EU member. However, I see a much larger problem with admitting a country into the EU which denies key historical facts, detrimental or not to the social and opaque construct that is its nationalistic pride. The persecution of any people by any country should be admitted and researched, NOT to point a finger of blame, but to realize our mistakes, and work towards progress in the future.
Maria Stavropoulos, NYC, USA
I think most countries have something they would like to forget. There are too many to mention. So lets not be too hard on the Turks.ursula foster, gretna, va usaIt's probably best not to take the French position of somewhat needlessly antagonizing the Turkish on this issue. Certainly Turkey committed a campaign to drive out the Armenians in the first 20 years or so of the last century. However, there is plenty of blood to go around. Just before that same time, Belgium and France were killing millions of Central Africans in a quest for ivory and rubber. In some parts of the British Empire and Commonwealth there were bounties being paid for dead natives. Russia was committing pogroms against its Jewish population. The U.S. was crushing the last American Indian resistance to the colonization of the Wild West. Japan was ruthlessly expanding in China and Korea. And within countries that were the victims of Western colonization, there was a tolerance of local/tribal/clan depredations against other local groups. The truth that nobody wants to admit is that just about all the nations we live in were built and had their borders, religions and ethnicities built by conflict with other nations and peoples. Being an American I am surrounded by the ancestors of people who were forced out of their home countries and ended up coming here. I think that the best we can do is to try to accept that a lot of bad things happened in the past and try to be more civilized in the future.
Steven Kraft, San Jose, CA
The reason why Turkish people do not accept it is because they do not believe that it was genocide. If you know that you are not a thieve, would you accept being one? If there is compelling evidence that it happended, why is then international community (including Armenia)is so much against an international team of historians to investigate? After all, would you convict one party on the say so of the other only, without looking at all the evidence? What is that people supporting the Armenian view of point so afraid of?
Yusuf Kaya, Glasgow/UK
Europe's history as we know it is full of genocides. France, Germany, Britain, Serbia, etc. have all been involved in horrible crimes. Forcing Turkey to admit to something which is not yet proven will make Europeans feel better about themselves. Why not allow free debate and go to the Ottoman, Turkish, Armenian and Russian archives? Turkey opened its archives, but why Armenia or Russia haven't? Who is hiding what?Pelin Cos, EnglandHistorical guilt, whether acknowledged or not, is pretty much an irrelevance. What is important is whether we learn any lessons from the past and looking at world events during the past 100 years it would seem that we have not. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Rwanda, The Balkans Saddam Hussein and today's Iraq, Somalia, Indonesia, Palestine, the list of places where unjustified killings has been done as a result of differing ethnicity, differing views is endless. All it proves is that man is a violent, irrational and unfeeling species.Dave, London, OntarioThe historical record does not clean the hands of Turks, but it certainly dirties the hands of Armenians sufficiently as to scare them away from taking any part in actual scholarly examination. Turkey is being blackmailed with the denialist tag to accept a denialist claim. Turks and Kurds were massacred too. Will Armenia recognize this?Levent, Mersin TurkeyThe story shared about Canik Capur itself, once villager now tourist, suggests that the situation in Turkey goes beyond questions about historical guilt. Is it any surprise that Armenians want public acknowledgment of the wrongs done against them, when the moral and spiritual significance of the killings is exacerbated by modern day discrimination? What does Turkey have to lose by granting public aknowledgment? As the author indicates, it seems that nationalistic pride has clouded the vision of many countries in this position. A good dose of humility and compassion, from the leadership on down, would be refreshing.
Alec Smith, Wheaton, IL - USA
Well, before France goes pointing fingers at otehrs, it should apologize for colonialism, and algerian "massacres". That is not to say that turkey should not acknowledge whatever happened, but first we have to establish what happened and then have them acknowledge it. I think you will probably find that atrocities were committd on both sides. An objective look into the matter will perhaps yeild a solution that satisfies both parties and nobody should try to influence the proceedings with a stupid law like a France is trying to do. zafeerah, chicago, USAHow convenient that as Turkey gets closer to becoming a part of the EU, we remember what happened over a century ago. There are far more important issues at hand, in the world today, that are far more pressing than the admittance of guilt to something that happened nearly a century ago. Get over it. What's happened has happened. Every group of people has been persecuted, and all those same groups have done, or will do persecuting of their own. Historical-Guilt is a ridiculous notion, and a digusting one as it is conjured up for political reasons only!!
Ezra, Toronto, Canada
Once reconciliation between Armenians and Turks starts, we will hear more loudly about so many Turkish people who actually endangered their lives to save Armenians. Please understand, the wound for all Armenians is too deep to let it go - will you expect someone with broken legs to run? True reconciliation of two peoples is necessary to heal those wounds. And in this case that should start with honest facing of the past and not denying it.
Mike Arazyan, Toronto, Canada
Why is Europeans so concerned with events of 100 years ago that they legislate and enforce opinion yet are unable to reach any form of consensus on Rawanda/Kosovo/Darfur? Living in the past?
Mike, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Ottoman courts sentenced and punished some of Ottoman citizen by reason violence against some armenians during their leave of Anatolia.They were thinking revenge and this was unacceptable.Ottoman courts sentenced to some turkish people.Because some events was not undercontrol of Ottoman State after Armenian gangs massacres.Serhan, TurkeyCould we even imagine European integration with Germany if Germany refused to accept its responsability in the Shoa? Why should it be different with Turkey?
Pedro Bensaúde, Ponta Delgada, Azores, Portugal
Monday, November 06, 2006
Armenian massacres to Turkish People 1914-1918
Documents in Ottoman Archieves
INDEX PAGE of the DOCUMENTS /BELGELERİN ÖZET VE TRANSKRİPSİYONU
1- Nahcivan, Kağızman ve Şarol Havalisinde Müslüman Halka Uygulanan Vahşi SoykırımFerocious Mass Killings Perpetrated by Armenians Against Muslim Population in the Neighborhoods of Nahçıvan, Kağızman and Şarol.
2- Kars'ta Müslüman Köylerinin Boşaltılarak Buralara Ermenilerin YerleştirildiğiArmenians Settled in Muslim evacutated villages in Kars
3- Ermenilerce Yapılan Katliâmın Amerika İaşe Heyeti'ne AnlatıldığıStatement made to the American Food Supply Commission concerning massacre perpetrated by Armenians.
4- Nahcıvan ve Kamarlı'da Ermeni Mezâliminin Devam EttiğiArmenian Atrocities Continue in Nahcivan and Kamarlı.
5- Ermeni Zulmünden Kaçarak Hududlara Yığılan Kafkasyalı Müslümanların DurumuSituation of Caucasian Muslims fleeing Armenian oppression massed on the Frontiers.
6- Kars ve Sarıkamış Civarındaki Müslüman Köylerine Ermenilerce Yapılan MezâlimAtrocities Committed by Armenians İn Villages İn The Neighborhood of Kars and Sarıkamış
7- Sekman, Ardı, Kepenek, Harçlı, Penaduz ve Todaviran Köylerinde Ermenilerce Yapılan Katliâm Massacre Perpetrated by Armenians in the Villages of Sekman, Ardı, Kepenek, Harçlı, Penaduz and Todaviran
8- Kaskanlı Aşireti Reisinin Ermeni Zulmü Hakkındaki MektubuLetter of the Chief of the Kaskanlı Tribe Regarding Armenian Atrocities.
9- Bayezid Sınırı Üzerindeki Müslüman Köylerinde Ermenilerce Soykırım YapıldığıMassacre Perpetrated by Armenians in Muslim villages Bordering Bayezid
10- Ermenilerin Kağızman'da Katliâm YaptıklarıMassacre perpetrated by Armenians in Kağızman
11- Ermeni Taarruzuna Uğrayan Kürtlere Civardaki Müslüman Köylerin Destek VerdiğiSupport Given to Kurds attacked by Armenians by Neighboring Muslim Villages.
12- Ermenilerin Doğu Sınırındaki Köylerde Yaptıkları KatliâmMassacre Perpetrated by Armenians in the Villages on the Eastern Frontiers.
13- Ermeni Taşnak Cemiyeti'nin Elviye-i Selâse'de Bir Tek Müslüman Bırakmamak Maksadıyla Soykırım YaptığıMassacre perpetrated by Armenians with the Aim of Exterminating To The last One The WholePopulation of The Three Subprovinces.
14- Karaurgan ve Allahuekber Dağı Civarında Bulunan Müslüman Köylerine Ermenilerce Uygulanan MezâlimAtrocities committed against Muslim villages in the vicinity of Karaurgan and Allahuekber
15- Ermeni Zulmünden Kaçan Kağızman Halkının İltica Talebinin Kabul EdildiğiAsylum is Granted to the Population of Kağızman Fleeing Armenian Atrocities
16- Kars, Sarıkamış ve Iğdır Civarında Ermeniler Tarafından Yapılan Soykırım
Massacre Perpetrated by Armenians in the Vicinity of Kars, Sarıkamış and Iğdır.
17- İmadiye ve Musul'da İngilizler Tarafından Silahlandırılan Ermeni ve Nasturîlerin Müslümanlara Yönelik Saldırılara BaşladıklarıBeginning of Attacks against Muslims in Imadiye and Mosul by Armenians and Nestorians Armed by the English.
18- Fransız Askerî Elbisesi Altındaki Ermenilerin Maraş'ta Halka Yaptıkları ZulümOppressions Perpetrated by Armenians Wearing French Uniforms Against the Population of Maraş
19- Fransız Ordusuna Bağlı Olarak Maraş'a Giren Ermenilerin Yakın Köylerdeki Müslüman Halka Saldırılarda BulunduklarıArmenians attached to the French Occupying Army of Maras attacked Muslim people in theneighboring villages.
20- Kars, Sarıkamış ve Kağızman'da Ermenilerin Elinde Üç Bin Kişinin BulunduğuThree thousand Muslims are detained by Armenians in Kars, Sarıkamış and Kağızman
21- Ermenilerin Fransızların Koruması Altında Adana'da Müslüman Halka Tecavüzlerde BulunmalarıProtected by the French, Armenians Attacked Muslim Population in Adana
22- Ermenilerin Haçin Civarında Bazı Müslümanları Yollarda Katlederek Kadınlara SaldırdıklarıArmenians killed some Muslim wayfarers in the vicinity of Haçin and attacked women.
23- Fransız Askerleriyle Ermenilerin Maraş'ta Halka Mezâlim YaptıklarıOpressions Perpetrated by French Soldiers and Armenians Against the Population in Maraş
24- Fransız Ordusunda Bulunan Ermenilerce Müslümanlara Uygulanan Mezâlimin Fransızlar Tarafından Durdurulması GerektiğiThe French Must Stop the Atrocities Perpetrated Against Muslim Population by Armenians Serving in the French Army
25- Fransızların Ermenilerle Beraber Maraş Müslümanlarını Topa TuttuklarıTogether with Armenians the French Bombarded Maraş
26- Fransız Askerleriyle Birlikte Ermenilerin Ayıntab, Maraş ve Adana Civarında Müslüman Ahâliye Zulüm YaptıklarıOppressions Committed by Armenians and French soldiers in the Neighborhood of Ayıntab, Maraş and Adana Against Muslim Population.
27- Ermeni Çetelerinin Ünye'de İslam Ahâliye Zulüm YaptıklarıAtrocities Perpetrated by Armenian Bandits Against Muslim Population in Ünye
28- Pozantı-Gülek Arasındaki Bölgede Esir Türk Askerlerinin Ermenilerce KatledildiğiTurkish Soldiers Taken Prisoners of War in the Region Between Pozantı-Gülek were killed by Armenians
29- Çıldır'da Teslim Olma Çağrısına Uymayan Köylülerin Ermenilerce KatledildiğiVillages İnhabitants ın Çildır Rejecting the summons to Surrender Killed by Armenians30- Ermenilerin Çıldır ve Zengizor'da Müslümanlara Katliâm YaptıklarıMassacre of Muslims in Çıldır and Zengizor
31- Ermenilerin Kozan ve Feke'de Müslüman Halka Katliâm UyguladıklarıMassacre Perpetrated by Armenians Against Muslim Population in Kozan and Feke.
32- Ermenilerin Kendilerine Tâbi Olmak İstemeyen Zaruşad ve Ona Bağlı Üç Köyde Katliâm YaptıklarıMassacre of Muslim Population who refused to submit to Armenians in Zeruşad and three Villages Attached to
33- Zaruşad, Çıldır, Ağbaba ve Şüregel'e Bağlı Köylerde Ermenilerce Yapılan SoykırımMassacre Perpetrated by Armenians in Zaruşad, Akbaba and Süregel and the Villages Attached to.
34- Ermenilerin Zaruşad Havalisinde İki Bin Müslümanı KatlettikleriArmenians Massacred Two Thousand Muslims in the Neighborhood of Zaruşad.
35- Ermenilerin İşgalci Fransızlarla Birlikte Maraş'ta Halka Zulmedip Katliâm Yaptıklarıİn Maraş Armenians in Collabaration with Occupying French Forces Oppressed the Population and Committed Massacre.
36- Şüregel, Akbaba, Zaruşad ve Çıldır Civarındaki Yirmi Sekiz Köyde Ermenilerce Yapılan Katliâmlarda İki Bin Müslümanın ÖldürüldüğüTwo thousands of Muslims Had Been killed in the Massacre perpetrated by Armenians in twentyEight Villages Situated in the Neighborhoods of Şuregel, Akbaba, Zaruşad and Çıldır.
37- Çıldır, Zaruşat ve Elviye-i Selâse'de Ermenilerin İslam Ahâliye Mezâlim YaptıklarıAtrocities perpetrated by Armenians against Muslim population in Çıldır, Zaruşat and the three Sanjaks
38- Ordubad, Ahura, Cilvana ve Büyükvedi Havalisinde Ermenilerin, Müslüman Halka Karşı Yeniden Büyük Bir Saldırıya BaşladıklarıBeginning of New Large Armenian Attacks Against Muslim Population in Ordubad, Ahura, Cilvanaand the Neigborhood of Büyükvedi.
39- Revan’dan Gence’ye Giden Trenin Beş Yüz Müslüman Yolcusunun Ermeniler Tarafından ÖldürüldüğüMassacre by Armenians of Five Hundred Muslim Passengers while they are travelling by Trains From Revan To Gence40- Ermenilerin Sivin ve Pilomori Köyleri Müslüman Ahâlisine Baskı YaptıklarıPressures Exerted by Armenians upon the Muslim Population of the Villages of Sivin and Pilomori.
41- Kars, Sarıkamış ve Karakurt Civarında Ermenilerin İslam Ahâliye Yaptıkları MezâlimAtrocities Perpetrated By Armenians Against Muslim Population in the Neighborhoods of Kars,Sarıkamış and Karakurt.
42- Zaruşad ve Akbaba Yörelerinde Ermenilerin Baskılarını ArttırdıklarıArmenian Oppression İntensified in the Region of Zaruşad and Akbaba.
43- Ermenilerin Kars ve Civarındaki İslam ve Malakan Köylerine Tecavüz EttikleriArmenian Aggression Against the Villages of Islam and Malakan in Kars and Its Neigborhood.
44- Uluhanlı, Karadağlı, Boğanlı ve Çebeçalı Köyleri Civarında Ermeniler Tarafından Yapılan Baskı ve Soykırımın Devam EttiğiMassacre and Oppression Perpetrated by Armenians Contınue unabated in the Neighborhoods of the Villages of Uluhanlı, Gökçeköse, Karadağlı, Boğanlı and Çebeçalı.
45- Şüregel'e Bağlı Köylerden Ermeni Mezâlimi Yüzünden Kaçanların Oltu'ya GeldikleriPeople of Villages Attached to Süregel Fleeing Armenian Atrocities Arrived to Oltu.
46- Novoselim Civarındaki Köylere Ermenilerce Yapılan MezâlimOppression Committed by Armenians Against Villages in the Vicinity of Novoselim.
47- Ermenilerin Sarıkamış, Kağızman, Oltu, Kars ve Zengibasar Civarında Yaptıkları SoykırımMassacres Perpetrated by Armenians in the Surroundings of Sarıkamış, Oltu, Kars and Zengibasar.
48- Kars Civarında Ermenilerden Kaçan Müslümanların Yollarda ÖldürülmesiAssasination In the Vicinity of Kars of Muslims While on their way Fleeing to Escape from Armenians.
49- Ermenilerin Göle, Oltu ve Kosor'da Yaptıkları KatliâmlarWholesale Carnage Perpetrated by Armenians in Göle, Oltu and Kosor.
50- Ermenilerin Kars, Erzurum ve Gümrü Civarında Müslümanlara Uyguladıkları SoykırımMassacre Perpetrated by Armenians Against Muslims in the Neighborhoods of Kars, Erzerum and Gümrü.51- Ermeniler Tarafından Bayburt'un Köylerinde Yapılan Soykırım ve Kimsesiz Kalan Çocukların İskânıMassacre Perpetrated by Armenians in the Villages of Bayburt; finding Habitation for Homeless Children.
52- Ermenilerin Göle'nin Köylerinde Katliâm Yaptığı ve Ahâlinin Tercan'a Göç EttiğiMassacre Perpetrated by Armenians in the Villages of Göle and the Flight of the Population to Tercan.
53- Bir Sene İçinde Pasinler’e Bağlı Köylerde Ermeniler Tarafından Yapılan SoykırımLarge Seale Massacres Perpetrated by Armenians in the Villages of Pasinler During a Year.
54- Ermenilerin Tortum'un Altmış Dört Köyünü Yakıp Katliâm Yaptıkları ve Mezâlimden Kurtulanların İskânıArmenians Destroyed Sixty Four Villages in Tortum and Massacred Their Population; The Settlement of Those who Survived the atrocities
55- Erzurum'da Ermenilerce Gerçekleştirilen Soykırım ve Talana Ait Defterler Notebooks Related to the Genocide and the Pillages Perpetrated by Armenians in Erzerum.
INDEX PAGE of the DOCUMENTS /BELGELERİN ÖZET VE TRANSKRİPSİYONU
1- Nahcivan, Kağızman ve Şarol Havalisinde Müslüman Halka Uygulanan Vahşi SoykırımFerocious Mass Killings Perpetrated by Armenians Against Muslim Population in the Neighborhoods of Nahçıvan, Kağızman and Şarol.
2- Kars'ta Müslüman Köylerinin Boşaltılarak Buralara Ermenilerin YerleştirildiğiArmenians Settled in Muslim evacutated villages in Kars
3- Ermenilerce Yapılan Katliâmın Amerika İaşe Heyeti'ne AnlatıldığıStatement made to the American Food Supply Commission concerning massacre perpetrated by Armenians.
4- Nahcıvan ve Kamarlı'da Ermeni Mezâliminin Devam EttiğiArmenian Atrocities Continue in Nahcivan and Kamarlı.
5- Ermeni Zulmünden Kaçarak Hududlara Yığılan Kafkasyalı Müslümanların DurumuSituation of Caucasian Muslims fleeing Armenian oppression massed on the Frontiers.
6- Kars ve Sarıkamış Civarındaki Müslüman Köylerine Ermenilerce Yapılan MezâlimAtrocities Committed by Armenians İn Villages İn The Neighborhood of Kars and Sarıkamış
7- Sekman, Ardı, Kepenek, Harçlı, Penaduz ve Todaviran Köylerinde Ermenilerce Yapılan Katliâm Massacre Perpetrated by Armenians in the Villages of Sekman, Ardı, Kepenek, Harçlı, Penaduz and Todaviran
8- Kaskanlı Aşireti Reisinin Ermeni Zulmü Hakkındaki MektubuLetter of the Chief of the Kaskanlı Tribe Regarding Armenian Atrocities.
9- Bayezid Sınırı Üzerindeki Müslüman Köylerinde Ermenilerce Soykırım YapıldığıMassacre Perpetrated by Armenians in Muslim villages Bordering Bayezid
10- Ermenilerin Kağızman'da Katliâm YaptıklarıMassacre perpetrated by Armenians in Kağızman
11- Ermeni Taarruzuna Uğrayan Kürtlere Civardaki Müslüman Köylerin Destek VerdiğiSupport Given to Kurds attacked by Armenians by Neighboring Muslim Villages.
12- Ermenilerin Doğu Sınırındaki Köylerde Yaptıkları KatliâmMassacre Perpetrated by Armenians in the Villages on the Eastern Frontiers.
13- Ermeni Taşnak Cemiyeti'nin Elviye-i Selâse'de Bir Tek Müslüman Bırakmamak Maksadıyla Soykırım YaptığıMassacre perpetrated by Armenians with the Aim of Exterminating To The last One The WholePopulation of The Three Subprovinces.
14- Karaurgan ve Allahuekber Dağı Civarında Bulunan Müslüman Köylerine Ermenilerce Uygulanan MezâlimAtrocities committed against Muslim villages in the vicinity of Karaurgan and Allahuekber
15- Ermeni Zulmünden Kaçan Kağızman Halkının İltica Talebinin Kabul EdildiğiAsylum is Granted to the Population of Kağızman Fleeing Armenian Atrocities
16- Kars, Sarıkamış ve Iğdır Civarında Ermeniler Tarafından Yapılan Soykırım
Massacre Perpetrated by Armenians in the Vicinity of Kars, Sarıkamış and Iğdır.
17- İmadiye ve Musul'da İngilizler Tarafından Silahlandırılan Ermeni ve Nasturîlerin Müslümanlara Yönelik Saldırılara BaşladıklarıBeginning of Attacks against Muslims in Imadiye and Mosul by Armenians and Nestorians Armed by the English.
18- Fransız Askerî Elbisesi Altındaki Ermenilerin Maraş'ta Halka Yaptıkları ZulümOppressions Perpetrated by Armenians Wearing French Uniforms Against the Population of Maraş
19- Fransız Ordusuna Bağlı Olarak Maraş'a Giren Ermenilerin Yakın Köylerdeki Müslüman Halka Saldırılarda BulunduklarıArmenians attached to the French Occupying Army of Maras attacked Muslim people in theneighboring villages.
20- Kars, Sarıkamış ve Kağızman'da Ermenilerin Elinde Üç Bin Kişinin BulunduğuThree thousand Muslims are detained by Armenians in Kars, Sarıkamış and Kağızman
21- Ermenilerin Fransızların Koruması Altında Adana'da Müslüman Halka Tecavüzlerde BulunmalarıProtected by the French, Armenians Attacked Muslim Population in Adana
22- Ermenilerin Haçin Civarında Bazı Müslümanları Yollarda Katlederek Kadınlara SaldırdıklarıArmenians killed some Muslim wayfarers in the vicinity of Haçin and attacked women.
23- Fransız Askerleriyle Ermenilerin Maraş'ta Halka Mezâlim YaptıklarıOpressions Perpetrated by French Soldiers and Armenians Against the Population in Maraş
24- Fransız Ordusunda Bulunan Ermenilerce Müslümanlara Uygulanan Mezâlimin Fransızlar Tarafından Durdurulması GerektiğiThe French Must Stop the Atrocities Perpetrated Against Muslim Population by Armenians Serving in the French Army
25- Fransızların Ermenilerle Beraber Maraş Müslümanlarını Topa TuttuklarıTogether with Armenians the French Bombarded Maraş
26- Fransız Askerleriyle Birlikte Ermenilerin Ayıntab, Maraş ve Adana Civarında Müslüman Ahâliye Zulüm YaptıklarıOppressions Committed by Armenians and French soldiers in the Neighborhood of Ayıntab, Maraş and Adana Against Muslim Population.
27- Ermeni Çetelerinin Ünye'de İslam Ahâliye Zulüm YaptıklarıAtrocities Perpetrated by Armenian Bandits Against Muslim Population in Ünye
28- Pozantı-Gülek Arasındaki Bölgede Esir Türk Askerlerinin Ermenilerce KatledildiğiTurkish Soldiers Taken Prisoners of War in the Region Between Pozantı-Gülek were killed by Armenians
29- Çıldır'da Teslim Olma Çağrısına Uymayan Köylülerin Ermenilerce KatledildiğiVillages İnhabitants ın Çildır Rejecting the summons to Surrender Killed by Armenians30- Ermenilerin Çıldır ve Zengizor'da Müslümanlara Katliâm YaptıklarıMassacre of Muslims in Çıldır and Zengizor
31- Ermenilerin Kozan ve Feke'de Müslüman Halka Katliâm UyguladıklarıMassacre Perpetrated by Armenians Against Muslim Population in Kozan and Feke.
32- Ermenilerin Kendilerine Tâbi Olmak İstemeyen Zaruşad ve Ona Bağlı Üç Köyde Katliâm YaptıklarıMassacre of Muslim Population who refused to submit to Armenians in Zeruşad and three Villages Attached to
33- Zaruşad, Çıldır, Ağbaba ve Şüregel'e Bağlı Köylerde Ermenilerce Yapılan SoykırımMassacre Perpetrated by Armenians in Zaruşad, Akbaba and Süregel and the Villages Attached to.
34- Ermenilerin Zaruşad Havalisinde İki Bin Müslümanı KatlettikleriArmenians Massacred Two Thousand Muslims in the Neighborhood of Zaruşad.
35- Ermenilerin İşgalci Fransızlarla Birlikte Maraş'ta Halka Zulmedip Katliâm Yaptıklarıİn Maraş Armenians in Collabaration with Occupying French Forces Oppressed the Population and Committed Massacre.
36- Şüregel, Akbaba, Zaruşad ve Çıldır Civarındaki Yirmi Sekiz Köyde Ermenilerce Yapılan Katliâmlarda İki Bin Müslümanın ÖldürüldüğüTwo thousands of Muslims Had Been killed in the Massacre perpetrated by Armenians in twentyEight Villages Situated in the Neighborhoods of Şuregel, Akbaba, Zaruşad and Çıldır.
37- Çıldır, Zaruşat ve Elviye-i Selâse'de Ermenilerin İslam Ahâliye Mezâlim YaptıklarıAtrocities perpetrated by Armenians against Muslim population in Çıldır, Zaruşat and the three Sanjaks
38- Ordubad, Ahura, Cilvana ve Büyükvedi Havalisinde Ermenilerin, Müslüman Halka Karşı Yeniden Büyük Bir Saldırıya BaşladıklarıBeginning of New Large Armenian Attacks Against Muslim Population in Ordubad, Ahura, Cilvanaand the Neigborhood of Büyükvedi.
39- Revan’dan Gence’ye Giden Trenin Beş Yüz Müslüman Yolcusunun Ermeniler Tarafından ÖldürüldüğüMassacre by Armenians of Five Hundred Muslim Passengers while they are travelling by Trains From Revan To Gence40- Ermenilerin Sivin ve Pilomori Köyleri Müslüman Ahâlisine Baskı YaptıklarıPressures Exerted by Armenians upon the Muslim Population of the Villages of Sivin and Pilomori.
41- Kars, Sarıkamış ve Karakurt Civarında Ermenilerin İslam Ahâliye Yaptıkları MezâlimAtrocities Perpetrated By Armenians Against Muslim Population in the Neighborhoods of Kars,Sarıkamış and Karakurt.
42- Zaruşad ve Akbaba Yörelerinde Ermenilerin Baskılarını ArttırdıklarıArmenian Oppression İntensified in the Region of Zaruşad and Akbaba.
43- Ermenilerin Kars ve Civarındaki İslam ve Malakan Köylerine Tecavüz EttikleriArmenian Aggression Against the Villages of Islam and Malakan in Kars and Its Neigborhood.
44- Uluhanlı, Karadağlı, Boğanlı ve Çebeçalı Köyleri Civarında Ermeniler Tarafından Yapılan Baskı ve Soykırımın Devam EttiğiMassacre and Oppression Perpetrated by Armenians Contınue unabated in the Neighborhoods of the Villages of Uluhanlı, Gökçeköse, Karadağlı, Boğanlı and Çebeçalı.
45- Şüregel'e Bağlı Köylerden Ermeni Mezâlimi Yüzünden Kaçanların Oltu'ya GeldikleriPeople of Villages Attached to Süregel Fleeing Armenian Atrocities Arrived to Oltu.
46- Novoselim Civarındaki Köylere Ermenilerce Yapılan MezâlimOppression Committed by Armenians Against Villages in the Vicinity of Novoselim.
47- Ermenilerin Sarıkamış, Kağızman, Oltu, Kars ve Zengibasar Civarında Yaptıkları SoykırımMassacres Perpetrated by Armenians in the Surroundings of Sarıkamış, Oltu, Kars and Zengibasar.
48- Kars Civarında Ermenilerden Kaçan Müslümanların Yollarda ÖldürülmesiAssasination In the Vicinity of Kars of Muslims While on their way Fleeing to Escape from Armenians.
49- Ermenilerin Göle, Oltu ve Kosor'da Yaptıkları KatliâmlarWholesale Carnage Perpetrated by Armenians in Göle, Oltu and Kosor.
50- Ermenilerin Kars, Erzurum ve Gümrü Civarında Müslümanlara Uyguladıkları SoykırımMassacre Perpetrated by Armenians Against Muslims in the Neighborhoods of Kars, Erzerum and Gümrü.51- Ermeniler Tarafından Bayburt'un Köylerinde Yapılan Soykırım ve Kimsesiz Kalan Çocukların İskânıMassacre Perpetrated by Armenians in the Villages of Bayburt; finding Habitation for Homeless Children.
52- Ermenilerin Göle'nin Köylerinde Katliâm Yaptığı ve Ahâlinin Tercan'a Göç EttiğiMassacre Perpetrated by Armenians in the Villages of Göle and the Flight of the Population to Tercan.
53- Bir Sene İçinde Pasinler’e Bağlı Köylerde Ermeniler Tarafından Yapılan SoykırımLarge Seale Massacres Perpetrated by Armenians in the Villages of Pasinler During a Year.
54- Ermenilerin Tortum'un Altmış Dört Köyünü Yakıp Katliâm Yaptıkları ve Mezâlimden Kurtulanların İskânıArmenians Destroyed Sixty Four Villages in Tortum and Massacred Their Population; The Settlement of Those who Survived the atrocities
55- Erzurum'da Ermenilerce Gerçekleştirilen Soykırım ve Talana Ait Defterler Notebooks Related to the Genocide and the Pillages Perpetrated by Armenians in Erzerum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
