Erdoğan'ın Ermeni iddialarına karşı 2005 Münih konuşması

Posted by Turkish Forum on Sunday, April 12, 2015

Support the Turkish claims regarding the false Armenian allegations on the so-called "Armenian Genocide"

A balanced view of the struggle between the Ottoman Empire and the Armenians in the Eastern Anatolia during the late 19th century what is considered by some today, a genocide. This in-depth documentary is based on two years of research in the United States, Russia, Germany, Romania, England, and Bulgaria with historical footage and images from the national archives of the United States, Romania, Bulgaria, Russia and Germany with participation of an international team of experts.

The Facts about So called Armenian Genocide

Facts may be frustrating at times, but you have to realize that denying these would be far from bringing any kind of reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia. Therefore, if the United States Government and the Assembly want stability and peace to prevail in the region, they should come to grips with the realities. History and especially historical facts cannot be denied.
We are therefore sharing with you for your perusal the document prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey that explains, based on scholarly documents and research, the truth, and why the term "Armenian Genocide" is absolutely false.
The Ottoman Empire ruled over all of Anatolia and significant parts of Europe, North Africa, the Caucasus and Middle East for over seven hundred years. Lands once Ottoman dominions today comprise more than 30 independent nations.
A century of ever-increasing conflict, beginning roughly in 1820 and culminating with the founding of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, characterized the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire participated in no fewer than a dozen named wars, nearly all to the detriment of the empire and its citizens. The empire contracted against an onslaught of external invaders and internal nationalist independence movements. In this context -- an imperiled empire waging and losing battles on remote and disparate fronts, grasping to continue a reign of over seven years -- must the tragic experience of the Ottoman Armenians of Eastern Anatolia be understood. For during these waning days of the Ottoman Empire did millions die, Muslim, Jew, and Christian alike.
Yet Armenian have attempted to extricate and isolate their history from the complex circumstances in which their ancestors were embroiled. In so doing, they describe a world populated only by white-hatted heroes and black-hatted villains. The heroes are always Christian and the villains are always Muslim. Infusing history with myth, Armenian Americans vilify the Republic of Turkey, Turkish Americans, and ethnic Turks worldwide. Armenian bent on this prosecution choose their evidence carefully, omitting all evidence that tends to exonerate those whom they presume guilty, ignoring important events and verifiable accounts, and sometimes relying on dubious or prejudiced sources and even falsified documents. Though this portrayal is necessarily one-sided and steeped in bias, the Armenian community presents it as a complete history and unassailable fact.
RELEVANCE: The truth demands that every side of a story be told. Fundamental freedoms enshrined in the U.S. Constitution protect those who choose to challenge the Armenian view.
To oppose Armenian orthodoxy on this issue has become risky. Any attempt to challenge the credibility of witnesses, or the authenticity of documents, or to present evidence that some of the claimed victims were responsible for their own fate is either wholly squelched or met with accusations of genocide denial. Moreover, any attempt to demonstrate the suffering and needless death of millions of innocent non-Christians enmeshed in the same events as the Anatolian Armenians is greeted with sneers, as if to say that some lives are inherently more valuable than others and that one faith is more deserving than another. The lack of real debate, enforced with a heavy hand by Armenian, ensures that any consideration of what genuinely occurred nearly a century ago in Eastern Anatolia will utterly fail as a search for the truth.
Ultimately, whether to blindly accept the Armenian portrayal is an issue of fundamental fairness and the most cherished of American rights -- free speech. Simply put, in America every person has the opportunity to tell his or her story. Armenian possess the right to promote and celebrate their heritage and even to discuss ancient grievances. However, Armenian seek to deny these very rights to others. This is proven by the punitive nature and sheer volume of legislation proposed in the state and federal legislatures, the one-sided curricula proposed to state boards of education, and by the vast sums of money and energy devoted to this cause. Together, these efforts only increase acrimony and antagonism.
The complete story of the vast suffering of this period has not yet been written. When that story is told, the following facts must not be forgotten.
FACT 1: Demographic studies prove that prior to World War I, fewer than 1.5 million Armenians lived in the entire Ottoman Empire. Thus, allegations that more than 1.5 million Armenians from eastern Anatolia died must be false.
Figures reporting the total pre-World War I Armenian population vary widely, with Armenian sources claiming far more than others. British, French and Ottoman sources give figures of 1.05-1.50 million. Only certain Armenian sources claim a pre-war population larger than 1.5 million. Comparing these to post-war figures yields a rough estimate of losses. 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 British historian Arnold Toynbee, by most early editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and approximates the number given by Monseigneur Touchet, a French missionary, who informed the Oeuvre d'Orient in February 1916 that the number of dead is thought to be 500,000. Boghos Nubar, head of the Armenian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in 1920, noted the large numbers who survived the war. He declared that after the war 280,000 Armenians remained in the Anatolian portion of the occupied Ottoman Empire while 700,000 Armenians had emigrated to other countries.
Clearly then, a great portion of the Ottoman Armenians were not killed as claimed and the 1.5 million figure should be viewed as grossly erroneous. Each needless death is a tragedy. Equally tragic are lies meant to inflame hatred.
FACT 2: Armenian losses were few in comparison to the over 2.5 million Muslim dead from the same period.
Reliable statistics demonstrate that slightly less than 600,000 Anatolian Armenians died during the war period of 1912-22. Armenians indeed suffered a terrible mortality. But one must likewise consider the number of dead Muslims and Jews. The statistics tell us that more than 2.5 million Anatolian Muslims also perished. Thus, the years 1912-1922 constitute a horrible period for humanity, not just for Armenians.
The numbers do not tell us the exact manner of death of the citizens of Anatolia, regardless of ethnicity, who were caught up in both an international war and an intercommunal struggle. Documents of the time list inter-communal violence, forced migration of all ethnic groups, disease, and, starvation as causes of death. Others died as a result of the same war-induced causes that ravaged all peoples during the period.
FACT 3: Certain oft-cited Armenian evidence is of diminished value, having been derived from dubious and prejudicial sources.
Armenian purport that the wartime propaganda of the enemies of the Ottoman Empire constitutes objective evidence. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, who is frequently quoted by Armenian, visited the Ottoman Empire with political, not humanitarian aims. His correspondence with President Wilson reveals his intent was to uncover or manufacture news that would goad the U.S. into joining the war. Given that motive, Morgenthau sought to malign the Ottoman Empire, an enemy of the Triple Entente. Morgenthau’s research and reporting relied in large part on politically motivated Armenians; his primary aid, translator and confidant was Arshag Schmavonian, his secretary was Hagop Andonian. Morgenthau openly professed that the Turks were an inferior race and possessed "inferior blood." Thus, his accounts can hardly be considered objective.
One ought to compare the wartime writings of Morgenthau and the oft-cited Gen. J.G. Harbord to the post-war writings of Rear Admiral Mark L. Bristol, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey 1920 - 1926. In a March 28, 1921 letter he writes,
"[R]eports are being freely circulated in the United States that the Turks massacred thousands of Armenians in the Caucasus. Such reports are repeated so many times it makes my blood boil. The Near East Relief have the reports from Yarrow and our own American people which show absolutely that such Armenian reports are absolutely false. The circulation of such false reports in the United States, without refutation, is an outrage and is certainly doing the Armenians more harm than good. … Why not tell the truth about the Armenians in every way?"
FACT 4: The Armenian deaths do not constitute genocide.
The totality of evidence thus far uncovered by historians tells a grim story of serious inter-communal conflict, perpetrated by both Christian and Muslim irregular forces, complicated by disease, famine, and many other of war’s privations. The evidence does not, however, describe genocide.
A. The Armenians took arms against their own government. Their violent political aims, not their race, ethnicity or religion, rendered them subject to relocation. Armenian ignore the dire circumstances that precipitated the enactment of a measure as drastic as mass relocation. Armenians cooperated with Russian invaders of Eastern Anatolia in wars in 1828, 1854, and 1877. Between 1893 and 1915 Ottoman Armenians in eastern Anatolia rebelled against their government -- the Ottoman government -- and joined Armenian revolutionary groups, such as the notorious Dashnaks and Hunchaks. They armed themselves and spearheaded a massive Russian invasion of eastern Anatolia. On November 5, 1914, the President of the Armenian National Bureau in Tblisi declared to Czar Nicholas II, "From all countries Armenians are hurrying to enter the ranks for the glorious Russian Army, with their blood to serve the victory of Russian arms. … Let the Russian flag wave freely over the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus." Armenian treason is also plainly documented in the November 1914 issue of the Hunchak Armenian [Revolutionary] Gazette, published in Paris. In a call to arms it exhorted,
"The entire Armenian Nation will join forces -- moral and material, and waving the sword of Revolution, will enter this World conflict ... as comrades in arms of the Triple Entente, and particularly Russia. They will cooperate with the Allies, making full use of all political and revolutionary means for the final victory...." Boghos Nubar addressed a letter to the Times of London on January 30, 1919 confirming that the Armenians were indeed belligerents in World War I. He stated with pride,
"In the Caucasus, without mentioning the 150,000 Armenians in the Russian armies, about 50,000 Armenian volunteers under Andranik, Nazarbekoff, and others not only fought for four years for the cause of the Entente, but after the breakdown of Russia they were the only forces in the Caucasus to resist the advance of the Turks...."
One of those who answered the Armenian call to arms was Gourgen Yanikian who, as a teenager, joined the Russians to fight the Ottoman government, and who as an elderly man, on January 27, 1973, assassinated two Turkish diplomats in Santa Barbara, California.
B. Logic and evidence controvert the allegation of genocide.
1. No logic can reconcile the two positions that Armenian promote. Eminent historian Bernard Lewis, speaking to the Israeli daily Ha’aretz on January 23, 1998, expanded on this notion, "The Armenians want to benefit from both worlds. On the one hand, they speak with pride of their struggle against Ottoman despotism, while on the other hand, they compare their tragedy to the Jewish Holocaust. I do not accept this. I do not say that the Armenians did not suffer terribly. But I find enough cause for me to contain their attempts to use the Armenian massacres to diminish the worth of the Jewish Holocaust and to relate to it instead as an ethnic dispute." (translation)
2. None of the Ottoman orders commanding the relocation of Armenians, which have been reviewed by historians to date, orders killings. To the contrary, they order Ottoman officials to protect relocated Armenians. 3. Where Ottoman control was weakest Armenian relocatees suffered the most. The stories of the time give many examples of columns of hundreds of Armenians guarded by as few as two Ottoman gendarmes. When local Muslims attacked the columns, Armenians were robbed and killed. It must be remembered that these Muslims had themselves suffered greatly at the hands of Armenians and Russians. In the words of U.S. Ambassador Mark Bristol, "While the Dashnaks [Armenian revolutionaries] were in power they did everything in the world to keep the pot boiling by attacking Kurds, Turks and Tartars; [and] by committing outrages against the Moslems …."
Where Ottoman control was strong, Armenians went unharmed. In Istanbul and other major western Anatolian cities, large populations of Armenians remained throughout the war. In these areas Ottoman power was greatest and genocide would have been easiest to carry out. By contrast, during World War II, the Jews of Berlin were killed, their synagogues defiled. The Armenians of Istanbul lived through World War I, their churches open.
C. The Armenian Allegation of Genocide Fails the Minimum Standards of Proof Required by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
The term "genocide" did not exist prior to 1944. The term was subsequently defined quite specifically by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide. This high crime is now recognized by most nations, including the Republic of Turkey.
The standard of proof in establishing the crime of genocide is formidable given the severity of the crime, the opportunity for overlap with other crimes, and the stigma of being charged with or found guilty of the crime. While presenting the Convention for ratification, the Secretary General of the U.N. emphasized that genocide is a crime of "specific intent," requiring conclusive proof that members of a group were targeted simply because they were members of that group. The Secretary General further cautioned that those merely sharing political aims are not protected by the convention.
Under this standard of proof, the Armenian claim of genocide fails. First, no direct evidence has been discovered demonstrating that any Ottoman official sought the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians as such. Second, Ottoman Armenian Dashnak and Hunchak guerrillas and their civilian accomplices admittedly organized political revolutionary groups and waged war against their own government. Under these circumstances, it was the Ottoman Armenians’ violent political alliance with the Russian forces, not their ethnic or religious identity, which rendered them subject to the relocation.
A recent comment on the U.N. position was rendered by, U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq on October 5, 2000 when he confirmed that the U.N. has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience as genocide. FACT 5: The British convened the Malta Tribunals to try Ottoman officials for crimes against Armenians. All of the accused were acquitted. The Peace Treaty of Sevres, which was imposed upon the defeated Ottoman Empire, required the Ottoman government to hand over to the Allied Powers people accused of "massacres." Subsequently, 144 high Ottoman officials were arrested and deported for trial by the British to the island of Malta. The principal informants to the British High Commission in Istanbul leading to the arrests were local Armenians and the Armenian Patriarchate. While the deportees were interned on Malta, the British appointed an Armenian scholar, Mr. Haig Khazarian, to conduct a thorough examination of documentary evidence in the Ottoman, British, and U.S. Archives to substantiate the charges. Access to Ottoman records was unfettered as the British and French occupied and controlled Istanbul at the time. Khazarian’s corps of investigators revealed an utter lack of evidence demonstrating that Ottoman officials either sanctioned or encouraged killings of Armenians.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the British Procurator General determined that it was "improbable that the charges would be capable of proof in a court of law," exonerated and released all 144 detainees -- after two years and four months of detention without trial. No compensation was ever paid to the detainees. FACT 6: Despite the verdicts of the Malta Tribunals, Armenian terrorists have engaged in a vigilante war that continues today.
In 1921, a secret Armenian network based in Boston, named Nemesis, took the law into its own hands and hunted down and assassinated former Ottoman Ministers Talaat Pasha and Jemal Pasha as well as other Ottoman officials. Following in Nemesis’ footsteps, during the 1970’s and 1980’s, the Armenian terrorist groups, Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) and Justice Commandos for the Armenian Genocide (JCAG), committed over 230 armed attacks, killing 71 innocent people, including 31 Turkish diplomats, and seriously wounding over 520 people in a campaign of blood revenge.
Most recently, Mourad Topalian, former Chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America, was tried and convicted in federal court in Ohio of terrorist crimes associated with bombings in New York and Los Angles and with the attempted assassination of the Turkish Honorary Consul General in Philadelphia. The Armenian youths whom Topalian directed and who conducted these attacks were recruited from the Armenian Youth Federation and Armenian Revolution Federation in Boston.
FACT 7: The archives of many nations ought to be carefully and thoughtfully examined before concluding whether genocide occurred.
Armenian make frequent reference to the archives of many nations while carefully avoiding calls for the examination of those archives. They know that no evidence of genocide has been found to date, as was the case in the Malta Tribunals. They also know that the national archives of several nations, including the U.S., speak primarily of the deaths of Armenians because the recorders were only interested in the Armenians, while intentionally omitting reports of Muslim deaths. Take, for example, the 1915 Armenian revolt in Van where at least 60,000 Muslims perished. Though the evidence for this is overwhelming, the official archives of several countries mention only Christian deaths.
Still, Armenian carefully avoid calls for the collection and examination of all records regarding the events in question. Such would include Ottoman records describing the activities of Armenian rebels and the Russian invaders whom they supported, as well as the archives of Germany, Russia, France, Britain, Iran, Syria and the United States. Most importantly, the unedited records of the Armenian Republic in Yerevan, Armenian Revolutionary Federation in Boston, and ASALA in Yerevan, ought to be examined but remain closed. Only those who fear the truth would limit the scope of an investigation.
FACT 8: The Holocaust bears no meaningful relation to the Ottoman Armenian experience.
1. Jews did not demand the dismemberment of the nations in which they had lived. By contrast, the Ottoman Armenians openly agitated for a separate state in lands in which they were numerically inferior. The Hunchak and Dashnak revolutionary organizations, which survive to this day, were formed expressly to agitate against the Ottoman government.
2. Jews did not kill their fellow citizens in the nations in which they had lived. By contrast, the Ottoman Armenians committed massacres against local Muslims.
3. Jews did not openly join the ranks of their countries’ enemies during World War II. By contrast, during World War I, Ottoman Armenians openly and with pride committed mass treason, took up arms, traveled to Russia for training, and sported Russian uniforms. Others, non-uniformed irregulars, operated against the Ottoman government from behind the lines.
4. Solemn tribunal at Nuremberg proved the guilt of the perpetrators of the Holocaust and sentences were carried out in accordance with agreed-upon procedures. By contrast, the Malta Tribunals, which were convened by the World War I victors, exonerated those alleged to have been responsible for the maladministration of the relocation policies.
5. Open Armenian-Nazi collaboration is evident in the activities of the 812th Armenian Battalion of the [Nazi] Wehrmacht, commanded by Drastamat Kanayan (a.k.a. "Dro"), and its successor, the Armenian Legion. Anti-Jewish, pro-Nazi propaganda was published widely in the Armenian-language Hairenik daily and the weekly journal, Armenian.
6. Hitler did not refer to the Armenians in plotting the Final Solution; the infamous quote is fraudulent. All sources attribute the alleged quote, "Who remembers the Armenians?" to a November 24, 1945 Times of London article, "Nazi Germany’s Road to War." The article’s unnamed author says Hitler uttered the phrase in an address on August 22, 1939 at Obersalzburg. The Times of London author claims the speech was introduced as evidence during the November 23, 1945 session of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Yet the Nuremberg transcripts do not contain the alleged quote.
In fact, the quote first appeared in a 1942 book by Louis Lochner, the AP’s Berlin bureau chief during World War II. Lochner, like the Times of London author, never disclosed his source. The Nuremberg Tribunal examined and then rejected Lochner’s third-hand version of Hitler’s address and rejected it. Instead, it entered into evidence two official versions of the August 22, 1939 address found in captured German military records. Neither document contains any reference to Armenians, nor in fact do they refer to the Jews. Hitler’s address was an anti-Polish invective, delivered years before he conceived the Final Solution.
7. The depth, breadth, and volume of scholarship on the Holocaust are tremendous. The physical and documentary evidence is vast and proves indisputably the aims, methods, and results of the racist Nazi policies. By contrast, scholarship on the late Ottoman Empire is comparatively scarce. Much research has yet to be completed and many conclusions have yet to be drawn. Non-biased research from that period has thus far revealed tragedies afflicting all sides in a conflict with numerous belligerents. Nothing has yet been uncovered which establishes genocide. In light of the ongoing research and the other distinctions raised above, it would be improper, if not malicious, to equate a desire to challenge Armenian assertions with Holocaust denial.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Armenian Atrocities and Terrorism ed. by the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (Assembly of Turkish American Associations, Washington, DC 1997);Death and Exile: the Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922 by Justin McCarthy (Darwin Press, Princeton, NJ 1995);Muslims and Minorities, The Population of the Ottoman Anatolia and the End of the Empire by Justin McCarthy (New York University Press, New York, 1983). Pursuing the Just Cause of Their People by Michael Gunter (Greenwood Press,New York 1986); The Armenian File: The Myth of Innocence Exposed by Kamuran Gürün (K. Rustem & Bro. and Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd., London 1985); The Armenian Question 1914-1923 by Mim Kemal Öke (K. Rustem & Bro. London 1988); The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story by Heath W. Lowry (Isis Press, Istanbul 1990); The Talât Pasha Telegrams: Historical Fact or Armenian Fiction by Sinasi Orel and Süreyya Yuca (K. Rustem & Bro., London 1986); The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians, by Heath W. Lowry (Vol. 3, no. 2, Political Communication and Persuasion, 1985); Proceedings of Symposium on Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey (1912-1926), (Bogazici University Publications, Istanbul, 1984).

ARMENIAN TERROR ATTACKS IN USA SOIL

1) January 27, 1973, in Santa Barbara, California, USA: U.S. citizen,Armenian origin,Gourgen Yanikyan assassinated Turkish General Consul Mehmet Baydar and Bahadir Demir.Yanikyan was sentenced to life imprisonment. 2) October 26, 1973 in New York City: Attempted a bomb attack Turkish Information Office.The bomb was found by police and defused on time. Yanikyan Commandos took the responsibility. 3) October 4, 1977 in Los Angeles: Professor Stanford Shaw who is unbiased and doing serious research on the history of Ottoman Empire was also the target for Armenian terror,his house was bombed by Armenian terror group 28's Armenian. 4) 11 August 1980, A group of Armenian attacked,near of the BM,the Turkish House. 5) October 6, 1980 in Los Angeles : Unknown perpetrators threw two Molotov Coctails to General Consul Kemal Arikan's house, Mr.Arikan survived with injured. 6) October 12 ,1980 New York City: A bomb was placed in front of the Turkish House,four pedestrians were injured .Armenian terrorist organization JCAG took the responsibility. 7) October 12, 1980 in Los Angeles : A Turkish-American's travel agent office was destroyed in Hollywood. Armenian terrorist organization JCAG took the responsibility. 8) February 3, 1981 in Los Angeles : Bomb experts defused a bomb in front of the Swiss Consulate,the perpetrators called and threatened on the phone,"until-Armenian- Suzy Mahseredjian release,the attacks will continue". 9) June 3, 1981 in Los Angeles: Because of the Armenian threats, Turkish Folk dancing group cancelled its concert in Los Angeles. 10) June 26, 1981 in Los Angeles: A bomb was exploded in front of the-Switzerland based-Swiss Banking Corporation office.The ninth of June Organization group took the responsibility. 11) August 20, 1981 in Los Angeles: a explosion occurred in front of Swiss Precision Instruments office,the ninth of June organization again took the responsibility. 12) November 20, 1981 in Los Angeles: in Beverly Hills,Turkish Consulate was attacked and severely damaged occurred in the building. JCAG took the responsibility.. 13) January 28, 1982 Los Angeles: Los Angeles General consul of TURKIYE Kemal Arikan was assassinated by two terrorists on the way to work. After the attack,19 years old Hamping Sasunyan was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment. 14) 22 March 1982, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Turkish Honorary General Consul Orhan Gunduz's gift shop was bombed, he was also threatened to be killed if he doesn't leave to duty. JCAG took the responsibility. 15) May 4, 1982, in Cambridge,Massachusetts, USA: Honorary General consul Orhan Gunduz was assassinated in Boston. The killer has not been caught. 16) May 18, 1982 in Tampa, Florida, USA: Turkish Honorary General Consul Nash Karahan's office was attacked. 17) May 26, 1982 Los Angeles: Swiss Banking Corporation office was damaged in a bomb attack. Four suspects were accused of links to the Armenian ASALA. 18) 30 May 1982, Los Angeles: Three ASALA members: Hratch Kozibioukyan 31, Siranouche Kozibioukyan 22, and Varan Chriny 29 were caught while placing a bomb in Canadian Airlines Cargo. Their aims were to create pressure on Canadian government to release three Armenian prisoners in Canada. 19) October 26, 1982 Los Angeles: Five JCAG members were accused for preparing an attack against Turkish Honorary Consulate in Philadelphia. 20) January 21, 1983 in Anaheim, California, USA: some hidden bombs accidently exploded in an Armenian store, this accident proved that how this type weapons were stored. 21) 29 March 1984, Los Angeles: ASALA had threat in writing to kill the Turkish athletes in the Olympic games. 22) 25 June 1984, Los Angeles: according to the receiving letter in the news office,in France,"All countries,companies,and individuals who will help to Turkish athletes in Los Angeles Olympics games will be attacked. 22 of 71 ARMENIAN AMERICAN TERRORISTS INCARCERATED IN USA. Of the 239 terrorist attacks, 71 were conducted by Armenian Americans. Twenty-two captured and incarcerated American Armenians include:Dikran Berberian, Los Angeles, JCAG,Vartan Chirinian, Van Nuys, ASALA Steven John Dadaian, Los Angeles, JCAG,Hratch Kozibioukian, Van Nuys, ASALA Siranouche Kozibioukian, Van Nuys, ASALA,Suzy Mahseredjian, San Francisco, ASALA Monte Melkonian, Dinuba, ASALA,Krikor Saliba, Los Angeles, JCAG Karnig Sarkissian, Los Angeles, JCAG,Harout Sassounian, Los Angeles, JCAG Hampig Sassounian, Los Angeles, JCAG,Viken Hovespian, Los Angeles, JCAG Vicken Tcharkhutian, Hollywood, ASALA,Viken Yacoubian, Los Angeles, JCAG Gourgen Yanikian, Los Angeles,Haig Balian, Ottawa, ASALA Haroutium Kevork, Ottawa, ASALA,Haig Karkhanian, Ottawa, ASALA Melkon Karakhanian, Ottawa, ASALA,Kevork Marachelian, Ottawa, JCAG Ohannes Noubarian, Ottawa, JCAG,Rafi Panos Titizian, Ottawa, JCAG

15 characteristics of the Armenian narrative by Tal Buenos*

The idea that the Turks should be excluded from commenting on their own memory, that they are so distrusted as to always be suspected of undermining historical truths, is not only reflective of Turcophobia in the strongest of ways, but its popularity reflects how little awareness there is today of Turcophobia and its meaning. 8 May 2013 /

Following the outpour of media material on April 24 in memory of the dreadful events of 1915, it is important to take a step back and evaluate how this reflects on the Turk.

A recently published chapter by Uğur Ümit Üngör, titled “The Armenian Genocide, 1915,” in “The Holocaust and Other Genocides: An Introduction,” edited by Maria van Haperen et al. (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2012), is perfect for such an analysis. It does not introduce new aspects to the Armenian narrative of 1915. It unfolds the same story already told by scholars such as Vahakn Dadrian, Richard Hovannisian, Taner Akçam and Peter Balakian. It is not prototypical by any means; rather, it is perfectly typical. It stands out for its typicality, for being representative of the effort to strengthen the familiarity and acceptance of this Armenian narrative. Upon close inspection, one may glean certain overall characteristics of the Armenian narrative. The following 15 main characteristics point to a general theme: Turcophobia.

1) European facilitation. The publication of this literature in Europe is likely not a coincidence and should be considered reflective of Turcophobic and Islamophobic attitudes that are prevalent in Europe. Such anti-Turkish content is not only emblematic of these phobias but may serve as a popular platform for their intensification and dissemination. One particularly troubling type of Turcophobic “literature” in Europe is the drafting of laws in parliament to cater to the anti-Turkish views held by constituencies with political influence.

2) No room for historical debate. The very title of Üngör's chapter shows an attempt to apply a political-legal term to the events of 1915, regardless of the hotly contested aspects of historicity. However, legal determination cannot precede a thorough examination of what actually took place. The unilateral description of the events as genocide shows a great level of distrust in what a committee of established historians of different nationalities may find. Ultimately, it shows intent to destroy Turkey's name. Disregard of Armenian revolutionary committees

3) Little to no mention of the Armenian revolutionary committees. The role played by the Armenian revolutionary committees is typically played down and, at times, as in Üngör's chapter, there is no mention of them at all. The absolute omission of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation from the narrative makes the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) falsely appear to be the sole actor and therefore the sole bearer of responsibility. However, the revolutionary aspect of the events is fundamental to their fair and accurate description. Historically, “rebellion” is the most basic reason why the categorization of political massacres, as in modern-day Syria, is different from those of intended exterminations, as in Auschwitz.

4) Selective reference to Armenian nationalism. There is a tendency to eat the cake and have it too when it comes to Armenian nationalism. In discussions involving Armenian territorial claims post-World War I, there is a strong sense of Armenian nationalism, but it is concealed in the discussion of the years leading to 1915. In his brief recap of the ideological trends leading to the massacres, Üngör fails to mention Armenian nationalism, as if the Young Turks were the only nationalists in Anatolia.

5) The story always begins with Turkish action. The event that is described at the start of a narrative determines the perception of causality all throughout. The Armenian massacres may be put in the context of the 19th century campaign to rid Christian Europe of the Turk, but for Üngör there is no question that it starts with the CUP. For many diaspora Armenians, the narrative does not begin a single day before April 24, 1915. The Armenian narrative needs the Turks to be the cause, for otherwise the Turks cannot be guilty of genocide.

6) The Turks are “revanchists.” This French term describes nations that are warmongering because they seek to reclaim lost territories, and the Armenian narrative pins it only on the CUP after losing land in the Balkans. A narrative that is not Turcophobic would consider Christian revanchism since 1453, and Armenian revanchism since 1890, to be foundational.

7) The Turks wanted war. The distortion of the causes for World War I is a significant aspect of the Armenian narrative. The Ottoman state's preventive strike against Russia, following several threatening indications, is replaced by a claim that the “Young Turks had deliberately engineered an armed confrontation.” Systematic destruction

8) The destruction was systematic. The emphasis on deliberation in the actions of the CUP is especially strong when describing the actual “process of destruction,” which for Üngör was “consistent.” This is claimed because of the desire to accuse Turks of premeditation and of having a plan. Regardless of the evidence, the Armenian narrative draws whimsical comparisons to the Nazi Germans and their level of intent and organization. This is designed to make the Young Turks go down in history as evil.

9) The CUP was homogenously national socialist. As part of the effort to Nazify the Young Turks, the Armenian narrative creates a cursory and simplistic image of Turkification that ignores local aspects as well as Ottomanist and Islamic streams within the CUP.

10) Muslims killed Christians, but not vice versa. The bilateral damage incurred by Muslim and Christian communities during this period of rising national claims for self-determination in the Balkans and Anatolia is presented in the Armenian narrative as unilateral. Only the massacres of Christians have a place in the narrative. Reading Üngör's work, one would conclude that the killings, dispossessions and deportations of Muslims in the Balkans never happened or have nothing to do with the Armenian issue. This is an extension of the Turcophobic elements found in the British narration of events in the 19th century, which highlighted the killings of Christians in Bulgaria during the local insurgency but understated the deportations and massacres of Muslims in Bulgaria during the Russo-Turkish War.

11) Propaganda and memoirs are presented as historical evidence and used selectively. Even Turkish propaganda is cleverly employed to present a Turcophobic narrative. Considering that Üngör does not discuss Armenian rebellion at all, his brief discussion of Turkish “manipulated photographs of alleged Armenian ‘terrorists'” gives an impression that the Armenian rebellion was altogether a Turkish invention that did not exist beyond the bogus images. Additionally, Russian propaganda is presented without question of authenticity or context. The central role played by Britain's wartime propaganda, known as the Blue Book, and its author, James Bryce, who had called for Armenian rebellion since the 1870s, in constructing the Armenian narrative is a prime example of this characteristic. A recent example would be Akçam's use of forged documents to promote Sarkis Torossian's story.

12) Slanted presentation of great-power involvement. The Armenian narrative is selectively critical of the politics of the international powers. Üngör says that the great powers were “driven by self-interest” when after the war was over “the Americans, French and British forgot their Armenian business partners,” yet to him they were anything but self-interested when they encouraged Armenians to rebel before World War I and supported national self-determination for Christians in Ottoman territory. This is based on a Turcophobic conviction that cooperation with the Armenians is morally sound but cooperation with the Turks is political.

13) The massacres were religious or racial in nature. The Armenian narrative shows the massacres as either religious, to rally Christian support, or racial, to provoke Nazi connotations. Being that there were no deportations of Armenians in certain areas and that there were no massacres prior to Armenian rebellion, it would be reasonable to consider that political reasons and security concerns caused the change. However, the Armenian narrative looks away from these historical aspects, possibly because the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide does not recognize political massacres as genocide. Turkish diplomats' assassination rationalized

14) The assassinations of Turkish diplomats are rationalized. In order to protect its perceived moral leverage from suffering as a result of the violent assassinations of innocent Turks and non-Turks, the Armenian narrative seeks to rationalize these terrible actions. Üngör offers no mention or detailed discussion of the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, but, instead, conveniently explains the assassinations by saying that “surviving family members of the victims felt deeply insulted by these politics of denial, which prompted a violent response from Armenian nationalists in the 1970s.” The idea that somehow there is an element of good reason in the assassinations, or that they were caused by Turkish politics, is Turcophobic.

15) The Turks are denialists. This is the most telling of the characteristics. The idea is to liken Turks to Holocaust deniers. There is a growing number of Turks who are willing to succumb to this pressure because they have been convinced that that is the responsible thing to do. However, denial is about refusal to believe, and the Turks who are at odds with the Armenian narrative are actually more eager than anybody else to tell the narrative of the events as they truly unfolded and without ignoring any aspect of Armenian loss.

The idea that the Turks should be excluded from commenting on their own memory, that they are so distrusted so as to always be suspected of undermining historical truths, is not only reflective of Turcophobia in the strongest of ways, but its popularity reflects how little awareness there is today of Turcophobia and its meaning. Turcophobia is so widely ignored that even Microsoft's spellchecker does not recognize it as a word.

How long will Turks suffer from accusations of denialism? Is the only way forward to disregard history and accept how the Turk is described in biased Western historiography, of which the Armenian narrative is only an extension? The modern Armenian narrative in the West was initiated by Bryce, who, since 1877, repeatedly stated in writing that Armenian nationalist endeavors should be supported because the Armenians are racially and religiously superior to Turks. To accept this aspect of Western historiography is to accept the Turcophobic beliefs that the Turk is inherently immoral and corrupt, excluded or looked down upon for not being of a European race and for not being of a European religion. To accept this false narrative because of current calls of denialism is to accept the Turk's position as the “other” who has no access to a Christian European tale. Turks have the right to explain that they are not in denial of Armenian suffering but that they are most certainly resolved to deny and weed out the Turcophobic roots of the current Armenian narrative.

History is filled with cruelty. Turcophobia, however, is the main reason why genocidal claims are still being made against Turks in the name of Christian Europe, Western historiography and Armenian nationalism. Where would one find similar genocide-related pressure over the bloody “Christian” crimes against Africans, Jews, Indians and Native Americans known as Indians?

It is time for the Turkish narrative on the history of European Turcophobia to emerge. The current accusation of denial is one chapter in this narrative, for it shows how the Turks are treated as outsiders who are told to shut up and accept the terrible things that are said about them, and are condemned when they vocalize their view of the past. It is time for Turks to be insiders, authors of their own narrative and masters of their own history.

*Tal Buenos has a master of theological studies from Harvard Divinity School (2005).

Letter to Embassy Magazine-Canada

EDITOR Embassy Magazine 69 Sparks Street Ottawa , Ontario K1P 5A5 Re: “Facing Armenian-Turkish history or denying it?” by Armen Yeganian, Armenia's ambassador to Canada, published August 3, 2011 Dear Sir, Why Do Armenians Still Embrace Aggression and Terrorism Today? I must disagree with Armenia's ambassador to Canada about his assertions. We cannot even agree on the numbers of Armenians who lived, got temporarily resettled, got killed in the process or perished due to wartime conditions during WWI. You cannot have 1.5 million Armenians dying when the entire population was 1.3 million. So, please stop this masquerade already! It doesn’t work! Never did! Never will! Armenian claims are insulting one's intelligence... You cannot report “…more than 200,000 Armenians killed…” in March 29, 1919 to Paris Peace Conference; state “600,000 Armenians killed” on an aid poster in America only two months later (May 1919) ; increase the number of casualties at will to 800,000 in New York Times the next year,; claim a million dead in 1970s; 1.5 million in 1980s; 2 million in 1990s; 2.5 even 3 million dead in 2000s; and expect people to believe you! Dead do not multiply! Never did! Never will! You must start telling the truth: about 300,000 losses mostly by wartime conditions (epidemics, starvations, shortages, and more, very few by bullets… Really! ) And do not forget to add half a million Muslims, mostly Turks, met their tragic ends at the hands of Armenian nationalists under Russian, French, British, and Greek uniforms and no uniform at all. When you state the facts, the term “Armenian genocide” automatically becomes an oxymoron. You cannot make some inconveniences vanish into thin air, such as Armenian propaganda, agitation, terror in that order from 1882-1920; Armenian revolts from 1862 to 1920; Armenian treason from 1821-1921; Armenian territorial demands to establish the first apartheid of the 20th Century; Turkish victims at Armenian hands; Turco-phobia; Islamo-phobia, and more… (While at it, please read the letters of Boghos Noubar, head of one of the two Armenian delegations to Paris Peace Conference, and the 1923 Manifesto by Hovhannes Katchaznouni to see that it was war provoked, waged, and prolonged by Armenian nationalists and that the Turks were only defending their home.) You cannot go on with deception: fake Talat telegrams, bogus Hitler quote, doctored Vereshagin painting of pyramid of skulls, fabricated Mustafa Kemal newspaper interview, distorted Mustafa Kemal photos where puppies were replaced with dead children, fake photo featuring an alleged Ottoman official tainting starving alleged Armenian children ; and hundreds more. You cannot build solemn memory on lies and deceptions…Stop this senseless fraud! I know all of this is a big leap for Armenia, which is why I am suggesting a very small step, one that is already included in the frozen protocols of October 12, 2009: establishment of a commission of historians and opening of the Armenian archives (all of them, including the ones in Erevan, Etchmiadzin, Beirut, Jerusalem, Mekhitarist Church, Boston, Glendale, and elsewhere.) Until the facts are established, which may take decades, we can rebuild those millennium-old friendships all over again... Let the facts speak for all of us. Then we can achieve fair and lasting peace… No more deceptions, terrorism, or aggression. May love and peace win over hate and war one day… Ozer Aksoy Former President and VP The Federation of the Turkish Canadian Associations TORONTO,Ontario VP Turkish World Congress , New York NY USA

1449) Exclusive - First Time Release: Armenian Tashnak Party 1910 Report

The Armenian Tashnak Party Report by M. Warandian for submission to the Socialist International 's convention in 1910 in Copenhagen explains that the "Armenian had people organized a revolt in the village of Bitlis and the city of Van under the Turkish flag." In other words the report about the revolt was presented in 1910 -that is 5 years before the Dashnaks alleged a "genocide". . Download the Full Report . . We are releasing the Report "for the first time" (as far as we know), after being "finally translated in English". This report clearly confesses the preparations of Dashnagzoutiun for general revolt and collaboration against the well before the alleged genocide in 1919. Here are some excerpts: . . . It was almost the single organization; she did not play the verbal propaganda only against regime, she also decreed political acts. It made carry out number of spies and of governmental oppressors. It sentenced to death, between others, bloodthirsty Vali Ali Bey, governor general of Van; and when this one, escaping anger of fidaïs, escaped in Caucasus, our terrorists carried out the sentence of the committee of Horsebox, and fierce Ali Bey fell under bullets in Batoum (in 1907). . . . . During last three years, the party lived and grew in the stormy atmosphere of revolutionary battles. . . . . .Masses must be armed - at least partly- they must be prepared, educated by military means for offensive as for defensive. . . . . .The party "Daschnaktzoutioun" used this partial waking of the Muslim masses to push Turkish youth to the organization. Our friends tied narrow relations with elements aware of this youth. In Van and in the province, by our efforts, a Turkish committee was created in 1906. It adopted a program of political and economic action. It involved ideas socialists-revolutionaries. The Jeunes-Turcs of Van published their "Sabah ul Kaïr" weekly organ, which developed the basic principles of the socialism. As regards the future organization of Empire, they adopted by common consent with our friends, the principle of decentralization and the self-government of nationalities.. . . . . .In Turkey, it supported efforts of the party Young Turk (Jeune Turc), against the hamidian absolutism which he had fought for 20 years, alone, with the Macedonian revolutionaries... Dashnak Report, Geneva, 1910, Copenhagen.pdf

Halacoglu Is Responding to Taner Akcam

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

Yusuf Halacoglu Responding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(29th of May,2008)

IS UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA AWARE OF MATHEMATICS?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now let’s add all these number together.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have two suggestions for the University of Minnesota:

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

2.They start taking calculus courses.

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

For more, click the link below:

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

House Speaker pledges to fight on for Genocide recognition

House Speaker pledges to fight on for Genocide recognition

by Emil Sanamyan

Published: Wednesday April 21, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Happened On April 24, 1915?

Case Study On The Circular Of 24 Apr 1915 & Arrest Of The Armenian Committee Members In Istanbul

Introduction
This article, after a short introduction, shall try to examine the arrest of Armenian committee members in Istanbul in accordance with the 24 April 1915 circular and the prosecutions about them, with reference to the Ottoman archives. .

Although the most powerful and influential Armenian political organization, the socialist Tasnaksutyun, which had also nationalist tendencies, officially took in its last congress in 1914 the decision to remain neutral during the war, a significant number of the Committee members, including certain influential Armenian MPs, left the Ottoman lands when the war broke out to join the voluntary troops formed by the Armenians in Russian territories. As expressed in the Ottoman official document (see Appendix I), the “Armenian committees have been working to accomplish autonomy for the Armenians by means of political and revolutionary societies” and they saw the War as an opportunity to materialise their goal; this eventually led them to cooperate with the Allied powers, primarily the Russians, against the Ottoman government.

At the outset of the War, the Ottoman government preferred to warn the leading Armenians with a view to appease them. For example, Talat Pasha warned Vartkes Efendi, the Erzurum representative, and prominent members of the Dashnak (Dashnaksutyun, Tashnak, Tashnag) committee while Enver Pasha talked to the Armenian Patriarch, both pointing out that the Ottoman government would have to take severe measures if the Armenians inclined towards revolutionary activities. Despite these warnings, Armenian representatives Vahan Papazyan and Karakin Pastırmacıyan moved to the Caucasus and fought against the Ottoman army, as did a number of Armenian volunteers. Like the two, many Armenian soldiers within the Ottoman army fled to join the volunteer Armenian troops in the Caucasia. The reports by German consulate include armed threat by the Armenian soldiers within the Ottoman army during the Caucasian campaign. Equally important, the Hunchak (Hinchak) chief Sabah Gulyan organized an assassination attempt against Talat Pasha that was prevented by the arrest of the conspirators in Istanbul in October 1914.

The Circular of April 24, 1915 and the Arrests

In spite of all the precautions, however, discovery of a number of bombs and weapons as a result of security searches carried out on several provinces, the government convicted that the Armenian organizations were in preparation for an all-out rebellion. Thus, the Ottoman Army Supreme Military Command delivered an instruction on 27 February 1915, stating that the capture of weapons, bombs and ciphered documents demonstrated the preparations for a revolt and ordering that the Armenian soldiers in the army must be kept away from armed duties and the necessary precautions must be taken everywhere, but also adding that loyal Armenians would not be harmed. Following the Ottoman defeat by the Russians in Eastern Anatolia and at a time when the war on the Dardanelles intensified from 18 March 1915 and Istanbul was under serious threat, the armed Armenian groups expanded their activities as well. This period witnessed the Van revolt after those of the Zeytun, Bitlis, Muş and Erzurum, and the increase of the massacres aimed at the Turkish-Muslim population in these areas. Some writers like Dadrian and Akçam, insisting on pre-mediation as a key element, have evaluated the events above as counter-movements against the relocation to be implemented in the near future.
The Ottoman government, subsequent to mentioned developments, had recourse to some measures to prevent the activities of the Armenian committees by taking them under control. Following the disarmament of the Armenian privates, the Ministry of Interior sent out an order that asked for the dismissal of the disloyal or unreliable Armenian policemen and officials from the office or their exile to the provinces without Armenian populations. However, since these measures did not produce the consequences desired, the government decided to close down the committees that had armed the Armenians and incited them to revolt, and to arrest their leaders. For this purpose, on 24 April 1915, the Ministry of Interior sent the famous circular to 14 vilayets or provinces and 10 mutasarrıfliks or counties. This circular ordered the closing of the Armenian committees, namely, Hınchak, Dashnak and the like, the seizure of their documents, the arrest of the chiefs of the committees and the Armenians notorious for their dissident activities, and the gathering in appropriate places of those whose existence in their present places were regarded dangerous.

The circular emphasized strongly that the authorities should keep a close eye on their areas not to allow any kind of internal strife between the Muslims and the Armenians in the provinces such as Bitlis, Erzurum, Sivas, Adana, Maraş. 24 April 1915, the date the Armenian diasporas in many countries commemorate every year as the Genocide Day, is the date this circular letter was sent out by the Ministry of Interior. On April 26, 1915, Ottoman Supreme Military Command sent a similar circular to the Ministry of War and army commanderships, asking them to meet any kind of demands of aid by government officials.

After the above-mentioned circular of the Ministry of Interior, some of those identified as members of the Dashnak, Hınchak and Ramgavar were placed under arrest in Istanbul. British intelligence reports confirm that the arrested Armenians were not ordinary citizens but all of them were committee members. According to the information received by the British Military Office in Egypt from Dedeağaç; on the night of April 24, 1915, 1.800 Armenians, including three Armenian men of religion and the patron of the Puzantion, the Armenian newspaper, would be sent to Ankara after their arrest. It was stated that 500 of them were Dashnak, another 500 Hınchak and the rest being Ramgavar partisans. In addition, in the ciphered telegrams sent on May 20 and 21, 1919 to Admiral Caltrophe, British High Commissioner to Istanbul, it was noted that the Armenians arrested on April 24, 1915 were the volunteers who either had served for the Allied armies or had been responsible for “the massacre of Muslims”. Likewise, Wangenheim, the then German Ambassador to Istanbul, says in the report he submitted to the German Chancellor on 30 April 1915 that there had been explosive materials, bombs and weapons in many Armenian houses and churches, and that the Armenians would carry out bomb attacks on the Sublime Port and several official buildings on 27 April 1915, during the anniversarial ceremony of Sultan Mehmed V’s accession to the throne. For this reason, Wangenheim reports, “approximately 500 Armenians, among them were doctors, journalists, men of religion, writers and representatives, had been arrested on the night of 24/25 April and sent to Anatolia.” While an American document gives the number of arrests on this day as 100 , a telegram sent from Thessalonica to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France on 8 May 1915 states that 2.500 leading Armenians were arrested in Istanbul and a number of bombs and documents were captured as a result of police search in their houses, adding that the aim of the Armenian revolutionary societies was to kill Enver and Talat Pashas with the support of the Allied powers and to cause a panic among the Muslim people through assassinations by using dynamites. According to Esat Uras, of 77.735 Armenian settled in Istanbul only 2.345 were arrested for their participation in revolutionary movements, while the rest were occupied with their business in peace. Kamuran Gürün notes that upon the directive of the 24 April circular letter of the Ministry of Interior, 2.345 Armenian were arrested in Istanbul. However, in the English publication of the book, the number is given as 235. To Taner Akçam, 235 important personages of the Armenian community were arrested on 24 April 1915. This was followed by 600 further arrests. Akçam says that the Ottoman Government announced the arrest of 2.345 Armenians in Istanbul on 24 May. Similarly, Guenter Lewy talks about arrest of several hundreds Armenian committee leaders in Istanbul comprising deputies, politicians, ministers, journalists, physicians etc. Though the above-mentioned sources agreed on the point that those arrested in Istanbul were not ordinary Armenians but were committee members, they give very different figures regarding the arrests.
It is also noted that during the police searches carried out the aftermath of the 24 April circular the following arms were found in İstanbul: 19 Mauser guns, 74 Martini rifles, 111 Winchester guns, 96 maniher, 78 gıra, 358 filovir, 3.591 pistols and 45.221 pistol bullets. All these weapons were delivered to military warehouses in case that the army needed them.

Armenians Subjected to Compulsory Residence in Çankırı

Ottoman documents show that the number of the arrests increased from 180 to 235 between the dates 24 April 1915 and 24 May 1916. The ciphered message sent by the Ministry of Interior to the governorship of Ankara province on 25 April 1915 states that in the train numbered 164 to Ankara, about 180 Armenians, who were committee chiefs and whose stay in İstanbul was considered dangerous, would be consigned to Ankara that day accompanied by a task force of 75 men, including 15 policemen, 2 officers, 1 police superintendent and one 1 official. Some 60-70 of these Armenians would be imprisoned in the Ayaş military warehouse and about 100 of the rest would be sent to Çankırı via Ankara for compulsory residence. The dispatch of the Armenians subjected to compulsory residence in Çankırı continued at intervals at the end of April and during the first week of May. For instance, according to a document sent from Çankırı governorship to the General Directorate of Security on 30 June 1915, the number of the Armenians in Çankırı is given as 140. The same document also notes that the new-comers wandered about the town freely, that they were scattered into the houses as groups of three to five men, and that even some of them were residing in the summerhouses around the town which took half an hour walk from the town. The only thing that they did was to show up in the police station every twenty-four hours. The same document states further that the needy among the exiles in Çankırı were provided with daily payments from the funds allocated by the Ministry of Interior. To give an example, a document sent from the Kastamonu province to the Ministry of Interior, it was stated Arşak son of Mardiros applied for daily payment; if his request were to be accepted an investigation should be made about whether he was needy or not. Similarly, in yet another document, Arşak Diradoryan, an exile in Çankırı, asks for daily payment explaining that he was in need.

The Armenian subjected to compulsory residence as committee members in Çankırı themselves or their relatives petitioned to the Ottoman government claiming their innocence and asking for their release. Having examined these petitions carefully Ottoman central government set free those found innocent, the foreign nationals and the ill. For instance, upon the order of the Ministry of Interior, Vahram Torkumyan, Agop Nargileciyan, Karabet Keropoyan, Zare Bardizbanyan, Pozant Keçiyan, Pervant Tolayan, Rafael Karagözyan and Vartabet Gomidas were released and were granted permission to return to Istanbul. A monument was built in Paris in memory of Vartabet Gomidas, one of those in the first group set free. Gomidas’ compulsory dwelling in Çankırı was for 13 days. He became ill after his return to Istanbul and applied to the Ministry of Interior on 30 August 1917 to travel to Vienna for treatment. He was duly given the permission and went to Vienna in September 1917.
In another case, Diran Dilakyan, one of those exiled to Çankırı, was released on the condition that he would live with his family somewhere outside of Istanbul. Again, on 29 May Hayık Hocasaryan , on 27 June Agop Begleryan and Vartanes Papasyan were set free , while, released by the order of the Ministry of Interior, Serkis Cevahiryan, Kirkor Celalyan, Bağban Bardiz and 14 other prisoners returned to Istanbul. Furthermore, on 18 July three prisoners and on 10 August 1915 Apik Canbaz was granted permission for their return to Istanbul. In the same way, Vahan Altunyan and Ohannes Terlemezyan, exiled to Kayseri from Çankırı, were released and allowed to return to Istanbul.
Apart from those allowed to return to Istanbul, a Bulgarian subject, Bedros Manukyan, an Iranian subject Mıgırdıç Istepnıyan and a Russian subject Leon Kigorkyan were set free to to be expelled from the Ottoman lands. Besides, some Armenians such as Serkis Şahinyan, Ohannes Hanisyan, Artin Boğasyan and Zara Mumcuyan were pardoned on the condition that they would leave Istanbul for good. A member of Dashnak committee, Serkis Kılınçyan, having been pardoned and given permission to go to Eskişehir, first escaped to Istanbul; then, with the help of a German firm Grupi, he fled to Bulgaria, where he went on carrying out his activities. Some of the Armenians in Çankırı were sent to prison in Ayaş while some others were exiled to different places like Ankara, İzmit, Bursa, Eskişehir and Kütahya. The rest were dispatched to the relocation center of Zor.
On 31 August 1915, the governorship of Kastamonu sent a detailed report to the Ministry of Interior, including the list of the names of the Armenians exiled to Çankırı and the procedures regarding them. In this list, the total number of the Armenians subjected to compulsory residence in Çankırı between 24 April and 31 August 1915 is given as 155. Of these, thirty-five Armenians were decided to be innocent and, after having been set free they returned to Istanbul. On the other hand, twenty-five of the Armenians in Çankırı were found guilty and imprisoned in Ankara and Ayaş whereas fifty-seven Armenians were exiled to the Zor region. As for the seven foreign nationals, some were released to be deported from the Ottoman lands while others were kept under arrest. Most of the rest were pardoned and consigned to places like Izmit, Izmir, Eskişehir, Kütahya and Bursa.

The Armenians Imprisoned in Ayaş

As already touched upon, approximately 70 of the Armenians arrested as committee members in Istanbul were sent to the Ayaş military warehouse. Unfortunately, no document giving a complete list of them exists. However, the petition for pardon forwarded by Kris Fenerciyan, an Armenian prisoner in Ayaş, addressed to Ismail Canpolat Bey, the General Director of Security, shows that the number of the Armenian prisoners in Ayaş as 70. On the other hand, an examination of the petitions for pardon and giving power of attorney by the Armenian prisoners in Ayaş reveals their number as 60, while a different source, a list prepared by Istanbul General Directorate of Security, gives the names of 71 Armenian prisoners in Ayaş.
The inconsistencies regarding the numbers in these sources stems from the fact that some of the Armenians in question were sent to different provinces for trial while some were released. Also there were those dispatched from İstanbul, Çankırı and Ankara to be imprisoned in Ayaş. For example, in an official document written by the Ministry of Interior, the Bureau of Accounting was asked to transfer 2.897 kurush to the Governorship of Ankara to meet the transport expenses of the committee members to Ayaş and Çankırı. If we look at the details regarding these men we see that the Ministry sent Hamparsum Boyacıyan, the Kozan representative, to Kayseri , Marzaros Gazaryan, the director of the Yenikapı Armenian School, to Develi , A. Dağavaryan, the Sivas representative to Diyarbakır to be tried in the Court Martial , Haçik Boğusyan to Ankara for trial and Hırant Ağacanyan to Istanbul. Two of them, viz. Teodor Manzikyan and Akrik Keresteciyan were sent to Zor, while Şahbaz Parsih was exiled to Elazığ to be imprisoned there. Leon Şirinyan, a US citizen, was deported. In a rather different case, Viram Şabuh Samuelof and Rotsum Rostusyon were first released but later prosecuted. A certain Hayik Tiryakyan was arrested as he was taken for the owner of the Azadamard newspaper, his namesake, but when this was discovered he was released. In a similar case, Doctor Allahverdiyan, arrested mistakenly instead of his son, was also set free. In yet another case, Akrik Keresteciyan was sent to Zor where he was released soon.

It appears that, the Armenians dispatched to Ayaş were kept under arrest throughout the WWI for they all were members of the executive board of the Hınchak and Dashnak parties. Thus, Dikran son of Serkis Bağdıkyan, a Dashnak member, died on 9 March 1918 in Ayaş while Andon Ponasyan, a Dashnak propagandist, submitted a petition for pardon on April 8, 1918 asking for his return to Istanbul but not accepted. Only after the signing of the Mudros Armistice did Karnik Madukyan, Kirkor Hamparsumyan and Pantuvan Parzisyan have the chance to be discharged on 10 November 1918. The rest would be freed after the Allied Powers took control of the Ottoman Empire following the armistice.

Number of the Armenian Committee Members in Istanbul and Prosecutions About Them

It is clear that from the beginning of the WWI the Ottoman Internal Security Organization closely watched the activities of the Armenian committees and their members in Istanbul and prepared a very detailed list of them. Completed probably by August 1916 the list contained the names of some leading Armenians as committee members in Istanbul, their occupations and duties in their respective committees, and inquiries and/or prosecutions about them. According to the list, out of 610 Armenian committee members centered in Istanbul ; 356 were members of the Dashnak Party while the rest were members of the Hınchak (173 persons), the Ramgavar (72 persons) and other (9 persons) Armenian committees and communities.
As already mentioned, about 235 Armenias, whose names and addresses were listed as committee members beforehand, were dispatched in accordance with the 24 April 1915 circular to Çankırı and Ayaş following their arrest. Because most of the Armenians subjected to compulsory residence in Çankırı were released during the preparation of the list of the year 1916, only 60 of them were recorded to be in Çankırı and 71 in Ayaş. Most of those mentioned in the above-mentioned list could not be found in their addresses and it was established that some others had fled abroad. The number of those who had fled abroad appears to have been 44, and 14 foreign subjects were exiled from the country on the condition of no return. Of those arrested, 53 Armenians, most of them were in obligatory residence in Çankırı and Ayaş, and suspected of having ties with İzmit events, were sent to İzmit for interrogation and trial. Some of the rest were subjected to compulsory residence in Zor, Konya, Elazığ, Diyarbakır, Kayseri etc or would face trial at military tribunal.
For the first phase of the 24 April 1915 circular, 235 Armenian committee members were sent to Çankırı and Ayaş. The answering letter submitted by the Ottoman government on May 24 to the Allied powers as a response to the diplomatic note sent by them questioning the Armenian massacres states that 235 of the 77.735 Armenians living in Istanbul had been arrested for their participation in revolutionary movements while the rest were occupied with their business in peace. Therefore, the number of the arrests till 24 May 1915 must be accepted as 235. However, if the Armenians exiled out of Istanbul in the course of relocation (for example, the Ottoman Representatives Krikor Zohrab and Seringulian Vartkes were exiled to Diyarbakır) are also considered it is acceptable to claim that, between the dates 24 April 1915 – August 1916, approximately 290 Armenians were arrested as committee members and prosecutions carried out on them.

An elaboration of the sources shows that Esat Uras is the first one to suggest the number 2.345 for the arrests in Istanbul following the 24 April circular. Uras, however, do not give any reference to a source, but, the expressions he used seem to be quoted from Ermeni Komitecilerinin Amâl ve Harekât-İhtilâliyesi, İlân-ı Meşrutiyetten Evvel ve Sonra, (Istanbul, 1916, p. 242).

It is known that, similar with Istanbul, on several provinces and sub-provinces some Armenians were also arrested as in accordance with the 24 April circular , however, their ezamination remains outside the scope pf the present study which focuses only on the arrests in Istanbul.

Concluding Remarks

For the Armenians arrested on 24 April 1915 in Istanbul, Lewy says that end of those Armenians are not clear, that is, most of them seem to be massacred or exiled. Similarly, Akçam argues that some of them were died under police supervision because of torture, and most of the rest were hanged on places open to public to intimidate people. Nikolay Hovhannisyan also talks about arrest of 800 Armenians without an official accusation on April 24 and massacre of them all on the road of relocation or on their destination, without providing any evidence.
According to the Ottoman archival documents examined above, 38 of the Armenians arrested in Istanbul (35 in Çankırı 3 in Ayaş), were found innocent and set free. Some 300 others so released from trial because they could not be found at their addresses. Most of the Armenians under arrest were relocated on the centers like Zor, Konya, Elazığ, Bursa and Diyarbakır. Until the end of the WWI, 71 Armenians were kept under arrest as committee members in Ayaş; one of them, Serkis Bağdıkyan, died on 9 May 1918 in Ayaş prison.

The Ottoman government sent out commissions of inquiry to examine the improper treatments against the Armenians being relocated. For example, Military Court of Syria charged Sirozlu (Çerkez) Ahmed and his friend (Galatalı) Halil, for killing the Armenian deputies Krikor Zohrab and Seringulan Vartkes, who had been sent to Diyarbakır by the order of the Ministry of Interior, and subjected them to death penalty that were executed in Damascus. Charges during the relocation were not limited these. In the years 1915-1916 1673 individuals were trailed by court-martials for abuses against Armenians. Among them 528 were soldiers and policemen, 170 were official and the rest 975 were bandits. 67 of them were subjected to death penalty –two of them were executed, 524 were sentenced to prison, and 68 were subjected to several punishments like condemnation to galleys, fine and exile.
Military Court of Istanbul trailed a group of Armenians on June 5, 1915 for crimes of carrying out assassinations for their goals, an autonomous Armenia, and making attempts to dissociate some part of the Empire, among whom 20 Armenians - 2 of them by name only- were subjected to death penalty according to the 54th article of the Ottoman Criminal Code. These 18 Armenians who were hanged following the Sultan’s approval on June 15 consisted of not only the members of committees in Istanbul, but also ones in Tekirdağ, Samsun, Giresun, Bitlis, Kayseri, Kilis and Bilecik. For the other charges: Hamparsum Boyacıyan was subjected to death penalty, Sevariş Misakyan and Arakil Mike was sentenced to prison for 5 years, Ağnadyos Andonyan for 4 years and Samoil Tarpanyan for 3 years. Moreover, Leon Ersabanyan was sentenced to prison for five years, and Emirza Toros Ketenciyan and Aşud Tataryan were exiled to Bursa, Aranis (Agopof) to Zor and Istepan Asadoryan to Dimyat. Some other committee members, among them were Haçik Boğusyan, Hrant Ağacanyan, Armenak Leonyan, Parsih Şahbazyan, Nerses Zakaryan and Vavader Mikailyan, were also sent to the military courts to be charged, but there exist no decisive documents regarding the decisions relating to these charges.
To conclude, although the Ottoman government closed down the Armenian committees in question and arrested some of their members, the Armenian revolutionary activities and cooperation with the Allied powers continued during the war in different forms both in and outside of the Ottoman territories. Ottoman government’s decision to relocate entire Armenian population, who were living primarily within the war zone, to distant provinces was gradually expanded towards the Armenians of other provinces of Anatolia and Rumelia, the results of which are still a subject of heated debates among historians.

APPENDIX I
(Translation)

Bâb-ıÂlî
Dâhiliye Nezâreti
Emniyyet-i Umûmiyye Müdîriyeti
Kalemi:
Umûmî:
Husûsî:

(Şifre)
Müsta`cel, mahrem, bi`z-zât halli
Edirne Vilâyetine Urfa Mutasarrıflığına
Erzurum " İzmit “
Adana " Bolu “
Ankara " Canik “
Aydın " Karesi “
Bitlis " Kayseri “
Halep " Niğde “
Hüdâvendigar " Eskişehir “
Diyarbekir " Karahisar-ı sahip
Sivas " Maraş “
Trabzon "
Konya "
Ma`muratülaziz
Van

Ermeni komitelerinin Memâlik-i Osmaniye`deki teşkîlât-ı ihtilâliye ve siyâsiyeleriyle öteden beri kendilerine muhtâriyet-i idare te`minine ma`tûf olan teşebbüsleri ve i`lân-ı harbi müte`âkib Taşnak Komitesi`nin Rusya`da bulunan Ermenilerin derhâl aleyhimize harekete ve Memâlik-i Osmaniye`deki Ermenilerin dahi ordunun duçâr-ı za`fiyet olmasına intizâr ederek o zaman bütün kuvvetleriyle ihtilâl eylemelerine dâ`ir ittihâz ettikleri mukarrerâtları ve her fırsatdan istifâde etmek suretiyle memleketin hayât ve istikbâline te`sîr edecek hareket-i hâ`inâneye cür`etleri bi`1-hassa devletin hâl-i harbde bulunduğu şu sırada Zeytun ile Bitlis, Sivas ve Van`da vuku` bulan hâdisât-ı ahire-i ısyâniye ile bir kere daha te`yîd etmiş ve esasen merkezleri memâlik-i ecnebiyede bulunan ve el-yevm unvanlarında bile ihtilâlcilik sıfatını muhafaza eden bütün bu komiteler mesâ`isinin hükümet aleyhine olarak her türlü esbâb ü vesâ`ita mürâca`at suretiyle netice-i amalleri olan muhtariyeti istihsâl maksadı etrafında toplandığı ve Kayseri ve Sivas ile mahâl-i sâ`irede meydâna çıkarılan bombalarla ve Rus Ordusu`ndan gönüllü alayları teşkil ederek Ruslarla birlikte memlekete saldıran ve an-asl Osmanlı memleketi ahâlisinden olan Ermeni komite rü`esâsının harekâtı ve Ordu-yı Osmâni`yi arkadan tehdîd etmek suretiyle ve pek büyük bir mikyâsda alınan tertibat ve neşriyatları ile tahakkuk eylemişdir. Bi`t-tabi` hükümet kendisi içün bir mes`ele-i hayatiyet teşkil eden bu kâbil tertibat ve teşebbüsâtın temâdisine hiçbir zaman nazar-ı ağmaz ve müsâmaha ile bakamayacağı, menba`-ı mefsedet olan komitelerin hâlâ mevcudiyetini meşru` telakki edemiyeceği cihetle, bi`1-umûm teşkîlât-ı siyâsiyenin ilgâsına lüzûm-ı `âcil hissetmiştir. Binâ`en aleyh Hınçak, Taşnak ve emsali komitelerin vilâyet dahilindeki şu`âbâtının derhâl sedleri ile şu`be merkezlerinde bulunacak evrak ve vesâ`ikın kat`iyyen zıya` ve imhasına imkân bırakılmayarak müsaderesi ve komiteler rü`esâ ve erkânından müteşebbis eşhas ile hükümetçe tanılan mühim ve muzır Ermenilerin hemân tevkîfi ve bulundukları mahallerde devâm-ı ikâmetlerinde mahzûr görülenlerin vilâyet sancak dâhilinde münâsib görülecek mevâkı`da toplatdırılarak firarlarına imkân bırakılmaması ve icâb eden mahallerde silâh taharrisine başlanılarak her türlü hâl ve ihtimâle karşı kumandanlarla bi`1-muhâbere kuvvetli bulunulması ve icrâ`âtın hüsn-i tatbîki esbâbının te`mîn ve istikmâliyle zuhûr edecek evrâk ve vesâ`ikin tedkîki neticesinde tevkîf olunan eşhâsın divân-ı harblere tevdî`î Ordu-yı Hümâyûn Başkumandanlığı vekâletiyle bi`1-müzâkere tekarrür etmiş olmağla îcâb eden tedâbirin bi`l-etrâf istikmâliyle derhâl tatbiki ve tevkîf olunan eşhas adediyle icrâ`âtdan peyderpey ma`lûmât i`tâsı *(ve şu icrâ`ât sırf komitelerin teşebbüsâtına karşı bir hareket mâhiyetini hâ`iz olmasına binâ`en buna ahâlî-i- İslâmiye ile Ermeni unsuru arasında mukâteleyi intâc edeceği bir şekil verilmemesi) kemâl-i ehemmiyetle tavsiye olunur.

Fî 11 Nisan 1331
Nâzır
Yazıldı
Keşidesi
İsmail

*İçinde bulunan ve üstleri çizilen cümle yalnız, Bitlis, Erzurum, Sivas, Adana, Maraş içün yazılacaktır

APPENDIX I

The Ottoman Government
General Directorate of Security
Urgent, secret

The Ciphered Letter to Edirne, Erzurum, Adana, Ankara, Aydin, Bitlis, Halep, Bursa, Sivas, Trabzon, Konya, Elazig and Van (Province) governorships, Urfa, Izmit, Bolu, Samsun, Balikesir, Kayseri, Nigde, Eskisehir, Afyon and Maras (Sub-province)governorships.

It is known that the Armenian committees have been working to accomplish political autonomy for the Armenians by means of several political and revolutionary societies. Immediately after the beginning of the War, the Dashnak committee got the Armenians living in Russia into action against the Ottoman Empire. Similarly, the Armenians within the Empire were waiting for the weakening of the Ottoman army to attack with all their might to raise a rebellion. They were making use of any opportunity and were so courageous for the treacherous activities against the existence and future of the country. Particularly, the last rebellious events that occurred in Zeytun, Bitlis, Sivas and Van at a time when the Empire is in war once again confirmed this attitude of Armenian. These Armenian communities, whose administrative centers are abroad and whose names conserve their revolutionary characters, acted in accordance with the target of obtaining the autonomy, their final aim, by causing whatever means at their disposal against the Ottoman government. Moreover, plans of the Armenians became clear with the help of several occurrences such as the bombs discovered in Kayseri, Sivas and some other provinces; the activities of the Armenian committee chiefs, who are Ottoman citizens in origin and attacked the country with the Russians by organizing volunteer regiments; threatening the Ottoman army from the back as well as a great deal of preparation and publication directed towards the above-mentioned target. Naturally, the government felt the urgent need of abolishing all these communities since it could no longer ignore such preparations and attempts against the existence of the Empire and that it could not recognize these sources of defeatism, namely the Armenian committees. Because of this reason, it is attentively recommended that the following measures determined in consultation with the Chief Command of the Imperial Army should be taken:

-Closure of the branches of the Hunchak, Dashnak and other committees in the provincial centers,

-Capture and confiscation of the documents found in the provincial branches of these committees without giving any opportunity for their loss and destruction,

-Immediate capture and arrest of the leading committee chiefs and the Armenians considered by the government as mischievous,

-Gathering of the Armenians whose existence in their present places is regarded dangerous in secure places of provinces and sub-provinces without leaving any room for them to escape,

-To search weapons in the places that seemed necessary and to be in a strong position by communicating with the commanders against any contingency,

-To provide the required conditions for the good management of the measures,

-To transfer the Armenians arrested as a consequence of the investigation through the captured documents to the courts-martial for trial.

These must be implemented immediately and reports regarding the number of the prisoners and the operations must be sent to the Ministry. Finally, because these measures are only taken against the attempts of the Armenian committees, they must not be applied in a way to cause mutual killings between the Muslim people and the Armenian community.*

April 24,1915

Written
APPENDIX II (*)

Kastamonu Province
Chief Secretary
Number
481
Summary:
About the Armanians in Çankırı

To the Ministry of Interior

Secret

His Excellency

This is the enclosure of the ciphered telegram dated August 6, 1915 with the number 443.

The record that was sent from Çankırı having the names of the Armenians in Çankırı and the procedure regarding them is given. And the command belongs unto him to whom all commanding belongs.

August 31, 1915 The Governor of Kastamonu
Signet


1. Puzant Keçyan Excused on May 8, 1915 and went to Istanbul
2. Yervant Tolayan “
3. Karabet Girobyan “
4. Zara Badizbanyan “
5. Agop Nargileciyan “
6. Vahran Torkomyan “
7. Komitas Vartabet “
8. Rafael Karagözyan “
9. Zara Mumcuyan Went to Istanbul under protection on May 27, 1915
10. Karabet Sarrafyan Went to Ankara under protection on May 27, 1915
11. Leon Badizbanyan Went to Ankara under protection on May 30, 1915 to be sent to Ayaş
12. Haçik Hocasaryan Went to Istanbul freely on 31 May 1915
13. Agop Topcıyan “
14. Hayk Tirakyan? Went to Ankara under protection on 8 May 1915 to be sent to Ayaş
15. Doktor Haçik Bogosyan Went to Ankara under protection on 22 June 1915
16. Agop Beğleryan Went to Istanbul freely on 29 June 1915
17. Vartanes Papasyan “
18. İstepan Tataryan Went to Ankara under protection on July 1, 1915 to be sent to Kayseri
19. Nişan Kalfayan Went to Istanbul freely on July 11, 1915 with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated June 29, 1915
20. Armenak Kantarcıyan “
21. Meklit Bükciyan “
22. Misak Serkis Cevahirciyan “
23. Armenak Topcıyan “
24. Bağnak Badizbanyan “
25. Aram Kalender “
26. Hayk Zabcıyan? “
27. Manuk Basmacıyan “
28. Bedros Yovanyan “
29. Karnik İnciciyan “
30. Avanis Zarifyan “
31. Avanis Barsamyan “
32. Doktor Kirkor Celalyan “
33. Asador Manyasyan veledi Haçik “
34. Karabet Beğleryan “
35. Parsih Dinamyan “
36. Bedros veledi Manuk “
37. Ohannes Mardiros Arslanyan Went to Ankara under protection on July 11, 1915 to be sent to Zor with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated June 29, 1915
38. Yervant veledi Ohan Sürenyan “
39. Agop Ohannes Asadoryan “
40. Arsak veledi Mardiros Muradyan “
41. Parnak veledi Kigork Marhanyan “
42. Mardiros veledi Ohannes Yazıcıyan “
43. Afrik Serkis Keresteciyan “
44. Ovakim veledi Harutyun veledi Agabeğyan “
45. Dikran Hamparsum Bogobelyan “
46. Arşen Agop Sadefciyan “
47. Dikrayel veledi İsrail “
48. Kirkor Mardiros Taşcıyan “
49. Haçik veledi Agop “
50. Berdoven veledi Agya? “
51. Hırant veledi Mıkır “
52. Arsak Mıgırdıç Hoşuryan “
53. Arsak Karabet Arakilyan “
54. Mihran veledi Agop Keçeciyan “
55. Vahan Arsak Çarıkcıyan “
56. Serab veledi Margos Tunyan “
57. Leon veledi Agya “
58. Frangül veledi Artin “
59. Aram Karabet Gedikyan “
60. Zenop Karabet Avakyan “
61. Artin (Namı diğer Koçu) veledi Haçator Arzumyan “
62. Kunduracı Manuk Mikayil Buracyan “
63. Ohannes Bedros Hacı Hamparsumyan “
64. Manuk veledi Kirkor “
65. Sehak veledi Karakin “
66. Ohannes Dertavidyan “
67. Manuel Karakeşişyan “
68. Ohannes Artin Hanisyan “
69. Serkis Keçeciyan “
70. Kurukahveci Kirkor Hazar Celalyan “
71. Serope Semerciyan “
72. Mıgırdıç Avadis “
73. Agyos Taşcıyan “
74. Leon Rakıcıyan “
75. Parsih Deveciyan “
76. Serkis Bağdasar “
77. Mikail Şerbetciyan namı diğeri Mike Kigork “
78. Karabet veledi Takover Hırabetyan Went to Ankara under protection on July 11, 1915 with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated June 29, 1915
79. Armenak veledi Bogos Sıvacıyan “
80. Kirkor veledi Ohannes Agobof “
81. Samuel Tohumcıyan “
82. Ermanak Parsihyan “
83. Leonik Serkis Daranbanyan “
84. Beznik veledi Artin “
85. Asator Serkis Arsenyan “
86. Serkis Kirkor Şahinyan “
87. Milkon Gülbenanyan Went to Istanbul freely on July 15, 1915
88. Mosis Bedrosyan Went to Ankara under protection on July 31, 1915
89. Apik Canbaz Went to Istanbul freely on August 12, 1915
90. Agop Bogos veledi Koryan Went to Istanbul freely on August 12, 1915
91. Ohannes Terlemezyan “
92. Vahan Altunyan veledi Agop “
93. Tatyus Köseyan “
94. Arastakiz İsrailyan Went to Ankara on August 19, 1915 to go to Bursa, with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated August 4, 1915
95. Mıkırdıç Basmacıyan veledi Mihran Went to Ankara on August 19, 1915 to be sent to Izmit
96. Leon Kigorkyan (Rus tebası) Sent to Ankara under protection on August 19, 1915 with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated August 4, 1915 as being a foreign citizen
97. Kigork Kigorkyan (Rus tebası) “
98. Mihran Kigorkyan “
99. Artin Kalfayan (İran tebası) “
100. Bedros Balyan “
101. Sehak Mosisyan “
102. Mıgırdıç İstepanyan “
103. Leon Agababyan Went to Ankara under protection on August 19, 1915 to be sent to Zor with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated August 4, 1915
104. Mihran Haçik Debbağyan “
105. Doktor İstepan Miskciyan “
106. Eczacı Agop Terziyan “
107. Eczacı Kirkor Miskciyan “
108. Nerses Aşafsor? “
109. Haçator Nacaryan “
110. Mihran Pastırmacıyan “
111. Aram Andonyan “
112. Vahram Altunyan “
113. Barob Arzumyan “
114. Kozmoz Beğlikciyan “
115. Nersis Derkigorkyan “
116. Aram Kirkoryan “
117. Bedros Beğleryan “
118. Kirkor Eseyan “
119. Diran Kelekyan Excused by the order of the Ministry of Interior dated August 4, 1915 and will go to the center of Izmir
120. Rahib Vahan Karabetyan “
121. Aram Papazbanyan “
122. Mikail Şamdancıyan “
123. Kasbar Hirant? “
124. İstepan veledi Ohannes Babinyan Will go to Bandırma with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated August 4, 1915
125. Yervant Çavuşyan Will go to Izmit with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated August 4, 1915 in the context of general amnesty
126. Vartas Atanasyan “
127. Rahib Kirkor Balakyan Will go to Ermişe Monestry through Izmit with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated August 4, 1915 in the context of general amnesty
128. Serkis Kılınccıyan Will go to Eskişehir through Ankara in the context of general amnesty
129. Doktor Emrize Ketenciyan “
130. Nişan veledi Agop Nehabedyan Will go to Izmit through Ankara in the context of general amnesty
131. Kigork Goncagülyan Will go to Eskişehir through Ankara in the context of general amnesty
132. Ohannes Güleyan? “
133. Kirkor Ohangiyan “
134. Aram Ohangiyan “
135. Leon Ohangiyan “
136. Karakin Ohangiyan “
137. Papaz Vartan Karagözyan Will go to Izmit through Ankara in the context of general amnesty
138. Azarik veledi Ohannes Bülbülciyan Will go to Eskişehir through Ankara in the context of general amnesty
139. Simon Milkonyan “
140. Haçik Haçatoryan “
141. Bedros veledi Andon Manuelyan Will go to Ankara in the context of general amnesty
142. Yervant Basmacıyan Will go to Kastamonu in the context of general amnesty
143. Nişan Gülistanyan “
144. Bogos veledi Agop Taniyelyan Will go to Izmit through Ankara in the context of general amnesty
145. Doktor Arsak Kızasyan “
146. Vahram Asatoryan “
147. Kirkor Saçyan Will go to Geyve in the context of general amnesty
148. Aram Saçyan Will go to Kütahya in the context of general amnesty
149. Papas Osik Kaçuni “
150. İstepan Pulcıyan Will go to Eskişehir through Ankara in the context of general amnesty
151. Rupen Çilingiryan Will go to Ayaş under protection with the order of the Ministry of Interior dated August 4, 1915
152. Vahan Kahyayan veledi Antaş? “
153. Onnik Mağazacıyan “
154. Danyel Çubukkıryan “
155. Artin Bogosyan “

APPENDIX III(*)
LIST OF THE PRISONERS IN AYAŞ

No: Name, title and name of the father Connected Committee
1 Onnik Veled-i Sahak Mağazacıyan [Zirayir] Dashnaksutyun
2 Artin Hasakoryan Dashnaksutyun
3 Agop Küfeciyan Dashnaksutyun
4 Avram Bazcanyan Dashnaksutyun
5 A. Marzabet (the other name: Hazarosyan)
veled-i Manuk, Osmanlı Dashnaksutyun
6 Abraham Harikyan Dashnaksutyun
7 Artin Kondilyan veled-i Ohannes Dashnaksutyun
8 Ohannes Toryan Hunchak
9 Agop Avedisyan [Arzeroni] Dashnaksutyun
10 Ardaşes Ferahyan Dashnaksutyun
11 Ohannes Kılcıyan veled-i Tavid Hunchak
12 Aristaki Kasparyan Dashnaksutyun
13 Avram (the other name:Agop) Şahinyan veled-i Karabet Hunchak
14 İstepan Kürekçiyan Dashnaksutyun
15 Onnik Serabyan veled-i Kirkor Dashnaksutyun
16 Aram Hacıyan veled-i Mıgırdıç Hunchak
17 İskender Karaağaçlıyan veled-i Karnik Aleksadr Hunchak
18 Armenak veled-i Kigork Arakelyan Dashnaksutyun
19 Artin Kalenderyan veled-i Avadis Dashnaksutyun
20 Aram Hamparsumyan Dashnaksutyun
21 Bogosyan Haçik veled-i Karabet Hunchak
22 Bedros Bedrosyan [Safo] Hunchak
23 Bedros Kalfayan Dashnaksutyun
24 Yervant Palasyan (the other name: Emirza Malik Muradyan) Dashnaksutyun
25 Parsih Şahbazyan Dashnaksutyun
26 Partoh Çopukyan [Jirayir] Dashnaksutyun
27 Palancıyan H. Hunchak
28 Teodor Menzikyan Dashnaksutyun
29 Haçator Malimyan (Agatoni) Dashnaksutyun
30 Hayik Tiryakyan veled-i İstepan [Avram Şahin] Dashnaksutyun
31 Hamparsum Hamparsumyan Dashnaksutyun
32 Hamarasp Panosyan Dashnaksutyun
33 Harenet Gürciyan veled-i Melkon Dashnaksutyun
34 Haçik İdareciyan veled-i Avadis Dashnaksutyun
35 Dikran Çukuryan Dashnaksutyun
36 Dikran veled-i Ohannes Sıvacıyan Dashnaksutyun
37 Dağdaryan Nazret veled-i Nehabet Hunchak
38 Dinanyan Parsih veled-i Mosis Dashnaksutyun
39 Rupen Zartaryan Dashnaksutyun
40 Rostom Rostomyan Dashnaksutyun
41 Jak Saybalyan Dashnaksutyun
42 Serkis Minasyan [Emadoni] Dashnaksutyun
43 Serkisof veled-i Mosis Dashnaksutyun
44 Seçad Poradder Gazar Dashnaksutyun
45 Serupe Nevradonkyan Dashnaksutyun
46 Serkis Parsihyan Dashnaksutyun
47 Serkis veled-i Manuk Keçiyan Dashnaksutyun
48 Şavaraş Hrisyan Dashnaksutyun
49 Karakin Kayacıyan [Mıgırdıc] Hajak Dashnaksutyun
50 Karabet Paşayan Dashnaksutyun
51 Hosyan Karakin Veled-i Serkis Hunchak
52 Kris Fenerciyan Dashnaksutyun
53 Kigam Parsihyan Dashnaksutyun
54 Kigork Tercümanyan Dashnaksutyun
55 Leon Bardizbanyan Dashnaksutyun
56 Leon Larinç Veregozimal (Deregazima) Hunchak
57 Mühürtad Haykozon Dashnaksutyun
58 Mihran Artinyan Dashnaksutyun
59 Mosis Sahakyan Dashnaksutyun
60 Manuk Hanikyan veled-i Barnak Dashnaksutyun
61 Mıgırdıç Ohannes Şahinyan Hunchak
62 Mıgırdıç Karabet Karabetyan Hunchak
63 Nersis Papazyan Dashnaksutyun
64 Nersis Zakaryan Hunchak
65 Nişan Oryan veled-i Agop Hunchak
66 Nişan Padikyan Dashnaksutyun
67 Nişan Kalcıyan Dashnaksutyun
68 Viram Şabuh Samoilof Dashnaksutyun
69 Viram Şabuh Arabyan Dashnaksutyun
70 Harotyan Şahrikyan [Avram Şahin] Dashnaksutyun
71 Penodo Şahin Veled-i Aranos Dashnaksutyun

Assoc. Prof. Yusuf SARINAY

by Assoc. Prof. Yusuf SARINAY*
GenocideReality.com