Friday, February 01, 2013
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
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
1449) Exclusive - First Time Release: Armenian Tashnak Party 1910 Report
Sunday, July 11, 2010
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)
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/
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/
Thursday, April 22, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
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
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
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
So-called Armenian Genocide
An Armenian and Muslim Tragedy? Yes! Genocide? No!
By Bruce Fein*
I. Both Armenians and Muslims in Eastern Anatolia under the Ottoman Empire experienced harrowing casualties and gripping privations during World War I.
Hundreds of thousands perished. Most were innocent. All deserve pity and respect. Their known and unknown graves testify to President John F. Kennedy's lament that "Life is unfair." An Armenian tombstone is worth a Muslim tombstone, and vice versa. No race, religious, or ethnic group stands above or below another in the cathedral of humanity. To paraphrase Shakespeare in "The Merchant of Venice," Hath not everyone eyes? hath not everyone hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer...If you prick anyone, does he not bleed? if you tickle him, does he not laugh? if you poison him, does he not die?
These sentiments must be emphasized before entering into the longstanding dispute over allegations of Armenian genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Turks during World War I and its aftermath. Genocide is a word bristling with passion and moral depravity. It typically evokes images of Jews dying like cattle in Nazi cyanide chambers in Auschwitz, Bergen-Belson, Dacau, and other extermination camps. It is customarily confined in national laws and international covenants to the mass killing or repression of a racial, religious, or ethnic group with the intent of partial or total extermination. Thus, to accuse Turks of Armenian genocide is grave business, and should thus be appraised with scrupulous care for historical accuracy. To do less would not only be unjust to the accused, but to vitiate the arresting meaning that genocide should enjoy in the tale of unspeakable human horrors.
It cannot be repeated enough that to discredit the Armenian genocide allegation is not to deny that Armenian deaths and suffering during the war should evoke tears in all but the stone-hearted. The same is true for the even greater number of contemporaneous Turkish deaths and privations. No effort should be spared to avoid transforming an impartial inquest into the genocide allegations to poisonous recriminations over whether Armenians or Turks as a group were more or less culpable or victimized. Healing and reconciliation is made of more magnanimous and compassionate stuff.
In sum, disprove Armenian genocide is not to belittle the atrocities and brutalities that World War I inflicted on the Armenian people of Eastern Anatolia.
I. Sympathy for All, Malice Towards None "War is hell," lamented steely Union General William Tecumseh Sherman during the American Civil War. The frightful carnage of World War I confirmed and fortified that vivid definition.
The deep pain that wrenches any group victimized by massacres and unforgiving privation in wartime, however, frequently distorts or imbalances recollections. That phenomenon found epigrammatic expression in United States Senator Hiram Johnson's World War I quip that truth is the first casualty of war. It is customary among nations at war to manipulate the reporting of events to blacken the enemy and to valorize their own and allied forces. In other words, World War I was no exception, about which more anon.
II. The Armenian Genocide Accusation
The Ottoman Turks are accused of planning and executing a scheme to exterminate its Armenian population in Eastern Anatolia beginning on or about April 24, 1915 by relocating them hundreds of miles to the Southwest and away from the Russian war front and massacring those who resisted. The mass relocation (often mischaracterized as "deportation") exposed the Armenians to mass killings by marauding Kurds and other Muslims and deaths from malnutrition, starvation, and disease. After World War I concluded, the Ottoman Turks are said to have continued their Armenian genocide during the Turkish War of Independence concluded in 1922.
The number of alleged Armenian casualties began at approximately 600,000, but soon inflated to 2 million. The entire pre-war Armenian population in Eastern Anatolia is best estimated at 1.3 to 1.5 million.
A. Was there an intent to exterminate Ottoman Armenians in whole or in part?
The evidence seems exceptionally thin. The Government's relocation decree was a wartime measure inspired by national self-preservation, neither aimed at Armenians generally (those outside sensitive war territory were left undisturbed) nor with the goal of death by relocation hardships and hazards. The Ottoman government issued unambiguous orders to protect and feed Armenians during their relocation ordeal, but were unable because of war emergencies on three fronts and war shortages affecting the entire population to insure their proper execution. The key decree provided:
"When those of Armenians resident in the aforementioned towns and villages who have to be moved are transferred to their places of settlement and are on the road, their comfort must be assured and their lives and property protected; after their arrival their food should be paid for out of Refugees' Appropriations until they are definitively settled in their new homes. Property and land should be distributed to them in accordance with their previous financial situation as well as current needs; and for those among them needing further help, the government should build houses, provide cultivators and artisans with seed, tools, and equipment."
"This order is entirely intended against the extension of the Armenian Revolutionary Committees; therefore do not execute it in such a manner that might cause the mutual massacre of Muslims and Armenians."
(Do you believe that anything comparable has been issued by Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to his troops in Kosovo?)
The Ottoman government prosecuted more than one thousand soldiers and civilians for disobedience. Further, approximately 200,000 Ottoman Armenians who were relocated to Syria lived without menace through the remainder of the war.
Relocation of populations suspected of disloyalty was a customary war measure both at the time of World War I and through at least World War II. Czarist Russia had employed it against Crimean Tatars and other ethnic Turks even in peacetime and without evidence of treasonous plotting. The United States relocated 120,000 citizens and resident aliens of Japanese ancestry during the Second World War despite the glaring absence of sabotage or anti-patriotic sentiments or designs. Indeed, the Congress of the United States acknowledged the injustice in the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which awarded the victims or their survivors $20,000 each.
In sum, the mass wartime relocation of Ottoman Armenians from the Eastern front was no pretext for genocide. That conclusion is fortified by the mountains of evidence showing that an alarming percentage of Armenians were treasonous and allied with the Triple Entente, especially Russia. Tens of thousands defected from the Ottoman army or evaded conscription to serve with Russia. Countless more remained in Eastern Anatolia to conduct sabotage behind Ottoman lines and to massacre Turks, including civilians. Their leaders openly called for revolt, and boasted at post-World War I peace conferences that Ottoman Armenians had fought shoulder-to-shoulder with the victorious powers. Exemplary was a proclamation issued by an Armenian representative in the Ottoman parliament for Van, Papazyan. He trumpeted: "The volunteer Armenian regiments in the Caucasus should prepare themselves for battle, serve as advance units for the Russian armies to help them capture the key positions in the districts where the Armenians live, and advance into Anatolia, joining the Armenian units already there."
The Big Five victors -Great Britain, France, the United States, Italy, and Japan acknowledged the enormous wartime service of Ottoman Armenians, and Armenia was recognized as a victor nation at the Paris Peace Conference and sister conclaves charring the post-war map. Armenians were rewarded for their treason against the Ottoman Empire in the short-lived Treaty of Sevres of 1920 (soon superceded by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne). It created an independent Armenian state carved from large swaths of Ottoman territory although they were a distinct population minority and had always been so throughout the centuries of Ottoman rule. The Treaty thus turned President Woodrow Wilson's self-determination gospel in his Fourteen Points on its head.
The Ottoman government thus had overwhelming evidence to suspect the loyalty of its Armenian population. And its relocation orders responded to a dire, not a contrived, war emergency. It was fighting on three fronts. The capital, Istanbul, was threatened by the Gallipoli campaign. Russia was occupying portions of Eastern Anatolia, encouraging Armenian defections, and aiding Armenian sabotage. In sum, the mass relocation of Armenians was clearly an imperative war measure; it did not pivot on imaginary dangers contrived by Ottoman rulers to exterminate Armenians.
The genocide allegation is further discredited by Great Britain's unavailing attempt to prove Ottoman officials of war crimes. It occupied Ottoman territory, including Istanbul, under the 1918 Mudros Armistice. Under section 230 of the Treaty of Sevres, Ottoman officials were subject to prosecution for war crimes like genocide. Great Britain had access to Ottoman archives, but found no evidence of Armenian genocide. Scores of Ottoman Turks were detained on Malta, nonetheless, under suspicion of complicity in Armenian massacres or worse. But all were released in 1922 for want of evidence. The British spent endless months searching hither and yon for evidence of international criminality- even enlisting the assistance of the United State yet came up with nothing that could withstand the test of truth. Rumor, hearsay, and polemics from anti-Turk sources was the most that could be assembled, none of which would be admissible in any fair-minded enterprise to discover facts and to assign legal responsibility.
None of this is to deny that approximately 600,000 Ottoman Armenians perished during World War I and its aftermath. But Muslims died in even greater numbers (approximately 2.5 million in Eastern Anatolia) from Armenian and Russian massacres and wartime privations as severe as that experienced by relocated Armenians. When Armenians held the opportunity, they massacred Turks without mercy, as in Van, Erzurum, and Adana. The war ignited a cycle of violence between both groups, one fighting for revolutionary objectives and the other to retain their homeland intact. Both were spurred to implacability by the gruesome experience that the loser could expect no clemency.
The horrifying scale of the violence and retaliatory violence, however, were acts of private individuals or official wrongdoers. The Ottoman government discouraged and punished the crimes within the limits of its shrinking capacity. Fighting for its life on three fronts, it devoted the lion's share of its resources and manpower to staving off death, not to local law enforcement.
The emptiness of the Armenian genocide case is further demonstrated by the resort of proponents to reliance on incontestable falsehoods or forged documents. The Talat Pasha fabrications are emblematic.
According to Armenians, he sent telegrams expounding an Ottoman policy to massacre its Armenian population that were discovered by British forces commanded by General Allenby when they captured Aleppo in 1918. Samples were published in Paris in 1920 by an Armenian author, Aram Andonian. They were also introduced at the Berlin trial of the assassin of Talat Pasha, and then accepted as authentic.
The British Foreign Office then conducted an official investigation that showed that the telegrams had not been discovered by the army but had been produced by an Armenian group based in Paris. A meticulous examination of the documents revealed glaring discrepancies with the customary form, script, and phraseology of Ottoman administrative decrees, and pronounced as bogus as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Donation of Constantine.
Ditto for a quote attributed to Adolph Hitler calculated to liken the Armenians in World War I to the Holocaust victims and to arouse anger towards the Republic of Turkey. Purportedly delivered on August 22, 1939, while the Nazi invasion of Poland impended, Hitler allegedly declared: "Thus for the time being I have sent to the East only my Death Head units, with the order to kill without mercy all men, women, and children of the Polish race or language. Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians."
Armenian genocide exponents point to the statement as evidence that it served as the model for Hitler's sister plan to exterminate Poles, Jews, and others. Twenty-two Members of Congress on or about April 24, 1984 in the Congressional Record enlisted Hitler's hideous reference to Armenian extermination as justification for supporting Armenian Martyrs' Day remembrances. As Princeton Professor Heath W. Lowry elaborates in a booklet, "The U.S. Congress and Adolph Hitler on the Armenians," it seems virtually certain that the statement was never made. The Nuremburg tribunal refused to accept it as evidence because of flimsy proof of authenticity.
The gospel for many Armenian genocide enthusiasts is Ambassador Henry Morgenthau's 1918 book, Ambassador's Morgenthau's Story. It brims with assertions that incriminate the Ottoman Turks in genocide. Professor Lowry, however, convincingly demonstrates in his monograph, "The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story," that his book is more propaganda, invention, exaggeration, and hyperbole than a reliable portrait of motivations and events.
According to some Armenian circles, celebrated founder of the Republic of Turkey, Atatürk, confessed "Ottoman state responsibility for the Armenian genocide." That attribution is flatly false, as proven in an extended essay, "A 'Statement' Wrongly Attributed to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk," by Türkkaya Ataöv.
Why would Armenian genocide theorists repeatedly uncurtain demonstrative falsehoods as evidence if the truth would prove their case? Does proof of the Holocaust rest on such imaginary inventiveness? A long array of individuals have been found guilty of participation in Hitler's genocide in courts of law hedged by rules to insure the reliability of verdicts. Adolph Eichmann's trial and conviction in an Israeli court and the Nuremburg trials before an international body of jurists are illustrative. Not a single Ottoman Turk, in contrast, has every been found guilty of Armenian genocide or its equivalent in a genuine court of law, although the victorious powers in World War I enjoyed both the incentive and opportunity to do so if incriminating evidence existed.
The United Nations Economic and Social Council Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities examined the truthfulness of an Armenian genocide charge leveled by Special Rapporteur, Mr. Benjamin Whitaker, in his submission, "Study of Genocide," during its thirty-eighth session at the U.N. Office in Geneva from August 5-30, 1985. The Sub-Commission after meticulous debate refused to endorse the indictment for lack of convincing evidence, as amplified by attendee and Professor Dr. Ataöv of Ankara University in his publication, "WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN GENEVA: The Truth About the 'Whitaker Report'."
B. If the evidence is so demonstratively faulty, what explains a widespread credence given to the Armenian genocide allegation in the United States?
As Napoleon once derisively observed, history is a fable mutually agreed upon. It is not Euclidean geometry. Some bias invariably is smuggled in by the most objective historians; others view history as a manipulable weapon either to fight an adversary, or to gain a political, economic, or sister material advantage, or to satisfy a psychological or emotional need.
History most resembles truth when competing versions of events do battle in the marketplace of ideas with equally talented contestants and before an impartial audience with no personal or vested interest in the outcome. That is why the adversarial system of justice in the United States is the hallmark of its legal system and a beacon to the world.
The Armenian genocide allegation for long decades was earmarked by an absence of both historical rigor and scrupulous regard for reliable evidence and truth. The Ottoman Empire generally received bad reviews in the West for centuries, in part because of its predominant Muslim creed and military conquests in Europe. It was a declared enemy of Britain, France, and Russia during World War I, and a de facto enemy of the United States. Thus, when the Armenian genocide allegation initially surfaced, the West was predisposed towards acceptance that would reinforce their stereotypical and pejorative view of Turks that had been inculcated for centuries. The reliability of obviously biased sources was generally ignored. Further, the Republic of Turkey created in 1923 was not anxious to defend its Ottoman predecessor which it had opposed for humiliating capitulations to World War I victors and its palsied government. Atatürk was seeking a new, secular, and democratic dispensation and distance from the Ottoman legacy.
Armenians in the United States were also more vocal, politically active and sophisticated, numerous, and wealthy than Turks. The Armenian lobby has skillfully and forcefully marketed the Armenian genocide allegation in the corridors of power, in the media, and in public school curricula. They had been relatively unchallenged until some opposing giants in the field of Turkish studies appeared on the scene to discredit and deflate the charge by fastidious research and a richer understanding of the circumstances of frightful Armenian World War I casualties. Professor of History at the University of Louisville, Justin McCarthy, and Princeton Professor Heath Lowry stand at the top of the list. Professor McCarthy's 1995 book, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922, is a landmark. Turkish Americans have also organized to present facts and views about the Armenian genocide allegation and other issues central to United States-Turkish relations. But the intellectual playing field remains sharply tilted in favor of the Armenians. Since public officials with no foreign policy responsibilities confront no electoral or other penalty for echoing the Armenian story, they generally acquiesce to gain or to solidify their standing among them.
The consequence has been not only bad and biased history unbecoming an evenhanded search for truth, but a gratuitous irritant in the relations between Turkey and the United States. The former was a steadfast ally throughout the Cold War, and Turkey remains a cornerstone of NATO and Middle East peace. It is also a strong barrier against religious fundamentalism, and an unflagging partner in fighting international terrorism and drug trafficking. Turkey is also geostrategically indispensable to exporting oil and gas from Central Asia to the West through pipelines without reliance on the Russian Federation, Iran, Afghanistan or other dicey economic partners.
Finally, endorsing the false Armenian genocide indictment may embolden Armenian terrorist organizations (for example, the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia) to kill and mutilate Turks, as they did a few decades ago in assassinating scores of Turkish diplomats and bombing buildings both in the United States and elsewhere. They have been relatively dormant in recent years, but to risk a resurgence from intoxication with a fortified Armenian genocide brew would be reckless.
III. Conclusion
The Armenian genocide accusation fails for want of proof. It attempts to paint the deaths and privations of World War I in prime colors, when the authentic article is chiaroscuro. Both Muslims and Armenians suffered horribly and neither displayed a morality superior to the other. Continuing to hurl the incendiary charge of genocide on the Turkish doorstep obstructs the quest for amity between Armenia and the Republic of Turkey and warmer relations between Armenians and Turks generally.
Isn't it time to let the genocide allegation fade away and to join hands in commemorating the losses of both communities during World War I and its aftermath?
Letter from Mr. E. Vartanian, an Armenian-American Volunteer in the Russian Service, to His Brother-in-law in Egypt; Dated 9th /22nd July,1915, and Published in the Armenian Journal "Houssaper," of Cairo.
" We have been here three days. Some of us are going to be sent to Erivan; the rest of us are starting in two days for Van.
The enthusiasm here is very great. There are already 20,000 volunteers at the front, and they are trying to increase the number to 30,000. Each district we occupy is placed under Armenian administration, and an Armenian post is running from Igdir to Van. The Russian Government is showing great goodwill towards the Armenians and doing everything in its power for the liberation of Turkish Armenia.
When we disembarked at Archangel the Government gave us every possible assistance. It even undertook the transport of our baggage, and gave us free passes, second class, to Petrograd.
At Petrograd we received an equally hearty welcome, and the Governor of the city presented each of us with a medal in token of his sympathy. The Armenian colony put us up in the best hotels, entertained us at the best restaurants, and could not make enough of us. This lasted for five days, and then we continued our journey, again at the Government's expense, to Tiflis.
Everywhere on the way the population received us with cheers and offerings of flowers. Just as we were leaving Archa gel, a young Russian lady came with flowers and offered one to eaeh of us. I also saw a quite poor man who was so moved by the speech in Russian that one of our comrades had made, that he came and put his tobacco into the pipe of a comrade standing next to me, and kept nothing for himself but a bare half-pipeful. A third, an old man, was so moved by the speech that he began to cry and nearly made off, but a little while after I saw him standing in front of the carriage window and, with a shaking hand, holding out a hard-boiled egg to our comrade the chemist Roupen Stepanian. Probably it was his one meal for the day.
And so at every step we found ourselves in the midst of affecting scenes. At Petrograd Railway Station the crowd was enormous. There was an Armenian lady there who offered each of us a rose. There were boys and young men who wept because they could not come with us. At Rostov a young Russian joined our ranks. He was caught more than once by his parents at the stations further down the line, but he always succeeded in escaping them and reioining us. We have christened him Stepan.
When we arrived at Tiflis, we marched singing to the offices of the Central Armenian Bureau, with our flag unfurled in front of us, and the people marched on either side of us in such a crowd that the trams were forced to stop running.
That is enough for to-day. My next letter shall be written from Armenia itself..
Please say nothing to my sister about this resolution that I have taken. I hope, of course, that she would know how to sacrifice her affection for her brother to her love for the nation and for liberty.. I should curse any of my relations who lament my resolution; they would have committed treason against the nation. There are five of us brothers; was it not imperative that at least one of us should devote himself to the cause of a national emancipation ? Let us keep up our courage, realise the urgency of the moment and do our duty. "
By Bruce Fein*
I. Both Armenians and Muslims in Eastern Anatolia under the Ottoman Empire experienced harrowing casualties and gripping privations during World War I.
Hundreds of thousands perished. Most were innocent. All deserve pity and respect. Their known and unknown graves testify to President John F. Kennedy's lament that "Life is unfair." An Armenian tombstone is worth a Muslim tombstone, and vice versa. No race, religious, or ethnic group stands above or below another in the cathedral of humanity. To paraphrase Shakespeare in "The Merchant of Venice," Hath not everyone eyes? hath not everyone hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer...If you prick anyone, does he not bleed? if you tickle him, does he not laugh? if you poison him, does he not die?
These sentiments must be emphasized before entering into the longstanding dispute over allegations of Armenian genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Turks during World War I and its aftermath. Genocide is a word bristling with passion and moral depravity. It typically evokes images of Jews dying like cattle in Nazi cyanide chambers in Auschwitz, Bergen-Belson, Dacau, and other extermination camps. It is customarily confined in national laws and international covenants to the mass killing or repression of a racial, religious, or ethnic group with the intent of partial or total extermination. Thus, to accuse Turks of Armenian genocide is grave business, and should thus be appraised with scrupulous care for historical accuracy. To do less would not only be unjust to the accused, but to vitiate the arresting meaning that genocide should enjoy in the tale of unspeakable human horrors.
It cannot be repeated enough that to discredit the Armenian genocide allegation is not to deny that Armenian deaths and suffering during the war should evoke tears in all but the stone-hearted. The same is true for the even greater number of contemporaneous Turkish deaths and privations. No effort should be spared to avoid transforming an impartial inquest into the genocide allegations to poisonous recriminations over whether Armenians or Turks as a group were more or less culpable or victimized. Healing and reconciliation is made of more magnanimous and compassionate stuff.
In sum, disprove Armenian genocide is not to belittle the atrocities and brutalities that World War I inflicted on the Armenian people of Eastern Anatolia.
I. Sympathy for All, Malice Towards None "War is hell," lamented steely Union General William Tecumseh Sherman during the American Civil War. The frightful carnage of World War I confirmed and fortified that vivid definition.
The deep pain that wrenches any group victimized by massacres and unforgiving privation in wartime, however, frequently distorts or imbalances recollections. That phenomenon found epigrammatic expression in United States Senator Hiram Johnson's World War I quip that truth is the first casualty of war. It is customary among nations at war to manipulate the reporting of events to blacken the enemy and to valorize their own and allied forces. In other words, World War I was no exception, about which more anon.
II. The Armenian Genocide Accusation
The Ottoman Turks are accused of planning and executing a scheme to exterminate its Armenian population in Eastern Anatolia beginning on or about April 24, 1915 by relocating them hundreds of miles to the Southwest and away from the Russian war front and massacring those who resisted. The mass relocation (often mischaracterized as "deportation") exposed the Armenians to mass killings by marauding Kurds and other Muslims and deaths from malnutrition, starvation, and disease. After World War I concluded, the Ottoman Turks are said to have continued their Armenian genocide during the Turkish War of Independence concluded in 1922.
The number of alleged Armenian casualties began at approximately 600,000, but soon inflated to 2 million. The entire pre-war Armenian population in Eastern Anatolia is best estimated at 1.3 to 1.5 million.
A. Was there an intent to exterminate Ottoman Armenians in whole or in part?
The evidence seems exceptionally thin. The Government's relocation decree was a wartime measure inspired by national self-preservation, neither aimed at Armenians generally (those outside sensitive war territory were left undisturbed) nor with the goal of death by relocation hardships and hazards. The Ottoman government issued unambiguous orders to protect and feed Armenians during their relocation ordeal, but were unable because of war emergencies on three fronts and war shortages affecting the entire population to insure their proper execution. The key decree provided:
"When those of Armenians resident in the aforementioned towns and villages who have to be moved are transferred to their places of settlement and are on the road, their comfort must be assured and their lives and property protected; after their arrival their food should be paid for out of Refugees' Appropriations until they are definitively settled in their new homes. Property and land should be distributed to them in accordance with their previous financial situation as well as current needs; and for those among them needing further help, the government should build houses, provide cultivators and artisans with seed, tools, and equipment."
"This order is entirely intended against the extension of the Armenian Revolutionary Committees; therefore do not execute it in such a manner that might cause the mutual massacre of Muslims and Armenians."
(Do you believe that anything comparable has been issued by Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to his troops in Kosovo?)
The Ottoman government prosecuted more than one thousand soldiers and civilians for disobedience. Further, approximately 200,000 Ottoman Armenians who were relocated to Syria lived without menace through the remainder of the war.
Relocation of populations suspected of disloyalty was a customary war measure both at the time of World War I and through at least World War II. Czarist Russia had employed it against Crimean Tatars and other ethnic Turks even in peacetime and without evidence of treasonous plotting. The United States relocated 120,000 citizens and resident aliens of Japanese ancestry during the Second World War despite the glaring absence of sabotage or anti-patriotic sentiments or designs. Indeed, the Congress of the United States acknowledged the injustice in the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which awarded the victims or their survivors $20,000 each.
In sum, the mass wartime relocation of Ottoman Armenians from the Eastern front was no pretext for genocide. That conclusion is fortified by the mountains of evidence showing that an alarming percentage of Armenians were treasonous and allied with the Triple Entente, especially Russia. Tens of thousands defected from the Ottoman army or evaded conscription to serve with Russia. Countless more remained in Eastern Anatolia to conduct sabotage behind Ottoman lines and to massacre Turks, including civilians. Their leaders openly called for revolt, and boasted at post-World War I peace conferences that Ottoman Armenians had fought shoulder-to-shoulder with the victorious powers. Exemplary was a proclamation issued by an Armenian representative in the Ottoman parliament for Van, Papazyan. He trumpeted: "The volunteer Armenian regiments in the Caucasus should prepare themselves for battle, serve as advance units for the Russian armies to help them capture the key positions in the districts where the Armenians live, and advance into Anatolia, joining the Armenian units already there."
The Big Five victors -Great Britain, France, the United States, Italy, and Japan acknowledged the enormous wartime service of Ottoman Armenians, and Armenia was recognized as a victor nation at the Paris Peace Conference and sister conclaves charring the post-war map. Armenians were rewarded for their treason against the Ottoman Empire in the short-lived Treaty of Sevres of 1920 (soon superceded by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne). It created an independent Armenian state carved from large swaths of Ottoman territory although they were a distinct population minority and had always been so throughout the centuries of Ottoman rule. The Treaty thus turned President Woodrow Wilson's self-determination gospel in his Fourteen Points on its head.
The Ottoman government thus had overwhelming evidence to suspect the loyalty of its Armenian population. And its relocation orders responded to a dire, not a contrived, war emergency. It was fighting on three fronts. The capital, Istanbul, was threatened by the Gallipoli campaign. Russia was occupying portions of Eastern Anatolia, encouraging Armenian defections, and aiding Armenian sabotage. In sum, the mass relocation of Armenians was clearly an imperative war measure; it did not pivot on imaginary dangers contrived by Ottoman rulers to exterminate Armenians.
The genocide allegation is further discredited by Great Britain's unavailing attempt to prove Ottoman officials of war crimes. It occupied Ottoman territory, including Istanbul, under the 1918 Mudros Armistice. Under section 230 of the Treaty of Sevres, Ottoman officials were subject to prosecution for war crimes like genocide. Great Britain had access to Ottoman archives, but found no evidence of Armenian genocide. Scores of Ottoman Turks were detained on Malta, nonetheless, under suspicion of complicity in Armenian massacres or worse. But all were released in 1922 for want of evidence. The British spent endless months searching hither and yon for evidence of international criminality- even enlisting the assistance of the United State yet came up with nothing that could withstand the test of truth. Rumor, hearsay, and polemics from anti-Turk sources was the most that could be assembled, none of which would be admissible in any fair-minded enterprise to discover facts and to assign legal responsibility.
None of this is to deny that approximately 600,000 Ottoman Armenians perished during World War I and its aftermath. But Muslims died in even greater numbers (approximately 2.5 million in Eastern Anatolia) from Armenian and Russian massacres and wartime privations as severe as that experienced by relocated Armenians. When Armenians held the opportunity, they massacred Turks without mercy, as in Van, Erzurum, and Adana. The war ignited a cycle of violence between both groups, one fighting for revolutionary objectives and the other to retain their homeland intact. Both were spurred to implacability by the gruesome experience that the loser could expect no clemency.
The horrifying scale of the violence and retaliatory violence, however, were acts of private individuals or official wrongdoers. The Ottoman government discouraged and punished the crimes within the limits of its shrinking capacity. Fighting for its life on three fronts, it devoted the lion's share of its resources and manpower to staving off death, not to local law enforcement.
The emptiness of the Armenian genocide case is further demonstrated by the resort of proponents to reliance on incontestable falsehoods or forged documents. The Talat Pasha fabrications are emblematic.
According to Armenians, he sent telegrams expounding an Ottoman policy to massacre its Armenian population that were discovered by British forces commanded by General Allenby when they captured Aleppo in 1918. Samples were published in Paris in 1920 by an Armenian author, Aram Andonian. They were also introduced at the Berlin trial of the assassin of Talat Pasha, and then accepted as authentic.
The British Foreign Office then conducted an official investigation that showed that the telegrams had not been discovered by the army but had been produced by an Armenian group based in Paris. A meticulous examination of the documents revealed glaring discrepancies with the customary form, script, and phraseology of Ottoman administrative decrees, and pronounced as bogus as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Donation of Constantine.
Ditto for a quote attributed to Adolph Hitler calculated to liken the Armenians in World War I to the Holocaust victims and to arouse anger towards the Republic of Turkey. Purportedly delivered on August 22, 1939, while the Nazi invasion of Poland impended, Hitler allegedly declared: "Thus for the time being I have sent to the East only my Death Head units, with the order to kill without mercy all men, women, and children of the Polish race or language. Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians."
Armenian genocide exponents point to the statement as evidence that it served as the model for Hitler's sister plan to exterminate Poles, Jews, and others. Twenty-two Members of Congress on or about April 24, 1984 in the Congressional Record enlisted Hitler's hideous reference to Armenian extermination as justification for supporting Armenian Martyrs' Day remembrances. As Princeton Professor Heath W. Lowry elaborates in a booklet, "The U.S. Congress and Adolph Hitler on the Armenians," it seems virtually certain that the statement was never made. The Nuremburg tribunal refused to accept it as evidence because of flimsy proof of authenticity.
The gospel for many Armenian genocide enthusiasts is Ambassador Henry Morgenthau's 1918 book, Ambassador's Morgenthau's Story. It brims with assertions that incriminate the Ottoman Turks in genocide. Professor Lowry, however, convincingly demonstrates in his monograph, "The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story," that his book is more propaganda, invention, exaggeration, and hyperbole than a reliable portrait of motivations and events.
According to some Armenian circles, celebrated founder of the Republic of Turkey, Atatürk, confessed "Ottoman state responsibility for the Armenian genocide." That attribution is flatly false, as proven in an extended essay, "A 'Statement' Wrongly Attributed to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk," by Türkkaya Ataöv.
Why would Armenian genocide theorists repeatedly uncurtain demonstrative falsehoods as evidence if the truth would prove their case? Does proof of the Holocaust rest on such imaginary inventiveness? A long array of individuals have been found guilty of participation in Hitler's genocide in courts of law hedged by rules to insure the reliability of verdicts. Adolph Eichmann's trial and conviction in an Israeli court and the Nuremburg trials before an international body of jurists are illustrative. Not a single Ottoman Turk, in contrast, has every been found guilty of Armenian genocide or its equivalent in a genuine court of law, although the victorious powers in World War I enjoyed both the incentive and opportunity to do so if incriminating evidence existed.
The United Nations Economic and Social Council Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities examined the truthfulness of an Armenian genocide charge leveled by Special Rapporteur, Mr. Benjamin Whitaker, in his submission, "Study of Genocide," during its thirty-eighth session at the U.N. Office in Geneva from August 5-30, 1985. The Sub-Commission after meticulous debate refused to endorse the indictment for lack of convincing evidence, as amplified by attendee and Professor Dr. Ataöv of Ankara University in his publication, "WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN GENEVA: The Truth About the 'Whitaker Report'."
B. If the evidence is so demonstratively faulty, what explains a widespread credence given to the Armenian genocide allegation in the United States?
As Napoleon once derisively observed, history is a fable mutually agreed upon. It is not Euclidean geometry. Some bias invariably is smuggled in by the most objective historians; others view history as a manipulable weapon either to fight an adversary, or to gain a political, economic, or sister material advantage, or to satisfy a psychological or emotional need.
History most resembles truth when competing versions of events do battle in the marketplace of ideas with equally talented contestants and before an impartial audience with no personal or vested interest in the outcome. That is why the adversarial system of justice in the United States is the hallmark of its legal system and a beacon to the world.
The Armenian genocide allegation for long decades was earmarked by an absence of both historical rigor and scrupulous regard for reliable evidence and truth. The Ottoman Empire generally received bad reviews in the West for centuries, in part because of its predominant Muslim creed and military conquests in Europe. It was a declared enemy of Britain, France, and Russia during World War I, and a de facto enemy of the United States. Thus, when the Armenian genocide allegation initially surfaced, the West was predisposed towards acceptance that would reinforce their stereotypical and pejorative view of Turks that had been inculcated for centuries. The reliability of obviously biased sources was generally ignored. Further, the Republic of Turkey created in 1923 was not anxious to defend its Ottoman predecessor which it had opposed for humiliating capitulations to World War I victors and its palsied government. Atatürk was seeking a new, secular, and democratic dispensation and distance from the Ottoman legacy.
Armenians in the United States were also more vocal, politically active and sophisticated, numerous, and wealthy than Turks. The Armenian lobby has skillfully and forcefully marketed the Armenian genocide allegation in the corridors of power, in the media, and in public school curricula. They had been relatively unchallenged until some opposing giants in the field of Turkish studies appeared on the scene to discredit and deflate the charge by fastidious research and a richer understanding of the circumstances of frightful Armenian World War I casualties. Professor of History at the University of Louisville, Justin McCarthy, and Princeton Professor Heath Lowry stand at the top of the list. Professor McCarthy's 1995 book, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922, is a landmark. Turkish Americans have also organized to present facts and views about the Armenian genocide allegation and other issues central to United States-Turkish relations. But the intellectual playing field remains sharply tilted in favor of the Armenians. Since public officials with no foreign policy responsibilities confront no electoral or other penalty for echoing the Armenian story, they generally acquiesce to gain or to solidify their standing among them.
The consequence has been not only bad and biased history unbecoming an evenhanded search for truth, but a gratuitous irritant in the relations between Turkey and the United States. The former was a steadfast ally throughout the Cold War, and Turkey remains a cornerstone of NATO and Middle East peace. It is also a strong barrier against religious fundamentalism, and an unflagging partner in fighting international terrorism and drug trafficking. Turkey is also geostrategically indispensable to exporting oil and gas from Central Asia to the West through pipelines without reliance on the Russian Federation, Iran, Afghanistan or other dicey economic partners.
Finally, endorsing the false Armenian genocide indictment may embolden Armenian terrorist organizations (for example, the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia) to kill and mutilate Turks, as they did a few decades ago in assassinating scores of Turkish diplomats and bombing buildings both in the United States and elsewhere. They have been relatively dormant in recent years, but to risk a resurgence from intoxication with a fortified Armenian genocide brew would be reckless.
III. Conclusion
The Armenian genocide accusation fails for want of proof. It attempts to paint the deaths and privations of World War I in prime colors, when the authentic article is chiaroscuro. Both Muslims and Armenians suffered horribly and neither displayed a morality superior to the other. Continuing to hurl the incendiary charge of genocide on the Turkish doorstep obstructs the quest for amity between Armenia and the Republic of Turkey and warmer relations between Armenians and Turks generally.
Isn't it time to let the genocide allegation fade away and to join hands in commemorating the losses of both communities during World War I and its aftermath?
Letter from Mr. E. Vartanian, an Armenian-American Volunteer in the Russian Service, to His Brother-in-law in Egypt; Dated 9th /22nd July,1915, and Published in the Armenian Journal "Houssaper," of Cairo.
" We have been here three days. Some of us are going to be sent to Erivan; the rest of us are starting in two days for Van.
The enthusiasm here is very great. There are already 20,000 volunteers at the front, and they are trying to increase the number to 30,000. Each district we occupy is placed under Armenian administration, and an Armenian post is running from Igdir to Van. The Russian Government is showing great goodwill towards the Armenians and doing everything in its power for the liberation of Turkish Armenia.
When we disembarked at Archangel the Government gave us every possible assistance. It even undertook the transport of our baggage, and gave us free passes, second class, to Petrograd.
At Petrograd we received an equally hearty welcome, and the Governor of the city presented each of us with a medal in token of his sympathy. The Armenian colony put us up in the best hotels, entertained us at the best restaurants, and could not make enough of us. This lasted for five days, and then we continued our journey, again at the Government's expense, to Tiflis.
Everywhere on the way the population received us with cheers and offerings of flowers. Just as we were leaving Archa gel, a young Russian lady came with flowers and offered one to eaeh of us. I also saw a quite poor man who was so moved by the speech in Russian that one of our comrades had made, that he came and put his tobacco into the pipe of a comrade standing next to me, and kept nothing for himself but a bare half-pipeful. A third, an old man, was so moved by the speech that he began to cry and nearly made off, but a little while after I saw him standing in front of the carriage window and, with a shaking hand, holding out a hard-boiled egg to our comrade the chemist Roupen Stepanian. Probably it was his one meal for the day.
And so at every step we found ourselves in the midst of affecting scenes. At Petrograd Railway Station the crowd was enormous. There was an Armenian lady there who offered each of us a rose. There were boys and young men who wept because they could not come with us. At Rostov a young Russian joined our ranks. He was caught more than once by his parents at the stations further down the line, but he always succeeded in escaping them and reioining us. We have christened him Stepan.
When we arrived at Tiflis, we marched singing to the offices of the Central Armenian Bureau, with our flag unfurled in front of us, and the people marched on either side of us in such a crowd that the trams were forced to stop running.
That is enough for to-day. My next letter shall be written from Armenia itself..
Please say nothing to my sister about this resolution that I have taken. I hope, of course, that she would know how to sacrifice her affection for her brother to her love for the nation and for liberty.. I should curse any of my relations who lament my resolution; they would have committed treason against the nation. There are five of us brothers; was it not imperative that at least one of us should devote himself to the cause of a national emancipation ? Let us keep up our courage, realise the urgency of the moment and do our duty. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![[U.K.FO 96/205]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5RnocnpE36JVLZl_SttwaghdZDOKkg1xdJfEgXNLMsAAZWGk2H1w12Oz6u51xLYabXb8AkAtvvMwVcM46KrdJSG01-muanT6byHWtHXFsGNABUU2psNdpHv3gSfLAEUo6I8WFgw/s1600-h/Major1.jpg){kind=link}
![[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]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBAYsVlEOhKXSvzm-VztpZNP8PYyd0Hkg-9XW49iRrkkKEgUp6fv0-tQGCOeEEQnMEZ2FvkBFciIsMcKQY9O842H_j4Y_-5nx2B8qGNIZwmqc8_MepZLCTAiLeNQ8f1BgtP4Q6AA/s1600-h/TheRepublicOfArmenia_Lodge1919.JPG){kind=link}
